What the Mars probes have done, essentially, is act as an instrument for a human scientist or group of scientists. There has never been a robot or automated probe built which replaces the role of the scientist. Plenty robots have replaced the necessity of performing tedious and precise tasks, but have not replaced the scientist. All of the probes sent to space were designed to "collect" data (pre-programmed responses for sensor input not withstanding). They were never designed to "interpret" the data. A robot, currently, is nothing more than an instrument that a scientist uses to conduct their experiments.
I wonder if it wouldn't be possible to construct a device to build fiber optic cable on the moon. If there is silicon available (in the form of aluminum silicate) perhaps we could create some fiber cable to string from the telescope array to the base-station or transmitting antennas on the "Earth-side" of the moon. We would also need to provide a method to process the aluminum silicate into a useable material.
Then again, perhaps we can't use the resources on the moon. In any case, the moon would provide a nice "proving" ground for technologies that could be used on Mars.
I don't see how this would work on an open-source P2P project. As a project manager, I would require that the code be included, if mandated by law. However, because I'm open source, you as a consumer could remove said code and recompile. Voila. No more bloated code. Let them "legislate" the inclusion. The Open Source movement won't care, we'll include it, and then let you remove it if you want.
Perhaps, this scenario would provide those who fail to see the value in Open Source to "come around". Trying to legislate open source is like trying to legislate a persons thoughts. Can't be done reliably.
They have found extremely compelling evidence that there was/is water on mars. Essentially the only questions that remain are, "How much water?" and "How long was there water?". True, the evidence isn't 100% conclusive, but it is definitely within a range that several scientists are willing to place their reputations in jeopardy to announce.
Governments need to decide whether they want to be trusted. If they want trust, then they should avoid any hint of sneakiness.
Two questions:
1) Trusted by whom?
2) What is your definition of trust?
Perhaps trust is defined as "saying what you will do, and doing what you said". Perhaps it is defined between nations as the "completely transparent and publicly open negotiation between the nations." I think that the two questions are directly related as the definition of trust largely depends on who is asked. Trust of a government by its people doesn't necessarily revolve around the faithfulness of its dealings with other nations. It depends mostly on how "well off" the populace perceives itself during the time of such government. Trust of a government by other nations doesn't depend necessarily on whether it treats its populace well. Logically, the trust is defined by the historical reliability of a nation to propose something to another nation(s) and follow through on that proposal in good faith. No nation has the mistaken belief that a foreign government will place that nation's own welfare or that of its citizens above the welfare of itself or its citizens. Those governments that have that belief are be short-lived in duration and will be taken advantage of by the process of negotiation.
The currently followed physics works up until you cross over into the event-horizon. Once you begin your spiral into infinite compression, the equations no longer produce dependable results. That is essentially where the model "broke down".
Don't confuse "theory" with "policy". Economics is a science, not a policy. There are only American Economic Policies, not necessarily American Economic Theories. It is possible to use economics to explain why America expends and allocates its resources in the manner dictated by its policies. There will always be a scarcity (real or perceived) in a world of finite resources. Technology only helps in improving the efficiencies in use and expenditure of the resources, thus prolonging their existence. Technology cannot ever extend a resource's life indefinitely. Policy and markets together (in the U.S), determine to a greater degree how much of a resource we use, technology enables us to use those resources more effectively.
Computer technology allows me to complete my assigned tasks sooner than without the use of computer technology. Indeed, my job would not be possible without computer technology. A popular assumption in regards to computer technology is that it reduces "workload". That is definitely one of the reasons espoused for creating new applications of computer technology (and technology in general). However, in practice that is not the case. When my workload has been reduced by the automation and/or reduction of tedious steps to complete my task. I have received additional tasks to continue to keep me productive. Productivity is usually measured (in corporate America) by a term known as utilization (how many tasks you complete in a number of hours worked). In the case of client service, your utilization is based on the number of hours you charge to the client. The more hours you work, the more you are utilized. If you are in a business in which an increase in utilization translates to an increase in revenue, then it only makes sense to increase the number of tasks you complete or hours worked (within reason).
So, the short answer is that there is no real "net" change in stress levels for me (at my current position) with the use of computer technology. The stress removed by using technology to complete my tasks is offset by an increase in stress caused by an increase in workload (new tasks). My stress level would increase further as I progress up through the corporate hierarchy as more responsiblities are placed under my charge.
That makes sense. The fine for jamming is up to one year in prison and $11K for each infraction. I guess if the RFID tag (marketing type) proponents get their way, RFID would be in the "regulated" space so that they could maximize their protections against jamming.
It is illegal to actively interfere with radio communication/transmissions with the intention of disrupting the process of communication/transmission. How can this be legal in the U.S.A? It is a felony.
Well, so far as I've read into this...he may have had some drinks..but, just drinking does not mean one is intoxicated. At least, not to the point of being charged with it...
You are absolutely correct. With few exceptions (places where alcohol consumption is expressley forbidden and in the case of underage consumption) drinking alcohol is not a crime. However, if you behave in a manner that draws the ire of a police officer, you have a different problem. Really, to the point, the police officer probably won't come down on you if you are a "quiet drunk" or "non-violent" drunk and you aren't driving. Perhaps these "discretionary exceptions" on the part of police officers have caused the general populace to feel that certain "levels" of drunkeness are acceptable and thereby contribute negatively to a situation such as this. While one officer can be "lenient" and book selective, public intoxication instances, another could follow the law "to the letter" and be branded "Gestapo". Is it their fault for enforcing the law as it is written? I would think that "making exceptions" and applying the law only to a "certain group" would be unfair. I'm of the mind that for a law to be "fair" it should be applied equally to all.
A similarly interesting situation is the speeding ticket and code enforcement revolving around those ordinances.
Perhaps the real question in this situation is, "Was the individual behaving in a manner sufficient to garner scrutiny from the officer?". In such situations, the courts nearly always side with the officer, and with good reason.
If the person has done time and has paid their debt to society, they should be treated like any other citizen. No assumptions should be made about them, and the police should be prohibited from doing random background checks like this, because such checks imply that they will act on this information. Why else would they do the check?
Precisely. If you have outstanding warrants, you will be arrested. While each human is capable of violent behavior, if you have served time for a violent crime then you have demonstrated your inability to control your behavior and at the very least see violence as a means to an end. I'm not certain that this would count as a random check. If this individual was perceived to be intoxicated by law enforcement, and there existed an ordinance against public intoxication, he has opened himself up to scrutiny by such officials.
Whether or not the American criminal justice system returns people to society in a fit state is another question, but it is sheer hypocrisy to "rehabilitate" convicts, return them to society, and then treat them with prejudice.
I don't believe you can separate the two issues. If the populace doesn't perceive the penal system to be rehabilitory then they will, on average, treat criminals differently than non-criminals. The majority of Americans will view the prison system as punishment, not a place to be rehabilitated. If you have gone to prison for a violent crime, or any other criminal act, then you have demonstrated your propensity for poor judgement and must earn back what trust you lost. Prison is your punishment for your misdeeds. While in prison, if you reflect on your transgressions and come away with a genuine understanding of "why what you did was wrong" (rehabilitated) that is a bonus and will serve you well in your future dealings with society. I don't see the suspicion that criminals are viewed with as a "hypocrisy", rather I believe the criminals must prove that they have been rehabilitated. Same reasoning applys to employment situations. If you have been fired for being chronically late or you constantly exagerated your abilities, would it be "hypocrisy" for the potential employer to question your previous employer regarding your performance?
And anyway, how would knowing that someone was once convicted of rape "come in handy" at a roadside check? If the police are investigating a report of or a confirmed instance of a heinous crime, we're looking at a situation way beyond the random roadside check situation. If they have proceeded to that point, the police have a lot more discretionary power at their disposal, and with good cause. But I don't agree with giving them this power when they know absolutely nothing about the situation, as was the case in this case.
The "rape" may not be the whole list of charges. In the case of rape there are usually (but not always) additional charges of an assault of some sort included in the list of charges, as no rape is voluntary. Knowing the priors of that person not only tells you who you are dealing with, but how best to proceed. If you know that the person you stopped was charged with assault, you know to be wary of that person as they are certainly able to display such violence again. In this situation, the officer believed the individual to be "intoxicated". While being intoxicated itself isn't a crime and doesn't make you a criminal necesarily, being intoxicated AND in public is a crime and will make you a criminal in most jurisdictions (usually a misdemeanor). Such suspicions are really all that is needed for an officer to request your ID.
Depending on what the "legally intoxicated" BAC in your area, one can have only a few drinks and be declared legally intoxicated. You don' necessarily have to be stumbling drunk to be charged with intoxication. It was recently lowered here in my state.
I would assume the ID would have been used to determine if this individual had any "priors" or arrest warrants outstanding. If the individual had priors and had served time for a felony, it is reasonable to assume that the officer would now know this information after the check. Depending on the prior offense, the officer would know better how to handle the situation. Has the person done time for murder, rape, manslaughter? This information could come in handy when dealing with the individual.
It isn't against the law to consume alcohol. However, it is against the law to be intoxicated in a public place. The charge would've been "Public Intoxication". It is an ordinance that most jurisdictions share. It is entirely up to the officer in these situations (no warrants) as to whether they perform an arrest or not, as well as (in most cases) what you will be charged with at time of arrest.
Now, as you can probably tell from the tone of my post, I've more-or-less concluded that there is basically no chance that MS will ever allow Office.NET to run on any non-MS.NET framework. They'll keep back just enough to insure that their Office cash cow continues.
I'm thinking that the more licenses Microsoft sells, the more money they make. If I am correct, then it would be logical for Microsoft to insure that Office runs on ALL platforms. Perhaps, Microsoft will even "wise-up" and create a.NET implementation for a non-windows machine. Of course, this could put their OS business in jeopardy. However, as long as the mainstream populace perceive windows to be an easier system to use and maintain, the populace will continue to purchase a Microsoft OS.
In the past, Britain has placed the cameras in public places where you would have no expectation of privacy. As a matter of fact, you can be photographed without your permission. You would have to give your permision if the image was explicitly portraying you as the focus and the photograph was designed for commerce (such as advertising).
If you make purchases with your credit card, then the credit card companies have detailed spending records for you. They obviously sell that information to third parties. Same sort of event happens when you purchase a home. You receive "great offers" from mortgage companies who want you to refinance with them. There is already a large potential for tracking persons by their commerce in existence. With the creation of the software toolsets that allow for high quality data mining across the internet (MetaCarta), we may experience a similar loss of privacy without RFID tags.
The solution could be quite simple. Create a business that will subject your clothing to an EMP pulse. Perhaps that would "kill" your tags without destroying your garments. This would be more of a problem with your electronic devices (Palm, etc...) and with credit cards that use the RFID to enact payment.
In the U.S. it is against the law to own/operate a device whose sole purpose is to interfere with communication across the radio spectrum. The obvious exceptions are the military and other govt. agencies. I think that the "jammer" would violate the law. However, if the jammer wasn't really a "jammer" but a device that would generate a localised EMP pulse, you could permanently disable the tag. That oddly wouldn't land you in jail, as they would have to prove that the tag wasn't "broken" and that you did it.
If the information is freely available on the web, would it not be inevitable that the information would be used to track individuals (if not by the government then by corporate entites or individuals)? What rights would be violated by a system such as this? There is the obvious right to privacy, but if the information is publicly available on the net then it is doubtful that there is an expectation of privacy. Also, would such a tracking system be the logical extension of a "stake-out" designed to follow the individual? Perhaps it is closer to a "wire-tap" only it doesn't require a court order because there wouldn't be the "tapping" of private conversations.
Finally, I think that the "linch-pin" in the constitutionality of this system (if ever brought to trial) would revolve around the type of data used. In other words, if the data used is merely publicly available, free to all web data, then I don't think it would be possible to show an expectation of privacy. However, if the data used were something on the order of phone records (or other non-public information), I think there would be a strong case for regulation of this technology similar to how "wire-tapping" is regulated.
The laws in the U.S would need to change. In the U.S, the Communications Act of 1934 makes it is illegal to sell or operate a device that interferes with licensed radio communications. The U.S. defines "interferes" to include jamming.
Slashdot Mirror
What the Mars probes have done, essentially, is act as an instrument for a human scientist or group of scientists. There has never been a robot or automated probe built which replaces the role of the scientist. Plenty robots have replaced the necessity of performing tedious and precise tasks, but have not replaced the scientist. All of the probes sent to space were designed to "collect" data (pre-programmed responses for sensor input not withstanding). They were never designed to "interpret" the data. A robot, currently, is nothing more than an instrument that a scientist uses to conduct their experiments.
I wonder if it wouldn't be possible to construct a device to build fiber optic cable on the moon. If there is silicon available (in the form of aluminum silicate) perhaps we could create some fiber cable to string from the telescope array to the base-station or transmitting antennas on the "Earth-side" of the moon. We would also need to provide a method to process the aluminum silicate into a useable material.
Then again, perhaps we can't use the resources on the moon. In any case, the moon would provide a nice "proving" ground for technologies that could be used on Mars.
I don't see how this would work on an open-source P2P project. As a project manager, I would require that the code be included, if mandated by law. However, because I'm open source, you as a consumer could remove said code and recompile. Voila. No more bloated code. Let them "legislate" the inclusion. The Open Source movement won't care, we'll include it, and then let you remove it if you want.
Perhaps, this scenario would provide those who fail to see the value in Open Source to "come around". Trying to legislate open source is like trying to legislate a persons thoughts. Can't be done reliably.
They have found extremely compelling evidence that there was/is water on mars. Essentially the only questions that remain are, "How much water?" and "How long was there water?". True, the evidence isn't 100% conclusive, but it is definitely within a range that several scientists are willing to place their reputations in jeopardy to announce.
Perhaps trust is defined as "saying what you will do, and doing what you said". Perhaps it is defined between nations as the "completely transparent and publicly open negotiation between the nations." I think that the two questions are directly related as the definition of trust largely depends on who is asked. Trust of a government by its people doesn't necessarily revolve around the faithfulness of its dealings with other nations. It depends mostly on how "well off" the populace perceives itself during the time of such government. Trust of a government by other nations doesn't depend necessarily on whether it treats its populace well. Logically, the trust is defined by the historical reliability of a nation to propose something to another nation(s) and follow through on that proposal in good faith. No nation has the mistaken belief that a foreign government will place that nation's own welfare or that of its citizens above the welfare of itself or its citizens. Those governments that have that belief are be short-lived in duration and will be taken advantage of by the process of negotiation.
The currently followed physics works up until you cross over into the event-horizon. Once you begin your spiral into infinite compression, the equations no longer produce dependable results. That is essentially where the model "broke down".
Don't confuse "theory" with "policy". Economics is a science, not a policy. There are only American Economic Policies, not necessarily American Economic Theories. It is possible to use economics to explain why America expends and allocates its resources in the manner dictated by its policies. There will always be a scarcity (real or perceived) in a world of finite resources. Technology only helps in improving the efficiencies in use and expenditure of the resources, thus prolonging their existence. Technology cannot ever extend a resource's life indefinitely. Policy and markets together (in the U.S), determine to a greater degree how much of a resource we use, technology enables us to use those resources more effectively.
Computer technology allows me to complete my assigned tasks sooner than without the use of computer technology. Indeed, my job would not be possible without computer technology. A popular assumption in regards to computer technology is that it reduces "workload". That is definitely one of the reasons espoused for creating new applications of computer technology (and technology in general). However, in practice that is not the case. When my workload has been reduced by the automation and/or reduction of tedious steps to complete my task. I have received additional tasks to continue to keep me productive. Productivity is usually measured (in corporate America) by a term known as utilization (how many tasks you complete in a number of hours worked). In the case of client service, your utilization is based on the number of hours you charge to the client. The more hours you work, the more you are utilized. If you are in a business in which an increase in utilization translates to an increase in revenue, then it only makes sense to increase the number of tasks you complete or hours worked (within reason).
So, the short answer is that there is no real "net" change in stress levels for me (at my current position) with the use of computer technology. The stress removed by using technology to complete my tasks is offset by an increase in stress caused by an increase in workload (new tasks). My stress level would increase further as I progress up through the corporate hierarchy as more responsiblities are placed under my charge.
That makes sense. The fine for jamming is up to one year in prison and $11K for each infraction. I guess if the RFID tag (marketing type) proponents get their way, RFID would be in the "regulated" space so that they could maximize their protections against jamming.
I have a RH v9.0 server, patches and updates are free. I got the installs from this website.
It is illegal to actively interfere with radio communication/transmissions with the intention of disrupting the process of communication/transmission. How can this be legal in the U.S.A? It is a felony.
You are absolutely correct. With few exceptions (places where alcohol consumption is expressley forbidden and in the case of underage consumption) drinking alcohol is not a crime. However, if you behave in a manner that draws the ire of a police officer, you have a different problem. Really, to the point, the police officer probably won't come down on you if you are a "quiet drunk" or "non-violent" drunk and you aren't driving. Perhaps these "discretionary exceptions" on the part of police officers have caused the general populace to feel that certain "levels" of drunkeness are acceptable and thereby contribute negatively to a situation such as this. While one officer can be "lenient" and book selective, public intoxication instances, another could follow the law "to the letter" and be branded "Gestapo". Is it their fault for enforcing the law as it is written? I would think that "making exceptions" and applying the law only to a "certain group" would be unfair. I'm of the mind that for a law to be "fair" it should be applied equally to all.
A similarly interesting situation is the speeding ticket and code enforcement revolving around those ordinances.
Perhaps the real question in this situation is, "Was the individual behaving in a manner sufficient to garner scrutiny from the officer?". In such situations, the courts nearly always side with the officer, and with good reason.
Precisely. If you have outstanding warrants, you will be arrested. While each human is capable of violent behavior, if you have served time for a violent crime then you have demonstrated your inability to control your behavior and at the very least see violence as a means to an end. I'm not certain that this would count as a random check. If this individual was perceived to be intoxicated by law enforcement, and there existed an ordinance against public intoxication, he has opened himself up to scrutiny by such officials.
I don't believe you can separate the two issues. If the populace doesn't perceive the penal system to be rehabilitory then they will, on average, treat criminals differently than non-criminals. The majority of Americans will view the prison system as punishment, not a place to be rehabilitated. If you have gone to prison for a violent crime, or any other criminal act, then you have demonstrated your propensity for poor judgement and must earn back what trust you lost. Prison is your punishment for your misdeeds. While in prison, if you reflect on your transgressions and come away with a genuine understanding of "why what you did was wrong" (rehabilitated) that is a bonus and will serve you well in your future dealings with society. I don't see the suspicion that criminals are viewed with as a "hypocrisy", rather I believe the criminals must prove that they have been rehabilitated. Same reasoning applys to employment situations. If you have been fired for being chronically late or you constantly exagerated your abilities, would it be "hypocrisy" for the potential employer to question your previous employer regarding your performance?
The "rape" may not be the whole list of charges. In the case of rape there are usually (but not always) additional charges of an assault of some sort included in the list of charges, as no rape is voluntary. Knowing the priors of that person not only tells you who you are dealing with, but how best to proceed. If you know that the person you stopped was charged with assault, you know to be wary of that person as they are certainly able to display such violence again. In this situation, the officer believed the individual to be "intoxicated". While being intoxicated itself isn't a crime and doesn't make you a criminal necesarily, being intoxicated AND in public is a crime and will make you a criminal in most jurisdictions (usually a misdemeanor). Such suspicions are really all that is needed for an officer to request your ID.
Depending on what the "legally intoxicated" BAC in your area, one can have only a few drinks and be declared legally intoxicated. You don' necessarily have to be stumbling drunk to be charged with intoxication. It was recently lowered here in my state.
I would assume the ID would have been used to determine if this individual had any "priors" or arrest warrants outstanding. If the individual had priors and had served time for a felony, it is reasonable to assume that the officer would now know this information after the check. Depending on the prior offense, the officer would know better how to handle the situation. Has the person done time for murder, rape, manslaughter? This information could come in handy when dealing with the individual.
It isn't against the law to consume alcohol. However, it is against the law to be intoxicated in a public place. The charge would've been "Public Intoxication". It is an ordinance that most jurisdictions share. It is entirely up to the officer in these situations (no warrants) as to whether they perform an arrest or not, as well as (in most cases) what you will be charged with at time of arrest.
I'm thinking that the more licenses Microsoft sells, the more money they make. If I am correct, then it would be logical for Microsoft to insure that Office runs on ALL platforms. Perhaps, Microsoft will even "wise-up" and create a .NET implementation for a non-windows machine. Of course, this could put their OS business in jeopardy. However, as long as the mainstream populace perceive windows to be an easier system to use and maintain, the populace will continue to purchase a Microsoft OS.
I thought that bell labs came up with this technology first. Is this just spin?
In the past, Britain has placed the cameras in public places where you would have no expectation of privacy. As a matter of fact, you can be photographed without your permission. You would have to give your permision if the image was explicitly portraying you as the focus and the photograph was designed for commerce (such as advertising).
IBM does a similar thing in New York. This is another interesting link.
If you make purchases with your credit card, then the credit card companies have detailed spending records for you. They obviously sell that information to third parties. Same sort of event happens when you purchase a home. You receive "great offers" from mortgage companies who want you to refinance with them. There is already a large potential for tracking persons by their commerce in existence. With the creation of the software toolsets that allow for high quality data mining across the internet (MetaCarta), we may experience a similar loss of privacy without RFID tags.
The solution could be quite simple. Create a business that will subject your clothing to an EMP pulse. Perhaps that would "kill" your tags without destroying your garments. This would be more of a problem with your electronic devices (Palm, etc...) and with credit cards that use the RFID to enact payment.
In the U.S. it is against the law to own/operate a device whose sole purpose is to interfere with communication across the radio spectrum. The obvious exceptions are the military and other govt. agencies. I think that the "jammer" would violate the law. However, if the jammer wasn't really a "jammer" but a device that would generate a localised EMP pulse, you could permanently disable the tag. That oddly wouldn't land you in jail, as they would have to prove that the tag wasn't "broken" and that you did it.
I'm curious as to your thoughts on the following:
If the information is freely available on the web, would it not be inevitable that the information would be used to track individuals (if not by the government then by corporate entites or individuals)? What rights would be violated by a system such as this? There is the obvious right to privacy, but if the information is publicly available on the net then it is doubtful that there is an expectation of privacy. Also, would such a tracking system be the logical extension of a "stake-out" designed to follow the individual? Perhaps it is closer to a "wire-tap" only it doesn't require a court order because there wouldn't be the "tapping" of private conversations.
Finally, I think that the "linch-pin" in the constitutionality of this system (if ever brought to trial) would revolve around the type of data used. In other words, if the data used is merely publicly available, free to all web data, then I don't think it would be possible to show an expectation of privacy. However, if the data used were something on the order of phone records (or other non-public information), I think there would be a strong case for regulation of this technology similar to how "wire-tapping" is regulated.
I'm interested in your thoughts.
The laws in the U.S would need to change. In the U.S, the Communications Act of 1934 makes it is illegal to sell or operate a device that interferes with licensed radio communications. The U.S. defines "interferes" to include jamming.