Is it really? I think the problem is that we want it to be. Lester Bangs wrote about rock. Rock would not exist withoug electric guitar, tape recorder and analog amplifier. Could Lester Bangs fix a broken tape recorder? Was he a great critic because he understood how a guitar works? No. He wrote about rock music as a cultural phenomenon, not a technological one. I see crisis in videogame criticism precisely in the fact that there are too many technofetish geeks covering it. We read too many reviews focusing on technical details - what 3D engine was used, how many frames per second you get in given resolution, what are the system requirements etc. We read too few focusing on the storyline, character development or the background information. It's like art criticism focusing only on chemical composition of the paint used by the painter. Ever since Gutenberg, culture ALWAYS was a technology story, but what we need now are critics writing about stories and meanings, not about the 3D engines, pixels and frames per second.
What the French gov't could have done is something similar to what Europe did with the wireless signals. Propose a mandatory format for sellers of digital music to use.
Not that simple, I'm afraid. DRM is not a format, it is essentially a way to handle encryption keys. Should the government choose - say - AAC or WMA as the mandatory format for online music sellers, it would still not ensure interoperatbility. The problem is not in the fact that iTMS sells AAC files, the problem is in the way they are encrypted and in the way the encryption keys are distributed. I can imagine one potential way to ensure interoperability - Apple (and other vendors) could be legally obliged to issue keys to vendors of other portable players. Just as the iPod has its "own" key repository, I think in theory - say - Creative could have a similar repository on their players. I think you could imagine a law that would require every vendor of DRM-encrypted multimedia to deliver keys to any bona fide player vendor. Such a law would satisfy both the major music corporations and the player manufacturers (not to mention us the users, proles of the digital age).
OK, I'll give a car analogy. They suck, but are fun.
My '85 Buick Elektra (I still miss him) was a Trusted Transportation Platform.
Well, I think a correct car analogy for Trusted Computing would be not YOUR car but your DADDY's car. You would trust your daddy to issue you the keys when you needed and your daddy would trust you not to damage the vehicle. Of course, any time there would be any conflict between you two ("dad, I swear to God that this scratch was here before!"), daddy would have the ultimate saying ("swear to anyone you want, kid, but you're gronded").
And you could only trust your dad won't abuse his power. TPM is the same provided that you trust Microsoft, Apple et al love you like your parents.
Re:All new 3D Shooters are missing one thing...
on
Prey Review
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
While co-op mode in corridor shooters is indeed dead as 8-track tape, the co-op multiplayer is now getting some kind of return to fashion in family oriented games. "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire" and "Narnia" are good examples of games with EXCELLENT co-op multiplayer (it's developed to a level in which single player can be annoying in some levels - you can just see that they were designed with two or more human players in mind).
I feel you pain because I was always a co-op multiplayer fan. We just feel the squeeze of the invisible hand of the market on our cojones (to quote Stephenson's "Confusion"). The market has decided that "Quake 3"-like multiplayer games are what the public wants, so there's no more common exploration of dark corridors.
On a more serious note, I've often thought of manned deep space exploration as a bit of a Catch 22. I think it's the sort of thing that could really bring humanity together and encourage us to look past our differences and work together towards a common goal - but then I also think that we couldn't achieve a united deep space exploration programme until humanity learned to work together ans set aside our petty squabbles.
There's no reason to think so. Discovery of Americas and colonization of Asia and Africa didn't result in peace and cooperation among the European nations. Quite contrary, many European wars fought between 16. and early 20. century were a direct result of colonization related conflicts. Personally, while I enjoy space opera as a genre, I'd rather NOT see wars between space colonies.
While I agree and hate patents, its worth mentioning that almost everytime anyone here on/. asks what makes the iPod any better than other players, they always rave about how easy and smooth the control interface is and because of that Apple is the one who "really gets it", etc, etc
I'm the opposite of you. I don't hate patents "as such", some of them are valuable, some of them are stupid. I agree with the general opinion that Apple is the one who "really gets it" but I don't think that Apple's edge actually needs patents for protection. There are generally three kinds of intellecual property:
trademark (you did something, gained a reputation and this reputation has a market value i.e. you can charge more for what you do, because your brand is well known) copyright using words, letters or artistic ideas, you created something unique patent you invented something and you get temporary monopoly on cashing profits from it
The areas where Apple "gets it" are best protected by trademark and copyright. They certainly do have a reputation and therefore they have the moral right to sue the a$$ off some cheap bastard selling "AiPods" or "iMacks" or merely devices designed to look similar enough to mislead a buyer. It is also suitable for copyright protection - their designs for user interfaces are very well crafted and are unique in their design, even if they belong to larger categories such as "pull down menu". But are they really famous for patentable inventions? They didn't invent portable music players, for Christ sake. They just made them very cleverly designed (copyright!) and they have the incredible marketing talent to explain the "average Joe" that he wants to have one too (trademark!). Things that are indeed invented by Apple and are truly patentable (Firewire) are not what makes this company running.
First off the idea a car full of batteries does not appeal to me. What about a crash? Is every accident going to turn into a hazardous materials accident?
And what, pray tell, do you thik of the idea of a car carrying a tank of highly flammable liquid? What about a crash? No, I don't think combustion-based vehicles will ever gain market share...
Well, it seems that after some 50 years or so, we wont be able to use any shape, image, saying, metaphor or the like without consulting an intellectual property expert and acquiring appropriate rights, the way things going.
As a matter of fact, if you intend to use any "shape, image, saying, metaphor or the like" as a basis of your commercial activity, consulting an intellectual property attorney will be a wise thing to do on this very day. Not in 50 years from now, but even 50 years ago. Just as consulting a corporate lawyer is a very good thing to do just before you incorporate, to avoid costly mistakes.
I mean, people: don't exaggerate. If you want to have the law protecting your rights, you must pay the lawyers. In Soviet Russia, there was no law, there were no rights and it's not just another "Soviet Russia" joke. Personally I'd rather have it the Western way with all its annoyances.
But will it be good enough for instant roaming networks? I would love alert fellow road users that my bike is coming out of the ally and know that someone want in at almost the same time so that we can slow down or speed up without having to brake hard when we meet face to face at the corner.
That's not for Bluetooth. The range and complexity of any bluetooth network is limited by design. Basically, it's all about up to eight devices connected in one room or building. Also, Bluetooth is not designed with ad-hoc conectivity in mind. You have to set your device to be "discoverable" for it to be discoverable for other BT devices. Yes, people often forget to switch it off and there are other security exploits, but it's not intentional. If everything is properly configured, your BT device shoud ignore other BT devices in range, unless "told" otherwise. And in case of handheld devices the range is very small (up to 30 feet max, but in real life much less), so if you are within range, it's too late for warnings, anyway.
But the problem you mention is interesting, anyway. Contemporary vehicles have often quite "smart" devices controling emergency situations: airbags, warning lights, emergency braking etc. It would be quite valuable if they could exchange information - so your car could know in advance, that there was a major collision on the motorway miles ahead and you should slow down or pull over. I wonder what protocol would be best for this?
No kidding, what the hell is the use of this? If you're looking for speed, use WiFi. Bluetooth is for wireless keyboards and shit.
Mobile phones. I use BT on a regular basis to transfer files to and from my mobile. My mobile plays unprotected AAC files from my iTunes Music Library, so it's not uncommon for me to upload a few mega file to my phone - and backwards goes a few mega video file shot by the built in camera. And yes, I would appreciate if the progress bar could move slightly faster.
Anything and everything is breakable. Something that is done can be undone. In a game of cat (crypto) and mouse (cracker), if you throw in enough mouse, cat will loose.
People say it so frequently that it has became a cliche - but it's not true. A simple example of uncrackable encryption is the one-time pad cipher. Its absolute security is mathematically proven. However, in real life all the ciphers are applied by human beings and therefore they are vulnerable to the residual error margin. In real usage, safety of the used encription algorithm rarely is the weakest link in your chain of vulnerabilities. The weakest point are the people who apply the cipher - they will reuse their one-time pad, leave a briefcase in a taxi, keep their password on a sticky note attached to the monitor, defect, sell their secrets to the highest bidder etc., just because inevitably some of them will became bored, frustrated, drunk, corrupted or just plain stupid. While it's just not true, that what can be done, can be undone (it's very easy to name a few counterexamples - like death etc.), it's true that as soon as your cipher is no longer a mathematical curiosity but is being passed to flesh and blood human beigns - it's no longer safe no matter what mathematical genius was behind its creation.
I can tell by experience that most electronic equipment in Europe complies with FCC regulation (to number some on my desktop: cordless phone, wireless mouse and keyboard, router, monitor, USB DVD recorder, speakers...)
On the other hand - it's getting more and more common for portable devices to be released as US-version and UE-version. For example, European iPods have a so called volume cap. ROKR was initially released on American market only, etc. So... generally you are probably right, but it's not that simple.
I've heard--though I could be mistaken--that even turning your phone off won't help. I don't know why; I know that it doesn't make sense.. it just sticks out in my mind as "one of those things that I've heard". Probably better, in that it's more paranoid, to remove the SIM card when you don't want to be tracked, since that's what this technology relies on.
That won't help either! Each GSM phone has its own unique IMEI (International Mobile Equipment Identifier) number. Even if you remove your SIM card your phone can still access the network (you can use it for emergency call even if your SIM card is missing or invalid!) and it identifies itself by its IMEI. Roughly you can compare this to the hardware (MAC) address of your network adapter; even if you change your IP address, you can be tracked.
The only way for 100% security is removing the battery. If you live in the USA, your phone should exchange no information with the network when it's switched off - that the FCC regulation. But if you don't live in the USA, there simply might not be such requirement at all, check local laws that apply. Besides, if you are tin-foil-hat-paranoid, you don't really think "they" care about the FCC, do you? So remove the battery and don't waste your time to toy with a SIM card, as long as "they" know you use this particular mobile phone, "they" can still track you even if you feel secure with anonymous prepaid SIM card.
For a long time I had dismissed the idea of the military-industrial complex as being a mythology of overly paranoid conspiracy theorists.
After all, the term was introduced by well known paranoid conspiracy theorist, one Dwight D. Eisenhower in his famous speech of 1961:
:
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
Honestly, 45 years later reading this is giving me creeps. Isn't the Cold War and its aftermath just the Eisenhower's dark scenario embodied?
Let's imagine that a Pole and a Czech decide to stay in and watch a match at the Pole's house. During the match, our Czech friend feels hunger pangs and asks his companion to get some peanuts (burak) to go with his beer. The Pole will tell him that he
doesn't have any beetroot at home but, if it takes his fancy that much, he can head out to the shop (sklep). The Czech will reply that he didn't know that the Pole had a cellar in his house, at which the Pole will look confused and tell him that he'll go and look for them himself. Our Czech friend will be lost for a response to the latter, since the word szukac, which means 'to look for something' in Polish, means 'to make love' in Czech!
They really do it on the fly? You mean, [on the surface of] [a particular] [insect of a Musca domestica species]?
I have read a lot of auto-translated documents and it is always a good laughter in terms of "crapslation cabaret". So far, there is no technology that could auto-translate a text document succesfully. The "80% success" is a myth - they just count how many words were found in the vocabulary, not how many of them were put into a good context. A "fly" translated as an insect would be accounted as a success!
Even if you are not a bot but a human being with some knowledge of the other language and culture, it's very easy to involuntary offend someone or just to make a ridiculous faux-pas. Polish and Czech languages, for example, are very much alike and use common roots for many words, but because of the way both languages evolved, some neutral terms on one side of the border have become offensive on the other side. Czechs evolved an euphemism for sexual intercourse based on the verb "to look for". Poles still use this word when they look for something, which leads to constant crapslation cabaret gags when a Polish tourist appears in a Czech town "looking for a parking lot". Now, auto-translate this...
"Mac users demonstrate an indefensible smugness when it comes to the dangers of having their systems compromised"? You'll note that I don't take issue with his assertions that there are very real dangers that all computer users need to be aware of; I take issue with his saying, in essence, "If you use a Mac, you're irresponsible and smug when it comes to security".
I disagree. I would rather say that this very kind of interpretation, in which you are putting a flamebait into a text where there was none, is more trollish in nature. I understand this column in a quite simple way: there is a widespread attitude in Mac community that boils down to "I have a Mac so I am safe". It differentiates Mac users base from Windows user base - Windows users learned the hard way that they have to be careful. Mac users didn't and indeed among my friends I notice quite relaxed approach to matters of security. I don't mean anti-virus software, I'm talking of such elementary precautions as choosing a non-trivial master password! Sometimes among drivers you can notice similar approach that I call "Hogwart school of driving" - it's when someone believes so strongly in the power of safety increasing Three Letter Acronyms, that he drives as the law of physics would no longer apply to his beloved vehicle. There is something similar among the Mac users, who feel so secure ("it's this Unix thing, you know!") that they use administrator password "xxxxxx" with FTP access enabled on a computer connected to the Internet (and, of course, see no need to change it periodically).
is it really wise to change the logo to something that has no inherent brand identification, and to drop the incredibly recognizable 'Pentium'?"
If you already have the incredibly recognizable "Intel", "Pentium" is - at best - just a redundant add-on, like "Benz" in a "Mercedes-Benz". But at worst it creates an image of a company that lacks innovation. Just see how much more marketing value "Centrino" has over "Pentium M". I don't want to start the holy war here (and no, I'm not sitting with my freelance gig!), but AMD naming is a much better - AMD Duron just sounds better than Intel Pentium. The former evokes durability, the latter suggests that it's just a fifth generation of some product, leading to the inevitable question of shouldn't we proceed to sixth generation at long last?
It wouldn't surprise me if Apple has implemented some kind of unique encrypted handshaking between the OS X installer and the hardware so that only Apple's OS can be installed on it, so that they can avoid receiving support calls from people who put Windows on Apple hardware. Keep in mind that even if they refuse to provide support for such a configuration, the bulk of a support call's cost is in the customer placing the call in the first place. If someone calls only to be told "we don't support that", that has already cost Apple a good bit of money.
They won't support that, but they declared already that they will do nothing to prevent it. After Apple Intel FAQ:
After Jobs' presentation, Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller addressed the issue of running Windows on Macs, saying there are no plans to sell or support Windows on an Intel-based Mac. "That doesn't preclude someone from running it on a Mac. They probably will," he said. "We won't do anything to preclude that.
This is it. Never Microsoft Windows again. Not one more second of pain.
In fact, while I was always die-hard Apple supporter (I'm typing this on my fourth Apple-branded laptop) I appreciate the fact that now I will be able to dual boot in Windows and play the games not-yet or not-at-all released for MacOS. I actually do have a copy of "Deus Ex 2" waiting for the release of Intel-based Macs. Now I'll be able to dust it off... and play on a soon-to-be-mine iMac.
First of all, I don't think that "silencing the alien hunters" is really high on the government's list of priorities. Alien hunters are harmless or even beneficial - they provide fodder for popular culture, from "Men In Black" to the "X-Files" and support tourist infrastructure in Nevada. Just look at the whole touristic phenomenon on this website. They even named Route 375 "Extraterrestrial Higway", deliberately ATTRACTING alien hunters - who will spend their hard earned bucks in local diners, parking lots, motels, tour guide operators etc.
All that the general public needs to know about it is that this is restricted area, period. I don't think government should go into details like "oh yeah, here we test new fighters and there we develop new tanks and that area is just reserved for future use", making foreign spies job easier. Especially I don't think they should do it to combat essentially harmless folklore!
It could also be because the information has to be kept hidden from foreign governments.
Probably it's the most common reason. For the same reason private companies protect their secrecy. If you are developing some new digital gizmo, you don't want your competitors to know too much as it would allow them to develop their own counter-gizmos. The same goes for new design of fighter planes. I think it's as simple as that with Area 51 - it's just a government-level equivalent of automobile industry reluctancy to reveal too soon the look and features of their new models.
One thing you won't be able to do, at least with Apple's factory setup of the iPod, is listen to radio (unless one day they charge for satellite radio). This could be so easily added as it is seen on competitors' devices but if users aren't listening to downloaded music, rather something from a source they do not control, then they are not buying things on iTunes. Am I correct to guess that this is a marketing thing and not because they can't fit a little radio on there? If so, that should be a big criticism of the device.
That would explain why the "competitor's devices" are now a runaway success and iPod is just a miserable failure...
..or rather is it the othey way round? Well, if it is - then this should be a pretty good answer for your "big criticism". The market demand for radio-equipped digital music players is too small for Apple to bother. Apple's strategy seems to be "sell a basic device with ginormous offer of all kind of add-ons (among them - FM receivers). The "competitors devices" seem to be based on an entirely opposite strategy - "sell a device with all features that we can fit... and no add-ons". It seems that the first one works better on the market, would you agree?
Many of us need little diversions like this to make something as boring (don't flame me, its just my opinion) as chemistry a little less boring. If the professor is having fun with his subject it makes it that much more engaging to the students.
The point is that you can have fun and still have a point. What we see here is an example of totally pointless diversion. You give your students no real knowledge this way. I always hated this kind of diversions, both as a student and as a teacher. When I was teaching chemistry, I also tried to offer some diversions to my students but always tried to make them meaningful. Was it succesful, that's another story but I think that talking about thermodynamics of a soda drink I offered them some entertainment and also managed to introduce some key concepts of physical chemistry. Chemistry doesn't have to be pointless to be engaging, all you need is to display relevance of this knowledge in your or your students everyday life. "Chemical Words" are as pointless as possible - I would just yawn on a class like this.
Slashdot Mirror
pop culture today is primarily a technology story
Is it really? I think the problem is that we want it to be. Lester Bangs wrote about rock. Rock would not exist withoug electric guitar, tape recorder and analog amplifier. Could Lester Bangs fix a broken tape recorder? Was he a great critic because he understood how a guitar works? No. He wrote about rock music as a cultural phenomenon, not a technological one. I see crisis in videogame criticism precisely in the fact that there are too many technofetish geeks covering it. We read too many reviews focusing on technical details - what 3D engine was used, how many frames per second you get in given resolution, what are the system requirements etc. We read too few focusing on the storyline, character development or the background information. It's like art criticism focusing only on chemical composition of the paint used by the painter. Ever since Gutenberg, culture ALWAYS was a technology story, but what we need now are critics writing about stories and meanings, not about the 3D engines, pixels and frames per second.
What the French gov't could have done is something similar to what Europe did with the wireless signals. Propose a mandatory format for sellers of digital music to use.
Not that simple, I'm afraid. DRM is not a format, it is essentially a way to handle encryption keys. Should the government choose - say - AAC or WMA as the mandatory format for online music sellers, it would still not ensure interoperatbility. The problem is not in the fact that iTMS sells AAC files, the problem is in the way they are encrypted and in the way the encryption keys are distributed. I can imagine one potential way to ensure interoperability - Apple (and other vendors) could be legally obliged to issue keys to vendors of other portable players. Just as the iPod has its "own" key repository, I think in theory - say - Creative could have a similar repository on their players. I think you could imagine a law that would require every vendor of DRM-encrypted multimedia to deliver keys to any bona fide player vendor. Such a law would satisfy both the major music corporations and the player manufacturers (not to mention us the users, proles of the digital age).
OK, I'll give a car analogy. They suck, but are fun. My '85 Buick Elektra (I still miss him) was a Trusted Transportation Platform.
Well, I think a correct car analogy for Trusted Computing would be not YOUR car but your DADDY's car. You would trust your daddy to issue you the keys when you needed and your daddy would trust you not to damage the vehicle. Of course, any time there would be any conflict between you two ("dad, I swear to God that this scratch was here before!"), daddy would have the ultimate saying ("swear to anyone you want, kid, but you're gronded").
And you could only trust your dad won't abuse his power. TPM is the same provided that you trust Microsoft, Apple et al love you like your parents.
While co-op mode in corridor shooters is indeed dead as 8-track tape, the co-op multiplayer is now getting some kind of return to fashion in family oriented games. "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire" and "Narnia" are good examples of games with EXCELLENT co-op multiplayer (it's developed to a level in which single player can be annoying in some levels - you can just see that they were designed with two or more human players in mind).
I feel you pain because I was always a co-op multiplayer fan. We just feel the squeeze of the invisible hand of the market on our cojones (to quote Stephenson's "Confusion"). The market has decided that "Quake 3"-like multiplayer games are what the public wants, so there's no more common exploration of dark corridors.
On a more serious note, I've often thought of manned deep space exploration as a bit of a Catch 22. I think it's the sort of thing that could really bring humanity together and encourage us to look past our differences and work together towards a common goal - but then I also think that we couldn't achieve a united deep space exploration programme until humanity learned to work together ans set aside our petty squabbles.
There's no reason to think so. Discovery of Americas and colonization of Asia and Africa didn't result in peace and cooperation among the European nations. Quite contrary, many European wars fought between 16. and early 20. century were a direct result of colonization related conflicts. Personally, while I enjoy space opera as a genre, I'd rather NOT see wars between space colonies.
While I agree and hate patents, its worth mentioning that almost everytime anyone here on /. asks what makes the iPod any better than other players, they always rave about how easy and smooth the control interface is and because of that Apple is the one who "really gets it", etc, etc
I'm the opposite of you. I don't hate patents "as such", some of them are valuable, some of them are stupid. I agree with the general opinion that Apple is the one who "really gets it" but I don't think that Apple's edge actually needs patents for protection. There are generally three kinds of intellecual property:
trademark (you did something, gained a reputation and this reputation has a market value i.e. you can charge more for what you do, because your brand is well known)
copyright using words, letters or artistic ideas, you created something unique
patent you invented something and you get temporary monopoly on cashing profits from it
The areas where Apple "gets it" are best protected by trademark and copyright. They certainly do have a reputation and therefore they have the moral right to sue the a$$ off some cheap bastard selling "AiPods" or "iMacks" or merely devices designed to look similar enough to mislead a buyer. It is also suitable for copyright protection - their designs for user interfaces are very well crafted and are unique in their design, even if they belong to larger categories such as "pull down menu". But are they really famous for patentable inventions? They didn't invent portable music players, for Christ sake. They just made them very cleverly designed (copyright!) and they have the incredible marketing talent to explain the "average Joe" that he wants to have one too (trademark!). Things that are indeed invented by Apple and are truly patentable (Firewire) are not what makes this company running.
First off the idea a car full of batteries does not appeal to me. What about a crash? Is every accident going to turn into a hazardous materials accident?
And what, pray tell, do you thik of the idea of a car carrying a tank of highly flammable liquid? What about a crash? No, I don't think combustion-based vehicles will ever gain market share...
Well, it seems that after some 50 years or so, we wont be able to use any shape, image, saying, metaphor or the like without consulting an intellectual property expert and acquiring appropriate rights, the way things going.
As a matter of fact, if you intend to use any "shape, image, saying, metaphor or the like" as a basis of your commercial activity, consulting an intellectual property attorney will be a wise thing to do on this very day. Not in 50 years from now, but even 50 years ago. Just as consulting a corporate lawyer is a very good thing to do just before you incorporate, to avoid costly mistakes.
I mean, people: don't exaggerate. If you want to have the law protecting your rights, you must pay the lawyers. In Soviet Russia, there was no law, there were no rights and it's not just another "Soviet Russia" joke. Personally I'd rather have it the Western way with all its annoyances.
But will it be good enough for instant roaming networks? I would love alert fellow road users that my bike is coming out of the ally and know that someone want in at almost the same time so that we can slow down or speed up without having to brake hard when we meet face to face at the corner.
That's not for Bluetooth. The range and complexity of any bluetooth network is limited by design. Basically, it's all about up to eight devices connected in one room or building. Also, Bluetooth is not designed with ad-hoc conectivity in mind. You have to set your device to be "discoverable" for it to be discoverable for other BT devices. Yes, people often forget to switch it off and there are other security exploits, but it's not intentional. If everything is properly configured, your BT device shoud ignore other BT devices in range, unless "told" otherwise. And in case of handheld devices the range is very small (up to 30 feet max, but in real life much less), so if you are within range, it's too late for warnings, anyway.
But the problem you mention is interesting, anyway. Contemporary vehicles have often quite "smart" devices controling emergency situations: airbags, warning lights, emergency braking etc. It would be quite valuable if they could exchange information - so your car could know in advance, that there was a major collision on the motorway miles ahead and you should slow down or pull over. I wonder what protocol would be best for this?
No kidding, what the hell is the use of this? If you're looking for speed, use WiFi. Bluetooth is for wireless keyboards and shit.
Mobile phones. I use BT on a regular basis to transfer files to and from my mobile. My mobile plays unprotected AAC files from my iTunes Music Library, so it's not uncommon for me to upload a few mega file to my phone - and backwards goes a few mega video file shot by the built in camera. And yes, I would appreciate if the progress bar could move slightly faster.
Why'd you have to release this story? Now sex workers all over the world will be killing each other to get their hands on these drugs.
Yeah, especially since - as we all know - reading slashdot is the favorite pastime of sex workers worldwide.
Anything and everything is breakable. Something that is done can be undone. In a game of cat (crypto) and mouse (cracker), if you throw in enough mouse, cat will loose.
People say it so frequently that it has became a cliche - but it's not true. A simple example of uncrackable encryption is the one-time pad cipher. Its absolute security is mathematically proven. However, in real life all the ciphers are applied by human beings and therefore they are vulnerable to the residual error margin. In real usage, safety of the used encription algorithm rarely is the weakest link in your chain of vulnerabilities. The weakest point are the people who apply the cipher - they will reuse their one-time pad, leave a briefcase in a taxi, keep their password on a sticky note attached to the monitor, defect, sell their secrets to the highest bidder etc., just because inevitably some of them will became bored, frustrated, drunk, corrupted or just plain stupid. While it's just not true, that what can be done, can be undone (it's very easy to name a few counterexamples - like death etc.), it's true that as soon as your cipher is no longer a mathematical curiosity but is being passed to flesh and blood human beigns - it's no longer safe no matter what mathematical genius was behind its creation.
I can tell by experience that most electronic equipment in Europe complies with FCC regulation (to number some on my desktop: cordless phone, wireless mouse and keyboard, router, monitor, USB DVD recorder, speakers...)
On the other hand - it's getting more and more common for portable devices to be released as US-version and UE-version. For example, European iPods have a so called volume cap. ROKR was initially released on American market only, etc. So... generally you are probably right, but it's not that simple.
I've heard--though I could be mistaken--that even turning your phone off won't help. I don't know why; I know that it doesn't make sense.. it just sticks out in my mind as "one of those things that I've heard". Probably better, in that it's more paranoid, to remove the SIM card when you don't want to be tracked, since that's what this technology relies on.
That won't help either! Each GSM phone has its own unique IMEI (International Mobile Equipment Identifier) number. Even if you remove your SIM card your phone can still access the network (you can use it for emergency call even if your SIM card is missing or invalid!) and it identifies itself by its IMEI. Roughly you can compare this to the hardware (MAC) address of your network adapter; even if you change your IP address, you can be tracked.
The only way for 100% security is removing the battery. If you live in the USA, your phone should exchange no information with the network when it's switched off - that the FCC regulation. But if you don't live in the USA, there simply might not be such requirement at all, check local laws that apply. Besides, if you are tin-foil-hat-paranoid, you don't really think "they" care about the FCC, do you? So remove the battery and don't waste your time to toy with a SIM card, as long as "they" know you use this particular mobile phone, "they" can still track you even if you feel secure with anonymous prepaid SIM card.
For a long time I had dismissed the idea of the military-industrial complex as being a mythology of overly paranoid conspiracy theorists.
After all, the term was introduced by well known paranoid conspiracy theorist, one Dwight D. Eisenhower in his famous speech of 1961:
: This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
Honestly, 45 years later reading this is giving me creeps. Isn't the Cold War and its aftermath just the Eisenhower's dark scenario embodied?
From Cafe Babel:
Let's imagine that a Pole and a Czech decide to stay in and watch a match at the Pole's house. During the match, our Czech friend feels hunger pangs and asks his companion to get some peanuts (burak) to go with his beer. The Pole will tell him that he doesn't have any beetroot at home but, if it takes his fancy that much, he can head out to the shop (sklep). The Czech will reply that he didn't know that the Pole had a cellar in his house, at which the Pole will look confused and tell him that he'll go and look for them himself. Our Czech friend will be lost for a response to the latter, since the word szukac, which means 'to look for something' in Polish, means 'to make love' in Czech!
They really do it on the fly? You mean, [on the surface of] [a particular] [insect of a Musca domestica species]?
I have read a lot of auto-translated documents and it is always a good laughter in terms of "crapslation cabaret". So far, there is no technology that could auto-translate a text document succesfully. The "80% success" is a myth - they just count how many words were found in the vocabulary, not how many of them were put into a good context. A "fly" translated as an insect would be accounted as a success!
Even if you are not a bot but a human being with some knowledge of the other language and culture, it's very easy to involuntary offend someone or just to make a ridiculous faux-pas. Polish and Czech languages, for example, are very much alike and use common roots for many words, but because of the way both languages evolved, some neutral terms on one side of the border have become offensive on the other side. Czechs evolved an euphemism for sexual intercourse based on the verb "to look for". Poles still use this word when they look for something, which leads to constant crapslation cabaret gags when a Polish tourist appears in a Czech town "looking for a parking lot". Now, auto-translate this...
"Mac users demonstrate an indefensible smugness when it comes to the dangers of having their systems compromised"? You'll note that I don't take issue with his assertions that there are very real dangers that all computer users need to be aware of; I take issue with his saying, in essence, "If you use a Mac, you're irresponsible and smug when it comes to security".
I disagree. I would rather say that this very kind of interpretation, in which you are putting a flamebait into a text where there was none, is more trollish in nature. I understand this column in a quite simple way: there is a widespread attitude in Mac community that boils down to "I have a Mac so I am safe". It differentiates Mac users base from Windows user base - Windows users learned the hard way that they have to be careful. Mac users didn't and indeed among my friends I notice quite relaxed approach to matters of security. I don't mean anti-virus software, I'm talking of such elementary precautions as choosing a non-trivial master password! Sometimes among drivers you can notice similar approach that I call "Hogwart school of driving" - it's when someone believes so strongly in the power of safety increasing Three Letter Acronyms, that he drives as the law of physics would no longer apply to his beloved vehicle. There is something similar among the Mac users, who feel so secure ("it's this Unix thing, you know!") that they use administrator password "xxxxxx" with FTP access enabled on a computer connected to the Internet (and, of course, see no need to change it periodically).
is it really wise to change the logo to something that has no inherent brand identification, and to drop the incredibly recognizable 'Pentium'?"
If you already have the incredibly recognizable "Intel", "Pentium" is - at best - just a redundant add-on, like "Benz" in a "Mercedes-Benz". But at worst it creates an image of a company that lacks innovation. Just see how much more marketing value "Centrino" has over "Pentium M". I don't want to start the holy war here (and no, I'm not sitting with my freelance gig!), but AMD naming is a much better - AMD Duron just sounds better than Intel Pentium. The former evokes durability, the latter suggests that it's just a fifth generation of some product, leading to the inevitable question of shouldn't we proceed to sixth generation at long last?
It wouldn't surprise me if Apple has implemented some kind of unique encrypted handshaking between the OS X installer and the hardware so that only Apple's OS can be installed on it, so that they can avoid receiving support calls from people who put Windows on Apple hardware. Keep in mind that even if they refuse to provide support for such a configuration, the bulk of a support call's cost is in the customer placing the call in the first place. If someone calls only to be told "we don't support that", that has already cost Apple a good bit of money.
They won't support that, but they declared already that they will do nothing to prevent it. After Apple Intel FAQ:
After Jobs' presentation, Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller addressed the issue of running Windows on Macs, saying there are no plans to sell or support Windows on an Intel-based Mac. "That doesn't preclude someone from running it on a Mac. They probably will," he said. "We won't do anything to preclude that.
This is it. Never Microsoft Windows again. Not one more second of pain.
In fact, while I was always die-hard Apple supporter (I'm typing this on my fourth Apple-branded laptop) I appreciate the fact that now I will be able to dual boot in Windows and play the games not-yet or not-at-all released for MacOS. I actually do have a copy of "Deus Ex 2" waiting for the release of Intel-based Macs. Now I'll be able to dust it off... and play on a soon-to-be-mine iMac.
First of all, I don't think that "silencing the alien hunters" is really high on the government's list of priorities. Alien hunters are harmless or even beneficial - they provide fodder for popular culture, from "Men In Black" to the "X-Files" and support tourist infrastructure in Nevada. Just look at the whole touristic phenomenon on this website. They even named Route 375 "Extraterrestrial Higway", deliberately ATTRACTING alien hunters - who will spend their hard earned bucks in local diners, parking lots, motels, tour guide operators etc.
All that the general public needs to know about it is that this is restricted area, period. I don't think government should go into details like "oh yeah, here we test new fighters and there we develop new tanks and that area is just reserved for future use", making foreign spies job easier. Especially I don't think they should do it to combat essentially harmless folklore!
It could also be because the information has to be kept hidden from foreign governments.
Probably it's the most common reason. For the same reason private companies protect their secrecy. If you are developing some new digital gizmo, you don't want your competitors to know too much as it would allow them to develop their own counter-gizmos. The same goes for new design of fighter planes. I think it's as simple as that with Area 51 - it's just a government-level equivalent of automobile industry reluctancy to reveal too soon the look and features of their new models.
One thing you won't be able to do, at least with Apple's factory setup of the iPod, is listen to radio (unless one day they charge for satellite radio). This could be so easily added as it is seen on competitors' devices but if users aren't listening to downloaded music, rather something from a source they do not control, then they are not buying things on iTunes. Am I correct to guess that this is a marketing thing and not because they can't fit a little radio on there? If so, that should be a big criticism of the device.
..or rather is it the othey way round? Well, if it is - then this should be a pretty good answer for your "big criticism". The market demand for radio-equipped digital music players is too small for Apple to bother. Apple's strategy seems to be "sell a basic device with ginormous offer of all kind of add-ons (among them - FM receivers). The "competitors devices" seem to be based on an entirely opposite strategy - "sell a device with all features that we can fit... and no add-ons". It seems that the first one works better on the market, would you agree?
That would explain why the "competitor's devices" are now a runaway success and iPod is just a miserable failure...
Many of us need little diversions like this to make something as boring (don't flame me, its just my opinion) as chemistry a little less boring. If the professor is having fun with his subject it makes it that much more engaging to the students.
The point is that you can have fun and still have a point. What we see here is an example of totally pointless diversion. You give your students no real knowledge this way. I always hated this kind of diversions, both as a student and as a teacher. When I was teaching chemistry, I also tried to offer some diversions to my students but always tried to make them meaningful. Was it succesful, that's another story but I think that talking about thermodynamics of a soda drink I offered them some entertainment and also managed to introduce some key concepts of physical chemistry. Chemistry doesn't have to be pointless to be engaging, all you need is to display relevance of this knowledge in your or your students everyday life. "Chemical Words" are as pointless as possible - I would just yawn on a class like this.