If your statements are correct, then why did god make so many fertilized eggs not implant and get washed out with the next menstrual period? Not to mention all the other lack of respect for human life that is documented in the bible.
I believe that any embryo that is going to be tossed out in the trash, weather by nature/god or by the rules of the lab for excess embryo's should be just as useful as a body that is donated to science. In either case you have authority from the next of kin for a tissue sample that won't survive.
In the normal process of reproduction many fertilizations occur but very few actually implant and therefore have a chance of becoming a person.
If you believe every fertilized egg is human then you should be insisting that every woman be monitored and every vaginal discharge be investigated in order to rescue the fertilized eggs that didn't implant. BTW, you might want to remember that some fraction of those that don't implant are damaged to such an extent that they might not survive regardless of the attempt and even if they did they would be severely handicapped.
I've believed for some time that their should be a new level of criminal offense, namely the afore mentioned "Crime Against the System". This designation should be a multiplier to the range of penalties for a crime.
For any crime where someone uses their position of public trust to further their crime they should pay a much higher penalty for reducing the trust the public has in the position and the government in general.
To facilitate identifying such crimes there should be extensive whistle blower provisions, perhaps even rewards although that may be going a tad far.
If you want to convince people then you have to provide examples that they can relate to.
I suggest you gather up a number of different examples (as no single one will appeal to everyone). Once you have some you can provide your IT lite friends with relevant examples that they can relate to.
"The problem is, when FlyCheap Airlines has one of its planes hijacked and flown into a skyscraper somewhere, that's a negative externality. The people in the building never got to choose how much security they needed. Should we allow the CheapNukes Power Plant to store nuclear materials in an unlocked building on the side of the road?"
With the requirement that they be insured (self insurance is an option with reasonable garruntee's) by an insurer that has the wherewithal to cover reasonably concievable possibilities.
In such a case FlyCheap Airlines would have to provide good security especially on access to the cockpit or they would face insurance premiums that would be prohibitive.
In such a case CheapNukes Power Plant wouldn't be able to operate because the insurance premium would be... Calling it prohibitive would be a grain of sand on the beach.
Simply put you require that business's, organizations, and yes people too, to be responsible for their behavior. That means if you engage in activities that have a reasonable possibility of expensive consequences then you garruntee that you are good for it. This means that you WILL make things as secure as reasonably possible because doing otherwise is foolish.
Arguments about what you actually get are beside the point.
The point is:
"my grandmother signed up for the 3Mbps DSL plan through Verizon, however a speed test said she was only getting 750Kbps. Why pay for the extra bandwidth when she's not getting it? She downgraded to the 768K plan expecting to still have 750K. Wrong, instead her speed dropped to 300K."
She was getting 750Kbps. So all arguments about what is available are moot. The point is when she switched to the 750K plan and her bandwidth dropped to 300K, That is deliberate throttling.
I enjoy the occasional steak, but for the most part meat in my diet is a flavoring or small side dish.
I'm quite aware of where my food comes from and have on occasion in the past handled that from beginning to end for most forms of food. I'm neither ignorant of or shirk from the realities of meat in our society.
With that said: I would be quite happy with a meat product that was not produced by killing animals. I would be especially happy with one that was healthier for me, the added benefits of quality control and improved taste and varieties. Last but not least, I would be happy to increase my consumption if I could do so without compromising my health.
Amazing:
People will be against it because it's not natural.
People will refuse to accept it as a protein source for disadvantaged because it's not natural.
People will harm other people while protesting against it.
Amusing:
People will have tremendous arguments about calling it meat.
People will argue religious positions for and against it based on religious rules about various animals.
People will create artificial shortages of good quality varieties in the name of profit. And will manipulate governments to make laws protecting their profit margins.
I believe that government websites should be written to work as per the standards. If a particular web browser supports the standard it works fine, if not then it's their fault.
Perhaps this might help microsoft with their decision to not support the standards.
In a perfect world we wouldn't be concerned about privacy, we wouldn't need checks and balances on government power, we wouldn't need laws.
BUT
It's not a perfect world.
All forms of power are eventually corrupting, in the rare event that a particular person isn't tempted in a way they are vulnerable to then time itself will cycle up someone who is.
All structures in which power is accumulated is a beacon to those who would use it for good as well as those who would use it for personal gain, and many will switch from good to gain over the long run.
Power can be even more insidious, you don't need to wield the ultimate power to be affected. You can in fact find satisfaction in exercising what control you can. Many people who for one reason or another seek power over other's gravitate to the twin bastions of abused power.
GOVERNMENT and BUREAUCRACY
Worse yet, in many positions where you have both the power and the desire to do good. You encounter those who would take advantage, those who are dishonest, those from whom you must protect the resources you control so that the good people will have them. Thus rules are made, rules that grow over time to cover manifold individual situations. Rules that take up much time to bypass for those few who are exceptions. First one is slighted, for the good of all, after all we wouldn't be able to help 10 other's if we took the time to help that one. And so it goes. Leading ever downward to the stereotype called
BUREAUCRAT.
But back to the point of this post... It's not a perfect world. We do need protections from ourselves, not individually, but that we do as a group. I've always been amazed at how the intelligence of a mob (in all it's many forms) is defined by it's lower limits. But again I digress.
On the one hand our law enforcement agents need information in order to provide protection from those members of society that seek to harm other's.
On the other hand if that information is easily obtained, not bound by strict and ruthless controls and access then IT WILL BE ABUSED. It is the nature of power.
The US has had a good time of it, our constitution was well designed, with numerous limits and balances built in to check the natural growth of government power. These checks and balances weren't there by accident.
The founders were so wary of and understanding of the nature of government and power that their first attempt failed (Articles of Confederation) by being so weak on the federal level to be essentially useless. It was in fact so bad that when they gathered to fix it tossed it and started over.
That good time is coming to an end. Defeated by time and technologically aided abuses that are overwhelming the built in protections. Even though the founders built in methods for these protections to be updated and modified when necessary they weren't able to build in the will and resolve to do what's necessary.
I don't believe we should turn away from technology, and I do think it can be a tremendous help in combating crime. HOWEVER it should be used and applied with 80% of the resources applied to checks and balances. The smallest incursions on our rights should be met with the assumption that such will be misused unless rigorous controls and safeguards are implemented.
I'm not saying we can't trust those in power. I don't know them that well. I'm saying that if the power is there, then eventually someone we can't trust will be wielding it.
My position: I believe it's not appropriate to teach or address the Intelligent Design theory in science class's. I think addressing it as part of a comparative religions class would be much more appropriate.
My reasoning: There are many many theories, some are scientific, other's not. Simply put, calling a set of ideas and attached reasoning a theory does not make it scientific, nor does it make it right or wrong. I believe that the Intelligent Design theory is not a scientific theory, irrespective of the work that has gone into making it appear to be one.
Science, scientific method, and scientific theories all have some things in common, one of those things is the concept
"All this is subject to being revised by new information or even shown to be completely wrong and a new theory created to fit the facts."
. I propose that anything that does not incorporate that concept is not science and shouldn't be taught in a science class.
Please correct me if I'm wrong but it appears that the Intelligent Design theory was created with the assumption that there is a supreme creator. It also appears to me that the theory inherently rejects any line of reasoning that challenges that assumption. As I mentioned above I believe this immutable point moves the theory out of the realm of science altogether.
I'm by no means saying it shouldn't be taught, I do however believe it's proper place is among the belief systems, not the science class.
I believe you are equating his belief in a path that may support such militarism as militant. For Kurzweil to be militant he would have to be "fighting or warring" to enforce his belief on other people.
The concept of a singularity is interesting but although I've no reason to say such couldn't happen, I've also no reason to belive it will. Prognosticating is inheriently filled with misdirections due to the complexity of making assumptions that in the real world don't go according to what I believe is the more reasonable path. Anyone out there who believed in Betamax because it was a better technological standard...
The only prediction I will make is that the next 50 years will be "interesting". My personal belief is that the human race has only a 50/50 chance of existing at the end of that time. I also believe that if it does, then it will in some form exist for many millions of years.
I base that on the pace of technology in robotics, infotech, nanotech, and genetics. The conbination will enable individuals and/or small groups to have the potential to distroy the race. I believe this potential will exist during a small window of time which will close when the technologies advance to the point where all people have "built in" defenses. There will of course always be a minor risk to individuals but the risk to intellegence itself should be shortlived.
Interestingly enough I believe this window will be extended or even greatly extended by governments attempting to limit or halt study in these technologies. This is the reasoning behind the 50/50 odds.
I didn't see any comments saying he wasn't doing his job. I didn't see any comments about him being a spokesman for his company.
I did see the statement: "The decision to terminate [Mr Hanff's] employment was made in order to defend our legitimate business interests. Mr Hanff has declared that he is opposed to copyright and intellectual property laws. Since much of our business is based around the protection of our copyright and intellectual property, we consider our dismissal of Mr Hanff entirely justified and appropriate."
Regardless of his declaired beliefs he evidentally is a good employee or they wouldn't have hired him in the first place.
I suspect that the above statement will be prime evidence that he was in fact fired for his beliefs.
The offer to pay him for 3 months instead of the week he worked was also interesting. I wonder if there was anything he would have been required to sign in that deal/payoff...
Having 5 exterior doors in a large house can be a nice feature, but each door is a possible point to be probed for an exploit (unlocked, bad lock, hidden key, cheap window glass,....).
Software, and especially hard coded software (read as impossible or difficult to update), becomes progressively (probably exponentially) more insecure as it's complexity rises and implementing a key escrow feature creates a new "door" thus decreasing security both by making things more complex and especially so by making things more complex specifically to allow bypassing the normal safeguards.
You have to download an application to convert the data into a useable format.
As another poster pointed out the terms of use snippet "... By continuing, you consent to your keystrokes and data content being monitored." is a bit interesting.
Taken together you have given permission for someone to monitor your keystrokes as well as given them the means to do so.
I would be interested in the results of someone monitoring the data being sent from the local system after this application was installed.
And yes, it's quite possible that this is nothing but a fanciful lark. But keyloggers are not uncommon, nor are people or groups who want that data so it seems reasonable to take a look.
by MistabewM (17044) on Thursday February 17, @08:16PM (#11707016)
A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects. - Robert A. Heinlein
Heinlein is an old favorite of mine.
The truely scary part of that quote is with the exception of "die gallantly" I've done everything there multiple times.
He was quite right though, the version of intelligence that humans have is adapatability. And our bodies reflect that as well. In light of this discussion,
Humans are extremely energy efficient in locomotion. We aren't fast enough to catch many things in a short race but I don't know of any animal that is faster that we can't run down.
Having a locomotion system based on dynamic balance means we are capable of reacting immediatly to changed circumstances, often in reflex mode which drasticly speeds up the response time.
*chuckle* One might way we are the renaissance species such that our specialization is generalization and our nich is being able to adapt to almost any nich.
Simply put a dog has an amount of free will regardless of training. Therefore a dog may perform a search that shouldn't have been done. This is without fault unless the officer specifically placed the dog there for that purpose. Therefore the evidence would be untainted.
However, code does in fact do NOTHING it hasn't been told to do unless it's broke (bug) and therefore it can be assumed to be under human control 100% of the time and can not innocently perform a search without probable cause.
I can't say what I would charge, I can say I've turned down hundreds per hour with no regrets.
As with the submitter I spent many years doing this for family, friends, and the family business. One of the nicer benifits to relocating a considerable distance from "home" was in this regard.
I've also quit doing contract work to the dismay of several former employer's. It simply comes down to the fact that I earn enough from my place of employment to live comfortably and my time off is more valuable to me as time off. Or as I've said on many occasions: No thanks! That would cut into my nap time.
If you've seen some of my prior writings you may already know my opinions, as always I encourage replies and responses here or in private email, and if anyone believes this is a troll feel free to mark it and/or say so.
In short: I think there are basically 2 competing concepts on how to handle this and similar problems. 1. Heavily limit access to information, research, and experimentation. 2. Free and open access to information, active support for open research and experimentation.
I believe:
The danger from nano/bio technologies is real.
The dangerous time extends from now until the technology is mature.
Restrictions to slow or halt this technology increases the danger period.
Terrorist types are actively pursuing this technology.
Terrorists gain more from increased time than from access to open research.
Restrictions reduce the pool of skills and ideas available to deal with the danger.
In more detail: As the subject line suggests, I don't believe we can shove this back in the box. In addition I don't believe that trying to limit or control the technology and it's distribution is going to be successful. While that process was affective (debatably as to how effective though) in limiting nuclear technology IMO because nuclear technologies require a large and very specialized heavy industrial base which in turn also required budgets that limited serious work to national sized organizations.
This isn't true for bio/nano tech. Much of this work can and is being done on budgets that are easily in the realm of small companies, and even many individuals. Certainly within the grasp of those organizations we fear will be using it to harm us.
Simply put, I believe that the knowledge is out there already. I believe that the more organized terrorist type groups are likely already pursuing these technologies actively.
Now, if we pursue a path of limiting knowledge the results as I see them are 2 fold. 1. We will slow development of bio/nano malware (malevolent hard/soft/squishy ware) that the terrorist types are undoubtedly already working on. 2. We will stop development in all but a few officially sanctioned arena's. We will reduce by orders of magnitude the number of people who are skilled in working with these technologies. Additionally we will slow by a huge degree the overall advance of these technologies.
I'm in agreement with those who believe that these technologies are extremely dangerous. My personal belief is we, as a intelligent species, have approximately a 40% chance of surviving the next 50 years. Where I disagree with many is that I believe those odds get much worse if we try to put heavy limits on knowledge, research, and experimentation. I believe that the more open and openly supported this technology is the more the odds improve.
My reasoning is based on the following. I believe that if we start restricting knowledge dissemination, research, and experimentation then we will lose most of those who would have the skills, knowledge, and ideas that will be required to defend against bio/nano malware that will be released sooner or later. I don't think that any amount or level of restriction will stop organizations that are intent on using this to harm others. My belief is that all it will accomplish is to slow the development and ensure that the process's that are used by those working on malware are unique and only understood by the malware creators.
In addition I believe that the danger is limited to the short period of time before this technology matures. I believe that giving malware developers more time is much more dangerous than the advantage they would get from open knowledge sources. The basis for this is my belief that a mature bio/nano technology will provide both personal and environmental monitors and defenses that will reduce the danger to a minimal scope and severity.
In comparing email to snail mail many people think that it's like a postcard where it's obviously and simply readable by anyone in view.
I submit that this is a false analogy.
A better one is that an email is equivalent to a letter inside an envelope.
A letter is not readable without going to the trouble of deliberatly opening it up. An email is not readable without going to the trouble of deliberatly opening the file.
The case where a sys admin would see the contents in working on the system is more equivelent to a technician who might see the contents of your letter while repairing a automatic feeder mechanism and pulling your mangled letter from the works.
The simple fact is that due to technology, it's much easier for someone to pry into (what should be private) communications, but just because it's easy shouldn't encourage a judge to make it legal. Someone should have mentioned that the us postal service does hire private contractors to move mail, should his decision be taken to mean those contractors can read his mail?
When it comes to encryption, well It's a GOOD IDEA. And with the technology that can be tossed at snail mail these days, it's anot a bad idea there either.
I'm all in favor of encryption being more and more of the default as well as being less and less noticable or any sort of a bother.
Actually glass is a liquid, and yes it does flow. But the time scale is rather long.
To see the effect in window glass would take many many thousands of years. Not sure about obsidian or what the flow rate would be.
And yes as you mentioned, the apparent flowing of old glass is for 2 reasons. As you stated it's due to the production method, also the myth has been encouraged by the glass being normally installed with the thicker side down.
1000 statements that are true and correct don't carry the weight of one statement that shows someone lied.
So if you in fact suspect that someone may be prejudiced on a point then it's only prudent to search for evidence of that. No amount of evidence saying he's fair and reasonable can trump one solid example not being so.
Slashdot Mirror
If your statements are correct, then why did god make so many fertilized eggs not implant and get washed out with the next menstrual period? Not to mention all the other lack of respect for human life that is documented in the bible.
I believe that any embryo that is going to be tossed out in the trash, weather by nature/god or by the rules of the lab for excess embryo's should be just as useful as a body that is donated to science. In either case you have authority from the next of kin for a tissue sample that won't survive.
In the normal process of reproduction many fertilizations occur but very few actually implant and therefore have a chance of becoming a person.
If you believe every fertilized egg is human then you should be insisting that every woman be monitored and every vaginal discharge be investigated in order to rescue the fertilized eggs that didn't implant. BTW, you might want to remember that some fraction of those that don't implant are damaged to such an extent that they might not survive regardless of the attempt and even if they did they would be severely handicapped.
Dang!
I always suspected that Microsoft = Ronco
I've believed for some time that their should be a new level of criminal offense, namely the afore mentioned "Crime Against the System". This designation should be a multiplier to the range of penalties for a crime.
For any crime where someone uses their position of public trust to further their crime they should pay a much higher penalty for reducing the trust the public has in the position and the government in general.
To facilitate identifying such crimes there should be extensive whistle blower provisions, perhaps even rewards although that may be going a tad far.
If you want to convince people then you have to provide examples that they can relate to.
I suggest you gather up a number of different examples (as no single one will appeal to everyone). Once you have some you can provide your IT lite friends with relevant examples that they can relate to.
Wardish
"The problem is, when FlyCheap Airlines has one of its planes hijacked and flown into a skyscraper somewhere, that's a negative externality. The people in the building never got to choose how much security they needed. Should we allow the CheapNukes Power Plant to store nuclear materials in an unlocked building on the side of the road?"
... Calling it prohibitive would be a grain of sand on the beach.
With the requirement that they be insured (self insurance is an option with reasonable garruntee's) by an insurer that has the wherewithal to cover reasonably concievable possibilities.
In such a case FlyCheap Airlines would have to provide good security especially on access to the cockpit or they would face insurance premiums that would be prohibitive.
In such a case CheapNukes Power Plant wouldn't be able to operate because the insurance premium would be
Simply put you require that business's, organizations, and yes people too, to be responsible for their behavior. That means if you engage in activities that have a reasonable possibility of expensive consequences then you garruntee that you are good for it. This means that you WILL make things as secure as reasonably possible because doing otherwise is foolish.
Arguments about what you actually get are beside the point.
The point is:
"my grandmother signed up for the 3Mbps DSL plan through Verizon, however a speed test said she was only getting 750Kbps. Why pay for the extra bandwidth when she's not getting it? She downgraded to the 768K plan expecting to still have 750K. Wrong, instead her speed dropped to 300K."
She was getting 750Kbps. So all arguments about what is available are moot. The point is when she switched to the 750K plan and her bandwidth dropped to 300K, That is deliberate throttling.
I believe most cases of fraud and misrepresentation are 100% voluntary...
I enjoy the occasional steak, but for the most part meat in my diet is a flavoring or small side dish.
I'm quite aware of where my food comes from and have on occasion in the past handled that from beginning to end for most forms of food. I'm neither ignorant of or shirk from the realities of meat in our society.
With that said: I would be quite happy with a meat product that was not produced by killing animals. I would be especially happy with one that was healthier for me, the added benefits of quality control and improved taste and varieties. Last but not least, I would be happy to increase my consumption if I could do so without compromising my health.
Amazing:
People will be against it because it's not natural.
People will refuse to accept it as a protein source for disadvantaged because it's not natural.
People will harm other people while protesting against it.
Amusing:
People will have tremendous arguments about calling it meat.
People will argue religious positions for and against it based on religious rules about various animals.
People will create artificial shortages of good quality varieties in the name of profit. And will manipulate governments to make laws protecting their profit margins.
I believe that government websites should be written to work as per the standards. If a particular web browser supports the standard it works fine, if not then it's their fault.
Perhaps this might help microsoft with their decision to not support the standards.
In a perfect world we wouldn't be concerned about privacy, we wouldn't need checks and balances on government power, we wouldn't need laws.
BUT
It's not a perfect world.
All forms of power are eventually corrupting, in the rare event that a particular person isn't tempted in a way they are vulnerable to then time itself will cycle up someone who is.
All structures in which power is accumulated is a beacon to those who would use it for good as well as those who would use it for personal gain, and many will switch from good to gain over the long run.
Power can be even more insidious, you don't need to wield the ultimate power to be affected. You can in fact find satisfaction in exercising what control you can. Many people who for one reason or another seek power over other's gravitate to the twin bastions of abused power.
GOVERNMENT and BUREAUCRACY
Worse yet, in many positions where you have both the power and the desire to do good. You encounter those who would take advantage, those who are dishonest, those from whom you must protect the resources you control so that the good people will have them. Thus rules are made, rules that grow over time to cover manifold individual situations. Rules that take up much time to bypass for those few who are exceptions. First one is slighted, for the good of all, after all we wouldn't be able to help 10 other's if we took the time to help that one. And so it goes. Leading ever downward to the stereotype called
BUREAUCRAT.
But back to the point of this post... It's not a perfect world. We do need protections from ourselves, not individually, but that we do as a group. I've always been amazed at how the intelligence of a mob (in all it's many forms) is defined by it's lower limits. But again I digress.
On the one hand our law enforcement agents need information in order to provide protection from those members of society that seek to harm other's.
On the other hand if that information is easily obtained, not bound by strict and ruthless controls and access then IT WILL BE ABUSED. It is the nature of power.
The US has had a good time of it, our constitution was well designed, with numerous limits and balances built in to check the natural growth of government power. These checks and balances weren't there by accident.
The founders were so wary of and understanding of the nature of government and power that their first attempt failed (Articles of Confederation) by being so weak on the federal level to be essentially useless. It was in fact so bad that when they gathered to fix it tossed it and started over.
That good time is coming to an end. Defeated by time and technologically aided abuses that are overwhelming the built in protections. Even though the founders built in methods for these protections to be updated and modified when necessary they weren't able to build in the will and resolve to do what's necessary.
I don't believe we should turn away from technology, and I do think it can be a tremendous help in combating crime. HOWEVER it should be used and applied with 80% of the resources applied to checks and balances. The smallest incursions on our rights should be met with the assumption that such will be misused unless rigorous controls and safeguards are implemented.
I'm not saying we can't trust those in power. I don't know them that well. I'm saying that if the power is there, then eventually someone we can't trust will be wielding it.
My position: I believe it's not appropriate to teach or address the Intelligent Design theory in science class's. I think addressing it as part of a comparative religions class would be much more appropriate.
My reasoning: There are many many theories, some are scientific, other's not. Simply put, calling a set of ideas and attached reasoning a theory does not make it scientific, nor does it make it right or wrong. I believe that the Intelligent Design theory is not a scientific theory, irrespective of the work that has gone into making it appear to be one.
Science, scientific method, and scientific theories all have some things in common, one of those things is the concept
"All this is subject to being revised by new information or even shown to be completely wrong and a new theory created to fit the facts."
. I propose that anything that does not incorporate that concept is not science and shouldn't be taught in a science class.
Please correct me if I'm wrong but it appears that the Intelligent Design theory was created with the assumption that there is a supreme creator. It also appears to me that the theory inherently rejects any line of reasoning that challenges that assumption. As I mentioned above I believe this immutable point moves the theory out of the realm of science altogether.
I'm by no means saying it shouldn't be taught, I do however believe it's proper place is among the belief systems, not the science class.
Interesting thread.
I believe you are equating his belief in a path that may support such militarism as militant. For Kurzweil to be militant he would have to be "fighting or warring" to enforce his belief on other people.
The concept of a singularity is interesting but although I've no reason to say such couldn't happen, I've also no reason to belive it will. Prognosticating is inheriently filled with misdirections due to the complexity of making assumptions that in the real world don't go according to what I believe is the more reasonable path. Anyone out there who believed in Betamax because it was a better technological standard...
The only prediction I will make is that the next 50 years will be "interesting". My personal belief is that the human race has only a 50/50 chance of existing at the end of that time. I also believe that if it does, then it will in some form exist for many millions of years.
I base that on the pace of technology in robotics, infotech, nanotech, and genetics. The conbination will enable individuals and/or small groups to have the potential to distroy the race. I believe this potential will exist during a small window of time which will close when the technologies advance to the point where all people have "built in" defenses. There will of course always be a minor risk to individuals but the risk to intellegence itself should be shortlived.
Interestingly enough I believe this window will be extended or even greatly extended by governments attempting to limit or halt study in these technologies. This is the reasoning behind the 50/50 odds.
Once again, interesting thread.
I didn't see any comments saying he wasn't doing his job. I didn't see any comments about him being a spokesman for his company.
I did see the statement: "The decision to terminate [Mr Hanff's] employment was made in order to defend our legitimate business interests. Mr Hanff has declared that he is opposed to copyright and intellectual property laws. Since much of our business is based around the protection of our copyright and intellectual property, we consider our dismissal of Mr Hanff entirely justified and appropriate."
Regardless of his declaired beliefs he evidentally is a good employee or they wouldn't have hired him in the first place.
I suspect that the above statement will be prime evidence that he was in fact fired for his beliefs.
The offer to pay him for 3 months instead of the week he worked was also interesting. I wonder if there was anything he would have been required to sign in that deal/payoff...
It stated "He also says AIM communiques are never stored on AOL's hard drives."
Does AIM allow you to send a message to an offline user to be delivered when they log on?
If so then where are they storing the message prior to delivery?
I do know ICQ does this and it is owned by AOL.
Does ICQ's TOS read similar and/or the same?
Is ICQ's message traffic legally covered under the AOL TOS?
Let's put it this way.
Having 5 exterior doors in a large house can be a nice feature, but each door is a possible point to be probed for an exploit (unlocked, bad lock, hidden key, cheap window glass,....).
Software, and especially hard coded software (read as impossible or difficult to update), becomes progressively (probably exponentially) more insecure as it's complexity rises and implementing a key escrow feature creates a new "door" thus decreasing security both by making things more complex and especially so by making things more complex specifically to allow bypassing the normal safeguards.
FUD and tinfoil hats or perhaps not.
You have to download an application to convert the data into a useable format.
As another poster pointed out the terms of use snippet "... By continuing, you consent to your keystrokes and data content being monitored." is a bit interesting.
Taken together you have given permission for someone to monitor your keystrokes as well as given them the means to do so.
I would be interested in the results of someone monitoring the data being sent from the local system after this application was installed.
And yes, it's quite possible that this is nothing but a fanciful lark. But keyloggers are not uncommon, nor are people or groups who want that data so it seems reasonable to take a look.
by MistabewM (17044) on Thursday February 17, @08:16PM (#11707016)
A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects. - Robert A. Heinlein
Heinlein is an old favorite of mine.
The truely scary part of that quote is with the exception of "die gallantly" I've done everything there multiple times.
He was quite right though, the version of intelligence that humans have is adapatability. And our bodies reflect that as well. In light of this discussion,
Humans are extremely energy efficient in locomotion. We aren't fast enough to catch many things in a short race but I don't know of any animal that is faster that we can't run down.
Having a locomotion system based on dynamic balance means we are capable of reacting immediatly to changed circumstances, often in reflex mode which drasticly speeds up the response time.
*chuckle* One might way we are the renaissance species such that our specialization is generalization and our nich is being able to adapt to almost any nich.
This argument had a lot more validity before it was reported that all the "approved" stem cell lines were contaminated.
Simply put a dog has an amount of free will regardless of training. Therefore a dog may perform a search that shouldn't have been done. This is without fault unless the officer specifically placed the dog there for that purpose. Therefore the evidence would be untainted.
However, code does in fact do NOTHING it hasn't been told to do unless it's broke (bug) and therefore it can be assumed to be under human control 100% of the time and can not innocently perform a search without probable cause.
I can't say what I would charge, I can say I've turned down hundreds per hour with no regrets.
As with the submitter I spent many years doing this for family, friends, and the family business. One of the nicer benifits to relocating a considerable distance from "home" was in this regard.
I've also quit doing contract work to the dismay of several former employer's. It simply comes down to the fact that I earn enough from my place of employment to live comfortably and my time off is more valuable to me as time off. Or as I've said on many occasions: No thanks! That would cut into my nap time.
Ward
If you've seen some of my prior writings you may already know my opinions, as always I encourage replies and responses here or in private email, and if anyone believes this is a troll feel free to mark it and/or say so.
In short:
I think there are basically 2 competing concepts on how to handle this and similar problems.
1. Heavily limit access to information, research, and experimentation.
2. Free and open access to information, active support for open research and experimentation.
I believe:
The danger from nano/bio technologies is real.
The dangerous time extends from now until the technology is mature.
Restrictions to slow or halt this technology increases the danger period.
Terrorist types are actively pursuing this technology.
Terrorists gain more from increased time than from access to open research.
Restrictions reduce the pool of skills and ideas available to deal with the danger.
In more detail:
As the subject line suggests, I don't believe we can shove this back in the box. In addition I don't believe that trying to limit or control the technology and it's distribution is going to be successful. While that process was affective (debatably as to how effective though) in limiting nuclear technology IMO because nuclear technologies require a large and very specialized heavy industrial base which in turn also required budgets that limited serious work to national sized organizations.
This isn't true for bio/nano tech. Much of this work can and is being done on budgets that are easily in the realm of small companies, and even many individuals. Certainly within the grasp of those organizations we fear will be using it to harm us.
Simply put, I believe that the knowledge is out there already. I believe that the more organized terrorist type groups are likely already pursuing these technologies actively.
Now, if we pursue a path of limiting knowledge the results as I see them are 2 fold. 1. We will slow development of bio/nano malware (malevolent hard/soft/squishy ware) that the terrorist types are undoubtedly already working on. 2. We will stop development in all but a few officially sanctioned arena's. We will reduce by orders of magnitude the number of people who are skilled in working with these technologies. Additionally we will slow by a huge degree the overall advance of these technologies.
I'm in agreement with those who believe that these technologies are extremely dangerous. My personal belief is we, as a intelligent species, have approximately a 40% chance of surviving the next 50 years. Where I disagree with many is that I believe those odds get much worse if we try to put heavy limits on knowledge, research, and experimentation. I believe that the more open and openly supported this technology is the more the odds improve.
My reasoning is based on the following. I believe that if we start restricting knowledge dissemination, research, and experimentation then we will lose most of those who would have the skills, knowledge, and ideas that will be required to defend against bio/nano malware that will be released sooner or later. I don't think that any amount or level of restriction will stop organizations that are intent on using this to harm others. My belief is that all it will accomplish is to slow the development and ensure that the process's that are used by those working on malware are unique and only understood by the malware creators.
In addition I believe that the danger is limited to the short period of time before this technology matures. I believe that giving malware developers more time is much more dangerous than the advantage they would get from open knowledge sources. The basis for this is my belief that a mature bio/nano technology will provide both personal and environmental monitors and defenses that will reduce the danger to a minimal scope and severity.
In comparing email to snail mail many people think that it's like a postcard where it's obviously and simply readable by anyone in view.
I submit that this is a false analogy.
A better one is that an email is equivalent to a letter inside an envelope.
A letter is not readable without going to the trouble of deliberatly opening it up. An email is not readable without going to the trouble of deliberatly opening the file.
The case where a sys admin would see the contents in working on the system is more equivelent to a technician who might see the contents of your letter while repairing a automatic feeder mechanism and pulling your mangled letter from the works.
The simple fact is that due to technology, it's much easier for someone to pry into (what should be private) communications, but just because it's easy shouldn't encourage a judge to make it legal. Someone should have mentioned that the us postal service does hire private contractors to move mail, should his decision be taken to mean those contractors can read his mail?
When it comes to encryption, well It's a GOOD IDEA. And with the technology that can be tossed at snail mail these days, it's anot a bad idea there either.
I'm all in favor of encryption being more and more of the default as well as being less and less noticable or any sort of a bother.
Actually glass is a liquid, and yes it does flow. But the time scale is rather long.
To see the effect in window glass would take many many thousands of years. Not sure about obsidian or what the flow rate would be.
And yes as you mentioned, the apparent flowing of old glass is for 2 reasons. As you stated it's due to the production method, also the myth has been encouraged by the glass being normally installed with the thicker side down.
Ward
Something to consider...
1000 statements that are true and correct don't carry the weight of one statement that shows someone lied.
So if you in fact suspect that someone may be prejudiced on a point then it's only prudent to search for evidence of that. No amount of evidence saying he's fair and reasonable can trump one solid example not being so.