Um, just want to clarify a small point, as I see this mistake all over the place.
Evolution does not deny the possibility that life was started by the noodly appendage of the Flying Spaghetti Monster - because it says nothing about the origin of life. It's about how it changes over time, not how it started.
It would even be possible for the ID crowd and the evolutionists to both be somewhat right. We have a lot of evidence for evolution. So, to all ID scientists out there (if you actually exist) can we see some of the ID evidence now please?
That's certainly a possibility. But if you read the patent, it describes a system that tracks user actions using a component with access to "global system state", across all applications, not just Microsoft applications or in the operating system itself. This means that software doesn't have to be modified to be ad aware - any software used on the machine can be tracked and used for this purpose.
This would allow Microsoft to turn Windows into an advertising channel, through which any software or service advertiser could sell ads, based on the kinds of things you do. The user action information could even be more valuable to them than the advertising for market research purposes (it does say that the user action information can be transmitted back to their servers).
I think I get what you mean, but you are kind of mixing up a discussion of implementing a client-server architecture in different environments with the logical relational database model. I guess your choice of database implementation may have performance implications in different networked environments, but this has nothing to do with the relational model per se.
No, it's deeply distressing for the sufferer as well, although you are right to say the family and friends do suffer horribly too. It takes years, even decades to fully play out, and for much of that, the sufferer is aware of what is happening to them. When they stop remembering what's happening to them, it gets even worse. They have to be looked after all the time, but resent being treated like a child. They can't remember that they aren't capable anymore. People often get violent, or deeply depressed, as they no longer understand why the world no longer makes sense.
The idea that once people forget they have a problem, it's all sunlight for them is so wrong it's hard to know what to say. It's really, really, horrible. If you haven't experienced it, you shouldn't comment on it so flippantly. I found your comments abuot euthanasia particularly insensitive.
We simply disagree that the first is actually a scientific question. I'm simply putting forward an argument based on what I perceive, and I'm quite happy to discuss it, and be persuaded of something else. If that's an agenda, then we all have one. I could take your refusal to just agree with me as clear evidence that you can't think logically and are just pursuing your own agenda - but let's assume that's not a particularly useful position to take.
I'm sure any part of the eye can be used for identification - patterns of follicle growth in the eyebrow, or dna extracted from an eyebrow hair, for example, however hard this may be to achieve by technological or manual techniques. You can't get any marks by saying the eyebrow can be used, even though that is clearly scientifically possible. The answer that is required, is the answer that tallies with the current capabilities of biometric technology.
It's a poorly phrased technological / social question at best, but not a scientific one. You seem to think that any question that concerns a current use of a scientific fact is itself a scientific question.
I take it you don't think question 7 is a scientific question, so you at least admit that there are non-science questions in a science paper? Both questions are clearly thematically linked, concerning the use of biometric identification in our society today, which is a hot political potato in the UK right now. Either one has no place in a science exam. Taken together, they demonstrate evidence of possible political interference in a science syllabus. Discuss for ten marks!
We're probably going to have to agree to disagree on this...
Agreed, it's only one form of valid question, as is your question - they're only examples of questions that might be considered scientific. But the exam paper question is not a scientific question. It is asking about a social use to which that unique characteristic can be put - identification.
The next question follows on from this, and asks where this usage commonly occurs at present in the UK - schools, hospitals, airports, home. This isn't even remotely a scientific question. The questions are about the recent biometric identification systems currently being deployed around the UK, as pilots for the more extensive identity card scheme.
I'm a bit bemused that you think I prefer bias to logic! On what grounds? I'm arguing that these questions are clearly biased towards a political / social agenda, and have no place in a physics exam. If you disagree with this argument, then I'm all ears. Or rather, all eyes;)
(sorry, replying to self). Just want to clarify, when I said "following question", I'm not asking you to consider the following "made-up" question. That actually is question 7 in the exam paper.
Not really. Is the human eye unique? How could you show this? They might be valid questions. Using these characteristics to identify a person isn't scientific. Technological, yes. Political, for sure. Scientific?
What about the following question:
"People's eyes are used as personal identification:
A in hospitals B at airports C at school D at home"
Care to comment on the scientific nature of that? See any relation to question 6?
Wonderful:) But couldn't you replace the numbers at the start of each question with bullet points? Don't want to scare off the less "mathematical" students;)
I read your original complaint about the state of physics exams. It disturbs me that there seems to be so much political interference in the syllabus - really starting to feel quite 1984.
Probably because we British have been steadily eroding our own rights just like the US, and have an ever greater culture of surveillance. The poster is suggesting that it would be ironic for the British to criticise the US over civil rights erosion.
Personally, I really don't see it as relevant whether I criticise erosion of civil rights in the US, the UK, or anywhere else in the world. I oppose this erosion equally wherever I see it happening.
I agree with your take on this. The whole point of the GPL3 anti-tivoization was to ensure that if a company used the goodness of open source in a particular environment, you were also free to modify and run the code in the same environment. This is still the case. You are still free to modify the GPL3 code and do anything you like - even things the manufacturer didn't enable - within the limits of the environment it runs in.
I can only assure you that they definitely don't use Memory Stick Micro 2, they didn't have any Sony cables for my camera in the biggest Sony building in Japan, and that no-one in Akihabara could find compatible items either.
As far as I could see, they seemed to use the more standard kinds of flash memory you find everywhere else, so in that regard you are probably correct. They just don't seem to use the proprietary Sony kinds!
It's not "tech news for nerds". It's "news for nerds, stuff that matters". I'm a nerd, and I'm very interested in this stuff - it affects all our lives, and I want to hear what my fellow nerds have to say on it, rather than a bunch of political or media people I can't easily relate to.
Simple solution - go read another story if this one bores you.
Well, that's what I thought too. I should clarify - the phone uses Memory Stick Micro 2, which is even less well known than Memory Stick. For all I know, Sony do use MS for phones in Japan, but not the micro version 2, for sure.
I'm sorry, I hear this argument a lot, but I see it as a pretty cowardly argument. Impeach Bush, and if Cheney is bad, impeach him too!
Really, unless he's going to start a nuclear war or something, I really don't see what Cheney can do in the remaining time that makes you all so scared of impeaching Bush.
God, memory stick. I have a Sony phone, which is quite nice. I was recently in Tokyo, and I wanted some extra memory for my phone, so I went to Akihabara - geek central. All the sales assistants in about 20 shops I visited just looked at my phone, shrugged their shoulders and said "Sony!". My Japanese is pretty poor, but I got the message. So I went to the big Sony building at Ginza. No deal. They said they only sold memory sticks in the European market - they were using something else in Japan.
Since I was there, I pulled out a Sony camera I was trying to get a USB cable for. Again, no deal. This camera was North American Sony, and they didn't have those kinds of Sony cables in Japan.
Sigh. This insistence on ignoring standards and doing everything themselves - not even consistently across the world - bugs me like hell. I doubt I'll buy any more Sony consumer electronics until they get it. Hope they do - they know how to make nicely designed bits of technology.
I agree it's overblown, but it's basically an issue of trust. All this shows is that people have more trust in open source software in this regard, for the obvious reasons. Since it is impossible to have that kind of trust in closed source software (it's not open!), occasionally people will try to reverse engineer it to see what its doing. If they see something that makes them suspicious, you get a story like this.
I didn't read it as being about Vista - "keeps building" says to me the OP means that they keep building insecure systems - i.e. all of them. I doubt very much whether Vista machines are a major component of these huge botnets. Much more likely to be older windows versions.
I do agree that it's the user who is the security hole here, and that wouldn't change even if everyone was running unix rather than windows. Both those systems suffer from a basic design flaw that assumes that all processes should run with the same privileges as the logged-on user. This stems from designs of the late 60s and 70s, in which loading new programs was done by trained and skilled administrators, users of programs were also pretty technically skilled, and very few people were connected to a global network.
Given that things have changed a tad since then, it might be worth considering some new designs, in which all processes are automatically sandboxed and do not run by default with the full privileges of the user launching / installing them. I don't deny that this is a hard thing to get right (UAC is a step in this direction), and ultimately, if an unskilled user says "Yes! Go ahead!" to the dancing pigs, it's on their head. But saying yes to the dancing pigs shouldn't automatically give a trojan access to their network, personal documents, etc. etc.
Exactly, but most people just accept it as normal, until it bites them. For myself, the whole WGA thing was the catalyst for me to switch over to linux a couple of years ago. As a legitimate user of all MS operating systems over the years, I just hated that feeling of being treated like a criminal, and having the possibility of being locked out of my own computer if I upgraded my motherboard once too often.
My experience is much nicer without that constant feeling of being watched, even though linux and other open source software is not without its own share of frustrations. But, crucially (for me anyway) they are MY frustrations - I can generally choose what I have to put up with. Anyway, if people are happy with windows, all power to them. I still use it at work, and still develop against it. It's a pretty good system, if you can put up with Microsoft owning your computing environment, rather than just enabling your computing environment.
Slashdot Mirror
Um, just want to clarify a small point, as I see this mistake all over the place.
Evolution does not deny the possibility that life was started by the noodly appendage of the Flying Spaghetti Monster - because it says nothing about the origin of life. It's about how it changes over time, not how it started.
It would even be possible for the ID crowd and the evolutionists to both be somewhat right. We have a lot of evidence for evolution. So, to all ID scientists out there (if you actually exist) can we see some of the ID evidence now please?
That's certainly a possibility. But if you read the patent, it describes a system that tracks user actions using a component with access to "global system state", across all applications, not just Microsoft applications or in the operating system itself. This means that software doesn't have to be modified to be ad aware - any software used on the machine can be tracked and used for this purpose.
This would allow Microsoft to turn Windows into an advertising channel, through which any software or service advertiser could sell ads, based on the kinds of things you do. The user action information could even be more valuable to them than the advertising for market research purposes (it does say that the user action information can be transmitted back to their servers).
I think I get what you mean, but you are kind of mixing up a discussion of implementing a client-server architecture in different environments with the logical relational database model. I guess your choice of database implementation may have performance implications in different networked environments, but this has nothing to do with the relational model per se.
No, it's deeply distressing for the sufferer as well, although you are right to say the family and friends do suffer horribly too. It takes years, even decades to fully play out, and for much of that, the sufferer is aware of what is happening to them. When they stop remembering what's happening to them, it gets even worse. They have to be looked after all the time, but resent being treated like a child. They can't remember that they aren't capable anymore. People often get violent, or deeply depressed, as they no longer understand why the world no longer makes sense.
The idea that once people forget they have a problem, it's all sunlight for them is so wrong it's hard to know what to say. It's really, really, horrible. If you haven't experienced it, you shouldn't comment on it so flippantly. I found your comments abuot euthanasia particularly insensitive.
We simply disagree that the first is actually a scientific question. I'm simply putting forward an argument based on what I perceive, and I'm quite happy to discuss it, and be persuaded of something else. If that's an agenda, then we all have one. I could take your refusal to just agree with me as clear evidence that you can't think logically and are just pursuing your own agenda - but let's assume that's not a particularly useful position to take.
I'm sure any part of the eye can be used for identification - patterns of follicle growth in the eyebrow, or dna extracted from an eyebrow hair, for example, however hard this may be to achieve by technological or manual techniques. You can't get any marks by saying the eyebrow can be used, even though that is clearly scientifically possible. The answer that is required, is the answer that tallies with the current capabilities of biometric technology.
It's a poorly phrased technological / social question at best, but not a scientific one. You seem to think that any question that concerns a current use of a scientific fact is itself a scientific question.
I take it you don't think question 7 is a scientific question, so you at least admit that there are non-science questions in a science paper? Both questions are clearly thematically linked, concerning the use of biometric identification in our society today, which is a hot political potato in the UK right now. Either one has no place in a science exam. Taken together, they demonstrate evidence of possible political interference in a science syllabus. Discuss for ten marks!
We're probably going to have to agree to disagree on this...
Agreed, it's only one form of valid question, as is your question - they're only examples of questions that might be considered scientific. But the exam paper question is not a scientific question. It is asking about a social use to which that unique characteristic can be put - identification.
;)
The next question follows on from this, and asks where this usage commonly occurs at present in the UK - schools, hospitals, airports, home. This isn't even remotely a scientific question. The questions are about the recent biometric identification systems currently being deployed around the UK, as pilots for the more extensive identity card scheme.
I'm a bit bemused that you think I prefer bias to logic! On what grounds? I'm arguing that these questions are clearly biased towards a political / social agenda, and have no place in a physics exam. If you disagree with this argument, then I'm all ears. Or rather, all eyes
(sorry, replying to self). Just want to clarify, when I said "following question", I'm not asking you to consider the following "made-up" question. That actually is question 7 in the exam paper.
Not really. Is the human eye unique? How could you show this? They might be valid questions. Using these characteristics to identify a person isn't scientific. Technological, yes. Political, for sure. Scientific?
What about the following question:
"People's eyes are used as personal identification:
A in hospitals
B at airports
C at school
D at home"
Care to comment on the scientific nature of that? See any relation to question 6?
Wonderful :) But couldn't you replace the numbers at the start of each question with bullet points? Don't want to scare off the less "mathematical" students ;)
I read your original complaint about the state of physics exams. It disturbs me that there seems to be so much political interference in the syllabus - really starting to feel quite 1984.
What about question 6:
"Identification using eyes. Anne looks in the mirror at her eye. Which part is used to identify her?"
What has this got to do with science? Identification of people by their eyes? Big brother says "train 'em up early".
Probably because we British have been steadily eroding our own rights just like the US, and have an ever greater culture of surveillance. The poster is suggesting that it would be ironic for the British to criticise the US over civil rights erosion.
Personally, I really don't see it as relevant whether I criticise erosion of civil rights in the US, the UK, or anywhere else in the world. I oppose this erosion equally wherever I see it happening.
I agree with your take on this. The whole point of the GPL3 anti-tivoization was to ensure that if a company used the goodness of open source in a particular environment, you were also free to modify and run the code in the same environment. This is still the case. You are still free to modify the GPL3 code and do anything you like - even things the manufacturer didn't enable - within the limits of the environment it runs in.
I can only assure you that they definitely don't use Memory Stick Micro 2, they didn't have any Sony cables for my camera in the biggest Sony building in Japan, and that no-one in Akihabara could find compatible items either.
As far as I could see, they seemed to use the more standard kinds of flash memory you find everywhere else, so in that regard you are probably correct. They just don't seem to use the proprietary Sony kinds!
AFAIK, it's not MP3 decoding that causes the network degradation - it's whether the audio driver is used or not.
Love the sig. I always thought there was only one binary joke ;)
The GP didn't say the developers were lazy; just that they were scratching their own itches.
It's not "tech news for nerds". It's "news for nerds, stuff that matters". I'm a nerd, and I'm very interested in this stuff - it affects all our lives, and I want to hear what my fellow nerds have to say on it, rather than a bunch of political or media people I can't easily relate to.
Simple solution - go read another story if this one bores you.
Well, that's what I thought too. I should clarify - the phone uses Memory Stick Micro 2, which is even less well known than Memory Stick. For all I know, Sony do use MS for phones in Japan, but not the micro version 2, for sure.
I'm sorry, I hear this argument a lot, but I see it as a pretty cowardly argument. Impeach Bush, and if Cheney is bad, impeach him too!
Really, unless he's going to start a nuclear war or something, I really don't see what Cheney can do in the remaining time that makes you all so scared of impeaching Bush.
God, memory stick. I have a Sony phone, which is quite nice. I was recently in Tokyo, and I wanted some extra memory for my phone, so I went to Akihabara - geek central. All the sales assistants in about 20 shops I visited just looked at my phone, shrugged their shoulders and said "Sony!". My Japanese is pretty poor, but I got the message. So I went to the big Sony building at Ginza. No deal. They said they only sold memory sticks in the European market - they were using something else in Japan.
Since I was there, I pulled out a Sony camera I was trying to get a USB cable for. Again, no deal. This camera was North American Sony, and they didn't have those kinds of Sony cables in Japan.
Sigh. This insistence on ignoring standards and doing everything themselves - not even consistently across the world - bugs me like hell. I doubt I'll buy any more Sony consumer electronics until they get it. Hope they do - they know how to make nicely designed bits of technology.
I agree it's overblown, but it's basically an issue of trust. All this shows is that people have more trust in open source software in this regard, for the obvious reasons. Since it is impossible to have that kind of trust in closed source software (it's not open!), occasionally people will try to reverse engineer it to see what its doing. If they see something that makes them suspicious, you get a story like this.
I didn't read it as being about Vista - "keeps building" says to me the OP means that they keep building insecure systems - i.e. all of them. I doubt very much whether Vista machines are a major component of these huge botnets. Much more likely to be older windows versions.
I do agree that it's the user who is the security hole here, and that wouldn't change even if everyone was running unix rather than windows. Both those systems suffer from a basic design flaw that assumes that all processes should run with the same privileges as the logged-on user. This stems from designs of the late 60s and 70s, in which loading new programs was done by trained and skilled administrators, users of programs were also pretty technically skilled, and very few people were connected to a global network.
Given that things have changed a tad since then, it might be worth considering some new designs, in which all processes are automatically sandboxed and do not run by default with the full privileges of the user launching / installing them. I don't deny that this is a hard thing to get right (UAC is a step in this direction), and ultimately, if an unskilled user says "Yes! Go ahead!" to the dancing pigs, it's on their head. But saying yes to the dancing pigs shouldn't automatically give a trojan access to their network, personal documents, etc. etc.
Superb! Made my day :)
Exactly, but most people just accept it as normal, until it bites them. For myself, the whole WGA thing was the catalyst for me to switch over to linux a couple of years ago. As a legitimate user of all MS operating systems over the years, I just hated that feeling of being treated like a criminal, and having the possibility of being locked out of my own computer if I upgraded my motherboard once too often.
My experience is much nicer without that constant feeling of being watched, even though linux and other open source software is not without its own share of frustrations. But, crucially (for me anyway) they are MY frustrations - I can generally choose what I have to put up with. Anyway, if people are happy with windows, all power to them. I still use it at work, and still develop against it. It's a pretty good system, if you can put up with Microsoft owning your computing environment, rather than just enabling your computing environment.
moderators: parent is not a troll. You may not agree with his opinion, but it's perfectly valid.