Very good point. Passenger privacy can clearly be violated by this system.
Given the recent illegal surveillance activities of your current administration, I would be concerned about paying for a taxi ride with a credit card in NYC.
Of course, it makes no real difference to me, as I have no intention of visiting the US again until you remember why freedom and democracy were worth fighting for in the first place.
I can't see any terms about "MS-LPL version X or later" there, but maybe I missed something. So assuming lots of developers participate in an open source project using the MS-LPL, and Microsoft ever release an operating system that isn't Windows, all that code would be useless going forward.
No. Racism is irrational hatred of others based on fear of difference.
Clearly, different groups of humans have evolved in separate ways over time, even though we're all still a single human species (so far). Some groups may be superior in some ways, and inferior in others, although that's always a value judgment. For example, some people are genetically more susceptible to sickle-cell anemia, but this also protects them against malaria. Is this an inferior, or superior trait? Depends on what question you are asking.
The idea that evolution progresses towards "better" or "superior" organisms is false. Evolution doesn't care. Organisms simply adapt to their circumstances. Even if a group of humans was genetically better at mathematics, better at long distance running, could hold their breath longer, didn't choke as easily, could give birth with less complications, was less susceptible to certain diseases, tended to live longer... so what? We are all intelligent beings, deserving of respect.
You seem to be a bit confused about what evolution and the fossil record tell us. Evolution is not a theory about how life got started - it's about how it changes over time. The comet idea is a theory about the origin of life, not the evolution of it.
As far as your chicken example goes, no-one believes evolution works that way. If a chicken suddenly gave birth to a chick that's a completely new species, what would it breed with to perpetuate the new species? (hint: the definition of species is largely a human construct, but it generally means that creatures of different species cannot inter-breed). The idea is more that species can be stable for a long time, but occasionally, changes happen quickly, in geological time-frames, anyway. For individuals of the species, there must always be a breeding stock that can interbreed, or it would die out! Surely that's just obvious? But, a small group of individuals might diverge from the main stock (perhaps isolated geographically) in relatively short periods of time. Oh, and the fossil record often does turn up intermediate species - but fossils are rare, so the evidence is hard to work with.
Scientists sometimes make big claims (they are only human!), but then (and this is the crucial bit) - they have to back it up with evidence. As time goes on, some established theories shift, as new evidence and thinking comes to light. The changing of stories isn't evidence that scientists are disreputable - it's evidence that they are reputable. The ultimate arbiter of truth is always reality, not dogma, after all.
As camperdave has already pointed out, no, it couldn't defeat random checks too. They're random, so the check can happen to anyone. This means there's nothing an attacker can do to improve their chances of not being stopped, although there's obviously no guarantee they will be stopped either.
But that's not to say profiling is useless - some is probably useful if you have highly trained and experienced people - but not to the point where an adversary can reliably increase their chances of gaming the system.
Not necessarily. Random checking prevents anyone knowing quite who is going to be stopped. If you introduce a lot of profiling, all the terrorists have to do is send lots of people through the system until they find the ones who aren't picked up by the profiling. Then they use those people.
Well, that's simple, but no "excuses" are required by anyone as far as I can see. There were always enthusiasts who liked to say how great it was, while shooting down "noobs" (I take it you were trying to bait one of them?), but IMHO, Linux was only approaching readiness for the wider market 3-4 years ago, and finding people who knew the system was hard.
Now it's pretty damn good, with a much broader userbase. As a system, it's better than windows in some respects and worse in others, but definitely comparable. It wasn't 4 years ago.
I don't disagree with anything you say - I've worked in support myself! Your comments about putting an image back on the desktop to quickly fix problems is spot on. It usually does take less time than finding out what the problem was - I've used the same technique, much as my inner geek wanted to spend the time to figure out the problem.
For myself, I have found that linux is easier to fix and tinker with for someone with a modicum of technical knowledge and the luxury of time to do it. The error reporting and documentation seems to be generally better, IMHO. I only changed from XP to linux a year or two ago at home, having been a firm Windows user prior to that. But my reply wasn't about whether other O/Ss would be better than Windows, just on whether Windows "just works" or not.
I was really only saying that Windows is no panacea, without wishing to sound like a raving anti-MS zealout. In my professional and personal experience with it, it doesn't "just work", and never has. It works well enough though, for what people generally do with it these days. Whether other operating systems would be better or worse in a business with real world users, I have no idea, having only ever worked in places that supported DOS and Windows on the desktop.
I think you protest too much the "Windows just works" mantra. If it works so well, how come you guys are so busy doing... err... support?;)
Come on - in reality, it works reasonably well, to a point. I've worked with windows since the 3.1 days. It was barely usable back then, but was still the de facto desktop standard in most businesses. These days, it's basically stable, familiar to most people, there's a trained workforce of people with support skills, and a vast array of third party software and hardware designed to work with it.
When it goes wrong, you are still frequently left scratching your head. Complete re-installs are often a solution to a problem when Windows goes bad. Windows software frequently assumes it will have too much privilege, and misbehaves in more locked down environments. The domain model and active directory still throw up bizarre issues that are almost impossible to diagnose. Entire business models revolve around paid subscriptions for trained support staff to access the wisdom of gurus who know the secret lore on naming and vanquishing these arcane monsters.
You are really just saying that your whole setup is designed to work with a Windows environment. I do completely sympathise with having to support the "user who wants to be different" though - it is a real pain for everyone - been there on both sides:)
I'm also sick and tired of hearing people endlessly talking about humans causing global warming. Just because the majority of scientists around the world think so doesn't make it right. And one side of the US political spectrum want to raise taxes to save the goddamn planet. That immediately makes all the science suspect, right there.
The statistically significant proportion of honest scientists who disagree with human causes of global warming definitely exist - must do, because I keep hearing about them on here, but somehow, we never get to hear their names, or how big a minority they are, or see links to their research. Now that's censorship on a global scale! Beyond even the power of the US president to correct this deeply unfair imbalance.
So glad to hear there's still some free thinkers out there who don't need any messy evidence to back up their deeply held convictions.
It's so obvious really. All the scientists around the world have collectively decided to suppress the truth about the world by advancing a secret common political agenda. Because they're so intelligent and amazingly well organised, this is why no emails, documents, phone conversations, or other evidence of this vast global conspiracy has come to light. Maybe Bush should employ the US ones in his intelligence service instead.
What is it with this "liberal" insult I hear from Americans? Liberal seems to have a particularly insulting meaning in the US - the rest of us just don't understand what the hell you're going on about. What does it mean?
Liberal science!!! Yeah - non-US "liberals" across the planet are busily devouring only science that comes with this "US liberal" stamp.... not! You guys need to get your heads out of your rear-ends long enough to realise that the you are a tiny proportion of the planet's people, who largely don't give a shit about your retarded politics, except it happens to affect us a bit more than we'd like it to.
Deeply ironic on a discussion thread about the politicisation of science.
As far as the question of jurisdiction goes, the DPA 1998 says:
5. - (1) Except as otherwise provided by or under section 54, this Act applies to a data controller in respect of any data only if-
(a) the data controller is established in the United Kingdom and the data are processed in the context of that establishment, or
(b) the data controller is established neither in the United Kingdom nor in any other EEA State but uses equipment in the United Kingdom for processing the data otherwise than for the purposes of transit through the United Kingdom.
(2) A data controller falling within subsection (1)(b) must nominate for the purposes of this Act a representative established in the United Kingdom.
(3) For the purposes of subsections (1) and (2), each of the following is to be treated as established in the United Kingdom-
(a) an individual who is ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom,
(b) a body incorporated under the law of, or of any part of, the United Kingdom,
(c) a partnership or other unincorporated association formed under the law of any part of the United Kingdom, and
(d) any person who does not fall within paragraph (a), (b) or (c) but maintains in the United Kingdom-
(i) an office, branch or agency through which he carries on any activity, or
(ii) a regular practice;
and the reference to establishment in any other EEA State has a corresponding meaning
So basically, if you operate in the UK, or have some kind of link to it in relation to your data processing activities, it's covered. The exemption to transit of data through the UK is to allow the UK to route internet data without having to apply the DPA to every packet!
Very true that people using the site wouldn't be from the UK, and I guess more importantly, the site itself and the organisation isn't in the UK either, so that blows a rather big hole in my DPA argument:) It wouldn't - and couldn't - apply in this case.
If they were UK based though, I don't think your rewording would help - the purpose of collecting the information must be made explicit - just "shared with the MPAA" wouldn't be enough. If they stated it was for the purpose of detecting copyright infringement, then I guess they could use the data for that purpose.
In the UK, copyright infringment isn't a crime (yet). It's a civil offence.
Ummm... no, you're thinking of the British Library. Very roughly, libraries deal with published material. Archives deal with unique material. The National Archives contains the unique records of the UK central government and law courts. Very little private material, although there are occasional "gift" deposits.
Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realise you were talking about theoretical VMs, not real world ones. Unless you know some real world VMs that are undetectable? I don't know of any myself.
In the UK at le4ast, the Data Protection Act would prevent this information for being used for purposes other than the stated purpose, and for the information to be kept no longer than required to fulfil the stated purpose. If the purpose is to measure popularity, that is all it could be used for. If there is no need to retain information on individual accounts to measure popularity of material, then they could not retain this information either, or even send personally identifying information with it.
So in your example, using this system to catch potential infringers would be illegal under the Data Protection Act, even if it didn't violate the Computer Misuse Act.
Discussing US politics on here always seems to descend into a juvenile partisan slagging match. Calling all free thinkers who actually want to debate the real issues!
I guess it will matter to organisms on other worlds if we spread out and encounter them. But the same argument applies to them too. Here we are - the only known organisms capable of taking that responsibility, however poorly. To say that other organisms might do a better job... well, they might, or they might not, if they exist, or are capable of doing the same. But we're here! It seems like a really defeatist position to argue otherwise.
Your comment about "Wal-Mars" suggests that you see our current culture as pretty banal and pointless. You might be right about that - but things do change you know. Even if it takes another million years and an evolution into some better kind of creature to achieve it. I'm amazed that an entirely lifeless universe bothers you not one whit. So it's not only human life and culture that upsets you - you just don't see any point to anything at all?
Why is it so important we survive as a species? Good question. Clearly, we all die anyway, and there's no particular reason why I should care whether other beings live after me. But I do care. As far as we can see, there is no other life in the universe outside of this small planet, let alone intelligent life. The idea of a barren, lifeless universe repels me. That may be a pretty poor reason, but there it is.
I do not accept your premise that because we are not very nice, we should just give up on the idea of preserving life beyond this small earth. You seem to be saying that until we "grow up" in some way, we aren't fit to leave this planet and spread our awfulness elsewhere. But the universe seems pretty inimical to life as it is; what does it matter if the human "parasite" spreads elsewhere? Is that not better than a lifeless universe?
Slashdot Mirror
Very good point. Passenger privacy can clearly be violated by this system.
Given the recent illegal surveillance activities of your current administration, I would be concerned about paying for a taxi ride with a credit card in NYC.
Of course, it makes no real difference to me, as I have no intention of visiting the US again until you remember why freedom and democracy were worth fighting for in the first place.
I can't see any terms about "MS-LPL version X or later" there, but maybe I missed something. So assuming lots of developers participate in an open source project using the MS-LPL, and Microsoft ever release an operating system that isn't Windows, all that code would be useless going forward.
Security != Encryption
No. Racism is irrational hatred of others based on fear of difference.
Clearly, different groups of humans have evolved in separate ways over time, even though we're all still a single human species (so far). Some groups may be superior in some ways, and inferior in others, although that's always a value judgment. For example, some people are genetically more susceptible to sickle-cell anemia, but this also protects them against malaria. Is this an inferior, or superior trait? Depends on what question you are asking.
The idea that evolution progresses towards "better" or "superior" organisms is false. Evolution doesn't care. Organisms simply adapt to their circumstances. Even if a group of humans was genetically better at mathematics, better at long distance running, could hold their breath longer, didn't choke as easily, could give birth with less complications, was less susceptible to certain diseases, tended to live longer... so what? We are all intelligent beings, deserving of respect.
You seem to be a bit confused about what evolution and the fossil record tell us. Evolution is not a theory about how life got started - it's about how it changes over time. The comet idea is a theory about the origin of life, not the evolution of it.
As far as your chicken example goes, no-one believes evolution works that way. If a chicken suddenly gave birth to a chick that's a completely new species, what would it breed with to perpetuate the new species? (hint: the definition of species is largely a human construct, but it generally means that creatures of different species cannot inter-breed). The idea is more that species can be stable for a long time, but occasionally, changes happen quickly, in geological time-frames, anyway. For individuals of the species, there must always be a breeding stock that can interbreed, or it would die out! Surely that's just obvious? But, a small group of individuals might diverge from the main stock (perhaps isolated geographically) in relatively short periods of time. Oh, and the fossil record often does turn up intermediate species - but fossils are rare, so the evidence is hard to work with.
Scientists sometimes make big claims (they are only human!), but then (and this is the crucial bit) - they have to back it up with evidence. As time goes on, some established theories shift, as new evidence and thinking comes to light. The changing of stories isn't evidence that scientists are disreputable - it's evidence that they are reputable. The ultimate arbiter of truth is always reality, not dogma, after all.
As camperdave has already pointed out, no, it couldn't defeat random checks too. They're random, so the check can happen to anyone. This means there's nothing an attacker can do to improve their chances of not being stopped, although there's obviously no guarantee they will be stopped either.
But that's not to say profiling is useless - some is probably useful if you have highly trained and experienced people - but not to the point where an adversary can reliably increase their chances of gaming the system.
Not necessarily. Random checking prevents anyone knowing quite who is going to be stopped. If you introduce a lot of profiling, all the terrorists have to do is send lots of people through the system until they find the ones who aren't picked up by the profiling. Then they use those people.
Errr... no. I'm not religious, but I do know my history. The Dark Ages were caused by the *fall* of the Roman Empire. Which was Christian.
Well, that's simple, but no "excuses" are required by anyone as far as I can see. There were always enthusiasts who liked to say how great it was, while shooting down "noobs" (I take it you were trying to bait one of them?), but IMHO, Linux was only approaching readiness for the wider market 3-4 years ago, and finding people who knew the system was hard.
Now it's pretty damn good, with a much broader userbase. As a system, it's better than windows in some respects and worse in others, but definitely comparable. It wasn't 4 years ago.
I don't disagree with anything you say - I've worked in support myself! Your comments about putting an image back on the desktop to quickly fix problems is spot on. It usually does take less time than finding out what the problem was - I've used the same technique, much as my inner geek wanted to spend the time to figure out the problem.
For myself, I have found that linux is easier to fix and tinker with for someone with a modicum of technical knowledge and the luxury of time to do it. The error reporting and documentation seems to be generally better, IMHO. I only changed from XP to linux a year or two ago at home, having been a firm Windows user prior to that. But my reply wasn't about whether other O/Ss would be better than Windows, just on whether Windows "just works" or not.
I was really only saying that Windows is no panacea, without wishing to sound like a raving anti-MS zealout. In my professional and personal experience with it, it doesn't "just work", and never has. It works well enough though, for what people generally do with it these days. Whether other operating systems would be better or worse in a business with real world users, I have no idea, having only ever worked in places that supported DOS and Windows on the desktop.
I think you protest too much the "Windows just works" mantra. If it works so well, how come you guys are so busy doing... err... support? ;)
:)
Come on - in reality, it works reasonably well, to a point. I've worked with windows since the 3.1 days. It was barely usable back then, but was still the de facto desktop standard in most businesses. These days, it's basically stable, familiar to most people, there's a trained workforce of people with support skills, and a vast array of third party software and hardware designed to work with it.
When it goes wrong, you are still frequently left scratching your head. Complete re-installs are often a solution to a problem when Windows goes bad. Windows software frequently assumes it will have too much privilege, and misbehaves in more locked down environments. The domain model and active directory still throw up bizarre issues that are almost impossible to diagnose. Entire business models revolve around paid subscriptions for trained support staff to access the wisdom of gurus who know the secret lore on naming and vanquishing these arcane monsters.
You are really just saying that your whole setup is designed to work with a Windows environment. I do completely sympathise with having to support the "user who wants to be different" though - it is a real pain for everyone - been there on both sides
I'm also sick and tired of hearing people endlessly talking about humans causing global warming. Just because the majority of scientists around the world think so doesn't make it right. And one side of the US political spectrum want to raise taxes to save the goddamn planet. That immediately makes all the science suspect, right there.
The statistically significant proportion of honest scientists who disagree with human causes of global warming definitely exist - must do, because I keep hearing about them on here, but somehow, we never get to hear their names, or how big a minority they are, or see links to their research. Now that's censorship on a global scale! Beyond even the power of the US president to correct this deeply unfair imbalance.
So glad to hear there's still some free thinkers out there who don't need any messy evidence to back up their deeply held convictions.
It's so obvious really. All the scientists around the world have collectively decided to suppress the truth about the world by advancing a secret common political agenda. Because they're so intelligent and amazingly well organised, this is why no emails, documents, phone conversations, or other evidence of this vast global conspiracy has come to light. Maybe Bush should employ the US ones in his intelligence service instead.
I mean, what other explanation can there be?
What is it with this "liberal" insult I hear from Americans? Liberal seems to have a particularly insulting meaning in the US - the rest of us just don't understand what the hell you're going on about. What does it mean?
Liberal science!!! Yeah - non-US "liberals" across the planet are busily devouring only science that comes with this "US liberal" stamp.... not! You guys need to get your heads out of your rear-ends long enough to realise that the you are a tiny proportion of the planet's people, who largely don't give a shit about your retarded politics, except it happens to affect us a bit more than we'd like it to.
Deeply ironic on a discussion thread about the politicisation of science.
Sure, if we all wanted the same things, the world would be a much more efficient place. Boring, but efficient.
And you can catch quite a few subtle bugs by making software work in many different environments.
As far as the question of jurisdiction goes, the DPA 1998 says:
5. - (1) Except as otherwise provided by or under section 54, this Act applies to a data controller in respect of any data only if-
(a) the data controller is established in the United Kingdom and the data are processed in the context of that establishment, or
(b) the data controller is established neither in the United Kingdom nor in any other EEA State but uses equipment in the United Kingdom for processing the data otherwise than for the purposes of transit through the United Kingdom.
(2) A data controller falling within subsection (1)(b) must nominate for the purposes of this Act a representative established in the United Kingdom.
(3) For the purposes of subsections (1) and (2), each of the following is to be treated as established in the United Kingdom-
(a) an individual who is ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom,
(b) a body incorporated under the law of, or of any part of, the United Kingdom,
(c) a partnership or other unincorporated association formed under the law of any part of the United Kingdom, and
(d) any person who does not fall within paragraph (a), (b) or (c) but maintains in the United Kingdom-
(i) an office, branch or agency through which he carries on any activity, or
(ii) a regular practice;
and the reference to establishment in any other EEA State has a corresponding meaning
So basically, if you operate in the UK, or have some kind of link to it in relation to your data processing activities, it's covered. The exemption to transit of data through the UK is to allow the UK to route internet data without having to apply the DPA to every packet!
Very true that people using the site wouldn't be from the UK, and I guess more importantly, the site itself and the organisation isn't in the UK either, so that blows a rather big hole in my DPA argument :) It wouldn't - and couldn't - apply in this case.
If they were UK based though, I don't think your rewording would help - the purpose of collecting the information must be made explicit - just "shared with the MPAA" wouldn't be enough. If they stated it was for the purpose of detecting copyright infringement, then I guess they could use the data for that purpose.
In the UK, copyright infringment isn't a crime (yet). It's a civil offence.
Ummm... no, you're thinking of the British Library. Very roughly, libraries deal with published material. Archives deal with unique material. The National Archives contains the unique records of the UK central government and law courts. Very little private material, although there are occasional "gift" deposits.
Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realise you were talking about theoretical VMs, not real world ones. Unless you know some real world VMs that are undetectable? I don't know of any myself.
Errr... actually it's quite easy to detect if you're running in a VM...
http://www.codeproject.com/system/VmDetect.asp
In the UK at le4ast, the Data Protection Act would prevent this information for being used for purposes other than the stated purpose, and for the information to be kept no longer than required to fulfil the stated purpose. If the purpose is to measure popularity, that is all it could be used for. If there is no need to retain information on individual accounts to measure popularity of material, then they could not retain this information either, or even send personally identifying information with it.
So in your example, using this system to catch potential infringers would be illegal under the Data Protection Act, even if it didn't violate the Computer Misuse Act.
No - birthday paradox refers to the chance of any two people sharing *a* birthday. Not the chance of two people sharing a specific birthday.
Wish I had mod points. +5 Sensible.
Discussing US politics on here always seems to descend into a juvenile partisan slagging match. Calling all free thinkers who actually want to debate the real issues!
I guess it will matter to organisms on other worlds if we spread out and encounter them. But the same argument applies to them too. Here we are - the only known organisms capable of taking that responsibility, however poorly. To say that other organisms might do a better job... well, they might, or they might not, if they exist, or are capable of doing the same. But we're here! It seems like a really defeatist position to argue otherwise.
Your comment about "Wal-Mars" suggests that you see our current culture as pretty banal and pointless. You might be right about that - but things do change you know. Even if it takes another million years and an evolution into some better kind of creature to achieve it. I'm amazed that an entirely lifeless universe bothers you not one whit. So it's not only human life and culture that upsets you - you just don't see any point to anything at all?
Why is it so important we survive as a species? Good question. Clearly, we all die anyway, and there's no particular reason why I should care whether other beings live after me. But I do care. As far as we can see, there is no other life in the universe outside of this small planet, let alone intelligent life. The idea of a barren, lifeless universe repels me. That may be a pretty poor reason, but there it is.
I do not accept your premise that because we are not very nice, we should just give up on the idea of preserving life beyond this small earth. You seem to be saying that until we "grow up" in some way, we aren't fit to leave this planet and spread our awfulness elsewhere. But the universe seems pretty inimical to life as it is; what does it matter if the human "parasite" spreads elsewhere? Is that not better than a lifeless universe?