The RIAA's anti-swap activities are breeding a smarter and more resourceful brand of file-sharing software faster than venerial diseases adapt to antibiotics.
Funny, but I almost instinctively want to swap that metaphor around the other way. Must have been hanging around on/. too long.
Perhaps this is another case of technology making another business model obsolete.
Afterall, if this is public information in the database (and if it weren't then it would not be sellable to the public), then that information is out there. Now, the technology is ready and the infrastructure is rapidly becoming ready - how long before we just ask our computer to compile the data as needed.
A clever software agent could do the work for us.
Nobody would 'own' the data or the database, but some companies might run a compilation service. That is similar to the model we're talking about but not the same: would a rival compilation company go to another to get the data they wanted? Well they might if they were selling for more than the other company, but that's called sub-contracting.
Actually, there is a means of maintaining integrity on an open network. It's called Reputations. Basically, the peer computers are voting on
a node's reliability/trustworthiness. It's one of those fuzzy techniques that isn't guarenteed but can work in practice. Yes, the RIAA could
introduce corrupt nodes but the larger the network the harder it is to sway.
A society that works because the elements within that society choose to contribute, works a lot more efficiently that a society composed of people forced to contribute. The latter is like a man trying to run by pushing his legs with his arms.
Or in on-topic terms, lower prices, persuade people to support the bands they like in order to get more music they like, offer other incentives to buy legit and be content.
The really significant thing about Open Source is that it puts the power back in your hands. A government can mandate (use coercian) that a private company should include if(legal==false){call(RIAA);} but with open source then anyone can modify that code.
The four ways in which this can be stopped are:
1. Restrictions on knowledge (e.g. do you have a licence to study C++)
2. Restrictions on tools (do you have a licence for gcc)
3. Threats of extreme force (mandatory eight years in prison for uploading copyright material etc.)
4. Restricting Open Source software. This last one depends on the first three again.
I'm addressing an audience of programmers and engineers so I'll skip explaining what's wrong with each of these tactics; except to comment that anyone of these can work in a closed society, but it cripples a nation with competitors. Also on number 3, have you ever noticed that the
crimes with the harshest punishments are not neccessarily those that do the most harm but those that show defiance of the government's authority?
Altogether now - download "Take the Power Back," by RatM!
A squid stole my spaceship.
on
Mind Over Machine
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
What this really opens up is the possibility of training animals to operate machinery. Imagine taking an aquatic animal (such as a dolphin) and using it (or its brain) as the central component in a spaceship autopilot.
By stimulating various parts of the brain (including pleasure centres), one could train it to respond to your input in the way you want - it already has the hardware to deal with three dimensional maneuvering, timing and calculating trajectories and intercepts.
This was used in a novel called Space, in which GM Squid controlled a space probe. In the novel, the squid became smart enough to do a runner with it.I would look up the author's name for you all, but try typing "Science Fiction" and "Space" into Google and see what happens;)
One can speculate that that we've already connected about 6^9 elements in the form of Earth's population. Just like the neurons, each is connected to as much as 200 of others (no neuron is directly connected to all of others in the brain:-)
So if sentience is an emergent property of connecting a critical mass of evaluating units, does that make the internet a mind about to awake? Has it awoken? How would we tell - how can a neuron tell that the brain has thoughts except in how it is influenced by those it is connected to?
If an alien civilization / being came to visit it us, would it talk to a person, or would it talk to Google via posting websites?
Maybe I'm an alien civilization and this post is one letter in a word in a sentance of a message to humanity?
Have you thought about that, Earthlings? Have you? Eh?
Re: A Clockwork Orange?
on
Mind Over Machine
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
In it, a violent young man is subjected to a psychological process that renders him unable to commit violent acts. Undergoing it is one of the conditions for his release from prison.
One of the main questions posed by the book (or film) is whether someone who is forced to be good can be considered to be good or if they're the same person as before, just in an enternal prison. It's a disturbing idea when dwelled upon - what happened to progress, development and redemption?
Equally disturbing is the the side-effects of this operation on the character. Aside from accidentally conditioning him to despise the music of Beethoven which he'd formerly adored, there is a horrible scene where he is picked up by two of his former friends and almost killed now that he is incapable of defending himself.
I am sure that there are people who think such control over others would be wonderful. In fact, it would render people little more than robots living according to their masters' (the police/judge's) ideals of correct behaviour. At that point you might as well just kill the people.
I also can't help thinking of the main characters last words in the film of 'Clockwork Orange.'
"I was cured alright."
At that point, the audience's sympathies are with him.We've lived through the mind-altering experience ourselves and we want to be free.
Kung Fu Tze say: "To man with Hammer, Everything Look Like Nail."
You ask a USAF Major about Space and he sees 'higher ground.' I'm a mathematician and a programmer and you ask me about War - and I see inefficiency and wastefulness.
But to reply to your point in more specific terms, well there is the moral argument, but that wont convince everyone so I'll talk about the practical side of things.
Beyond a certain point, weapons technology no longer confers an advantage but merely mutual destruction. That point has now been reached with long-range nuclear missiles. Whatever the USAF press releases say, would you or they really have enough faith in a missile defence system to risk the lives of every person in the USA by launching an orbital strike against another country? And if not then just what is the point in having them?
Waepons technology has now reached a plateau. Mankind can no longer threaten itself with bigger and bigger guns until it finds away to protect itself against the existing firepower.
The world, to me, looks like a bunch of people armed to the teeth and all shouting at one another. If the biggest and most frightening of these people lowered his guns just a little or was quieter for a moment, do you really think that he would be mobbed by everyone else en masse? He's still a lot bigger than they are. Perhaps everyone would feel safer and listen more. Instead, everyone just keeps pulling out bigger and bigger guns. Sooner or later something will happen, unless everyone calms down.
This attitude of 'if we don't do it, someone else will,' can logically have only one outcome, and unless we (as a planet) abandon that attitude then we are finished.
Those whose careers depend on securing financing for ever more dangerous weapons development can no longer be allowed to guide those in power. If the US had simply ended sanctions on Iraq and put the money they spent on their last war into building schools in the Middle East, we would now have friendly, less suspicious and more educated trading partners out there, and I bet you Saddam Hussein would be tried in an Iraqi court in a couple of years. It would have had a fantastic effect on the US jobs market too.
I'm going waaaayyy off-topic here I know, but my point is that the pursuit of military supremacy is neither efficient nor safe, and it must stop soon for all our sakes.
Well, you have a point - if the USA achieves a total military supremacy then they can theoretically prevent any other nation from achieving parity.
However, in practice this seems unlikely to me - consider the following:
The same argument could have applied to nuclear weapons. These were first aquired by the US and gave them the power to annhialate any other power that attempted to build their own nuclear weapons. As we can see - this didn't happen. There are two factors here - the political will to exterminate a people who have done you know harm. Secondly, that it is inotolerable for the other nations to allow this situation to continue. They would defy any US threats and develop their own orbital weaponry, either individually or together. If Russia and China and India and Franco-Germany all declared they were launching orbital weapons to defend themselves, would the US really rain death and destruction on them all? They would not.
Please consider also, that no matter what the USAF sales team might pitch to congress when they're asking for money, they would have to be damned confident about any missile defence system's ability to withstand the nuclear response to any orbital attack on China/Russia/Europe.
Finally, this is likely academic because the US is not so far ahead in the Space Race anymore. By the time the US got their first weapon up there, someone else would have a weapon prototyped. And it would take more than one orbital weapon to make a complete weapons system. Do you really think that no-one else would have anything up there by that point? It might not be super-sophisticated, the US government might not even be sure it would work effectively - but who the Hell would take the chance.
Nope - I stand my original point - by taking this course, the US is making the world a more dangerous place for everyone.
Well, that's the problem - everyone will. China can do it, India can do it, Russia can do it, Europe can do it. Maybe others will in the future too. Consider that if the USA puts weapons up there then all these other powers will feel compelled to develop their own. And even those countries that don't have the launch capability might find a friend in the above groups who'll launch / sell the tech for or to them.
Now if the USA had honoured previous commitments to keep space non-militarised, then perhaps these other space-capable powers would decide not to put weapons up there for fear of provoking the USA into competition (which they would have trouble competing with). A wonderful opportunity is being missed here.
I avoid lying because I'm a stubborn bastard. I think of it like this - lying is an admission of weakness, of accepting lower status than the person your lying to. If you were their equal then why would you have to lie?
Consequently, having a staggeringly high-opinion of my status, I tell the truth!
If anything, I would think that these healthcare companies will be US-based with operations performed in India.
That's interesting... so for now the same commercial pressures exist for any 'medical tourists.' I bet that once the market develops further though, and perhaps providing this service to foreigners becomes more common in India, then local businesses will supplant the US ones, with US companies being limited to getting the customers. I don't see the US maintaining any grip except in the short term.
This might be good for US healthcare in the same way that Linux has been good for Windows (forcing an improved service), or it could be bad in the same way that Private Health Care in the UK is bad for the NHS (creating a two-tier system).
I only hope it doesn't encourage India's health care system to move towards a US model.
Speaking of costs and capitalism, there have been some nasty spats between India and US pharmaceuticals companies if I recall correctly. It's not difficult to recreate a drug - the only protection the US companies have is patent law. India baulked at the costs that were demanded, weighed up the choice of letting people die or violating copyright and (good for them) started knocking off the drugs themselves.
What I'm interested in here however is, should more spats happen, will this weaken the pressure that the pharmaceuticals companies apply to doctors. I know that in Britain, GPs (General Practioners) are routinely courted with hotel stays, fancy meals and any other way they can get around the UK's laws on these issues; and from what I've heard they have much greater sway in the US.
So are you less likely to be perscribed something you don't need in India? And if their healthcare is socialised, does that mean the doctor is more likely to have your interests at heart? It looks that way.
True - there will be ways of detecting these... but consider blending legitimate and illegitimate purposes. You know that you have a RFID in your computer, your watch or the medical-entitlement tattoo that tells the ambulance crew to treat you (hey - that's capitalism), but how do you confirm who accesses this information. It's only a number that the chip emits. Now how do you know that the RFID in your car that you use to allow the police to return it to you when nicked, is not also scanned by the FBI, the taxman and the insurance company for other monitoring purposes?
I can see that different users of RFID might pool resources for monitoring (share recievers and transmitters) just like mobile phone providers share network bandwidth.
My point is that its not the detecting of these numbers (IDs) that matters, but the access to the database that contains that number. Of course, you could just avoid carrying any RFID tags altogether, but unless you can persuade the rest of society to join you, you'll have problems.
I did work in a pit in yorkshire - just outside Hull. The working day consisted of getting up at 5:30am, setting off at 5:50 arriving at the charcoal pits about 6:30 - think of giant power station chimmneys, half-height with the tops blocked off. We'd get changed into our disposable overalls and face-mask, enter a bunker which was lit by giant and very very hot floodlights. A big truck would be backed-up against the doors and we'd start unloading it. This meant climb up, grab a sack of charcoal, carry it back into the bunker, split it with your knife and tip it out. Go back again. Split it, tip it, go back again. Split it, tip it, go back again, etc.
We did three bunkers a day, four hours a bunker. We'd take a break between each one - a fourteen hour day, not counting travel. We got 4 quid an hour.
You'd have a shower when you got back, but it'd take a hour to get properly clean, and even then you'd still cough up black stuff for the rest of the night. And my god, did your back ache!
And you try and tell someone how lucky they are to be working at a computer, and they just don't believe you!
What I really want to be able to do is to incorporate this signature into my own images. It could be
used to provide a modicum of image protection from the technophobes, or else to annoy people.
I found a few details on how it works here. I particularly like a comment from one guy about how it blocks scanning of $20 bills...
You need a book to learn Python?!??!!? My god, I'm an old C++ programmer, Python is like a gift from a god!
You just have to bang your head against the keyboard a couple of times and I bet you it compiles!;) Never used to be like that when I learnt to program.
You are right... but there's more to it.
on
The Future of NASA
·
· Score: 1
You are right in what you say - the US invading China or vice versa is not likely. As can be seen even though the red-and-white-stripe tinted spectacles of the Western media, the US cannot hold on to a country as impoverished as Iraq, let alone China. You can be sure the US has more limited plans for striking key targets in China but again, that's almost as unlikely.
What you have missed is the possibility of limited warfare. China has the fastest growing economy on Earth and will overtake the US sometime in the next twenty-thirty years (according to World Bank - I think sooner). Now one of the few ways that the US can slow China's industrial revolution is by limiting their oil (which China must import if it is to have the quantity it requires). That's one incentive for the US to take over the Middle East. Now this it is trying to do, but imagine a scenario where China was able to say to the Iraqi's (or Saudi's or Norway or whichever oil exporting country you pick) that they will offer military support. Then China's military might becomes important.
The existence of another big kid in the playground affects who the US can bully.
That's why it matters to the people behind Bush. The fear is neccessary to make it matter to the electorate who might otherwise question spending massive amounts of money on weapons at the cost of their healthcare, education, safety, environment, etc etc.
I wish you hadn't posted as an AC because I'd love you to get this reply.
Just to add to the above post really - Lucid Dreaming is perfectly possible and certainly doesn't require any outside aids.
Have a look at self-hypnosis as a means of achieving it, but really all you need to do is make your brain understand what you are trying to achieve. Keep telling yourself before you sleep that you will become aware that you are dreaming and that you will be able to introduce X into the dream. Repeat this for a week. It'll come.
So it's perfectly possible this works (if it does) through self-suggestion.
Now what's this obsession people here have with Natalie Portman?
Nah! You need to go back to your old testament or the Torah.
When Joshua and his mob were ransacking 'the Promised Land,' one tribe came to the Israelites and asked for peace. Well - Josh said fine, but they had to convert to his religion which meant having the snip. So for the sake of peace, all these fellahs went off and cut the bit off. Then when they were all wracked with pain the next day, the Israelites attacked and slaughtered them.
They did! It's in there - just don't ask me to give chapter and verse from memory.
There are probably people in Norway who believe things that would disgust you as well as me
Ja! Not imprisoning kids for fifteen years for cracking some silly protection system, having politicians who take home a reasonable salary and have no commercial interests and many other cultural idiosyncracies that may seem odd to a US citizen.;)
But seriously,intelligence depends on a willingness to think for oneself. It should be no surprise that it is these people who are least constrained by the arbitary beliefs of their culture.
Smart people have more in common with smart people wherever they are from than with the stupid people next door.
I mean, it's not rocket science, but that was some creative editing on your part to make it look ridiculously easy.
Fair comment, but I'm a C++ programmer, written device drivers that sort of thing, so I suppose it does look pretty silly to me but may not to others. What I was getting at really is that it's not clear to most people that it isn't secure. If a big company like Dell makes that mistake then I'm sure others will too.
By the way, I didn't intend my editing to be quite that creative - darn slashdot ate the rest of my comment as soon as it saw a HTML tag.
Slashdot Mirror
The RIAA's anti-swap activities are breeding a smarter and more resourceful brand of file-sharing software faster than venerial diseases adapt to antibiotics.
/. too long.
Funny, but I almost instinctively want to swap that metaphor around the other way. Must have been hanging around on
Perhaps this is another case of technology making another business model obsolete.
Afterall, if this is public information in the database (and if it weren't then it would not be sellable to the public), then that information is out there. Now, the technology is ready and the infrastructure is rapidly becoming ready - how long before we just ask our computer to compile the data as needed.
A clever software agent could do the work for us.
Nobody would 'own' the data or the database, but some companies might run a compilation service. That is similar to the model we're talking about but not the same: would a rival compilation company go to another to get the data they wanted? Well they might if they were selling for more than the other company, but that's called sub-contracting.
Actually, there is a means of maintaining integrity on an open network. It's called Reputations. Basically, the peer computers are voting on a node's reliability/trustworthiness. It's one of those fuzzy techniques that isn't guarenteed but can work in practice. Yes, the RIAA could introduce corrupt nodes but the larger the network the harder it is to sway.
A society that works because the elements within that society choose to contribute, works a lot more efficiently that a society composed of people forced to contribute. The latter is like a man trying to run by pushing his legs with his arms.
Or in on-topic terms, lower prices, persuade people to support the bands they like in order to get more music they like, offer other incentives to buy legit and be content.
The really significant thing about Open Source is that it puts the power back in your hands. A government can mandate (use coercian) that a private company should include if(legal==false){call(RIAA);} but with open source then anyone can modify that code.
The four ways in which this can be stopped are:
1. Restrictions on knowledge (e.g. do you have a licence to study C++)
2. Restrictions on tools (do you have a licence for gcc)
3. Threats of extreme force (mandatory eight years in prison for uploading copyright material etc.)
4. Restricting Open Source software. This last one depends on the first three again.
I'm addressing an audience of programmers and engineers so I'll skip explaining what's wrong with each of these tactics; except to comment that anyone of these can work in a closed society, but it cripples a nation with competitors. Also on number 3, have you ever noticed that the crimes with the harshest punishments are not neccessarily those that do the most harm but those that show defiance of the government's authority?
Altogether now - download "Take the Power Back," by RatM!
What this really opens up is the possibility of training animals to operate machinery. Imagine taking an aquatic animal (such as a dolphin) and using it (or its brain) as the central component in a spaceship autopilot.
By stimulating various parts of the brain (including pleasure centres), one could train it to respond to your input in the way you want - it already has the hardware to deal with three dimensional maneuvering, timing and calculating trajectories and intercepts.
This was used in a novel called Space, in which GM Squid controlled a space probe. In the novel, the squid became smart enough to do a runner with it.I would look up the author's name for you all, but try typing "Science Fiction" and "Space" into Google and see what happens
One can speculate that that we've already connected about 6^9 elements in the form of Earth's population. Just like the neurons, each is connected to as much as 200 of others (no neuron is directly connected to all of others in the brain :-)
So if sentience is an emergent property of connecting a critical mass of evaluating units, does that make the internet a mind about to awake? Has it awoken? How would we tell - how can a neuron tell that the brain has thoughts except in how it is influenced by those it is connected to?
If an alien civilization / being came to visit it us, would it talk to a person, or would it talk to Google via posting websites?
Maybe I'm an alien civilization and this post is one letter in a word in a sentance of a message to humanity?
Have you thought about that, Earthlings? Have you? Eh?
This was the main theme of A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess.
In it, a violent young man is subjected to a psychological process that renders him unable to commit violent acts. Undergoing it is one of the conditions for his release from prison.
One of the main questions posed by the book (or film) is whether someone who is forced to be good can be considered to be good or if they're the same person as before, just in an enternal prison. It's a disturbing idea when dwelled upon - what happened to progress, development and redemption?
Equally disturbing is the the side-effects of this operation on the character. Aside from accidentally conditioning him to despise the music of Beethoven which he'd formerly adored, there is a horrible scene where he is picked up by two of his former friends and almost killed now that he is incapable of defending himself.
I am sure that there are people who think such control over others would be wonderful. In fact, it would render people little more than robots living according to their masters' (the police/judge's) ideals of correct behaviour. At that point you might as well just kill the people.
I also can't help thinking of the main characters last words in the film of 'Clockwork Orange.'
"I was cured alright."
At that point, the audience's sympathies are with him.We've lived through the mind-altering experience ourselves and we want to be free.
Kung Fu Tze say: "To man with Hammer, Everything Look Like Nail."
You ask a USAF Major about Space and he sees 'higher ground.' I'm a mathematician and a programmer and you ask me about War - and I see inefficiency and wastefulness.
But to reply to your point in more specific terms, well there is the moral argument, but that wont convince everyone so I'll talk about the practical side of things.
Beyond a certain point, weapons technology no longer confers an advantage but merely mutual destruction. That point has now been reached with long-range nuclear missiles. Whatever the USAF press releases say, would you or they really have enough faith in a missile defence system to risk the lives of every person in the USA by launching an orbital strike against another country? And if not then just what is the point in having them?
Waepons technology has now reached a plateau. Mankind can no longer threaten itself with bigger and bigger guns until it finds away to protect itself against the existing firepower.
The world, to me, looks like a bunch of people armed to the teeth and all shouting at one another. If the biggest and most frightening of these people lowered his guns just a little or was quieter for a moment, do you really think that he would be mobbed by everyone else en masse? He's still a lot bigger than they are. Perhaps everyone would feel safer and listen more. Instead, everyone just keeps pulling out bigger and bigger guns. Sooner or later something will happen, unless everyone calms down.
This attitude of 'if we don't do it, someone else will,' can logically have only one outcome, and unless we (as a planet) abandon that attitude then we are finished.
Those whose careers depend on securing financing for ever more dangerous weapons development can no longer be allowed to guide those in power. If the US had simply ended sanctions on Iraq and put the money they spent on their last war into building schools in the Middle East, we would now have friendly, less suspicious and more educated trading partners out there, and I bet you Saddam Hussein would be tried in an Iraqi court in a couple of years. It would have had a fantastic effect on the US jobs market too.
I'm going waaaayyy off-topic here I know, but my point is that the pursuit of military supremacy is neither efficient nor safe, and it must stop soon for all our sakes.
Well, you have a point - if the USA achieves a total military supremacy then they can theoretically prevent any other nation from achieving parity.
However, in practice this seems unlikely to me - consider the following:
The same argument could have applied to nuclear weapons. These were first aquired by the US and gave them the power to annhialate any other power that attempted to build their own nuclear weapons. As we can see - this didn't happen. There are two factors here - the political will to exterminate a people who have done you know harm. Secondly, that it is inotolerable for the other nations to allow this situation to continue. They would defy any US threats and develop their own orbital weaponry, either individually or together. If Russia and China and India and Franco-Germany all declared they were launching orbital weapons to defend themselves, would the US really rain death and destruction on them all? They would not.
Please consider also, that no matter what the USAF sales team might pitch to congress when they're asking for money, they would have to be damned confident about any missile defence system's ability to withstand the nuclear response to any orbital attack on China/Russia/Europe.
Finally, this is likely academic because the US is not so far ahead in the Space Race anymore. By the time the US got their first weapon up there, someone else would have a weapon prototyped. And it would take more than one orbital weapon to make a complete weapons system. Do you really think that no-one else would have anything up there by that point? It might not be super-sophisticated, the US government might not even be sure it would work effectively - but who the Hell would take the chance.
Nope - I stand my original point - by taking this course, the US is making the world a more dangerous place for everyone.
Don't like it? Go get your own military for once.
Well, that's the problem - everyone will. China can do it, India can do it, Russia can do it, Europe can do it. Maybe others will in the future too. Consider that if the USA puts weapons up there then all these other powers will feel compelled to develop their own. And even those countries that don't have the launch capability might find a friend in the above groups who'll launch / sell the tech for or to them.
Now if the USA had honoured previous commitments to keep space non-militarised, then perhaps these other space-capable powers would decide not to put weapons up there for fear of provoking the USA into competition (which they would have trouble competing with). A wonderful opportunity is being missed here.
I avoid lying because I'm a stubborn bastard. I think of it like this - lying is an admission of weakness, of accepting lower status than the person your lying to. If you were their equal then why would you have to lie?
Consequently, having a staggeringly high-opinion of my status, I tell the truth!
If anything, I would think that these healthcare companies will be US-based with operations performed in India.
That's interesting... so for now the same commercial pressures exist for any 'medical tourists.' I bet that once the market develops further though, and perhaps providing this service to foreigners becomes more common in India, then local businesses will supplant the US ones, with US companies being limited to getting the customers. I don't see the US maintaining any grip except in the short term.
This might be good for US healthcare in the same way that Linux has been good for Windows (forcing an improved service), or it could be bad in the same way that Private Health Care in the UK is bad for the NHS (creating a two-tier system).
I only hope it doesn't encourage India's health care system to move towards a US model.
Speaking of costs and capitalism, there have been some nasty spats between India and US pharmaceuticals companies if I recall correctly. It's not difficult to recreate a drug - the only protection the US companies have is patent law. India baulked at the costs that were demanded, weighed up the choice of letting people die or violating copyright and (good for them) started knocking off the drugs themselves.
What I'm interested in here however is, should more spats happen, will this weaken the pressure that the pharmaceuticals companies apply to doctors. I know that in Britain, GPs (General Practioners) are routinely courted with hotel stays, fancy meals and any other way they can get around the UK's laws on these issues; and from what I've heard they have much greater sway in the US.
So are you less likely to be perscribed something you don't need in India? And if their healthcare is socialised, does that mean the doctor is more likely to have your interests at heart? It looks that way.
True - there will be ways of detecting these... but consider blending legitimate and illegitimate purposes. You know that you have a RFID in your computer, your watch or the medical-entitlement tattoo that tells the ambulance crew to treat you (hey - that's capitalism), but how do you confirm who accesses this information. It's only a number that the chip emits. Now how do you know that the RFID in your car that you use to allow the police to return it to you when nicked, is not also scanned by the FBI, the taxman and the insurance company for other monitoring purposes?
I can see that different users of RFID might pool resources for monitoring (share recievers and transmitters) just like mobile phone providers share network bandwidth.
My point is that its not the detecting of these numbers (IDs) that matters, but the access to the database that contains that number. Of course, you could just avoid carrying any RFID tags altogether, but unless you can persuade the rest of society to join you, you'll have problems.
'Cause they paid us to.
Oh hang on, I see what you mean... I have no idea. Makes it even better doesn't it?
No - were unloading the bloody stuff - 60 foot lorry loads of it.
We're talking sacks of the standard 2-3 foot size - thousands of them.
Even Visual Basic was better!
You Python-quoting bastards!
I did work in a pit in yorkshire - just outside Hull. The working day consisted of getting up at 5:30am, setting off at 5:50 arriving at the charcoal pits about 6:30 - think of giant power station chimmneys, half-height with the tops blocked off. We'd get changed into our disposable overalls and face-mask, enter a bunker which was lit by giant and very very hot floodlights. A big truck would be backed-up against the doors and we'd start unloading it. This meant climb up, grab a sack of charcoal, carry it back into the bunker, split it with your knife and tip it out. Go back again. Split it, tip it, go back again. Split it, tip it, go back again, etc. We did three bunkers a day, four hours a bunker. We'd take a break between each one - a fourteen hour day, not counting travel. We got 4 quid an hour.
You'd have a shower when you got back, but it'd take a hour to get properly clean, and even then you'd still cough up black stuff for the rest of the night. And my god, did your back ache!
And you try and tell someone how lucky they are to be working at a computer, and they just don't believe you!
What I really want to be able to do is to incorporate this signature into my own images. It could be used to provide a modicum of image protection from the technophobes, or else to annoy people. I found a few details on how it works here. I particularly like a comment from one guy about how it blocks scanning of $20 bills...
:D
"You can still scan a $10 bill twice."
You need a book to learn Python?!??!!? My god, I'm an old C++ programmer, Python is like a gift from a god!
You just have to bang your head against the keyboard a couple of times and I bet you it compiles!
You are right in what you say - the US invading China or vice versa is not likely. As can
be seen even though the red-and-white-stripe tinted spectacles of the Western media, the US cannot hold on to a country as impoverished as Iraq, let alone China. You can be sure the US has more limited plans for striking key targets in China but again, that's almost as
unlikely.
What you have missed is the possibility of limited warfare. China has the fastest growing
economy on Earth and will overtake the US sometime in the next twenty-thirty years (according to World Bank - I think sooner). Now one of the few ways that the US can slow China's
industrial revolution is by limiting their oil (which China must import if it is to have the quantity it requires). That's one incentive for the US to take over the Middle East. Now this it is trying to do, but imagine a scenario where China was able to say to the Iraqi's (or Saudi's or Norway or whichever oil exporting country you pick) that they will offer military support. Then China's military might becomes important.
The existence of another big kid in the playground affects who the US can bully.
That's why it matters to the people behind Bush. The fear is neccessary to make it matter
to the electorate who might otherwise question spending massive amounts of money on weapons at the cost of their healthcare, education, safety, environment, etc etc.
I wish you hadn't posted as an AC because I'd love you to get this reply.
Oh well.
Wouldn't it be funny if you'd posted that and ,forgot to tick 'Post Anonymously'?
8)
Just to add to the above post really - Lucid Dreaming is perfectly possible and certainly doesn't require any outside aids.
Have a look at self-hypnosis as a means of achieving it, but really all you need to do is make your brain understand what you are trying to achieve. Keep telling yourself before you sleep that you will become aware that you are dreaming and that you will be able to introduce X into the dream. Repeat this for a week. It'll come.
So it's perfectly possible this works (if it does) through self-suggestion.
Now what's this obsession people here have with Natalie Portman?
Nah! You need to go back to your old testament or the Torah.
When Joshua and his mob were ransacking 'the Promised Land,' one tribe came to the Israelites and asked for peace. Well - Josh said fine, but they had to convert to his religion which meant having the snip. So for the sake of peace, all these fellahs went off and cut the bit off. Then when they were all wracked with pain the next day, the Israelites attacked and slaughtered them.
They did! It's in there - just don't ask me to give chapter and verse from memory.
There are probably people in Norway who believe things that would disgust you as well as me
;)
Ja! Not imprisoning kids for fifteen years for cracking some silly protection system, having politicians who take home a reasonable salary and have no commercial interests and many other cultural idiosyncracies that may seem odd to a US citizen.
But seriously,intelligence depends on a willingness to think for oneself. It should be no surprise that it is these people who are least constrained by the arbitary beliefs of their culture.
Smart people have more in common with smart people wherever they are from than with the stupid people next door.
I mean, it's not rocket science, but that was some creative editing on your part to make it look ridiculously easy.
Fair comment, but I'm a C++ programmer, written device drivers that sort of thing, so I suppose it does look pretty silly to me but may not to others. What I was getting at really is that it's not clear to most people that it isn't secure. If a big company like Dell makes that mistake then I'm sure others will too.
By the way, I didn't intend my editing to be quite that creative - darn slashdot ate the rest of my comment as soon as it saw a HTML tag.