We will more than happily place our predator drones in our airspace, our cameras in easements (that we place for public access), and our microphones on our telephone poles. Please ignore our helicopters, telescopes, and binoculars. We are just... bird watching. Oh, and that cable van that's been parked on the roadside for the last week? Your neighbors 4 miles away are having an outage that we're working on.
Who modded this insiteful?
You're absolutely RIGHT! We should create a program - let's call it a scanner - that checks for this stuff. Then let's invent a program that doesn't allow outbound or inbound connections to the device without our approval. Then let's write a special tool that can remove them if they get on the device. Then lets........
Anyone, and I mean ANYONE, who thinks this isn't an issue is insane. These devices are one step away from a computer, and people seem to think they're magically secure. Probably the same folks who brag about OSX never having a virus....
Is is unfortunate that people use articles like this to try to prove some political point (i.e. Republicans are evil).
Instead, perhaps we would be better focussing on how nations cannot protect themselves without an organization like this. The CIA, FBI, and NSA are not tied to one president. All the presidents have used them to do distasteful things. That is the point of the secrecy. It allows these organizations to do things that need doing: to make hard lose-lose decisions in the best interest of the country.
If it were not for the secrecy, we'd have more politically hand-tied organizations that had to bow down before political pressure and popular opinion. Let's face it - popular opinion isn't about the right decision or what's best for the country.
I think these documents are interesting part of history that we can use to understand how the government is functioning behind the scenes. Some people will use this to wave around how secrecy can foster abuse, but the simple fact is that we need departments and organizations like this to survive in the world.
I've always looked up to the Space Program. Putting people and satellites into orbit or on the moon is incredible. That's it. Incredible. The scope of what they do and the success with which they do it is nothing short of phenomenal. To top if off, it's something that we have undeniably been the best at. No ifs, ands, or buts, we are quite simply the best at it.
Now the politicians have decided it's no longer a priority. Toss it on the midden heap and watch us get passed by. Not just by the Russians (who were never ALL that far behind us), but by the ESA, the Japanese, and any other country who has leaders that have a sense of adventure and a sense of the long term benefits all the research involved produces.
This is a sad day.
I'm not sure who modded you +1 interesting, but it should have been -1 troll. Wait till you live in a local that doesn't offer broadband. Or you don't have the money to pay for all those price "on demand" movies when you want to watch a movie that you've already watched.
Your basic assumption seems to be that since it doesn't affect you at this second in time, you don't care about it.
That's a pretty shortsighted viewpoint to take - and one that's going to see your rights taken away in a hurry.
I tend to think of this an American problem. An excellent analogy can be made, for instance, between American and Japanese technology.
American companies concentrate on hitting "home runs". This is exciting, wins you the occasional game, and makes "superstars". Japanese companies concentrate on "singles". They concentrate on the long-term game plan, and make numerous small improvements to their technology.
We see history the same way. How many people know who hit the most home runs in baseball, versus who has the highest all-time batting average? How many people know who developed the atomic bomb, versus who developed the first machine gun?
We are very much a glitz and glamour, or "home run" society.
You are more right then you know.
What usually is true is cases like this is that the people splitting the money are so far removed from the people who need it that they don't know what is going on. Yes, there's an ad-campaign going on, but that's a different budget, through a difference approval chain, etc etc.
I deal with finance people on a daily basis and it's a nightmare. The last things on their mind is allowing is allowing the money to be used for useful purposes. Indeed, the system is set up to prevent the money from being spent easily.
Also, money isn't just "money". It's either capitalized money or non-capitalized, which means that it has to be spent on items that can be depreciated (like a satellite) or items that can't (like advertising).
The best part is that if you don't spend all your "money" for that year - you get in trouble. They go back and decide that because you didn't spend it (regardless of why) you had to much to begin with and they reduce your funding for next year.
On top of THAT, you have to go through "Approved" suppliers that have agreements to provide certain commodities, and those suppliers are generally pricing things 20% above their price at a place like, say, Amazon.com.
I feel his pain - but as you said, he needs to stop pissing off people to keep his job. To top it off, he's likely pissing off people who don't control the purse strings.
Your argument isn't exactly persuasive. We don't understand global climate either, but our best estimates suggest that we might be polluting more than we should.
Should we simply ignore all best-guesses and estimates and wait until we have 100% rock solid proof, at which point it might very well be too late to do anything at all?
Excellent argument.
Also, I'm curious how this would fall under the 5th amendment. I'm having trouble thinking of some type of legal analogy. The information exists, however it is not available to law enforcement in its current form. So they try to force the defendant to give it to them, thus incriminating themselves?
It would seem to me that a good argument could be made that if the authorities want it, they should have to create a warrant and go get it themselves.
This is how Microsoft has always done business. From Internet Explorer to Media Player on down the list, bundling the software or having it as a "default" is a very very powerful tool.
For instance, most companies lock down their computers. I can't even install quick time on ours - which means that unless it works with windows media, I don't visit the website. Many websites know that - so they don't use Quicktime formats. It's a neverending circle.
If I were google, I'd be thinking about doing the same thing in reverse. Get your office suite working and then begin package it free on every computer manufacturer that you can negotiate with.
His laptop costs $176. Intel's costs over $200. His has been far more publicized than intel. He has a "non evil" (read that as non-profit oriented) approach.
So what is he really worried about here? If his laptop and his after-purchase support is competitive, he will win based on price. If his feature-set is superior or the laptop is more suited to the task, he will win based on application.
If not, he didn't deserve the business. So what is he really worried about? If he gets beat, it's better for the kids anyway, right? If he wins, it's better for the kids.
It sounds to me like he wants to be the 'savior' and can't stand being upstaged by a company that isn't out to save the children, but to make a profit.
It appears to me that a simple response of "I have no illegal copyrighted material and have never participated in any illegal activities of this nature." is a perfectly valid response folks. Remember, the DCMA allows a response. It doesn't assume guilt.
The ends don't justify the means.
Yes it matters, and yes she should be fired. She is ethics and morally corrupt, and holds her own advancement above honesty.
Are you under the illusion that awards like that mean a damn thing?
You, sir, are completely incorrect regarding what first is.
Lego Mindstorms? Really?
Do they use CNC machines, Lathes, Mills, and turn out a robot that weighs over 150 pounds, puts out more torque than many small automobiles, and costs well over $20k after all is said and done?
Corporate sponsership? 8 million dollars in college scholarships? Summer internship ships at intel, motorola, nasa, Ford, GM, Chrysler, Texas Instruments?
No. Sorry. Lego Mindstorms is nice, but it's not even close in scope. You should troll elsewhere.
FIRST stands for "For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology".
These are not just remote-control toys. Camera systems are used for fully autonomous operation during portions of the competition. More hi-tech teams use sonar, infra-red and other devices. Indeed, for the geeks out there I'll point out that the "remove control" is actually a 900 mghz modem - not your standard little 2 joystick controller.
Teams compete in alliances of 3 robots. 2 alliances are on the field at the same time, and each trys to score the highest. Defense (aka contact) is DEFINITELY allowed, although intentional attempting to damage other robots is highly discouraged.
The motto of first is one of "Gracious Professionialism". I.e. - if your robot is broken at a competition, you can be sure of getting half a dozen teams all trying to help you get it back on the field.
There are very few limits placed on the overall robot developmenet - you must use their motors, radio system, and batteries. There is also a limit on robot weight and size.
Go over and read the rules at www.usfirst.org - or better yet, go over here and watch some of the semi-final matches at the world championships that went on in Atlanta this weekend:
The movies you want are at the bottom with the longer names - the semifinals and finals on that field. There are thousands of teams and this is competitive as all heck. Every big-name company you can think of that is involved in technology sponsers it - from Motorola to Ford.
Several years ago, a particular big 3 company *accidently* donated a patent regarding a certain coating to a university.
That university then, 1 year later, turned around and sued the company that had donated the patent for violating it. I'm not kidding. To the order of $300,000 a month. I happen to be involved in the change getting rid of the old coating and moving to the new - just to get away from the litigation.
Don't fool yourself. Universities are not about being institutions of higher learning. They are businesses, out to advertise and make money just like any other business. Their sports programs, their research programs, even the ranking in the grad and undergrad programs is ALL about attracting talent so they can attract more money.
No sir. I did not make the assumption that ONLY Christians are concerned about this.
I made a generalization. If you can't accept generalizations in conversations like this, then you should probably go elsewhere. Otherwise you're going to get so bogged down in semantics, "show me the cite on the web page" crap that you'll never see the truth or even the philosophy beyond the argument. It will end up turning into a point-counterpoint my scientists are better than yours BS argument.
It's not a strawman. It's an excellent example of a slippery slope. Should we dig into why the religious folks were / are against birth control as well? It's all a big part of the same argument.
You have no point. You are attacking the poster rather than the argument.
This is disgusting.
We're having an argument that is primarily motivated by religion in front of the DOJ and trying to force that moral view on the rest of the country.
Show me proof that nudity, or even showing sex to children, somehow scars them for life. Answer: You can't. In fact, you can look at european culture for proof if you like.
Do we need to dig into the mounds of proof that only teaching abstinence doesn't work either?
You can make the exact same analogy about Beer, and how the problems we have over here compared with the notable LACK of problems they have in Europe around college bingeing, etc.
Beyond that, if the parents want to badly to prevent their children from seeing it, they have the ability to do so. It's called personally responsibility. Chaperoned play-dates. Unplug or password the computer etc etc.
People go around putting latches on all their kitchen drawers and outlet covers on their plugs - and then they explain to the kids as they get older. Generally speaking, by the time their old enough to get around the simple safe guards, they've been taught about it. (Of course...... sexuality only seems to be deadly to Americans, but I digress).
Hell, let's take this to the logical conclusion. Women and men need to be segregated lest they their lust overcome them. Women must wear veils and never show skin other than their eyes.... oh wait. I think there's a religion out there that does that already.
I could go on and on and on regarding this issue. Russia tried to restrict the Western viewpoint. The Nazis burned books. The Middle East... and so on. This is one more form of clear repression, but what amounts to a very large group.
America: Land of the Free and home of the Brave? Only if you're a good Christian.
I went to college, and I'm out in the work force and have been for 8 years. I had a bit of help in college - I was a intern at a major automaker while I was in school. I had a pretty good idea of what I wanted to do (mechanical engineering). That's what this comes down to.
Most, if not all colleges, offer excellent classes on par with trade schools, if you know what you want to be.
Most college students DON'T know what they "want to be". Most take the standard fare college curriculum for any given major. There is no way for a college to prepare a student if the student can't at least tell me what he's aiming to get. Most simply pick the courses based on what is recommended for the general field, what their friends are taking, or what is easiest.
For those going to work in manufacturing, it's a no brainer that they should be spending time in the metal shops - CNC machining, some light automation, that sort of thing. If you're going to be on the design shop, a heavy dose of autocad will get you in just about any door. But if you take the "standard fare", you're going to be lost.
It's a pretty standard law around where I work that incoming folks will NOT be very useful for 1-2 years after they higher in. We hire from some of the best - U of M, Purdue, MIT, Harvard, Stanford. They simply don't have the general skills.
No one can tell me the colleges don't offer them either - I look back and know I made quite a few mistakes in choosing classes. Why did I take that second thermo course rather than introduction to automation? Why did I take that communications (oral) course rather than introcution to AC power and drive systems?
The courses were there - I simply didn't know what I should be taking: for the most part. Our college DID require some very worthwhile courses. Instead of a thesis as a senior, we had actual companies come in and we spent a full semester quoting, designing, purchasing, and solving their actual problems.
No... I don't think you can blame much of this on the colleges in the US. Much more so on students without a clear direction.
Wireless. Docking. Station.
Walk in with your laptop and drop it anywhere in the room and you're done. The only missing piece is the video....and I'm sure that solution is coming - wireless video.
I suggest you go out and read "Debt of Honor" by Tom Clancy. As always, he fabricates and exaggerates, but all the same it will give you a very good idea why reliance on a computer trading model is a "Very Bad" thing.
I.E. - if you know how a computer program works then you know how you can break it or cause it to react. If you can do that, then suddenly you have the power to control the market.
Clancey went a bit further theorizing that a programmer was bribed to place an easter egg in the system, but all the same the ideas are there and are valid.
Slashdot Mirror
We will more than happily place our predator drones in our airspace, our cameras in easements (that we place for public access), and our microphones on our telephone poles. Please ignore our helicopters, telescopes, and binoculars. We are just... bird watching. Oh, and that cable van that's been parked on the roadside for the last week? Your neighbors 4 miles away are having an outage that we're working on.
Have a nice day.
Who modded this insiteful? You're absolutely RIGHT! We should create a program - let's call it a scanner - that checks for this stuff. Then let's invent a program that doesn't allow outbound or inbound connections to the device without our approval. Then let's write a special tool that can remove them if they get on the device. Then lets........ Anyone, and I mean ANYONE, who thinks this isn't an issue is insane. These devices are one step away from a computer, and people seem to think they're magically secure. Probably the same folks who brag about OSX never having a virus....
"Captain Picard, I sense he is full of doubt...., and he may be hiding someething he doesn't want us to know"
Is is unfortunate that people use articles like this to try to prove some political point (i.e. Republicans are evil). Instead, perhaps we would be better focussing on how nations cannot protect themselves without an organization like this. The CIA, FBI, and NSA are not tied to one president. All the presidents have used them to do distasteful things. That is the point of the secrecy. It allows these organizations to do things that need doing: to make hard lose-lose decisions in the best interest of the country. If it were not for the secrecy, we'd have more politically hand-tied organizations that had to bow down before political pressure and popular opinion. Let's face it - popular opinion isn't about the right decision or what's best for the country. I think these documents are interesting part of history that we can use to understand how the government is functioning behind the scenes. Some people will use this to wave around how secrecy can foster abuse, but the simple fact is that we need departments and organizations like this to survive in the world.
I've always looked up to the Space Program. Putting people and satellites into orbit or on the moon is incredible. That's it. Incredible. The scope of what they do and the success with which they do it is nothing short of phenomenal. To top if off, it's something that we have undeniably been the best at. No ifs, ands, or buts, we are quite simply the best at it. Now the politicians have decided it's no longer a priority. Toss it on the midden heap and watch us get passed by. Not just by the Russians (who were never ALL that far behind us), but by the ESA, the Japanese, and any other country who has leaders that have a sense of adventure and a sense of the long term benefits all the research involved produces. This is a sad day.
I'm not sure who modded you +1 interesting, but it should have been -1 troll. Wait till you live in a local that doesn't offer broadband. Or you don't have the money to pay for all those price "on demand" movies when you want to watch a movie that you've already watched. Your basic assumption seems to be that since it doesn't affect you at this second in time, you don't care about it. That's a pretty shortsighted viewpoint to take - and one that's going to see your rights taken away in a hurry.
I tend to think of this an American problem. An excellent analogy can be made, for instance, between American and Japanese technology. American companies concentrate on hitting "home runs". This is exciting, wins you the occasional game, and makes "superstars". Japanese companies concentrate on "singles". They concentrate on the long-term game plan, and make numerous small improvements to their technology. We see history the same way. How many people know who hit the most home runs in baseball, versus who has the highest all-time batting average? How many people know who developed the atomic bomb, versus who developed the first machine gun? We are very much a glitz and glamour, or "home run" society.
You are more right then you know. What usually is true is cases like this is that the people splitting the money are so far removed from the people who need it that they don't know what is going on. Yes, there's an ad-campaign going on, but that's a different budget, through a difference approval chain, etc etc.
I deal with finance people on a daily basis and it's a nightmare. The last things on their mind is allowing is allowing the money to be used for useful purposes. Indeed, the system is set up to prevent the money from being spent easily.
Also, money isn't just "money". It's either capitalized money or non-capitalized, which means that it has to be spent on items that can be depreciated (like a satellite) or items that can't (like advertising).
The best part is that if you don't spend all your "money" for that year - you get in trouble. They go back and decide that because you didn't spend it (regardless of why) you had to much to begin with and they reduce your funding for next year.
On top of THAT, you have to go through "Approved" suppliers that have agreements to provide certain commodities, and those suppliers are generally pricing things 20% above their price at a place like, say, Amazon.com.
I feel his pain - but as you said, he needs to stop pissing off people to keep his job. To top it off, he's likely pissing off people who don't control the purse strings.
Your argument isn't exactly persuasive. We don't understand global climate either, but our best estimates suggest that we might be polluting more than we should. Should we simply ignore all best-guesses and estimates and wait until we have 100% rock solid proof, at which point it might very well be too late to do anything at all?
Excellent argument. Also, I'm curious how this would fall under the 5th amendment. I'm having trouble thinking of some type of legal analogy. The information exists, however it is not available to law enforcement in its current form. So they try to force the defendant to give it to them, thus incriminating themselves? It would seem to me that a good argument could be made that if the authorities want it, they should have to create a warrant and go get it themselves.
This is how Microsoft has always done business. From Internet Explorer to Media Player on down the list, bundling the software or having it as a "default" is a very very powerful tool.
For instance, most companies lock down their computers. I can't even install quick time on ours - which means that unless it works with windows media, I don't visit the website. Many websites know that - so they don't use Quicktime formats. It's a neverending circle.
If I were google, I'd be thinking about doing the same thing in reverse. Get your office suite working and then begin package it free on every computer manufacturer that you can negotiate with.
His laptop costs $176. Intel's costs over $200. His has been far more publicized than intel. He has a "non evil" (read that as non-profit oriented) approach. So what is he really worried about here? If his laptop and his after-purchase support is competitive, he will win based on price. If his feature-set is superior or the laptop is more suited to the task, he will win based on application. If not, he didn't deserve the business. So what is he really worried about? If he gets beat, it's better for the kids anyway, right? If he wins, it's better for the kids. It sounds to me like he wants to be the 'savior' and can't stand being upstaged by a company that isn't out to save the children, but to make a profit.
It appears to me that a simple response of "I have no illegal copyrighted material and have never participated in any illegal activities of this nature." is a perfectly valid response folks. Remember, the DCMA allows a response. It doesn't assume guilt.
The ends don't justify the means. Yes it matters, and yes she should be fired. She is ethics and morally corrupt, and holds her own advancement above honesty. Are you under the illusion that awards like that mean a damn thing?
Than it really is about what you know.
It's more about fundraising and research than teaching.
It's more about the staff than the students.
And finally, it's far more about a University's reputation than their actual quality.
You, sir, are completely incorrect regarding what first is.
Lego Mindstorms? Really?
Do they use CNC machines, Lathes, Mills, and turn out a robot that weighs over 150 pounds, puts out more torque than many small automobiles, and costs well over $20k after all is said and done?
Corporate sponsership? 8 million dollars in college scholarships? Summer internship ships at intel, motorola, nasa, Ford, GM, Chrysler, Texas Instruments?
No. Sorry. Lego Mindstorms is nice, but it's not even close in scope. You should troll elsewhere.
Ok.
r /
FIRST stands for "For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology".
These are not just remote-control toys. Camera systems are used for fully autonomous operation during portions of the competition. More hi-tech teams use sonar, infra-red and other devices. Indeed, for the geeks out there I'll point out that the "remove control" is actually a 900 mghz modem - not your standard little 2 joystick controller.
Teams compete in alliances of 3 robots. 2 alliances are on the field at the same time, and each trys to score the highest. Defense (aka contact) is DEFINITELY allowed, although intentional attempting to damage other robots is highly discouraged.
The motto of first is one of "Gracious Professionialism". I.e. - if your robot is broken at a competition, you can be sure of getting half a dozen teams all trying to help you get it back on the field.
There are very few limits placed on the overall robot developmenet - you must use their motors, radio system, and batteries. There is also a limit on robot weight and size.
Go over and read the rules at www.usfirst.org - or better yet, go over here and watch some of the semi-final matches at the world championships that went on in Atlanta this weekend:
http://www.soap.circuitrunners.com/2007/movies/cu
The movies you want are at the bottom with the longer names - the semifinals and finals on that field. There are thousands of teams and this is competitive as all heck. Every big-name company you can think of that is involved in technology sponsers it - from Motorola to Ford.
Several years ago, a particular big 3 company *accidently* donated a patent regarding a certain coating to a university.
That university then, 1 year later, turned around and sued the company that had donated the patent for violating it. I'm not kidding. To the order of $300,000 a month. I happen to be involved in the change getting rid of the old coating and moving to the new - just to get away from the litigation.
Don't fool yourself. Universities are not about being institutions of higher learning. They are businesses, out to advertise and make money just like any other business. Their sports programs, their research programs, even the ranking in the grad and undergrad programs is ALL about attracting talent so they can attract more money.
So... you're a computer "technician" who is totally against people actually knowing what they're getting...?
Let me guess - you're the same guy who charges $50 to come over and run a virus scanner off a CD to "clean" someone's computer.....
No sir. I did not make the assumption that ONLY Christians are concerned about this.
I made a generalization. If you can't accept generalizations in conversations like this, then you should probably go elsewhere. Otherwise you're going to get so bogged down in semantics, "show me the cite on the web page" crap that you'll never see the truth or even the philosophy beyond the argument. It will end up turning into a point-counterpoint my scientists are better than yours BS argument.
It's not a strawman. It's an excellent example of a slippery slope. Should we dig into why the religious folks were / are against birth control as well? It's all a big part of the same argument.
You have no point. You are attacking the poster rather than the argument.
I mean... It should be illegal for ABC, CBS, NBC, and all the other networks to decide who gets their key time slots for advertisement, right? Or not.
This is disgusting. We're having an argument that is primarily motivated by religion in front of the DOJ and trying to force that moral view on the rest of the country. Show me proof that nudity, or even showing sex to children, somehow scars them for life. Answer: You can't. In fact, you can look at european culture for proof if you like. Do we need to dig into the mounds of proof that only teaching abstinence doesn't work either? You can make the exact same analogy about Beer, and how the problems we have over here compared with the notable LACK of problems they have in Europe around college bingeing, etc. Beyond that, if the parents want to badly to prevent their children from seeing it, they have the ability to do so. It's called personally responsibility. Chaperoned play-dates. Unplug or password the computer etc etc. People go around putting latches on all their kitchen drawers and outlet covers on their plugs - and then they explain to the kids as they get older. Generally speaking, by the time their old enough to get around the simple safe guards, they've been taught about it. (Of course...... sexuality only seems to be deadly to Americans, but I digress). Hell, let's take this to the logical conclusion. Women and men need to be segregated lest they their lust overcome them. Women must wear veils and never show skin other than their eyes.... oh wait. I think there's a religion out there that does that already. I could go on and on and on regarding this issue. Russia tried to restrict the Western viewpoint. The Nazis burned books. The Middle East... and so on. This is one more form of clear repression, but what amounts to a very large group. America: Land of the Free and home of the Brave? Only if you're a good Christian.
I don't buy it.
I went to college, and I'm out in the work force and have been for 8 years. I had a bit of help in college - I was a intern at a major automaker while I was in school. I had a pretty good idea of what I wanted to do (mechanical engineering). That's what this comes down to.
Most, if not all colleges, offer excellent classes on par with trade schools, if you know what you want to be.
Most college students DON'T know what they "want to be". Most take the standard fare college curriculum for any given major. There is no way for a college to prepare a student if the student can't at least tell me what he's aiming to get. Most simply pick the courses based on what is recommended for the general field, what their friends are taking, or what is easiest.
For those going to work in manufacturing, it's a no brainer that they should be spending time in the metal shops - CNC machining, some light automation, that sort of thing. If you're going to be on the design shop, a heavy dose of autocad will get you in just about any door. But if you take the "standard fare", you're going to be lost.
It's a pretty standard law around where I work that incoming folks will NOT be very useful for 1-2 years after they higher in. We hire from some of the best - U of M, Purdue, MIT, Harvard, Stanford. They simply don't have the general skills.
No one can tell me the colleges don't offer them either - I look back and know I made quite a few mistakes in choosing classes. Why did I take that second thermo course rather than introduction to automation? Why did I take that communications (oral) course rather than introcution to AC power and drive systems?
The courses were there - I simply didn't know what I should be taking: for the most part. Our college DID require some very worthwhile courses. Instead of a thesis as a senior, we had actual companies come in and we spent a full semester quoting, designing, purchasing, and solving their actual problems.
No... I don't think you can blame much of this on the colleges in the US. Much more so on students without a clear direction.
Wireless. Docking. Station. Walk in with your laptop and drop it anywhere in the room and you're done. The only missing piece is the video....and I'm sure that solution is coming - wireless video.
I suggest you go out and read "Debt of Honor" by Tom Clancy. As always, he fabricates and exaggerates, but all the same it will give you a very good idea why reliance on a computer trading model is a "Very Bad" thing. I.E. - if you know how a computer program works then you know how you can break it or cause it to react. If you can do that, then suddenly you have the power to control the market. Clancey went a bit further theorizing that a programmer was bribed to place an easter egg in the system, but all the same the ideas are there and are valid.