First, 38 cm high? That's... um... a bit of a hardship to the humans that are used to playing players that are 180 cm tall, isn't it?
Second, 360 degree vision. Again, that's quite an advantage to the robots - literally "eyes in the back of their head".
A bit fairer competition would be 180 cm tall robots with 180 degree vision. Let's throw in a restriction that the robots be bipedal, too - no hiding the ball among 8 legs or some such...
When I call some financial institutions (Fidelity at least, maybe others), they say "this call will be recorded". It's not big brother, it's big bucks. If I tell them to transfer some money, and then later say, "Hey, where did my money go", they have the recording to say, "Don't get smart with us, we did it because you told us to."
On the other hand, if it really isn't my voice, then the recording protects me.
Am I supposed to have a problem with this? I don't...
For purposes of this comparison, do you include IE as part of the Windows kernel?
This isn't just a slam at Microsoft's statements in the antitrust trial - there are architectural reasons to consider it part of the kernel. (Of course, those architectural changes seem to have been made solely in order to be able to make those statements at the trial, they seem insane from any reasonable perspective...)
How do you fix embedded devices? Um... you mean how do you update/patch the code on the embedded device so that a local user can't escalate to root?
First of all, for many embedded devices, this isn't an issue. I mean, if you're an attacker, what are you gonna do once you get root? If the owner can't patch the OS, you probably can't install a rootkit either. Sure, you can DOS it, but if you're physically at the device, you can DOS it just by hitting the power button.
However, manufacturers of all embedded devices (not just Linux-based!) should definitely put a mechanism in place for updating the program code.
Well, all right, if by "own your own home" you mean "have it paid off, no mortgage, by the time I'm 24", then, yeah, you probably can't do that as a programmer. Those days are over.
But if you mean, "I can afford to buy a house on a programmer's salary", then, yes, you certainly can. You're going to have to live on a budget (just like everybody else), but you can do it. (But, I must admit, you can't do it in California. If you're there, wake up and smell the real estate prices in the rest of the country.)
Well, as others have pointed out, hydrogen would be used to store energy. The energy still has to come from somewhere.
If the "somewhere" is solar power, then we need places with lots of sunshine where we can build some really big solar farms. Ideally, there should be little on the ground, because that would get in the way of building the solar farms. Like, Saudi Arabia's Empty Quarter comes to mind as a perfect site...
Great. Now all you need is to tie the computer controlling the laser into either a radar or optical system that's tracking the plane. I don't think you can get the integrated system off-the-shelf...
And so suddenly this is bigger than just buying, borrowing, or stealing one piece of gear. It turns into a serious project, and therefore shows much more deliberate, long-term malice on the part of the perpetrator.
It doesn't stress them in the same way, but it has a definite effect, namely, they react more by reflex and less by thought.
See, the more items of information that come in, the less time you have to think about each one. Granted, a lot of them don't get thought about at all, but even the remainder don't get real thought devoted to them. (I guarantee you that today's kids are not thinking 100 times faster than their grandparents.) So depth of thought disappears.
That's fine in video games, it's probably OK when driving, but in social relationships, politics, science, engineering, and so on, it's a net loss.
What distinguishes humans from other animals isn't our ability to react swiftly, or our ability to pay attention to lots of things at once. It's our ability to think deeply, logically, and carefully about something. The mass of data that we are subjecting ourselves to may make us better informed, but it may do so at a very heavy price.
Sure. Just because two compounds shares two out of three chemical elements, they must be a lot alike. Hey, they sound alike, and that's all that matters, right?
Or did you have an actual reason (other than similar names) for stating this opinion? If so, would you let us know what it is?
The key words are "geologically speaking". Specifically, the island's volcano erupting can knock it into the sea. Apparently, even a huge earthquake cannot, if the huge earthquake is not close (the vibrations from the Sumatra quake rattled the whole planet, including the Canaries).
Posters who are questioning whether a large amount of conventional explosives could move this thing don't seem to grasp the idea of 500 billion tons. A nuke? Maybe. And maybe a large local earthquake. But pretty much, it's the island's volcano, or forget it.
Re:Advice for how to
on
FTC Defines Spam
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
There are two ways that I can see to go about it. The first (and more honorable way) is to calmly inform your boss, and perhaps his/her boss, that you cannot in good conscience work on a project that will have the primary result of irritating, annoying, and enraging innocent people whose only "crime" was having an e-mail address. Tell them that if they persist in this project, you will quit rather than have anything to do with it. And tell them that you will let it be publicly known that their company is working on such a tool, so that the public can express to the company how they feel about said company helping the slimeballs who fill all our inboxes with junk. Note that you would not be exposing any of their trade secrets or techniques; merely letting people know what they are building.
That's the honorable (and potentially very expensive) way. The less honorable way is to anonymously inform the press, the FTC, and/. which company it is and what they are working on.
But I think these are the only two ways, because nothing but public pressure is going to stop them.
I think what you are saying is: This is kind of like a car company having two versions of a car, the base version and a version where the wheels don't fall off. Obviously, only the "wheels don't fall off" version should even be on the market; it shouldn't be an extra cost item.
So far, I agree with what you are saying. But the problem is that I don't believe that Microsoft can actually produce the "wheels don't fall off" version - certainly not without re-writing the whole thing from the ground up with a sane architecture. What they are offering instead is, "after the wheels fall off, our wrecker will come by and help clean up the mess" - but only if you buy the wrecker policy.
Now, they shouldn't be selling a car where the wheels regularly fall off. But given their inability to fix the fundamental security issues, all they are selling is cleanup tools. So you are right in what you are saying, that they should just sell you a package that works, but Microsoft isn't offering to do that (at any price).
Microsoft abused their monopoly position in the operating system to make IE the default browser. If they had just offered IE as a free download, that also would have been fair. Shipping it in the Windows install, so that it's already on all the hard drives when the customers buy the machines, is a bit different. Paying web sites to build pages that use IE-only extensions is a lot different.
Read the findings of fact from the anti-trust trial; it's all there.
Slashdot Mirror
n/t
First, 38 cm high? That's... um... a bit of a hardship to the humans that are used to playing players that are 180 cm tall, isn't it?
Second, 360 degree vision. Again, that's quite an advantage to the robots - literally "eyes in the back of their head".
A bit fairer competition would be 180 cm tall robots with 180 degree vision. Let's throw in a restriction that the robots be bipedal, too - no hiding the ball among 8 legs or some such...
Why, exactly, should I have to reboot my machine after installing a scanning tool?
On the other hand, if it really isn't my voice, then the recording protects me.
Am I supposed to have a problem with this? I don't...
Right - "part of the OS" is not the same as "part of the kernel".
My bad...
For purposes of this comparison, do you include IE as part of the Windows kernel?
This isn't just a slam at Microsoft's statements in the antitrust trial - there are architectural reasons to consider it part of the kernel. (Of course, those architectural changes seem to have been made solely in order to be able to make those statements at the trial, they seem insane from any reasonable perspective...)
In this context, that's what "local" means: That you have a local account, even if you are accessing it with telnet or ssh.
A "remote" exploit is one that can be used by someone who has a network connection to the machine, but no account on it.
How do you fix embedded devices? Um... you mean how do you update/patch the code on the embedded device so that a local user can't escalate to root?
First of all, for many embedded devices, this isn't an issue. I mean, if you're an attacker, what are you gonna do once you get root? If the owner can't patch the OS, you probably can't install a rootkit either. Sure, you can DOS it, but if you're physically at the device, you can DOS it just by hitting the power button.
However, manufacturers of all embedded devices (not just Linux-based!) should definitely put a mechanism in place for updating the program code.
Bull.
Well, all right, if by "own your own home" you mean "have it paid off, no mortgage, by the time I'm 24", then, yeah, you probably can't do that as a programmer. Those days are over.
But if you mean, "I can afford to buy a house on a programmer's salary", then, yes, you certainly can. You're going to have to live on a budget (just like everybody else), but you can do it. (But, I must admit, you can't do it in California. If you're there, wake up and smell the real estate prices in the rest of the country.)
And now the courts are trimming back the DMCA with these legal decisions. Cool.
Still, I'll take a win that keeps the corporations from usurping law enforcement's role, regardless of the motive that brought it to us...
If the "somewhere" is solar power, then we need places with lots of sunshine where we can build some really big solar farms. Ideally, there should be little on the ground, because that would get in the way of building the solar farms. Like, Saudi Arabia's Empty Quarter comes to mind as a perfect site...
So was Java...
Great. Now all you need is to tie the computer controlling the laser into either a radar or optical system that's tracking the plane. I don't think you can get the integrated system off-the-shelf...
And so suddenly this is bigger than just buying, borrowing, or stealing one piece of gear. It turns into a serious project, and therefore shows much more deliberate, long-term malice on the part of the perpetrator.
It was a bean-counting error?
It doesn't stress them in the same way, but it has a definite effect, namely, they react more by reflex and less by thought.
See, the more items of information that come in, the less time you have to think about each one. Granted, a lot of them don't get thought about at all, but even the remainder don't get real thought devoted to them. (I guarantee you that today's kids are not thinking 100 times faster than their grandparents.) So depth of thought disappears.
That's fine in video games, it's probably OK when driving, but in social relationships, politics, science, engineering, and so on, it's a net loss.
What distinguishes humans from other animals isn't our ability to react swiftly, or our ability to pay attention to lots of things at once. It's our ability to think deeply, logically, and carefully about something. The mass of data that we are subjecting ourselves to may make us better informed, but it may do so at a very heavy price.
See, this is what Non-Maskable Interrupts are for...
Apologies for my rather rude reply to your original post.
Sure. Just because two compounds shares two out of three chemical elements, they must be a lot alike. Hey, they sound alike, and that's all that matters, right?
Or did you have an actual reason (other than similar names) for stating this opinion? If so, would you let us know what it is?
Posters who are questioning whether a large amount of conventional explosives could move this thing don't seem to grasp the idea of 500 billion tons. A nuke? Maybe. And maybe a large local earthquake. But pretty much, it's the island's volcano, or forget it.
Except that the European courts are much less likely to let them get away with that kind of stunt than the US courts. At least, that's how I see it.
I wish I'd said that...
There are two ways that I can see to go about it. The first (and more honorable way) is to calmly inform your boss, and perhaps his/her boss, that you cannot in good conscience work on a project that will have the primary result of irritating, annoying, and enraging innocent people whose only "crime" was having an e-mail address. Tell them that if they persist in this project, you will quit rather than have anything to do with it. And tell them that you will let it be publicly known that their company is working on such a tool, so that the public can express to the company how they feel about said company helping the slimeballs who fill all our inboxes with junk. Note that you would not be exposing any of their trade secrets or techniques; merely letting people know what they are building. That's the honorable (and potentially very expensive) way. The less honorable way is to anonymously inform the press, the FTC, and /. which company it is and what they are working on.
But I think these are the only two ways, because nothing but public pressure is going to stop them.
So far, I agree with what you are saying. But the problem is that I don't believe that Microsoft can actually produce the "wheels don't fall off" version - certainly not without re-writing the whole thing from the ground up with a sane architecture. What they are offering instead is, "after the wheels fall off, our wrecker will come by and help clean up the mess" - but only if you buy the wrecker policy.
Now, they shouldn't be selling a car where the wheels regularly fall off. But given their inability to fix the fundamental security issues, all they are selling is cleanup tools. So you are right in what you are saying, that they should just sell you a package that works, but Microsoft isn't offering to do that (at any price).
Read the findings of fact from the anti-trust trial; it's all there.