You cannot have your cake and eat it also, right? If information is free, so is information about yourself.
The problem most people have is with one way glass. "I can see you but you can't see me!" sort of thing. Governments and corporations do this all the time, but so do regular folk. The issue scales...
Read David Brin's "The Transparent Society" if you are at all interested in this sort of thing. It will make you think.
Not all all; emergent properties in highly connected systems could lead to much more efficient throughput. Really, the purest form of this wouldn't involve a centralized server; the system would be distributed across all nodes (each car doing it's part).
You can definitely have a list of TODO's that go along with a law! In fact, the fact that we don't is a big problem; we are basically assuming that our laws are perfect the first time around. Hello!
David Brin has an extremely interesting book out called "The Transparent Society". He applies the concept of openness to all areas of life and society; arguing that accountability is absolutely necessary for freedom.
The makes a whole lot of sense...the rejection of "security through obscurity", in favor of open and peer review. PGP is a good example of a secure system (well, pretty secure) that still works even if everyone knows exactly how it works. Our current democracy is also a good example of an open system. Even though our system isn't perfect (perfection doesn't exist), the feedback of accountability makes it work pretty well.
My mom taught me to be honest (and to share), so I'd have to agree with him.
Really? Man, I thought for sure there was a way around that.:)
I know, I'm being sarcastic, but really the question is, "How can source code be secure if it's not open to public scrutiny?". "Security through obscurity" seems like the only option; and it's obviously not a good one.
Word. Let's get a count of all the undiscovered security holes in IE vs the undiscovered holes in Firefox.
Of course, this would also assume that the IE code was critiqued on the same level as firefox. And how can you do that without the source code?
The original dune sucked because the studio did not allow David Lynch to make the movie he wanted to make. If Lynch had been given more creative freedom, the movie would have been much better.
And speaking of series that didn't go anywhere but down...
The complexity of networks has barely begin to be realized. This realization will lead to the downfall reductionism, as the very interaction itself is something new and cannot be derived directly from a "full" understanding of the agents involved.
A nice example of this is the Travelling Salesman problem. Rather, not the problem itself, but the reason why it's considered NP-hard. By this I mean, as the number of nodes increases the number of elementary paths increases by "(n-1)!".
Chaos, CA, Complexity, Emergence, etc are physical and metaphysical theories that try to formalize network interaction. Of these, Chaos is the most pleasing metaphysically, while Complexity Theory is the most advanced mathmatically.
It's obvious that none of these theories hold the hole truth, but one could say they're on the right track. Scientifically, something doesn't exist unless it can be measured experimentally. Something can't be measured without some sort of interaction. So, one could say that nothing exists except for interactions. The question is, is this just a relic of the Scientific Method (or hyperbole:), or is it saying something about the very nature of reality?
Without warp speed the Star Trek shows would be drastically different. As a science and sci-fi fan, do you think faster than light travel is possible? If so, do you think time travel is possible?
Word. Saying an actual picture will be more permanent than a digital copy is ridiculous. Maybe more permanent than ONE digital copy, but that's the whole point of digital, being that you can copy it.
Quote from article; "The days of watching a band develop slowly over time with live performances are over, says Tom Calderone, executive vice-president of music and talent for MTV". That's exactly why CD sales are slumping; Nobody's told the fans that they need to start buying one-hit wonders instead of following bands.
I'm sitting in Seattle and I can see Rainer. I'm a Northwest boy born and raised, and there has been rather extreme climate changes around here in the last 10 years.
The Sci-Fi museum looks awesome, can't wait to go. I was at the EMP for folklife (free gathering at the Seattle Center) and they were putting the finishing touches on it.
I think that's why we got the Nebula awards this year (Harlen Ellison AND Neil Stephenson...bad ass!)
cl
OK, agreed that most sci-fi sucks, in that a lot of it is in the vein of "replace 'Pirate' with 'Space Pirate'".
There are a number of great sci-fi writers, though:
Philip K Dick
Orson Scott Card
Greg Bear
Stephen Baxter
Cory Doctorow
I'll have to check that book out...
Slashdot Mirror
eom
No different that cataloging the internet...which they also did without the copyright owners consent.
You cannot have your cake and eat it also, right? If information is free, so is information about yourself. The problem most people have is with one way glass. "I can see you but you can't see me!" sort of thing. Governments and corporations do this all the time, but so do regular folk. The issue scales... Read David Brin's "The Transparent Society" if you are at all interested in this sort of thing. It will make you think.
Not all all; emergent properties in highly connected systems could lead to much more efficient throughput. Really, the purest form of this wouldn't involve a centralized server; the system would be distributed across all nodes (each car doing it's part).
You can definitely have a list of TODO's that go along with a law! In fact, the fact that we don't is a big problem; we are basically assuming that our laws are perfect the first time around. Hello!
David Brin has an extremely interesting book out called "The Transparent Society". He applies the concept of openness to all areas of life and society; arguing that accountability is absolutely necessary for freedom. The makes a whole lot of sense...the rejection of "security through obscurity", in favor of open and peer review. PGP is a good example of a secure system (well, pretty secure) that still works even if everyone knows exactly how it works. Our current democracy is also a good example of an open system. Even though our system isn't perfect (perfection doesn't exist), the feedback of accountability makes it work pretty well. My mom taught me to be honest (and to share), so I'd have to agree with him.
Really? Man, I thought for sure there was a way around that. :)
I know, I'm being sarcastic, but really the question is, "How can source code be secure if it's not open to public scrutiny?". "Security through obscurity" seems like the only option; and it's obviously not a good one.
Word. Let's get a count of all the undiscovered security holes in IE vs the undiscovered holes in Firefox. Of course, this would also assume that the IE code was critiqued on the same level as firefox. And how can you do that without the source code?
The original dune sucked because the studio did not allow David Lynch to make the movie he wanted to make. If Lynch had been given more creative freedom, the movie would have been much better. And speaking of series that didn't go anywhere but down...
Don't sing that song unless your are licensed!
The complexity of networks has barely begin to be realized. This realization will lead to the downfall reductionism, as the very interaction itself is something new and cannot be derived directly from a "full" understanding of the agents involved. A nice example of this is the Travelling Salesman problem. Rather, not the problem itself, but the reason why it's considered NP-hard. By this I mean, as the number of nodes increases the number of elementary paths increases by "(n-1)!". Chaos, CA, Complexity, Emergence, etc are physical and metaphysical theories that try to formalize network interaction. Of these, Chaos is the most pleasing metaphysically, while Complexity Theory is the most advanced mathmatically. It's obvious that none of these theories hold the hole truth, but one could say they're on the right track. Scientifically, something doesn't exist unless it can be measured experimentally. Something can't be measured without some sort of interaction. So, one could say that nothing exists except for interactions. The question is, is this just a relic of the Scientific Method (or hyperbole :), or is it saying something about the very nature of reality?
Without warp speed the Star Trek shows would be drastically different. As a science and sci-fi fan, do you think faster than light travel is possible? If so, do you think time travel is possible?
Word. Saying an actual picture will be more permanent than a digital copy is ridiculous. Maybe more permanent than ONE digital copy, but that's the whole point of digital, being that you can copy it.
Quote from article; "The days of watching a band develop slowly over time with live performances are over, says Tom Calderone, executive vice-president of music and talent for MTV". That's exactly why CD sales are slumping; Nobody's told the fans that they need to start buying one-hit wonders instead of following bands.
I'm sitting in Seattle and I can see Rainer. I'm a Northwest boy born and raised, and there has been rather extreme climate changes around here in the last 10 years. The Sci-Fi museum looks awesome, can't wait to go. I was at the EMP for folklife (free gathering at the Seattle Center) and they were putting the finishing touches on it. I think that's why we got the Nebula awards this year (Harlen Ellison AND Neil Stephenson...bad ass!) cl
OK, agreed that most sci-fi sucks, in that a lot of it is in the vein of "replace 'Pirate' with 'Space Pirate'". There are a number of great sci-fi writers, though: Philip K Dick Orson Scott Card Greg Bear Stephen Baxter Cory Doctorow I'll have to check that book out...