This without a anti-terror law. It sounds like they get those laws passed legitimately. If these things happen without the terrorism excuse, then it should have had reasonable debate and the people should have no question that it is being used to monitor citizens. I'd rather that then them pass laws that say that these tools are only used against terrorists, then having them repurposed afterward.
This is a perfect example of how the government creates a system that COULD be abused but has a legitimate purpose initially. The people allow it, so long as it is not used for evil. Then, once the government has it in place, the rules are changed. I'll have to remember this one next time somebody gives the argument that we don't have to worry about the some new PATRIOT-style act.
FYI - These are about the most anti-stealth craft you can get. They are white, the extra fins make them more visible, propellors are loud, the various bits of gear sticking out increase the radar signature, the weapons are not carried in an internal bay, and the plane is not flat so the radar cross section is huge. The only thing this craft has going for it is that it travels slowly.
Seeing as that type of stuff is an act of war I was imagining a scenario where this did that after a squadron of drones was dispatched to attack them. As a defensive retaliation. There would be no other reason to do it.
Up until a few years ago, I had used Comcast ever since the first rollout of high-speed internet in the 90s. I've never used their install disks, and I've always used Netscape/Mozilla/Firefox and it was never a problem. To install, I just enter the DNS/IP information just like you normally would. In recent years, DHCP has taken care of that for me anyway. And setting up a Linux router was just like setting up any other router. The only anomoly is you must know that the cable modem only responds to the first MAC address it sees, so if you swap routers you need to power-cycle the cable modem.
I'm looking at pictures of this thing, and I have lots of questions: 1) Why is there what appears to be a cockpit? 2) Why is the prop on the back? 3) What is with the crazy tail wings and fins on the back? They seem to go in all directions. 4) Is that a camera in the front? Why is it not recessed for aerodynamics?
Now we know why China wants to build destroying missiles. You can take out the whole attack force by destroying the satellite network.
Obviously, this could lead to a widespread use of fuel cells, which could become a realistic alternative power source for vehicles. That's not in the article anywhere. Perhaps, since it is so obvious, someone can explain to me how addressing one of the many complications with using fuel cells?
Slashdot is a meta-news meta-blog site so article summaries are like a game of telephone. A scientist publishes a paper, it is boiled-down for a journalist, the journalist distills that into an article, a blogger summarizes the article, and the article is summarized to Slashdot. Net result: "I found a way to fabricate ziconium oxide at 15nm" becomes "Fuel cells can now become widespread, thanks to diamonds!"
Lastly, try the library back issues of Scientific American for 2007. I just threw away a stash, and one of them covers the production of ethanol from start to finish, and talks about how tight the net energy gain is, and how subsidies are skewing it. It might have a comparison to oil, but I don't remember
Article: Inividual patents are still good
on
Patents Don't Pay
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
This article is saying that being a big company with an R&D department designed to churn-out patents isn't worth it because the litigation costs more than the patents bring you.
The article is not saying that patents in general, or even software patents, aren't worth it. It only looks at aggregate statistics for the entire market. So if you are a developer or engineer who creates something new and unique and wants to patent it to protect yourself, go and do it. Nothing in this article is saying you should not.
Two hours later, I gave up on its bizarre layer model and just installed the GIMP so I could get some work done. GIMP and Photoshop have essentially the same layer model as far as I can tell. Can you explain what was hard to use about Photoshop's layer model? Also, since you like to use GIMP, can you answer some of the complaints about the UI that other people have posted? For example: (plagiarized from another post)
1. for some reason GIMP developers decided every single thing needs its own window and its own menu bar. It's weird as f*ck: put the entire layout in a single window with integrated panel layout (similar to how Eclipse does it, for example).
2. each plugin is its own modeless exe dialog that takes arbitrary amount to start after it was called (at which time you can modify the processed image.. sometimes, and sometimes GIMP crashes because of it): create a proper lean plugin API and modal plugin dialog.
3. the menus and options are all over the place: there seems to be no strategy at all about what goes where
I find these issues to make GIMP nearly unusable. I'm always fighting with it. How do you get around these problems?
That's interesting. At UMBC, Information Systems does not involve state machines. That's covered in Finite Automata Theory which is one of the two courses (Algorithms is the other) that drive CS majors to become IS majors. I've never heard of a petri net, but it looks like that would also be part of Finite Automata Theory too. What school taught that as part of Information Systems? And if that is IS, what does that school consider CS?
Computer Science - Math = Information Systems It covers networking, scripting, database management, web design, hardware, etc. It's computer science without the science.
Also, Computer Science != Programming:
"Computer science does not need a theory of computation; it needs a comprehensive theory of process expression." That's not computer science, that's programming. The author is confusing the two. I know many great self-taught programmers who can't tell me what O(n) means. They get a feel for what data structures to use, but rarely create their own. There's plenty of use for such people - it's probably the majority of programmers. But it isn't CS.
1) I do care quite a bit when the government is engaged in unconstitutional wiretapping. 2) The EFF is engaged in a law suit against unconstitutional wiretapping. Therefore, support the EFF.
1) when it comes down to court time, their record is less than stellar, particularly with larger cases. 2) The ACLU lost their case. The EFF hasn't (yet). Therefore, support the EFF.
Last paragraph of the article:
The appeals court decision does not affect another lawsuit still pending in California, in which the Electronic Frontier Foundation has sued AT&T Inc., which allegedly participated in the NSA program. If this ruling makes you angry, support the EFF!
The problem is, if you don't have the source, you'll never know that the XOR encryption is in there. So it will never be fixed. Knowing the security level for certain is just as important as the actual security implementation.
That would mean that if I patent a completely new invention, and that patent involves using an IP address, that I should lose the right to use TCP/IP? Almost every patent is based on some open standard at some level. It would defeat the purpose of an open standard. You are putting a personal political belief into the license, which makes it no longer open.
(Be aware that if I patent invention X and claim it uses web services, that doesn't mean I patented web services. It just means that my implementation happens to use web services.)
And how are you going to calculate how much to pay them? Lines of code? Lines of documentation? What about after 10 years and the software has been rewritten one line at a time? Do their checks decrease slowly? How can the developer prove that the royalty is correct? Does this royalty include support fees or just initial sales? This model doesn't work. Engineers who design bridges don't get a portion of the tolls. It doesn't work in other industries, and I've never heard of a developer who complained they wanted royalties. If you want a piece of the action then buy stock. Or work for a startup and give up salary in exchange for options. Or work for a company that engages in profit-sharing.
If I manufacture WonderGizmo3000, and only sell it to retailers at price X, why do I care if they sell it for X/2? I think the scenario is if the retailer sells it for price X+$20, and the manufacturer wanted them to sell it for at least price X+$50. I don't understand why the manufacturers care though.
I meant it doesn't make limitations of the terms.
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
That is irrelevant and inaccurate, and doesn't answer the question.
1) The extension of copyrights is not unconstitutional. The constitution makes no mention of copyright law, nor should it. I don't like the perpetual copyrights on Mickey Mouse or Aladdin either, but it isn't unconstitutional.
2) Are you saying that the students did not downloaded current music? If so, please provide evidence of that. Otherwise, the music is well within reasonable copyright limits.
Ironically, the fact that such blatently incorrect statements were modded as insightful proves the parents point about groupthink. There are perfectly acceptable reasons to dislike the RIAA's actions. Maybe those students owned those CDs. Maybe they only traded them with other people who owned the files to save those people from ripping. But these things are not likely, and they aren't facts at this point.
So I again present the question:
How should the RIAA protect it's intellectional property rights?
Thank you for that link! For years I've just wanted Firefox to support but this is just as good. Yaay! Now, in about 10 years, someone will start using it!
And why did YouTube decide on Flash as their standard? Because corporations hate standards since it allows competitors to re-use their work. Otherwise, YouTube would have used one of the ISO standard or de-facto standard video formats that were already widely in use instead of a proprietary format intended to obfuscate the video source.
I wish I could go back in time 5 years ago and make a decent cross-platform MP4 browser plug-in.
Slashdot Mirror
What myth?
Aha! You test me!
Privacy and the "Nothing to Hide" argument
This is a perfect example of how the government creates a system that COULD be abused but has a legitimate purpose initially. The people allow it, so long as it is not used for evil. Then, once the government has it in place, the rules are changed. I'll have to remember this one next time somebody gives the argument that we don't have to worry about the some new PATRIOT-style act.
FYI - These are about the most anti-stealth craft you can get. They are white, the extra fins make them more visible, propellors are loud, the various bits of gear sticking out increase the radar signature, the weapons are not carried in an internal bay, and the plane is not flat so the radar cross section is huge. The only thing this craft has going for it is that it travels slowly.
Nothing to see here, move along.
Up until a few years ago, I had used Comcast ever since the first rollout of high-speed internet in the 90s. I've never used their install disks, and I've always used Netscape/Mozilla/Firefox and it was never a problem. To install, I just enter the DNS/IP information just like you normally would. In recent years, DHCP has taken care of that for me anyway. And setting up a Linux router was just like setting up any other router. The only anomoly is you must know that the cable modem only responds to the first MAC address it sees, so if you swap routers you need to power-cycle the cable modem.
I'm looking at pictures of this thing, and I have lots of questions:
1) Why is there what appears to be a cockpit?
2) Why is the prop on the back?
3) What is with the crazy tail wings and fins on the back? They seem to go in all directions.
4) Is that a camera in the front? Why is it not recessed for aerodynamics?
Now we know why China wants to build destroying missiles. You can take out the whole attack force by destroying the satellite network.
Slashdot is a meta-news meta-blog site so article summaries are like a game of telephone. A scientist publishes a paper, it is boiled-down for a journalist, the journalist distills that into an article, a blogger summarizes the article, and the article is summarized to Slashdot. Net result: "I found a way to fabricate ziconium oxide at 15nm" becomes "Fuel cells can now become widespread, thanks to diamonds!"
This article is saying that being a big company with an R&D department designed to churn-out patents isn't worth it because the litigation costs more than the patents bring you.
The article is not saying that patents in general, or even software patents, aren't worth it. It only looks at aggregate statistics for the entire market. So if you are a developer or engineer who creates something new and unique and wants to patent it to protect yourself, go and do it. Nothing in this article is saying you should not.
1. for some reason GIMP developers decided every single thing needs its own window and its own menu bar. It's weird as f*ck: put the entire layout in a single window with integrated panel layout (similar to how Eclipse does it, for example).
2. each plugin is its own modeless exe dialog that takes arbitrary amount to start after it was called (at which time you can modify the processed image.. sometimes, and sometimes GIMP crashes because of it): create a proper lean plugin API and modal plugin dialog.
3. the menus and options are all over the place: there seems to be no strategy at all about what goes where
I find these issues to make GIMP nearly unusable. I'm always fighting with it. How do you get around these problems?
That's interesting. At UMBC, Information Systems does not involve state machines. That's covered in Finite Automata Theory which is one of the two courses (Algorithms is the other) that drive CS majors to become IS majors. I've never heard of a petri net, but it looks like that would also be part of Finite Automata Theory too. What school taught that as part of Information Systems? And if that is IS, what does that school consider CS?
It covers networking, scripting, database management, web design, hardware, etc. It's computer science without the science.
Also, Computer Science != Programming: "Computer science does not need a theory of computation; it needs a comprehensive theory of process expression." That's not computer science, that's programming. The author is confusing the two. I know many great self-taught programmers who can't tell me what O(n) means. They get a feel for what data structures to use, but rarely create their own. There's plenty of use for such people - it's probably the majority of programmers. But it isn't CS.
1) I do care quite a bit when the government is engaged in unconstitutional wiretapping.
2) The EFF is engaged in a law suit against unconstitutional wiretapping.
Therefore, support the EFF.
1) when it comes down to court time, their record is less than stellar, particularly with larger cases.
2) The ACLU lost their case. The EFF hasn't (yet).
Therefore, support the EFF.
Seems pretty obvious to me!
Technically, you are right.
The problem is, if you don't have the source, you'll never know that the XOR encryption is in there. So it will never be fixed. Knowing the security level for certain is just as important as the actual security implementation.
That would mean that if I patent a completely new invention, and that patent involves using an IP address, that I should lose the right to use TCP/IP? Almost every patent is based on some open standard at some level. It would defeat the purpose of an open standard. You are putting a personal political belief into the license, which makes it no longer open.
(Be aware that if I patent invention X and claim it uses web services, that doesn't mean I patented web services. It just means that my implementation happens to use web services.)
And how are you going to calculate how much to pay them? Lines of code? Lines of documentation? What about after 10 years and the software has been rewritten one line at a time? Do their checks decrease slowly? How can the developer prove that the royalty is correct? Does this royalty include support fees or just initial sales? This model doesn't work. Engineers who design bridges don't get a portion of the tolls. It doesn't work in other industries, and I've never heard of a developer who complained they wanted royalties. If you want a piece of the action then buy stock. Or work for a startup and give up salary in exchange for options. Or work for a company that engages in profit-sharing.
1) The extension of copyrights is not unconstitutional. The constitution makes no mention of copyright law, nor should it. I don't like the perpetual copyrights on Mickey Mouse or Aladdin either, but it isn't unconstitutional.
2) Are you saying that the students did not downloaded current music? If so, please provide evidence of that. Otherwise, the music is well within reasonable copyright limits.
Ironically, the fact that such blatently incorrect statements were modded as insightful proves the parents point about groupthink. There are perfectly acceptable reasons to dislike the RIAA's actions. Maybe those students owned those CDs. Maybe they only traded them with other people who owned the files to save those people from ripping. But these things are not likely, and they aren't facts at this point.
So I again present the question: How should the RIAA protect it's intellectional property rights?
Thank you for that link! For years I've just wanted Firefox to support but this is just as good. Yaay! Now, in about 10 years, someone will start using it!
Have we already forgotten that the BBC hates DRM?
I wish I could go back in time 5 years ago and make a decent cross-platform MP4 browser plug-in.