It's the one where Romney would have let GM die; and Obama saved it, along with a huge number of jobs.
It's the one where the (rich) credit card companies were taking advantage of credit card users right and left, particularly lower and middle class, screwing them on interest rates in specific, and the Obama admin saw to it that the means they used to do that were taken from them.
This isn't railing against all data mining operations. This is railing against data mining operations that operate in direct opposition to the 4th amendment of the US constitution.
There are still a few people around who think the government ought to be limited by the constitution, and that the only legitimate way to change the constitution resides under the aegis of article V, and that the fiddling the government -- all three branches -- has been doing is by definition illegal.
No, the engine did not explode. The fairing around the nozzle was crush by the sudden loss of interior pressure when the engine shut down -- the external pressure was then much higher than the nozzle's interior pressure (no more rocket exhaust) and it got crushed and fell away, harming nothing. The engine is still there, intact, and it did, in fact, just turn off.
In a world like that, you would expect development of new office suits(sic) to slow
no... I'd expect features with little or no utility to be added; user interfaces to be re-arranged; marketing to replace feature lists with glittering generalities, and tricks like "subscription models" to be unleashed upon the user base, leveraging, among other things, fear of exploits and not having the latest patches, and of course not having the latest, coolest "thing." I'd expect new operating systems to leverage new hardware tweaks that won't let old operating systems boot, and only the new software will run under the new operating systems. I would expect companies who have long ago reached the end of their actual useful lifetime to try and hang on by any means they could.
OS X has a/etc/services like every other operating system. Is that not what you need?
No. As far as I know, all etc/services does is provides what amounts to DNS for named TCP ports. What I'm talking about is a direct, program-to-program communications mechanism that transfers data between named ports without all the overhead of networking. As far as I know, in order to do this under OSX, TCP is the only option, and that is a *very* heavyweight mechanism to be invoking -- compare it to the Amiga's named ports and ARexx (Rexx scripting implementation) combo and you'll see what I mean. A fast IPC mechanism promotes all manner of good things, scripting for one, but that's really just the tip of the iceberg.
Are there some huge differences between OS X and others that I'm not aware of here?
My understanding ATM is the answer is yes. I refer you to the record of my adventures on the matter:
UDP works exactly this way on Linux too, I don't have a BSD or Solaris system handy, but I bet it works the same way there.
What platform allows multiple UDP listeners on one port? I have never seen it.
This one was run up the flagpole on Stack Exchange, with demo code, and the fellows on Linux had no problem at all binding multiple times. It only failed under OSX. A finger was pointed at BSD in general, too.
Yeah. You know. Like the ability to run linux, a feature they advertised and which sold units for them. That they dropped.
Or the ability to run PS2 games on what was basically PS2 hardware which was part of the original PS3. You remember, when the PS3 hardware was better than it is now... since they dropped that feature.
Or the two dropped USB connections.
Oh, and the dropped media slots.
Or the dropped on-off switch.
You know... dropped features.
Given Sony's history with the unit, the GP/AC's question was spot on target, I think, and I'm wondering the same thing: did they drop any features this time?
Technology advances will likely start the treadmill up again (although percentages of RAM sold don't exactly spell the end of sales to me... lol)
One example is real 3d displays. Not the stereo silliness they're trying to market now, but fully 3d volumetric renders. This will start out expensive and then drop into the consumer range. You'll need lots of CPU power to drive these; you'll need new display units; you'll need new hardware to drive those display units. There are prototypes now that work surprisingly well, so the light at the end of that tunnel will be something you can sense the distance of pretty soon.
Another *might* be AI. Personally, I suspect this is an algorithm problem, not necessarily a CPU power or RAM problem, but if it requires CPU power and/or RAM, that will also restart the treadmill. Further, real AI might spawn off some new applications as fundamental as the spreadsheet or the word processor... never know how a new intelligence will try to take the world as a problem set. I would bet that real AI would bring about a serious and sudden demand for HD or other high density storage. When Johnny Silicon sez it needs another 20 terabytes so it can learn your problem space properly, are you going to tell it no? If you don't think AI is possible, that's ok, because it's coming no matter what you think.:)
Another is speech input, which may see a solution outside of AI. What we have now is pitiful... like talking to a half-deaf preschooler. You can't seriously use it without double-checking every word. Compare that to talking to a co-worker, where you can speak the argot of your speciality, ask 'em if they have any questions, and then go about your business, knowing that whatever it was is handled. If this requires RAM, CPU power or special hardware, how many will balk when the alternative is being freed from not only the keyboard, but the desk? If you can talk to your machine (and they can already talk back, so that's not even an issue), there should be a lot of cases when you can be elsewhere and still extremely productive. Smartphones and tablets can help here, acting as remote displays for stuff high-power computed elsewhere.
And of course technology could very easily throw us a curve... an invention just around the corner that no one has yet thought of. Or, perhaps it's been thought of and is sitting quietly in some SF work, just waiting for someone to go... "Hey! I can *make* that!"
I think we're looking at an early peak in a multiple-peak technology. Based on power consumption and noting just how sloppy modern programming is in terms of the huge, memory-hungry executables our average dev system chokes out (insert any c++ compiler and its stock classes here), it seems clear to me that the machines that run any kind of serious apps are not going to be squeezed into tablets for quite some time without fusion backpacks and hats that incorporate cooling towers. And as it seems obvious that more powerful apps are inevitable... high powered, fixed machines aren't going to go away.
The constitution wasn't written to control people's behavior, it was written to control government's behavior.
Agreed, and this is the best argument (that this was a private company doing the invasion.)
However, it's pretty clear that the same rules that apply to the government land on us in this arena: You cannot tap someone else's phone; you cannot enter their home without their permission; you cannot open their mail; you cannot repeat any communication you inadvertently intercept, and so forth.
IMHO, to say that it's ok to deep mine someone's packets just because they have an open wifi connection... that seems to me to be not just stretching the idea of privacy, but breaking it completely.
Your mail is protected. That the government violate those protections, I won't contest. But it certainly is protected. The 4th doesn't say that your papers must be in your possession. It just explicitly establishes your right for your papers to be secure.
Mmmm.... maybe. But generally, just as the government can't read your mail; neither can a private citizen. Just as the government can't tap your cellphone or landline, neither can a private citizen. Just as the government can't arbitrarily enter your home, neither can the private citizen. I think the social standard is clear.
Quite aside from that, this isn't about sharing an open network by establishing your own communications to the net at large; it's about sniffing other people's packets on that network without their knowledge.
So it's pretty clear we are talking about the usual bounds of privacy.
My letters are indeed in an envelope; so are my internet communications. Several levels of envelope, in fact. An email package addressed to the recipient on the one hand, and packets containing the data as well. In fact, it's a lot easier for the average person to open the physical envelope and read my mail as compared to intercepting my email.
Again, you're confusing hardening of the boundary with the existence of the boundary. The government is forbidden to access our personal information without a warrant. There's no exception in the 4th amendment that says "unless it's easy."
An open door to your house doesn't automatically turn into "you can come in and do whatever you want."
The whole point of the 4th amendment is to set the boundary for the government. It's not about technical means, it's not about easy, it's not about expectations: It's about the government having to comply with a specific process in order to be able to look at your stuff.
You're confusing expectation of privacy (being secure in your papers) with encryption (hardening access.) They're not the same thing at all.
Consider unencrypted mail, telephone conversations, an unlocked door to your house, the banking papers in your desk.
Our expectation is that there are boundaries here that are not to be crossed, and it isn't because they're hard to cross, or they exist only when made harder; further, our "sense of security" isn't derived from the existence (or not) of technical means to access these things; it's about the government being forbidden to cross these lines without a warrant.
When you say that access should be granted because it is easy, you're entirely missing the point.
Sure, the government has the means to get at the information -- and it's easy for them.
The point is, they're forbidden to do so without a warrant.
The intent of "expectation of privacy" is that it's to a reasonably informed person, not to someone who is wholly ignorant of the topic.
I don't think that follows. I don't know what happens to my letters after I give them to the post office; but I still expect they won't be read by the government without a warrant.
When my mother in law picks up the phone, she doesn't know any of the details of how her voice goes down that wire, or is switched, or amplified, put on microwaves, etc... but she still doesn't think anyone from the government has any business at all listening without a warrant.
Our expectations of privacy from government intrusion aren't set by specific technical processes; they are set by the 4th amendment.
Furthermore, I'm convinced that is exactly how they should be set. It's more than a little far-reaching to say that the only valid expectations require a technical understanding of the process involved.
Slashdot Mirror
Simple. Because unless you include a check, they won't read your letter.
No doubt. It's the one where Bush had us losing jobs, and Obama turned it around and has us gaining jobs.
You know. This one.
It's the one where Romney would have let GM die; and Obama saved it, along with a huge number of jobs.
It's the one where the (rich) credit card companies were taking advantage of credit card users right and left, particularly lower and middle class, screwing them on interest rates in specific, and the Obama admin saw to it that the means they used to do that were taken from them.
That death spiral.
"Important point: when my kids have grown up enough to reach such a mobile, it lasted mere hours."
Thanks, that's what we needed to know. <CLICK>
More seriously, Arthur C. Clark explored this idea in "The Nine Billion Names of God" in the 1950s.
This isn't railing against all data mining operations. This is railing against data mining operations that operate in direct opposition to the 4th amendment of the US constitution.
There are still a few people around who think the government ought to be limited by the constitution, and that the only legitimate way to change the constitution resides under the aegis of article V, and that the fiddling the government -- all three branches -- has been doing is by definition illegal.
No, the engine did not explode. The fairing around the nozzle was crush by the sudden loss of interior pressure when the engine shut down -- the external pressure was then much higher than the nozzle's interior pressure (no more rocket exhaust) and it got crushed and fell away, harming nothing. The engine is still there, intact, and it did, in fact, just turn off.
It's a great name...
"the dispersion of any people from their original homeland"
You know... like "facebookers" leaving to join a new decentralized, non-data-mining system.
How?
...but you only have to fool enough of the people. Just look at politics -- that's the baseline for the whole mess.
no... I'd expect features with little or no utility to be added; user interfaces to be re-arranged; marketing to replace feature lists with glittering generalities, and tricks like "subscription models" to be unleashed upon the user base, leveraging, among other things, fear of exploits and not having the latest patches, and of course not having the latest, coolest "thing." I'd expect new operating systems to leverage new hardware tweaks that won't let old operating systems boot, and only the new software will run under the new operating systems. I would expect companies who have long ago reached the end of their actual useful lifetime to try and hang on by any means they could.
Dude, you're cool.
FTFY
No. As far as I know, all etc/services does is provides what amounts to DNS for named TCP ports. What I'm talking about is a direct, program-to-program communications mechanism that transfers data between named ports without all the overhead of networking. As far as I know, in order to do this under OSX, TCP is the only option, and that is a *very* heavyweight mechanism to be invoking -- compare it to the Amiga's named ports and ARexx (Rexx scripting implementation) combo and you'll see what I mean. A fast IPC mechanism promotes all manner of good things, scripting for one, but that's really just the tip of the iceberg.
My understanding ATM is the answer is yes. I refer you to the record of my adventures on the matter:
At Stack Exchange: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/11074895/sharing-udp-broadcast-reception-python-example
To sum it up, multiple listeners works under linux, but not OSX.
This one was run up the flagpole on Stack Exchange, with demo code, and the fellows on Linux had no problem at all binding multiple times. It only failed under OSX. A finger was pointed at BSD in general, too.
Here are the Stack Exchange particulars: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/11074895/sharing-udp-broadcast-reception-python-example
I didn't know they'd removed it. :(
Yeah. You know. Like the ability to run linux, a feature they advertised and which sold units for them. That they dropped.
Or the ability to run PS2 games on what was basically PS2 hardware which was part of the original PS3. You remember, when the PS3 hardware was better than it is now... since they dropped that feature.
Or the two dropped USB connections.
Oh, and the dropped media slots.
Or the dropped on-off switch.
You know... dropped features .
Given Sony's history with the unit, the GP/AC's question was spot on target, I think, and I'm wondering the same thing: did they drop any features this time?
Technology advances will likely start the treadmill up again (although percentages of RAM sold don't exactly spell the end of sales to me... lol)
One example is real 3d displays. Not the stereo silliness they're trying to market now, but fully 3d volumetric renders. This will start out expensive and then drop into the consumer range. You'll need lots of CPU power to drive these; you'll need new display units; you'll need new hardware to drive those display units. There are prototypes now that work surprisingly well, so the light at the end of that tunnel will be something you can sense the distance of pretty soon.
Another *might* be AI. Personally, I suspect this is an algorithm problem, not necessarily a CPU power or RAM problem, but if it requires CPU power and/or RAM, that will also restart the treadmill. Further, real AI might spawn off some new applications as fundamental as the spreadsheet or the word processor... never know how a new intelligence will try to take the world as a problem set. I would bet that real AI would bring about a serious and sudden demand for HD or other high density storage. When Johnny Silicon sez it needs another 20 terabytes so it can learn your problem space properly, are you going to tell it no? If you don't think AI is possible, that's ok, because it's coming no matter what you think. :)
Another is speech input, which may see a solution outside of AI. What we have now is pitiful... like talking to a half-deaf preschooler. You can't seriously use it without double-checking every word. Compare that to talking to a co-worker, where you can speak the argot of your speciality, ask 'em if they have any questions, and then go about your business, knowing that whatever it was is handled. If this requires RAM, CPU power or special hardware, how many will balk when the alternative is being freed from not only the keyboard, but the desk? If you can talk to your machine (and they can already talk back, so that's not even an issue), there should be a lot of cases when you can be elsewhere and still extremely productive. Smartphones and tablets can help here, acting as remote displays for stuff high-power computed elsewhere.
And of course technology could very easily throw us a curve... an invention just around the corner that no one has yet thought of. Or, perhaps it's been thought of and is sitting quietly in some SF work, just waiting for someone to go... "Hey! I can *make* that!"
I think we're looking at an early peak in a multiple-peak technology. Based on power consumption and noting just how sloppy modern programming is in terms of the huge, memory-hungry executables our average dev system chokes out (insert any c++ compiler and its stock classes here), it seems clear to me that the machines that run any kind of serious apps are not going to be squeezed into tablets for quite some time without fusion backpacks and hats that incorporate cooling towers. And as it seems obvious that more powerful apps are inevitable... high powered, fixed machines aren't going to go away.
That's not correct. You need the consent of one of the parties to the conversation. That's not you and your scanner.
Agreed, and this is the best argument (that this was a private company doing the invasion.)
However, it's pretty clear that the same rules that apply to the government land on us in this arena: You cannot tap someone else's phone; you cannot enter their home without their permission; you cannot open their mail; you cannot repeat any communication you inadvertently intercept, and so forth.
IMHO, to say that it's ok to deep mine someone's packets just because they have an open wifi connection... that seems to me to be not just stretching the idea of privacy, but breaking it completely.
Your mail is protected. That the government violate those protections, I won't contest. But it certainly is protected. The 4th doesn't say that your papers must be in your possession. It just explicitly establishes your right for your papers to be secure.
Mmmm.... maybe. But generally, just as the government can't read your mail; neither can a private citizen. Just as the government can't tap your cellphone or landline, neither can a private citizen. Just as the government can't arbitrarily enter your home, neither can the private citizen. I think the social standard is clear.
Quite aside from that, this isn't about sharing an open network by establishing your own communications to the net at large; it's about sniffing other people's packets on that network without their knowledge.
So it's pretty clear we are talking about the usual bounds of privacy.
My letters are indeed in an envelope; so are my internet communications. Several levels of envelope, in fact. An email package addressed to the recipient on the one hand, and packets containing the data as well. In fact, it's a lot easier for the average person to open the physical envelope and read my mail as compared to intercepting my email.
Again, you're confusing hardening of the boundary with the existence of the boundary. The government is forbidden to access our personal information without a warrant. There's no exception in the 4th amendment that says "unless it's easy."
An open door to your house doesn't automatically turn into "you can come in and do whatever you want."
The whole point of the 4th amendment is to set the boundary for the government. It's not about technical means, it's not about easy, it's not about expectations: It's about the government having to comply with a specific process in order to be able to look at your stuff.
You're confusing expectation of privacy (being secure in your papers) with encryption (hardening access.) They're not the same thing at all.
Consider unencrypted mail, telephone conversations, an unlocked door to your house, the banking papers in your desk.
Our expectation is that there are boundaries here that are not to be crossed, and it isn't because they're hard to cross, or they exist only when made harder; further, our "sense of security" isn't derived from the existence (or not) of technical means to access these things; it's about the government being forbidden to cross these lines without a warrant.
When you say that access should be granted because it is easy, you're entirely missing the point.
Sure, the government has the means to get at the information -- and it's easy for them.
The point is, they're forbidden to do so without a warrant.
Also 18 USC 2511
18 USC 2511
Fine, there's a provision for just that. The procedure is in article five. Have at it.
I don't think that follows. I don't know what happens to my letters after I give them to the post office; but I still expect they won't be read by the government without a warrant.
When my mother in law picks up the phone, she doesn't know any of the details of how her voice goes down that wire, or is switched, or amplified, put on microwaves, etc... but she still doesn't think anyone from the government has any business at all listening without a warrant.
Our expectations of privacy from government intrusion aren't set by specific technical processes; they are set by the 4th amendment.
Furthermore, I'm convinced that is exactly how they should be set. It's more than a little far-reaching to say that the only valid expectations require a technical understanding of the process involved.