Yes, the summary does admit he may have been hacked, but it is a tech saavy reporter we are talking about here. The three most probable events are that he did it, he got someone else to do it, or he was framed. Foil hat aside, one of the first two guesses is most likely.
Let us not forget that reporters often forget that they are also within the law when they are covering a story. Perhaps he did all this without thinking he was breaking a law.
Nothing can be known for certain. Therefore, anything "could" happen. That was exactly the point of my post - no matter how improbable an event is, we can claim it "could" happen.
For that reason, it is usually incorrect to say something "could not" happen. We could claim that space dust could not be alive, but we better have a way of proving that every speckle of dust in the universe has never been alive, and that it never will be.
Therein lies the uselessness of the word "could," at least as used in the headline. Any sentence using it is pretty much useless without further evidence.
I *could* go on my roof tomorrow and fly to New York, but I'll *probably* break my neck.
Very accurate. 30 db is about 4x more powerful than 24 db (i know you said 25, but when working with decibels you want to work in units of 3). The inverse square law says that power is inversely proportional to square of distance. Therefore, something that is 4x as powerful sounds the same at sqrt(10^2 * 4) = 20 meters
BTW, I believe 30 db is a soft whisper at 5 meters, not 10. So something at 24 db would sound like a whisper from 10 meters - still, not bad.
Why can't there be a flag that determines what scheduler is used at runtime, with both schedulers built into the kernel? I thought the whole point of Linux is that it is customizable and modular - I know this doesn't necessarily apply to the kernel, but why not?
I know very little about operating systems, schedulers, and maintaining large projects, so please excuse any ignorance in my post;)
Yes, I guess what I was implying is don't put yourself in the situation where you have to download things - i.e. don't buy their products.
I think this is moot - who the hell is so offended by p2p technology that they refuse to use it? The only valid concern I can think of is that you don't want a server running on your computer, which all bittorrent style schemes require (I believe). Additionally, some ISPs *technically* forbid it.
Also, the comment "How do you feel about subsidizing Microsoft's bandwidth costs?" is ridiculous. Yes, I know Slashdot is a biased source, but when they make it that blatant I get really annoyed.
No one is forcing anyone to use this p2p technology. If you have something against it, just don't download things from Microsoft. Common sense...
My guess has to do with the battery. Pure electric cars don't need the extra weight of an engine, so they can fit a lot more battery capacity. A hybrid needs the engine, so it will have less battery capacity. The battery in a hybrid isn't supposed to power the car in normal conditions, it is made to augment the engine's performance. This is what will limit the range of hybrids on pure battery, I think.
"This starts the real beginning of being able to effectively monitor and even potentially control some of the social aspects of the internet"
I fail to see your reasoning. Companies have always been able to "monitor" blogs and subscribe to RSS feeds. And they aren't controlling the social aspects of the internet at all. A press release has always been a standard communication means of corporations; as long as they aren't creating fake blogs, I don't think they are trying to control any aspect of the social internet.
And personally, if a company does analyze blogs, I think it's a great thing. It means they care what normal people think about them and their products. Almost every blogger who talks about a company hopes that the company is listening to them.
As an AI student, I wish people on Slashdot weren't so afraid of "intelligent" algorithms. They really aren't meant to be evil, they are usually meant to make something that is tedious more efficient. Yes, it can be abused, but just about everything can; For example, just because airplanes are used by the military to kill people does not make airplanes inherently evil.
If an encyclopedia purposefully says something incorrect, it has lost credibility for a poor reason. For example, if I want to know what the NP problem is, I don't consider it acceptable that an encyclopedia purposefully lied to me just to mess with its competitors.
One thing that impresses me about Digg is the honesty coming from up above. Commander Taco would never do this, but Kevin Rose (founder of digg) has admitted his website's users aren't the most ad friendly bunch. Tech people simply don't click on ads.
While I agree that Digg's moderation system isn't the highest, the articles that hit the front page are generally more interesting, more varied, higher in number, and, unfortunately trashier. I like it because I have some free time to look through the stories, even though the average Digg user is young and not very knowledgeable.
Much simpler: 1. Get adplus+ for firefox 2. Select the easylist option when you restart firefox
I find this much easier to convince a n00b that it's really quite simple to never see ads again. Filterset.g is fine, but easylist is pretty damn good IMO and much more organized.
Perhaps, alternatively, they aren't trying to shut it down, but they are trying to extract maximum profits out of it. They must know, at a certain level, that internet radio is good for them.
Instead, they are using what I have heard called the "Soviet negotiation model," in which you make an unreasonable first demand; Then it seems a lot more reasonable when you lower it a little. It works quite well, especially when you have the upperhand to begin with.
When soundexchange halves their demands, they'll look like heroes to congress and the public, and still be making a lot more money. Genius...
Or perhaps they intuitively understood the reasoning behind it. The algorithm in question is simply a computational model of something, and human thought it capable of emulating that.
If true, it *really* does take a smart person to do that in their head. Of course we should also ask ourselves the accuracy of the model and its assumptions.
The article has nothing to do with wiretaps, anthrax, or anything else you said in your raving post. It has to do with the FBI mining data they already have access to. If the FBI are truly incompetent, no one has anything to worry about (including the guy who is building a bomb in his basement). If they can do it right, no real harm towards the innocent should come from it. The whole point of data mining is finding useful structure in an otherwise sea of random data. Not *everything* the government does is necessarily bad.
It seems to me that the only reason why you haven't been able to have an intelligent conversation about America in five years is because you aren't capable of it.
It's the FBI's job to look for domestic criminals. As long as they are doing their jobs without being intrusive into my law-abiding life, I am content with them. The second they cross that line (and I don't consider data mining to be crossing that line), I will be pissed.
It's funny, I have a general rule: If I am expecting something at my Hotmail address (which at this point is rare), the *first* place I look is my spam folder. This has worked literally 90% of the time.
"As for the cops, I'm talking about recording everything they're doing, not necessarily live"
Do you also believe in workplace surveillance? I work at a place where everything I do on the computer is recorded, and it's quite a pain in the ass. I feel somewhat uncomfortable that my boss could read my gmail account if I check it at work. The ironic thing is while most people on Slashdot would agree with your comment, they would be outraged at their employee spying on what they do. Your reasoning that because the police are public servants they should be monitored by the public supports complete and utter surveillance by private companies of their employees.
Do you believe in both, or just surveillance of police?
"All the police, their vehicles, and buildings should have webcams monitoring all their activity all the time."
Wouldn't that allow criminals to watch themselves being investigated and therefore hinder the police?
And besides, I know most people on here, myself included, aren't huge fans of the police, but how would YOU feel if people were looking over your shoulder all day while you were trying to do your job? I personally get nervous and work less efficiently...
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, the summary does admit he may have been hacked, but it is a tech saavy reporter we are talking about here. The three most probable events are that he did it, he got someone else to do it, or he was framed. Foil hat aside, one of the first two guesses is most likely.
Let us not forget that reporters often forget that they are also within the law when they are covering a story. Perhaps he did all this without thinking he was breaking a law.
Nothing can be known for certain. Therefore, anything "could" happen. That was exactly the point of my post - no matter how improbable an event is, we can claim it "could" happen.
For that reason, it is usually incorrect to say something "could not" happen. We could claim that space dust could not be alive, but we better have a way of proving that every speckle of dust in the universe has never been alive, and that it never will be.
Therein lies the uselessness of the word "could," at least as used in the headline. Any sentence using it is pretty much useless without further evidence.
I *could* go on my roof tomorrow and fly to New York, but I'll *probably* break my neck.
The guy's name is "This." Yes, you probably do need some sleep, and I do too because I thought the same thing at first ;)
Seriously, it seems like a major conflict of interest. Why is the president of the University making decisions like this anyway?
Very accurate. 30 db is about 4x more powerful than 24 db (i know you said 25, but when working with decibels you want to work in units of 3). The inverse square law says that power is inversely proportional to square of distance. Therefore, something that is 4x as powerful sounds the same at sqrt(10^2 * 4) = 20 meters
BTW, I believe 30 db is a soft whisper at 5 meters, not 10. So something at 24 db would sound like a whisper from 10 meters - still, not bad.
Why can't there be a flag that determines what scheduler is used at runtime, with both schedulers built into the kernel? I thought the whole point of Linux is that it is customizable and modular - I know this doesn't necessarily apply to the kernel, but why not?
;)
I know very little about operating systems, schedulers, and maintaining large projects, so please excuse any ignorance in my post
Yes, I guess what I was implying is don't put yourself in the situation where you have to download things - i.e. don't buy their products.
I think this is moot - who the hell is so offended by p2p technology that they refuse to use it? The only valid concern I can think of is that you don't want a server running on your computer, which all bittorrent style schemes require (I believe). Additionally, some ISPs *technically* forbid it.
No, not at all. If you don't like a product, including the distribution system for patches, DON'T BUY IT.
Common sense.
Also, the comment "How do you feel about subsidizing Microsoft's bandwidth costs?" is ridiculous. Yes, I know Slashdot is a biased source, but when they make it that blatant I get really annoyed.
No one is forcing anyone to use this p2p technology. If you have something against it, just don't download things from Microsoft. Common sense...
My guess has to do with the battery. Pure electric cars don't need the extra weight of an engine, so they can fit a lot more battery capacity. A hybrid needs the engine, so it will have less battery capacity. The battery in a hybrid isn't supposed to power the car in normal conditions, it is made to augment the engine's performance. This is what will limit the range of hybrids on pure battery, I think.
"This starts the real beginning of being able to effectively monitor and even potentially control some of the social aspects of the internet"
I fail to see your reasoning. Companies have always been able to "monitor" blogs and subscribe to RSS feeds. And they aren't controlling the social aspects of the internet at all. A press release has always been a standard communication means of corporations; as long as they aren't creating fake blogs, I don't think they are trying to control any aspect of the social internet.
And personally, if a company does analyze blogs, I think it's a great thing. It means they care what normal people think about them and their products. Almost every blogger who talks about a company hopes that the company is listening to them.
As an AI student, I wish people on Slashdot weren't so afraid of "intelligent" algorithms. They really aren't meant to be evil, they are usually meant to make something that is tedious more efficient. Yes, it can be abused, but just about everything can; For example, just because airplanes are used by the military to kill people does not make airplanes inherently evil.
If an encyclopedia purposefully says something incorrect, it has lost credibility for a poor reason. For example, if I want to know what the NP problem is, I don't consider it acceptable that an encyclopedia purposefully lied to me just to mess with its competitors.
One thing that impresses me about Digg is the honesty coming from up above. Commander Taco would never do this, but Kevin Rose (founder of digg) has admitted his website's users aren't the most ad friendly bunch. Tech people simply don't click on ads.
While I agree that Digg's moderation system isn't the highest, the articles that hit the front page are generally more interesting, more varied, higher in number, and, unfortunately trashier. I like it because I have some free time to look through the stories, even though the average Digg user is young and not very knowledgeable.
One beer, 10-1 odds, I'll drink 10 for you ;)
"Why are we only hearing about it [at Duke]?"
The same reasoning could be used to ask why this problem only began after the iPhone came out.
Much simpler:
1. Get adplus+ for firefox
2. Select the easylist option when you restart firefox
I find this much easier to convince a n00b that it's really quite simple to never see ads again. Filterset.g is fine, but easylist is pretty damn good IMO and much more organized.
GP meant the HD-DVD player is double...
Perhaps, alternatively, they aren't trying to shut it down, but they are trying to extract maximum profits out of it. They must know, at a certain level, that internet radio is good for them.
Instead, they are using what I have heard called the "Soviet negotiation model," in which you make an unreasonable first demand; Then it seems a lot more reasonable when you lower it a little. It works quite well, especially when you have the upperhand to begin with.
When soundexchange halves their demands, they'll look like heroes to congress and the public, and still be making a lot more money. Genius...
Or perhaps they intuitively understood the reasoning behind it. The algorithm in question is simply a computational model of something, and human thought it capable of emulating that.
If true, it *really* does take a smart person to do that in their head. Of course we should also ask ourselves the accuracy of the model and its assumptions.
The article has nothing to do with wiretaps, anthrax, or anything else you said in your raving post. It has to do with the FBI mining data they already have access to. If the FBI are truly incompetent, no one has anything to worry about (including the guy who is building a bomb in his basement). If they can do it right, no real harm towards the innocent should come from it. The whole point of data mining is finding useful structure in an otherwise sea of random data. Not *everything* the government does is necessarily bad.
It seems to me that the only reason why you haven't been able to have an intelligent conversation about America in five years is because you aren't capable of it.
It's the FBI's job to look for domestic criminals. As long as they are doing their jobs without being intrusive into my law-abiding life, I am content with them. The second they cross that line (and I don't consider data mining to be crossing that line), I will be pissed.
It's funny, I have a general rule: If I am expecting something at my Hotmail address (which at this point is rare), the *first* place I look is my spam folder. This has worked literally 90% of the time.
"As for the cops, I'm talking about recording everything they're doing, not necessarily live"
Do you also believe in workplace surveillance? I work at a place where everything I do on the computer is recorded, and it's quite a pain in the ass. I feel somewhat uncomfortable that my boss could read my gmail account if I check it at work. The ironic thing is while most people on Slashdot would agree with your comment, they would be outraged at their employee spying on what they do. Your reasoning that because the police are public servants they should be monitored by the public supports complete and utter surveillance by private companies of their employees.
Do you believe in both, or just surveillance of police?
"All the police, their vehicles, and buildings should have webcams monitoring all their activity all the time."
Wouldn't that allow criminals to watch themselves being investigated and therefore hinder the police?
And besides, I know most people on here, myself included, aren't huge fans of the police, but how would YOU feel if people were looking over your shoulder all day while you were trying to do your job? I personally get nervous and work less efficiently...