The point of terrorism is to use fear to negatively influence the behavior of the masses.
The more we try to protect ourselves from terrorism, the more freedoms we lose and the more the terrorists win. The result is a disturbing version of the Streisand Effect.
My keyboard and mouse already provide a brain-computer interface.
What!? Not the same thing, you say?
I beg to differ. All of the current technologies that might be used for this purpose are just fancy keyboards using some other kind of sensing technology rather than hall-effect switches. The systems don't understand what you're thinking they just interpret the activation of certain neuron groups as on-off switches. You can train your brain to trigger these neuron groups in pretty much the same way you can train your brain to move your fingers over a keyboard.
To think that the current brain-interfaces anywhere approach the holy grail of brain-computer interfaces that most people have in mind completely misunderstands the problem.
Of course, NASA believed that a launch did not pose significant risk (I won't use the 'safe' word). It's debatable whether the management of Morton Thiokol believed the risk was acceptable, but they clearly believed that NASA was accepting/encouraging the risk. It is clear that the engineers at Morton THiokol did not believe that it was safe. The issues and concerns had been raised multiple times to NASA, including a memo, in August of 1985, warning of possible catastrophic failure.
It's just silly to claim that NASA was just accepting the Morton Thiokol recommendations. The only non-reckless course of action for NASA to have taken would have been to have the Morton Thiokol engineers explain why it was safe to launch. That never happened, so we have to ask ourselves why NASA would ignore the warnings and allow the launch to proceed. What was their motivation?
The cost of delay was huge. The Spartan 203 mission would have to be scrapped. A new mission would have to planned, new payload prepared, mission specialist trained, etc.. Not to mention any contractual costs for not launching TDRS-2 on time and not launching Spartan 203 at all.
But you're probably right. None of this financial stuff probably had anything to do with it. I'm sure NASA just thought everything was hunky-dory and that those pesky engineers at Morton Thiokol were just a bunch of whiners...
Joe Kilminster of MTI was asked by Larry Mulloy of NASA for his launch decision. Joe responded the he did not recommend launching based upon the engineering position just presented. Then Larry Mulloy asked George Hardy of NASA for his launch decision. George responded that he was appalled at Thiokol's recommendation but said he would not launch over the contractor's objection. Then Larry Mulloy spent some time giving his views and interpretation of the data that was presented with his conclusion that the data presented was inconclusive.
and
I must emphasize that MTI Management fully supported the original decision to not launch below 53 F ( 12 C) prior to the caucus. The caucus constituted the unethical decision-making forum resulting from intense customer intimidation. NASA placed MTI in the position of proving that it was not safe to fly instead of proving that it was safe to fly. Also, note that NASA immediately accepted the new decision to launch because it was consistent with their desires and please note that no probing questions were asked.
The reason that NASA needed this launch to proceed is clear. After two previous delays, they had almost no launch window left in order to get the Spartan 203 satellite into position for it's mission to observe Halley's Comet.
You're kidding, right? Challenger, the worst space program disaster of all time, occured because NASA ignored all warnings from Morton Thiokol to postpone the launch. NASA's reasons for pressing on, in spite of these warnings, was entirely commercial.
Do you think NASA invents all of the technology that goes into space exploration? A large portion of that technology already comes from third parties. NASA is more of a program management function than a developer.
I don't disagree with a single thing you said. I don't defend the actions of the RIAA or the ludicrous judgements that have been rendered.
I would think that the burden of proof should be on the RIAA to demonstrate that files were successfully and illegally shared. The only evidence that is ever presented is (1) files were made available and (2) files were shared with an agent of the RIAA who was granted the rights to download [and share], which makes that exemplar invalid...
...RIAA's outlandish statutory damages theory -- that someone who downloaded an mp3 with a 99-cent retail value, causing a maximum possible damages of 35 cents, is liable for from $750 to $150,000 for each such file downloaded...
This completely misunderstands the issue. It's not about downloading, it's about sharing. The 'alleged' damages are not the value of the files Tenenbaum GOT but the value lost when he SHARED (both directly and indirectly). The RIAA would never get anywhere fast attacking the individual downloads, but the uploads have an exponential effect making the damages monsterous and frightening. The RIAA plan is to stop the sharing and the downloads will take care of themselves...
Most people think that they are just as adept at walking and driving while talking on their cell phones as when they are not. They are all wrong. Your perception of your awareness is tainted by your lack of awareness. It doesn't matter how aware you think you are; ask your neighbors around you and they will tell you about the guy who spilled his coffee trying not to collide with you or the lady who rescued her child from being trampled by you... and countless other events you never noticed.
If I wanted to smuggle/hide information and I was paranoid about the security of electronic transfer, my humongous laptop is NOT where I would keep it. I would choose something more the size of my pinky fingernail...
With the advent of 32GB microSD flash, it's easy to move lots of data undetected... at least until they train flash sniffing dogs.
IANAL, but it seems like the Dick estate has no case. If Google had named the phone Nexus-6... maybe... but probably not. Naming the phone Nexus-One may be a slight nod to DADOES, but not a blatant one. Most people, if they look up the word "nexus" are going to learn that it means a connection between things. Given that we are talking about a smartphone that connects people to the world... I think Google is in the clear.
This strikes me as a clear case of a Dick trying to get some free money through a frivolous lawsuit...
I think you missed the point. The Apple guy doesn't leak to the media, the Apple guy consults with a partner. The partner leaks to the media. The partner will likely have a special non-disclosure agreement that will cover his ass in the event that all goes south. It's all well orchestrated, undocumented, and not illegal.
I attend two technical conferences a year. One of them is very big (but shrinking), the other one small (but growing).
Since I am on the steering committee of the small one, I'll share some of the things that I think make it successful:
Free. The conference is almost entirely funded by the sponsors (vendors) who set up booths outside the conference rooms. The vendors end up paying for the conference facility, a catered lunch for the guests, and beer and wine for the panel session (more on that in a minute).
Theme. Think about the one or two nagging problems in your industry and focus the conference on those. Lead your speakers toward addressing these themes. Willy-nilly topics don't cut it.
Keynote Speaker. Don't underestimate the drawing power of a great keynote. Find someone who generally has interesting things to say and that everyone wants to hear talk. It generally takes about 6-8 months to figure out who we want, what we want them to talk about, and get them to commit. Ergo, start your quest early.
Invited Speakers. Don't mess around with calls for papers and such. Spend some time thinking about who has done great papers from related conferences and invite them to give a paper at your conference. Make sure they stick to the theme. Make sure you have one back-up speaker, someone local, who you can call on in a pinch if one of the other speakers has a last minute bus accident or other unplanned absence.
Out-of-the-box. Try to pick one speaker that no one would have ever thought of. Someone who might seem irrelevant at first blush, but then makes your audience go, "Wow, that never occurred to me...". Most smart people have some dream of starting their own business some day, so you might bring in a venture capitalist. Everyone is bent on "green" these days, maybe you can find some way to work in someone working on alternative energy resources. Smart phones, net books and ebooks are changing the landscape of practically everything - find some way to tie into that, but don't lose sight of your theme. The key here is don't just follow some standard formula - dare to be bold and make people think.
No Promotion(in conference). If you can avoid it, keep the vendors off the podium. If you must let them speak (sometimes, when they pay, they want to talk), make sure they don't promote their company's products and services. A good relevant technical subject is OK, a sales pitch will turn your audience away and once you lose them, it's next to impossible to get them back.
Breaks. Plan for your audience to have some long breaks to visit with the vendors (who will probably have some nice promotional toys). This is the time to allow people to network with people they may not have seen in a while. The networking is one of the most rewarding parts of any conference - this is when I get valuable benchmarking data about what my competitors are doing better than me.
Panel. Panels are fun and engaging. Pick your panelists wisely. Try to find people that are not only experts, but engaging, funny, and sometimes a little controversial. Try to have one person on the panel always playing the devil's advocate - it can be just one guy or the role can float around. You want your audience to stand up and challenge the panelists. Confrontation gets people thinking, talking, and let's face it, it's freakin' fun to watch a couple of geeks in a verbal cat-fight! Especially when everyone, panelists included, are lubricated with a little alcohol.
Feedback. Get interactive feedback from your audience about what they like and don't like. Ask them for ideas of what they would like to see next year. If they seem really passionate about something, ask them to be on the steering committee for next year. Put up a web site to solicit feedback and provide pictures from the conference for people to see how much fun it was last year. If possible post presentations from the speakers - this is a nic
I disagree with this premise. Not that Mac OS has less market share - that's clearly factual. The part I disagree with is your assumption of impact. If I wanted to develop malware I wouldn't choose the platform where there are thousands of people on the lookout for it and a large portion of the market has software tools installed to fight against it. I would choose the system that is more open and most of the users blindly/blithely assume they are safe.
In other words, the Windows market share that is susceptible is lower than the Mac OS market share that is susceptible. Also, given that Mac users tend to be in better economic positions than Windows users (in general), a well placed piece of malware on the Mac would get the perpetrator much more publicity/visibility.
Plus, imagine the kudos from the hacker community for the wizard that is the first to pull it off...
No, I don't think market share - as you measure it - has anything to do with it.
You can generally opt out of most junk mail (http://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs4-junk.htm). Trying to opt out of spam typically gets you more spam.
And you're confused if you think you don't pay for spam. You pay for your internet service. Some of this cost is for bandwidth consumed by spam, some is for storage of spam, some is for spam blocking, etc.. I've seen estimates that suggests that 20%-30% of your internet costs are for spam... even if it never makes it into your inbox.
In Austin Texas, we have a couple of stores similar to what you propose. They're called Wireless Toyz. There you can look at hundreds of phones and accessories and multiple carriers. You can get practically anything you want there.
How does a license model hurt consumers? In this case, the only consumer that was protected was the guy who was selling copies of Autodesk on eBay. Since none of the consumers who bought these copies could authorize them, they were hurt by the seller violating the terms of the license agreement, and by the court for not protecting their consumer rights.
Most Electronic Design Automation software is licensed not sold. No one believes that they **BUY** a copy of Synopsys Design Compiler. If someone were selling copies of Design Compiler on eBay you can bet that Synopsys would take them to court. I don't think this case is fully settled. If it is, it undermines the whole business model of thousands of software companies... and if that happens, then consumers will really pay!
DISCLAIMER: I do not work for Autodesk or Synopsys, or any software company for that matter.
I'm a Mac guy. I'm also a PC guy... and a linux guy... I use PCs more than I use Macs because my employer requires it. I own Macs (and no PCs) because I have a choice.
I know a lot of Mac guys. Of the Mac guys I know, about 60% of them only have Macs. Of the 40% who also have PCs, most of them have PCs because they used to be PC guys and they kept their old machines. I only know 2 guys that have up-to-date Mac and PC hardware for doing cross-platform development. I doubt that these two would be considered mainstream Mac/PC users. I do know one guy that has 4 or 5 PCs and one Mac (the Mac is for his wife and kids, so I don't really include him in my list of Mac owners - he never uses it).
I'm not saying the survey is wrong, but I suspect that the data sample might be skewed in some way. For instance, maybe the sample was all Google developers... Or maybe the survey was stated in such a way that it was interpreted as "what do you USE", rather than "what do you OWN".
I use both Macs and PCs, though (for the record) I only **OWN** Macs. I use open source and freeware on both machines. Now I admit that this is a possibly skewed assessment, but in my **PERSONAL** experience, for the kinds of applications **I** use, the Macs have more OSS/freeware options and better quality apps, as well.
I have a lot of freeware on my PC, but it takes me a lot of time to find stuff that's reasonably stable and useable. I have more freeware on my Mac than I do the PC, but I have a lot less time invested in the quest. I can't think of a single PC application that I use that I find myself wishing I had a Mac equivalent. I can think of dozens of Mac apps that I wish I had on my PC.
I've purchased 4 commercial apps for the PC and only one (QuickTime Pro) for the Mac...
So, **MY** experience does not agree with your assessment. Your milage may vary...
Similarly configured Macs cost us about twice what a PC does.
You chastise the previous author about anecdotal evidence then you write this? I've been comparing "similarly configured" Macs and PCs for many, many years. Yes, if you ignore total cost of ownership, Macs will typically be somewhat higher in sales price, but nowhere near double. And if we're talking about an enterprise network, we're not talking about super-low-end PCs you get at Walmart. Of course, you used the word "us", so maybe you have some peculiar configuration that sets you apart from the mainstream. If so, you need to be upfront about it.
As for discounts. My company gets decent Apple discounts (nearly the same as the student discount) and we only buy a couple of hundred Macs a year. I don't know what it takes to get into Apple's discount program, but it sure isn't truck loads.
I agree, 100%. My first take on this was that the point that they want to make will be completely lost in the implementation. They want to fight anorexia, but making the models appear thinner is only a small fraction of the kinds of photo editing that is done. Usually complexion is the thing that is modified the most and is modified in nearly every photo of people used in advertising. If every photo has the label, then the label becomes meaningless.
Maybe the label needs to be more specific and say something like "People in photo are larger than they appear".
Slashdot Mirror
The point of terrorism is to use fear to negatively influence the behavior of the masses.
The more we try to protect ourselves from terrorism, the more freedoms we lose and the more the terrorists win. The result is a disturbing version of the Streisand Effect.
This is exactly right.
A complete failure to grasp three fundamental human behaviors:
My keyboard and mouse already provide a brain-computer interface.
What!? Not the same thing, you say?
I beg to differ. All of the current technologies that might be used for this purpose are just fancy keyboards using some other kind of sensing technology rather than hall-effect switches. The systems don't understand what you're thinking they just interpret the activation of certain neuron groups as on-off switches. You can train your brain to trigger these neuron groups in pretty much the same way you can train your brain to move your fingers over a keyboard.
To think that the current brain-interfaces anywhere approach the holy grail of brain-computer interfaces that most people have in mind completely misunderstands the problem.
-- Albert Einstein
Of course, NASA believed that a launch did not pose significant risk (I won't use the 'safe' word). It's debatable whether the management of Morton Thiokol believed the risk was acceptable, but they clearly believed that NASA was accepting/encouraging the risk. It is clear that the engineers at Morton THiokol did not believe that it was safe. The issues and concerns had been raised multiple times to NASA, including a memo, in August of 1985, warning of possible catastrophic failure.
It's just silly to claim that NASA was just accepting the Morton Thiokol recommendations. The only non-reckless course of action for NASA to have taken would have been to have the Morton Thiokol engineers explain why it was safe to launch. That never happened, so we have to ask ourselves why NASA would ignore the warnings and allow the launch to proceed. What was their motivation?
The cost of delay was huge. The Spartan 203 mission would have to be scrapped. A new mission would have to planned, new payload prepared, mission specialist trained, etc.. Not to mention any contractual costs for not launching TDRS-2 on time and not launching Spartan 203 at all.
But you're probably right. None of this financial stuff probably had anything to do with it. I'm sure NASA just thought everything was hunky-dory and that those pesky engineers at Morton Thiokol were just a bunch of whiners...
I think it is you who is misrepresenting the facts.
Check out this description of the meeting from Roger Boisjoly, former Morton Thiokol engineer, who was present when the final decision was made:
http://www.onlineethics.org/Topics/profpractice/ppessays/thiokolshuttle/shuttle_telecon.aspx
Here are a couple of key quotes:
and
The reason that NASA needed this launch to proceed is clear. After two previous delays, they had almost no launch window left in order to get the Spartan 203 satellite into position for it's mission to observe Halley's Comet.
You're kidding, right? Challenger, the worst space program disaster of all time, occured because NASA ignored all warnings from Morton Thiokol to postpone the launch. NASA's reasons for pressing on, in spite of these warnings, was entirely commercial.
Do you think NASA invents all of the technology that goes into space exploration? A large portion of that technology already comes from third parties. NASA is more of a program management function than a developer.
I don't disagree with a single thing you said. I don't defend the actions of the RIAA or the ludicrous judgements that have been rendered.
I would think that the burden of proof should be on the RIAA to demonstrate that files were successfully and illegally shared. The only evidence that is ever presented is (1) files were made available and (2) files were shared with an agent of the RIAA who was granted the rights to download [and share], which makes that exemplar invalid...
IANALEither
This completely misunderstands the issue. It's not about downloading, it's about sharing. The 'alleged' damages are not the value of the files Tenenbaum GOT but the value lost when he SHARED (both directly and indirectly). The RIAA would never get anywhere fast attacking the individual downloads, but the uploads have an exponential effect making the damages monsterous and frightening. The RIAA plan is to stop the sharing and the downloads will take care of themselves...
Most people think that they are just as adept at walking and driving while talking on their cell phones as when they are not. They are all wrong. Your perception of your awareness is tainted by your lack of awareness. It doesn't matter how aware you think you are; ask your neighbors around you and they will tell you about the guy who spilled his coffee trying not to collide with you or the lady who rescued her child from being trampled by you... and countless other events you never noticed.
If I wanted to smuggle/hide information and I was paranoid about the security of electronic transfer, my humongous laptop is NOT where I would keep it. I would choose something more the size of my pinky fingernail...
With the advent of 32GB microSD flash, it's easy to move lots of data undetected... at least until they train flash sniffing dogs.
IANAL, but it seems like the Dick estate has no case.
If Google had named the phone Nexus-6... maybe... but probably not.
Naming the phone Nexus-One may be a slight nod to DADOES, but not a blatant one.
Most people, if they look up the word "nexus" are going to learn that it means a connection between things. Given that we are talking about a smartphone that connects people to the world... I think Google is in the clear.
This strikes me as a clear case of a Dick trying to get some free money through a frivolous lawsuit...
I think you missed the point.
The Apple guy doesn't leak to the media, the Apple guy consults with a partner. The partner leaks to the media. The partner will likely have a special non-disclosure agreement that will cover his ass in the event that all goes south. It's all well orchestrated, undocumented, and not illegal.
I attend two technical conferences a year. One of them is very big (but shrinking), the other one small (but growing). Since I am on the steering committee of the small one, I'll share some of the things that I think make it successful:
I disagree with this premise. Not that Mac OS has less market share - that's clearly factual. The part I disagree with is your assumption of impact. If I wanted to develop malware I wouldn't choose the platform where there are thousands of people on the lookout for it and a large portion of the market has software tools installed to fight against it. I would choose the system that is more open and most of the users blindly/blithely assume they are safe.
In other words, the Windows market share that is susceptible is lower than the Mac OS market share that is susceptible. Also, given that Mac users tend to be in better economic positions than Windows users (in general), a well placed piece of malware on the Mac would get the perpetrator much more publicity/visibility.
Plus, imagine the kudos from the hacker community for the wizard that is the first to pull it off...
No, I don't think market share - as you measure it - has anything to do with it.
You can generally opt out of most junk mail (http://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs4-junk.htm). Trying to opt out of spam typically gets you more spam.
And you're confused if you think you don't pay for spam. You pay for your internet service. Some of this cost is for bandwidth consumed by spam, some is for storage of spam, some is for spam blocking, etc.. I've seen estimates that suggests that 20%-30% of your internet costs are for spam... even if it never makes it into your inbox.
In Austin Texas, we have a couple of stores similar to what you propose. They're called Wireless Toyz. There you can look at hundreds of phones and accessories and multiple carriers. You can get practically anything you want there.
Getting sued for patent infringement?... There's an app for that!
How does a license model hurt consumers? In this case, the only consumer that was protected was the guy who was selling copies of Autodesk on eBay. Since none of the consumers who bought these copies could authorize them, they were hurt by the seller violating the terms of the license agreement, and by the court for not protecting their consumer rights.
Most Electronic Design Automation software is licensed not sold. No one believes that they **BUY** a copy of Synopsys Design Compiler. If someone were selling copies of Design Compiler on eBay you can bet that Synopsys would take them to court. I don't think this case is fully settled. If it is, it undermines the whole business model of thousands of software companies... and if that happens, then consumers will really pay!
DISCLAIMER: I do not work for Autodesk or Synopsys, or any software company for that matter.
I'm a Mac guy. I'm also a PC guy... and a linux guy... I use PCs more than I use Macs because my employer requires it. I own Macs (and no PCs) because I have a choice.
I know a lot of Mac guys. Of the Mac guys I know, about 60% of them only have Macs. Of the 40% who also have PCs, most of them have PCs because they used to be PC guys and they kept their old machines. I only know 2 guys that have up-to-date Mac and PC hardware for doing cross-platform development. I doubt that these two would be considered mainstream Mac/PC users. I do know one guy that has 4 or 5 PCs and one Mac (the Mac is for his wife and kids, so I don't really include him in my list of Mac owners - he never uses it).
I'm not saying the survey is wrong, but I suspect that the data sample might be skewed in some way. For instance, maybe the sample was all Google developers... Or maybe the survey was stated in such a way that it was interpreted as "what do you USE", rather than "what do you OWN".
I use both Macs and PCs, though (for the record) I only **OWN** Macs. I use open source and freeware on both machines. Now I admit that this is a possibly skewed assessment, but in my **PERSONAL** experience, for the kinds of applications **I** use, the Macs have more OSS/freeware options and better quality apps, as well.
I have a lot of freeware on my PC, but it takes me a lot of time to find stuff that's reasonably stable and useable. I have more freeware on my Mac than I do the PC, but I have a lot less time invested in the quest. I can't think of a single PC application that I use that I find myself wishing I had a Mac equivalent. I can think of dozens of Mac apps that I wish I had on my PC.
I've purchased 4 commercial apps for the PC and only one (QuickTime Pro) for the Mac...
So, **MY** experience does not agree with your assessment. Your milage may vary...
We lost the war on terrorism on 9/12 - right after we changed our behaviors and started giving up our own freedoms...
You chastise the previous author about anecdotal evidence then you write this? I've been comparing "similarly configured" Macs and PCs for many, many years. Yes, if you ignore total cost of ownership, Macs will typically be somewhat higher in sales price, but nowhere near double. And if we're talking about an enterprise network, we're not talking about super-low-end PCs you get at Walmart. Of course, you used the word "us", so maybe you have some peculiar configuration that sets you apart from the mainstream. If so, you need to be upfront about it.
As for discounts. My company gets decent Apple discounts (nearly the same as the student discount) and we only buy a couple of hundred Macs a year. I don't know what it takes to get into Apple's discount program, but it sure isn't truck loads.
I agree, 100%. My first take on this was that the point that they want to make will be completely lost in the implementation. They want to fight anorexia, but making the models appear thinner is only a small fraction of the kinds of photo editing that is done. Usually complexion is the thing that is modified the most and is modified in nearly every photo of people used in advertising. If every photo has the label, then the label becomes meaningless.
Maybe the label needs to be more specific and say something like "People in photo are larger than they appear".