The facial recognition scanners will ensure that ticketed passengers board their correct flight. It will prevent, for example, a passenger who arrives from Miami from trying to use a domestic ticket obtained from someone else in the departure lounge and then flying to Glasgow.
Since domestic flights do not have immigration counters, it would be possible with the departure lounge arrangement in those terminals for a passenger from Miami to avoid immigration.
In the similar case of Gary McKinnon - who also has aspergers - his defence argued that extradition would be severely detrimental to his health. Being chucked in one of those super-jails - sharing a room with 12 other convicts - doesn't go too well with the typical inability to adapt to new routines or environments, found in those with the condition. I think he said he'd commit suicide if he had to go.
Unless I'm mistaken, you're 'just' describing a standardised social networking protocol. This would decouple the 'presentation' layer (facebook.com, local app) from the plumbing (APIs, storage, discovery, etc).
Almost like the 'web' of the 'web'. 'Web 2.0' if you like;)
Hate to rock the boat by commenting on TFA, but surely this doesn't tell us that much. One conclusion could be that the placebo effect simply shows how many patients just want an authoritative medical figure to tell them what to do, something constructive (however questionable), and do not factor any of their own decision-making into the process.
"The doctor told me to go jump off a bridge. I feel better already now I've spoken to a man of medicine, with years of experience and schooling, and I'm taking action based on his advice."
There is probably significance in the *psychological process* of having a consultation with a doctor, getting the prescription, following the instructions to the letter. Wonder if it would still work if you thought it was BS and a waste of time. I wonder if they controlled for the patients' attitude towards the treatment, i.e. did they feel the program would do them some good, on some level? After all, people know placebos are supposed to work.
Proposition for a Digital Millennium CONSUMER Act: "It's mine so I can do what I like with it (without harming the rights of others, and that does not include the maximisation of the seller's profits).
Agreed on the OS X subject, but I'm not sure what is special about a 'consumer electronic device' that means it must be locked down. Reliability and performance are surely important for a general purpose machine, so why aren't they locked down too? Agreed on the Apple business model, but what about the Consumer usage model?
If you read the sales copy for the iPhone, its billed as being able to do just about anything ("there's an app for that"). So it begins to look more like a general purpose machine anyway.
I think this is a very realistic picture. Products will always mature towards more polished, lower-maintenance commodities - that's what the market demands. But besides stifling curiosity and education by disallowing people from tinkering with their property, the consumer loses out big-time because the manufacturers have a monopoly on maintenance and after-sales.
To risk a car analogy, most family saloons just "go" without needing much maintenance (perhaps changing the oil every now and then, I don't drive so I could be losing my credibility here). But you can still open the hood if you want to. So the enthusiasts can tinker, fixing problems themselves and souping their vehicle up if they choose. Or you can take your car to anyone who can fix it, at any price. But the way the computing market is going would be like sealing the hood of your car shut, so only registered dealers have access. This takes away the rights of the consumer and stifles competition. Sure, most people don't want to go at the guts of their car like a necromancer, but there's a difference between having a right and choosing to exercise that right.
Look at the printer market. Printers will not work with an ink cartridge sold by a competing manufacturer. High technology is used to achieve this, so its clearly intentional. The reasons they will give is "so we can give you the best service.... ensure quality of operation... blah blah blah" but there's too large a financial incentive to ignore. In this case its clear the consumer loses, because the market is closed and prices will rise as a result.
Now the printer market looks bad, but the software market is worse. Not only is it impossible to pick and choose the components to use with your own property (in cases such as Apple's censored app store), but its probably also illegal (see the DMCA).
Today, we have (generally) two alternatives: closed or open. There are advantages and disadvantages to each, but I dread to think what the closed-source options would look like if open-source wasn't there to counter-balance it. Fortunately, the roots of computing was always very much in the "hobbyist" camp, and the market rests on this fact. But after a couple more generations of Apple-toters, a computer will be like a policeman in the palm of your hand.
I still don't like the idea of software/hardware - which I pay for - designed to manage my rights. Hopefully one day there will be technology for Neurological Rights Management, and then I'll never have to worry about doing anything wrong again.
But using Google Docs is not the same as putting your docs online. Unless you also think that using web-based email is "putting your emails online". By default google docs are viewable only within your account (unless you choose to share them), but surely you'd have guessed this?
Of course, something could go wrong as it did with Voice, but you assess the risk. Just don't use Google Docs for those trade secrets, or blackmailable material:) It's actually a pretty handy tool, I use it instead of the txt files I'd have sat on the desktop of various computers - project notes, todo lists etc.
That's how it seems to me. It's the difference between asking "what is the probability of flipping 2 heads in a row", and "what is the probability of flipping heads, given that I just flipped heads on a previous trial".
The first case involves the combination of 2 coins (4 possibilities), the second involves the state of only one (who cares what the previous one was?)
The benefits of membership listed on the site include "access to sensitive information". Its going to attract a certain kind of person. Makes me think of the psychos who have a delusion that they are a secret agent, and try to pull vulnerable people into their... <dissonant flourish>... web of deceit.
Mindless getters/setters suck. They just result in gobs of code but no useful information. Comments on these would only be written by those with shares in paracetemol brands.
The canonical example is a message protocol which features gobs of fields, which may or may not be present in a fairly complex hierarchy of message types. The first instinct may be to provide getters/setters at the correct points in the inheritance chain, to ensure messages can only set the fields they ought to. That way the compiler will ensure these class invariants are upheld. But pages and pages of getters/setters are impossible to validate against a spec and just appear to the eye as noise. Then someone comes along and adds a setter because they think its needed and breaks the whole scheme.
Take instead a single getter/setter which takes fieldname/value, and a bitmap of allowed fields per-message type. Then check invariants each time the single setter is called. Much more declarative and readable to boot.
I researched ebook readers recently - with a view to maybe buying one - then promptly struck them off my wishlist. I wish all decisions could be as simple as this one.
I like the idea of having access to the titles I like wherever I am, without lugging around a veritable treasure chest, and I like the electronic ink concept. But unless you're happy with smaller 'indy' publishing houses (and there's nothing wrong with those, but I'd like more choice), you're stuck with self-serving, vendor-bound, DRM-laced formats. And I wouldn't purchase one of those at any price - it would be like buying trousers you can only wear on a Tuesday.
The DRM of the Sony Reader allows "any purchased e-book to be read on up to six devices, at least one of which must be a personal computer running Windows or Mac OS X" (citation). 6 devices sounds like a lot compared to what you usually get, but could easily be burned up in a few years. I bought XP about 6 years ago and now it has a better life as a sparkly coaster - silly me, I shouldn't have upgraded or rebuilt my machines. So then the average user would "upgrade", or buy a new copy in the "new format", because that's what all the magazines are saying is "hot".
And you can forget technical PDFs on e-readers, nice idea but think again. You may be able to re-size and convert PDFs with pure prose to the reader format, but forget your fancy diagrams, equations and tables.
Seems to me the publishers are just pissed off that we can lend books to each other (thus breaking copyright, if you read the blurb in the front matter), and that they could never police that. I'll stick to my library-in-a-suitcase thanks, now get your space-age sneakers off my lawn.
One reaction to this would be to accept, but then play the "casual labourer" role to the hilt. So insist on playing the radio full-blast wherever you're working. Whistle and sing loudly and obnoxiously. Holler at your colleagues on the far end of the office and refer to everybody by disparaging nicknames. Wear low-slung stonewashed jeans which force everybody to stare at the floor whenever you bend over. After all, if they don't treat you like professionals, why should you act that way?
If you really want to go to town on security, then look at the standards which have come from research and practice over the years.
For example the PCI DSS is a security standard for payment card industries. Their documents go into detail on the specific vulnerabilities that needs to be addressed to be certified. For example they mention specific flaws (say cross-site scripting), and also measures to protect data if an attack succeeds.
This document lists specific flaws that are known to be a problem, and had better be comprehensive since these are the standards banks are measured against. "Comprehensive" is perhaps a gross understatement, but it will give you an idea of the aspects to watch out for.
Languages as we know them have well-known paradigms such as functional decomposition, object orientation, casts, blah blah. And we're limited to these ways of thinking, useful as they are.
But to invent a parody language which doesn't really have to be useful... could produce ideas we wouldn't have thought of along traditional lines.
Anyone who reads Edward de Bono (who teaches thinking skills including how to have creative ideas) knows about the 'provocation': you make some nonsensical statement about the problem domain, then see what interesting possibilities that opens up. The idea is to brainstorm and hopefully useful ideas will come out of the process.
E.g. off the top of my head...
Provocation: "computer languages should have source code which is unreadable"
Leads to these (pretty random) ideas
A language with a very large instruction set, perhaps allowing low level access into graphics APIs etc. but reasonably high level semantics
A new microprocessor design which allows for a high level language which doesn't need to be compiled, a 'compromise' between the machine and its programmer
Deliberate obfuscation of the source (OK nothing new there)
Create a new natural language which is closer to how machines think, and have people program in that
I think silliness is a good way to solve many problems, thinking from outside the usual boundaries is often what's needed. Using the right tool for the job is normally the best approach but to paraphrase TFA a hacker is 'One who builds furniture using an axe' - now that has to result in some new ideas.
Without reading any of the responses so far... (i.e. this might end up as an unpopular opinion). But I did RTFA.
The fact that folks fought to the death to defend my right to do something does not mean I must be obligated to do that thing. Maybe I don't share their values? The idea that this leap of logic is being made is a trifle concerning to me.
I agree you shouldn't have the right to sell your vote, corruption lies along that path.
But the prosecutors have made it an emotive issue, rather than focusing on the real issue (corruption); I think they over-reacted there. Five years - that's pretty ridiculous.
This has made me think for the first time about the economics of this. This price-fixing practice (our goods can only be sold through our official channels) of luxury goods reveals their shambolic nature IMO.
Brand is an important concept and should be protected, as it is effectively a business' reputation.
However luxury goods go further. The brand name is meant to represent very high cultural value or exclusivity, without any real reference to tangible qualities of the product. And they certainly aren't exclusive; anybody with some dollar can buy their way into that special club.
Admittedly I'm sure superior raw materials are used and the products are hardly shoddy, but the price does not reflect these basics.
Place luxury goods on the free market and we'll see what they're really worth!
The submission seems to make a point that "the McKees have not announced intentions to sue Google, nor have they requested to have the images removed" despite the photos being "much more intrusive" than the Borings'.
Regardless of whether the McKees are offended or choose to take action doesn't make the Borings any less justified in doing so.
This is why I never feel comfortable with 'updates', unless I've vetted them first.
FTA and the linked blog, it appears the firmware update was pushed by the manufacturer, therefore didn't have to happen. I'm not blaming the people affected here as in principle, you may want to receive security updates etc. as a matter of course.
But personally I'm finding more and more that 'updates' often regress the performance of a product due to unnecessary flash new features and political modifications you'd never want or benefit from (such as this).
If the affected users had automatic updates turned off would they be able to legally continue as they were? Would reversing the upgrade somehow implicate them? Is there a legal issue at all?
So yeah, I like to avoid updates whenever I can. That's why I'm still running Win 98 First Edition.
Slashdot Mirror
In the similar case of Gary McKinnon - who also has aspergers - his defence argued that extradition would be severely detrimental to his health. Being chucked in one of those super-jails - sharing a room with 12 other convicts - doesn't go too well with the typical inability to adapt to new routines or environments, found in those with the condition. I think he said he'd commit suicide if he had to go.
Absolutely. Now we have a juicy rumor the Higgs Boson truly exists, we can harness it any way we want.
... I like gravity in my morning cereal.
Anyway, be careful
Telepathy framework
Falls off chair reaching for tin-foil hat ...
Unless I'm mistaken, you're 'just' describing a standardised social networking protocol. This would decouple the 'presentation' layer (facebook.com, local app) from the plumbing (APIs, storage, discovery, etc).
Almost like the 'web' of the 'web'. 'Web 2.0' if you like ;)
I just bought a Sony eReader which qualifies for a tax rebate. I just have to figure out the '???' step, and then I profit.
Hate to rock the boat by commenting on TFA, but surely this doesn't tell us that much. One conclusion could be that the placebo effect simply shows how many patients just want an authoritative medical figure to tell them what to do, something constructive (however questionable), and do not factor any of their own decision-making into the process.
"The doctor told me to go jump off a bridge. I feel better already now I've spoken to a man of medicine, with years of experience and schooling, and I'm taking action based on his advice."
There is probably significance in the *psychological process* of having a consultation with a doctor, getting the prescription, following the instructions to the letter. Wonder if it would still work if you thought it was BS and a waste of time. I wonder if they controlled for the patients' attitude towards the treatment, i.e. did they feel the program would do them some good, on some level? After all, people know placebos are supposed to work.
Feel free to contact me to discuss options. -- New owner of KI6WPV.com
Proposition for a Digital Millennium CONSUMER Act: "It's mine so I can do what I like with it (without harming the rights of others, and that does not include the maximisation of the seller's profits).
Agreed on the OS X subject, but I'm not sure what is special about a 'consumer electronic device' that means it must be locked down. Reliability and performance are surely important for a general purpose machine, so why aren't they locked down too? Agreed on the Apple business model, but what about the Consumer usage model?
If you read the sales copy for the iPhone, its billed as being able to do just about anything ("there's an app for that"). So it begins to look more like a general purpose machine anyway.
I think this is a very realistic picture. Products will always mature towards more polished, lower-maintenance commodities - that's what the market demands. But besides stifling curiosity and education by disallowing people from tinkering with their property, the consumer loses out big-time because the manufacturers have a monopoly on maintenance and after-sales.
.... ensure quality of operation ... blah blah blah" but there's too large a financial incentive to ignore. In this case its clear the consumer loses, because the market is closed and prices will rise as a result.
To risk a car analogy, most family saloons just "go" without needing much maintenance (perhaps changing the oil every now and then, I don't drive so I could be losing my credibility here). But you can still open the hood if you want to. So the enthusiasts can tinker, fixing problems themselves and souping their vehicle up if they choose. Or you can take your car to anyone who can fix it, at any price. But the way the computing market is going would be like sealing the hood of your car shut, so only registered dealers have access. This takes away the rights of the consumer and stifles competition. Sure, most people don't want to go at the guts of their car like a necromancer, but there's a difference between having a right and choosing to exercise that right.
Look at the printer market. Printers will not work with an ink cartridge sold by a competing manufacturer. High technology is used to achieve this, so its clearly intentional. The reasons they will give is "so we can give you the best service
Now the printer market looks bad, but the software market is worse. Not only is it impossible to pick and choose the components to use with your own property (in cases such as Apple's censored app store), but its probably also illegal (see the DMCA).
Today, we have (generally) two alternatives: closed or open. There are advantages and disadvantages to each, but I dread to think what the closed-source options would look like if open-source wasn't there to counter-balance it. Fortunately, the roots of computing was always very much in the "hobbyist" camp, and the market rests on this fact. But after a couple more generations of Apple-toters, a computer will be like a policeman in the palm of your hand.
I still don't like the idea of software/hardware - which I pay for - designed to manage my rights. Hopefully one day there will be technology for Neurological Rights Management, and then I'll never have to worry about doing anything wrong again.
But using Google Docs is not the same as putting your docs online. Unless you also think that using web-based email is "putting your emails online". By default google docs are viewable only within your account (unless you choose to share them), but surely you'd have guessed this?
:) It's actually a pretty handy tool, I use it instead of the txt files I'd have sat on the desktop of various computers - project notes, todo lists etc.
Of course, something could go wrong as it did with Voice, but you assess the risk. Just don't use Google Docs for those trade secrets, or blackmailable material
That's how it seems to me. It's the difference between asking "what is the probability of flipping 2 heads in a row", and "what is the probability of flipping heads, given that I just flipped heads on a previous trial".
The first case involves the combination of 2 coins (4 possibilities), the second involves the state of only one (who cares what the previous one was?)
The benefits of membership listed on the site include "access to sensitive information". Its going to attract a certain kind of person. Makes me think of the psychos who have a delusion that they are a secret agent, and try to pull vulnerable people into their ... <dissonant flourish> ... web of deceit.
Mindless getters/setters suck. They just result in gobs of code but no useful information. Comments on these would only be written by those with shares in paracetemol brands.
The canonical example is a message protocol which features gobs of fields, which may or may not be present in a fairly complex hierarchy of message types. The first instinct may be to provide getters/setters at the correct points in the inheritance chain, to ensure messages can only set the fields they ought to. That way the compiler will ensure these class invariants are upheld. But pages and pages of getters/setters are impossible to validate against a spec and just appear to the eye as noise. Then someone comes along and adds a setter because they think its needed and breaks the whole scheme.
Take instead a single getter/setter which takes fieldname/value, and a bitmap of allowed fields per-message type. Then check invariants each time the single setter is called. Much more declarative and readable to boot.
I like the idea of having access to the titles I like wherever I am, without lugging around a veritable treasure chest, and I like the electronic ink concept. But unless you're happy with smaller 'indy' publishing houses (and there's nothing wrong with those, but I'd like more choice), you're stuck with self-serving, vendor-bound, DRM-laced formats. And I wouldn't purchase one of those at any price - it would be like buying trousers you can only wear on a Tuesday.
The DRM of the Sony Reader allows "any purchased e-book to be read on up to six devices, at least one of which must be a personal computer running Windows or Mac OS X" (citation). 6 devices sounds like a lot compared to what you usually get, but could easily be burned up in a few years. I bought XP about 6 years ago and now it has a better life as a sparkly coaster - silly me, I shouldn't have upgraded or rebuilt my machines. So then the average user would "upgrade", or buy a new copy in the "new format", because that's what all the magazines are saying is "hot".
And you can forget technical PDFs on e-readers, nice idea but think again. You may be able to re-size and convert PDFs with pure prose to the reader format, but forget your fancy diagrams, equations and tables.
Seems to me the publishers are just pissed off that we can lend books to each other (thus breaking copyright, if you read the blurb in the front matter), and that they could never police that. I'll stick to my library-in-a-suitcase thanks, now get your space-age sneakers off my lawn.
"Hex Pest"
One reaction to this would be to accept, but then play the "casual labourer" role to the hilt. So insist on playing the radio full-blast wherever you're working. Whistle and sing loudly and obnoxiously. Holler at your colleagues on the far end of the office and refer to everybody by disparaging nicknames. Wear low-slung stonewashed jeans which force everybody to stare at the floor whenever you bend over. After all, if they don't treat you like professionals, why should you act that way?
For example the PCI DSS is a security standard for payment card industries. Their documents go into detail on the specific vulnerabilities that needs to be addressed to be certified. For example they mention specific flaws (say cross-site scripting), and also measures to protect data if an attack succeeds.
This document lists specific flaws that are known to be a problem, and had better be comprehensive since these are the standards banks are measured against. "Comprehensive" is perhaps a gross understatement, but it will give you an idea of the aspects to watch out for.
Languages as we know them have well-known paradigms such as functional decomposition, object orientation, casts, blah blah. And we're limited to these ways of thinking, useful as they are.
But to invent a parody language which doesn't really have to be useful ... could produce ideas we wouldn't have thought of along traditional lines.
Anyone who reads Edward de Bono (who teaches thinking skills including how to have creative ideas) knows about the 'provocation': you make some nonsensical statement about the problem domain, then see what interesting possibilities that opens up. The idea is to brainstorm and hopefully useful ideas will come out of the process.
E.g. off the top of my head ...
Provocation: "computer languages should have source code which is unreadable"
Leads to these (pretty random) ideas
I think silliness is a good way to solve many problems, thinking from outside the usual boundaries is often what's needed. Using the right tool for the job is normally the best approach but to paraphrase TFA a hacker is 'One who builds furniture using an axe' - now that has to result in some new ideas.
Without reading any of the responses so far ... (i.e. this might end up as an unpopular opinion). But I did RTFA.
The fact that folks fought to the death to defend my right to do something does not mean I must be obligated to do that thing. Maybe I don't share their values? The idea that this leap of logic is being made is a trifle concerning to me.
I agree you shouldn't have the right to sell your vote, corruption lies along that path.
But the prosecutors have made it an emotive issue, rather than focusing on the real issue (corruption); I think they over-reacted there. Five years - that's pretty ridiculous.
This has made me think for the first time about the economics of this. This price-fixing practice (our goods can only be sold through our official channels) of luxury goods reveals their shambolic nature IMO.
Brand is an important concept and should be protected, as it is effectively a business' reputation.
However luxury goods go further. The brand name is meant to represent very high cultural value or exclusivity, without any real reference to tangible qualities of the product. And they certainly aren't exclusive; anybody with some dollar can buy their way into that special club.
Admittedly I'm sure superior raw materials are used and the products are hardly shoddy, but the price does not reflect these basics.
Place luxury goods on the free market and we'll see what they're really worth!
The submission seems to make a point that "the McKees have not announced intentions to sue Google, nor have they requested to have the images removed" despite the photos being "much more intrusive" than the Borings'.
Regardless of whether the McKees are offended or choose to take action doesn't make the Borings any less justified in doing so.
This is why I never feel comfortable with 'updates', unless I've vetted them first.
FTA and the linked blog, it appears the firmware update was pushed by the manufacturer, therefore didn't have to happen. I'm not blaming the people affected here as in principle, you may want to receive security updates etc. as a matter of course.
But personally I'm finding more and more that 'updates' often regress the performance of a product due to unnecessary flash new features and political modifications you'd never want or benefit from (such as this).
If the affected users had automatic updates turned off would they be able to legally continue as they were? Would reversing the upgrade somehow implicate them? Is there a legal issue at all?
So yeah, I like to avoid updates whenever I can. That's why I'm still running Win 98 First Edition.
(j/k about Windows 98)