Well, it is a normal, harmless person, pretending to be someone who's only pretending to be a normal harmless person. Now, it seems to me the only way you could "act" like someone who is "acting" like he has nothing to hide, would be to act like you do have something to hide. I just can't trust these reported success/failure rates at all. The experiment to test the system is fundamentally flawed. Must have been thought up by people who were role-acting that they were statisticians.
The headline and summary are extremely misleading. The agency hasn't ruled at all. The vote is yet to come. All that has happened is that a panel of 7 people has made a recommendation, which may or may not be excepted. And the recommendation has plenty of problems that might prevent it from passing a vote. From TFA:
The panel's recommendation is being reviewed by the International Astronomical Union's executive committee. In an interview last week, executive committee member Bob Williams said the definition proposed by the panel had some potential problems, and he was not at all sure if the astronomers voting in Prague this month would approve it.
"At this point, I don't feel confident enough to bet in favor of it," he said.
Anyone notice how all the usual terrorist-coddling media sources referred to the suspects as being of south Asian origin? For crying out loud, call a spade a spade! The correct word is ARAB!
That's just plain ignorant. A Muslim from southeast Asia is likely to be Asian, not Arabic. Malasia and Indonesia for example have high Muslim populations. Just like lots of places in central Africa.
Learn the difference between religion and ethnicity.
Are you f-ing nuts?? You think we should allow books on planes??? A terrorist might rub together two toothpicks from the food-service cart and start the pages on FIRE! Geez, man, wake up from your pre-9/11 mind-set and start thinking about your safety!
If we don't make every effort to ensure that all potentially dangerous objects are prohibited from all public spaces, pretty soon your odds of being killed in a terrorist attack might almost catch up to your odds of being struck by lightning!
On that note, please call your members of congress and urge them to support the War on Electricity.
A higher and higher percentage of email traffic is spam, but the amount of it "received" by people can still be less due to the continuing improvement of filtering capabilities.
Now, if we could just get all the SMTP servers in the world to apply the filters BEFORE forwarding the mail, we could free up some of that wasted bandwidth. (The trouble with that, of course, is that the receiver can't correct the filter regarding what is and isn't spam, with a whitelist of approved senders for instance).
Frovingslosh is very stubbornly assuming things about the technique that aren't involved. The computer doesn't have to decode the information from the keyboard and sneak it out over the network. All that is required is that the user be using a program that sends out a packet for every keystroke. The software, the computer, none of that deciphers the hidden info in the keystroke delays. Those things aren't aware there IS a hidden message, which is sort of the point. As long as you happen to be sending out network traffic at one packet per keystroke (by say, using SSH), and as long as the amount of natural delay introduced by networking stack is at a smaller order of magnitude than the delay inserted by the keyboard, then you would be transmitting the hidden information any time you are using such a program.
Listen, your logic is fine, but your initial assumptions about how the technique works are not.
And mods, since when does "Insightful" mean "Failure to understand the article?"
You are phrasing the question in an almost unaddressably disingenous way. I'm not suggesting that only multi-billionairre oil heirs should be permitted to enjoy anything that qualifies as inessential. Duh. I'm no republican.
But a "luxury" is, as you pointed out, something that is inessential. And there are lots and lots of things that are inessential. Most of them don't cost much. The amount of luxury you can have is directly derived from the amount you are willing to pay for. Now, there are some people in the world who are born into wealth and don't have to work for it, and that sucks. But it isn't many of us. For the majority of us, the amount of money we have available to spend on luxuries is the result of the amount of and quality of work we have done to earn it.
Now do you really need me to explain why something that is inessential and costs 30 dollars should only be available to someone who has 30 dollars to trade for it, in order to compensate the person who produced it? Your entire argument boils down to "I don't need it, I didn't earn it, but I want it, and fuck all, that means I'm entitled to have it."
There isn't enough material wealth in the world to support the "everyone gets whatever they want regardless of their contribution to society" model. You want to argue about how broken our system of wealth distribution is, how the rich get richer and so on, fine. I'll probably be on your side. But suggesting that the whole concept of luxury not being free is some oppressive feudal attitude that unfairly strips you of your god given right to video games is just assinine.
You get life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Actually obtaining happiness isn't a given. Welcome to the universe.
Okay, and pretending that I'm Dude-From-ID, what is my motivation for giving you a game that you will buy from me once and then enjoy for years? If you are enjoying it for years, how are you going to come back and keep giving me money over and over?
The game publishers have no real desire or motivation to create something that will entertain you for more than a few hours. If they can make it look good enough in the previews to get you to shell out for a copy, they're done. They get no financial benefit from your years of enjoyment -- because either way, you buy the game just once.
I think this is a fate that befalls any genre of entertainment when it becomes mainstream. Early on, when something is a niche market, as PC gaming used to be, they need to build loyalty and produce quality work that will win customer loyalty. They produce games that are fun enough and long lasting enough that eventually everyone in the market will have bought it, because it is the game that you have to have to play multiplayer with all your gaming buddies. There was an era of Quake, there was an era of Starcraft, etc.
But once gaming becomes a mass market, this relationship goes to shit. There are more gamers, so there are more people producing more games. And with more games, any amount of time you spend enjoying their product is time that you aren't buying their next product. And they need to keep moving you along to the next thing, because if they don't the next big thing will be a product from some competetor. The cycle is all sped up.
And that, friends, is why commercial games, Hollywood movies, and big label music all devolves toward sucking. I am not cynical, you take that back!
Yeah, I've always kind of admired/resented Snapstream for the price of Beyond Media. Because by itself, Beyond Media does what, exactly? Play a DVD in the DVD drive, play MP3s, and play video files from the hard drive. Whoop-de-freakin-do. It is the user-developed plug-ins that make it, for me, a must have. And that's where the admiration comes in -- you have to admire a company that can invest almost nothing in producing a product that does almost nothing, and then get their users to contribute -- for no compensation -- spectacular functionality that makes the product desirable. It's pure evil genius.
In my case, the computer itself sits against a wall in my dining room. I have a very large dining room, so there is more than enough space for a desk against one wall without cramping the rooms use for dining. The living room is on the other side of the wall from the desk, with a long DVI cable running from the PC in the dining room to the TV in the living room, concealed under the baseboard.
When I am working with the computer as a computer, I'm sitting at the desk, with a keyboard and mouse, using the monitor. In the living room, the media center interface is visible on the TV, and is controlled with a firefly remote. Nothing could be simpler.
I also run a long USB cable from the PC to a small USB hub in the TV stand, so I can plug in controllers when I want to play games.
I hate to be a shill for Snapstream, but if you are already running Beyond TV, you may want to consider Beyond Media as the front end that "brings it all together." Beyond Media does not provide much of use on it's own, but it is a pluggable architecture with tons of user-developed add-ons that make it fantastic. I am presently using it together with Beyond TV to serve as PVR, Stereo, Internet Radio, Online Movie Catalog, Emulator menu, etc. I can even control my Netflix Queue from it.
Supposedly in the next version Beyond Media and Beyond TV will become one product.
Great post. I agree with the statements about techno-fetishism in general, and he's spot on right about products that incorporate a web-server into the fridge or a browser into the microwave. I can't imagine who the hell thought that up and thought it would be marketable.
But I disagree on specifically equating the PVR system to them. I think the functionality provided by a good media center PC is a wee bit more valuable and useful than, say, a networked toaster that can burn the daily weather forcast onto the surface of my morning bagel.
Sure, you can record a show with an old school vcr. If you want to specifically tell the VCR the start time, stop time, and channel of every show you want to record, and make sure there is blank media in the machine to record to. Of course you can have a regular dvd player and a shelf full of plastic circles with movies on them. These devices will work fine, and there's nothing wrong with them. Nobody needs to have these functions taken over by a media pc. If it isn't for you, it isn't for you.
But I don't think this particular case is one where you can honestly claim that the introduction of a computer into the works doesn't add anything. It does. Being able to record the shows I like while remaining totally oblivious to when they air, and being able to store the recordings and all of my DVDs on the hard drive so as to do away with the shelves and shelves of media. . . these are good things for me. It's just a better tool.
I'm not saying everyone needs one and if you don't spend the money on it you're a luddite -- I agree with the parent's principles, just not with where he draws the line between useful and useless applications of technology.
And I'm not a windows basher, (My home machines are XP, OSX, and Gentoo) but the Dock is nothing like the windows taskbar, except in that both are usually at the bottom of the screen. In the dock, the functionalities of launching frequently used apps, switching between open apps, and seeing which apps are active in the background are all presented together. In the taskbar they are separated into the Start Menu & Quicklaunch, the Taskbar proper, and the System tray.
Honestly, I have no strong opinion on which way makes more sense, but they don't seem similar to me. If anything it feels like windows was copying the dock when it added quicklaunch. But I'm not actually sure which came first and I'm too lazy to check.;)
Until the episode "The Farnsworth Parabox" when there are infinitely many. I always thought this was amusingly similar to Star Trek, in that they have the "Mirror Universe" AND infinitely many parallel universes.
In Futurama I like to interpret this as infinitely many parallel universes, but only one that you can SEE from here.:)
The DNA samples *can* build themselves into organisms. Because the "DNA samples" we're talking about here are crop seeds, not strands of human DNA. Maybe you should RTFA.
"Well what would *you* suggest? A daring daylight raid of Fort Knox on elephant-back? That's the dumbest idea I've ever heard!" -- Philip J. Fry
No, the majority do not want to be told what they can and cannot do. They want to decide for themselves what they personally can and cannot do, and then apply their decision to everyone else.
Listen, the two parties are both. . . well, major political parties and thus primarily self-interested. But it's naive to equate them, there are important differences in what they will and won't do.
More to the point though, I have to take issue with your saying "Clinton was in office when the NSA Wiretapping began" because it is misleading and completely skirts the real issue of why all of us so-called tinfoil-hat-moonbats are pissed about it. YES, the NSA have been wiretapping forever. They're the freakin' NSA -- of course they have.
The thing is, under Clinton they did so in compliance with the laws passed by congress to provide oversight in the form of the Foreign Intelligence Serveilance Act, which created a secretive court to issue the warrants. Under Bush, they decided to skip the bit about a court issuing a warrant.
For me, the issue is not the surveillance, and it isn't even the warrant. (I do think there should always be a warrant, but if congress specifically passed legislation exempting the NSA, I'd have less of an issue with it). The problem for me is the total break-down of our three-tiered system of government. The executive MUST either get the approval of the court, or get the legislative branch to change the requirements of the law. It can't simply assert that the law only applies when the president says so, as W. seems to think with his signing statements.
The Democrats will do everything they can within the system to look out for their own self-interests, yes. They are politicians, after all. But the Republicans will completely disregard the system to look out for their own best interests. One of those is way worse for us than the other.
We also have laws against wire-tapping without obtaining a warrant, and laws against turning over call records without a warrant. We have amendments guaranteeing all citizens due process, so that we can't be held indefinitely without charges.
We even have some fantastic new laws that outlaw torture, although our president has made it clear in his magical "signing statements" that they only apply when he says they do.
We have all kinds of "laws." What's your point?
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, and I'm not an actor, but I play one on TV. ;)
Yes, yes, I saw that mistake right after I posted. My bad.
The panel's recommendation is being reviewed by the International Astronomical Union's executive committee. In an interview last week, executive committee member Bob Williams said the definition proposed by the panel had some potential problems, and he was not at all sure if the astronomers voting in Prague this month would approve it.
"At this point, I don't feel confident enough to bet in favor of it," he said.
That's just plain ignorant. A Muslim from southeast Asia is likely to be Asian, not Arabic. Malasia and Indonesia for example have high Muslim populations. Just like lots of places in central Africa.
Learn the difference between religion and ethnicity.
If we don't make every effort to ensure that all potentially dangerous objects are prohibited from all public spaces, pretty soon your odds of being killed in a terrorist attack might almost catch up to your odds of being struck by lightning!
On that note, please call your members of congress and urge them to support the War on Electricity.
Now, if we could just get all the SMTP servers in the world to apply the filters BEFORE forwarding the mail, we could free up some of that wasted bandwidth. (The trouble with that, of course, is that the receiver can't correct the filter regarding what is and isn't spam, with a whitelist of approved senders for instance).
Listen, your logic is fine, but your initial assumptions about how the technique works are not.
And mods, since when does "Insightful" mean "Failure to understand the article?"
But a "luxury" is, as you pointed out, something that is inessential. And there are lots and lots of things that are inessential. Most of them don't cost much. The amount of luxury you can have is directly derived from the amount you are willing to pay for. Now, there are some people in the world who are born into wealth and don't have to work for it, and that sucks. But it isn't many of us. For the majority of us, the amount of money we have available to spend on luxuries is the result of the amount of and quality of work we have done to earn it.
Now do you really need me to explain why something that is inessential and costs 30 dollars should only be available to someone who has 30 dollars to trade for it, in order to compensate the person who produced it? Your entire argument boils down to "I don't need it, I didn't earn it, but I want it, and fuck all, that means I'm entitled to have it."
There isn't enough material wealth in the world to support the "everyone gets whatever they want regardless of their contribution to society" model. You want to argue about how broken our system of wealth distribution is, how the rich get richer and so on, fine. I'll probably be on your side. But suggesting that the whole concept of luxury not being free is some oppressive feudal attitude that unfairly strips you of your god given right to video games is just assinine.
You get life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Actually obtaining happiness isn't a given. Welcome to the universe.
The game publishers have no real desire or motivation to create something that will entertain you for more than a few hours. If they can make it look good enough in the previews to get you to shell out for a copy, they're done. They get no financial benefit from your years of enjoyment -- because either way, you buy the game just once.
I think this is a fate that befalls any genre of entertainment when it becomes mainstream. Early on, when something is a niche market, as PC gaming used to be, they need to build loyalty and produce quality work that will win customer loyalty. They produce games that are fun enough and long lasting enough that eventually everyone in the market will have bought it, because it is the game that you have to have to play multiplayer with all your gaming buddies. There was an era of Quake, there was an era of Starcraft, etc.
But once gaming becomes a mass market, this relationship goes to shit. There are more gamers, so there are more people producing more games. And with more games, any amount of time you spend enjoying their product is time that you aren't buying their next product. And they need to keep moving you along to the next thing, because if they don't the next big thing will be a product from some competetor. The cycle is all sped up.
And that, friends, is why commercial games, Hollywood movies, and big label music all devolves toward sucking. I am not cynical, you take that back!
Um. . . isn't that pretty much the definition of "luxury?"
Yeah, I've always kind of admired/resented Snapstream for the price of Beyond Media. Because by itself, Beyond Media does what, exactly? Play a DVD in the DVD drive, play MP3s, and play video files from the hard drive. Whoop-de-freakin-do. It is the user-developed plug-ins that make it, for me, a must have. And that's where the admiration comes in -- you have to admire a company that can invest almost nothing in producing a product that does almost nothing, and then get their users to contribute -- for no compensation -- spectacular functionality that makes the product desirable. It's pure evil genius.
When I am working with the computer as a computer, I'm sitting at the desk, with a keyboard and mouse, using the monitor. In the living room, the media center interface is visible on the TV, and is controlled with a firefly remote. Nothing could be simpler.
I also run a long USB cable from the PC to a small USB hub in the TV stand, so I can plug in controllers when I want to play games.
Supposedly in the next version Beyond Media and Beyond TV will become one product.
But I disagree on specifically equating the PVR system to them. I think the functionality provided by a good media center PC is a wee bit more valuable and useful than, say, a networked toaster that can burn the daily weather forcast onto the surface of my morning bagel.
Sure, you can record a show with an old school vcr. If you want to specifically tell the VCR the start time, stop time, and channel of every show you want to record, and make sure there is blank media in the machine to record to. Of course you can have a regular dvd player and a shelf full of plastic circles with movies on them. These devices will work fine, and there's nothing wrong with them. Nobody needs to have these functions taken over by a media pc. If it isn't for you, it isn't for you.
But I don't think this particular case is one where you can honestly claim that the introduction of a computer into the works doesn't add anything. It does. Being able to record the shows I like while remaining totally oblivious to when they air, and being able to store the recordings and all of my DVDs on the hard drive so as to do away with the shelves and shelves of media. . . these are good things for me. It's just a better tool.
I'm not saying everyone needs one and if you don't spend the money on it you're a luddite -- I agree with the parent's principles, just not with where he draws the line between useful and useless applications of technology.
Honestly, I have no strong opinion on which way makes more sense, but they don't seem similar to me. If anything it feels like windows was copying the dock when it added quicklaunch. But I'm not actually sure which came first and I'm too lazy to check. ;)
In Futurama I like to interpret this as infinitely many parallel universes, but only one that you can SEE from here. :)
"Well what would *you* suggest? A daring daylight raid of Fort Knox on elephant-back? That's the dumbest idea I've ever heard!" -- Philip J. Fry
No, the majority do not want to be told what they can and cannot do. They want to decide for themselves what they personally can and cannot do, and then apply their decision to everyone else.
Which is sort of the point.
Seven sentences, four uses of the first-person personal pronoun, and yet only one capital letter. I agree, you should not be correcting his grammar.
More to the point though, I have to take issue with your saying "Clinton was in office when the NSA Wiretapping began" because it is misleading and completely skirts the real issue of why all of us so-called tinfoil-hat-moonbats are pissed about it. YES, the NSA have been wiretapping forever. They're the freakin' NSA -- of course they have.
The thing is, under Clinton they did so in compliance with the laws passed by congress to provide oversight in the form of the Foreign Intelligence Serveilance Act, which created a secretive court to issue the warrants. Under Bush, they decided to skip the bit about a court issuing a warrant.
For me, the issue is not the surveillance, and it isn't even the warrant. (I do think there should always be a warrant, but if congress specifically passed legislation exempting the NSA, I'd have less of an issue with it). The problem for me is the total break-down of our three-tiered system of government. The executive MUST either get the approval of the court, or get the legislative branch to change the requirements of the law. It can't simply assert that the law only applies when the president says so, as W. seems to think with his signing statements.
The Democrats will do everything they can within the system to look out for their own self-interests, yes. They are politicians, after all. But the Republicans will completely disregard the system to look out for their own best interests. One of those is way worse for us than the other.
Ironically, if you are a programmer and don't know what an IDE is, it probably means you've never used anything that isn't one.
-1 Arrogant Prick
We also have laws against wire-tapping without obtaining a warrant, and laws against turning over call records without a warrant. We have amendments guaranteeing all citizens due process, so that we can't be held indefinitely without charges. We even have some fantastic new laws that outlaw torture, although our president has made it clear in his magical "signing statements" that they only apply when he says they do. We have all kinds of "laws." What's your point?
How many dimensions does it travel in? If it is more than 5, I'll make you an offer.