In the US they're not supposed to be allowed to monitor phone calls without a court warrant. It's not difficult for them to get, usually, but at least there's supposed to be some *effort* to demonstrate a *reason* to monitor this phone, this person, at this time, with a signed approval of someone outside the police force. Not a random fishing expedition.
And open every letter and package in the postal system? Nobody would consider eavesdropping on every phone call acceptable, so why do sheeple accept the idea of eavesdropping every single internet connection?
... why the hell should I pay for someone else to go?
Like the space program in general, you're not just paying someone's travel ticket; you're really paying for the development of the technology involved. Doing the trip is almost just a field test. If we could take the technology that purifies water in the Shuttle and the space station, and bring it into economic practicality, it would become part of the technology to fix Earth bigtime.
How about volunteers with incurable tumors etc. - would they be functional enough for long enough to be useful?
Another old SF staple - paraplegic with excess leg weight amputated is more functional in zero-g or low gravity. Yes, someone could live a long and useful life with disabilities here on Earth, but there are undoubtedly those either adventurous enough, or unhappy enough with their situation, to seek a shorter blaze of glory.
There are folks out there willing to blow themselves up for purely metaphysical benefit to themselves. I'm betting there are folks equally willing to accept being expendable in exchange for a place in history, for lots of different reasons of their own. A million dollars each survivor benefits would be pocket change in the cost of the program, especially if structured as an annuity; though for moral reasons we might give preference to people without attachments (but if a scientist with cancer wants to take a job that will set his family up for life, why not?)
Mock not. Having learned all of my software concepts on IBM mainframes (mainly because that's all there was), I started using a PDP-10 and realized (for example) how much simpler and cleverer it was to have the codes for the letters adjacent and in order. Simplifying the encoding simplifies everything.
I saw Kenneth Iverson speak at RPI in the mid-'70s. He advocated short routines that were disposable or replaceable - write-once code. After all, with the massive power of some of the APL functions, you could do as much in a line as multiple pages of FORTRAN. Whether anyone would ever be able to *understand* it, though . . . .
I'm sorry, but I think you're missing an important point. It's very common to do an internet search for a potential new hire / contractor / social associate, and the possibility for character assassination in many venues could be more damaging than one might ever know (after all, nobody's going to take the time to contact you and tell you "I don't want to hire / date you because I read your posts on alt.sex.hamsters.ducttape", they just won't deal with you and you'll never know why).
I would never argue for security through obscurity; certainly these things have always been possible. OTOH by making it *trivial* and *convenient* the barrier is lowered from armed robbery to shoplifting candy, from a deliberate malevolent act to casual vandalism. The potential for abuse goes up dramatically because any idiot can now do it - particularly people who wouldn't have mustered the energy or the know-how to research these things and figure them out. It's like selling cans of spray paint outside a bar at closing time.
using Facebook as anything other than a toy is a really stupid thing to do.
One could say that for the whole Internet. Sadly, other people searching for your name to see what you've posted and what groups you've joined and what the timestamps are on your messages (were you posting during working hours?) may or may not comprehend that the presence of your name is not your fingerprint. Somebody was using a quote of mine from the RISKS newsletter, with my name as attribution, as their sig for a while; my name was in a LOT of places where I didn't put it. And that wasn't intended as malicious, just accidental. Caused some trouble I could have done without.
The question should be, What damage can one really do by hijacking a Slashdot account? How easy is it for someone to post things with your name and ID that contradict what you've written and make you look bad?
Yes, the Republicans are completely in favor of individual liberty, until you want to do anything other than what they want you to do at which point you're clearly un-American because they're the only true Americans and they know what's best for us.
Security threats are real; anyone who grew up in a big city knows this, especially at closing time. Security theater has long been with us; anyone who learned to "duck and cover" under their desk for a missile attack knows this. Using real security threats as a pretext for internal control pre-dates Goebbels (though he often gets quoted); it goes back to ancient Rome at the very least.
1a. Special purpose equipment is more expensive because it's special purpose, and because there's a fixed market for it with fixed rules.
1b. "Ruggedized" equipment is more expensive. I know someone who dropped and broke an iPad already. If you're planning on having this used by people with muscle control problems, it had better survive hard use, even if it's cheap enough to replace.
2. Consider the timeline - you're looking backward. Inexpensive headsets can exist because the research already went into hearing aids. I'll agree with you as far as questioning why improvements don't loop back faster . . . though if my bluetooth headset dies, I can wait until later to charge it and can afford to replace it if necessary, whereas if a hearing aid dies the user may be significantly handicapped until it's fixed.
No, the problem is with insurance and payment. If a device is clearly single-purpose (or at least dedicated-purpose), then it can be covered under insurance and/or deducted from income before taxes. If it is general purpose, the assumption is that people will game the system by lying about it being used for the special purpose just so they can get the coverage and/or deduction. That's why medical insurance doesn't cover "over the counter" things like aspirin, even if prescribed by a doctor for X-ray-visible arthritis, because aspirin is so commonly used for other ailments too.
No, I am *agreeing*. I'm drawing a parallel between (a) the elevated religious and/or philosophical discourse emanating from the leader of a major segment of the population (at least as far as beliefs are concerned), and (b) the losingest "I'm right, everyone else is wrong" sort of flame-war n00b. I believe you were going in that direction, but more politely.
His major purpose in life is to try to get as many people to believe the stuff written in his book of choice, including the magic parts, is the literal truth.
The one conceptual advantage of radio is that it's inherently multicast. Building the bandwidth to handle everybody as an individual TCP/IP link is sometimes ridiculous.
Of course, that has nothing to do with the intent of trying to require a device so you can then require a service charge.
Oh, and my iRiver MP3 player has an FM radio . . . from ten years ago . . .
The government can exercise those specifically enumerated powers given to it, and nothing else. Hence: No cameras doing a virtual strip search, because said power was never given to the US government.
No paving roads, because that technology didn't exist when the constitution was written.
No ensuring net neutrality, because everyone can put toll roads wherever they want.
There are somethings that don't make money, and need to be done communally, and are bigger than families or neighborhoods. Government can't stay limited to 1776, any more than it should stay limited to biblical or other ancient writ.
... government agencies that are rarely held accountable by the general public.
The general public would *love* to hold these agencies accountable, but suggesting something bad about a security agency is automatic proof that *you* are a security problem. It's a great business model.:-)
The USPTO started with the same blanket refusal to allow any kind of software patent; and unfortunately the same rationale denied copyright protection as well. While many developments were made by the "open source" predecessors of the time, like users' groups and academic publications, there was a serious problem of people taking credit - and payment - for other people's work. There was also a problem with good ideas being kept hidden as trade secrets, rather than raising the general level of knowledge, precisely because there was no middle ground between secrecy and giving everything away for free, and the companies that had paid for research and development wanted to recoup that investment before allowing publication.
This is an issue that needs to be addressed thoughtfully. Conditions of novelty and specific implementation, and short terms with required licensing, would be a start. It's shouldn't be all or nothing.
And when they expire, the renewal should be an updated expiration date, not "Let's make this permanent" like the Patriot Act. I still don't understand why the only choices presented at that time were all or nothing.
No, it's older than that - didn't James H Schmitz describe this . . . . oh, wait, The Searcher was purple . . . Or am I thinking of ST:TOS The Companion?
The disconnect between this concept and most people's thinking explains why scientists and engineers rarely advance well into management and politics.
- As a scientist or engineer, it is acceptable - even required! - to incorporate new data and adapt your thinking, even reach different conclusions.
- As a manager or politician, such behavior reflects weakness or lack of principle, sometimes called "flip-flopping".
In my experience the latter approach seems to be the *typical* perspective of normal people (non-engineers), who would rather "stay the course" and "finish what they started" even when they openly admit that they would have chosen differently now. The contrapositive concept of "what did he know and when did he know it", with the understanding that someone who chose badly may have made a reasonable decision based on the information available AT THE TIME, is often displayed pro forma and then trampled upon.
Slashdot Mirror
In the US they're not supposed to be allowed to monitor phone calls without a court warrant. It's not difficult for them to get, usually, but at least there's supposed to be some *effort* to demonstrate a *reason* to monitor this phone, this person, at this time, with a signed approval of someone outside the police force. Not a random fishing expedition.
And open every letter and package in the postal system? Nobody would consider eavesdropping on every phone call acceptable, so why do sheeple accept the idea of eavesdropping every single internet connection?
... why the hell should I pay for someone else to go?
Like the space program in general, you're not just paying someone's travel ticket; you're really paying for the development of the technology involved. Doing the trip is almost just a field test. If we could take the technology that purifies water in the Shuttle and the space station, and bring it into economic practicality, it would become part of the technology to fix Earth bigtime.
How about volunteers with incurable tumors etc. - would they be functional enough for long enough to be useful? Another old SF staple - paraplegic with excess leg weight amputated is more functional in zero-g or low gravity. Yes, someone could live a long and useful life with disabilities here on Earth, but there are undoubtedly those either adventurous enough, or unhappy enough with their situation, to seek a shorter blaze of glory.
There are folks out there willing to blow themselves up for purely metaphysical benefit to themselves. I'm betting there are folks equally willing to accept being expendable in exchange for a place in history, for lots of different reasons of their own. A million dollars each survivor benefits would be pocket change in the cost of the program, especially if structured as an annuity; though for moral reasons we might give preference to people without attachments (but if a scientist with cancer wants to take a job that will set his family up for life, why not?)
Mock not. Having learned all of my software concepts on IBM mainframes (mainly because that's all there was), I started using a PDP-10 and realized (for example) how much simpler and cleverer it was to have the codes for the letters adjacent and in order. Simplifying the encoding simplifies everything.
Sort of a write-only language.
I saw Kenneth Iverson speak at RPI in the mid-'70s. He advocated short routines that were disposable or replaceable - write-once code. After all, with the massive power of some of the APL functions, you could do as much in a line as multiple pages of FORTRAN. Whether anyone would ever be able to *understand* it, though . . . .
I'm sorry, but I think you're missing an important point. It's very common to do an internet search for a potential new hire / contractor / social associate, and the possibility for character assassination in many venues could be more damaging than one might ever know (after all, nobody's going to take the time to contact you and tell you "I don't want to hire / date you because I read your posts on alt.sex.hamsters.ducttape", they just won't deal with you and you'll never know why).
I would never argue for security through obscurity; certainly these things have always been possible. OTOH by making it *trivial* and *convenient* the barrier is lowered from armed robbery to shoplifting candy, from a deliberate malevolent act to casual vandalism. The potential for abuse goes up dramatically because any idiot can now do it - particularly people who wouldn't have mustered the energy or the know-how to research these things and figure them out. It's like selling cans of spray paint outside a bar at closing time.
using Facebook as anything other than a toy is a really stupid thing to do.
One could say that for the whole Internet. Sadly, other people searching for your name to see what you've posted and what groups you've joined and what the timestamps are on your messages (were you posting during working hours?) may or may not comprehend that the presence of your name is not your fingerprint. Somebody was using a quote of mine from the RISKS newsletter, with my name as attribution, as their sig for a while; my name was in a LOT of places where I didn't put it. And that wasn't intended as malicious, just accidental. Caused some trouble I could have done without.
The question should be, What damage can one really do by hijacking a Slashdot account? How easy is it for someone to post things with your name and ID that contradict what you've written and make you look bad?
Yes, the Republicans are completely in favor of individual liberty, until you want to do anything other than what they want you to do at which point you're clearly un-American because they're the only true Americans and they know what's best for us.
Security threats are real; anyone who grew up in a big city knows this, especially at closing time. Security theater has long been with us; anyone who learned to "duck and cover" under their desk for a missile attack knows this. Using real security threats as a pretext for internal control pre-dates Goebbels (though he often gets quoted); it goes back to ancient Rome at the very least.
1a. Special purpose equipment is more expensive because it's special purpose, and because there's a fixed market for it with fixed rules.
1b. "Ruggedized" equipment is more expensive. I know someone who dropped and broke an iPad already. If you're planning on having this used by people with muscle control problems, it had better survive hard use, even if it's cheap enough to replace.
2. Consider the timeline - you're looking backward. Inexpensive headsets can exist because the research already went into hearing aids. I'll agree with you as far as questioning why improvements don't loop back faster . . . though if my bluetooth headset dies, I can wait until later to charge it and can afford to replace it if necessary, whereas if a hearing aid dies the user may be significantly handicapped until it's fixed.
No, the problem is with insurance and payment. If a device is clearly single-purpose (or at least dedicated-purpose), then it can be covered under insurance and/or deducted from income before taxes. If it is general purpose, the assumption is that people will game the system by lying about it being used for the special purpose just so they can get the coverage and/or deduction. That's why medical insurance doesn't cover "over the counter" things like aspirin, even if prescribed by a doctor for X-ray-visible arthritis, because aspirin is so commonly used for other ailments too.
No, I am *agreeing*. I'm drawing a parallel between (a) the elevated religious and/or philosophical discourse emanating from the leader of a major segment of the population (at least as far as beliefs are concerned), and (b) the losingest "I'm right, everyone else is wrong" sort of flame-war n00b. I believe you were going in that direction, but more politely.
His major purpose in life is to try to get as many people to believe the stuff written in his book of choice, including the magic parts, is the literal truth.
Doesn't that sound like the typical slashdotter?
Oh, pshaw. You've never seen girls try to talk sports without a clue? Or guys trying to talk . . . without a clue? :-)
Isn't this exactly what most techno-thrillers are? And a lot of (loosely-named) science fiction?
The one conceptual advantage of radio is that it's inherently multicast. Building the bandwidth to handle everybody as an individual TCP/IP link is sometimes ridiculous. Of course, that has nothing to do with the intent of trying to require a device so you can then require a service charge. Oh, and my iRiver MP3 player has an FM radio . . . from ten years ago . . .
The government can exercise those specifically enumerated powers given to it, and nothing else. Hence: No cameras doing a virtual strip search, because said power was never given to the US government.
No paving roads, because that technology didn't exist when the constitution was written. No ensuring net neutrality, because everyone can put toll roads wherever they want. There are somethings that don't make money, and need to be done communally, and are bigger than families or neighborhoods. Government can't stay limited to 1776, any more than it should stay limited to biblical or other ancient writ.
... government agencies that are rarely held accountable by the general public.
The general public would *love* to hold these agencies accountable, but suggesting something bad about a security agency is automatic proof that *you* are a security problem. It's a great business model. :-)
The USPTO started with the same blanket refusal to allow any kind of software patent; and unfortunately the same rationale denied copyright protection as well. While many developments were made by the "open source" predecessors of the time, like users' groups and academic publications, there was a serious problem of people taking credit - and payment - for other people's work. There was also a problem with good ideas being kept hidden as trade secrets, rather than raising the general level of knowledge, precisely because there was no middle ground between secrecy and giving everything away for free, and the companies that had paid for research and development wanted to recoup that investment before allowing publication.
This is an issue that needs to be addressed thoughtfully. Conditions of novelty and specific implementation, and short terms with required licensing, would be a start. It's shouldn't be all or nothing.
I had some elder relatives with numbers tattooed on their arms . . . Somehow I think a government issued ID card is not quite the same.
Second the motion for N800 series. We have an original N800 on which we've made Skype calls from internet cafes all over the place.
And when they expire, the renewal should be an updated expiration date, not "Let's make this permanent" like the Patriot Act. I still don't understand why the only choices presented at that time were all or nothing.
No, it's older than that - didn't James H Schmitz describe this . . . . oh, wait, The Searcher was purple . . . Or am I thinking of ST:TOS The Companion?
http://www.webscription.net/10.1125/Baen/0671319841/0671319841.htm "Like a sheet of living purple fire, the thing flowed with eerie swiftness along the surface of one of the Depot's side streets..."
The disconnect between this concept and most people's thinking explains why scientists and engineers rarely advance well into management and politics.
- As a scientist or engineer, it is acceptable - even required! - to incorporate new data and adapt your thinking, even reach different conclusions.
- As a manager or politician, such behavior reflects weakness or lack of principle, sometimes called "flip-flopping".
In my experience the latter approach seems to be the *typical* perspective of normal people (non-engineers), who would rather "stay the course" and "finish what they started" even when they openly admit that they would have chosen differently now. The contrapositive concept of "what did he know and when did he know it", with the understanding that someone who chose badly may have made a reasonable decision based on the information available AT THE TIME, is often displayed pro forma and then trampled upon.