You do live in that world. My guess is that you live in a western industrial nation with at least a middle class standard of living.
The majority of humans in this world do not enjoy your (and my) quality of life and yet nothing is being done on a massive scale that it would take to resolve the issue.
Your example is about someone you know, but in truth you do not care enough to help people you do not know. That is not wrong, it is just human nature. (Unless of course you have donated most of your income to charities and are currently traveling abroad to help the needy to which I commend you.)
But...um...how exactly do you get a spin current without the electrons actually moving? I mean, given that the spins in question are nailed to the electron? Seems tricky. Like driving down the highway without having your car move...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the whole point was not to prevent electrons from moving but to have more information storage on an electron which means you would need less of them to transmit more data.
Right now the way CPUs work on that level is either on (electron moving) or off (electron not moving) or as we know as 0's and 1's.
If you have negative or positive spins you would have 0 and then 1+ and then 1- which you could feed more data at an extreme rate compared to the old 0 and 1.
Now you would have to have compilers that understood trinary, but it would be a small price to pay for such a yield in performance which could be exponential when you are talking about multi-core CPUs.
Does it interfere with any licensed services? Does it create unfair competition to any licensed services? Is it operated in a safe manner?
That wasn't the jist of the statement. The question is why does the FCC get to regulate frequencies when it could be just as well regulated by State governments when it doesn't affect interstate commerce.
You!=Everyone else:) You have to remember that every bad story about Vista isn't representing the whole truth - that there are thousands of folks out there who are using Vista on a day-to-day basis, and are not having problems.
I think that the main issue most everyone with Vista is not how bad it is but why they need to use it. There isn't a compelling reason to use Vista (other than DX10) for most End users if they have WinXP.
Can someone explain to me why a company has to pay the FCC huge gobs of money in order to use a frequency in the air?
And speaking of which, what does the FCC have to do with interstate commerce? Perhaps they could regulate broad casting between states, but if I have a device that doesn't broadcast over state lines where is the basis in the original framework for such an organization to dictate who or what does something with the device you built.
Now I suppose the FCC could regulate devices that are shipped from overseas or interstate wise but if you build it yourself then why should they have a say?
Security holes will exist and they will be patched only to discover new. The same story
Unless you make the system so propriety it is impossible to have any interaction with it or install your own software without permission from a central authority.
I think it was John Carmack (it could have been someone else so don't shoot) of all people who said that online gaming will never be free of hacks or exploits until all you have is a keyboard and mouse sending input to a server who is the one to send you a raw video feed of what you see to your home monitor (the bandwidth and server processing requirements would be huge but it could be a possibility in the future).
That said... The future of security could be that everyone is going to have to get used to Microsoft Terminal servers with locked down desktops or just hope that the power that be in Washington haven't outlawed computer technology that doesn't use "trusted computing".
But if you are slanderous or libelous, you should be held accountable.
The problem if you get rid of the ability of slandering while anonymous you also remove the ability to tell the truth while being anonymous.
Throughout western history the ability to publish works anonymous has brought about great social changes during great repression by central authority. Eramus was often thought to have written works criticizing the Pope for his militant ways during a time when such texts would result in torture and/or burning at the stake.
Many of the Founding Fathers wrote works with pseudonyms in order to escape persecution from British authorities. In Eastern Europe during Soviet Occupation, anonymous pamphlets, shortwave radio broadcasts, and later fax machines were the only way to speak out against the repression.
Libel and slander are a bad thing, but they are small price to pay for having anonymity that lets you speak the truth when things are really that bad but you fear for your life or your family.
Do I want to know if x years from now I'm likely to come down with Parkinsons Disease? Not really, I'd rather just live my life than worry about the future.
I'd rather know sooner than later if I am going to have a terminal illness.
For one, preventative measures might make me live long enough for a cure if caught early on. Secondly, I wouldn't worry so much saving for retirement or paying off bills. Seriously, it would suck to finally have all this money and then get too sick to enjoy life and die shortly thereafter.
It isn't censorship unless it's a broad-spectrum forbidding of publishment. Let's disregard issues of whether or not that has to be a government issue. Practically speaking, Comcast doesn't have the ability to prevent me from putting my book out there. How could they possibly censor me?
The MPAA, RIAA, and the ESRB have a "board of censors" who do censor and are not government based and are actually completely voluntary by the industry. Perhaps this is out of fear of possible censorship, but it is indeed a set of private organizations censoring works of media. (Man Hunt anyone?)
I would agree. The terminology has gotton skewed these days. If you are interested in the history of the word "Censor" it comes from ancient Roman Censors whose job was it was to maintain a census and also to monitor morality violations by the populace. His job wasn't what we think of today as a censor but rather a watchdog.
The term came into modern usage during the 15th and 16th centuries when the printing press went into full swing and the Catholic church was doing its darnedest to suppress non-approved material which it would use the word "Censor" for the title of the Papal official who was in charge of determining if the text was alright with the church. This was later followed by of course secular governments who preferred to restrict texts that did not meet their standards in criticism of the government.
This was of course the intention of the founding fathers because that is what they faced from Europe. Of course if they kept religion out of government and prohibited the government from restricting the freedom of press and speech it could therefore not censor anyone and neither could the church because it didn't have power of the Federal government.
Of course anyone could still "censor" anyone else including themselves (ever hear of self censorship) and currently there are no laws protecting freedom of speech from private organizations.
Sadly, our founding fathers didn't have the foresight to realize that censorship could be done through proxy by those who owned the only forms of mass media and communication and since the private organizations were exerting control over the federal government it was a moot point if Comcast or the Telephone company decided to restrict what you could say, write, or publish because even if you tried to pass a law including freedom of speech to communication technology, multi-million dollar lobbying would put a stop to that legislation in committee before it even got to the floor to vote.
Now, I for one am glad the FCC is only allowing Comcast 30% of the cable market and wish they would break ATT, Verizon, and Comcast up into smaller companies because if they ever did get the FCC to allow more mergers the danger of restricting what is said and who can say it grows ever larger.
And don't put it past them... The whole purpose of a corporation is to earn money and if restricting your speech nets them more profit for their quarterly returns then they will do it no questions asked.
Considering that you buy Lindens with real currency, then yes. Yes, they should be just as secure, since it's real money you're dealing with.
IANAL or an Economist but...
True, but the Linden dollars aren't insured nor backed by Federal Banking and SEC regulations.
If Linden folds or they decide to devalue their currency then you have no legal recourse. Since there is no physical or scarcity limitation to their currency, once cannot 'steal' it from you because it never left the linden servers and it most likley still Linden property unless specified so in the contract or EULA.
Now, I remember something about how Linden EULA was very generous when it comes to ownership (someone please bring more details on this since I'm clueless how far this goes), but unless the contract specifically entails that Linden will insure the Linden dollar against theft or devaluation then you have little recourse other than good faith.
I suppose in the end you could sue Linden for a breach of contract and they could sue the thieves for violating the rules of conduct, but you couldn't directly sue the thieves (since you didn't have a contract with them) nor press charges since legally the Linden dollars is still in Lindens hands.
Now, I know banking and stock market works a bit the same but the reason they are different is because of the SEC and Federal Rules your bank and broker must play by or face legal action by the government. Linden does not.
Just because something is allowed doesn't mean it's morally justified or that people should do it.
Oh hold on there. Some 300lb man tackling me while I'm walking down the street minding my own business is not justified at all, but in a game of foot ball it is quite legal and acceptable. Its part of the game.
By the same logic a rapist isn't a bad person if rape is legal in his country.
Um... So you are really comparing rape and loosing a game as one and the same? That bothers me.
These are games not virtual rape simulators. You agree to play by the rules and if the rules means someone gets to punch you in the face (like boxing) then that is how the game is played. Don't like it? Take it up with the developer or play another game.
virtually nobody that uses the code will be even remotely qualified to even understand how the code works, much less be able to tell if it'll screw up their phone.
All it takes is one person who knows how to read the code to make a rambling blog post detailing the vulnerabilities and submit it to Slashdot.
Then all the people who didn't know how to read code will now know and the code reader will have his share of adsense for the month.
But more seriously... When I have doubts about a software package, I just hit it up in Google to see if there has been wide spread complaints or other issues.
As far as your other issues you bring up, in a closed source scenario what is to prevent a malicious person from just renaming any old trojan that they compiled to be the same exact size as the closed source exe and putting up a torrent of it? Sure it won't work at all as far as running the program, but it will do what they need to do. (Checksums anyone?)
Even if a person uploads something maliciously into the main package, someone will eventually notice and with more eyes the faster this will happen. Of course this also helps out if the original coder is the one who is malicious.
PvP is fine when it's an even match or when the underdog has at least the possibility of escaping, but ganking is really no different from aimbotting or wallhacking in a FPS game. It's actually even worse, since even aimbotters and wallhackers can be killed, or voted out by the players.
Huh? What you are describing was WAD (Was As Designed) vs Exploit.
As long as a player uses in game mechanics that have been approved by the developers then they are in the clear. Of course this might entail that the game play mechanics leave something to be desired and could be possibly addressed by the developer in correcting/balancing a game play issue.
Whereas an exploiter uses 3rd party software outside the framework of the game and the intended rule set and is of course clearly in the wrong.
Just because you are ganged up on and and "ganked" doesn't mean the players that did so are bad people. They are playing by the rules as the developers have allowed.
It would be like playing a game of chess where the 3rd party referee says "You are allowed to smack your opponents hand to prevent him from picking up pieces" and then getting mad at the other player for doing it. Heck, I'd probaly wouldn't play that game, but the fault lies with the referee for allowing such a rule and not the player who simply does it because he can. All I can do is complain to the referee that his rules leave something to be desired.
If it was an exploiter then it would simply be the same scenario except the referee said physical contact is forbidden and the other player smacks my hand when the referee isn't looking and I'd get mad at the player and then alert the referee to his transgression.
So yeah... Ganking sucks sometimes, but if its part of the game design then don't fault the players who do so but rather the developer for having a unbalanced PvP system.
Anyway, $100 a month ($1200 annually) for $1000 return would be a rather poor deal even without considering the strong moral and ethical arguments against coercing others out of work for your own benefit.
In the city that I live in, the bus drivers get paid more than techs due to unions. I think you would get more than $1,000 annually.
How can you quote Ayn Rand in a discussion about the immense power corporations wield in modern society?
I think her point was the limitation of government vs corporate power. Now that they are one and the same, I don't think its the libertarianism she was looking for.
If you are going to smuggle a nuke, for terrorism or 'middle finger to the UN' purposes,
Why would you even need to smuggle it? A terrorist worth his salt could highjack a cargo ship without anyone know it, sail up into NYC harbor, get as close as possible to the docks (and or downtown) and then just detonate it as their about to be boarded by the authorities when they notice something is amiss.
If they needed something further inland, they could construct a crude ballistic missile and launch it from a ship. Heck they could hit Washington, DC from Chesapeake Bay on a ship pretending to be going to dock in Baltimore.
Think the thing with nukes is that you don't have to be accurate to have an impact.
Both of the scenarios would require detection and interception way before the terrorists get even close to American shores and would render the aforementioned Neutron Scatters useless.
"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals. When there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws." -Ayn Rand
Of course the same applies to copyright. The copyright laws have become so over reaching that everything we do on a daily basis could be construed as breaking a law, so if we displease the wrong person then they already have something to pin on us.
Home users will have little choice but to migrate as and when they buy thier next new PC
Or they could choose not to buy a new PC. Currently the market is saturated and everyone who could use a PC already has one. To the average user Winxp is "Good enough" and most people don't like to upgrade unless forced too. Sure there are plenty of technophiles and gamers, but they are a minority when it comes to the general consumer market.
Slashdot Mirror
I would hate to live in your world.
You do live in that world. My guess is that you live in a western industrial nation with at least a middle class standard of living.
The majority of humans in this world do not enjoy your (and my) quality of life and yet nothing is being done on a massive scale that it would take to resolve the issue.
Your example is about someone you know, but in truth you do not care enough to help people you do not know. That is not wrong, it is just human nature. (Unless of course you have donated most of your income to charities and are currently traveling abroad to help the needy to which I commend you.)
But...um...how exactly do you get a spin current without the electrons actually moving? I mean, given that the spins in question are nailed to the electron? Seems tricky. Like driving down the highway without having your car move...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the whole point was not to prevent electrons from moving but to have more information storage on an electron which means you would need less of them to transmit more data.
Right now the way CPUs work on that level is either on (electron moving) or off (electron not moving) or as we know as 0's and 1's.
If you have negative or positive spins you would have 0 and then 1+ and then 1- which you could feed more data at an extreme rate compared to the old 0 and 1.
Now you would have to have compilers that understood trinary, but it would be a small price to pay for such a yield in performance which could be exponential when you are talking about multi-core CPUs.
Who cares if she is a man or a woman? She is a person, like the rest of us.
Speak for yourself human.
Does it interfere with any licensed services? Does it create unfair competition to any licensed services? Is it operated in a safe manner?
That wasn't the jist of the statement. The question is why does the FCC get to regulate frequencies when it could be just as well regulated by State governments when it doesn't affect interstate commerce.
You!=Everyone else :) You have to remember that every bad story about Vista isn't representing the whole truth - that there are thousands of folks out there who are using Vista on a day-to-day basis, and are not having problems.
I think that the main issue most everyone with Vista is not how bad it is but why they need to use it. There isn't a compelling reason to use Vista (other than DX10) for most End users if they have WinXP.
So if I build my own TV and or radio station which does not broadcast over state lines then I should be fine without an FCC license right?
Oh wait...
Can someone explain to me why a company has to pay the FCC huge gobs of money in order to use a frequency in the air?
And speaking of which, what does the FCC have to do with interstate commerce? Perhaps they could regulate broad casting between states, but if I have a device that doesn't broadcast over state lines where is the basis in the original framework for such an organization to dictate who or what does something with the device you built.
Now I suppose the FCC could regulate devices that are shipped from overseas or interstate wise but if you build it yourself then why should they have a say?
Security holes will exist and they will be patched only to discover new. The same story
Unless you make the system so propriety it is impossible to have any interaction with it or install your own software without permission from a central authority.
I think it was John Carmack (it could have been someone else so don't shoot) of all people who said that online gaming will never be free of hacks or exploits until all you have is a keyboard and mouse sending input to a server who is the one to send you a raw video feed of what you see to your home monitor (the bandwidth and server processing requirements would be huge but it could be a possibility in the future).
That said... The future of security could be that everyone is going to have to get used to Microsoft Terminal servers with locked down desktops or just hope that the power that be in Washington haven't outlawed computer technology that doesn't use "trusted computing".
But if you are slanderous or libelous, you should be held accountable.
The problem if you get rid of the ability of slandering while anonymous you also remove the ability to tell the truth while being anonymous.
Throughout western history the ability to publish works anonymous has brought about great social changes during great repression by central authority. Eramus was often thought to have written works criticizing the Pope for his militant ways during a time when such texts would result in torture and/or burning at the stake.
Many of the Founding Fathers wrote works with pseudonyms in order to escape persecution from British authorities. In Eastern Europe during Soviet Occupation, anonymous pamphlets, shortwave radio broadcasts, and later fax machines were the only way to speak out against the repression.
Libel and slander are a bad thing, but they are small price to pay for having anonymity that lets you speak the truth when things are really that bad but you fear for your life or your family.
Do I want to know if x years from now I'm likely to come down with Parkinsons Disease? Not really, I'd rather just live my life than worry about the future.
I'd rather know sooner than later if I am going to have a terminal illness.
For one, preventative measures might make me live long enough for a cure if caught early on.
Secondly, I wouldn't worry so much saving for retirement or paying off bills. Seriously, it would suck to finally have all this money and then get too sick to enjoy life and die shortly thereafter.
Does the server room look like Dead [censored] Storage? Is there a sign on the server room that says "Dead [censored] Storage"?!
Anyone notice that all the swivel chairs are bolted to the ground? I wonder why they made them fixed and permanent.
Gentlemen, you can't throw chairs in here! This is the war room!
Has it improved?
I hardly use it that much, but when I do I don't use non-effnet servers but the smaller private networks that require authentification.
It isn't censorship unless it's a broad-spectrum forbidding of publishment. Let's disregard issues of whether or not that has to be a government issue. Practically speaking, Comcast doesn't have the ability to prevent me from putting my book out there. How could they possibly censor me?
The MPAA, RIAA, and the ESRB have a "board of censors" who do censor and are not government based and are actually completely voluntary by the industry. Perhaps this is out of fear of possible censorship, but it is indeed a set of private organizations censoring works of media. (Man Hunt anyone?)
I would agree. The terminology has gotton skewed these days. If you are interested in the history of the word "Censor" it comes from ancient Roman Censors whose job was it was to maintain a census and also to monitor morality violations by the populace. His job wasn't what we think of today as a censor but rather a watchdog.
The term came into modern usage during the 15th and 16th centuries when the printing press went into full swing and the Catholic church was doing its darnedest to suppress non-approved material which it would use the word "Censor" for the title of the Papal official who was in charge of determining if the text was alright with the church. This was later followed by of course secular governments who preferred to restrict texts that did not meet their standards in criticism of the government.
This was of course the intention of the founding fathers because that is what they faced from Europe. Of course if they kept religion out of government and prohibited the government from restricting the freedom of press and speech it could therefore not censor anyone and neither could the church because it didn't have power of the Federal government.
Of course anyone could still "censor" anyone else including themselves (ever hear of self censorship) and currently there are no laws protecting freedom of speech from private organizations.
Sadly, our founding fathers didn't have the foresight to realize that censorship could be done through proxy by those who owned the only forms of mass media and communication and since the private organizations were exerting control over the federal government it was a moot point if Comcast or the Telephone company decided to restrict what you could say, write, or publish because even if you tried to pass a law including freedom of speech to communication technology, multi-million dollar lobbying would put a stop to that legislation in committee before it even got to the floor to vote.
Now, I for one am glad the FCC is only allowing Comcast 30% of the cable market and wish they would break ATT, Verizon, and Comcast up into smaller companies because if they ever did get the FCC to allow more mergers the danger of restricting what is said and who can say it grows ever larger.
And don't put it past them... The whole purpose of a corporation is to earn money and if restricting your speech nets them more profit for their quarterly returns then they will do it no questions asked.
Considering that you buy Lindens with real currency, then yes. Yes, they should be just as secure, since it's real money you're dealing with.
IANAL or an Economist but...
True, but the Linden dollars aren't insured nor backed by Federal Banking and SEC regulations.
If Linden folds or they decide to devalue their currency then you have no legal recourse. Since there is no physical or scarcity limitation to their currency, once cannot 'steal' it from you because it never left the linden servers and it most likley still Linden property unless specified so in the contract or EULA.
Now, I remember something about how Linden EULA was very generous when it comes to ownership (someone please bring more details on this since I'm clueless how far this goes), but unless the contract specifically entails that Linden will insure the Linden dollar against theft or devaluation then you have little recourse other than good faith.
I suppose in the end you could sue Linden for a breach of contract and they could sue the thieves for violating the rules of conduct, but you couldn't directly sue the thieves (since you didn't have a contract with them) nor press charges since legally the Linden dollars is still in Lindens hands.
Now, I know banking and stock market works a bit the same but the reason they are different is because of the SEC and Federal Rules your bank and broker must play by or face legal action by the government. Linden does not.
Just because something is allowed doesn't mean it's morally justified or that people should do it.
Oh hold on there. Some 300lb man tackling me while I'm walking down the street minding my own business is not justified at all, but in a game of foot ball it is quite legal and acceptable. Its part of the game.
By the same logic a rapist isn't a bad person if rape is legal in his country.
Um... So you are really comparing rape and loosing a game as one and the same? That bothers me.
These are games not virtual rape simulators. You agree to play by the rules and if the rules means someone gets to punch you in the face (like boxing) then that is how the game is played. Don't like it? Take it up with the developer or play another game.
virtually nobody that uses the code will be even remotely qualified to even understand how the code works, much less be able to tell if it'll screw up their phone.
All it takes is one person who knows how to read the code to make a rambling blog post detailing the vulnerabilities and submit it to Slashdot.
Then all the people who didn't know how to read code will now know and the code reader will have his share of adsense for the month.
But more seriously... When I have doubts about a software package, I just hit it up in Google to see if there has been wide spread complaints or other issues.
As far as your other issues you bring up, in a closed source scenario what is to prevent a malicious person from just renaming any old trojan that they compiled to be the same exact size as the closed source exe and putting up a torrent of it? Sure it won't work at all as far as running the program, but it will do what they need to do. (Checksums anyone?)
Even if a person uploads something maliciously into the main package, someone will eventually notice and with more eyes the faster this will happen. Of course this also helps out if the original coder is the one who is malicious.
PvP is fine when it's an even match or when the underdog has at least the possibility of escaping, but ganking is really no different from aimbotting or wallhacking in a FPS game. It's actually even worse, since even aimbotters and wallhackers can be killed, or voted out by the players.
Huh? What you are describing was WAD (Was As Designed) vs Exploit.
As long as a player uses in game mechanics that have been approved by the developers then they are in the clear. Of course this might entail that the game play mechanics leave something to be desired and could be possibly addressed by the developer in correcting/balancing a game play issue.
Whereas an exploiter uses 3rd party software outside the framework of the game and the intended rule set and is of course clearly in the wrong.
Just because you are ganged up on and and "ganked" doesn't mean the players that did so are bad people. They are playing by the rules as the developers have allowed.
It would be like playing a game of chess where the 3rd party referee says "You are allowed to smack your opponents hand to prevent him from picking up pieces" and then getting mad at the other player for doing it. Heck, I'd probaly wouldn't play that game, but the fault lies with the referee for allowing such a rule and not the player who simply does it because he can. All I can do is complain to the referee that his rules leave something to be desired.
If it was an exploiter then it would simply be the same scenario except the referee said physical contact is forbidden and the other player smacks my hand when the referee isn't looking and I'd get mad at the player and then alert the referee to his transgression.
So yeah... Ganking sucks sometimes, but if its part of the game design then don't fault the players who do so but rather the developer for having a unbalanced PvP system.
Anyway, $100 a month ($1200 annually) for $1000 return would be a rather poor deal even without considering the strong moral and ethical arguments against coercing others out of work for your own benefit.
In the city that I live in, the bus drivers get paid more than techs due to unions. I think you would get more than $1,000 annually.
How can you quote Ayn Rand in a discussion about the immense power corporations wield in modern society?
I think her point was the limitation of government vs corporate power. Now that they are one and the same, I don't think its the libertarianism she was looking for.
If you are going to smuggle a nuke, for terrorism or 'middle finger to the UN' purposes,
Why would you even need to smuggle it? A terrorist worth his salt could highjack a cargo ship without anyone know it, sail up into NYC harbor, get as close as possible to the docks (and or downtown) and then just detonate it as their about to be boarded by the authorities when they notice something is amiss.
If they needed something further inland, they could construct a crude ballistic missile and launch it from a ship. Heck they could hit Washington, DC from Chesapeake Bay on a ship pretending to be going to dock in Baltimore.
Think the thing with nukes is that you don't have to be accurate to have an impact.
Both of the scenarios would require detection and interception way before the terrorists get even close to American shores and would render the aforementioned Neutron Scatters useless.
Of course the same applies to copyright. The copyright laws have become so over reaching that everything we do on a daily basis could be construed as breaking a law, so if we displease the wrong person then they already have something to pin on us.
The craziest thing is that with the average Joe the most common concern I've heard about nanotech is fear of the "grey goo" scenario
;)
Speaking of which... If you noticed the slashdot tags, there appears to be two types of nanobots. A British and an American
Home users will have little choice but to migrate as and when they buy thier next new PC
Or they could choose not to buy a new PC.
Currently the market is saturated and everyone who could use a PC already has one.
To the average user Winxp is "Good enough" and most people don't like to upgrade unless forced too.
Sure there are plenty of technophiles and gamers, but they are a minority when it comes to the general consumer market.