No, the idea would be that when you check-out a book, the estimated replacement value of the book is taken off of your account. If you put down a small 20$ deposit, then you wouldn't be able to borrow any rare books, or even a textbook, or anything other than a trashy novel, really.
So I think you misunderstood the concept. The 20$ was only an example. Each person's 'deposit balance' would be different, and would vary as they borrow and return books. Presumably they could close the account at any time and receive the leftover deposit back. Now, this creates alot of extra work for the library staff, who must now carefully value every book, and maintain a database of book values and some sort of accounting check-out system, alongside a more conventional check-out system.
I think it's not a great idea, since most people don't have the ability to put down a deposit of 200$ in order to borrow a few books, and libraries don't need the extra work (unless, as others have pointed out, they used the interest to help fund the library). The current system seems to work fine (as long as we don't implement any crazy additional privacy invasions, like fingerprints!), so why not just stick with that?
I know most of the "used-car salesmen will spray us with this!" posts are mostly joking... but I think it's worth keeping in mind that it would be illegal to force someone to injest/inhale such a chemical. I mean, secretely giving your customers all kinds of drugs, in order to make them give up their money more easily, is clearly illegal. This hormone is not as potent as a drug, but I believe it would still be regulated (in the US, by the FDA). Thus, its inclusion into consumer products (such as food) would be controlled (probably banned!), and I highly doubt anyone would get away with massive dissemination-of-hormones-through-air efforts.
The much scarier outcome (in my opinion) is: "current marketing techniques - for political and other products - may well exert their effects through the natural release of molecules such as oxytocin in response to well-crafted stimuli." I think it's somewhat scary how advertisers are using the wealth of information from psychology research in order to craft their campaigns. I see nothing wrong with advertisers doing the best job they can to attract attention to a product, but there comes a time where it goes from advertising to being immoral manipulation. Will we reach a day when advertisers are able to profile us each so well that they can manipulate us into buying things we really don't need or want? Has that day already arrive? Am I supposed to make some obscure reference to tinfoil now?
Re:Trust isnt a chemical, its a lack of logic.
on
Trust in a Bottle
·
· Score: 1
Not sure if I totally understand your post, but I'm going to reply to it anyway!
I would say that trust is not especially related to logic. Initially, a decision to trust someone may be logical ("I have no reason not to!") but ultimately it's more related to, as you say, "experience" and our perception of "the character of the person." Many others have noted that trust is a fundamental ingredient in allowing humans cope with a complex society and universe. We can't constantly analyze everything and second-guess ourselves. We have to trust that gravity will continue to operate, and we have to trust that our friends will continue to treat us with kindness. If we didn't abstract certain decisions behind this trust, then we wouldn't be able to get anything done: we would always worry about the "what ifs" and so on. So I would say that in a certain sense trust is an illogical but highly necessary assumption that we make until further data arrives. Trust involves all the subtleties of intuition rather than of conscious analysis.
I say trust is "not logical" because we can sometimes be caught in a conflict between what we know and what we feel. We may want to trust someone despite knowing very well that they are not trustworthy... or we may have a "bad feeling" even though we have no concrete evidence. So then we must make a choice between the information conscious logical though is giving up, and the information that our intuition (which is a black-box that includes a wide variety of internalized knowledge and subtle information) is giving us.
That trust can be modified chemically, without modifying your conscious thought processes, makes sense. I'm more interested in what this research will tell us about the functioning of the human mind, rather than the obvious (and questionable!) applications of this chemical!
I don't understand this article. Is it hard to buy a high-quality CRT these days? No. Just surf over to
Viewsonic or
NEC. Seems like many companies are still manufacturing CRTs right now, which means they will be available from the manufacturer for at least 4 years, and could still be purchased second-hand for (I'm guessing) another 15 years. If in 15 years LCDs still don't meet your needs, I imagine it won't matter, since your particular application will have long since been replaced with something different.
It's a good idea... but of course there are problems with it. For instance, pages with ads. Yes, they can't prevent you from using AdBlock. However, they would rather you not see the page than see a version of it that doesn't contribute to their click-through monitoring statistics. Many sites have 'free' content only because they want eyeballs to see ads on their sites. They would prefer to be utterly slashdotted for a few hours, and have all those geeks come back afterwards and glance at the ads. So most web-sites would invoke "copyright!" claims in order to prevent you from mirroring their content so agressively. This means that slashdot (a corporate entity don't forger) would not be able to openly endorse this idea. Nothing stops users from implemeting it anyway, but I highly doubt that slashdot will help out (similar reasons explain why slashdot doesn't automatically include links to mirrors for all its stories, even though these mirrors usually exist).
Another thing to consider is browsing habits. From your journal, it sounds like you have a single computer that you use all day, and that you use to check slashdot. Alot of us, however, switch from computer to computer in a networked environment... others still sit down to read slashdot, open up their browser, and want to read it RIGHT AWAY. Waiting for torrents to download and exchange is somewhat better than not getting the page at all... but most people won't be able to have their browser "pre-fetch" all the slashdot articles as you suggested.
Lastly, those who post stories (and the editors) are currently too lazy to run a spell check before submitting. I think human laziness will similarly prevent them from linking properly to all 5 pages in an article.
But I still think it's a good idea for a Firefox extension, as long as it doesn't require slashdot to do anything. Someone would have to host a simple website that lists slashdot article #'s with associated.torrents for the bundled files. It could be an automated spider that, as soon as a new article gets posted, follows the article link, makes a copy of everything (and everything that is one link deep, and any link that says "next page" or "more" etc.), and then seeds a new torrent that everyone with the extension running will automatically join. It could work, but someone needs to program this thing, and then someone has to host the spiderprogram+torrenttracker.
What will be done about idioms? Translating these word for word often makes no sense at all, and for me at least (no idea what the official stance is), I'd rather they substitute in idioms with the same general meaning, but for the culture being translated to.
I think this is precisely where statistical approaches can really shine. A purely dictionary-based conversion will translate an idiom word-for-word, which will make no sense at all. However, a statistical approach could be constructed to look for the "longest reliable match." So if the idiom "cat got your tongue" re-appears over and over, and is correlated to a different idiom in other languages (that may not use the word "cat"!), then the algorithm could tokenize "cat got your tongue" as a single entry that would map to something different in each language.
How many of the world's existing languages have enough text for this to even be feasible?
You're right... that's the killer. Translating using statistics (especially idioms) properly will require a huge database of samples. Even what's been suggested so far is not enough. If we want to translate technical documents, we need a new database. If we want to translate "free form writing" we need yet more data.
However, there's lots of data out there (already in digital format) that could be used... we just need people to see the potential and start using these datasets (or making these datasets available). For instance, for technical stuff there are thousands of abstracts for papers and for theses that are translated into various languages (for instance, many articles published in german are then also released in english... I live in Quebec, and every thesis abstract has to be translated into french also... etc.). Many legal documents (many of which are already available to the public) are also translated for various reasons. It would also be interesting if translators all around the world uploaded documents they had translated into some database (assuming it's nothing sensitive of course!). As this database grew, it would become more and more reliable. Let's face it, there's tons of human-based translation going on, forming a massive dataset... but by and large it's just scattered and not useable.
And TCP/IP stands for Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol. What's your point? Most acronyms and names sound stupid at first, but after awhile they become a single token in your brain and they clearly describe the thing in question. You forget about the etymology and they just become a new word to be added to your vocabulary. No big deal there. I, for one, have grown accustomed to "Mandriva" and it doesn't sound stupid anymore!
it's their content and nobody has any right to it.
Okay, sure it's their content. They can decide not to release it to the public in any format. They can lock it away in a vault. They can only release it in theatres if they want. But if they want to take advantage of a cheap and powerful distribution scheme (like broadcasting over the air or distribution in digital format via DVD), then they have to deal with the way that scheme operates in the real world. And this doesn't mean that the government should step in with laws that restrict this distribution scheme, so as to protect the big companies business model. Personally, I would rather that the big guys "take their ball and go home" rather than pollute my technology (HDTV, DVD player, internet connection, etc.). I would then just use my technology to do other things (like distribute creative commons material).
And frankly the only reason this ridiculous situation even exists is because the movie industry (and music industry) is effectively a monopoly. There is no competition to deliver better product at better price. Hence, we end up with protectionism when in fact the onus should be on the companies to prove that their content is worth it to the people, for us to continue to maintain their monopoly.
If the MPAA don't like the way broadcast television or the internet works, then they are welcome to just stay out of it and let another company step up to the plate and make it work (i.e. competition, capitalism, good for the consumer, etc.). It should not be within their power to change laws or technology to make things work the way they want (they can release their own "MPAA-approved!" TV sets, but making it law that I can't modify or reverse-engineer their TV set should not be within their power!). They want to have it both ways, and there is no compelling reason why the populace or government should help them.
Some say that this regulation would take away TiVo, but in fact, the FCC has certified a TiVo implementation of the broadcast flag.
Yeah right. Sounds to me like only "approved" setups will be allowed. That is, any company that doesn't play by their rules (paying fees, restricting the technology of course) won't be allowed to make a TiVo-like device. So it will be absolutely impossible for a do-it-yourself-er or even a small company to offer a competing product. MythTV would not work in this setup. I won't be able to build my own TiVo-like device from spare parts at a reasonable cost. The broadcast flag thereby mandates and controls activities in other sectors of the economy. This is not a good thing. Of course, the mythTV-style people who build their own from scratch will probably find a workaround, but this still means that advancement and innovation in TiVo-like technology (and other novel distribution schemes) will be slowed if not completely stopped. I know I'm preaching to the converted here, but this broadcast flag steps way out of bounds.
What Microsoft fanboy websites? Seriously, do you know of any? (other than www.microsoft.com) Maybe there's a reason that there isn't much support for Microsoft products or business practices. Maybe it's because there's something fundamentally wrong with their products and business practices.
(Slashdot is a Linux/OSS fanboy website, if you didn't notice)
It sure is. However, you seem to be implying that the praise of linux is not deserved. As if the preponderance of pro-democracy literature somehow invalidates democracy. Maybe there's a reason that all these people are supporting this thing. Maybe there's a reason that all these tech-savvy people keep saying the same things over and over about linux security, stability, and power.
I think the relative lack of MS fanboys, and the comparatively large number of linux fanboys is telling you something. I'm not arguing that public opinion determines reality... Having lots of fans doesn't make a person or thing "cool" or "great" automatically. Then again, having lots of fans doesn't make a person or thing automatically "bad" or "wrong." Maybe you should take a hard look at the arguments people are making before you dismiss them baseless rhetoric.
If you show a cost savings they stop giving you funding because you've shown you can operate on a leaner budget.
Yes, that's true. However, if someone in charge decides they can save 100,000$ in software, and put that money into books or teacher salaries (or an additional hire) instead, then this is a net benefit to the school without their funding being reduced.
They need to start using XP and Office, and run up their support bills.
It bothers me that you're advocating a publicly-funding institute wasting money. And we wonder why our governments mis-manage funds? It's in large part due to that kind of thinking. No, I would rather that the school not waste money, and that the savings go into other school programs, or even into other schools, or even into other sectors of the government that need funding (of which there are many).
If I was the schools administrator I'd avoid anything with the word "free" in it like the plague.
I truly hope most school administrators are not like you. Avoiding things that are "free" because that might reduce your budget for next year? What's the point of having a big budget if you're forced to waste it? I would much prefer that those in charge of spending my tax dollars do the right thing and spend my money intelligently.
Slashdot is part of the Open-Source Technology Group, OSTG. This group includes Slashdot, ITManager'sJournal, NewsForge, Linux.com, SourceForge.net, freshmeat.net, DevChannel.org, and even ThinkGeek.
But this isn't much of a revellation. I mean, "OSTG" and all the included sites are listed along that little grey banner-line at the top of slashdot. I also noticed that alot of the April 01 articles referred to ThinkGeek and said "(TG is owned by OSTG, the parent company of Slashdot, so activate all conspiracy theories now)" One example.Another example. I guess the editors were fully disclosing their conflicts of interest for that one day?
Re:Could someone please explain how this works?
on
Four GPU Motherboard
·
· Score: 4, Informative
The 4 GPUs are on two dual-core cards. You could use this in an SLI setup to run a single monitor with ridiculous amounts of graphics power, or two monitors with still amazing graphics rendering, or more monitors if you wanted to, I suppose.
SLI is
Scalable Link Interface. It's a way to have two video cards running a single display. If, for instance, you have a video game with really high graphics requirements, but you don't want your frames-per-second (fps) to drop, then you could use the two graphics cards to render alternating frames. That way, you have high frame rate combined with the best graphics. In theory you can double the graphics complexity of whatever you are trying to render. In practice, of course, it can be hard to get it running, and for many games/applications won't make any difference whatsoever. It's still a very much "power gamer" setup, only for people who (1) have the money, (2) like tinkering, (3) enjoy being "bleeding edge" just for the heck of it, (4) really like their games to look slick... at any cost!
Despite the fact that SLI is currently seen to be sorta frivolous by many, it's quite possible that SLI (or multi-GPU cards) will become common in the future, and will in fact be required to play modern games.
You're right in most cases. Why have a human compare the two when the computer could just compare them more accurately?
But sometimes a user is put in a situation where they must judge whether something is secure and/or authentic.
For instance, if I'm logging into a server from a terminal I've never used before, I want some way to verify that the server I've contacted is the real deal. As described in TFA, an exchange could occur, with a visual image being generated based on the exchange. If the visual image matches the one you've always seen when logging into that server, you trust it and complete the transaction. If not, you know something strange is going on. Obviously these techniques are not foolproof... people may find ways to intercept these image-keys and so on. But it is an added layer of authentication that has the benefit of being easy for a human user to interpret. People tend to ignore certificates... but a "visual-certificate" that you quickly glance at is much easier to use.
A well-constructed algorithm would be such that a minor difference in hash key would lead to a large difference in the image. So basically this would just be presenting the user with a visualization of some sort of authentication key. The number of possible images would be very large, so that it is unlikely that a cracker could send a "nearly right" image unless they knew what the correct image was anyway (in which case they would just send the correct image).
Consider even running software on your own computer. Malicious software may pretend to be one program when in fact it is another. A popup appears saying "Thunderbird needs to access the internet. Is this okay? Y/N?"... but maybe it's a rogue program pretending to be thunderbird. If every dialog box had a visual hash in it, based on hashing the.exe that requested it (or whatever), then you'd get to know those program dialog boxes that were "allowed to run". If a new dialog appears that has a visual-hash you've never seen before, you'll stop and read it, because it's new. This makes it harder to trick users.
These probably aren't the best examples, but what I'm getting at is that people should be given visual clues as to what's going on in their computer. Most of the time you could ignore these... they fall away into the background precisely because they are recognized... but when something new, strange or insecure is happening, hopefully the user will take notice.
Pardon me for replying to my own post, but I found some references on what I'm talking about. One project is called visual IDs, where they generate random art for every icon in a filesystem, thereby making it easier to find files, based on their look rather than based on harder-to-remember filenames. Go here for more info.
Another one is a paper (reference 31 in TFA) that discusses hash visualization, i.e. generating random visual images based on unique strings/numbers/hashes.
I think there is alot of merit in these ideas. Humans are visual creatures, and can recognize images very quickly. I would like to see filesystems and authentication schemes that take advantage of this fact.
I think these techniques are designed to mitigate phishing scams that trick users into releasing information based on the perceived trustworthyness of an internet site.
If malware or spyware is installed on your computer, then yes this won't stop it. Then again, this malware can just keylog your password or do whatever else it wants. The point is that if your OS (or even just your browser) is compromised, then your online security is compromised. The only way to prevent this is to have a secure browser and OS.
So basically this proposal would be *in addition to* having a secure browser/OS. Because even if your browser implements secure connections properly, it cannot prevent you from entering your password when you shouldn't. So, again, these new techniques are designed specifically to stop people from being tricked.
(and besides, if people are not tricked into clicking "yes" all the time, then they'll presumably be less malware on their computer)
I've often thought that a similar thing should exist for md5 hashes and a whole slew of authentication schemes. The actual hash number can be transformed into an "abstract art" image via a combinatorial algorithm. The image could be some overlapping strange-looking lines and shapes, with the exact shapes, colors, and so on all based on the hash. Even a small change in the hash or authentication code would lead to a very big difference in the final image.
So when you download a file, they show you a picture of the expected visual-hash. When the file finishes, you take a quick look at the visual-hash your computer just generated, and see if they match.
Similarly for all secure websites and key exchanges. When you SSH into a server, why not show an image (or ASCII art if you prefer) based on its unique key? I think anti-phishing is just one of many usese for this kind of technology.
Re:it's simple, but...
on
Just a Phone?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
First off, from the pictures they aren't that big. Bigger than modern cellphones, but still small enough to fit in a jacket pocket easily.
I think there is a big market for simpler (and hopefully cheaper?) phones like this. Alot of people (like my mom) carry their cell-phone in their purse anyway, so if it's a bit bigger, that's no big deal.
As the article says, these new phones are not targetted at the young-and-modern crowd who want all the features and want to be able to carry it in their pocket without ruining their stylish outfit. These phones are being targetted towards older people who want no-frills devices that "just work." I think they will sell alot of these units.
You're right. I suppose what I meant was that before birth the fetus is demonstrably *depending* on another organism. This dependance can be altered, via birth or medical procedure.
What you said is exactly what I'm talking about, however. There is no clear point at which a baby goes from being "not human" to "human." Defining it as conception or birth or whatever is arbitrary... and ultimately is missing the point.
When a woman gives birth, it is not merely moving the baby from one place to another. The foetus goes from being demonstrably dependant upon another organism (the mother) for survival, to being able to survive independantly (i.e.: it is now a baby). There is a difference. This difference does not necessarily mean it it ethically acceptable to terminate the foetus, but to say that giving birth is just a "change of place" is silly.
The real debate is about at what point during the developmental cycle of a human being does it suddenly gain the status and rights of a normal human. Some say conception, others say birth, others pick some time in between. The fact is there is no obvious "sudden point" at which things change and the foetus is suddenly human. That's why the debate is so sticky. People want clear-cut answers and rigid ethics, but life is not like that.
If you felt relieved or happy about this ruling, you were probably concerned about the legality of your actions already.
True, but being concerned about the legality of an action is not the same thing as being concerned about the ethics of an action. You can be worried... that doesn't mean you feel guilty.
I mean, imagine if someone stole your stuff, but the police told you that they would get it back, but they aren't allowed to find out where they live.
As a matter of fact, lots of evidence is thrown out of court cases because it was acquired in a way that did not respect the rights of an accused. The police are not allowed to just randomly search whoever they want. There are rules. If these rules are broken, the information is not admissable, even if it proves someone is guilty of a crime. This is done so that the authorities do not feel compelled to abuse the rights of citizens. These protections are good for citizens. This is a privacy issue: if ISPs give away IP logs without there being a good reason, then the privacy of the users is not being respected. There are laws in Canada regarding privacy protection.
If you obtain a copy of a song without providing compensation to the copyright holder, your are breaking law and stealing from the copyright holder.
In some countries, not all. There are many countries where the copyright won't apply. In Canada, the courts ruled that because we are paying a tax on media (like blank CDs), it is legal to make copies onto these media. So in fact downloading and making a copy of a copyrighted work is legal in Canada. No law is being broken. (Although distribution would be illegal in Canada.)
if you aren't stealing the song, you are stealing the "right" to make copies
Nice try. You can perform semantic acrobatics all you like, but ultimately it is a copyright violation and not theft. Rights can be ignored or violated, but they can't be stolen. I don't know how to "steal a right" anymore than I know how to "steal a belief."
When I switched to VoIP I thought the same thing: "even if 911 doesn't work, I'll just dial the number for the police station or fire station or whatever." So I contacted the local police station and asked what the # was for calling in an emergency. They said: "911"... no matter how many agencies I asked about calling the emergency center or police station directly, they all said: "no, direct calling has been phased out... you have to call 911." Calling a police station directly means you are calling about something non-critical and will be put on hold or get a machine.
I don't know how widespread this problem is, but the "direct calling" idea is no longer an option in some locations. Sad, really.
This is a crazy idea I've had in my head lately. Would it be possible to build a gaming console that runs XboX 1, PS 1, PS 2, Gamecube, and even PC games? I know it sounds crazy, but listen.
Projects like Wine, PearPC, MAME, etc. show that it is possible to re-implement someone else's software or even hardware API. If you emulate a different hardware architecture, you take a performance hit obviously. This makes it impracticle to emulate the latest gaming consoles (like the 360 or PS3 of course). However, would it not be possible to create emulators for older gaming consoles?
So the idea is that some company sells a small dedicated computer (with good graphics card, etc.) that runs some emulation software (probably based on linux, using things like wine as a starting point to at least enable running of PC games). The unit cannot run any modern games, but it can run basically *ALL* of the older games, from any console. I think there would be a market for this.
The obvious problem is legality. Reverse engineering is permitted to a certain extent, and re-creating someone else's API is allowed. Notice that I haven't talked about copying other vendor's games onto a hard-drive. You put in your officially purchased copy (on CD or DVD) of a game into this new uber-console's CD/DVD drive, and you play it. You bought the game, after all. Is that allowed? Are there any laws I'm not aware of? Does the EULA of a PS2 game say that you are only allowed to play it on approved hardware platforms?
I guess the real answer is that no company would ever attempt such a thing, since the big players in the market would all be aligned against them, and they would be crushed in a legal nightmare. This just means that we'll have to wait a bit longer for the homebrew solution I guess.
1) If by "stack on top" you mean physically placing another unit on top of it, then be aware that console designers try to make it *inconvenient* to place another device on top, because this reduces the number of replacements or support calls they have to deal with based on someone crushing their unit. For instance, the SNES was designed with a curved top and top-loaded cartridges specifically because some people put too much physical load on their NES. Note that the 360 and the PS3 can be stored vertically, which makes it very easy to put other units alongside each other.
2) I think the idea with the PS3 is that all those kinds of nifty add-ons and peripherals will integrate via bluetooth, making it unnecessary to have special buttons and whatnot. Might be a mistake, might not be. I for one don't want extra unnecessary buttons on the controller, but that's just me.
Slashdot Mirror
No, the idea would be that when you check-out a book, the estimated replacement value of the book is taken off of your account. If you put down a small 20$ deposit, then you wouldn't be able to borrow any rare books, or even a textbook, or anything other than a trashy novel, really.
So I think you misunderstood the concept. The 20$ was only an example. Each person's 'deposit balance' would be different, and would vary as they borrow and return books. Presumably they could close the account at any time and receive the leftover deposit back. Now, this creates alot of extra work for the library staff, who must now carefully value every book, and maintain a database of book values and some sort of accounting check-out system, alongside a more conventional check-out system.
I think it's not a great idea, since most people don't have the ability to put down a deposit of 200$ in order to borrow a few books, and libraries don't need the extra work (unless, as others have pointed out, they used the interest to help fund the library). The current system seems to work fine (as long as we don't implement any crazy additional privacy invasions, like fingerprints!), so why not just stick with that?
I know most of the "used-car salesmen will spray us with this!" posts are mostly joking... but I think it's worth keeping in mind that it would be illegal to force someone to injest/inhale such a chemical. I mean, secretely giving your customers all kinds of drugs, in order to make them give up their money more easily, is clearly illegal. This hormone is not as potent as a drug, but I believe it would still be regulated (in the US, by the FDA). Thus, its inclusion into consumer products (such as food) would be controlled (probably banned!), and I highly doubt anyone would get away with massive dissemination-of-hormones-through-air efforts.
The much scarier outcome (in my opinion) is: "current marketing techniques - for political and other products - may well exert their effects through the natural release of molecules such as oxytocin in response to well-crafted stimuli." I think it's somewhat scary how advertisers are using the wealth of information from psychology research in order to craft their campaigns. I see nothing wrong with advertisers doing the best job they can to attract attention to a product, but there comes a time where it goes from advertising to being immoral manipulation. Will we reach a day when advertisers are able to profile us each so well that they can manipulate us into buying things we really don't need or want? Has that day already arrive? Am I supposed to make some obscure reference to tinfoil now?
Not sure if I totally understand your post, but I'm going to reply to it anyway!
I would say that trust is not especially related to logic. Initially, a decision to trust someone may be logical ("I have no reason not to!") but ultimately it's more related to, as you say, "experience" and our perception of "the character of the person." Many others have noted that trust is a fundamental ingredient in allowing humans cope with a complex society and universe. We can't constantly analyze everything and second-guess ourselves. We have to trust that gravity will continue to operate, and we have to trust that our friends will continue to treat us with kindness. If we didn't abstract certain decisions behind this trust, then we wouldn't be able to get anything done: we would always worry about the "what ifs" and so on. So I would say that in a certain sense trust is an illogical but highly necessary assumption that we make until further data arrives. Trust involves all the subtleties of intuition rather than of conscious analysis.
I say trust is "not logical" because we can sometimes be caught in a conflict between what we know and what we feel. We may want to trust someone despite knowing very well that they are not trustworthy... or we may have a "bad feeling" even though we have no concrete evidence. So then we must make a choice between the information conscious logical though is giving up, and the information that our intuition (which is a black-box that includes a wide variety of internalized knowledge and subtle information) is giving us.
That trust can be modified chemically, without modifying your conscious thought processes, makes sense. I'm more interested in what this research will tell us about the functioning of the human mind, rather than the obvious (and questionable!) applications of this chemical!
I don't understand this article. Is it hard to buy a high-quality CRT these days? No. Just surf over to Viewsonic or NEC. Seems like many companies are still manufacturing CRTs right now, which means they will be available from the manufacturer for at least 4 years, and could still be purchased second-hand for (I'm guessing) another 15 years. If in 15 years LCDs still don't meet your needs, I imagine it won't matter, since your particular application will have long since been replaced with something different.
Sorry, but this seems like a non-issue to me.
I read your journal entry.
.torrents for the bundled files. It could be an automated spider that, as soon as a new article gets posted, follows the article link, makes a copy of everything (and everything that is one link deep, and any link that says "next page" or "more" etc.), and then seeds a new torrent that everyone with the extension running will automatically join. It could work, but someone needs to program this thing, and then someone has to host the spiderprogram+torrenttracker.
It's a good idea... but of course there are problems with it. For instance, pages with ads. Yes, they can't prevent you from using AdBlock. However, they would rather you not see the page than see a version of it that doesn't contribute to their click-through monitoring statistics. Many sites have 'free' content only because they want eyeballs to see ads on their sites. They would prefer to be utterly slashdotted for a few hours, and have all those geeks come back afterwards and glance at the ads. So most web-sites would invoke "copyright!" claims in order to prevent you from mirroring their content so agressively. This means that slashdot (a corporate entity don't forger) would not be able to openly endorse this idea. Nothing stops users from implemeting it anyway, but I highly doubt that slashdot will help out (similar reasons explain why slashdot doesn't automatically include links to mirrors for all its stories, even though these mirrors usually exist).
Another thing to consider is browsing habits. From your journal, it sounds like you have a single computer that you use all day, and that you use to check slashdot. Alot of us, however, switch from computer to computer in a networked environment... others still sit down to read slashdot, open up their browser, and want to read it RIGHT AWAY. Waiting for torrents to download and exchange is somewhat better than not getting the page at all... but most people won't be able to have their browser "pre-fetch" all the slashdot articles as you suggested.
Lastly, those who post stories (and the editors) are currently too lazy to run a spell check before submitting. I think human laziness will similarly prevent them from linking properly to all 5 pages in an article.
But I still think it's a good idea for a Firefox extension, as long as it doesn't require slashdot to do anything. Someone would have to host a simple website that lists slashdot article #'s with associated
What will be done about idioms? Translating these word for word often makes no sense at all, and for me at least (no idea what the official stance is), I'd rather they substitute in idioms with the same general meaning, but for the culture being translated to.
I think this is precisely where statistical approaches can really shine. A purely dictionary-based conversion will translate an idiom word-for-word, which will make no sense at all. However, a statistical approach could be constructed to look for the "longest reliable match." So if the idiom "cat got your tongue" re-appears over and over, and is correlated to a different idiom in other languages (that may not use the word "cat"!), then the algorithm could tokenize "cat got your tongue" as a single entry that would map to something different in each language.
How many of the world's existing languages have enough text for this to even be feasible?
You're right... that's the killer. Translating using statistics (especially idioms) properly will require a huge database of samples. Even what's been suggested so far is not enough. If we want to translate technical documents, we need a new database. If we want to translate "free form writing" we need yet more data.
However, there's lots of data out there (already in digital format) that could be used... we just need people to see the potential and start using these datasets (or making these datasets available). For instance, for technical stuff there are thousands of abstracts for papers and for theses that are translated into various languages (for instance, many articles published in german are then also released in english... I live in Quebec, and every thesis abstract has to be translated into french also... etc.). Many legal documents (many of which are already available to the public) are also translated for various reasons. It would also be interesting if translators all around the world uploaded documents they had translated into some database (assuming it's nothing sensitive of course!). As this database grew, it would become more and more reliable. Let's face it, there's tons of human-based translation going on, forming a massive dataset... but by and large it's just scattered and not useable.
And TCP/IP stands for Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol. What's your point? Most acronyms and names sound stupid at first, but after awhile they become a single token in your brain and they clearly describe the thing in question. You forget about the etymology and they just become a new word to be added to your vocabulary. No big deal there. I, for one, have grown accustomed to "Mandriva" and it doesn't sound stupid anymore!
it's their content and nobody has any right to it.
Okay, sure it's their content. They can decide not to release it to the public in any format. They can lock it away in a vault. They can only release it in theatres if they want. But if they want to take advantage of a cheap and powerful distribution scheme (like broadcasting over the air or distribution in digital format via DVD), then they have to deal with the way that scheme operates in the real world. And this doesn't mean that the government should step in with laws that restrict this distribution scheme, so as to protect the big companies business model. Personally, I would rather that the big guys "take their ball and go home" rather than pollute my technology (HDTV, DVD player, internet connection, etc.). I would then just use my technology to do other things (like distribute creative commons material).
And frankly the only reason this ridiculous situation even exists is because the movie industry (and music industry) is effectively a monopoly. There is no competition to deliver better product at better price. Hence, we end up with protectionism when in fact the onus should be on the companies to prove that their content is worth it to the people, for us to continue to maintain their monopoly.
If the MPAA don't like the way broadcast television or the internet works, then they are welcome to just stay out of it and let another company step up to the plate and make it work (i.e. competition, capitalism, good for the consumer, etc.). It should not be within their power to change laws or technology to make things work the way they want (they can release their own "MPAA-approved!" TV sets, but making it law that I can't modify or reverse-engineer their TV set should not be within their power!). They want to have it both ways, and there is no compelling reason why the populace or government should help them.
Some say that this regulation would take away TiVo, but in fact, the FCC has certified a TiVo implementation of the broadcast flag.
Yeah right. Sounds to me like only "approved" setups will be allowed. That is, any company that doesn't play by their rules (paying fees, restricting the technology of course) won't be allowed to make a TiVo-like device. So it will be absolutely impossible for a do-it-yourself-er or even a small company to offer a competing product. MythTV would not work in this setup. I won't be able to build my own TiVo-like device from spare parts at a reasonable cost. The broadcast flag thereby mandates and controls activities in other sectors of the economy. This is not a good thing. Of course, the mythTV-style people who build their own from scratch will probably find a workaround, but this still means that advancement and innovation in TiVo-like technology (and other novel distribution schemes) will be slowed if not completely stopped. I know I'm preaching to the converted here, but this broadcast flag steps way out of bounds.
I don't really read Microsoft fanboy websites
What Microsoft fanboy websites? Seriously, do you know of any? (other than www.microsoft.com) Maybe there's a reason that there isn't much support for Microsoft products or business practices. Maybe it's because there's something fundamentally wrong with their products and business practices.
(Slashdot is a Linux/OSS fanboy website, if you didn't notice)
It sure is. However, you seem to be implying that the praise of linux is not deserved. As if the preponderance of pro-democracy literature somehow invalidates democracy. Maybe there's a reason that all these people are supporting this thing. Maybe there's a reason that all these tech-savvy people keep saying the same things over and over about linux security, stability, and power.
I think the relative lack of MS fanboys, and the comparatively large number of linux fanboys is telling you something. I'm not arguing that public opinion determines reality... Having lots of fans doesn't make a person or thing "cool" or "great" automatically. Then again, having lots of fans doesn't make a person or thing automatically "bad" or "wrong." Maybe you should take a hard look at the arguments people are making before you dismiss them baseless rhetoric.
If you show a cost savings they stop giving you funding because you've shown you can operate on a leaner budget.
Yes, that's true. However, if someone in charge decides they can save 100,000$ in software, and put that money into books or teacher salaries (or an additional hire) instead, then this is a net benefit to the school without their funding being reduced.
They need to start using XP and Office, and run up their support bills.
It bothers me that you're advocating a publicly-funding institute wasting money. And we wonder why our governments mis-manage funds? It's in large part due to that kind of thinking. No, I would rather that the school not waste money, and that the savings go into other school programs, or even into other schools, or even into other sectors of the government that need funding (of which there are many).
If I was the schools administrator I'd avoid anything with the word "free" in it like the plague.
I truly hope most school administrators are not like you. Avoiding things that are "free" because that might reduce your budget for next year? What's the point of having a big budget if you're forced to waste it? I would much prefer that those in charge of spending my tax dollars do the right thing and spend my money intelligently.
Slashdot is part of the Open-Source Technology Group, OSTG. This group includes Slashdot, ITManager'sJournal, NewsForge, Linux.com, SourceForge.net, freshmeat.net, DevChannel.org, and even ThinkGeek.
But this isn't much of a revellation. I mean, "OSTG" and all the included sites are listed along that little grey banner-line at the top of slashdot. I also noticed that alot of the April 01 articles referred to ThinkGeek and said "(TG is owned by OSTG, the parent company of Slashdot, so activate all conspiracy theories now)" One example. Another example. I guess the editors were fully disclosing their conflicts of interest for that one day?
The 4 GPUs are on two dual-core cards. You could use this in an SLI setup to run a single monitor with ridiculous amounts of graphics power, or two monitors with still amazing graphics rendering, or more monitors if you wanted to, I suppose.
SLI is Scalable Link Interface. It's a way to have two video cards running a single display. If, for instance, you have a video game with really high graphics requirements, but you don't want your frames-per-second (fps) to drop, then you could use the two graphics cards to render alternating frames. That way, you have high frame rate combined with the best graphics. In theory you can double the graphics complexity of whatever you are trying to render. In practice, of course, it can be hard to get it running, and for many games/applications won't make any difference whatsoever. It's still a very much "power gamer" setup, only for people who (1) have the money, (2) like tinkering, (3) enjoy being "bleeding edge" just for the heck of it, (4) really like their games to look slick... at any cost!
Despite the fact that SLI is currently seen to be sorta frivolous by many, it's quite possible that SLI (or multi-GPU cards) will become common in the future, and will in fact be required to play modern games.
You're right in most cases. Why have a human compare the two when the computer could just compare them more accurately?
... but maybe it's a rogue program pretending to be thunderbird. If every dialog box had a visual hash in it, based on hashing the .exe that requested it (or whatever), then you'd get to know those program dialog boxes that were "allowed to run". If a new dialog appears that has a visual-hash you've never seen before, you'll stop and read it, because it's new. This makes it harder to trick users.
But sometimes a user is put in a situation where they must judge whether something is secure and/or authentic.
For instance, if I'm logging into a server from a terminal I've never used before, I want some way to verify that the server I've contacted is the real deal. As described in TFA, an exchange could occur, with a visual image being generated based on the exchange. If the visual image matches the one you've always seen when logging into that server, you trust it and complete the transaction. If not, you know something strange is going on. Obviously these techniques are not foolproof... people may find ways to intercept these image-keys and so on. But it is an added layer of authentication that has the benefit of being easy for a human user to interpret. People tend to ignore certificates... but a "visual-certificate" that you quickly glance at is much easier to use.
A well-constructed algorithm would be such that a minor difference in hash key would lead to a large difference in the image. So basically this would just be presenting the user with a visualization of some sort of authentication key. The number of possible images would be very large, so that it is unlikely that a cracker could send a "nearly right" image unless they knew what the correct image was anyway (in which case they would just send the correct image).
Consider even running software on your own computer. Malicious software may pretend to be one program when in fact it is another. A popup appears saying "Thunderbird needs to access the internet. Is this okay? Y/N?"
These probably aren't the best examples, but what I'm getting at is that people should be given visual clues as to what's going on in their computer. Most of the time you could ignore these... they fall away into the background precisely because they are recognized... but when something new, strange or insecure is happening, hopefully the user will take notice.
Pardon me for replying to my own post, but I found some references on what I'm talking about. One project is called visual IDs, where they generate random art for every icon in a filesystem, thereby making it easier to find files, based on their look rather than based on harder-to-remember filenames. Go here for more info.
Another one is a paper (reference 31 in TFA) that discusses hash visualization, i.e. generating random visual images based on unique strings/numbers/hashes.
I think there is alot of merit in these ideas. Humans are visual creatures, and can recognize images very quickly. I would like to see filesystems and authentication schemes that take advantage of this fact.
I think these techniques are designed to mitigate phishing scams that trick users into releasing information based on the perceived trustworthyness of an internet site.
If malware or spyware is installed on your computer, then yes this won't stop it. Then again, this malware can just keylog your password or do whatever else it wants. The point is that if your OS (or even just your browser) is compromised, then your online security is compromised. The only way to prevent this is to have a secure browser and OS.
So basically this proposal would be *in addition to* having a secure browser/OS. Because even if your browser implements secure connections properly, it cannot prevent you from entering your password when you shouldn't. So, again, these new techniques are designed specifically to stop people from being tricked.
(and besides, if people are not tricked into clicking "yes" all the time, then they'll presumably be less malware on their computer)
I've often thought that a similar thing should exist for md5 hashes and a whole slew of authentication schemes. The actual hash number can be transformed into an "abstract art" image via a combinatorial algorithm. The image could be some overlapping strange-looking lines and shapes, with the exact shapes, colors, and so on all based on the hash. Even a small change in the hash or authentication code would lead to a very big difference in the final image.
So when you download a file, they show you a picture of the expected visual-hash. When the file finishes, you take a quick look at the visual-hash your computer just generated, and see if they match.
Similarly for all secure websites and key exchanges. When you SSH into a server, why not show an image (or ASCII art if you prefer) based on its unique key? I think anti-phishing is just one of many usese for this kind of technology.
First off, from the pictures they aren't that big. Bigger than modern cellphones, but still small enough to fit in a jacket pocket easily.
I think there is a big market for simpler (and hopefully cheaper?) phones like this. Alot of people (like my mom) carry their cell-phone in their purse anyway, so if it's a bit bigger, that's no big deal.
As the article says, these new phones are not targetted at the young-and-modern crowd who want all the features and want to be able to carry it in their pocket without ruining their stylish outfit. These phones are being targetted towards older people who want no-frills devices that "just work." I think they will sell alot of these units.
On google, do a search like:
"whatever filetype:torrent"
and you'll get links to torrents. Of course, a torrent-specific search could be more optimized than that, but even this often gets you what you want.
You're right. I suppose what I meant was that before birth the fetus is demonstrably *depending* on another organism. This dependance can be altered, via birth or medical procedure.
What you said is exactly what I'm talking about, however. There is no clear point at which a baby goes from being "not human" to "human." Defining it as conception or birth or whatever is arbitrary... and ultimately is missing the point.
Straw man argument.
When a woman gives birth, it is not merely moving the baby from one place to another. The foetus goes from being demonstrably dependant upon another organism (the mother) for survival, to being able to survive independantly (i.e.: it is now a baby). There is a difference. This difference does not necessarily mean it it ethically acceptable to terminate the foetus, but to say that giving birth is just a "change of place" is silly.
The real debate is about at what point during the developmental cycle of a human being does it suddenly gain the status and rights of a normal human. Some say conception, others say birth, others pick some time in between. The fact is there is no obvious "sudden point" at which things change and the foetus is suddenly human. That's why the debate is so sticky. People want clear-cut answers and rigid ethics, but life is not like that.
If you felt relieved or happy about this ruling, you were probably concerned about the legality of your actions already.
True, but being concerned about the legality of an action is not the same thing as being concerned about the ethics of an action. You can be worried... that doesn't mean you feel guilty.
I mean, imagine if someone stole your stuff, but the police told you that they would get it back, but they aren't allowed to find out where they live.
As a matter of fact, lots of evidence is thrown out of court cases because it was acquired in a way that did not respect the rights of an accused. The police are not allowed to just randomly search whoever they want. There are rules. If these rules are broken, the information is not admissable, even if it proves someone is guilty of a crime. This is done so that the authorities do not feel compelled to abuse the rights of citizens. These protections are good for citizens. This is a privacy issue: if ISPs give away IP logs without there being a good reason, then the privacy of the users is not being respected. There are laws in Canada regarding privacy protection.
If you obtain a copy of a song without providing compensation to the copyright holder, your are breaking law and stealing from the copyright holder.
In some countries, not all. There are many countries where the copyright won't apply. In Canada, the courts ruled that because we are paying a tax on media (like blank CDs), it is legal to make copies onto these media. So in fact downloading and making a copy of a copyrighted work is legal in Canada. No law is being broken. (Although distribution would be illegal in Canada.)
if you aren't stealing the song, you are stealing the "right" to make copies
Nice try. You can perform semantic acrobatics all you like, but ultimately it is a copyright violation and not theft. Rights can be ignored or violated, but they can't be stolen. I don't know how to "steal a right" anymore than I know how to "steal a belief."
When I switched to VoIP I thought the same thing: "even if 911 doesn't work, I'll just dial the number for the police station or fire station or whatever." So I contacted the local police station and asked what the # was for calling in an emergency. They said: "911" ... no matter how many agencies I asked about calling the emergency center or police station directly, they all said: "no, direct calling has been phased out... you have to call 911." Calling a police station directly means you are calling about something non-critical and will be put on hold or get a machine.
I don't know how widespread this problem is, but the "direct calling" idea is no longer an option in some locations. Sad, really.
This is a crazy idea I've had in my head lately. Would it be possible to build a gaming console that runs XboX 1, PS 1, PS 2, Gamecube, and even PC games? I know it sounds crazy, but listen.
Projects like Wine, PearPC, MAME, etc. show that it is possible to re-implement someone else's software or even hardware API. If you emulate a different hardware architecture, you take a performance hit obviously. This makes it impracticle to emulate the latest gaming consoles (like the 360 or PS3 of course). However, would it not be possible to create emulators for older gaming consoles?
So the idea is that some company sells a small dedicated computer (with good graphics card, etc.) that runs some emulation software (probably based on linux, using things like wine as a starting point to at least enable running of PC games). The unit cannot run any modern games, but it can run basically *ALL* of the older games, from any console. I think there would be a market for this.
The obvious problem is legality. Reverse engineering is permitted to a certain extent, and re-creating someone else's API is allowed. Notice that I haven't talked about copying other vendor's games onto a hard-drive. You put in your officially purchased copy (on CD or DVD) of a game into this new uber-console's CD/DVD drive, and you play it. You bought the game, after all. Is that allowed? Are there any laws I'm not aware of? Does the EULA of a PS2 game say that you are only allowed to play it on approved hardware platforms?
I guess the real answer is that no company would ever attempt such a thing, since the big players in the market would all be aligned against them, and they would be crushed in a legal nightmare. This just means that we'll have to wait a bit longer for the homebrew solution I guess.
1) If by "stack on top" you mean physically placing another unit on top of it, then be aware that console designers try to make it *inconvenient* to place another device on top, because this reduces the number of replacements or support calls they have to deal with based on someone crushing their unit. For instance, the SNES was designed with a curved top and top-loaded cartridges specifically because some people put too much physical load on their NES. Note that the 360 and the PS3 can be stored vertically, which makes it very easy to put other units alongside each other.
2) I think the idea with the PS3 is that all those kinds of nifty add-ons and peripherals will integrate via bluetooth, making it unnecessary to have special buttons and whatnot. Might be a mistake, might not be. I for one don't want extra unnecessary buttons on the controller, but that's just me.