"[...] they can't work out a law to protect their citizens from spyware."
Part of the issue is "what is spyware"?
Once a week, my Mac tells Apple about all the versions of Apple-branded software on my computer so that Apple can check to see whether my software is up-to-date. Is that spyware? Well, yes it is. On the other hand, I approve of that kind of action.
Needless to say, corporations don't like the idea of somebody defining "spyware" because they might inadvertently trip over it. You might have to explicitly "opt-in" to operating system updates, for example. As we learned when Windows XP turning off automatic updates, people don't update and that helped viruses spread. Of course, corporations can use this to sneak advertising into your applications ("You're using iLife '04? Why not buy iLife '06! Click here to buy it.") or to send you other software that you don't want running on your machine (WGA, anyone?). No corporation wants to have to jump through those hoops when they develop software--especially to appease the residents of just one state. Would you have a special version of Mac OS X to be sold in Oklahoma which turns off automatic updates?
As has been pointed out, changing global climate will affect local climates--some may become cooler and rainier, some may become hotter and drier. Okay, that sucks for the people who currently grow things in places that have a climate conducive to such things. But I would imagine that there are other places that might benefit from a warming climate.
For example, the midwest of America grows lots of grain--amber waves of it, if the song is to believed. Needless to say, if it gets hotter and drier in the midwest, this may be a problem for growing grain. On the other hand, suppose Siberia became far more amenable to growing grain. Lots of land there, as I understand it, is pretty useless because it's too cold and dry. Suppose it became warmer and wetter? That could easily take up the slack of the American midwest in regards to grain production.
Of course, economically, that would be bad for the US and good for Russia.
"There is no comparable threat to Iran (yeah, you might say the US, but the only thing Iran has to worry about from the US is caused directly by their nuclear weapon ambitions in the first place)."
Yeah, right. Tell that to Saddam Hussein.
I'm not going to bother digging out the links, but take a few minutes to google "petrodollar" and "petroeuro" and read up on it. Notice what happens to countries that consider selling oil for something other than dollars. Iraq--invasion on trumped up charges. Venezuela--attempted coup with US backing. Iran?
"the US maintains its stockpiles of nuclear weapons solely to serve as a deterrent against other nations, while Iran's leadership has publicly and repeatedly declared that Israel should not exist as a state and has funded terrorist acts in order to remove it - it may very well use nuclear weapons in a first-strike effort against Israel [...]"
Iran's Ayatollah Khameini has explicitly stated that using nuclear weapons is against Islamic rules. Believe him or not, but remember that the US has explicitly stated that "all options are on the table" and has not explicitly ruled out a nuclear first strike.
Well, one good thing, though. The United States of America has never funded terrorists. We fund "freedom fighters." Big difference.
"And for a third, Iran's government maintains a stranglehold over its people - the people are fairly Westernized as the region goes, and they are interested in legitimate democracy. [...] Finally, the stability of the US government is much greater than that of Iran. The chances of Iran's government collapsing at some point in the future, relegating their nuclear weapons to whoever can get their hands on them first, are significant."
Okay, okay. Now I'm a bit confused.
The reason the current leaders of Iran are in power is because of their stranglehold over their citizens. If it were up to their citizens, they'd throw the bums out and have a legitimate democracy. So, in other words, the biggest threat to "stability" in Iran is...the forces of democracy? And these people might get ahold of nuclear weapons?
...which I learned in later life and it was an "Aha!" kind of moment. "So that's why it didn't work!"
I'd use a full cup. My theory was that I would burn a hole in the cup, the water would pour out and extinguish the fire. Imagine my surprise when it didn't work that way. I tried a half cup and was able to burn the cup right down to the water-line, but no further. I couldn't understand why this didn't work. And, of course, it's not like I could ask my Dad or anything. "Hey, Dad! While you and Mom were at work, I tried burning a dixie cup full of water with your propane torch, and [*WHACK!*]"
In my defense, I think I was something like 8 or so when I was trying to figure this out.
"Verizon obviously isn't marketing this system as a way to track your kids in case they get kidnapped, but it is a positive side effect."
Sure is. For the kidnapper.
Let's run the scenario. I grab a kid and take their cellphone. I throw it into a nearby trash bin. Thus, you think your kid is still in the park and everything is rosy until the kid doesn't show up for dinner. You call the phone, get no answer, and head for the park where you find the phone in the trash and no sign of the kid. How is this better than what you have now?
Secondary plan: I grab a kid and take their cellphone. I throw the cell phone into a cab, garbage truck, or someone else's car. While the cops waste valuable time chasing after the cellphone, I can get away.
"[...] this would be useful to spot-check on them periodically to be sure that the trust should still be there."
I'm not a parent, though I've been known to play one.
I always find comments like this funny. It harkens back back to the Reaganesque, "Trust, but verify." If you have to verify, then you don't really trust the person do you?
When I was a kid, I did some things that my parents would have preferred that I didn't do. Now, what I was doing was bad, but where I was doing it wasn't. So a cell-phone doesn't tell you what the kid is doing, only where the kid is. In other words, it's pretty useless.
"But in this age of two parents working, those kinds of things don't happen anymore."
Y'know, this confuses me.
When I was a kid back in the 1970s, both of my parents worked. This was actually the deal between my parents--Mom stayed home until the youngest (me) got into first grade. My Dad worked a job and spent nights, mornings, and weekends doing freelance work to bring in extra money (though once Mom started working, he cut back on that). My Mom worked as a secretary, primarily so that she could get home at a reasonable hour. Personally, I had about an hour-and-a-half window between when I got home and my parents got home. I had older siblings to keep me in line, but there were a few times when I was home alone and could get into trouble (mix Dixie cups, water, and propane torches. "Question: Why won't the propane torch burn a hole in a paper cup filled with water?")
Part of the issue I see is the concept that we, as Americans, have to "have it all" in our consumer-based society. We have to spend, spend, spend. So we have to work, work, work to make the money to be able to do this. We convince ourselves that we are doing it for our kids, so they won't have to "go without" like we had to.
At the meeting's close, Harper, a committee member, said he'd take the challenge so long as he could hand his envelope to a reporter who accompanied him to the airport. [...] At 6 a.m. the next morning...
So, between the meeting's close and 6 AM the next morning, he was on the phone to everybody at TSA telling them of this publicity stunt and to make sure that it all went smoothly.
I gotta admit, that was one thing that struck me when I read this article.
Leaving out the race-card for the moment, just the fact that this guy was part of the TSA and that he was accompanied by a reporter smelled of 'set-up' to me. He announced that he would take the challenge, went home, made a few phone calls to let everyone know what was happening so that the next day, when he showed up at the airport, everything would go smoothly.
I'll be more interested to see what happens when a few "regular citizens" try this.
NASA's PR department has done extensive research over the last 3 quarters and discovered that their audience is strangely disproportionately skewed towards males. In an effort to interest young girls in NASA, the external tank will be repainted in "OMG! Ponies!" pink. There are also plans to take a pony up to ISS.:^)
"I for one would enjoy a fun-size pc, cellphones the size of a hearing aid, a pda wristwatch and tiny headmounted displays I fit in the corner of my glasses."
And I, for one, welcome our fun-size pc, tiny hearing aid, pda wristwatch and tiny headmounted display-enjoying overlords.:^)
But notice that you broke them up. I would like a fun-size PC. I would like a cellphone the size of a hearing aid. I would like a PDA wristwatch. And I would like a tint headmounted display I fit in the corner of my glasses.
The issue here is would you like a combination PC/PDA/cell phone/display that fit in the corner of your glasses. That I'm not sure I'm convinced of, especially as other technologies are required to make this thing work. For example, these little tiny devices are going to need batteries larger than the device. So that limits miniaturization right there. The circuitry may be small enough to fit in your ear, but the battery necessary to power the thing will probably not. Unless, of course, we turn you into the battery (a la "The Matrix").
I do agree with you, somewhat. Things like this could make it much easier to develop stand-alone devices to do many things and make those things more reliable, smaller, etc. The question is, is it better to have a cell phone that fits in your ear and includes a PDA which has a crappy voice-recognition interface for a "phone book" (because it's too small to have a visual interface) or is it better to have a cell phone that fits in your ear and a "normal" sized PDA?
That's part of the problem with miniaturization. For example, a PC which fit in your ear and connected to the display in your glasses which also recognized your hands working in a virtual world projected onto your glasses would be quite impressive.
I love the idea, but I'm sort of curious about putting instruments inside, mounted to walls and things like that. Having everything floating around in a big balloon would be annoying.
For example, astronauts inside would want some ovens and things like that to cook food. Astronauts tend to have muscle problems on their return to Earth if they don't exercise and all the exercise equipment I've seen is secured, etc. There's also the obvious question of EVAs, windows, etc.
Perhaps a non-airtight capsule somehow secured inside this balloon?
Step 1: Provide Free Wi-Fi for an area, but require that each user send you their ethernet ID (so that we can keep the pedophiles out). Step 2: Log when a person goes to a gambling site. Step 3: Send this information to the police. Step 4: Profit!
Hell, if you catch two people per week, you could be doing pretty well for yourself.
"[...] it is unlikely that individual online gamblers will be targeted for arrest"
That was my first question, too. So who is this law targeted at? Are there "Internet Gambling Halls" or something where people congregate to gamble on the Internet and the house takes a piece of their winnings?
This is actually a semi-serious question. Are they preventing some company from running gaming servers in Nevada (or offshore) yet being located in Washington state? Is that the idea?
You obviously haven't read the Interface Guidelines.
You actually need three buttons and some explanatory text. Something to the effect of:
Would you like to go up or go down?
Going up will allow you to see our massive selection of Macintosh software or view shows in our presentation area. Going down will allow you to peruse our selection of Macintosh computers and iPod digital music players.
( Cancel ) ( Go Down ) ( Go Up )
(Of course, the buttons should be aligned right, but I can't seem to do that very well...;^)
Slashdot Mirror
-1, Neener Neener Neener.
It's down the hall on the right.
"[...] they can't work out a law to protect their citizens from spyware."
Part of the issue is "what is spyware"?
Once a week, my Mac tells Apple about all the versions of Apple-branded software on my computer so that Apple can check to see whether my software is up-to-date. Is that spyware? Well, yes it is. On the other hand, I approve of that kind of action.
Needless to say, corporations don't like the idea of somebody defining "spyware" because they might inadvertently trip over it. You might have to explicitly "opt-in" to operating system updates, for example. As we learned when Windows XP turning off automatic updates, people don't update and that helped viruses spread. Of course, corporations can use this to sneak advertising into your applications ("You're using iLife '04? Why not buy iLife '06! Click here to buy it.") or to send you other software that you don't want running on your machine (WGA, anyone?). No corporation wants to have to jump through those hoops when they develop software--especially to appease the residents of just one state. Would you have a special version of Mac OS X to be sold in Oklahoma which turns off automatic updates?
This is actually something I've wondered about.
As has been pointed out, changing global climate will affect local climates--some may become cooler and rainier, some may become hotter and drier. Okay, that sucks for the people who currently grow things in places that have a climate conducive to such things. But I would imagine that there are other places that might benefit from a warming climate.
For example, the midwest of America grows lots of grain--amber waves of it, if the song is to believed. Needless to say, if it gets hotter and drier in the midwest, this may be a problem for growing grain. On the other hand, suppose Siberia became far more amenable to growing grain. Lots of land there, as I understand it, is pretty useless because it's too cold and dry. Suppose it became warmer and wetter? That could easily take up the slack of the American midwest in regards to grain production.
Of course, economically, that would be bad for the US and good for Russia.
"There is no comparable threat to Iran (yeah, you might say the US, but the only thing Iran has to worry about from the US is caused directly by their nuclear weapon ambitions in the first place)."
Yeah, right. Tell that to Saddam Hussein.
I'm not going to bother digging out the links, but take a few minutes to google "petrodollar" and "petroeuro" and read up on it. Notice what happens to countries that consider selling oil for something other than dollars. Iraq--invasion on trumped up charges. Venezuela--attempted coup with US backing. Iran?
"the US maintains its stockpiles of nuclear weapons solely to serve as a deterrent against other nations, while Iran's leadership has publicly and repeatedly declared that Israel should not exist as a state and has funded terrorist acts in order to remove it - it may very well use nuclear weapons in a first-strike effort against Israel [...]"
Oh, "we've got that bomb and that is good 'cause we love peace and motherhood?"
Iran's Ayatollah Khameini has explicitly stated that using nuclear weapons is against Islamic rules. Believe him or not, but remember that the US has explicitly stated that "all options are on the table" and has not explicitly ruled out a nuclear first strike.
Well, one good thing, though. The United States of America has never funded terrorists. We fund "freedom fighters." Big difference.
"And for a third, Iran's government maintains a stranglehold over its people - the people are fairly Westernized as the region goes, and they are interested in legitimate democracy. [...] Finally, the stability of the US government is much greater than that of Iran. The chances of Iran's government collapsing at some point in the future, relegating their nuclear weapons to whoever can get their hands on them first, are significant."
Okay, okay. Now I'm a bit confused.
The reason the current leaders of Iran are in power is because of their stranglehold over their citizens. If it were up to their citizens, they'd throw the bums out and have a legitimate democracy. So, in other words, the biggest threat to "stability" in Iran is...the forces of democracy? And these people might get ahold of nuclear weapons?
But it's not that useful for detecting traps.
...which I learned in later life and it was an "Aha!" kind of moment. "So that's why it didn't work!"
I'd use a full cup. My theory was that I would burn a hole in the cup, the water would pour out and extinguish the fire. Imagine my surprise when it didn't work that way. I tried a half cup and was able to burn the cup right down to the water-line, but no further. I couldn't understand why this didn't work. And, of course, it's not like I could ask my Dad or anything. "Hey, Dad! While you and Mom were at work, I tried burning a dixie cup full of water with your propane torch, and [*WHACK!*]"
In my defense, I think I was something like 8 or so when I was trying to figure this out.
"Verizon obviously isn't marketing this system as a way to track your kids in case they get kidnapped, but it is a positive side effect."
Sure is. For the kidnapper.
Let's run the scenario. I grab a kid and take their cellphone. I throw it into a nearby trash bin. Thus, you think your kid is still in the park and everything is rosy until the kid doesn't show up for dinner. You call the phone, get no answer, and head for the park where you find the phone in the trash and no sign of the kid. How is this better than what you have now?
Secondary plan: I grab a kid and take their cellphone. I throw the cell phone into a cab, garbage truck, or someone else's car. While the cops waste valuable time chasing after the cellphone, I can get away.
"[...] this would be useful to spot-check on them periodically to be sure that the trust should still be there."
I'm not a parent, though I've been known to play one.
I always find comments like this funny. It harkens back back to the Reaganesque, "Trust, but verify." If you have to verify, then you don't really trust the person do you?
When I was a kid, I did some things that my parents would have preferred that I didn't do. Now, what I was doing was bad, but where I was doing it wasn't. So a cell-phone doesn't tell you what the kid is doing, only where the kid is. In other words, it's pretty useless.
"But in this age of two parents working, those kinds of things don't happen anymore."
Y'know, this confuses me.
When I was a kid back in the 1970s, both of my parents worked. This was actually the deal between my parents--Mom stayed home until the youngest (me) got into first grade. My Dad worked a job and spent nights, mornings, and weekends doing freelance work to bring in extra money (though once Mom started working, he cut back on that). My Mom worked as a secretary, primarily so that she could get home at a reasonable hour. Personally, I had about an hour-and-a-half window between when I got home and my parents got home. I had older siblings to keep me in line, but there were a few times when I was home alone and could get into trouble (mix Dixie cups, water, and propane torches. "Question: Why won't the propane torch burn a hole in a paper cup filled with water?")
Part of the issue I see is the concept that we, as Americans, have to "have it all" in our consumer-based society. We have to spend, spend, spend. So we have to work, work, work to make the money to be able to do this. We convince ourselves that we are doing it for our kids, so they won't have to "go without" like we had to.
So, between the meeting's close and 6 AM the next morning, he was on the phone to everybody at TSA telling them of this publicity stunt and to make sure that it all went smoothly.
I gotta admit, that was one thing that struck me when I read this article.
Leaving out the race-card for the moment, just the fact that this guy was part of the TSA and that he was accompanied by a reporter smelled of 'set-up' to me. He announced that he would take the challenge, went home, made a few phone calls to let everyone know what was happening so that the next day, when he showed up at the airport, everything would go smoothly.
I'll be more interested to see what happens when a few "regular citizens" try this.
"Better colors?"
:^)
Now that you mention it...
NASA's PR department has done extensive research over the last 3 quarters and discovered that their audience is strangely disproportionately skewed towards males. In an effort to interest young girls in NASA, the external tank will be repainted in "OMG! Ponies!" pink. There are also plans to take a pony up to ISS.
"I for one would enjoy a fun-size pc, cellphones the size of a hearing aid, a pda wristwatch and tiny headmounted displays I fit in the corner of my glasses."
:^)
And I, for one, welcome our fun-size pc, tiny hearing aid, pda wristwatch and tiny headmounted display-enjoying overlords.
But notice that you broke them up. I would like a fun-size PC. I would like a cellphone the size of a hearing aid. I would like a PDA wristwatch. And I would like a tint headmounted display I fit in the corner of my glasses.
The issue here is would you like a combination PC/PDA/cell phone/display that fit in the corner of your glasses. That I'm not sure I'm convinced of, especially as other technologies are required to make this thing work. For example, these little tiny devices are going to need batteries larger than the device. So that limits miniaturization right there. The circuitry may be small enough to fit in your ear, but the battery necessary to power the thing will probably not. Unless, of course, we turn you into the battery (a la "The Matrix").
I do agree with you, somewhat. Things like this could make it much easier to develop stand-alone devices to do many things and make those things more reliable, smaller, etc. The question is, is it better to have a cell phone that fits in your ear and includes a PDA which has a crappy voice-recognition interface for a "phone book" (because it's too small to have a visual interface) or is it better to have a cell phone that fits in your ear and a "normal" sized PDA?
That's part of the problem with miniaturization. For example, a PC which fit in your ear and connected to the display in your glasses which also recognized your hands working in a virtual world projected onto your glasses would be quite impressive.
Well, I believe it's only shown in the front hall as you go outside. This let's you know if you should put your helmet on...
Which was just a cheap rip-off of that seminal work, House of Whacks.
I love the idea, but I'm sort of curious about putting instruments inside, mounted to walls and things like that. Having everything floating around in a big balloon would be annoying.
For example, astronauts inside would want some ovens and things like that to cook food. Astronauts tend to have muscle problems on their return to Earth if they don't exercise and all the exercise equipment I've seen is secured, etc. There's also the obvious question of EVAs, windows, etc.
Perhaps a non-airtight capsule somehow secured inside this balloon?
"Forget the terrorists, I am worried about all the videogamers out there!"
What about the videogaming terrorists? Didn't I read somewhere that they used Microsoft's Flight Simulator for planning purposes?
Whoa... This is actually a pretty cool concept.
Step 1: Provide Free Wi-Fi for an area, but require that each user send you their ethernet ID (so that we can keep the pedophiles out).
Step 2: Log when a person goes to a gambling site.
Step 3: Send this information to the police.
Step 4: Profit!
Hell, if you catch two people per week, you could be doing pretty well for yourself.
"[...] it is unlikely that individual online gamblers will be targeted for arrest"
That was my first question, too. So who is this law targeted at? Are there "Internet Gambling Halls" or something where people congregate to gamble on the Internet and the house takes a piece of their winnings?
This is actually a semi-serious question. Are they preventing some company from running gaming servers in Nevada (or offshore) yet being located in Washington state? Is that the idea?
People who buy glass elevators shouldn't throw stones?
It's about the same as 200 Libraries of Congress per gram.