I'd just like to point out that at least SOME of those parents aren't lazy! My mother teaches "learning-disabled" kids, many of whom have been diagnosed with ADD.
She says that most of their parents are VERY attentive about their kids, put lots of time both in & out of school to take care of them, but w/o the Ritalin, those kids just can't keep a coherent thought in their heads for longer than a second or two.
But -- I don't think that trying to squeeze a laptop into the mix really helps. I'd rather have a book, or just to sit and daydream.
Just depends on what you like to do for fun - I'm pretty consistent about zoning out when I'm in front of a computer screen (much to the irritation of my family). Time goes pretty fast for me when I'm doing it though.
What I _really_ fantasize about is having a wearable virtual reality setup - plane? I'm on a plane? oh yeah, I forgot:)
If you can relax in a coach class seat, then you're a lot smaller than I am (and I consider myself to be a pretty "average"-sized guy). Sleep on a plane has never been really possible for me under normal circumstances.
When I'm on a long plane flight, I'm DESPERATE to find something else to do besides think about how cramped I am. Books, my laptop, cheesy portable arcade games - if I don't have them, then I really AM wiped out when I reach my destination!
Of course, the very definition of criminal trespass which you have quoted STILL says that the perpetrator has to be PHYSICALLY PRESENT in your property to be guilty of trespass.
That's going to be a little difficult to extend to hacking when said hacker is living 2000 miles away from you!
Suffice to say, using B&E to describe hacking is only suitable as a METAPHOR - and not as a particularly good one either, since the resultant damage is not the same. Making laws based on such a bad metaphor is a really bad idea, even if hacking my computer makes me more pissed off than finding out that somebody was checking through my sock drawer:)
There are few ways to describe (in the current, rather than classic, sense of the word) hacking as anything other than breaking into someone's "property" without leave.
Oh please, hacking is only similar to B&E as information is to physical presence.
Somebody who has hacked into your computer is hardly as physically dangerous (unless they've hacked into something controlling a life support system!) as if they're standing in your house ready to brain you with a crowbar.
This is exactly the kind of reasoning which equates copying a CD with stealing cargo from ships on the high seas.
ell, if the US court cases about high-strength encryption are any judge, then YES - the GUI-based app writers WOULD be considered accomplices to the act.
If I remember the descriptions of the rulings, the resultant applications can't have any obvious hooks which directly support the infringing piece of software.
This was in response to a bunch of people trying to leave a "hole" in open-source mailers like mutt/pine/elm (don't remember exactly which), where somebody could snarf a PGP toolkit/executable from a non-US web site & just plop it into the installation & everything would be integrated. The courts basically said they weren't going to allow that obvious attempt to get around the encryption restrictions.
Yeah, but this attitude about sharing land is a lot easier if you're living in a hunter-gatherer society, where your survival is predicated more on your hunting/gathering skill. Once you start farming, you're probably more likely to be touchy about people wandering off w/your crops if they didn't help you grow them, just because "everyone must share the bounty of the land".
Superstars will have to create themselves based on talent and real appeal (not just sex)
Dunno - based on the popularity of music videos with attractive stars in really skimpy clothing, if Napster ever got around to distributing music videos via its service, I'd still imagine "sex" would be a pretty popular product:)
Yes, I was referring to the supernatural (semi? are you kidding?) life-energy often referred to. I'm not aware how it is necessary for any martial art to function.
I always thought Chi was some kind of useful mental abstraction which allowed someone who was "practiced" in it to manipulate a lot of the usually-subconscious functions of their brain & bodies.
And I did not say, "easy detection," please do not twist my words. I merely said that there is no reason to think that anything exists aside from what we can detect with our senses (and devices that enhance our senses).
I'm assuming that you also include the ability to detect by deduction, as in: "We cannot directly observe the existence of this phenomena (like an elusive subatomic particle, for instance), but through logic & indirect observations, we have eliminated all other probable causes."
It's always fun to play with religious fundies (kind of like poking a rabid badger with sharp sticks).
One fun thing to do: hold a long religious discussion w/in earshot of a fundie, but always refering to God & Jesus as females (e.g., Goddess instead of God), but leave most of the other details the same.
Most of them will recognize what you're doing, but the conflict that the mental imagery creates with their permanently-engraved patriarchical view of their faith will REALLY make them uncomfortable - and the ones who can't take it also get upset when you accuse them of not believing that She is All Things and can be female if She wants to, and that they shouldn't be imposing their puny human prejudices on Her.
I think this is a darn good idea, as long as the number space for the one-time numbers is large enough to avoid collisions for many years between usages. (And the resultant numbers will have to contain some kind of cryptographic signature information so that fraudsters won't be able to just make up random numbers to try and get a hit on an open one-shot account number).
About how many digits will they have to use to make these assumptions feasible (including the cryptographic check?). Maybe if they go to letters AND numbers?
This kind of scheme would handle a lot of my objections to giving credit card numbers to untrustworthy merchants (given that I trust AMEX not to release my personal information to anyone else:). I can only hope that other card vendors and/or banks might follow their lead.
I'm assuming that the one-time numbers are not TRULY anonymous (otherwise AMEX wouldn't know where to send the bill, and/or it would be too convenient for money laundering).
1) quantum computers do not break symmetric encryption, so if quantum computation becomes commonplace, then we're no worse off than before public-key encryption became a common concept (and in fact, our symmetric systems will still be useful).
Unfortunately, we will have to resort to physical means to securely pass our keys (with the accompanying possibility of rubber-hose or sticky-fingers decryption techniques...)
2) There are still mathematical operations which look like they have the same kind of property that factoring large numbers or doing discrete logarithms have right now, i.e., being easy to do in one direction, and hard to do in the other, but do not look like they will be easily solveable by a quantum computer.
So...the advent of practical quantum computing might make the CURRENT public key infrastructure useless (in which case we are no worse off than our current state where hardly ANYTHING on the net is encrypted), but there will still be the ability to transition back to an encrypted state.
You're not kidding - and digging through legal records isn't my favorite way of spending time.
You might take a look at http://fairuse.stanford.edu/ - they seem to have compiled a list of statues, judicial opinions & regulations which are relevant.
Ummm...as far as I know, quantum computation is primarily useful at cracking current PUBLIC key encryption methods (factoring large numbers and/or discrete logarithms), not symmetric key encryption, which can still be set at lifetime-of-the-universe key lengths. (Anybody knowledgeable, feel free to correct me...)
Even when they do that, there are other public key mathematical operations (elliptical curves come to mind) which people haven't come up with easy ways to crack yet, even with quantum computation. Doesn't mean it won't happen, but there will still be alternatives.
They don't need permission from anyone to copy the music for their own internal use, according to non-RIAA fair-use interpretation (and contrary to YOUR opinion, fully in line with society & court decisions).
They DID violate distribution rights (from what I've read, they were trying the "quantum" version of information theory - if you can't tell the difference between US doing the copy, or the USER doing the copy, then there is no difference) - which the judge laughed at, just before he threw the book at them...
Aside from the fact mentioned in the other reply (Patent Office _can_ request that you submit a working device), you're missing the point.
Said companies in my example isn't being REALLY creative - they're just juggling words in their patent until they meet the Patent Office's definition of "creative" (which has more to do with semantic minutea & overloaded claims inspectors than real creativity).
Would it be possible for an auto-shopper agent looking for a particular item to log onto a company like Amazon.com's as many different individuals, pick the best price offered & buy that?
Brick-and-mortar stores don't usually do it on a customer-by-customer basis though (because it would damn near impossible, esp. with posted prices on the products on the shelves).
...provided that I have creatively improved upon the original.
"Creative" has a very specific legal/wording meaning to the US Patent Office, which often seems to be much different than what a common, ordinary layperson would consider "creative".
I've been watching some companies get new patents solely by using feedback from the Patent Office about why a particular patent was not "creative" to change the wording of their patent so it became "creative" - all w/o actually attempting to even make a prototype or a design based on the ideas in the patent.
Re:No matter what he does, he sets a precident.
on
URLs Aren't Property?
·
· Score: 2
God forbid the US needs ANOTHER way to initiate the creation of NEW laws...what we _really_ need is a way to force legislators to clean up the OLD laws!!!
Does it say anything about the efficiency of natural-gas power plants? I was under the impression that it is fairly simple to extract every bit of usable heat energy out of large amounts of natural gas, at high efficiencies. And the US has quite abundant sources of natural gas (at least for the forseeable future.)
Dunno if I really agree with this. The main reason I've found for using a debugger is to find out where an app core dumped & look at the variables at that point (plus try and trap illegal memory accesses & unexpected exceptions).
For everything else, printfs (or stream constructs) do me just fine, and allow me to format the data flow @ that point in the code in such a way to make it more easily parseable in the output.
Most of the code I've run into that I REALLY needed a debugger to figure out how it was working, was because the code was not very good quality and I needed the debugger to help me figure out how the data was flowing through it. Once I rewrote it to be simpler to maintain, I didn't need to use the debugger to maintain it anymore.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd just like to point out that at least SOME of those parents aren't lazy! My mother teaches "learning-disabled" kids, many of whom have been diagnosed with ADD.
She says that most of their parents are VERY attentive about their kids, put lots of time both in & out of school to take care of them, but w/o the Ritalin, those kids just can't keep a coherent thought in their heads for longer than a second or two.
Just depends on what you like to do for fun - I'm pretty consistent about zoning out when I'm in front of a computer screen (much to the irritation of my family). Time goes pretty fast for me when I'm doing it though.
What I _really_ fantasize about is having a wearable virtual reality setup - plane? I'm on a plane? oh yeah, I forgot :)
If you can relax in a coach class seat, then you're a lot smaller than I am (and I consider myself to be a pretty "average"-sized guy). Sleep on a plane has never been really possible for me under normal circumstances.
When I'm on a long plane flight, I'm DESPERATE to find something else to do besides think about how cramped I am. Books, my laptop, cheesy portable arcade games - if I don't have them, then I really AM wiped out when I reach my destination!
Of course, the very definition of criminal trespass which you have quoted STILL says that the perpetrator has to be PHYSICALLY PRESENT in your property to be guilty of trespass.
:)
That's going to be a little difficult to extend to hacking when said hacker is living 2000 miles away from you!
Suffice to say, using B&E to describe hacking is only suitable as a METAPHOR - and not as a particularly good one either, since the resultant damage is not the same. Making laws based on such a bad metaphor is a really bad idea, even if hacking my computer makes me more pissed off than finding out that somebody was checking through my sock drawer
Oh please, hacking is only similar to B&E as information is to physical presence.
Somebody who has hacked into your computer is hardly as physically dangerous (unless they've hacked into something controlling a life support system!) as if they're standing in your house ready to brain you with a crowbar.
This is exactly the kind of reasoning which equates copying a CD with stealing cargo from ships on the high seas.
ell, if the US court cases about high-strength encryption are any judge, then YES - the GUI-based app writers WOULD be considered accomplices to the act.
If I remember the descriptions of the rulings, the resultant applications can't have any obvious hooks which directly support the infringing piece of software.
This was in response to a bunch of people trying to leave a "hole" in open-source mailers like mutt/pine/elm (don't remember exactly which), where somebody could snarf a PGP toolkit/executable from a non-US web site & just plop it into the installation & everything would be integrated. The courts basically said they weren't going to allow that obvious attempt to get around the encryption restrictions.
Yeah, but this attitude about sharing land is a lot easier if you're living in a hunter-gatherer society, where your survival is predicated more on your hunting/gathering skill. Once you start farming, you're probably more likely to be touchy about people wandering off w/your crops if they didn't help you grow them, just because "everyone must share the bounty of the land".
Dunno - based on the popularity of music videos with attractive stars in really skimpy clothing, if Napster ever got around to distributing music videos via its service, I'd still imagine "sex" would be a pretty popular product :)
Is it still possible to send out tarballs & updates to a binary newsgroup through the anonymous remailer systems?
I always thought Chi was some kind of useful mental abstraction which allowed someone who was "practiced" in it to manipulate a lot of the usually-subconscious functions of their brain & bodies.
I'm assuming that you also include the ability to detect by deduction, as in: "We cannot directly observe the existence of this phenomena (like an elusive subatomic particle, for instance), but through logic & indirect observations, we have eliminated all other probable causes."
It's always fun to play with religious fundies (kind of like poking a rabid badger with sharp sticks).
One fun thing to do: hold a long religious discussion w/in earshot of a fundie, but always refering to God & Jesus as females (e.g., Goddess instead of God), but leave most of the other details the same.
Most of them will recognize what you're doing, but the conflict that the mental imagery creates with their permanently-engraved patriarchical view of their faith will REALLY make them uncomfortable - and the ones who can't take it also get upset when you accuse them of not believing that She is All Things and can be female if She wants to, and that they shouldn't be imposing their puny human prejudices on Her.
I think this is a darn good idea, as long as the number space for the one-time numbers is large enough to avoid collisions for many years between usages. (And the resultant numbers will have to contain some kind of cryptographic signature information so that fraudsters won't be able to just make up random numbers to try and get a hit on an open one-shot account number).
:). I can only hope that other card vendors and/or banks might follow their lead.
About how many digits will they have to use to make these assumptions feasible (including the cryptographic check?). Maybe if they go to letters AND numbers?
This kind of scheme would handle a lot of my objections to giving credit card numbers to untrustworthy merchants (given that I trust AMEX not to release my personal information to anyone else
I'm assuming that the one-time numbers are not TRULY anonymous (otherwise AMEX wouldn't know where to send the bill, and/or it would be too convenient for money laundering).
I know that, but my points were:
1) quantum computers do not break symmetric encryption, so if quantum computation becomes commonplace, then we're no worse off than before public-key encryption became a common concept (and in fact, our symmetric systems will still be useful).
Unfortunately, we will have to resort to physical means to securely pass our keys (with the accompanying possibility of rubber-hose or sticky-fingers decryption techniques...)
2) There are still mathematical operations which look like they have the same kind of property that factoring large numbers or doing discrete logarithms have right now, i.e., being easy to do in one direction, and hard to do in the other, but do not look like they will be easily solveable by a quantum computer.
So...the advent of practical quantum computing might make the CURRENT public key infrastructure useless (in which case we are no worse off than our current state where hardly ANYTHING on the net is encrypted), but there will still be the ability to transition back to an encrypted state.
You're not kidding - and digging through legal records isn't my favorite way of spending time.
You might take a look at http://fairuse.stanford.edu/ - they seem to have compiled a list of statues, judicial opinions & regulations which are relevant.
Ummm...as far as I know, quantum computation is primarily useful at cracking current PUBLIC key encryption methods (factoring large numbers and/or discrete logarithms), not symmetric key encryption, which can still be set at lifetime-of-the-universe key lengths. (Anybody knowledgeable, feel free to correct me...)
Even when they do that, there are other public key mathematical operations (elliptical curves come to mind) which people haven't come up with easy ways to crack yet, even with quantum computation. Doesn't mean it won't happen, but there will still be alternatives.
But it really sucks to be a mole...
They don't need permission from anyone to copy the music for their own internal use, according to non-RIAA fair-use interpretation (and contrary to YOUR opinion, fully in line with society & court decisions).
They DID violate distribution rights (from what I've read, they were trying the "quantum" version of information theory - if you can't tell the difference between US doing the copy, or the USER doing the copy, then there is no difference) - which the judge laughed at, just before he threw the book at them...
Aside from the fact mentioned in the other reply (Patent Office _can_ request that you submit a working device), you're missing the point.
Said companies in my example isn't being REALLY creative - they're just juggling words in their patent until they meet the Patent Office's definition of "creative" (which has more to do with semantic minutea & overloaded claims inspectors than real creativity).
Would it be possible for an auto-shopper agent looking for a particular item to log onto a company like Amazon.com's as many different individuals, pick the best price offered & buy that?
Brick-and-mortar stores don't usually do it on a customer-by-customer basis though (because it would damn near impossible, esp. with posted prices on the products on the shelves).
"Creative" has a very specific legal/wording meaning to the US Patent Office, which often seems to be much different than what a common, ordinary layperson would consider "creative".
I've been watching some companies get new patents solely by using feedback from the Patent Office about why a particular patent was not "creative" to change the wording of their patent so it became "creative" - all w/o actually attempting to even make a prototype or a design based on the ideas in the patent.
God forbid the US needs ANOTHER way to initiate the creation of NEW laws...what we _really_ need is a way to force legislators to clean up the OLD laws!!!
Does it say anything about the efficiency of natural-gas power plants? I was under the impression that it is fairly simple to extract every bit of usable heat energy out of large amounts of natural gas, at high efficiencies. And the US has quite abundant sources of natural gas (at least for the forseeable future.)
Dunno if I really agree with this. The main reason I've found for using a debugger is to find out where an app core dumped & look at the variables at that point (plus try and trap illegal memory accesses & unexpected exceptions).
For everything else, printfs (or stream constructs) do me just fine, and allow me to format the data flow @ that point in the code in such a way to make it more easily parseable in the output.
Most of the code I've run into that I REALLY needed a debugger to figure out how it was working, was because the code was not very good quality and I needed the debugger to help me figure out how the data was flowing through it. Once I rewrote it to be simpler to maintain, I didn't need to use the debugger to maintain it anymore.