I'm sure that people who apply to the USPTO for perpetual motion machines are very careful _not_ to call their "invention" a perpetual motion machine and given the careful review that the USPTO seems to give patents nowadays, I will not be surprised at all to find a few such patents have already been granted.
Sorry, I've seen code like this on a pretty regular basis (not necessarily password checking, but this kind of defective logic).
Even a decent programmer might can flake out occasionally (thinking of variable name while typing in another for instance), and the dangerous thing about this kind of code is that the compiler won't catch it, and unless code reviewers are specifically keeping an eye out for this kind of thing, they'll probably overlook it as well (since it looks kind of right).
_You_ might be perfect, and never make a mistake, but by definition a typical" programmer is "average", and is quite likely to occasionally make mistakes like this one.
Well, the best way to avoid trouble with the FBI is to avoid getting into crimes and all sorts of other trouble. Living an honest life is the best way anyway...
It also helps if nobody assumes your identity & commits crimes (or threatens the President) in your name. Of course, you don't really have too much control over that - so just cross your fingers & hope it never happens to you.
I rather enjoy overclocking machines (despite the risk) and I would happily buy a retail CPU that lacked this technology, including the FSB multiplier lock.
I think the primary [valid] reason was that unscrupulous dealers were overclocking marginal processors & then selling them at the higher speeds to unsuspecting customers who did know why their systems were acting so flaky all the time (they probably just blamed it on typical Windows behavior:-).
I think the very last episode (Egregious?) would be a little hard to edit for suitability on US TV. On the other hand, Excel Saga is so off-the-wall, I doubt the US audience would really miss the last episode...
the fact that he had no idea that it was there didn't make a difference.
I wonder if there would be a difference because, not only do you not know that there might be child porn on your computer, but because it is all encrypted (and you don't have the key), you have no way of finding out.
Yes, but not because I think it really makes a difference - just because my state (Oregon) makes it so easy to vote using vote-by-mail that I'd have to be a militant anti-voter (or a super procrastinator) to do so.
And before any comments about uninformed voters come out, I actually do keep up on the issues, mainly because I'm an information junkie & read everything I can get my hands on, but this usually only serves to make me more cynical about the current US decision-making system.
I think this kind of thing would be one of the most compelling reasons for me to use a videophone - troubleshooting my family's remote PC problems: "Can you please point the camera at the screen so that I can see what you're doing?"
As a close second, one of those cell phones which take & send pictures might be good enough to greatly improve my remote diagnosis capabilities.
I wouldn't doubt that they grow and sell marijuana, too.
Heh - if we could get them to USE a lot of their own product (at least MJ), then we probably wouldn't have to worry about them performing terrorist activities.
"Hey Osama dude, look! Izza gun! *WAHAHAHA* - hand me that bong, dude..."
I stated my reason, but apparently you didn't find it compelling enough (or didn't understand it, or refused to understand it) to accept it. If you decide to come down off your righteous high-horse long enough to have a reasonable discussion, then let me know.
There has to be a reason not to allow collection in order for collection to be illegal.
Hmmm, given the way this statement is phrased, I think I can assume that you're of a libertarian bent, assuming that less regulation is almost always better than any regulation.
I tend to analyze societal mechanisms assuming that I'm trying to maximize the "average" happiness "function" of the individuals in the society. (Defining what kind of average & how you calculate such a function is a whole another discussion...)
Using that kind of metric, societal mechanisms which reduce the amount of control that individuals have over their own lives tend to reduce the happiness of those individuals. Allowing personal information to be collected about individuals makes it possible for that information to be used to manipulate individuals. Common sense (and a rudimentary understanding of statistics & human nature) says that if it is possible for that information to be abused without consequence, then eventually it will be. And once that information has been spread, it will be almost impossible to control by the individual.
Therefore, I take opposite stance that you do - in the absence of any compelling societal benefit for distributing such personal information, by default that information should be restricted.
Except that cars & telephones are useful to, and are directly used by, the user of those devices.
In this particular case, the information attached to the clothes is being collected for purposes which are not directly related to the benefit of, and not under the control of, the person who purchased the clothes. Therefore, your counterargument does not apply.
I heard that they when they started making ATMs, the first tips were "made" by smashing a diamond between two plates of steel, then trying as many of the resultant crystal fragments as possible to see which one gave the best resolution. They "estimated" that the ones which gave the best resolution had a tip with the sharpness of a single atom.
I'm afraid I disagree. The government is simply not funding your access to a particular segment of your potential audience. They're not censoring your speech.
I think you're wrong. In this case, the government is actively spending money (mandating the purchase of filtering software) to cut off access to particular segments of your potential audience. This is definitely called censorship.
In this case the machine will retract so that the patient will not be harmed.
Of course, retracting just after cutting open a major blood vessel probably isn't a good idea either (although very slightly less traumatic than the sl-sl-sl-sl-ice scenario of the parent).
One of the major misconceptions about pharmaceuticals is that "To make this pill costs about $0.12, why are they $15 each?" The problem is that this stuff requires years of research.
Normally, I'd agree with this kind of argument, except that even after spending all this money on R&D & testing, the companies _STILL_ have enough profit to spend vast amounts of money on marketing and make a healthy profit. In other words, they still have a large margin with which to reduce their drug prices and still remain a profitable company.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sure that people who apply to the USPTO for perpetual motion machines are very careful _not_ to call their "invention" a perpetual motion machine and given the careful review that the USPTO seems to give patents nowadays, I will not be surprised at all to find a few such patents have already been granted.
Sorry, I've seen code like this on a pretty regular basis (not necessarily password checking, but this kind of defective logic).
Even a decent programmer might can flake out occasionally (thinking of variable name while typing in another for instance), and the dangerous thing about this kind of code is that the compiler won't catch it, and unless code reviewers are specifically keeping an eye out for this kind of thing, they'll probably overlook it as well (since it looks kind of right).
_You_ might be perfect, and never make a mistake, but by definition a typical" programmer is "average", and is quite likely to occasionally make mistakes like this one.
It also helps if nobody assumes your identity & commits crimes (or threatens the President) in your name. Of course, you don't really have too much control over that - so just cross your fingers & hope it never happens to you.
I think the primary [valid] reason was that unscrupulous dealers were overclocking marginal processors & then selling them at the higher speeds to unsuspecting customers who did know why their systems were acting so flaky all the time (they probably just blamed it on typical Windows behavior :-).
I think the very last episode (Egregious?) would be a little hard to edit for suitability on US TV. On the other hand, Excel Saga is so off-the-wall, I doubt the US audience would really miss the last episode...
Or both. There's no perfectly anonymous solution which can't be used by anyone.
I wonder if there would be a difference because, not only do you not know that there might be child porn on your computer, but because it is all encrypted (and you don't have the key), you have no way of finding out.
If your ISP is any good, you're probably not going to get your spoofed packets out of their network.
Yes, but not because I think it really makes a difference - just because my state (Oregon) makes it so easy to vote using vote-by-mail that I'd have to be a militant anti-voter (or a super procrastinator) to do so.
And before any comments about uninformed voters come out, I actually do keep up on the issues, mainly because I'm an information junkie & read everything I can get my hands on, but this usually only serves to make me more cynical about the current US decision-making system.
I think this kind of thing would be one of the most compelling reasons for me to use a videophone - troubleshooting my family's remote PC problems: "Can you please point the camera at the screen so that I can see what you're doing?"
As a close second, one of those cell phones which take & send pictures might be good enough to greatly improve my remote diagnosis capabilities.
You must still believe that the current US political system does anything more than lip service for the "average" citizen.
Heh - if we could get them to USE a lot of their own product (at least MJ), then we probably wouldn't have to worry about them performing terrorist activities.
"Hey Osama dude, look! Izza gun! *WAHAHAHA* - hand me that bong, dude..."
Sure they do: anybody they don't like.
Of course, if you object to this definition, then you're a terrorist too.
Actually, once Microsoft succeeds in transitioning to the subscription model, then buying Microsoft software will be a regular, on-going cost.
I stated my reason, but apparently you didn't find it compelling enough (or didn't understand it, or refused to understand it) to accept it. If you decide to come down off your righteous high-horse long enough to have a reasonable discussion, then let me know.
Hmmm, given the way this statement is phrased, I think I can assume that you're of a libertarian bent, assuming that less regulation is almost always better than any regulation.
I tend to analyze societal mechanisms assuming that I'm trying to maximize the "average" happiness "function" of the individuals in the society. (Defining what kind of average & how you calculate such a function is a whole another discussion...)
Using that kind of metric, societal mechanisms which reduce the amount of control that individuals have over their own lives tend to reduce the happiness of those individuals. Allowing personal information to be collected about individuals makes it possible for that information to be used to manipulate individuals. Common sense (and a rudimentary understanding of statistics & human nature) says that if it is possible for that information to be abused without consequence, then eventually it will be. And once that information has been spread, it will be almost impossible to control by the individual.
Therefore, I take opposite stance that you do - in the absence of any compelling societal benefit for distributing such personal information, by default that information should be restricted.
Except that cars & telephones are useful to, and are directly used by, the user of those devices.
In this particular case, the information attached to the clothes is being collected for purposes which are not directly related to the benefit of, and not under the control of, the person who purchased the clothes. Therefore, your counterargument does not apply.
Well, gee, if that information hasn't been collected, then it would be a little hard for people to abuse it, wouldn't it?
I heard that they when they started making ATMs, the first tips were "made" by smashing a diamond between two plates of steel, then trying as many of the resultant crystal fragments as possible to see which one gave the best resolution. They "estimated" that the ones which gave the best resolution had a tip with the sharpness of a single atom.
Just make sure you're still taking enough vitamins so that things don't break down.
I think you're wrong. In this case, the government is actively spending money (mandating the purchase of filtering software) to cut off access to particular segments of your potential audience. This is definitely called censorship.
Of course, retracting just after cutting open a major blood vessel probably isn't a good idea either (although very slightly less traumatic than the sl-sl-sl-sl-ice scenario of the parent).
Does anyone really think this system will only be used at the airports? This is the PRACTICE system.
If the authorities think it works "well enough", they'll be extending it to anything they can get control of.
Normally, I'd agree with this kind of argument, except that even after spending all this money on R&D & testing, the companies _STILL_ have enough profit to spend vast amounts of money on marketing and make a healthy profit. In other words, they still have a large margin with which to reduce their drug prices and still remain a profitable company.
If that happens, expect T-1 contracts to start including clauses which exclude it. No way the Bells want their customers to start competing with them.