I'm not sure if it's more amusing or disturbing that this guy wants to fix a social issue with technology. Seriously, if porn in the workplace is a problem in your office... hire better people.
Like I said, I prefer the method which I linked to. Eliminate the microphone and headphones step and the test can be performed quickly, all while the attendant is doing the normal check-in procedure where they already check your ID. It doesn't need to be 20 questions, nor anything more than repeating your identity and perhaps the purpose of your flight or something.
I think this combined with a scoring mechanism tied to a frequent flyer registration list (as I hear was being put into place in Florida, haven't done any follow-up on that though) should enable airports to put approved travellers through an express line that doesn't have to go through all the TSA checks.
There is a variant on this which uses polygraph-like testing with a hand sensor, also an Israeli company, but different from the one featured in the article here. This could be done at check-in time where the operator would normally be checking for ID and can ask the passenger to verbally verify their identification. This seems a bit less of an obnoxious approach to flagging follow-up for people who fail than challenging them with questions like, "do you intend to carry out a terrorist action!?"
Further, this could go a long way to identify false identities where certain known entities on a no-fly list wouldn't be able to board, yadda yadda.
Either way, I too am all for this if it means that we can move the lines through a little quicker at the airport.
the ability to use microwaves to solidify lunar dust into a "glassy substance" sounds much more interesting than merely dust control to me - what about construction? Couldn't the stuff be used to build structural walls and such for habitats rather than effectively patting it down into place on the ground?
It was long suspected that the dust could be used to make concrete for building, but up to now it had been assumed that we would have to take something to the moon with us in order to mix with the dust to make a good, working cement.
With this revelation it would seem that there is no need to bring any raw materials with us in order to build basic architectural structures, would it not? Heck, one of the references linked even indicated that a scientist has managed to achieve a similar result using nothing more than focused sunlight (heat).
It seems to me that all we ought have need of is some sort modular form-casting materials to contain the structural "walls" or what-have-you while the dust is collected and packed into place within the form and then a means of focusing solar energy onto the form to raise temperature levels until such time as the dust fuses together. Remove the form and wallah: moon walls.
Why is there no mention of this possibility in the article when it seems to be the next natural step in the train of thought?
The blindingly obvious approach to recognizing document forgeries you mentioned above requires an intelligent human to to recognize the distinction. But when you deal with automated systems where one machine generates a signed document and a second machine receives a document which it attempts to validate against the signature stored on the other machine... well this is where we get in trouble if the machines can't tell the difference.
The example linked elsewhere in this topic pointing out two VERY different postscript files that have the same MD5sum is a testament to this problem, and is exactly what concerns me.
I don't use MD5 to encrypt data, but I use it to generate a "fingerprint" for document signing in my web applications. I too believe that appending the fingerprint with an SHA-1 derived signature should extend the useful life of both algorithms for this purpose and intend to implement it in the next couple weeks.
Using this technique I expect that no hacker will be able to forge a document that will match the new, combined fingerprint of both algorithms where they might have been able to for each algorithm individually.
Here's a thought: how about launching a far smaller, more capable space craft which is able to gain mass on its way out of Earth orbit by collecting up whatever tonnage of free-floating space junk it needs from Earth's orbit?
If it employed some sort of lightwight truss-style, perhaps geodesic framework with cable "netting", it could form a lightwieght, but voluminous enclosure that could be used to capture orbiting space junk before heading off for its mission.
Overall, the idea of gravity-towing sounds pretty neat to me.
I like the idea that each country should maintain their own root server(s) and that TLD's for each country should begin with their country code. IMHO, it's a solid compromise that lets the U.S. retain control over what it sees as an indispensible national asset, and lets Brazil feel secure in knowing that no other country controls their access to the world wide web.
"Say, I want to go to the main Perl site. Which address should I type into my browser? Is it perl.org.us? Why? Am I supposed to know who Larry Wall is and that he is an American?"
I don't think this is a show-stopper. Companies that have operations in multiple countries are already faced with this problem: is it companyname.com or companyname.co.jp? Am I supposed to know that Toyota originates in Japan? A quick google.com.NN query certainly resolves that question.
as to what other kinds of software might be construed as having a hand "directly, or indirectly" in piracy and is subject to being shut down? Apache HTTP server? Outlook Email? Mozilla Firefox? "The Internet"?
It seems you just can't fight corporate giants with billion dollar legal power...
"The problem lies with larger datacenter environments. Imagine a room the size of a football field. Along the walls are rows of air conditioners that blow cold air underneath the raised floor. Put a cabinet in the middle of the room and replace the tiles around it with perforated ones and you get a lot of cooling for that cabinet. Now start adding more rows & rows of cabinets along with perforated tiles in front of each of them. Eventually you get to a point where very little cold air makes it to those servers in the middle of the room because it's flowing up through other vents before it can get there."
Perhaps you're referring to difficulties in retro-fitting, but I work in a data center this size which was purpose-built by Tyco with 24" raised floors and doesn't have a bit of problem moving enough air through the space.
One of the design considerations that I was intrigued by when I first started working in the place was a layout that included alternating hot & cold rows. Cold rows have perforated tiles and show the front sides of the server machines on both sides of the aisle. This is the "intake" side of a properly built machine, so the floor feeds cool air into the machines. Hot rows has no perf tiles, but instead airhandler inlets above the aisle where the air conditioners draw in the warm exhaust air from all the machines whose rear is facing the aisle on both sides.
It's actually a strange environment to work in going from hot to cold rows while working on machines, but it seems to work well. The room holds at a steady 60 degrees Fahrenheit despite 40 rows of equipment working hard at reversing the cooling effect.
What is most disconcerting to me is that people are at all willing to "believe" something that they are told without seeking evidence for themselves. That's the whole point of "faith" - it doesn't require qualifications.
People need to expect more of themselves rather than just lay down when they're told. The cultural state of affairs in the U.S. is not helping us get there. The toughest part of the situation is that the people who need to hear it the most wouldn't stop to listen for a second because they're convinced that you're one of "them" who is trying to subvert them.
Forget the damned, you can't save them. Focus on the children; they're our last, great hope for the future and are receptive to any ideas, good or bad. Let's see if we can focus on the good, eh?
Why do you suppose it would occur to your average consumer that they should educate themselves on EMI/RFI prior to spending $250 for a DVD/surround sound system for their living room? Can you think of any other books that are requisite reading for your average film buff who just wants to enjoy their movie? Is it really that important to you for anyone who expresses an opinion to be an expert on the topic? You want to "bomb" people who disagree with you?
... and then there are all the analog ham radio, etc broadcasters out there who, in the absence of the FCC, would be prefectly happy cranking the power output from their transmitters in order to gain distance. The FCC is the entity that keeps these guys in check.
A few years back, we had a neighbor with a ham radio who would crank it up whenever he thought nobody was paying attention. It was strong enough to actually hear his voice coming out of the home theater audio system in our house. Did he care to respond to complaints? Not one bit until someone reported him.
Some FCC-like entity is necessary to enforce rules upon those who won't volunteer to cooperate.
1) Res. 1441 did not stipulate than in perceived failure to uphold the resolution by any interested party, said party may freely decide to wage war against the subjects of the resolution any time thereafter. Hence the argument that it was/is an illegal war.
2) The U.N. did not fail to enforce its own resolution; the U.N. expected to have the opportunity for follow-up inspections and peaceful approaches to enforcement. The U.S. said, "nope! time's up, sorry! look, it expired! move in, boys!"
The U.S. failed Diplomacy 101 with the invasion of Iraq. I will be the first to admit that Hussein was a tyrant who deserved to be dethroned - but it was not the responsibility of the U.S. to play the role of world police.
We justified our actions under the banner of the War on Terror with experimental dabbling in such excuses as bringing freedom to poor Iraqis, but at a time when our nation really needed to focus on domestic affairs, probably international policy, "we" instead delivered the typical knee-jerk reaction, "nobody screws with us and gets away with it. nobody."
We then devised a story that put Iraq at the center of an "Axis of Evil" making the place out to be a big terrorist factory and made it priority one to uproot and destroy. The fact is that there was no critical timetable attached to events in Iraq other than the one which Bush received from God who told him to invade Iraq.
That is sick.
The only hope for humanity rests in international collaboration, in compromise, in sacrifice. The U.N. can not be allowed to fail - it is our only hope for political collaboration. The U.N. has had its share of operational failures, just as the U.S. has had its own share of failures. It is not immune to criticism, but it's nothing that reform, restructuring - collaboration, compromise - can't fix.
---
I believe that having the Internet root servers under the control of the U.N. is a solid idea. Even if it only in the form of geographic re-distribution of the servers and a controlling voice within ICANN. ICANN has the experience needed to manage the system. That should remain.
If the U.S. were to cooperate, it would aleviate some international fear that the U.S. wants to rule the world. By their opposition, they have shown the reverse.
Some are arguing "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." But it is broke. Not operationally, but in principle. With the U.S. having an exclusive finger over a big red button that represents disconnection of the Internet for any nation of their choosing, it's akin to having a Star Wars like space weaponry system in place - and oh by the way, the U.S. is moving full steam ahead towards space weaponization as well.
How these things can be perceived as "good" is beyond me...
"Cellular providers, of course, fired back, one stating that it 'constantly and aggressively monitors potential threats to the integrity and security of its network."
I have personally witnessed the monitoring that is performed by cellular network providers. I was actually pretty impressed with Verizon for it. Our company uses the Verizon network for cellular networking of computers (Internet connectivity through a PCMCIA-based cellular modem). We received a phone call out of the clear blue one day from a Verizon network technician who asked if we were having a problem with one of our machines. Though we hadn't seen any connectivity loss according to the machine's logs, they reported more than 10,000 attempted connection failures from our machine in a 24 hour period. They said this was usually indicative of an antenna problem on one of their towers, apologized profusely and said they had a crew out at the tower probing for the failure already. All this and we weren't even aware there was a problem.
My only gripe with Gutenberg is the lack of foresight to store the texts in a translatable format such as XML - if users want a plain-text version, a quick XSL transform is all it would take to deliver it. PDF? No problem. Perhaps one of these successors is willing to put a bit more effort into it - quality, not quantity, right?
I agree that the first statement leaves a bit to interpretation, but that some of the ambiuguity can be removed to improve its application:
My personal definition:
"Any spacial body massive enough to pull itself into a generally symetrically curved shape which orbits a star, remnant or drifts freely, and which is not itself a star or remnant."
* Surface texture (moutains, abysses, etc) should not be a consideration when assessing the general shape of the body. This disqualifies big "pear-shaped" asteroids, etc from being planets because they are not massive enough to pull them selves into symmetry under their own gravitation.
* Moons like that of Earth would be disqualified as a planet while it orbits th Earth because it is not drifting or orbiting a star - it's orbiting the Earth. If it were "set free" however I could conceive of something as small as our moon being a planetoid because it meets the other criteria. I don't see any reason that it would have to have a minimum sized equator in order to qualify for planet status and for this reason I shake my head in dismay anytime someone claims that Pluto isn't a planet.
Anyway, that's my humble opinion on it. Cool topic!:-)
... the signal was from the planet to the moving object ... the signal was from one moving object to another ... the signal was omni-directional or an otherwise wide beam ... the signal was directed specifically at Earth
SETI @ Home processes data that is sometimes several years old. The origin could be virtually anywhere in the sky by the time they get around to signal detection - did you actually think this was realtime analysis?
Take the following scenario: two kids are at an arcade and both put a dollar into a head-to-head driving race simulator. Early into the race, the kid on the left forces the kid on the right into a building, destroying his car and taking him out of the match. The kid on the left then sells his remaining time to some other kid for 50 cents because he has to go. The virtual car had a real world value of one dollar to the kid on the right and, it being illegal IRL to drive away from the scene of an accident, a virtual crime was committed, but the game allows for demolition of your opponents' cars. What should the kid on the right do?
A) Buy an XBox and stay home from now on
B) Harass the kid on the left for the 50 cents he got from the other kid
C) Complain to the police for his rights being infringed
D) Petition the game maker to change the rules to be less harsh on underdogs
I see no crime here, just a lack of social grace and a violated EULA worhty of a permanent ban.
... this doesn't bother me one bit. While this is an opportunity for the Mambo developers to get their act together and formalize the development process in an effort to bring some much needed stability to the platform definition, personally it doesn't make a spit of difference to me because I gave up on using it for anything more than a session management and user registration framework - everything else is custom code, so it doesn't matter how many additional patches, plugins and whatever else they come up with for a new branch because I won't use any of it. Mambo was exciting to me at first because of all the plugins and thrid party support for the platform, but...
I since discovered that the lack of a clearly defined specification for the platform has done away with the concept of backward compatability which depracates and/or orphans modules, plugins and "API" coding conventions for module developers nearly every other release. This process has resulted in a complete failure to amass wide-spread availability of compatible module/component/plugin support. After spending a couple weeks fine tuning my first Mambo installation only so see a new release with a CRITICAL security patch which was no longer compatible with any of the components/modules I was using, I gave up trying to keep up.
So all legalities aside, this is an opportunity for the new and improved Mambo team to put together a new and improved product that is worthy of third party developers' time.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not sure if it's more amusing or disturbing that this guy wants to fix a social issue with technology. Seriously, if porn in the workplace is a problem in your office... hire better people.
Okay, how about this, "Would Jesus Christ have approved of your trip today?"
Like I said, I prefer the method which I linked to. Eliminate the microphone and headphones step and the test can be performed quickly, all while the attendant is doing the normal check-in procedure where they already check your ID. It doesn't need to be 20 questions, nor anything more than repeating your identity and perhaps the purpose of your flight or something.
I think this combined with a scoring mechanism tied to a frequent flyer registration list (as I hear was being put into place in Florida, haven't done any follow-up on that though) should enable airports to put approved travellers through an express line that doesn't have to go through all the TSA checks.
That's what I mean by "faster".
There is a variant on this which uses polygraph-like testing with a hand sensor, also an Israeli company, but different from the one featured in the article here. This could be done at check-in time where the operator would normally be checking for ID and can ask the passenger to verbally verify their identification. This seems a bit less of an obnoxious approach to flagging follow-up for people who fail than challenging them with questions like, "do you intend to carry out a terrorist action!?"
Further, this could go a long way to identify false identities where certain known entities on a no-fly list wouldn't be able to board, yadda yadda.
Either way, I too am all for this if it means that we can move the lines through a little quicker at the airport.
the ability to use microwaves to solidify lunar dust into a "glassy substance" sounds much more interesting than merely dust control to me - what about construction? Couldn't the stuff be used to build structural walls and such for habitats rather than effectively patting it down into place on the ground?
It was long suspected that the dust could be used to make concrete for building, but up to now it had been assumed that we would have to take something to the moon with us in order to mix with the dust to make a good, working cement.
With this revelation it would seem that there is no need to bring any raw materials with us in order to build basic architectural structures, would it not? Heck, one of the references linked even indicated that a scientist has managed to achieve a similar result using nothing more than focused sunlight (heat).
It seems to me that all we ought have need of is some sort modular form-casting materials to contain the structural "walls" or what-have-you while the dust is collected and packed into place within the form and then a means of focusing solar energy onto the form to raise temperature levels until such time as the dust fuses together. Remove the form and wallah: moon walls.
Why is there no mention of this possibility in the article when it seems to be the next natural step in the train of thought?
The magic of the magnetron isn't the magnetic field, it's the microwave radiation - as suggested, check out the article! :-)
The blindingly obvious approach to recognizing document forgeries you mentioned above requires an intelligent human to to recognize the distinction. But when you deal with automated systems where one machine generates a signed document and a second machine receives a document which it attempts to validate against the signature stored on the other machine... well this is where we get in trouble if the machines can't tell the difference.
The example linked elsewhere in this topic pointing out two VERY different postscript files that have the same MD5sum is a testament to this problem, and is exactly what concerns me.
I don't use MD5 to encrypt data, but I use it to generate a "fingerprint" for document signing in my web applications. I too believe that appending the fingerprint with an SHA-1 derived signature should extend the useful life of both algorithms for this purpose and intend to implement it in the next couple weeks.
Using this technique I expect that no hacker will be able to forge a document that will match the new, combined fingerprint of both algorithms where they might have been able to for each algorithm individually.
Here's a thought: how about launching a far smaller, more capable space craft which is able to gain mass on its way out of Earth orbit by collecting up whatever tonnage of free-floating space junk it needs from Earth's orbit?
If it employed some sort of lightwight truss-style, perhaps geodesic framework with cable "netting", it could form a lightwieght, but voluminous enclosure that could be used to capture orbiting space junk before heading off for its mission.
Overall, the idea of gravity-towing sounds pretty neat to me.
I like the idea that each country should maintain their own root server(s) and that TLD's for each country should begin with their country code. IMHO, it's a solid compromise that lets the U.S. retain control over what it sees as an indispensible national asset, and lets Brazil feel secure in knowing that no other country controls their access to the world wide web.
"Say, I want to go to the main Perl site. Which address should I type into my browser? Is it perl.org.us? Why? Am I supposed to know who Larry Wall is and that he is an American?"
I don't think this is a show-stopper. Companies that have operations in multiple countries are already faced with this problem: is it companyname.com or companyname.co.jp? Am I supposed to know that Toyota originates in Japan? A quick google.com.NN query certainly resolves that question.
as to what other kinds of software might be construed as having a hand "directly, or indirectly" in piracy and is subject to being shut down? Apache HTTP server? Outlook Email? Mozilla Firefox? "The Internet"?
It seems you just can't fight corporate giants with billion dollar legal power...
"The problem lies with larger datacenter environments. Imagine a room the size of a football field. Along the walls are rows of air conditioners that blow cold air underneath the raised floor. Put a cabinet in the middle of the room and replace the tiles around it with perforated ones and you get a lot of cooling for that cabinet. Now start adding more rows & rows of cabinets along with perforated tiles in front of each of them. Eventually you get to a point where very little cold air makes it to those servers in the middle of the room because it's flowing up through other vents before it can get there."
Perhaps you're referring to difficulties in retro-fitting, but I work in a data center this size which was purpose-built by Tyco with 24" raised floors and doesn't have a bit of problem moving enough air through the space.
One of the design considerations that I was intrigued by when I first started working in the place was a layout that included alternating hot & cold rows. Cold rows have perforated tiles and show the front sides of the server machines on both sides of the aisle. This is the "intake" side of a properly built machine, so the floor feeds cool air into the machines. Hot rows has no perf tiles, but instead airhandler inlets above the aisle where the air conditioners draw in the warm exhaust air from all the machines whose rear is facing the aisle on both sides.
It's actually a strange environment to work in going from hot to cold rows while working on machines, but it seems to work well. The room holds at a steady 60 degrees Fahrenheit despite 40 rows of equipment working hard at reversing the cooling effect.
What is most disconcerting to me is that people are at all willing to "believe" something that they are told without seeking evidence for themselves. That's the whole point of "faith" - it doesn't require qualifications.
People need to expect more of themselves rather than just lay down when they're told. The cultural state of affairs in the U.S. is not helping us get there. The toughest part of the situation is that the people who need to hear it the most wouldn't stop to listen for a second because they're convinced that you're one of "them" who is trying to subvert them.
Forget the damned, you can't save them. Focus on the children; they're our last, great hope for the future and are receptive to any ideas, good or bad. Let's see if we can focus on the good, eh?
Why do you suppose it would occur to your average consumer that they should educate themselves on EMI/RFI prior to spending $250 for a DVD/surround sound system for their living room? Can you think of any other books that are requisite reading for your average film buff who just wants to enjoy their movie? Is it really that important to you for anyone who expresses an opinion to be an expert on the topic? You want to "bomb" people who disagree with you?
... and then there are all the analog ham radio, etc broadcasters out there who, in the absence of the FCC, would be prefectly happy cranking the power output from their transmitters in order to gain distance. The FCC is the entity that keeps these guys in check.
A few years back, we had a neighbor with a ham radio who would crank it up whenever he thought nobody was paying attention. It was strong enough to actually hear his voice coming out of the home theater audio system in our house. Did he care to respond to complaints? Not one bit until someone reported him.
Some FCC-like entity is necessary to enforce rules upon those who won't volunteer to cooperate.
Another Anonymous Coward with response relevance = 0.
1) Res. 1441 did not stipulate than in perceived failure to uphold the resolution by any interested party, said party may freely decide to wage war against the subjects of the resolution any time thereafter. Hence the argument that it was/is an illegal war.
2) The U.N. did not fail to enforce its own resolution; the U.N. expected to have the opportunity for follow-up inspections and peaceful approaches to enforcement. The U.S. said, "nope! time's up, sorry! look, it expired! move in, boys!"
The U.S. failed Diplomacy 101 with the invasion of Iraq. I will be the first to admit that Hussein was a tyrant who deserved to be dethroned - but it was not the responsibility of the U.S. to play the role of world police.
We justified our actions under the banner of the War on Terror with experimental dabbling in such excuses as bringing freedom to poor Iraqis, but at a time when our nation really needed to focus on domestic affairs, probably international policy, "we" instead delivered the typical knee-jerk reaction, "nobody screws with us and gets away with it. nobody."
We then devised a story that put Iraq at the center of an "Axis of Evil" making the place out to be a big terrorist factory and made it priority one to uproot and destroy. The fact is that there was no critical timetable attached to events in Iraq other than the one which Bush received from God who told him to invade Iraq.
That is sick.
The only hope for humanity rests in international collaboration, in compromise, in sacrifice. The U.N. can not be allowed to fail - it is our only hope for political collaboration. The U.N. has had its share of operational failures, just as the U.S. has had its own share of failures. It is not immune to criticism, but it's nothing that reform, restructuring - collaboration, compromise - can't fix.
---
I believe that having the Internet root servers under the control of the U.N. is a solid idea. Even if it only in the form of geographic re-distribution of the servers and a controlling voice within ICANN. ICANN has the experience needed to manage the system. That should remain.
If the U.S. were to cooperate, it would aleviate some international fear that the U.S. wants to rule the world. By their opposition, they have shown the reverse.
Some are arguing "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." But it is broke. Not operationally, but in principle. With the U.S. having an exclusive finger over a big red button that represents disconnection of the Internet for any nation of their choosing, it's akin to having a Star Wars like space weaponry system in place - and oh by the way, the U.S. is moving full steam ahead towards space weaponization as well.
How these things can be perceived as "good" is beyond me...
I have personally witnessed the monitoring that is performed by cellular network providers. I was actually pretty impressed with Verizon for it. Our company uses the Verizon network for cellular networking of computers (Internet connectivity through a PCMCIA-based cellular modem). We received a phone call out of the clear blue one day from a Verizon network technician who asked if we were having a problem with one of our machines. Though we hadn't seen any connectivity loss according to the machine's logs, they reported more than 10,000 attempted connection failures from our machine in a 24 hour period. They said this was usually indicative of an antenna problem on one of their towers, apologized profusely and said they had a crew out at the tower probing for the failure already. All this and we weren't even aware there was a problem.
My only gripe with Gutenberg is the lack of foresight to store the texts in a translatable format such as XML - if users want a plain-text version, a quick XSL transform is all it would take to deliver it. PDF? No problem. Perhaps one of these successors is willing to put a bit more effort into it - quality, not quantity, right?
I agree that the first statement leaves a bit to interpretation, but that some of the ambiuguity can be removed to improve its application: My personal definition: "Any spacial body massive enough to pull itself into a generally symetrically curved shape which orbits a star, remnant or drifts freely, and which is not itself a star or remnant." * Surface texture (moutains, abysses, etc) should not be a consideration when assessing the general shape of the body. This disqualifies big "pear-shaped" asteroids, etc from being planets because they are not massive enough to pull them selves into symmetry under their own gravitation. * Moons like that of Earth would be disqualified as a planet while it orbits th Earth because it is not drifting or orbiting a star - it's orbiting the Earth. If it were "set free" however I could conceive of something as small as our moon being a planetoid because it meets the other criteria. I don't see any reason that it would have to have a minimum sized equator in order to qualify for planet status and for this reason I shake my head in dismay anytime someone claims that Pluto isn't a planet. Anyway, that's my humble opinion on it. Cool topic! :-)
A robotic pre-cursor to manned moon landings? Why?
We were able to do manned moon landings for almost 40 years ago; has our know-how diminished, or are we just less determined than we used to be?
unless...
... the signal was from the planet to the moving object
... the signal was from one moving object to another
... the signal was omni-directional or an otherwise wide beam
... the signal was directed specifically at Earth
:^)
There are quite a few possibilities here.
SETI @ Home processes data that is sometimes several years old. The origin could be virtually anywhere in the sky by the time they get around to signal detection - did you actually think this was realtime analysis?
Take the following scenario: two kids are at an arcade and both put a dollar into a head-to-head driving race simulator. Early into the race, the kid on the left forces the kid on the right into a building, destroying his car and taking him out of the match. The kid on the left then sells his remaining time to some other kid for 50 cents because he has to go. The virtual car had a real world value of one dollar to the kid on the right and, it being illegal IRL to drive away from the scene of an accident, a virtual crime was committed, but the game allows for demolition of your opponents' cars. What should the kid on the right do?
A) Buy an XBox and stay home from now on
B) Harass the kid on the left for the 50 cents he got from the other kid
C) Complain to the police for his rights being infringed
D) Petition the game maker to change the rules to be less harsh on underdogs
I see no crime here, just a lack of social grace and a violated EULA worhty of a permanent ban.
... this doesn't bother me one bit. While this is an opportunity for the Mambo developers to get their act together and formalize the development process in an effort to bring some much needed stability to the platform definition, personally it doesn't make a spit of difference to me because I gave up on using it for anything more than a session management and user registration framework - everything else is custom code, so it doesn't matter how many additional patches, plugins and whatever else they come up with for a new branch because I won't use any of it. Mambo was exciting to me at first because of all the plugins and thrid party support for the platform, but...
I since discovered that the lack of a clearly defined specification for the platform has done away with the concept of backward compatability which depracates and/or orphans modules, plugins and "API" coding conventions for module developers nearly every other release. This process has resulted in a complete failure to amass wide-spread availability of compatible module/component/plugin support. After spending a couple weeks fine tuning my first Mambo installation only so see a new release with a CRITICAL security patch which was no longer compatible with any of the components/modules I was using, I gave up trying to keep up.
So all legalities aside, this is an opportunity for the new and improved Mambo team to put together a new and improved product that is worthy of third party developers' time.