Am I missing something? From the article via Twitter:
younger devs today are about POSS – Post open source software. fuck the license and governance, just commit to github. - James Governor (@monkchips) September 17, 2012
Ah, yes, eloquently stated. And, you know, it's totally okay to do that but let's assume that you've "fucked" the license and governance and your code is great and popular. Now, what stops a company from taking your code and making massive changes to it and shipping that code for mad moneys? What forces them to give back their changes that might make that code better? What did you and the community gain by contributing to that company's revenue? What if I just took your code and put it on a CD and started selling it with no credit to you and no link or reference to the source code? Wouldn't that rub you the wrong way? Just a little? Well, what if that company then claimed that your code was an unlicensed version of their code and moved to have it remove?
And that's why we have open source licenses. So those are out there and if you're lazy or whatever you can just download this file (or the corresponding OSS license you like) and put it in the root directory of your source tree. Are you really too lazy to include a simple txt file in your source tree? At the possible expense of your $MOST_HATED_COMPANY turning the screws on you?
This article seems to focus on just the "hey browski, I heard you liked code, here's my code" hippy hacker mentality and grievously ignores the "did Facebook just use an altered version of my library to track its mobile users?" possibilities.
To follow the analogy started by the twitter post: OSS licenses are like a condoms. Stop being lazy and just use one.
Slashdot followed briefly a seemingly miraculous device that was almost too good to be true. Have you yourself heard of Rossi's E-Cat machine? Does your foundation also track the physics side of unbelievable things? What is your personal opinion of this device? Does it have all the hallmarks of a fraud?
Sometimes when I see tabloids and crap at grocery stores I wonder if humanity is really making progress in the skepticism department. I think there are more people today that are skeptical of all things paranormal than there were years ago but I believe that only because the population has been increasing. Percentage-wise, I fear we may still be at the level humanity has been at throughout history. You can find writings dating way back of people who were "in the know" about what was fake and what was real. As science has increased our realm of knowledge, it seems that paranormal seekers have just found it in other mediums. So what is your opinion on humanity's track record for belief in the paranormal versus skepticism? Have we made progress? Are we forever doomed to deal with a percentage of the population who want to believe?
The only thing I can think of that separates Scientology from any of the "legitimate religions" is that Scientology is so new that there are people outside of the religion old enough to remember seeing it be created by a person.
Well, as a fellow atheist to another atheist, I recommend you add a few evaluation factors when comparing religions and faiths: power structure, transparency, material cost, financial cost, temporal cost, preservation of individual sovereignty including right to leave and preservation of inalienable rights... to name just a few.
all have done unethical acts ( read your history )
At least some allow us to document said unethical acts... hell, the Church's response to child molestation charges against priests was a primary motivator to me leaving organized religion permanently. And, you know, it was super easy to get out of Catholicism... you should talk to the lucky few who escape Scientology.
Something that bothers me about the singularity is the complete removal of conflict. Okay, we've cheated death eternally, we are merged with machines, nationality is a distant memory and Earth is completely terraformed to be computing space for our vast artificial intelligences. There will no longer be man vs man or man vs environment. Where is the conflict? What causes us to strive for anything? It sounds like a veritable utopia and I should just kick back and let it happen. How will progress be made without conflict?
So what happens if we don't actually achieve the lofty heights that futurism promises us? What happens if those extrapolations I've seen actually reach a dead end instead of allowing us to last forever and there is no distinction between man and machine? What if we ultimately turn out to be forever mortal individuals and now depend on a decrepit husk we left for ourselves? What then?
I assume that the occurrence of Human Enhancement Technologies (HETs) needs to accelerate for us to hit the singularity in 2045 as you predict. While we cover a lot of them on Slashdot, they either feel like vaporware or just a small improvement on an existing HET. Of the existing technologies in actual use they all seem a decade or more old. So where is the acceleration of HETs and their proliferation? Why am I not seeing more normal humans using HETs or at least more original HET options arising? Can you explain what I'm missing?
I have seen the graphic showing your countdown to the singularity and something I've always wondered is how you picked these events and what makes the significant? For example, your list seems to be made of things that would prolong our existence but entries like "Human ancestors walk upright" and "art, early cities" are confusing in that I don't understand how they can be marked as epic achievements. Are you saying that if we had never learned to walk upright we would not have developed intelligence? Are you saying that early cities were somehow superior to ant colonies? Didn't they help spread disease and cause sanitation problems? Can you convince me that this list isn't just arbitrary things that fit into a line?
Editors of Wikipedia have taken enough care to meticulously log your predictions. Are there any that you regret making? Are there any that you think people overlook because now it's painfully obvious but wasn't at the time?
At least somebody is standing up for our rights. Let's face it - most people just want to stuff their face with junk food and watch American Idol. They don't like to question authority because doing that makes them feel uncomfortable. Most people are sheep.
Yes, hear hear! They are liberating us. But there was something odd from the summary:
At a regular interval commencing today, we will choose one media outlet and supply them with heavily redacted partial contents of the file.
Ah, so the "information wants to be free" right up until it's you who has access to the information. We have been liberated from being manipulated "sheep" of the US government and are now part of a flock shepherded by anonymous individuals? And... uh... that has gained us what exactly? Out of the frying pan into the fire? If I can't trust the US Government and I can name their members, how can I trust Anonymous whom I cannot name?
Yea because Muslims NEVER form terrorist groups, blow up innocent people or launder money.
It NEVER HAPPENED.
Are you kidding?
Right so that's why whenever Americans appear in a very popular Vietnamese movie the Americans murder and rape everyone? Because it's not like the My Lai Massacre never happened.
All I meant was there are more blatant "all Muslims are bad" productions in American culture than Jabba's Sail Barge. I'm not saying Muslim based terrorism never happened. I'm not saying all Muslims are good. I'm not saying none of them launder money. I'm saying that the most prominent representations of them in movies and TV happen to be solely bad guys. But you can go ahead and list off all those Muslim turban wearing hero movies that Hollywood puts out every year. That'll show me. Hell, name one Hollywood male lead actor who's Muslim.
Also... it took them how long to notice this latent xenophobia? I'm not saying they're wrong, Lucas was a little unimaginative when he developed some of the Star Wars cultures but it's not like he presented Muslims like they did in the movie "True Lies."
The Caribbean island is taking the unprecedented step because the United States refuses to lift a trade "blockade" preventing the island from offering Internet gambling services, despite several WTO decisions in Antigua's favor. The country now hopes to recoup some of the lost income through a WTO approved 'warez' site.
I'm pretty sure Antigua and Barbuda attended and signed the Berne Convention and have joined WIPO. Furthermore I believe the WTO is fully on board with all that considering their TRIPS agreement. So how in the hell is there such a thing as "a WTO approved 'warez' site" and how on Earth does Antigua think the WIPO is going to view this?
Note: I'm not saying what they're doing is wrong or right, I'm just asking how they are doing it given their history. I mean, sure, this stuff happens all over China but the government pays all the copyright holders lip service about how they're cracking down on it. If the Chinese government profits from it, they don't do so flagrantly like this appears to.
In science (even computer science) I have a lot of interest in what we know we don't know and what we don't know we don't know. With paleontology and it's subdomains -- specifically your specialty of dinosaur growth -- how do you deal with what must be an unbound realm of what we don't know we don't know? For example, isn't it possible that growth was regulated completely differently in dinosaurs than it is in modern day lizards and birds? Couldn't modern day hormones and endocrine system be much different than what was present in dinosaurs? When you publish research is it all based on assumptions? How do you overcome such an open system of possibilities?
How would you respond if a billionaire offered you, say, $100 million to fund a lab and give you the means to create a chickensaurus with one condition: They get the first able specimen to release it on a reserve, hunt it and kill it? I know it sounds absurd but I wouldn't put it past the GoDaddy CEO.
Something that's always made me curious about Paleontology is how far the study has come. If we look back historically at how dinosaur bones were exhumed and treated, some of the methods were actually a little bit destructive. So I've always wondered how paleontologists today cope with the fact that 100 years in the future we will likely have technology beyond our wildest dreams that will be able to scan the ground and find fossils in their original preserved intact positions and when they are excavated the process will surely be much more refined and exact measurements will be taken to better understand dinosaurs. I'm sure preservation techniques and materials science will allow us to even better handle finds. How do you cope with this idea that hundreds of years from now your efforts might be seen as crude or arcane? Do you ever wish that some paleontologists of the past had just left the specimens lying there for a future paleontologist to properly handle? Or do you just see this as a necessary way to move forward? Building on that, is there an end-game for paleontologists where the entire Earth has been inspected/surveyed and how many years out is that (I understand that sensor technology would have to come a very long way)?
Former Apple Employee 1: Look, we went to Palm of our own free accord. Former Apple Employee 2: That's right, it came down to who treated us better is all. Former Apple Employee 3: I mean, you get to hear the cute stories about how Steve Jobs dropped the first prototype of the iPod -- after being told it was as compact as possible -- into a fish tank and when he saw bubbles he said it could be made smaller. But what you didn't hear was later that day when he brought the engineer onto a stage and asked him if he was as smart as possible. When the engineer said "yes" Steve pushed him into a tank with sharks in front of everyone and said, "If he's so smart, how come he just let me push him into a tank of sharks?" Oh those screams will haunt me forever. Former Apple Employee 2: Yeah! And when I went to work at Palm I got blankets and clothing and food. Former Apple Employee 1: Steve would make us sleep in completely bare rooms on Swedish ergonomic beds and we would have to rub turmeric all over our bodies each day and then we could only wear Apple printed paper clothing and forage for berries in the yard. Former Apple Employee 2: After I went to work at Palm they let me get my citizenship! Former Apple Employee 3: That's right, Steve had captured Dmitri here in Russia and wouldn't let him be exposed to daylight... he would scream "NO YOU FOOL IT RUINS THE MEAT!" if he saw someone showing Dmitri a picture of the sun. Former Apple Employee 1: We were just happier at Palm is all. There were so many problems at Apple like the Apple tattoos that later became just cast iron branding. I remember Jobs doing mine personally himself with his hand in his pants while screaming "HOW DO YOU LIKE THEM APPLES?" as he pushed the hot brand from the fire again and again into my lower back. Former Apple Employee 2: And the Apple brand shock collars so we couldn't leave campus... Former Apple Employee 3: And the time Jeb got beyond the walled garden only to find there was perimeter after perimeter of different obstacles like spheres that just floated up out of the ground and engulfed you. Former Apple Employee 1: Yeah, when he came back, he just didn't have any legs. "A permanent fixture now with fewer buttons" is how Jobs reintroduced him to the work force. Former Apple Employee 2: You see, Palm was just nicer. We're happier now and feel once again like human beings.
Yeah and, if what I read on wired is true, this guy should probably get the book thrown at him:
Spitler: I just harvested 197 email addresses of iPad 3G subscribers there should be many more weev: did you see my new project?
Auernheimer: no
Spitler: I’m stepping through iPad SIM ICCIDs to harvest email addresses if you use someones ICCID on the ipad service site it gives you their address
Auernheimer: loooool thats hilarious HILARIOUS oh man now this is big media news is it scriptable? arent there SIM that spoof iccid?
Spitler: I wrote a script to generate valid iccids and it loads the site and pulls an email
Auernheimer: this could be like, a future massive phishing operation serious like this is valuable data we have a list a potential complete list of AT&T iphone subscriber emails
Spitler: I hit fucking oil
Auernheimer: loooool nice
Spitler: If I can get a couple thousand out of this set where can we drop this for max lols?
Auernheimer: dunno i would collect as much data as possible the minute its dropped, itll be fixed BUT valleywag i have all the gawker media people on my facecrook friends after goin to a gawker party
At one point the two discussed the legal risks of what they were allegedly doing:
Spitler: sry dunno how legal this is or if they could sue for damages
Auernheimer: absolutely may be legal risk yeah, mostly civil you absolutely could get sued to fuck
At the same time, others on the IRC chat allegedly discussed the possibility of shorting AT&T’s stock.
Pynchon: hey, just an idea delay this outing for a couple days tommorrow short some at&t stock then out them on tuesday then fill your short and profit
Rucas: LOL
Auernheimer: well i will say this it would be against the law for ME to short the att stock but if you want to do it go nuts
Spitler: I dont have any money to invest in ATT
Auernheimer: if you short ATT dont let me know about it
Spitler: IM TAKIN YOU ALL DOWN WITH ME SNITCH HIGH EVERYDAY
In the wake of news stories about the breach, they allegedly discussed their failure to report the vulnerability to a “full disclosure” mailing list, as well as the opportunity to push their Goetse Security business as a result of the breach:
Nstyr: you should’ve uploaded the list to full disclosure maybe you still can
Auernheimer: no no that is potentially criminal at this point we won
Nstyr: ah
Auernheimer: we dropepd the stock price
Auernheimer: lets not like do anything else we fucking win and i get to like spin us as a legitimate security organization
Sound like some classy fellows there. It's a shame for Swartz that he's being lumped in with this guy. At some point, I hope Slashdot pulls its collective head out of its own ass and realizes that these aren't black and white issues and stops comparing them to things that were like the Civil Rights Movement. Auernheimer: "this could be like, a future massive phishing operation serious like this is valuable data we have a list a potential complete list of AT&T iphone subscriber emails"... yeah, no criminal intent there.
I see the majority of your projects depend on Thera Band Gold and then the throwers (like your circular saw blade launcher) use a spring. Have you investigated other methods of using elastic energy (which I guess is technically potential energy?) to propel a an object forward by transferring to kinetic energy? Are you engaged in any areas of materials science study in order to find more efficient and reliable materials? Or do you just use Thera Band Gold as your gold standard and leave it at that?
From watching a few of your videos, I see a lot of end results which are fun to watch. Take, for example, the firecracker slingshot mentioned in the summary. But one thing I can't seem to find is any testing videos or explanation of testing (maybe you have it in German and I can't find it). So how much testing do you do on these? When I saw your firecracker launcher design I immediately thought that the worst case scenario is that the firecracker detonates before leaving the chamber or possibly barrel. Now, a firecracker that goes off in the palm of your open hand versus one that goes off with your fist wrapped around it produces two very different results. A short or dry fuse in your device could be problematic. Did you detonate firecrackers inside the chamber from a distance to see if there was enough room in the chamber to allow the explosion to vent without splintering your device? How much testing did you do on it before you were confident enough to pick it up and use the butane lighter on it? Is this discussed somewhere?
The SSL encryption being used on Mega appears to be 1024-bit encryption, which can be broken with far greater ease than 2048-bit encryption viewed as best-practice amongst experts.
Isn't this kind of nitpicking? Isn't the solution to this like changing a value in your configuration or properties files on both sides and watching performance drop a bit? I guess when you have that many users sign up at the drop of a hat, you're expected to have unblemished perfection available for all. But I don't really see this "riddled with security holes." Instead I'd say "needs improvement before you trust it with anything important." As a software developer, I'm prone to give people a break but I guess if your site isn't prepared to be hosted at DEFCON you're fodder.
I mean, some of these points are valid like I have no idea why you would choose to do this in JavaScript but I guess if you want it to run entirely contained within the browser you don't have much choice unless you start to get into platform specific things like nacl.
Sort of offtopic but why are we following this so closely? I mean, I understand he's challenging world governments by doing this again but do we have to watch every little step and misstep of Kim Dotcom? He's starting to rub me the wrong way as a sort of attention whore. The longer his fifteen minutes of fame last the bigger embarrassment he's going to have in the 24 hour news cycle's circle of hate. Ugh, and his name is something straight out of Idiocracy... did he try to change his first name to "The Bomb" but was blocked by the TSA?:-)
I cannot believe this is getting posted here. I know Slashdot hates Microsoft but this is the equivalent of me saying that Apple will sell off the iPad because the iPhone didn't sell as well as they wanted it to. Or something like that.
No, I see distinct differences between your comparison. I wasn't able to read the article before it was pulled but let me address your bad analogy. While you're right that this "analyst" needs to pull his head out of his anal cyst, your comparison is quite laughable and let me tell you why. Traditionally Microsoft's software has been a cash cow. You want the latest Office? You want the latest Windows? Pay up. Everyone. For each computer. Now. And while that's faltered before, Windows 8 has been subjected to a lot of bad PR (both warranted and unwarranted) as well as actually having poor sales.
Now, let's look at their entertainment division. With the initial Xbox release, that division was a sinkhole of money. Like, literally a burn pile for billions of dollars. But Microsoft was patient because they had other stupid insane routes of income with which to fill the tire fire that was the Xbox. Even when they launched the second incarnation -- they fared much better but still they took a loss on the console assuming publishing royalties would pay and later on they did. Now, you know, after the bomb of the Zune has run its course and now that Wii U is out Microsoft could be looking at their entertainment division as a potential sale. Why? Because in the past it has been a very risky venture for them and recently profits and revenues of that division have been dropping faster each quarter. Basically I see their sales stagnating until they release another console to drum up more money -- and even then they'll probably take the strategy of letting later publishing sales subsidize the initial unit to compete with Nintendo and Sony.
So, now that their cash cows are looking pretty thin will they be in a position to take another gamble in the console market? Will it be painful like Xbox one or will it be great like Xbox 360? And I'm not in this area of management but I imagine they are looking at their revenues and if committing to the next console is a make or break move for Microsoft as a whole (which would be totally f*cking insane if they are looking that bad) then maybe they'd try to sell it to someone else with huge cash reserves. I don't know why Sony would buy and I don't see B&N having a ton of cash after their brick and mortar stores are a fond pastime.
So, to wrap it up, no this is nothing like Apple selling off the iPad because the iPhone didn't sell as well as they wanted it to. I don't think the iPad ever lost them money and the market still looks good for tablets.
Now are blaming Aaron Swartz's death on everyone and anything. Was it MIT? Was it the government? Was it him being bullied by them?
Well, this sort of "who done it?" finger pointing isn't very productive. And that's because suicide is rarely a single factor. Even when the person provides a suicide note that blames one single thing or person, there's often other contributing factors. So I think the discussion here is what was the major contributing factor. It sort of reminds me of "Who Killed Davey Moore" by Bob Dylan where a boxer is killed in a ring and as he examines everyone who participated in the event shrugs any responsibility.
In the strictest sense of responsibility, we here at Slashdot that turned our gaze upon this story and turned it into a national news story that was part of the 24 hour news cycle, we might have had something to do with it by putting even more pressure on the prosecutor and Swartz and everyone involved. Some of these things are hard if not impossible to know.
At the end of the day, it looks safe to blame some of his actions on the prosecutors for being overzealous but I would caution everyone not to put the blame entirely on them or even mostly on them. You should not send the message that suicide is an acceptable way to "get back" at someone or to "really show your enemies and make them sorry." Vocally blame the prosecutors all you want, this is America. But I don't think it's healthy for us to charge them with anything lest other people think that suicide with targeted blame is a great way to make high ranking officials culpable of something.
What I wish Swartz would have done was to step up to the challenge laid before him and see it through. Start a kickstarter for legal fees, seek help from the EFF, do something. Instead he did nothing and turned himself into nothing. If you're prepared to take such extensive means to reach certain ends then you had better be prepared to face the consequences of those actions, regardless of what they turn out to be. If the consequences are trumped up, you'll get your day in court and, like so many arrested during the civil rights era, if you're right you'll be remembered fondly in the annals of history. Instead he's a corpse and a fond memory of his contributions. Indeed incredibly sad but also by his own hand.
The prosecutors did not kill Swartz. But they contributed to a situation that caused him to take his own life. They should feel sorrow for that but I see no wrong. Attack the laws they charged him with if you attack something. But if they over charged him, his day in court should have shown that. Now we'll never know.
So it's not the cars causing global warming? Or is this just a way to garner more research funds?
This is about the contributions soot has to global warming and the magnitude of those contributions. This is, by no means, an attempt to isolate global warming down to one factor. It is a complex situation and your logical fallacy is to prey upon that complexity in order to disprove any additional information people try to publish on it.
Also, the paper had a very helpful executive summary. Had you bothered to read even that small fraction of it, one of the opening sentences states:
Sources whose emissions are rich in black carbon (‘BC-rich’) can be grouped into a small number of categories, broadly described as diesel engines, industry, residential solid fuel and open burning.
So, yes, according to the paper in the Americas and Europe diesel engines are some of the biggest contributors whereas in Africa and Asia the biggest contributors are coal and biomass burning operations.
obviously the scientists studying her have far better qualifications and information than i do, but i can't help but think damage to the brain due to the stroke, coma, and brain tumor she suffered at age 4 (right before she stopped developing) could be a more likely cause than her particular genetic makeup.
Well from the article they said:
“has no apparent abnormalities in her endocrine system, no gross chromosomal abnormalities, or any of the other disruptions known to occur in humans that can cause developmental issues.”
I assume that the endocrine system would have to be affected in order to cause such stunted growth? If the stroke, coma or brain tumor led to this wouldn't they see that abnormality reflected in these growth regulating systems? Also from the article the researchers claimed:
“Cracking the code on Brooke’s condition,” Shadt wrote, “is the proverbial searching for a needle in a haystack, since likely there is one or a small number of letters changed in Brooke’s genome that has caused her condition.”
Some googling turned up older studies that claim there are no known genetic disorders present or even chromosomal abnormalities and her telomeres seem to be shortening at the normal rate. Also, apparently her body parts are developing out of synchronization. I guess it's possible there is a hidden system that synchronizes development so that your body doesn't develop asymmetrically? And we just haven't found this yet.
Sort of offtopic but I'm a little disappointed that this unfortunate affliction for this person is being spun as a possible "fountain of eternal youth" in the article. Come on, people. We should be working to better understand this so we can help people... that Kurzweil Singularity bullshit should be left out of the discussion until we fully understand it.
Slashdot Mirror
younger devs today are about POSS – Post open source software. fuck the license and governance, just commit to github. - James Governor (@monkchips) September 17, 2012
Ah, yes, eloquently stated. And, you know, it's totally okay to do that but let's assume that you've "fucked" the license and governance and your code is great and popular. Now, what stops a company from taking your code and making massive changes to it and shipping that code for mad moneys? What forces them to give back their changes that might make that code better? What did you and the community gain by contributing to that company's revenue? What if I just took your code and put it on a CD and started selling it with no credit to you and no link or reference to the source code? Wouldn't that rub you the wrong way? Just a little? Well, what if that company then claimed that your code was an unlicensed version of their code and moved to have it remove?
And that's why we have open source licenses. So those are out there and if you're lazy or whatever you can just download this file (or the corresponding OSS license you like) and put it in the root directory of your source tree. Are you really too lazy to include a simple txt file in your source tree? At the possible expense of your $MOST_HATED_COMPANY turning the screws on you?
This article seems to focus on just the "hey browski, I heard you liked code, here's my code" hippy hacker mentality and grievously ignores the "did Facebook just use an altered version of my library to track its mobile users?" possibilities.
To follow the analogy started by the twitter post: OSS licenses are like a condoms. Stop being lazy and just use one.
Slashdot followed briefly a seemingly miraculous device that was almost too good to be true. Have you yourself heard of Rossi's E-Cat machine? Does your foundation also track the physics side of unbelievable things? What is your personal opinion of this device? Does it have all the hallmarks of a fraud?
Sometimes when I see tabloids and crap at grocery stores I wonder if humanity is really making progress in the skepticism department. I think there are more people today that are skeptical of all things paranormal than there were years ago but I believe that only because the population has been increasing. Percentage-wise, I fear we may still be at the level humanity has been at throughout history. You can find writings dating way back of people who were "in the know" about what was fake and what was real. As science has increased our realm of knowledge, it seems that paranormal seekers have just found it in other mediums. So what is your opinion on humanity's track record for belief in the paranormal versus skepticism? Have we made progress? Are we forever doomed to deal with a percentage of the population who want to believe?
The only thing I can think of that separates Scientology from any of the "legitimate religions" is that Scientology is so new that there are people outside of the religion old enough to remember seeing it be created by a person.
Well, as a fellow atheist to another atheist, I recommend you add a few evaluation factors when comparing religions and faiths: power structure, transparency, material cost, financial cost, temporal cost, preservation of individual sovereignty including right to leave and preservation of inalienable rights ... to name just a few.
all have done unethical acts ( read your history )
At least some allow us to document said unethical acts ... hell, the Church's response to child molestation charges against priests was a primary motivator to me leaving organized religion permanently. And, you know, it was super easy to get out of Catholicism ... you should talk to the lucky few who escape Scientology.
Something that bothers me about the singularity is the complete removal of conflict. Okay, we've cheated death eternally, we are merged with machines, nationality is a distant memory and Earth is completely terraformed to be computing space for our vast artificial intelligences. There will no longer be man vs man or man vs environment. Where is the conflict? What causes us to strive for anything? It sounds like a veritable utopia and I should just kick back and let it happen. How will progress be made without conflict?
I've read that you're not worried about climate change as you believe transhumanism will prevail and we will shed this 'natural' world like a used husk by 2045.
So what happens if we don't actually achieve the lofty heights that futurism promises us? What happens if those extrapolations I've seen actually reach a dead end instead of allowing us to last forever and there is no distinction between man and machine? What if we ultimately turn out to be forever mortal individuals and now depend on a decrepit husk we left for ourselves? What then?
I assume that the occurrence of Human Enhancement Technologies (HETs) needs to accelerate for us to hit the singularity in 2045 as you predict. While we cover a lot of them on Slashdot, they either feel like vaporware or just a small improvement on an existing HET. Of the existing technologies in actual use they all seem a decade or more old. So where is the acceleration of HETs and their proliferation? Why am I not seeing more normal humans using HETs or at least more original HET options arising? Can you explain what I'm missing?
I have seen the graphic showing your countdown to the singularity and something I've always wondered is how you picked these events and what makes the significant? For example, your list seems to be made of things that would prolong our existence but entries like "Human ancestors walk upright" and "art, early cities" are confusing in that I don't understand how they can be marked as epic achievements. Are you saying that if we had never learned to walk upright we would not have developed intelligence? Are you saying that early cities were somehow superior to ant colonies? Didn't they help spread disease and cause sanitation problems? Can you convince me that this list isn't just arbitrary things that fit into a line?
Editors of Wikipedia have taken enough care to meticulously log your predictions. Are there any that you regret making? Are there any that you think people overlook because now it's painfully obvious but wasn't at the time?
At least somebody is standing up for our rights. Let's face it - most people just want to stuff their face with junk food and watch American Idol. They don't like to question authority because doing that makes them feel uncomfortable. Most people are sheep.
Yes, hear hear! They are liberating us. But there was something odd from the summary:
At a regular interval commencing today, we will choose one media outlet and supply them with heavily redacted partial contents of the file.
Ah, so the "information wants to be free" right up until it's you who has access to the information. We have been liberated from being manipulated "sheep" of the US government and are now part of a flock shepherded by anonymous individuals? And ... uh ... that has gained us what exactly? Out of the frying pan into the fire? If I can't trust the US Government and I can name their members, how can I trust Anonymous whom I cannot name?
Yea because Muslims NEVER form terrorist groups, blow up innocent people or launder money.
It NEVER HAPPENED.
Are you kidding?
Right so that's why whenever Americans appear in a very popular Vietnamese movie the Americans murder and rape everyone? Because it's not like the My Lai Massacre never happened.
All I meant was there are more blatant "all Muslims are bad" productions in American culture than Jabba's Sail Barge. I'm not saying Muslim based terrorism never happened. I'm not saying all Muslims are good. I'm not saying none of them launder money. I'm saying that the most prominent representations of them in movies and TV happen to be solely bad guys. But you can go ahead and list off all those Muslim turban wearing hero movies that Hollywood puts out every year. That'll show me. Hell, name one Hollywood male lead actor who's Muslim.
According to the "Behind the Scenes" on Episodes 1-3 Naboo's architecture was based on Hagia Sophia. Examples: Hagia Sophia, Naboo, Titus Blue Mosque, more naboo.
... it took them how long to notice this latent xenophobia? I'm not saying they're wrong, Lucas was a little unimaginative when he developed some of the Star Wars cultures but it's not like he presented Muslims like they did in the movie "True Lies."
Also
The Caribbean island is taking the unprecedented step because the United States refuses to lift a trade "blockade" preventing the island from offering Internet gambling services, despite several WTO decisions in Antigua's favor. The country now hopes to recoup some of the lost income through a WTO approved 'warez' site.
I'm pretty sure Antigua and Barbuda attended and signed the Berne Convention and have joined WIPO. Furthermore I believe the WTO is fully on board with all that considering their TRIPS agreement. So how in the hell is there such a thing as "a WTO approved 'warez' site" and how on Earth does Antigua think the WIPO is going to view this?
Note: I'm not saying what they're doing is wrong or right, I'm just asking how they are doing it given their history. I mean, sure, this stuff happens all over China but the government pays all the copyright holders lip service about how they're cracking down on it. If the Chinese government profits from it, they don't do so flagrantly like this appears to.
In science (even computer science) I have a lot of interest in what we know we don't know and what we don't know we don't know. With paleontology and it's subdomains -- specifically your specialty of dinosaur growth -- how do you deal with what must be an unbound realm of what we don't know we don't know? For example, isn't it possible that growth was regulated completely differently in dinosaurs than it is in modern day lizards and birds? Couldn't modern day hormones and endocrine system be much different than what was present in dinosaurs? When you publish research is it all based on assumptions? How do you overcome such an open system of possibilities?
How would you respond if a billionaire offered you, say, $100 million to fund a lab and give you the means to create a chickensaurus with one condition: They get the first able specimen to release it on a reserve, hunt it and kill it? I know it sounds absurd but I wouldn't put it past the GoDaddy CEO.
Something that's always made me curious about Paleontology is how far the study has come. If we look back historically at how dinosaur bones were exhumed and treated, some of the methods were actually a little bit destructive. So I've always wondered how paleontologists today cope with the fact that 100 years in the future we will likely have technology beyond our wildest dreams that will be able to scan the ground and find fossils in their original preserved intact positions and when they are excavated the process will surely be much more refined and exact measurements will be taken to better understand dinosaurs. I'm sure preservation techniques and materials science will allow us to even better handle finds. How do you cope with this idea that hundreds of years from now your efforts might be seen as crude or arcane? Do you ever wish that some paleontologists of the past had just left the specimens lying there for a future paleontologist to properly handle? Or do you just see this as a necessary way to move forward? Building on that, is there an end-game for paleontologists where the entire Earth has been inspected/surveyed and how many years out is that (I understand that sensor technology would have to come a very long way)?
Former Apple Employee 1: Look, we went to Palm of our own free accord. ... he would scream "NO YOU FOOL IT RUINS THE MEAT!" if he saw someone showing Dmitri a picture of the sun. ...
Former Apple Employee 2: That's right, it came down to who treated us better is all.
Former Apple Employee 3: I mean, you get to hear the cute stories about how Steve Jobs dropped the first prototype of the iPod -- after being told it was as compact as possible -- into a fish tank and when he saw bubbles he said it could be made smaller. But what you didn't hear was later that day when he brought the engineer onto a stage and asked him if he was as smart as possible. When the engineer said "yes" Steve pushed him into a tank with sharks in front of everyone and said, "If he's so smart, how come he just let me push him into a tank of sharks?" Oh those screams will haunt me forever.
Former Apple Employee 2: Yeah! And when I went to work at Palm I got blankets and clothing and food.
Former Apple Employee 1: Steve would make us sleep in completely bare rooms on Swedish ergonomic beds and we would have to rub turmeric all over our bodies each day and then we could only wear Apple printed paper clothing and forage for berries in the yard.
Former Apple Employee 2: After I went to work at Palm they let me get my citizenship!
Former Apple Employee 3: That's right, Steve had captured Dmitri here in Russia and wouldn't let him be exposed to daylight
Former Apple Employee 1: We were just happier at Palm is all. There were so many problems at Apple like the Apple tattoos that later became just cast iron branding. I remember Jobs doing mine personally himself with his hand in his pants while screaming "HOW DO YOU LIKE THEM APPLES?" as he pushed the hot brand from the fire again and again into my lower back.
Former Apple Employee 2: And the Apple brand shock collars so we couldn't leave campus
Former Apple Employee 3: And the time Jeb got beyond the walled garden only to find there was perimeter after perimeter of different obstacles like spheres that just floated up out of the ground and engulfed you.
Former Apple Employee 1: Yeah, when he came back, he just didn't have any legs. "A permanent fixture now with fewer buttons" is how Jobs reintroduced him to the work force.
Former Apple Employee 2: You see, Palm was just nicer. We're happier now and feel once again like human beings.
Spitler: I just harvested 197 email addresses of iPad 3G subscribers there should be many more weev: did you see my new project?
Auernheimer: no
Spitler: I’m stepping through iPad SIM ICCIDs to harvest email addresses if you use someones ICCID on the ipad service site it gives you their address
Auernheimer: loooool thats hilarious HILARIOUS oh man now this is big media news is it scriptable? arent there SIM that spoof iccid?
Spitler: I wrote a script to generate valid iccids and it loads the site and pulls an email
Auernheimer: this could be like, a future massive phishing operation serious like this is valuable data we have a list a potential complete list of AT&T iphone subscriber emails
Spitler: I hit fucking oil
Auernheimer: loooool nice
Spitler: If I can get a couple thousand out of this set where can we drop this for max lols?
Auernheimer: dunno i would collect as much data as possible the minute its dropped, itll be fixed BUT valleywag i have all the gawker media people on my facecrook friends after goin to a gawker party
At one point the two discussed the legal risks of what they were allegedly doing:
Spitler: sry dunno how legal this is or if they could sue for damages
Auernheimer: absolutely may be legal risk yeah, mostly civil you absolutely could get sued to fuck
At the same time, others on the IRC chat allegedly discussed the possibility of shorting AT&T’s stock.
Pynchon: hey, just an idea delay this outing for a couple days tommorrow short some at&t stock then out them on tuesday then fill your short and profit
Rucas: LOL
Auernheimer: well i will say this it would be against the law for ME to short the att stock but if you want to do it go nuts
Spitler: I dont have any money to invest in ATT
Auernheimer: if you short ATT dont let me know about it
Spitler: IM TAKIN YOU ALL DOWN WITH ME SNITCH HIGH EVERYDAY
In the wake of news stories about the breach, they allegedly discussed their failure to report the vulnerability to a “full disclosure” mailing list, as well as the opportunity to push their Goetse Security business as a result of the breach:
Nstyr: you should’ve uploaded the list to full disclosure maybe you still can
Auernheimer: no no that is potentially criminal at this point we won
Nstyr: ah
Auernheimer: we dropepd the stock price
Auernheimer: lets not like do anything else we fucking win and i get to like spin us as a legitimate security organization
Sound like some classy fellows there. It's a shame for Swartz that he's being lumped in with this guy. At some point, I hope Slashdot pulls its collective head out of its own ass and realizes that these aren't black and white issues and stops comparing them to things that were like the Civil Rights Movement. Auernheimer: "this could be like, a future massive phishing operation serious like this is valuable data we have a list a potential complete list of AT&T iphone subscriber emails" ... yeah, no criminal intent there.
I see the majority of your projects depend on Thera Band Gold and then the throwers (like your circular saw blade launcher) use a spring. Have you investigated other methods of using elastic energy (which I guess is technically potential energy?) to propel a an object forward by transferring to kinetic energy? Are you engaged in any areas of materials science study in order to find more efficient and reliable materials? Or do you just use Thera Band Gold as your gold standard and leave it at that?
From watching a few of your videos, I see a lot of end results which are fun to watch. Take, for example, the firecracker slingshot mentioned in the summary. But one thing I can't seem to find is any testing videos or explanation of testing (maybe you have it in German and I can't find it). So how much testing do you do on these? When I saw your firecracker launcher design I immediately thought that the worst case scenario is that the firecracker detonates before leaving the chamber or possibly barrel. Now, a firecracker that goes off in the palm of your open hand versus one that goes off with your fist wrapped around it produces two very different results. A short or dry fuse in your device could be problematic. Did you detonate firecrackers inside the chamber from a distance to see if there was enough room in the chamber to allow the explosion to vent without splintering your device? How much testing did you do on it before you were confident enough to pick it up and use the butane lighter on it? Is this discussed somewhere?
The SSL encryption being used on Mega appears to be 1024-bit encryption, which can be broken with far greater ease than 2048-bit encryption viewed as best-practice amongst experts.
Isn't this kind of nitpicking? Isn't the solution to this like changing a value in your configuration or properties files on both sides and watching performance drop a bit? I guess when you have that many users sign up at the drop of a hat, you're expected to have unblemished perfection available for all. But I don't really see this "riddled with security holes." Instead I'd say "needs improvement before you trust it with anything important." As a software developer, I'm prone to give people a break but I guess if your site isn't prepared to be hosted at DEFCON you're fodder.
... did he try to change his first name to "The Bomb" but was blocked by the TSA? :-)
I mean, some of these points are valid like I have no idea why you would choose to do this in JavaScript but I guess if you want it to run entirely contained within the browser you don't have much choice unless you start to get into platform specific things like nacl.
Sort of offtopic but why are we following this so closely? I mean, I understand he's challenging world governments by doing this again but do we have to watch every little step and misstep of Kim Dotcom? He's starting to rub me the wrong way as a sort of attention whore. The longer his fifteen minutes of fame last the bigger embarrassment he's going to have in the 24 hour news cycle's circle of hate. Ugh, and his name is something straight out of Idiocracy
I cannot believe this is getting posted here. I know Slashdot hates Microsoft but this is the equivalent of me saying that Apple will sell off the iPad because the iPhone didn't sell as well as they wanted it to. Or something like that.
No, I see distinct differences between your comparison. I wasn't able to read the article before it was pulled but let me address your bad analogy. While you're right that this "analyst" needs to pull his head out of his anal cyst, your comparison is quite laughable and let me tell you why. Traditionally Microsoft's software has been a cash cow. You want the latest Office? You want the latest Windows? Pay up. Everyone. For each computer. Now. And while that's faltered before, Windows 8 has been subjected to a lot of bad PR (both warranted and unwarranted) as well as actually having poor sales.
Now, let's look at their entertainment division. With the initial Xbox release, that division was a sinkhole of money. Like, literally a burn pile for billions of dollars. But Microsoft was patient because they had other stupid insane routes of income with which to fill the tire fire that was the Xbox. Even when they launched the second incarnation -- they fared much better but still they took a loss on the console assuming publishing royalties would pay and later on they did. Now, you know, after the bomb of the Zune has run its course and now that Wii U is out Microsoft could be looking at their entertainment division as a potential sale. Why? Because in the past it has been a very risky venture for them and recently profits and revenues of that division have been dropping faster each quarter. Basically I see their sales stagnating until they release another console to drum up more money -- and even then they'll probably take the strategy of letting later publishing sales subsidize the initial unit to compete with Nintendo and Sony.
So, now that their cash cows are looking pretty thin will they be in a position to take another gamble in the console market? Will it be painful like Xbox one or will it be great like Xbox 360? And I'm not in this area of management but I imagine they are looking at their revenues and if committing to the next console is a make or break move for Microsoft as a whole (which would be totally f*cking insane if they are looking that bad) then maybe they'd try to sell it to someone else with huge cash reserves. I don't know why Sony would buy and I don't see B&N having a ton of cash after their brick and mortar stores are a fond pastime.
So, to wrap it up, no this is nothing like Apple selling off the iPad because the iPhone didn't sell as well as they wanted it to. I don't think the iPad ever lost them money and the market still looks good for tablets.
Now are blaming Aaron Swartz's death on everyone and anything. Was it MIT? Was it the government? Was it him being bullied by them?
Well, this sort of "who done it?" finger pointing isn't very productive. And that's because suicide is rarely a single factor. Even when the person provides a suicide note that blames one single thing or person, there's often other contributing factors. So I think the discussion here is what was the major contributing factor. It sort of reminds me of "Who Killed Davey Moore" by Bob Dylan where a boxer is killed in a ring and as he examines everyone who participated in the event shrugs any responsibility.
In the strictest sense of responsibility, we here at Slashdot that turned our gaze upon this story and turned it into a national news story that was part of the 24 hour news cycle, we might have had something to do with it by putting even more pressure on the prosecutor and Swartz and everyone involved. Some of these things are hard if not impossible to know.
At the end of the day, it looks safe to blame some of his actions on the prosecutors for being overzealous but I would caution everyone not to put the blame entirely on them or even mostly on them. You should not send the message that suicide is an acceptable way to "get back" at someone or to "really show your enemies and make them sorry." Vocally blame the prosecutors all you want, this is America. But I don't think it's healthy for us to charge them with anything lest other people think that suicide with targeted blame is a great way to make high ranking officials culpable of something.
What I wish Swartz would have done was to step up to the challenge laid before him and see it through. Start a kickstarter for legal fees, seek help from the EFF, do something. Instead he did nothing and turned himself into nothing. If you're prepared to take such extensive means to reach certain ends then you had better be prepared to face the consequences of those actions, regardless of what they turn out to be. If the consequences are trumped up, you'll get your day in court and, like so many arrested during the civil rights era, if you're right you'll be remembered fondly in the annals of history. Instead he's a corpse and a fond memory of his contributions. Indeed incredibly sad but also by his own hand.
The prosecutors did not kill Swartz. But they contributed to a situation that caused him to take his own life. They should feel sorrow for that but I see no wrong. Attack the laws they charged him with if you attack something. But if they over charged him, his day in court should have shown that. Now we'll never know.
So it's not the cars causing global warming? Or is this just a way to garner more research funds?
This is about the contributions soot has to global warming and the magnitude of those contributions. This is, by no means, an attempt to isolate global warming down to one factor. It is a complex situation and your logical fallacy is to prey upon that complexity in order to disprove any additional information people try to publish on it.
Also, the paper had a very helpful executive summary. Had you bothered to read even that small fraction of it, one of the opening sentences states:
Sources whose emissions are rich in black carbon (‘BC-rich’) can be grouped into a small number of categories, broadly described as diesel engines, industry, residential solid fuel and open burning.
So, yes, according to the paper in the Americas and Europe diesel engines are some of the biggest contributors whereas in Africa and Asia the biggest contributors are coal and biomass burning operations.
I'm confused.
I know -- it's quite evident. I'm here to help.
obviously the scientists studying her have far better qualifications and information than i do, but i can't help but think damage to the brain due to the stroke, coma, and brain tumor she suffered at age 4 (right before she stopped developing) could be a more likely cause than her particular genetic makeup.
Well from the article they said:
“has no apparent abnormalities in her endocrine system, no gross chromosomal abnormalities, or any of the other disruptions known to occur in humans that can cause developmental issues.”
I assume that the endocrine system would have to be affected in order to cause such stunted growth? If the stroke, coma or brain tumor led to this wouldn't they see that abnormality reflected in these growth regulating systems? Also from the article the researchers claimed:
“Cracking the code on Brooke’s condition,” Shadt wrote, “is the proverbial searching for a needle in a haystack, since likely there is one or a small number of letters changed in Brooke’s genome that has caused her condition.”
Some googling turned up older studies that claim there are no known genetic disorders present or even chromosomal abnormalities and her telomeres seem to be shortening at the normal rate. Also, apparently her body parts are developing out of synchronization. I guess it's possible there is a hidden system that synchronizes development so that your body doesn't develop asymmetrically? And we just haven't found this yet.
... that Kurzweil Singularity bullshit should be left out of the discussion until we fully understand it.
Sort of offtopic but I'm a little disappointed that this unfortunate affliction for this person is being spun as a possible "fountain of eternal youth" in the article. Come on, people. We should be working to better understand this so we can help people