Setting up useful wireless links between two *non-moving* towers isn't easy. The targetting usually requires several minutes of fine-tuning; sometimes more, depending on the distance. Trying to link to a plane flying at many hundreds of kph with a bluetooth rifle is to my mind utterly impossible.
A far simpler attack is to just jam the wireless links, making the plane uncontrollable. I am stunned by the sheer idiocy of making mission-critical systems on a plane controlled primarily by wireless, in lght of how easy it would be to mount such an attack. But "taking over" a fly-by-wireless plane? Forget it.
I figure the media is doing OK when the left and the right are both whining like little children about its "evident bias." One side's perception of "fair and balanced" might be a little different than the other's, so it's good to see them both unhappy.
where did they find that idiot, he doesn't represent me or any of the people I know [snip]
Yeah... I totally get that feeling every time I see [politician of choice] on TV.;)
True enough... this ruling reduces the power of trolls and small inventors alike. A small inventor who is actively but unsuccessfully attempting to develop his product will no longer have the power of a court injuction to stop a big corporation from rolling over him.
The thinking behind the ruling seems to be "the difference between a bona fide inventor and a troll is how much they have to lose." As a rule, big businesses have more to lose than small startups and individuals. A more accurate litmus test would be "how actively are they trying to develop their patent?"
Here's an idea... make new patents probationary for their first few years of life, and at the end of that period automatically revoke the patent unless the holder has made a non-trivial *attempt* to develop a product. This would limit the lifespan of submarine patents, and likewise cut down on the number of idiots holding patents on things like "warp drive" and "time machine".
"Eastern Europeans collectively decided that they wanted freedom, and they got it."
You seem to think that getting freedom is a simple matter of getting large amounts of people in a square and chanting slogans. Well, the Chinese tried that years ago, and it resulted in a vicious crackdown.
Eastern Europeans also "decided that they wanted freedom" long before the 1980s, and were similarly beaten back... read up on the Hungarian 1956 revolution or the Prague Spring if you're hazy on your modern European history.
Successful revolutions rarely happen under strong, repressive governments. The sad reality is that a government with the willingness to do whatever it takes to remain in power is largely immune to overthrow from within. Louis XVI, Tsar Nicholas II, and Mikhail Gorbachev were all weak rulers who lacked the conviction to stop their governments from crumbling, unlike the unchallenged despots who preceeded them.
In a racing game, for instance, players can drive at faster speeds if they concentrate on being calm. If the players becomes too nervous, the game can send feedback such as vibrations to the game controller that make it harder to drive a car.
So when I come home to blow off some steam with a little racing, I can look forward to the game throwing off my reflexes and sending my car into spinouts because it knows that I'm anxious. Wow! Nothing relieves stress like being punished for it!
The French argue that their productivity is lower only because they spend less off their lives in the work place, and there is some truth to that. If you look at the productivity per hour worked, instead of productivity per real-time year, France comes out ahead of the United States. In effect, it's "work hard, play hard", as opposed to "work endlessly".
Mind you, he probably counts the time to do the analysis as an enjoyable use, a sort of intellectual hobby. Hobbies (not to mention the OSS movement) resoundingly demonstrate the Tom Sawyer principle: what some would do only for money, others will do for fun.
(Apparently Alan Greenspan solves partial differential equations in his head to clear his mind in the morning. What a guy...)
I'll agree with your main point that the comparison of the United States to China is unfair. Make no mistake; Bush has taken us quite a few steps down that path, but we still have a long way to go before we reach the ugly state of dictatorship confronting the Chinese.
At the risk of going totally OT, I want to pick a fight over this minor point in your post:
The matter of Iraq is a reactionary military invasion and subsequent occupation of a hostile state. We had every justification to take military military action against them from the moment they refused to honor their obligation to prove they lacked WMD's.
Prove to me that you aren't hiding the holy grail somewhere on your property. No, throwing open your doors to my inspectors and digging up your yard won't be good enough... give me *proof* that you didn't hide it in some devious place my inspectors haven't thought of yet.
As you can imagine, proving a negative is somewhat difficult. Given the short window between when inspectors were allowed back into Iraq and the time the US invaded, it would have been impossible for a country as large as Iraq to furnish such proof, even if they had wished to comply in good faith. I was actually pretty surprised by the extent the Iraqis cooperated with the inspections just before the invasion... few countries would tolerate such violations of sovereignty, whether they were hiding something or not. Could you imagine the United States bending over and letting inspectors from other countries in to its most sensitive military bases?
Too bad for Bush and the neo-cons that no WMD were found. Maybe next time they'll let facts guide policy, instead of wishful thinking.
If they want to change the rules of the game, they should put them on paper.
I'd be very surprised if they didn't. Here in Canada, they put all kinds of conditions and limits in your contract; they don't advertise those limits very loudly, but they're there, for any who care to read them.
"The large print giveth, the small print taketh away."
Like any other distributed system, the resources in a network (line bandwidth, time slices on the router's processor, etc.) are designed to carry better than average traffic loads, but never the theoretical maximum possible. (Designing a network otherwise would be monsterously inefficient; think a fibre infrastructure limiting everyone to dial-up speeds 'just in case'.) Fortunately, until the advent of file-sharing, this system worked just fine, since most IP traffic was very easy to multiplex: either bursts of high-bandwidth traffic, or sustained low-bandwidth streams. Bit-torrent, on the other hand, gives us the nightmare scenario: sustained high-bandwidth traffic, which is difficult to multiplex. In order to accomodate this traffic, the only option is to ramp up the system's capacity, which involves upgrading and replacing huge amounts of expensive infrastructure. I for one would love to see higher bandwidths, but I don't suffer from the illusion that project would be cheap.
I'm going to pretend that your question was genuine instead of rhetorical. Here goes...
Our current understanding is that greenhouse gasses like carbon dioxide (whether they come from natural events or from industrial activity) are the driving force behind the warming. Lately (since the Industrial Revolution) we've been pumping ever-increasing amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Trying to argue that we shouldn't be concerned about industrial greenhouse gasses because carbon dioxide variations occur naturally is a bit like arguing we shouldn't be concerned about arson because fires occur naturally in the wild.
Also, the rate of climate change isn't falling in line with the long-term climate patterns. That 1 degree change may not sound like a lot, but it has occurred in about 1/50th the time considered "natural." This alone causes many climate change experts to suspect that something decidedly unnatural is going on.
Mind you, I for one do not feel we must "insist that climate change is the fault of humans". Our assessment should be guided by the evidence available. I strongly believe that for climate science to be scientific, it must explore its hypotheses critically and question every assumption, regardless of how politically palatable those assumptions may be.
What the line was interpreted to mean: "We don't think evolution is adequately justified, and don't see what's wrong with intelligent design"
What the line actually means: "The Professor didn't do a good enough job of backing up *why* evolution is scientific and intelligent design is pseudo-science; as it is his paper really just makes this a tacit assumption. Since this question goes to the heart of the issue investigated by the grant, it is not unreasonable to insist that the difference be explained clearly by the applicant."
IMHO, the Professor is hyping the misinterpretation of the committee's rejection in the hopes of generating an instinctive backlash in secular-minded Canada.
As far as I can tell from the chatter, only W-B seems dead-set on using ICT. Fox has decided against it, University probably won't, and Disney likewise seems to be leaning on the side not activating ICT (for now). A few weeks ago Sony surprised me by also opting out.
I'm not sure why the media companies are trending so softly on this issue... most people with analog HDTVs won't know the difference between the degraded and full-resolution versions anyway, and the video-philes who would catch on are likely too small a group to really impact the companies.
Me, I'm so disgusted with the whole DRM mess that I feel absolutely no compulsion to get HD in any form. Perhaps as my current technology begins to wear out I'll find myself spending more time in the real world, with its amazing "true to life" resolutions and frame-rates.
The SCOTUS isn't there to punish unconstitutional policy, just block it. Accountability should come only through elections. If we equated getting overruled by the courts with treason, that would destroy the system of checks and balances by elevating the courts to a position similar to the Iranian "Council of Guardians." There's simply no way such a system wouldn't be abused: imagine what a court stuffed with Republican appointees would do to a Democrat president, or vice versa.
Ironic how your post about respecting the Constitution reveals a very basic incomprehension about how the system created by that Constitution actually works.
A bit off topic, but it's sort of sad to read where Sidis went from there...
His academic career flamed out early, mostly due to his inability to cope with other people (students, administrators, etc.) who didn't match his stellar IQ. In an age when theories like quantum mechanics and relativity were turning the world upside down, he contributed surprisingly little of substance to any field of intellectual endeavor. Instead he withdrew into himself, becoming neurotically obsessed with, of all things, streetcar transfers. While unquestionably intelligent, his tremendous gifts were mostly wasted.
When I was in university, I noticed that there were two types of students who did well: those who were very smart, and those who were not so bright, but worked very hard. While I often envied the first group, I always respected the second group more. When it comes to life outside the university, I'm willing to bet that, as a whole, the hard workers will end up doing better than the naturally gifted ones.
The GP *obviously* wasn't using the phrase "call a spade..." in the anti-black sense. Maybe things are more racially charged where you're from, but here in Canada the phrase has only the positive connotations of speaking simply and honestly; equivalent, perhaps, to calling someone a straightshooter.
Slashdot Mirror
Bill: Open the doors, Hal
HAL: I'm afraid I can't do that, Dave
Bill: For the last time, my name's Bill!
HAL: Suuure it is.
No need for a filter... *anyone* who touches my screen and leaves their finger smudges there deserves to get zapped.
Not to mention the fact that people who play with their wii in public tend to get arrested.
eigenvalue... azimuthal... wavenumber mode...
I was with you up until "cause"... then I gave up and started thinking about football. It has been way too long since university.
From the voice-recorder logs:
"It looks like you are trying to land a plane..."
"Jesus Christ... someone turn off that dancing paperclip before we--"
Setting up useful wireless links between two *non-moving* towers isn't easy. The targetting usually requires several minutes of fine-tuning; sometimes more, depending on the distance. Trying to link to a plane flying at many hundreds of kph with a bluetooth rifle is to my mind utterly impossible.
A far simpler attack is to just jam the wireless links, making the plane uncontrollable. I am stunned by the sheer idiocy of making mission-critical systems on a plane controlled primarily by wireless, in lght of how easy it would be to mount such an attack. But "taking over" a fly-by-wireless plane? Forget it.
I figure the media is doing OK when the left and the right are both whining like little children about its "evident bias." One side's perception of "fair and balanced" might be a little different than the other's, so it's good to see them both unhappy.
;)
where did they find that idiot, he doesn't represent me or any of the people I know [snip]
Yeah... I totally get that feeling every time I see [politician of choice] on TV.
True enough... this ruling reduces the power of trolls and small inventors alike. A small inventor who is actively but unsuccessfully attempting to develop his product will no longer have the power of a court injuction to stop a big corporation from rolling over him.
The thinking behind the ruling seems to be "the difference between a bona fide inventor and a troll is how much they have to lose." As a rule, big businesses have more to lose than small startups and individuals. A more accurate litmus test would be "how actively are they trying to develop their patent?"
Here's an idea... make new patents probationary for their first few years of life, and at the end of that period automatically revoke the patent unless the holder has made a non-trivial *attempt* to develop a product. This would limit the lifespan of submarine patents, and likewise cut down on the number of idiots holding patents on things like "warp drive" and "time machine".
"Eastern Europeans collectively decided that they wanted freedom, and they got it."
You seem to think that getting freedom is a simple matter of getting large amounts of people in a square and chanting slogans. Well, the Chinese tried that years ago, and it resulted in a vicious crackdown.
Eastern Europeans also "decided that they wanted freedom" long before the 1980s, and were similarly beaten back... read up on the Hungarian 1956 revolution or the Prague Spring if you're hazy on your modern European history.
Successful revolutions rarely happen under strong, repressive governments. The sad reality is that a government with the willingness to do whatever it takes to remain in power is largely immune to overthrow from within. Louis XVI, Tsar Nicholas II, and Mikhail Gorbachev were all weak rulers who lacked the conviction to stop their governments from crumbling, unlike the unchallenged despots who preceeded them.
This'll be great way to connect my Windows Vista box to my 1000 inch holographic display. DNF might even be out in stores around that time! /sideswipe
In a racing game, for instance, players can drive at faster speeds if they concentrate on being calm. If the players becomes too nervous, the game can send feedback such as vibrations to the game controller that make it harder to drive a car.
So when I come home to blow off some steam with a little racing, I can look forward to the game throwing off my reflexes and sending my car into spinouts because it knows that I'm anxious. Wow! Nothing relieves stress like being punished for it!
GP phrased the point badly.
The French argue that their productivity is lower only because they spend less off their lives in the work place, and there is some truth to that. If you look at the productivity per hour worked, instead of productivity per real-time year, France comes out ahead of the United States. In effect, it's "work hard, play hard", as opposed to "work endlessly".
Heh. Touche!
Mind you, he probably counts the time to do the analysis as an enjoyable use, a sort of intellectual hobby. Hobbies (not to mention the OSS movement) resoundingly demonstrate the Tom Sawyer principle: what some would do only for money, others will do for fun.
(Apparently Alan Greenspan solves partial differential equations in his head to clear his mind in the morning. What a guy...)
I for Juan welcome...
I'll agree with your main point that the comparison of the United States to China is unfair. Make no mistake; Bush has taken us quite a few steps down that path, but we still have a long way to go before we reach the ugly state of dictatorship confronting the Chinese.
At the risk of going totally OT, I want to pick a fight over this minor point in your post:
The matter of Iraq is a reactionary military invasion and subsequent occupation of a hostile state. We had every justification to take military military action against them from the moment they refused to honor their obligation to prove they lacked WMD's.
Prove to me that you aren't hiding the holy grail somewhere on your property. No, throwing open your doors to my inspectors and digging up your yard won't be good enough... give me *proof* that you didn't hide it in some devious place my inspectors haven't thought of yet.
As you can imagine, proving a negative is somewhat difficult. Given the short window between when inspectors were allowed back into Iraq and the time the US invaded, it would have been impossible for a country as large as Iraq to furnish such proof, even if they had wished to comply in good faith. I was actually pretty surprised by the extent the Iraqis cooperated with the inspections just before the invasion... few countries would tolerate such violations of sovereignty, whether they were hiding something or not. Could you imagine the United States bending over and letting inspectors from other countries in to its most sensitive military bases?
Too bad for Bush and the neo-cons that no WMD were found. Maybe next time they'll let facts guide policy, instead of wishful thinking.
If they want to change the rules of the game, they should put them on paper.
I'd be very surprised if they didn't. Here in Canada, they put all kinds of conditions and limits in your contract; they don't advertise those limits very loudly, but they're there, for any who care to read them.
"The large print giveth, the small print taketh away."
Sorry, networks don't work that way.
Like any other distributed system, the resources in a network (line bandwidth, time slices on the router's processor, etc.) are designed to carry better than average traffic loads, but never the theoretical maximum possible. (Designing a network otherwise would be monsterously inefficient; think a fibre infrastructure limiting everyone to dial-up speeds 'just in case'.) Fortunately, until the advent of file-sharing, this system worked just fine, since most IP traffic was very easy to multiplex: either bursts of high-bandwidth traffic, or sustained low-bandwidth streams. Bit-torrent, on the other hand, gives us the nightmare scenario: sustained high-bandwidth traffic, which is difficult to multiplex. In order to accomodate this traffic, the only option is to ramp up the system's capacity, which involves upgrading and replacing huge amounts of expensive infrastructure. I for one would love to see higher bandwidths, but I don't suffer from the illusion that project would be cheap.
I'm going to pretend that your question was genuine instead of rhetorical. Here goes...
Our current understanding is that greenhouse gasses like carbon dioxide (whether they come from natural events or from industrial activity) are the driving force behind the warming. Lately (since the Industrial Revolution) we've been pumping ever-increasing amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Trying to argue that we shouldn't be concerned about industrial greenhouse gasses because carbon dioxide variations occur naturally is a bit like arguing we shouldn't be concerned about arson because fires occur naturally in the wild.
Also, the rate of climate change isn't falling in line with the long-term climate patterns. That 1 degree change may not sound like a lot, but it has occurred in about 1/50th the time considered "natural." This alone causes many climate change experts to suspect that something decidedly unnatural is going on.
Mind you, I for one do not feel we must "insist that climate change is the fault of humans". Our assessment should be guided by the evidence available. I strongly believe that for climate science to be scientific, it must explore its hypotheses critically and question every assumption, regardless of how politically palatable those assumptions may be.
The line was misinterpretted, plain and simple.
What the line was interpreted to mean:
"We don't think evolution is adequately justified, and don't see what's wrong with intelligent design"
What the line actually means:
"The Professor didn't do a good enough job of backing up *why* evolution is scientific and intelligent design is pseudo-science; as it is his paper really just makes this a tacit assumption. Since this question goes to the heart of the issue investigated by the grant, it is not unreasonable to insist that the difference be explained clearly by the applicant."
IMHO, the Professor is hyping the misinterpretation of the committee's rejection in the hopes of generating an instinctive backlash in secular-minded Canada.
Where-ever /. tells it to go, of course. :)
As far as I can tell from the chatter, only W-B seems dead-set on using ICT. Fox has decided against it, University probably won't, and Disney likewise seems to be leaning on the side not activating ICT (for now). A few weeks ago Sony surprised me by also opting out.
I'm not sure why the media companies are trending so softly on this issue... most people with analog HDTVs won't know the difference between the degraded and full-resolution versions anyway, and the video-philes who would catch on are likely too small a group to really impact the companies.
Me, I'm so disgusted with the whole DRM mess that I feel absolutely no compulsion to get HD in any form. Perhaps as my current technology begins to wear out I'll find myself spending more time in the real world, with its amazing "true to life" resolutions and frame-rates.
How the hell did this get modded insightful?
The SCOTUS isn't there to punish unconstitutional policy, just block it. Accountability should come only through elections. If we equated getting overruled by the courts with treason, that would destroy the system of checks and balances by elevating the courts to a position similar to the Iranian "Council of Guardians." There's simply no way such a system wouldn't be abused: imagine what a court stuffed with Republican appointees would do to a Democrat president, or vice versa.
Ironic how your post about respecting the Constitution reveals a very basic incomprehension about how the system created by that Constitution actually works.
A bit off topic, but it's sort of sad to read where Sidis went from there...
His academic career flamed out early, mostly due to his inability to cope with other people (students, administrators, etc.) who didn't match his stellar IQ. In an age when theories like quantum mechanics and relativity were turning the world upside down, he contributed surprisingly little of substance to any field of intellectual endeavor. Instead he withdrew into himself, becoming neurotically obsessed with, of all things, streetcar transfers. While unquestionably intelligent, his tremendous gifts were mostly wasted.
When I was in university, I noticed that there were two types of students who did well: those who were very smart, and those who were not so bright, but worked very hard. While I often envied the first group, I always respected the second group more. When it comes to life outside the university, I'm willing to bet that, as a whole, the hard workers will end up doing better than the naturally gifted ones.
I'm sorry... what??
The GP *obviously* wasn't using the phrase "call a spade..." in the anti-black sense. Maybe things are more racially charged where you're from, but here in Canada the phrase has only the positive connotations of speaking simply and honestly; equivalent, perhaps, to calling someone a straightshooter.
if you do the damage with an ax. :)