"Why do so many people persist in the idea that if we make the world hard to use that bad people won't be able to use it, bad people are the ones who will invest the time to learn how to work the system."
If this were true, then almost everything that the US govt has done to prevent terrorism would be a mistake. Oh, wait....
No, you don't need the software. You still need a person. Because data like this can be used to create fakes also, and the fake created by a fraudulent piece of software will fool the detection software because they rely on the same data.
Bucky Fuller said: "Pollution is nothing but the resources we are not harvesting. We allow them to disperse because we've been ignorant of their value."
Why charge a person for doing the right thing? Then, as parent notes, they have an incentive to dump on someone else.
Pay them to do the right thing.
A good model is the recycling of aluminum cans here in California. The manufacturer pays a small tax when selling in the state, and then most or all of that tax is retuned to the person who brings it to a recycling center. I've seen people who apparently make a living just recycling other people's trash.
I fear that you may have misread TFA, or misread GP. The question is not what percentage of spending is under the jurisdiction of the FDA, it is what percentage of spending is under the jurisdiction of the FDA and is nanotech ( or at least claimed to be ). I think GP has a fair question.
Lindhart is the spammer at e360. On Spamhaus's website they have posted lots of email that they have received from him. It included the following:
From: david linhardt
Subject: mail fraud and identity theft
Be advised, I am aware that members of the spamhaus organization are using my personally identifiable information to fraudelently order products and services on my behalf. I know this is true because I mistakenly provided you with my home address...
Now that Smith solved the first problem, I think I can solve the second. Or, to be precise, I can point to someone who has already solved it. The Scaled Composites hybrid engine used in spaceshipone offers better thrust/weight ratio than peroxide or propane, it can be made quite small, and it is throttleable.
The average density of a supermassive black hole can be very low, and may actually be lower than the density of water.
That sounds suspicious, especially coming from wikipedia. Something with a density that low could not likely bend light enough to keep it from escaping, even if very large.
The singularity that bends light does not have that low density. It has an incredibly high density. But the AVERAGE density is the mass of the singularity divided by all that space inside the event horizon.
Considering our space boffins have a problem seeing large asteroids really close up -- not even one light second away...why should we believe that they have seen all the black holes many light years away?"
Because black holes - or, to be precise, the region in space right next to them - emit a lot more radiation. A LOT MORE.
I left it out deliberately, as it is a confusing subject.
The root words CON and SPRIRE, literally, 'to breathe together', indicate how English common law treated the matter: to speak about it was enough - no overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy was neccesary.
The US congress, when passing laws on conspiracy, did not specifically mention an overt act. So when the US supreme court was asked to rule on it in United States v. Shabani, they said that in the absence of that specific mention, the old common law was what counted.
But numerous states - the majority, IIRC - do require an overt act.
While I appreciate that PreacherTom was good enogh to bring this to us, the sentence "...no open source project had fewer software defects than proprietary code." just does not match TFA.
TFA says that no open source project is as good as the BEST of proprietary, but it also says that the AVERAGE open source is better than the AVERAGE proprietary.
"I just instructed my gang of bank robbers to take out a bank. I didn't go along, so I'm completely innocent of any crime, right? Right? All I did was talk, and speech is protected!"
Now you have left the realm of hate speech and have entered the realm of conspiracy.
It's legal to say "All banks should be robbed" or "All Jews should be shot". Those are opinions. They may be exortations toward action. But they are not directly connected with particular actions.
However, statements like "Let's rob bank X at time Y", or "take this gun go to address X and shoot Rabbi Y" are particular enough to be conspiracy, and thus are illegal.
There is a whole body of case law on exactly what constitutes conspiracy, and the exact border is hard to define. But it is different from hate speech, and different from incitement.
Historically the government has been a great catalyst of techology inovation and improvements."
True. They make great contributions, using other people's money, aquired by force or the threat of force, and spent very wastefully. But when you can tax who cares about efficiency?
"And I am sure everything you do is always really useful?"
That seems an undue slap at GP. He never claimed that everything that he did was useful. He simply noted that, due to technological changes, some skills are not of much use any more. And he's right.
Re:any real users of this tech ?
on
A GUI For Books
·
· Score: 1
No. Nobody uses them.
I've been in the book selling business for over 20 years. These thing have come and gone regularly since the 80's. They always fail. After 20 years, I can tell you that people like the sight and the feel - and even smell! - of traditional books.
For those who really want computerized books, they just seem to be crippled, single use machines.
"...anything linking the searches to the users was a direct result of the search terms they sent across the internet in unsecured form, by choice."
But the user had no choise in having all his searches grouped together. The data from any single search is probably not enough to invade privacy. The data from hundreds or thousands is.
Slashdot Mirror
"Why do so many people persist in the idea that if we make the world hard to use that bad people won't be able to use it, bad people are the ones who will invest the time to learn how to work the system."
If this were true, then almost everything that the US govt has done to prevent terrorism would be a mistake. Oh, wait....
No, you don't need the software. You still need a person. Because data like this can be used to create fakes also, and the fake created by a fraudulent piece of software will fool the detection software because they rely on the same data.
Only if your Mac is loaded with pr0n
The only design element is a big opening labeled 'EXIT'.
Did the editor forget that this /.? How is this superstition news for geeks?
Bucky Fuller said: "Pollution is nothing but the resources we are not harvesting. We allow them to disperse because we've been ignorant of their value."
Why charge a person for doing the right thing? Then, as parent notes, they have an incentive to dump on someone else.
Pay them to do the right thing.
A good model is the recycling of aluminum cans here in California. The manufacturer pays a small tax when selling in the state, and then most or all of that tax is retuned to the person who brings it to a recycling center. I've seen people who apparently make a living just recycling other people's trash.
Castor oil would be better.
Yeah, I agree. this should be the leda text.
I fear that you may have misread TFA, or misread GP. The question is not what percentage of spending is under the jurisdiction of the FDA, it is what percentage of spending is under the jurisdiction of the FDA and is nanotech ( or at least claimed to be ). I think GP has a fair question.
Call it "nano-inteligent design". That may give it a better chance than "stem cell research" had.
"IS how the tech is going to be implemented. How will the nano-machines know what to do?"
They will run Windows Nano. When it crashes, you will turn blue.
...Or a lot of anonymous cowards. But about TFA: why did the defendant attach her name to it? It is so easy to defame someone anonymouslyu on the net.
Lindhart is the spammer at e360. On Spamhaus's website they have posted lots of email that they have received from him. It included the following:
From: david linhardt
Subject: mail fraud and identity theft
Be advised, I am aware that members of the spamhaus organization are using my personally identifiable information to fraudelently order products and services on my behalf. I know this is true because I mistakenly provided you with my home address...
This doesn't work for Bush. Troubles in Korea only make his decision to invade Iraq look worse.
Now that Smith solved the first problem, I think I can solve the second. Or, to be precise, I can point to someone who has already solved it. The Scaled Composites hybrid engine used in spaceshipone offers better thrust/weight ratio than peroxide or propane, it can be made quite small, and it is throttleable.
Ok, what's the third problem?
The average density of a supermassive black hole can be very low, and may actually be lower than the density of water.
That sounds suspicious, especially coming from wikipedia. Something with a density that low could not likely bend light enough to keep it from escaping, even if very large.
The singularity that bends light does not have that low density. It has an incredibly high density. But the AVERAGE density is the mass of the singularity divided by all that space inside the event horizon.
Considering our space boffins have a problem seeing large asteroids really close up -- not even one light second away...why should we believe that they have seen all the black holes many light years away?"
Because black holes - or, to be precise, the region in space right next to them - emit a lot more radiation. A LOT MORE.
I left it out deliberately, as it is a confusing subject.
The root words CON and SPRIRE, literally, 'to breathe together', indicate how English common law treated the matter: to speak about it was enough - no overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy was neccesary.
The US congress, when passing laws on conspiracy, did not specifically mention an overt act. So when the US supreme court was asked to rule on it in United States v. Shabani, they said that in the absence of that specific mention, the old common law was what counted.
But numerous states - the majority, IIRC - do require an overt act.
While I appreciate that PreacherTom was good enogh to bring this to us, the sentence "...no open source project had fewer software defects than proprietary code." just does not match TFA.
TFA says that no open source project is as good as the BEST of proprietary, but it also says that the AVERAGE open source is better than the AVERAGE proprietary.
"I just instructed my gang of bank robbers to take out a bank. I didn't go along, so I'm completely innocent of any crime, right? Right? All I did was talk, and speech is protected!"
Now you have left the realm of hate speech and have entered the realm of conspiracy.
It's legal to say "All banks should be robbed" or "All Jews should be shot". Those are opinions. They may be exortations toward action. But they are not directly connected with particular actions.
However, statements like "Let's rob bank X at time Y", or "take this gun go to address X and shoot Rabbi Y" are particular enough to be conspiracy, and thus are illegal.
There is a whole body of case law on exactly what constitutes conspiracy, and the exact border is hard to define. But it is different from hate speech, and different from incitement.
Historically the government has been a great catalyst of techology inovation and improvements."
True. They make great contributions, using other people's money, aquired by force or the threat of force, and spent very wastefully. But when you can tax who cares about efficiency?
"And I am sure everything you do is always really useful?"
That seems an undue slap at GP. He never claimed that everything that he did was useful. He simply noted that, due to technological changes, some skills are not of much use any more. And he's right.
No. Nobody uses them.
I've been in the book selling business for over 20 years. These thing have come and gone regularly since the 80's. They always fail. After 20 years, I can tell you that people like the sight and the feel - and even smell! - of traditional books.
For those who really want computerized books, they just seem to be crippled, single use machines.
It will soon be gone, just like the others.
"...anything linking the searches to the users was a direct result of the search terms they sent across the internet in unsecured form, by choice."
But the user had no choise in having all his searches grouped together. The data from any single search is probably not enough to invade privacy. The data from hundreds or thousands is.