Imaging buying a new car and finding that every manufacturer NO controls. Consumers had to consult the different vendors of the different controls, buy them, and install them themselves. Could consumers figure out how to drive if 90% of the cars had no interface, and had to spend hours and hours learning about cars and their interfaces, in order to make it operate in a suffecient way to get them from Point A to Point B.
Setting up a windows machine to minimum functionality would take hours and multiple CDs from multiple vendors. It would take hours of downloading and installing individual components (since, of course, bundling unrelated software is clearly "against the law"). All in the name of "competition".
I suspect most people will tell you it would be good for the industry... and they are wrong... there is nothing good for the industry about making computers impossibly difficult to set up.
Now that's a bit irrational... please explain to me how a university's disciplenary issue has anything to do free-speech or Galileo. I don't mean for crazy things like "context" and "reason" to get in the way of your karma-whoring... but come on now.. a little intellectual honesty goes a long way.
I don't believe in copyright as I don't see how anyone can use Congress and the courts to enforce income on non-continuing work. It is ridiculous.
Your model doesn't bother me for music... but it's completely not possible for other forms of copyrights. How exactly is an author going to make any money if not from selling his non-continuing work? Make people subscribe and send them monthly chapters? I don't want to read a book that badly that I'm going to go through all the trouble. I just want something to pass time on the plane....
Unfortunately, you have misunderstood I meant. I'd like to blame you, but it's probably my fault... reread the sentence with the following change and my actual point becomes more clear: "Blogs have been increasingly more successful as a news source exactly because of the print medias long and constant arrogant approach to them. "
Ego and arrogance. Newspapers need to let go of the idea that they are the harbinger and gateway of all information. The lofty self-appointed (and aritificial) perch they've created for themselves is obvious. What kind of self-respecting person would get news from any of these simpletons when they can get it from us. Blogs have been more successful as a news source exactly because of the print medias long and constant arrogant approach to them. Now, some are finally starting to catch up, but for the most part, vast and entire new media entities are taking huge market share from newspaper because of their elitism causing a massive delay in switching to web.
Your "recipe" assumes that newspaper editors are of the correct mindset, already. I think alot of them have a long way to go. The entire concept of an editorial, in print form, as the golden platonic representation of "opinion" is going to be nothing more than a quaint idea of yesteryear...
There was this story on slashdot a couple of months ago and was detracted by many as opterons being out of place in the real time market. I guess we see it does have use =P
This is not "real-time" application. This is hardware-in-the-loop simiulation. Moreover, not only is Linux inappropriate for real-time primary defense system.. it is generally strictly prohibited (almost uniformly) by military specification because it is not a true real time operating system. Back at the old job, VxWorks variants were most common.
Are you trying to say that our media is creating and over-hyping something that doesn't necessarily exist to make for better headlines? Noooooo... not our media....
1. Combine a major company using Linux for all it's excellent benefits with an obvious usage of war....
2. Slap on that flamesuit and logical-fallacy-inducing tinfoil hat
3. Watch the collective mind of slashdot swirl around these conflicting emotions
(4. Profit.)
Polygraph is highly effective at measuring what it is meant to measure. The real issue is how much does that correlate to lying. The problem is is that it's very easy to beat/confuse "general-purpose" polygraphs by understanding the questions, how they scored, what they mean and using countermeasures (A slight warning... it is entirely possible, if you ever plan on getting polygraphed for the NSA or CIA, that they will ask if you know about countermeasures... during the test, and thus maye actually harm your chances of passing by reading this site.) This type of test is essentially a voodoo science of pure psychology. There is another type of test, though, and there is a -very- large difference in the scientific literature between specific-indicent polygraph and the general-purpose polygraph often used at the CIA and FBI for periodic screening of employees. Neither, however, is accurate enough to be admissable in court.
There are well known polygraph counter-measures that can effectively fool the machine, well, make your test inconclusive. The polygraph can never say conclusively you are lying or telling the truth. It's far more difficult to do that for the specific-indicdent style of tests, but a trained spy who practiced often could get away it.
Personnel security screening involves a different type of polygraph test than specific-incident investigations, and very little screening research has been conducted....However, OTA concluded that the available research evidence does not establish the scientific validity of the polygraph for this purpose.
principal use of the polygraph test is as part of an investigation (usually conducted by law enforcement or private security officers) of a specific situation in which a criminal act has been alleged to have, or in fact has, taken place. This type of case is characterized by a prior investigation that both narrows the suspect list down to a very small number, and that develops significant information about the crime itself. When the polygraph is used in this context, the application is known as a specific-issue or specific-incident criminal investigation.
Six prior reviews of field studies: average accuracy ranged from 64 to 98 percent.
I wish I could provide a more authoratative link, but it's difficult. The entire field of lie detection is so buried in political bullshit that it's almost impossible to tell what is and is not effetive. Every study is from someone on the take, and every cited study is funded by the citer. For example, take this from the American Association of Polygraphers with, surprisingly, a comprehensive listing of why CVSA doesn't work.
As I understand it, from people I talked with involved in security at my previous government job, pretty much all lie-detectors and methods is 90% psychological and 10% actual. In other words, having the subject believe it works is where 90% of the effectiveness comes from. For specific situations (ie, did you kill Jim-bob), polygraphy seems to be far more effetive then CVSA. For general-purpose ("Have you ever done anything bad?"), all forms of lie-detector are suspect, at best, and very much a voodoo-science. CVSA's lure comes from the fact that it's cheap and easy to train people to use, and less intrusive (requires less calm enviornment). However, it's far less effective then polygraphy, and it's primary function is to give the interregator a psychological advantage, and no more.
Sometimes it's tough to stick to your principles. However, in the long run it is always better not to compromise on your beliefs.
Really? What's your stance on the Confederacy? Salem Witch Trials? Nothing screams "long run betterment" like sticking to your principles, no matter what. At some point, it's not better to stick to your principles.. for principles alone, shouldn't ever be of enough value to be self-evident or self-reenforcing. At that point, your "principles" become your "religion".
Seriously. People visit both sites. Can't we get original content.
And some of us don't. Can we have comprehensive content, instead? It takes more time for you to scrollwheel past something you've seen before then it does for me to scour countless website for good information.
Wish I had some mod points. Although, using a movie as your backdrop for mathematical truth is a recipe for disaster. However, you are reasonably correct that cooperation can often produce the optimum solution. That's reasonable and common sense. The real tragedy here is the word "socialism" has destined this thread to be derailed into a long bad analogy of open-source/microsft compared and contrasted like America/socialism. That comparison is simply not accurate or fair. And we'd all be a little smarter if we kept the discussion more in the realm reality of talking about cooperation, it's benefits and it's costs.
Capitalism as it's very essence is anti-cooperative and thus can become counter-productive (as has been posted 100 times above). Socialism, as a whole, gets a bad name in the states because governments are ineffecient, so channeling things through government is not "cost-free" cooperation. Anti-socialists aren't against cooperation, like many people in this thread seem to be repeatedly indicating... they are against government involvement due to government ineffeciencies which, they argue, cost more then the benefit of cooperation. Consequently, arguing socialism as a software-development model is equated to economic/social policy is simply innacurate, because the costs of cooperation is very divergent in relation to the benefits of cooperation.
Never buy brand new high-tech toys before they've actually passed major consumer testing.
It's the same for everything technological! Only through trial and error, consumer brute force sort of do they get the best product after 1-2 years for most products such as Dell's, i'd cite motor companies too but bah.
Well, considering electrolytic caps were invented in the 30s, I'd think we've given them enough spin-up to get that newfangled technology under control. The problem here is just poor quality control and cost-cutting. Luckily in the free-market, this type of things tend be a short-lived trend... it just requires the spotlight.
If n translated to a process that took 14 days, the next we'd care about is nlog(n), then n^2!
Well, that's not quite true. There are a variety of algorithms and a variety of o(n)s between n, nlog(n) and n^2, especially dealing with state of the art cryptography. I feel, however, you are missing the point. Asking for 90 days isn't a complexity issue, it's a logistic issue. They want 90 days to decide what it is, to scale up a system to break it, or realize it can't be broken.... the real crux of the matter is that having the person in custody and giving them the idea you are de-encrypting their harddrive is a very powerful interrogation tool, in and of itself. The actualy decryption is probably far less revealing then the human information gathered using that notion as a psychological weapon. The concept is very similarly used in polygraphy.
This is all about giving interragators psychological weapons, not intellence or data.
Just as badly as patent-happy regulations can stifle science, just as easily patent-unhappy regulations can. I realize there's an obvious emotional response from looking at the numbers here and jumping to conclusions (read: correlation implying causality). It should be pointed out that lots of research in this country is done for the sake business (read: profit). You can get all socialisitic and decry the ethics of that, but the point remains that large amounts of good research is done in the name of profit.
Scientists being "part of the problem" is fairly one-dimensional in that thinking. Yes, frivilous patents hurt, but good and valid patents help. Many of these scientists who hold patents aren't "part of the problem". Having patnets isn't the problem. Giving out bad patents is the problem... having research tied up because of someone's patent isn't necessarily bad. Yes I said it. Let me say it again so I can get modded Troll. Having research tied up because of someone else's patent isn't necessarily bad. In a system that is -too- free, there will be no innovation, and thus neither party would be doing researching. It's all about balance.
As part of the decision, the Board of Education also went so far as to redefine science itself, saying that it is 'no longer limited to the search for natural explanations of phenomena.
Can I make a friendly amendment? Can we also redefine US Geography to not include Kansas?
I don't want a logical proof, I want a logical reason. How about, isntead of the paranoid conpisracy bullshit, we apply Occam's Razor like a rational person. Maybe the reason they brought it up under these rules is because they expected it to pass without any difficulty? Maybe in three weeks they will rewrite the bill, and bring it up under normal rules, and it will pass. ANd this time, they will have plenty of time to prepare talking points, and get up a far bigger headline about how the Democrats oppose Free Speech. Then, you can go off on another paranoid, poorly reasoned, tirade about Republican chicanary and abuse of the media.
If you don't understand how pointing out your sophisty and fallacious logical assertions is "disputing", then we are need in of a longer discussion. For instance, the excellent use of the "common knowledge" fallacy is quite textbook. I am right... ask anyone....
Look, it's a simple fact that under the House rules, the minority has no power. I challenge anyone to dispute that.
Disputed.
That is catagorically not a fact. It is a conclusion drawn, logically, from a set of assumptions. Those assumptions may or may not be true in any particular case. Yes, in a perfectly party-aligned partisan decision, with normal house rules, the minority has no power. I agree. You have made an implied assumption, not stated it, in an attempt to represent a stronger conclusion then is otherwise supportable.
If the GOP wanted this bill, it would have been through the House by now. I challenge anyone to dispute that, also.
Disputed.
You define "wanted" as a binary condition. There are very clearly not equal levels of 'want'. If the Republicans wanted to circumvent the current rules in place, go through the trouble, and get the bill into law, they would. The democrats (and you) would then be whining about abuse of power, and circumvention. There may be bigger tradeoffs at play here, involving why those rules are in play, and what compromises have been reached. I have no idea what the Republicans would have to give up, in terms of agreed compromises, to remove the current set of rules, but I imagine the situation is not nearly as simplified as your oversimplication implies.
You also conviently forget the opposite position, as well:
If the Democrats wanted this bill, it would have been through the House by now.
Slashdot Mirror
Bad analogy. A corrected version:
Imaging buying a new car and finding that every manufacturer NO controls. Consumers had to consult the different vendors of the different controls, buy them, and install them themselves. Could consumers figure out how to drive if 90% of the cars had no interface, and had to spend hours and hours learning about cars and their interfaces, in order to make it operate in a suffecient way to get them from Point A to Point B.
What a fantastic post...
Setting up a windows machine to minimum functionality would take hours and multiple CDs from multiple vendors. It would take hours of downloading and installing individual components (since, of course, bundling unrelated software is clearly "against the law"). All in the name of "competition".
I suspect most people will tell you it would be good for the industry... and they are wrong... there is nothing good for the industry about making computers impossibly difficult to set up.
Now that's a bit irrational... please explain to me how a university's disciplenary issue has anything to do free-speech or Galileo. I don't mean for crazy things like "context" and "reason" to get in the way of your karma-whoring... but come on now.. a little intellectual honesty goes a long way.
First it was a war-waging company using Linux....
Now it's the ACLU vs Internet Surveillance.
How is any slashdotter supposed to karma whore when you keep putting up stories that are conflicting of the slashdot groupthink!
Next up: How Microsoft thinks that the US controls the internet too much...
I don't believe in copyright as I don't see how anyone can use Congress and the courts to enforce income on non-continuing work. It is ridiculous.
Your model doesn't bother me for music... but it's completely not possible for other forms of copyrights. How exactly is an author going to make any money if not from selling his non-continuing work? Make people subscribe and send them monthly chapters? I don't want to read a book that badly that I'm going to go through all the trouble. I just want something to pass time on the plane....
Unfortunately, you have misunderstood I meant. I'd like to blame you, but it's probably my fault... reread the sentence with the following change and my actual point becomes more clear:
"Blogs have been increasingly more successful as a news source exactly because of the print medias long and constant arrogant approach to them. "
Ego and arrogance. Newspapers need to let go of the idea that they are the harbinger and gateway of all information. The lofty self-appointed (and aritificial) perch they've created for themselves is obvious. What kind of self-respecting person would get news from any of these simpletons when they can get it from us. Blogs have been more successful as a news source exactly because of the print medias long and constant arrogant approach to them. Now, some are finally starting to catch up, but for the most part, vast and entire new media entities are taking huge market share from newspaper because of their elitism causing a massive delay in switching to web.
Your "recipe" assumes that newspaper editors are of the correct mindset, already. I think alot of them have a long way to go. The entire concept of an editorial, in print form, as the golden platonic representation of "opinion" is going to be nothing more than a quaint idea of yesteryear...
There was this story on slashdot a couple of months ago and was detracted by many as opterons being out of place in the real time market. I guess we see it does have use =P
This is not "real-time" application. This is hardware-in-the-loop simiulation. Moreover, not only is Linux inappropriate for real-time primary defense system.. it is generally strictly prohibited (almost uniformly) by military specification because it is not a true real time operating system. Back at the old job, VxWorks variants were most common.
Are you trying to say that our media is creating and over-hyping something that doesn't necessarily exist to make for better headlines? Noooooo... not our media....
1. Combine a major company using Linux for all it's excellent benefits with an obvious usage of war....
2. Slap on that flamesuit and logical-fallacy-inducing tinfoil hat
3. Watch the collective mind of slashdot swirl around these conflicting emotions
(4. Profit.)
This is gonna keep me entertained all day...
Polygraph is highly effective at measuring what it is meant to measure. The real issue is how much does that correlate to lying. The problem is is that it's very easy to beat/confuse "general-purpose" polygraphs by understanding the questions, how they scored, what they mean and using countermeasures (A slight warning... it is entirely possible, if you ever plan on getting polygraphed for the NSA or CIA, that they will ask if you know about countermeasures... during the test, and thus maye actually harm your chances of passing by reading this site.) This type of test is essentially a voodoo science of pure psychology. There is another type of test, though, and there is a -very- large difference in the scientific literature between specific-indicent polygraph and the general-purpose polygraph often used at the CIA and FBI for periodic screening of employees. Neither, however, is accurate enough to be admissable in court.
...However, OTA concluded that the available research evidence does not establish the scientific validity of the polygraph for this purpose.
There are well known polygraph counter-measures that can effectively fool the machine, well, make your test inconclusive. The polygraph can never say conclusively you are lying or telling the truth. It's far more difficult to do that for the specific-indicdent style of tests, but a trained spy who practiced often could get away it.
Here's what the NAS says about it: National Academy of Sciences
Personnel security screening involves a different type of polygraph test than specific-incident investigations, and very little screening research has been conducted.
principal use of the polygraph test is as part of an investigation (usually conducted by law enforcement or private security officers) of a specific situation in which a criminal act has been alleged to have, or in fact has, taken place. This type of case is characterized by a prior investigation that both narrows the suspect list down to a very small number, and that develops significant information about the crime itself. When the polygraph is used in this context, the application is known as a specific-issue or specific-incident criminal investigation.
Six prior reviews of field studies: average accuracy ranged from 64 to 98 percent.
This is called Computer Voice Stress Analysis (CVSA). It has been largely discredited as being less effective then polygraphy (I think).
I wish I could provide a more authoratative link, but it's difficult. The entire field of lie detection is so buried in political bullshit that it's almost impossible to tell what is and is not effetive. Every study is from someone on the take, and every cited study is funded by the citer. For example, take this from the American Association of Polygraphers with, surprisingly, a comprehensive listing of why CVSA doesn't work.
As I understand it, from people I talked with involved in security at my previous government job, pretty much all lie-detectors and methods is 90% psychological and 10% actual. In other words, having the subject believe it works is where 90% of the effectiveness comes from. For specific situations (ie, did you kill Jim-bob), polygraphy seems to be far more effetive then CVSA. For general-purpose ("Have you ever done anything bad?"), all forms of lie-detector are suspect, at best, and very much a voodoo-science. CVSA's lure comes from the fact that it's cheap and easy to train people to use, and less intrusive (requires less calm enviornment). However, it's far less effective then polygraphy, and it's primary function is to give the interregator a psychological advantage, and no more.
And here I thought this topic was about ICANN's control of a tiny portion of the internet...
You clearly have studied the longstanding recipe for slashdot success:
1. Crazily and illogically connect anything to Iraq.
2. ?????
3. +5 Insightful
Sometimes it's tough to stick to your principles. However, in the long run it is always better not to compromise on your beliefs.
Really? What's your stance on the Confederacy? Salem Witch Trials? Nothing screams "long run betterment" like sticking to your principles, no matter what. At some point, it's not better to stick to your principles.. for principles alone, shouldn't ever be of enough value to be self-evident or self-reenforcing. At that point, your "principles" become your "religion".
Seriously. People visit both sites. Can't we get original content.
And some of us don't. Can we have comprehensive content, instead? It takes more time for you to scrollwheel past something you've seen before then it does for me to scour countless website for good information.
No kidding.... this just broke my nerd-o-meter.
Wish I had some mod points. Although, using a movie as your backdrop for mathematical truth is a recipe for disaster. However, you are reasonably correct that cooperation can often produce the optimum solution. That's reasonable and common sense. The real tragedy here is the word "socialism" has destined this thread to be derailed into a long bad analogy of open-source/microsft compared and contrasted like America/socialism. That comparison is simply not accurate or fair. And we'd all be a little smarter if we kept the discussion more in the realm reality of talking about cooperation, it's benefits and it's costs.
Capitalism as it's very essence is anti-cooperative and thus can become counter-productive (as has been posted 100 times above). Socialism, as a whole, gets a bad name in the states because governments are ineffecient, so channeling things through government is not "cost-free" cooperation. Anti-socialists aren't against cooperation, like many people in this thread seem to be repeatedly indicating... they are against government involvement due to government ineffeciencies which, they argue, cost more then the benefit of cooperation. Consequently, arguing socialism as a software-development model is equated to economic/social policy is simply innacurate, because the costs of cooperation is very divergent in relation to the benefits of cooperation.
I declare this horse officially dead. It's getting disgaussting.
Wow that was bad. But Ampere was harder.
Never buy brand new high-tech toys before they've actually passed major consumer testing.
It's the same for everything technological! Only through trial and error, consumer brute force sort of do they get the best product after 1-2 years for most products such as Dell's, i'd cite motor companies too but bah. Well, considering electrolytic caps were invented in the 30s, I'd think we've given them enough spin-up to get that newfangled technology under control. The problem here is just poor quality control and cost-cutting. Luckily in the free-market, this type of things tend be a short-lived trend... it just requires the spotlight.
If n translated to a process that took 14 days, the next we'd care about is nlog(n), then n^2!
Well, that's not quite true. There are a variety of algorithms and a variety of o(n)s between n, nlog(n) and n^2, especially dealing with state of the art cryptography. I feel, however, you are missing the point. Asking for 90 days isn't a complexity issue, it's a logistic issue. They want 90 days to decide what it is, to scale up a system to break it, or realize it can't be broken.... the real crux of the matter is that having the person in custody and giving them the idea you are de-encrypting their harddrive is a very powerful interrogation tool, in and of itself. The actualy decryption is probably far less revealing then the human information gathered using that notion as a psychological weapon. The concept is very similarly used in polygraphy.
This is all about giving interragators psychological weapons, not intellence or data.
Just as badly as patent-happy regulations can stifle science, just as easily patent-unhappy regulations can. I realize there's an obvious emotional response from looking at the numbers here and jumping to conclusions (read: correlation implying causality). It should be pointed out that lots of research in this country is done for the sake business (read: profit). You can get all socialisitic and decry the ethics of that, but the point remains that large amounts of good research is done in the name of profit.
Scientists being "part of the problem" is fairly one-dimensional in that thinking. Yes, frivilous patents hurt, but good and valid patents help. Many of these scientists who hold patents aren't "part of the problem". Having patnets isn't the problem. Giving out bad patents is the problem... having research tied up because of someone's patent isn't necessarily bad. Yes I said it. Let me say it again so I can get modded Troll. Having research tied up because of someone else's patent isn't necessarily bad. In a system that is -too- free, there will be no innovation, and thus neither party would be doing researching. It's all about balance.
As part of the decision, the Board of Education also went so far as to redefine science itself, saying that it is 'no longer limited to the search for natural explanations of phenomena.
Can I make a friendly amendment? Can we also redefine US Geography to not include Kansas?
I don't want a logical proof, I want a logical reason. How about, isntead of the paranoid conpisracy bullshit, we apply Occam's Razor like a rational person. Maybe the reason they brought it up under these rules is because they expected it to pass without any difficulty? Maybe in three weeks they will rewrite the bill, and bring it up under normal rules, and it will pass. ANd this time, they will have plenty of time to prepare talking points, and get up a far bigger headline about how the Democrats oppose Free Speech. Then, you can go off on another paranoid, poorly reasoned, tirade about Republican chicanary and abuse of the media.
If you don't understand how pointing out your sophisty and fallacious logical assertions is "disputing", then we are need in of a longer discussion. For instance, the excellent use of the "common knowledge" fallacy is quite textbook. I am right... ask anyone....
Look, it's a simple fact that under the House rules, the minority has no power. I challenge anyone to dispute that.
Disputed.
That is catagorically not a fact. It is a conclusion drawn, logically, from a set of assumptions. Those assumptions may or may not be true in any particular case. Yes, in a perfectly party-aligned partisan decision, with normal house rules, the minority has no power. I agree. You have made an implied assumption, not stated it, in an attempt to represent a stronger conclusion then is otherwise supportable.
If the GOP wanted this bill, it would have been through the House by now. I challenge anyone to dispute that, also.
Disputed.
You define "wanted" as a binary condition. There are very clearly not equal levels of 'want'. If the Republicans wanted to circumvent the current rules in place, go through the trouble, and get the bill into law, they would. The democrats (and you) would then be whining about abuse of power, and circumvention. There may be bigger tradeoffs at play here, involving why those rules are in play, and what compromises have been reached. I have no idea what the Republicans would have to give up, in terms of agreed compromises, to remove the current set of rules, but I imagine the situation is not nearly as simplified as your oversimplication implies.
You also conviently forget the opposite position, as well:
If the Democrats wanted this bill, it would have been through the House by now.