"Big Brother" in 1984 used television camera surveilance of every citizen, all of the time. (except for a tiny corner of Winston Smith's apartment, which was accidentally out of view). It is perfectly reasonable use of language to apply that metaphor to the CCTV surveillance society.
... this movie really just forgoes all notion of continuity or semblance of some of the more recent Trek constants. To name a few:
...The fact that reversing the damage caused by Neo would require a simple bit of time travel (jump to the past to reverse the damage caused, then jump to the future to prevent Neo from ever going back)
This is a problem with all Trek episodes of any plot, once it's established that time travel exists. Every problem can be solved by jumping into the past and fixing it before it happens. (In fact, it's a problem with all science fiction that involves time travel... why doesn't Harry Potter borrow that watch-gadget that Hermione was using?).
...Neo's ship conforms to NONE of the established Romulan shiip design...
Well, it's not a ship, it's a mining platform. It just happens that, with a century worth of advancing in technology, a mining platform has more capability (and better weapons) than a ship from a previous century.
Continuity between movies and the television series has always been poor anyway... starting with the way Klingons changed their faces, and stopped speaking English (but we don't talk about that).
When you drive on the highway, if you are going 85mph passing a car going 80mph, you only really experience a 5mph velocity differential with that car. Given that both of you are traveling at similar speeds, maneuvering around each other should be relatively simple as you only have to gauge the distances with regard to the 5mph differential and not the 80mph absolute velocity.
Sure. But then, I rarely repair my car while driving down the road at 85 MPH, although you are pointing out that I could.
The actress they got to play Uhuru was amazing. Absolutely perfect for the role, she completely managed to be a younger Nichelle Nichols. A supporting role, but one that gets some good screen time between the action scenes, and she shines in when she's on-screen.
They also did a good retro-explanation of what her role was on the bridge, which gave her a bit more substantial job than just saying "hailing frequencies open, captain," and yet consistent with the original.
So, yes, I'd say that for the sub-subcult of Trek fans that consists of Nichelle Nichols fandom, this is indeed a film to see.
I agree with the comment about positive externalities, which is a factor not always well understood by the libertarian-leaning computer community, but the problem is that I can't see a good argument that the government would do this well.
Frankly, working for the government, I would say that the government's understanding of computer security is negligible. Their advertisements would consist of warnings telling you to use non-rememberable twelve- or more character passwords with upper lower number and symbols, and to change all your passwords every ten days to a different non-rememberable twelve- etc password, and then warn you to never go to any website that isn't on the official government approved list, because you might get phished.
An alternate suggestion would be, go after the spammers and the malware distributors. Malware is getting distributed because people are making money off of it. Follow the money, and shut it down, and malware will go back to being a hobby of a small community of nerds.
Um you might be wrong, unfortunately. Obama has four justices that will rubber stamp anything he signs...
Uh, this is a bizarrely weird thing to say. You're talking about a supreme court of which all but two justices were appointed by Ford, Reagan, or Bush; and many of whom have been on the court since Obama was a high school student. There's no reason to particularly think why they would "rubber stamp anything he signs." Anything? Huh what?
You don't need long division in normal life. Regardless of if you are in a math heavy career or not, you aren't going to waste your time doing it by hand, you'll use a calculator which is faster and more accurate. However, you need to learn it. You need to understand how division works, how it's done.
No, I will disagree with that particular example. I do know how do to long division, but I don't think that the mechanics of long division give you any particular insight into mathematics, or even into arithmetic. Long division is simply a symbol-manipulation process; there's no real content to it.
Now, Newton's method-- that's something that's worth learning. In fact, why can't we teach students
to do long division by Newton's method? Then they'd learn something useful!
(sarcasm mode on)
Yes, this is perfect-- it's a well-established fact that older people are uniformly technologically savy, and would always prefer getting a unfamiliar new high-tech gadget so that they can spend a few happy hours going down the learning curve, instead of using the previous technique, asking somebody.
flat-out to-the-death conflict is extremely rare in nature, and even in human history until fairly recently. Limited warfare was the norm until the late 1700's: the past 200 years of total war are the anomaly,
A limited "yes" to the first part (the limit is "within species"), an unqualified "no" to the second. Limited war was most certainly not the norm until the late 1700s, unless by "limited" you include "kill all the men and all the male children and all the women who are not virgins. Take the remaining female children captive."
As I noted when the article was posted on NASAwatch, the students in Explorer post 632 at NASA Glenn also do launches of a balloon payload, to the same altitude, and including cameras, so they're also doing "DIY Space Photography" if you count 20 miles altitude as "space". And they've been doing this since 2004.
(I'll also note that they don't use NASA equipment to do this; they buy or build their own hardware).
'roadable aircraft' (that's flying car to you and me)
Not quite.
The problem with conventional small aircraft is that once you've flown your Cesna 172 (or whatever) to your destination, you find that you're at an airfield way out of town somewhere, and you don't have a car.
Terrafugia is a solution that, once you land, you have a car. Which would be very handy sometimes!
But it's not really a "flying car" in the science-fiction sense.
There are other organizations, like the NRA, the CRPA, the Firearms coalition, several dozen PACs, and many more, defending second amendment rights. I'm much more worried about attacks on the other nine.
Unless they're actively campaigning against the second amendment-- and as far as I've ever heard, they're not-- it's not hypocrisy, just directing resources where they're needed.
I am, however, not terribly happy about the ACLU for other reasons
The BATF argued that they could regulate model rocket engines, because ammonium perchlorate is an explosive.
The National Association of Rocketry argued that ammonium percholorate is not an explosive (it is in fact an oxidizer) and appended massive amounts of technical information to show that it is not.
The BATF replied "we don't give a damn about the facts, we will regulate it and you can't stop us."
And, after nine years, the judge ruled that the facts actually are relevant, and the BATF is allowed to regulate only the things that they are legally allowed to regulate.
Unless they're secretly fighting for individual gun rights, they're not hypocrites.
They profess to fight for civil liberties yet ignore part of the Bill of Rights?
I'm not a fan of the ACLU for other reasons, but the last time I looked a their stance on the 2nd amendment, it was, essentialy, "there are other organizations, which are much better funded than we are, that are focussed exclusively on second amendment rights. Therefore, we'll direct our effort to protecting the other nine."
Doesn't seem hypocritical to me for them to devote their energy to the 90% of the bill of rights that needs defending, and not the 10% that has a large and active defense already.
I might have been living under a rock, but I never thought that the possibility of bacteria living in the atmosphere far from the ground and from most of the organisms, was a real possibility. I did a quick search and I couldn't find how high we assume that the biosphere extends at the moment, but I suspect that these bacteria are living almost isolated up there. If that is true, it opens the possibility for life in the atmosphere of Venus, and in the atmosphere of the gas giants. Some people have suggested that the latter is possible....
Seriously.. resistancy to UV means they are tough buggers to kill? Clorox is not gonna phase these tiny invaders...
This is completely wrong. They're resistant to UV because the upper atmosphere is constantly bombarded by UV rays. Clorox and UV rays' methods of cell destruction are completely different. In fact, they are probably less resistant to bleach/antibiotics etc than bacteria down here because they've never been exposed to it.
Not necessarily. Clorox is a highly reactive oxidizer. Much like ozone. Which is produced by ultraviolet light, thus producting the ozone layer, which is in the stratosphere. Where the microorganisms under discussion are found.
So if they live in the stratosphere, they're likely to be somewhat resistant to ozone as well, which means they'd likely be resistant to clorox.
Unfortunately, we will never get a Pi day over here, as 3/14 doesn't exist. A sad day for the European lovers of Pi (a secret fraternity of which we do not speak)
Thanks for the wikipedia link. However, note that wikipedia lists truth as a defense against allegation of libel as the very first example in the article on absolute defense (legal)
No, the key point is that the legal principle that truth is an absolute defense against a charge of libel is under attack in Massachusetts.
This principle is one of the bedrocks upon which our freedom of speech is built.
You're right that it's not a bad ruling. It's a terrible ruling.
While I am 100% in agreement with your statement about the dangers of not allowing truth as an absolute libel defense, it would seem the truth of the statement may well be on doubt. I do not think it would be unreasonable to allow a court to decide if:
1 - the statement was in fact truthful and not merely one side's opinion and thus potentially libelous
Of course. That's why we have jury trials. But that's not what this court ruling was about. This ruling was that it doesn't matter whether or not it's true; truth is not a defense.
2 - it violated contractual agreements between the two parties
That's a completely different issue, which has nothing to do with libel.
Slashdot Mirror
"Big Brother" in 1984 used television camera surveilance of every citizen, all of the time. (except for a tiny corner of Winston Smith's apartment, which was accidentally out of view). It is perfectly reasonable use of language to apply that metaphor to the CCTV surveillance society.
... this movie really just forgoes all notion of continuity or semblance of some of the more recent Trek constants. To name a few:
...The fact that reversing the damage caused by Neo would require a simple bit of time travel (jump to the past to reverse the damage caused, then jump to the future to prevent Neo from ever going back)
This is a problem with all Trek episodes of any plot, once it's established that time travel exists. Every problem can be solved by jumping into the past and fixing it before it happens. (In fact, it's a problem with all science fiction that involves time travel... why doesn't Harry Potter borrow that watch-gadget that Hermione was using?).
...Neo's ship conforms to NONE of the established Romulan shiip design...
Well, it's not a ship, it's a mining platform. It just happens that, with a century worth of advancing in technology, a mining platform has more capability (and better weapons) than a ship from a previous century.
Continuity between movies and the television series has always been poor anyway... starting with the way Klingons changed their faces, and stopped speaking English (but we don't talk about that).
When you drive on the highway, if you are going 85mph passing a car going 80mph, you only really experience a 5mph velocity differential with that car. Given that both of you are traveling at similar speeds, maneuvering around each other should be relatively simple as you only have to gauge the distances with regard to the 5mph differential and not the 80mph absolute velocity.
Sure. But then, I rarely repair my car while driving down the road at 85 MPH, although you are pointing out that I could.
They also did a good retro-explanation of what her role was on the bridge, which gave her a bit more substantial job than just saying "hailing frequencies open, captain," and yet consistent with the original.
So, yes, I'd say that for the sub-subcult of Trek fans that consists of Nichelle Nichols fandom, this is indeed a film to see.
At least like you should be able to reverse the problem by wiping the SSD and starting over. (essentially, de-fragmenting it by a wipe and reload)
I agree with the comment about positive externalities, which is a factor not always well understood by the libertarian-leaning computer community, but the problem is that I can't see a good argument that the government would do this well.
Frankly, working for the government, I would say that the government's understanding of computer security is negligible. Their advertisements would consist of warnings telling you to use non-rememberable twelve- or more character passwords with upper lower number and symbols, and to change all your passwords every ten days to a different non-rememberable twelve- etc password, and then warn you to never go to any website that isn't on the official government approved list, because you might get phished.
An alternate suggestion would be, go after the spammers and the malware distributors. Malware is getting distributed because people are making money off of it. Follow the money, and shut it down, and malware will go back to being a hobby of a small community of nerds.
The remaining 1/3 were too busy raising their new kid to continue.
I'm almost always in favor of more open markets over regulation and control,
Since non-compete clauses are contracts voluntarily signed, then, you're in favor of enforcing them, right?
So, IMHO, non-competes are stupid and a restraint of fair trade.
Well, sure. But are you in favor of regulation prohibiting stupidity? Are you in favor of regulations enforcing fair trade?
Which is more important to you?
Um you might be wrong, unfortunately. Obama has four justices that will rubber stamp anything he signs...
Uh, this is a bizarrely weird thing to say. You're talking about a supreme court of which all but two justices were appointed by Ford, Reagan, or Bush; and many of whom have been on the court since Obama was a high school student. There's no reason to particularly think why they would "rubber stamp anything he signs." Anything? Huh what?
You don't need long division in normal life. Regardless of if you are in a math heavy career or not, you aren't going to waste your time doing it by hand, you'll use a calculator which is faster and more accurate. However, you need to learn it. You need to understand how division works, how it's done.
No, I will disagree with that particular example. I do know how do to long division, but I don't think that the mechanics of long division give you any particular insight into mathematics, or even into arithmetic. Long division is simply a symbol-manipulation process; there's no real content to it.
Now, Newton's method-- that's something that's worth learning. In fact, why can't we teach students to do long division by Newton's method? Then they'd learn something useful!
(/sarcasm)
flat-out to-the-death conflict is extremely rare in nature, and even in human history until fairly recently. Limited warfare was the norm until the late 1700's: the past 200 years of total war are the anomaly,
A limited "yes" to the first part (the limit is "within species"), an unqualified "no" to the second. Limited war was most certainly not the norm until the late 1700s, unless by "limited" you include "kill all the men and all the male children and all the women who are not virgins. Take the remaining female children captive."
Washing machines are pretty harsh places. You get tidal forces...
No pun intended, I assume.
(I'll also note that they don't use NASA equipment to do this; they buy or build their own hardware).
'roadable aircraft' (that's flying car to you and me)
Not quite.
The problem with conventional small aircraft is that once you've flown your Cesna 172 (or whatever) to your destination, you find that you're at an airfield way out of town somewhere, and you don't have a car.
Terrafugia is a solution that, once you land, you have a car. Which would be very handy sometimes!
But it's not really a "flying car" in the science-fiction sense.
The BATF tried to argue that Ammonium Perchlorate Composite fuel was an explosive, not Ammonium Perchlorate by itself. There is a very big difference.
Thanks for the clarification. I stand corrected.
Unless they're actively campaigning against the second amendment-- and as far as I've ever heard, they're not-- it's not hypocrisy, just directing resources where they're needed.
I am, however, not terribly happy about the ACLU for other reasons
The National Association of Rocketry argued that ammonium percholorate is not an explosive (it is in fact an oxidizer) and appended massive amounts of technical information to show that it is not.
The BATF replied "we don't give a damn about the facts, we will regulate it and you can't stop us."
And, after nine years, the judge ruled that the facts actually are relevant, and the BATF is allowed to regulate only the things that they are legally allowed to regulate.
Congratulations, NAR.
Congratulations to the National Association of Rocketry, and the rest of the team defending model rocketry.
Well done, guys!
Unless they're secretly fighting for individual gun rights, they're not hypocrites.
They profess to fight for civil liberties yet ignore part of the Bill of Rights?
I'm not a fan of the ACLU for other reasons, but the last time I looked a their stance on the 2nd amendment, it was, essentialy, "there are other organizations, which are much better funded than we are, that are focussed exclusively on second amendment rights. Therefore, we'll direct our effort to protecting the other nine."
Doesn't seem hypocritical to me for them to devote their energy to the 90% of the bill of rights that needs defending, and not the 10% that has a large and active defense already.
I might have been living under a rock, but I never thought that the possibility of bacteria living in the atmosphere far from the ground and from most of the organisms, was a real possibility. I did a quick search and I couldn't find how high we assume that the biosphere extends at the moment, but I suspect that these bacteria are living almost isolated up there. If that is true, it opens the possibility for life in the atmosphere of Venus, and in the atmosphere of the gas giants. Some people have suggested that the latter is possible....
Also the former:
Astrobiology: the Case for Venus
Seriously .. resistancy to UV means they are tough buggers to kill? Clorox is not gonna phase these tiny invaders...
This is completely wrong. They're resistant to UV because the upper atmosphere is constantly bombarded by UV rays. Clorox and UV rays' methods of cell destruction are completely different. In fact, they are probably less resistant to bleach/antibiotics etc than bacteria down here because they've never been exposed to it.
Not necessarily. Clorox is a highly reactive oxidizer. Much like ozone. Which is produced by ultraviolet light, thus producting the ozone layer, which is in the stratosphere. Where the microorganisms under discussion are found.
So if they live in the stratosphere, they're likely to be somewhat resistant to ozone as well, which means they'd likely be resistant to clorox.
Unfortunately, we will never get a Pi day over here, as 3/14 doesn't exist. A sad day for the European lovers of Pi (a secret fraternity of which we do not speak)
No problem. Define Pi day to be 22/7.
It's not an absolute defense against libel. Truth is an AFFIRMATIVE defense against libel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_defense
Thanks for the wikipedia link. However, note that wikipedia lists truth as a defense against allegation of libel as the very first example in the article on absolute defense (legal)
No, the key point is that the legal principle that truth is an absolute defense against a charge of libel is under attack in Massachusetts.
This principle is one of the bedrocks upon which our freedom of speech is built.
You're right that it's not a bad ruling. It's a terrible ruling.
While I am 100% in agreement with your statement about the dangers of not allowing truth as an absolute libel defense, it would seem the truth of the statement may well be on doubt. I do not think it would be unreasonable to allow a court to decide if:
1 - the statement was in fact truthful and not merely one side's opinion and thus potentially libelous
Of course. That's why we have jury trials. But that's not what this court ruling was about. This ruling was that it doesn't matter whether or not it's true; truth is not a defense.
2 - it violated contractual agreements between the two parties
That's a completely different issue, which has nothing to do with libel.