True, but astronauts are notoriously wary of doctors and psychologists, because they are the two people whose office you can walk into an astronaut and walk out grounded. And can you imagine being a psych specialist on a Mars mission, being cooped up with the crew for 90+ days, them knowing part of your job is to evaluate their mental state? Of course you'd have to have other functions, because the cost of a Mars mission will be high enough that no one will be able to justify the cost of sending a psychologist along solely to monitor the crew.
I don't think a Psych degree counts... so I'm out of the running; I won't even belabor the fact that I'm not in any kind of shape for it. And no, $60K isn't a lot considering the work an astronaut does. Most astronauts spend their lives trying to make money other ways, with mixed results. The Mercury 7 were blessed in the beginning by having their exclusive contract with Life magazine that supplemented their income, and due to their fame, they received more than their fair share of perks. I don't think astronauts today have it quite so good, which is a shame.
Does anyone worry his next job will be working for their company?
Citing his vast experience, General Motors has announced Darl McBride is being named CEO, in hopes of ramping up flagging sales of GM products by suing Honda and Ford.
Which just goes to show what psychologists have known for years: the mob is fickle and easily incited. All you have to do is chant "child porn" and point a finger and the dogs are all over you. What hurts with something like that is that information on the Internet has permanence unlike anything else, which mans even if you clear up a misconception, misunderstanding, or outright fraud, the original information continues to exist and people will still believe. To paraphrase, "a lie repeated often enough starts to sound like the truth."
Agreed -- to a point. Phishing is like the Internet equivalent of mugging, in that your money is taken involuntarily, but the fact is, you click the link that enables the phisher to get your cash. People have to be accountable for their own actions. I would give them full refunds, but then if I was PayPal I would flag their accounts and scrutinize every transaction from there on out for at least a year to make sure they didn't repeat the mistake. Maybe after their payments continue to be delayed by the extra processing, the users will think twice before clicking any link. And if they don't, and get bagged again, automatically shut down their account.
Predators always tend to be outnumbered 100 to 1 by prey... which is why the predator becomes a consummate hunter and picks on the weak elements of the herd. No different on the Internet. The spammers and phishers are probably outnumbered 100,000 to 1, but as long as the continue to prey on the weak elements of society (read: the tech un-savvy), they will continue to prosper and flourish. They only way to make it harder for them is to change the environment they are operating in... or hunt them down.
But we knew this. Ubuntu is better than most but still not to the point that someone can just point-and-click their way to operability. I full intend to use it on an old HP box I have (assuming I ever get a couple of hours some weekend, but I digress...), because from everything I've read, it seems like the best distro for someone just starting out with Linux. Linux is not there yet but gets closer all the time. It won't be many more years before it starts to show up on the radar screen of consumers, and then the true battle for OS supremacy will begin.
Strangely, I never said anything about the Iranians wanting the United States to invade their country. I said that according to the report, many Iranians are "pro-American". They would rather have peaceful relations with the United States than the current nuclear brinksmanship that is being practiced by their government. I was just wondering: if that's the case, why aren't they taking bigger steps to do something about it?
I heard on NPR last week, from an Iranian who had returned from visiting family, that there is a large contingent of the population that is pro-American and is looking for better relations with the rest of the world. But if that's the case, why has there been no real groundswell to remove the current government? I know, I know... the bad guys have the guns. However, if they can get the guns (and more importantly, ship them to Iraq), surely those Iranians who want regime change can take matters into their own hands.
Assuming he wasn't lying about being the 20th hijacker because he was feeding his own ego. I have never seen or read anything that indicates the Government had phone records indicating that the 9/11 group communicated with each other by phone on a regular basis. If they did, they might have done it through pay phones. Even if you know who the bad guys are, it doesn't mean you're going to learn anything by listening to them.
Of course, if you got XP pre-installed, you may never know about it. I'm pretty sure the average user may be unaware that Microsoft is busy mucking about behind the scenes. That's why I keep my machine switched off when I'm not using it.
You don't know who the bad guys are when it comes to potential terrorists, any more than you know who is a wife-beater, a tax cheat, a rapist, or any other malfeasant character. When I walk down the street, how do I know the next person I meet isn't going to pull out a knife and stab me? Either you have to be paranoid, assume that everyone is guilty, then start exonerating/condemning people, or you have to assume everyone is decent, and start looking for overt signs that they are not. I say overt, because the 9/11 hijackers did a pretty good job blending in to their surroundings, and only certain aspects of their behavior (e.g. riding in a jumbo jet flight simulator and telling an instructor they only wanted to learn how to fly it, not land it) marked them as suspect. Whould surveillance have tipped anyone off? Sure... if anyone had actually known where they were.
Look, you have to pick your poison. I don't want to live in a police state. I don't like the idea that people I do not know and have no idea if I can trust are watching me, listening to me, judging me. I'm not the world's best person -- I do bad things. Does that make me a potential terrorist? No. But while someone in the government is busy wasting time watching me, the guy five cities away with a bomb-making factory in his garage is getting busy. The Oklahoma City Bombing should have taught us that ultimately it's futile to think you can see things like this coming. If someone is determined enough, fanatical enough, and smart enough, they will get past any kind of spying/surveillance you can think of.
As a result, there is a huge interest in the technology from the military as well as energy researchers who believe the lasers could be used to kick-start nuclear fusion in a reactor.
Well, I'm not sure if letting the military get their hands on it is such a good thing, but the use to initiate nuclear fusion could be the key to cleaner power for everyone. The hardest part of initiating fusion has been pouring enough energy in to start the reaction and allow it to become self-sustaining. This discovery might lead to technology capable of generating the necessary energy.
Theoretically, ethics start with your parents. You get your original ethics template from them by watching what they do. You can try to overlay a code of ethics over that, and if the individual is flexible enough it might help reinforce the need for security or override a natural tendency to want to violate the rules, but more often than not a code of ethics is just so many words. It's up to the individual to determine right from wrong in their own mind, based on personal and societal cues. If someone is going to snoop through company data, they're probably going to do it. If they discover something illegal in their snooping, they're going to have to weigh their ethics against the ethics of those perpetrating the illegal action.
In essence that's the problem here: Stallman has always been on a mission to make computers and their software free and accessible, without a lot of restrictions as to what you can do with the software. Linus has just been trying to build on and improve an operating system -- he doesn't put himself out in front, but seems to recognize that people are going to ask his opinion because of his position with Linux.
The Statement of Claim from the company alleges that Simon Wright allowed statements "relating to the Plaintiff and its software product that are both false and malicious" to be published on the Whirlpool forums.
Yes, I can see him sitting there, reading the articles, nodding his head, and going "Yeah, let's burn 'em!" Honestly, I'm pretty sure this is going nowhere. Has it suddenly dawned on companies that people are saying bad things about them? Software companies shouldn't be surprised -- look at the lambasting that Microsoft takes on a daily basis. I suspect the statements are true and 2Clix just doesn't want anyone to know about it.
Pumping fuel in a zero-gravity environment is not like pumping gas at your gas station. More often, a secondary substance is needed to force the fuel to move, like helium. That also has to be kept aboard in pressurized tanks in a liquid state, which brings about its own set of problems. You also have to take into account the differential heating/cooling that takes place as the satellite rotates and moves about in its orbit, which adds stresses to the system. And let's not forget this all requires more mass for the satellite, increasing the cost of the satellite and the cost of launching it.
Yes, he was being candid. Does that make him a loon? No. Look, half the trouble with domestic surveillance and spying in general is that people know it's going on, in their hearts they know it's an important source of information to prevent bad things from happening, but their psyches can't get wrapped around the idea that someone may be watching them. Take work for example -- you hear stories all the time about people being caught at work doing illegal things, usually because of emails or browsing records or surveillance video. Most of us are being spied on in the workplace and a) think nothing of it, b) are blissfully unaware of it, or c) are skeeved out by it. The vast majority of people fall into a) and b). The same holds true for what the NSA, CIA, FBI, etc. do. But it's one thing when it's your employer spies on you -- you can always change jobs. It's another thing entirely when it is your government, working behind closed doors in a nebulous fashion and screeching "State Secrets!" with every other breath.
I think he was trying to let out enough information that some people might have their fears somewhat allayed. Of course he couldn't say too much without going into details that would compromise operations or get into hot water with the White House, but he did the best he could.
Slashdot Mirror
True, but astronauts are notoriously wary of doctors and psychologists, because they are the two people whose office you can walk into an astronaut and walk out grounded. And can you imagine being a psych specialist on a Mars mission, being cooped up with the crew for 90+ days, them knowing part of your job is to evaluate their mental state? Of course you'd have to have other functions, because the cost of a Mars mission will be high enough that no one will be able to justify the cost of sending a psychologist along solely to monitor the crew.
I don't think a Psych degree counts... so I'm out of the running; I won't even belabor the fact that I'm not in any kind of shape for it. And no, $60K isn't a lot considering the work an astronaut does. Most astronauts spend their lives trying to make money other ways, with mixed results. The Mercury 7 were blessed in the beginning by having their exclusive contract with Life magazine that supplemented their income, and due to their fame, they received more than their fair share of perks. I don't think astronauts today have it quite so good, which is a shame.
Citing his vast experience, General Motors has announced Darl McBride is being named CEO, in hopes of ramping up flagging sales of GM products by suing Honda and Ford.
Which just goes to show what psychologists have known for years: the mob is fickle and easily incited. All you have to do is chant "child porn" and point a finger and the dogs are all over you. What hurts with something like that is that information on the Internet has permanence unlike anything else, which mans even if you clear up a misconception, misunderstanding, or outright fraud, the original information continues to exist and people will still believe. To paraphrase, "a lie repeated often enough starts to sound like the truth."
Agreed -- to a point. Phishing is like the Internet equivalent of mugging, in that your money is taken involuntarily, but the fact is, you click the link that enables the phisher to get your cash. People have to be accountable for their own actions. I would give them full refunds, but then if I was PayPal I would flag their accounts and scrutinize every transaction from there on out for at least a year to make sure they didn't repeat the mistake. Maybe after their payments continue to be delayed by the extra processing, the users will think twice before clicking any link. And if they don't, and get bagged again, automatically shut down their account.
See also:
Predators always tend to be outnumbered 100 to 1 by prey... which is why the predator becomes a consummate hunter and picks on the weak elements of the herd. No different on the Internet. The spammers and phishers are probably outnumbered 100,000 to 1, but as long as the continue to prey on the weak elements of society (read: the tech un-savvy), they will continue to prosper and flourish. They only way to make it harder for them is to change the environment they are operating in... or hunt them down.
...for hiring robots. Unless of course the robots are infected with a computer virus...
But we knew this. Ubuntu is better than most but still not to the point that someone can just point-and-click their way to operability. I full intend to use it on an old HP box I have (assuming I ever get a couple of hours some weekend, but I digress...), because from everything I've read, it seems like the best distro for someone just starting out with Linux. Linux is not there yet but gets closer all the time. It won't be many more years before it starts to show up on the radar screen of consumers, and then the true battle for OS supremacy will begin.
Strangely, I never said anything about the Iranians wanting the United States to invade their country. I said that according to the report, many Iranians are "pro-American". They would rather have peaceful relations with the United States than the current nuclear brinksmanship that is being practiced by their government. I was just wondering: if that's the case, why aren't they taking bigger steps to do something about it?
Gee... all the news outlets were reporting that Iraq had WMDs... I believe they got their information from the US Government...
I heard on NPR last week, from an Iranian who had returned from visiting family, that there is a large contingent of the population that is pro-American and is looking for better relations with the rest of the world. But if that's the case, why has there been no real groundswell to remove the current government? I know, I know... the bad guys have the guns. However, if they can get the guns (and more importantly, ship them to Iraq), surely those Iranians who want regime change can take matters into their own hands.
It's "pfishing"...
Assuming he wasn't lying about being the 20th hijacker because he was feeding his own ego. I have never seen or read anything that indicates the Government had phone records indicating that the 9/11 group communicated with each other by phone on a regular basis. If they did, they might have done it through pay phones. Even if you know who the bad guys are, it doesn't mean you're going to learn anything by listening to them.
Of course, if you got XP pre-installed, you may never know about it. I'm pretty sure the average user may be unaware that Microsoft is busy mucking about behind the scenes. That's why I keep my machine switched off when I'm not using it.
You don't know who the bad guys are when it comes to potential terrorists, any more than you know who is a wife-beater, a tax cheat, a rapist, or any other malfeasant character. When I walk down the street, how do I know the next person I meet isn't going to pull out a knife and stab me? Either you have to be paranoid, assume that everyone is guilty, then start exonerating/condemning people, or you have to assume everyone is decent, and start looking for overt signs that they are not. I say overt, because the 9/11 hijackers did a pretty good job blending in to their surroundings, and only certain aspects of their behavior (e.g. riding in a jumbo jet flight simulator and telling an instructor they only wanted to learn how to fly it, not land it) marked them as suspect. Whould surveillance have tipped anyone off? Sure... if anyone had actually known where they were.
Look, you have to pick your poison. I don't want to live in a police state. I don't like the idea that people I do not know and have no idea if I can trust are watching me, listening to me, judging me. I'm not the world's best person -- I do bad things. Does that make me a potential terrorist? No. But while someone in the government is busy wasting time watching me, the guy five cities away with a bomb-making factory in his garage is getting busy. The Oklahoma City Bombing should have taught us that ultimately it's futile to think you can see things like this coming. If someone is determined enough, fanatical enough, and smart enough, they will get past any kind of spying/surveillance you can think of.
I'd actually rather have them watching the bad guys' every move.
Well, I'm not sure if letting the military get their hands on it is such a good thing, but the use to initiate nuclear fusion could be the key to cleaner power for everyone. The hardest part of initiating fusion has been pouring enough energy in to start the reaction and allow it to become self-sustaining. This discovery might lead to technology capable of generating the necessary energy.
Theoretically, ethics start with your parents. You get your original ethics template from them by watching what they do. You can try to overlay a code of ethics over that, and if the individual is flexible enough it might help reinforce the need for security or override a natural tendency to want to violate the rules, but more often than not a code of ethics is just so many words. It's up to the individual to determine right from wrong in their own mind, based on personal and societal cues. If someone is going to snoop through company data, they're probably going to do it. If they discover something illegal in their snooping, they're going to have to weigh their ethics against the ethics of those perpetrating the illegal action.
Can I downgrade to DOS 5 instead? Why, the productivity gains alone would be worth it! And I suspect it's not nearly as bloated as Vista.
In essence that's the problem here: Stallman has always been on a mission to make computers and their software free and accessible, without a lot of restrictions as to what you can do with the software. Linus has just been trying to build on and improve an operating system -- he doesn't put himself out in front, but seems to recognize that people are going to ask his opinion because of his position with Linux.
Yes, I can see him sitting there, reading the articles, nodding his head, and going "Yeah, let's burn 'em!" Honestly, I'm pretty sure this is going nowhere. Has it suddenly dawned on companies that people are saying bad things about them? Software companies shouldn't be surprised -- look at the lambasting that Microsoft takes on a daily basis. I suspect the statements are true and 2Clix just doesn't want anyone to know about it.
Pumping fuel in a zero-gravity environment is not like pumping gas at your gas station. More often, a secondary substance is needed to force the fuel to move, like helium. That also has to be kept aboard in pressurized tanks in a liquid state, which brings about its own set of problems. You also have to take into account the differential heating/cooling that takes place as the satellite rotates and moves about in its orbit, which adds stresses to the system. And let's not forget this all requires more mass for the satellite, increasing the cost of the satellite and the cost of launching it.
So, as others have said, this is rocket science.
Yes, he was being candid. Does that make him a loon? No. Look, half the trouble with domestic surveillance and spying in general is that people know it's going on, in their hearts they know it's an important source of information to prevent bad things from happening, but their psyches can't get wrapped around the idea that someone may be watching them. Take work for example -- you hear stories all the time about people being caught at work doing illegal things, usually because of emails or browsing records or surveillance video. Most of us are being spied on in the workplace and a) think nothing of it, b) are blissfully unaware of it, or c) are skeeved out by it. The vast majority of people fall into a) and b). The same holds true for what the NSA, CIA, FBI, etc. do. But it's one thing when it's your employer spies on you -- you can always change jobs. It's another thing entirely when it is your government, working behind closed doors in a nebulous fashion and screeching "State Secrets!" with every other breath.
I think he was trying to let out enough information that some people might have their fears somewhat allayed. Of course he couldn't say too much without going into details that would compromise operations or get into hot water with the White House, but he did the best he could.
Not for lack of trying.