We don't know who struck first, us or them. But we do know it was us that scorched the sky. At the time, they were dependent on solar power. It was believed they would be unable to survive without an energy source as abundant as the sun.
I was thinking about a French horn (instrument) and the first link brings me to a society about them. The next three links, however, do not. You might say, "Well, gee, you should have put 'French' in your search" but is this really necessary?
Unless there is only one meaning for a word or the computer can read your mind you're going to have to be more specific. I don't see how any kind of technological advance can ever enable a computer to know which kind of horn you want without being told.
I don't understand the problem.
on
The CVS Cop-Out
·
· Score: 1
If you're a novice user, complain to your distro. If rhythmbox couldn't play m4a files in Red Hat, they would patch it through up2date, or at least offer RPMs somewhere.
The abuses that could stem from a centralized system of identification are absolutely mind-boggling. Before we launch into that however, we ought to take a second and consider exactly what it is that we're in jeopardy of losing, don't you think?
The fourth amendment says:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
What this effectively creates is a system of enforcement which makes the law enforcement play at a disadvantage. This was created because our founding fathers did not trust government not to oppress its citizens.
One of the biggest points that most people don't get about the constitution and the bill of rights is that it provides allowances for people to get away with crimes. This is a necessary step because 100% enforcement of all laws is both the natural goal of any government AND the very definition of the most orwellian of hells. The founding fathers decided to draw the line somewhere to even the playing field between citizen and government. If you break copyright laws within your home or among your friends, smoke some pot in your basement, or anonymously leak some piece of government information to the press, THE LEVEL OF INVASION REQUIRED TO CONVICT THOSE CRIMES OUTWEIGHS THE EVIL OF THOSE CRIMES GOING UNPUNISHED.
Furthermore, this relies on eyewhitnesses, regular people, to report crimes and turn people in. This is precisely in step with the principle of the jury trial: all power is mitigated by the complicity of the populace and the human error and decentralization of the enforcement. Yes, that means that there are situations where murderers and rapists and all manner of other evil people are going to get away with things. This is the price we must pay to maintain a sane government.
With that said, here's why the mandatory ID is a horrendous idea: by creating these IDs we are taking the first step into the machine. We will all be inventoried in an absolutely literal way. Once this happens at a national level, it becomes possible for diverse sources of information to be correlated with unprecedented precision. As soon as this becomes possible, the government will necessarily, naturally, perhaps gradually begin to use it to fight drugs, or crime, or terrorism, or whatever evil they're spouting about at the moment.
Just consider it. A single database with an ID number for every citizen in the united states. At that point it is so, SO very easy to start associating things:
* Library Records * Internet History * Criminal Records * Taxes * Credit Card Purchases * Driving Records
But that's not even the beginning. What happens when we start using this thing on a day-to-day convenience level?
* Swipe it at the metro * Swipe it at the grocery store * Wave it through the toll booths
Or, hell, just put a RFID chip into the thing. Imagine: you'd be able to just walk into a library, pick up some books, and walk out...the books are automatically checked out via RFID. You could fill your cart up at the supermarket and just walk out the door. Instantly, the balance is deducted from your credit card. The police could fire up a scanner at a football game and get a list of every person who's been to the middle east in the last year. They could just deduct all of your taxes as you go; what would there be to report come April?
On some level, we're all guilty of something. Some of us like weird porn. Some of us lie about things. Some of us hate people and wish them dead. Some of us hate people because of the color of their skin. Some of us are friends with drug dealers and terrorists. Some of us are Communists. Some of us break encryption.
If you add up enough information about anyone, they're guilty of w
Isn't that basically what "trusted computing" aims to accomplish?
Honestly, I just don't think there's a substitute for OS security. If a company can't stop your OS from being hijacked, there's no reason to think adding more layers of complexity to the system will help anything.
A lot of times, especially in work environments, knowing what your peers think is very important. Whenever we're talking about some kind of new project or device or program or whatever, the first thing I do is figure out what the standard, accepted way of doing things is. Most of the time, and especially in terms of technology, the approach of a majority of your peers is going to be the best-documented and -supported approach.
Thinking outside the box is always nice, but it's important to know where the box is and have a good reason for rejecting what others have done before you.
MMOs leave you with nothing once you step away from the machine. Although characters and enemies get stronger, the relationship between you and your enemy is precisely fixed, and it stays that way throughout the length of the game. Furthermore, there is a system of diminishing returns on all MMOs to stop people from reaching the end when the game makers run out of content.
One day, if you're lucky, you realize you're just feeding the basal human instinct for acquisition without anything to show for it. MMOs do not have room for improvement. Your stats increase but you aren't getting "better" at anything.
When you absolutely *nail* a difficult solo on a guitar, or rip up the solo violin part of Mendelssohn's Violin Concerto in E minor with a whole orchestra behind you, it is fulfilling in a way owning Rag will never be. Believe me, I've done all three.
It takes years to get good enough at anything to start seeing that kind of return, but once you get a taste of it you won't ever confuse one for the other.
If you're just trying to ensure a smooth project......and dealing with strict OO code, I would write the class structures and high-level organizational code yourself with input from your partner. Then divvy up the implementation, taking the lion's share on yourself....and a writing web-based application, I would talk over the application together, write the "heavy duty" database / backend code myself, and then leave him to do the presentation.
On the other hand, if you really want your partner to get as much out of it as possible...
I would take some of the suggestions other people around here have offered. Write some tests or interfaces for the difficult code, and give him as much or little guidance as you deem helpful.
In any situation, though, I think the most important thing is that your partner has the ability to see criteria for success and test against them. If he doesn't know what he's trying to produce, he's not going to be productive. If you want to be a nice guy and expose him to the actual parameters and concepts of the assignment, good for you, but that means understanding the project fully enough to explain it simply in ADDITION to doing the gruntwork that he won't have time to do. If you just want to get this thing done as fast as possible, give him a lot of methods to implement ( foo(x,y)//takes two strings and xors x against y ) and some test data.
I was always cynical about my CS education and basically threw as much grunt work at my partners as possible and then blew through the other 80% of the project the night before just to make them nervous. YMMV depending on whether or not you are a disillusioned 18-year-old me who had no idea why he was blowing through his parents money at some academic institution when he was ready for a Real Job before he started high school.
OK guys. The government is literally, unabashedly making automated drones for domestic surveilance....it's like hey guys, here are some neat robots we're going to use to spy on you with. This is literally, undeniably, frighteningly Orwellian.
Of course, journalists must be up in arms over this, right? Yes! Finally, our free press is holding our government accountable!
Oh wait. No.
"That raises not just privacy concerns," but [ insert a whole screenful of blather about how the FAA might have trouble "integrating" these drones into their flight paths. ]
Next we'll be seeing articles about how digital media companies are rushing to produce products that cut back on that pesky echo in your phones due to all the government wiretaps. "It raises not just privacy concerns, but audio fidelity ones as well!"
"Over a cup of tea on Carmine Street, NYU junior Inga Chernyak explains how to break current copyright law. All it takes, Chernyak explains, is one finger on the Shift key while you put a CD in your computer, disabling corporate-installed software designed to prevent you from copying music. Just downloading a fairly purchased, DRM-protected CD from a laptop to an iPod amounts, in most cases, to a federal misdemeanor. "If I bought a CD that had DRM"--the software that blocks duplication--"I would obviate it," Chernyak says, carefully. "If there are laws I believe are wrong, I will break them." And she's just talking about Shift keys."
Let's say you own a law firm that works for sony.
Is this the kind of person you want working at your firm?
This is like working in the narcotics department of a police station and then having an article widely published about how you like to smoke dope on the weekend, giving instructions to the readers on how to grow your own.
She publicly stated that her views are not just different to, but DIRECTLY opposed to the aims of her employer. I would not trust her to not to be subversive at the company she works for, and I agree with her employer's decision.
Although those web sites are great for people who read slashdot and are comfortable using microsoft beta software, that doesn't do anything to help the other 99.999% of the population.
If it doesn't get pushed out on windows update, it doesn't get installed on the machines of people who need it most. If it doesn't get installed, I can guarantee you ONE of my friends is going to come to me with a hosed computer.
Slashdot Mirror
So is gravity.
We don't know who struck first, us or them. But we do know it was us that scorched the sky. At the time, they were dependent on solar power. It was believed they would be unable to survive without an energy source as abundant as the sun.
Except digg has a typo:
"for advance audience"
And slashdot does not.
It's a cold day in hell.
No No No No No.
No way. Make it stop. Make it stop!
If you're a novice user, complain to your distro. If rhythmbox couldn't play m4a files in Red Hat, they would patch it through up2date, or at least offer RPMs somewhere.
If you're an expert user, then pull it from cvs.
The abuses that could stem from a centralized system of identification are absolutely mind-boggling. Before we launch into that however, we ought to take a second and consider exactly what it is that we're in jeopardy of losing, don't you think?
The fourth amendment says:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
What this effectively creates is a system of enforcement which makes the law enforcement play at a disadvantage. This was created because our founding fathers did not trust government not to oppress its citizens.
One of the biggest points that most people don't get about the constitution and the bill of rights is that it provides allowances for people to get away with crimes. This is a necessary step because 100% enforcement of all laws is both the natural goal of any government AND the very definition of the most orwellian of hells. The founding fathers decided to draw the line somewhere to even the playing field between citizen and government. If you break copyright laws within your home or among your friends, smoke some pot in your basement, or anonymously leak some piece of government information to the press, THE LEVEL OF INVASION REQUIRED TO CONVICT THOSE CRIMES OUTWEIGHS THE EVIL OF THOSE CRIMES GOING UNPUNISHED.
Furthermore, this relies on eyewhitnesses, regular people, to report crimes and turn people in. This is precisely in step with the principle of the jury trial: all power is mitigated by the complicity of the populace and the human error and decentralization of the enforcement. Yes, that means that there are situations where murderers and rapists and all manner of other evil people are going to get away with things. This is the price we must pay to maintain a sane government.
With that said, here's why the mandatory ID is a horrendous idea: by creating these IDs we are taking the first step into the machine. We will all be inventoried in an absolutely literal way. Once this happens at a national level, it becomes possible for diverse sources of information to be correlated with unprecedented precision. As soon as this becomes possible, the government will necessarily, naturally, perhaps gradually begin to use it to fight drugs, or crime, or terrorism, or whatever evil they're spouting about at the moment.
Just consider it. A single database with an ID number for every citizen in the united states. At that point it is so, SO very easy to start associating things:
* Library Records
* Internet History
* Criminal Records
* Taxes
* Credit Card Purchases
* Driving Records
But that's not even the beginning. What happens when we start using this thing on a day-to-day convenience level?
* Swipe it at the metro
* Swipe it at the grocery store
* Wave it through the toll booths
Or, hell, just put a RFID chip into the thing. Imagine: you'd be able to just walk into a library, pick up some books, and walk out...the books are automatically checked out via RFID. You could fill your cart up at the supermarket and just walk out the door. Instantly, the balance is deducted from your credit card. The police could fire up a scanner at a football game and get a list of every person who's been to the middle east in the last year. They could just deduct all of your taxes as you go; what would there be to report come April?
On some level, we're all guilty of something. Some of us like weird porn. Some of us lie about things. Some of us hate people and wish them dead. Some of us hate people because of the color of their skin. Some of us are friends with drug dealers and terrorists. Some of us are Communists. Some of us break encryption.
If you add up enough information about anyone, they're guilty of w
20$ says this is for the video ipod.
Isn't that basically what "trusted computing" aims to accomplish?
Honestly, I just don't think there's a substitute for OS security. If a company can't stop your OS from being hijacked, there's no reason to think adding more layers of complexity to the system will help anything.
Momentarily confuse "bird-dogging" with "prarie-dogging"? I was like...wtf, how's that supposed to help.
A lot of times, especially in work environments, knowing what your peers think is very important. Whenever we're talking about some kind of new project or device or program or whatever, the first thing I do is figure out what the standard, accepted way of doing things is. Most of the time, and especially in terms of technology, the approach of a majority of your peers is going to be the best-documented and -supported approach.
Thinking outside the box is always nice, but it's important to know where the box is and have a good reason for rejecting what others have done before you.
This seemed particularly relevant.
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
MMOs leave you with nothing once you step away from the machine. Although characters and enemies get stronger, the relationship between you and your enemy is precisely fixed, and it stays that way throughout the length of the game. Furthermore, there is a system of diminishing returns on all MMOs to stop people from reaching the end when the game makers run out of content.
One day, if you're lucky, you realize you're just feeding the basal human instinct for acquisition without anything to show for it. MMOs do not have room for improvement. Your stats increase but you aren't getting "better" at anything.
When you absolutely *nail* a difficult solo on a guitar, or rip up the solo violin part of Mendelssohn's Violin Concerto in E minor with a whole orchestra behind you, it is fulfilling in a way owning Rag will never be. Believe me, I've done all three.
It takes years to get good enough at anything to start seeing that kind of return, but once you get a taste of it you won't ever confuse one for the other.
It depends on your methodology and goals.
...and dealing with strict OO code, I would write the class structures and high-level organizational code yourself with input from your partner. Then divvy up the implementation, taking the lion's share on yourself. ...and a writing web-based application, I would talk over the application together, write the "heavy duty" database / backend code myself, and then leave him to do the presentation.
//takes two strings and xors x against y ) and some test data.
If you're just trying to ensure a smooth project...
On the other hand, if you really want your partner to get as much out of it as possible...
I would take some of the suggestions other people around here have offered. Write some tests or interfaces for the difficult code, and give him as much or little guidance as you deem helpful.
In any situation, though, I think the most important thing is that your partner has the ability to see criteria for success and test against them. If he doesn't know what he's trying to produce, he's not going to be productive. If you want to be a nice guy and expose him to the actual parameters and concepts of the assignment, good for you, but that means understanding the project fully enough to explain it simply in ADDITION to doing the gruntwork that he won't have time to do. If you just want to get this thing done as fast as possible, give him a lot of methods to implement ( foo(x,y)
I was always cynical about my CS education and basically threw as much grunt work at my partners as possible and then blew through the other 80% of the project the night before just to make them nervous. YMMV depending on whether or not you are a disillusioned 18-year-old me who had no idea why he was blowing through his parents money at some academic institution when he was ready for a Real Job before he started high school.
OK guys. The government is literally, unabashedly making automated drones for domestic surveilance....it's like hey guys, here are some neat robots we're going to use to spy on you with. This is literally, undeniably, frighteningly Orwellian.
Of course, journalists must be up in arms over this, right? Yes! Finally, our free press is holding our government accountable!
Oh wait. No.
"That raises not just privacy concerns," but [ insert a whole screenful of blather about how the FAA might have trouble "integrating" these drones into their flight paths. ]
Next we'll be seeing articles about how digital media companies are rushing to produce products that cut back on that pesky echo in your phones due to all the government wiretaps. "It raises not just privacy concerns, but audio fidelity ones as well!"
I was right with you up until the whole jello thing....
That's one of the most insightful commnents I've read on /. in a long time. Thanks.
Parts of that are from a language I understand, and parts of it sound like a box of squirrels being whirled about in a tornado.
Yeah, and in six months, I'll have a first post.
I don't believe it for a second.
Am I the only one who read that as "Men's wrong perspectives on Antispam"?
I clicked the link hoping for a feminist IT diatribe, and all I get is a lousy interview. Lame.
Either that or placement of german sports cars that is indicative of SEO meddling...
"Over a cup of tea on Carmine Street, NYU junior Inga Chernyak explains how to break current copyright law. All it takes, Chernyak explains, is one finger on the Shift key while you put a CD in your computer, disabling corporate-installed software designed to prevent you from copying music. Just downloading a fairly purchased, DRM-protected CD from a laptop to an iPod amounts, in most cases, to a federal misdemeanor. "If I bought a CD that had DRM"--the software that blocks duplication--"I would obviate it," Chernyak says, carefully. "If there are laws I believe are wrong, I will break them." And she's just talking about Shift keys."
Let's say you own a law firm that works for sony.
Is this the kind of person you want working at your firm?
This is like working in the narcotics department of a police station and then having an article widely published about how you like to smoke dope on the weekend, giving instructions to the readers on how to grow your own.
She publicly stated that her views are not just different to, but DIRECTLY opposed to the aims of her employer. I would not trust her to not to be subversive at the company she works for, and I agree with her employer's decision.
Although those web sites are great for people who read slashdot and are comfortable using microsoft beta software, that doesn't do anything to help the other 99.999% of the population.
If it doesn't get pushed out on windows update, it doesn't get installed on the machines of people who need it most. If it doesn't get installed, I can guarantee you ONE of my friends is going to come to me with a hosed computer.
I find it absolutely impossible to believe that people are incapable of writing a single sentance without making a mistake.
1) No.
2) Yes.