Yeah that is a problem. Although some evidence suggests that if new sense were wired into an existing area it would compensate. You'd have reduced capacity in whatever sense you took over, but it would allow for a whole new sense. Of course I'd expect that if we're at the stage of direct neural interfaces, then adding a new hunk of brain to handle the input shouldn't be terribly hard.
Someone call me when they actually manage to give someone new senses, instead of overlaying a new sense on top of an existing one. It's all well and good to do something like this as an experiment, but it's just a stepping stone. The real progress will come when they can do a direct neural hookup without having to come up with some way of translating incoming data into some format that can be expressed using an existing sense.
I haven't tried it, but I think that Thinkpads can't be reset that way because the passwords are saved in the EEPROM and you have to replace the motherboard if you lose your password (which probably only the manufacturer can do)
Or rewrite the EEPROM. Of course at that point you need two things, one is a EEPROM writer (bit pricey for your run of the mill crook), and two is a copy of the BIOS without a password set. Wouldn't suprise me at all to find out that that second item already exists for download somewhere, but barring that you could always just buy a new motherboard and pull it off there. It's doable, but a pain in the butt, which is ultimately what PC security is all about.
so the thief can't use it such that it's worthless to him:)
At least until he pulls the CMOS battery. With unfettered physical access to the hardware, there is no possible way to secure it completely. You can make the job tougher by having custom hardware that does things like put a bunch of chips into one of those surface mount resin blobs you see in some cheap consumer gadgets, but even those can be gotten around with enough effort.
It's much harder to get oil out of Russia. Plus Muslims and Arabs are much easier to target than some nebulous Russian Gangs. And as the final straw, it's a lot easier to scare joe sixpack that some ebil terrorist is going to blow up his minivan, than some Russian Gang is going to DDoS his non-existant website.
only to be told we didn't actually own product Y, and owed ass-loads of money to Company Z."
Actually they knew they owed ass-loads of money to Company Z, but they were hoping if they closed their eyes and imagined really hard that they didn't, that it would just sort of go away.
Baring that I'm sure they had some sort if twisted idea that after they won two metric fuck-tons of money from suing company A, and B, that they could then turn around and figure out some way to sue company Z, or at least annoy them enough that they forgot about all that money.
what music company would touch this guy with a barge pole now anyway? I sure wouldn't
Based on his comments and actions now and in the past, I'm sure he's really broken up about that.
NIN is in a very good position right now. They're well known, they have a following, and honestly they do really good work. Will his circulation go down a bit if they aren't on a major label? Probably. Will they care? Not really. They'll still be making music and distributing it, but it will be on their terms.
Read it, and wasn't impressed. No self consistency, and it totally ignores several well founded principles of physics. Also I understand it's been heavily edited over the years, and there are several contradictory versions floating around. Sounds like it needs more peer review to me.
I would really like for you to look it up for me. Really.
For one example check out the Eastern Airlines Bankruptcy of 1989. True, there were other factors involved, but leading up to the filing of chapter 11 were a series of strikes, with the final mechanics strike pushed it over the edge.
That loader requires that the computer already be turned on, which has nothing to do with what I said. The point behind password protecting system boot is to make sure that the only time the computer gets used is when access to it can be reasonably supervised.
Ah, ok, I see that now. I made some assumptions about your point based on the question actually being asked. I don't think your solution, although possibly the most practical advice for preventing children from accessing material the parents would rather they not, really meets the spirit of the question being asked. The poster is essentially looking for software that can be run to supervise computer activity without needing a parent actually present, which as has been pointed out by everybody including the original poster of the question, simply not happening.
If the lock used to lock the case shut was remotely decent, the only way someone else will be able to use the computer is to break either the lock or the case or both.
Bypassed and quite easily at that. Just accept defeat on this pointless fight and move on to more important things.
Perhaps not burn the money but the government could take that money out of circulation.
Same thing basically. Can't burn what doesn't exist. Only something like 10% of all the "money" in the US actually exists as physical money you can hold. The remaining 90% is just figures on ledgers and bits in computers that the various companies and banks trade with each other. In theory they actually could go request that money in cash, but in practice the federal reserve would have to go print some more money to meet that demand.
Assuming you're both right... Isn't it great when a system just works?
Biggest problem with a Union is it effectively introduces a third party into the mix with its own goals and motives. There is a long tradition of employers screwing over employees, the employees forming a union, and then the union screwing over the employer and the employees. I would have to go look it up to give you specific names, but I do know there have been several instances where unions have caused strikes to drag on to the point where companies have gone out of business because even though the employer and employees had come up with a compromise they both agreed on, the union wasn't willing to settle for it.
After a while you reach an equilibrium between drag and engine power where it won't accelerate anymore (if your gearing is sane). Unless you're driving a jet powered vehicle. Near as I know they've never determined an absolute top speed on that jet motorcycle Jay Leno owns. I imagine it would probably be something around the sound barrier at which point the bow shock would probably cause the person driving to lose balance and wipe out. Of course that's also assuming no other physical failure before that point, such as the tires disintegrating. If I remember correctly the biggest problem they've seen with more traditional vehicles trying to go super-sonic while on the ground was that the pressure wave at the front tended to get under the vehicle and flip it over.
Reread the license. You have given consent to this sort of shit.
In one of TFA the author mentions looking through at least the Vista license and failed to find anything in the license giving MS permission to perform updates without user consent. So, no, it's not in the license, and they did not have permission.
Note to self, preview more. Maybe the next change they could make to slashdot would flag unmatched tags and reject the post? That seems like something useful to do.
It's an apples and oranges thing. Performing a physical service entails an expenditure of effort on your part, and is a one time thing. Just because you changed the oil in one car, doesn't mean suddenly every other car gets its oil changed. Creating a work such as a program or book is also an expenditure of effort, but is not a one time thing. Once the effort of creating it has been done, it's effectively free to everybody else baring some kind of legal provision against it's free distribution. The whole idea of copyright is to try to put creative endeavors on par with physical ones so that both can be equally profitable, and thus both make economic sense to pursue.
And with the application of IP law, I could prohibit anyone from changing their own oil. Break the seal on the plug, go to jail.
IP law, which at this point is mostly just the DMCA, is wrong, and I'm in no way advocating it.
However applying my analogy to copyright would mean that I should receive a royalty payment for 75 years after I change your oil.
You're analogy doesn't work because you actually had to do something in order to change that oil, you performed a service. And presumably you got paid for it as well. A more accurate way of applying your analogy to changing oil would be to say no one is allowed to charge anything for changing oil. Lets see how many JiffyLubes or equivalent are in existence after that law goes into effect. Better be prepared to be doing your own oil changes.
At last, someone making intelligent counterpoints. You are right about the medicines using patent law rather than copyright, although I think going back to the origin of all this the guy pushing for abolishing copyright would be equally against patents. My mistake for not properly thinking through the difference between patent and copyright.
But I'm guessing that most of them could be preserved by giving away the software, and charging for services (such as online multiplayer play).
That is an excellent example of one way of handling things, but it doesn't solve the problem of stand alone software. If the only way to make a profit off something was by services, everything would turn into an MMO. Or companies would go to 100% pure hosted applications, with all the nastiness that entails. No way for someone to redistribute your application if they never actually have a local copy of it.
Before there was copyright, people were motivated to create something out of need for the creation.
Under your belief system about copyright, freeware and OSS cannot exist.
I'm not saying motivation will not exist without copyright, but that it will be severely reduced. Programming will cease to exist as a profession and will become a hobby. OSS is great, I have contributed to several OSS projects myself. But that doesn't pay the bills, and I couldn't work as a programmer without copyright (well, I might be able to, but with a severely reduced job pool [only large corporations would be able to pay for programmers to create in house projects] the odds of being able to find employment would be slim). Also, with few professional programmers in existence the quality of software in general would be greatly reduced. Look at for instance all the hobbyist JavaScript sites that exist and the quality of code on those.
Copyright, as it was originally intended (although it's been severely modified since then) exists as a way to give an individual a temporary monopoly on an intangible work in order for them to be able to earn a monetary profit from it. Without copyright the only profit possible on an intangible work is one of personal gratification, and the quality and quantity of works created would be reflective of that.
I really like how you cherry picked some of my comments while ignoring others entirely, and then took most of that out of context. Yes people do things sometimes because they want to, but even that is a form of profit. They do it because they gain a sense of personal gratification, which I mentioned previously. However, because the production of any given piece of software (this applies to things other than software as well) requires the talent of many different individuals, as the size of the initiative increases the odds of it being seen to completion shrink.
So now you are going to put a price on SAVING a human life?! Yay for capitalism! Screw the long-term thinking of doing things for the greater good, and focus on the short term solution of making a quick buck.
Yes, welcome to the real world. Best get started working on that cure for cancer if your so giving. How about aids, made many breakthroughs there have you? What, people are dieing, don't you care, why aren't you studying biology right now? What do you do for a living? Does that help save lives? Do you donate all your money to charity? People will do things to help others out of generosity, because it makes them feel better about themselves, but don't be confused, it's still self serving. The world is not fair, and not everything is rose colored. Resources are limited, and peoples wants are unlimited. If you don't believe that, go try communism for a few decades and see how it turns out.
Allow companies to develow (sic.) a REAL, EFFECTIVE DRM system.
I cannot believe you have the balls to advocate DRM in of all places, slashdot. It has been shown time and time again that DRM can NEVER work, as it's inherently flawed. DRM is the answer to nothing. Copyright law, although being terribly abused at the moment (and the DMCA furthers that abuse), is at least a workable solution. Ultimately it depends on the ethics of the consumers backed by the teeth of the legal system. Abolishing copyright would not only prevent atrocities like the RIAA, but it would also destroy the good of things like the GPL.
The thought that an idea or information can be illegal is...just beyond stupid if you ask me.
I agree. It's not the idea of information that's the problem though, it's what people do with it.
Re:fun yes; groundbreaking no
on
BioShock Review
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Stealth as an option? Not really. You pretty much had to fight your way through the game.
If you mean stealth as in sneaking through levels without killing anything, then yes, that's not really an option. If however you meant being able to sneak around a take people out without being seen, then that is most definitely an option, and the way I've found myself playing. Ever since I got the camo tonic and a couple of the wrench power ups, I use stealth kills and the wrench almost exclusively. Nothing quite like sneaking up on a splicer and one shotting them with a wrench, or even better, sneaking up on a security camera and hacking it.
As for the ammo creation, yeah, that was kind of lame, but all in all, kind of understandable. If this had been an MMO, then conceivably they could have allowed you to randomly toss components together and see if it makes something useful (destroying the components in the process), but being a FPS with a somewhat limited playtime and therefore component count, it would have been just wasteful and frustrating to players to take that route. Players would just take the easy way ultimately and download a crafting guide telling them exactly what combinations made what which would potentially unbalance the game by allowing the crafting of very powerful items early in the game.
What I think they did a brilliant job of was setting up the atmosphere and providing enough interesting interactions between items to allow players different styles of play. I was quite surprised recently to discover for instance that the trap bolts can be used to take out security bots. A friend of mine also shared his approach to taking down big daddies (apparently tossing a barrel at them can take about half their health in one shot), which was something I hadn't even thought of.
There is a lot of depth to this game, but you need to know where to look. Enjoy it for what they did good on, and not necessarily what the hype lead you to believe it was going to deliver. Having not read any of the hype (well, I read some of what PA said about it) before I bought it, I'm thoroughly enjoying the game. I've also found the PC version to be fairly stable, even though I have had it lock up on me once (no blue screen, it just froze, think it may be a overall stability problem though as I had a problem in another game as well).
I'm a programmer, I make my living writing applications for various companies, and I get paid pretty well to do it because I posses specialized knowledge. I should point out also that at this time I don't work for a "software" company, but I'm writing applications for internal use. Assuming copyright was abolished, this would effectively kill off the entire software industry. Without copyright you would need to recoup the entire cost of an application on its first sale, which in the case of anything major could run into the millions. Effectively this means the only software that would ever be developed would be business applications. Take something like Halo 3, expected by all concerned to be a run away success, and with a huge development budget backing it on the assumption it will easily recoup all the invested money. Without copyright no one would be willing to fund it, because no consumers would be able to afford it. What's that, you want a Halo 3, no problem, just find a way to pay Bungie 10 million dollars, and you'll be the first kid on your block with a copy. Of course, after that you could easily just hand it out to all your friends for free, or you could try to sell it to them for I don't know, maybe 2 million a copy, but odds are they would then either resell it or give it away cheaper than you. It would ultimately turn into a pyramid game, first person to pony up the cash takes the biggest hit, tries to recoup by reselling, but ultimately gets undercut and never recoups the loss. Pretty quickly the ability to sell any given piece of software for more than $0 becomes impossible. Oh yes, this sounds like an excellent system.
Going to a system without copyright would quickly destroy any motivation to provide works not directly beneficial to major corporations (who could afford their huge development costs), or that aren't simple hobbyist pieces. The only thing of value would be physical goods, returning us to an industrial civilization. Way to bring back sweatshops. As an added bonus, medical research would be pretty useless as well. No point researching a drug to cure cancer, you couldn't sell it for more than 10 cents ultimately, so why bother. You seem to forget that people are greedy, and without motivation they don't work. There must be at least a reasonable hope of profit (either in the traditional sense, or as some sort of personal gratification) before someone is willing to undertake the effort.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah that is a problem. Although some evidence suggests that if new sense were wired into an existing area it would compensate. You'd have reduced capacity in whatever sense you took over, but it would allow for a whole new sense. Of course I'd expect that if we're at the stage of direct neural interfaces, then adding a new hunk of brain to handle the input shouldn't be terribly hard.
Someone call me when they actually manage to give someone new senses, instead of overlaying a new sense on top of an existing one. It's all well and good to do something like this as an experiment, but it's just a stepping stone. The real progress will come when they can do a direct neural hookup without having to come up with some way of translating incoming data into some format that can be expressed using an existing sense.
Or rewrite the EEPROM. Of course at that point you need two things, one is a EEPROM writer (bit pricey for your run of the mill crook), and two is a copy of the BIOS without a password set. Wouldn't suprise me at all to find out that that second item already exists for download somewhere, but barring that you could always just buy a new motherboard and pull it off there. It's doable, but a pain in the butt, which is ultimately what PC security is all about.
At least until he pulls the CMOS battery. With unfettered physical access to the hardware, there is no possible way to secure it completely. You can make the job tougher by having custom hardware that does things like put a bunch of chips into one of those surface mount resin blobs you see in some cheap consumer gadgets, but even those can be gotten around with enough effort.
It's much harder to get oil out of Russia. Plus Muslims and Arabs are much easier to target than some nebulous Russian Gangs. And as the final straw, it's a lot easier to scare joe sixpack that some ebil terrorist is going to blow up his minivan, than some Russian Gang is going to DDoS his non-existant website.
Actually they knew they owed ass-loads of money to Company Z, but they were hoping if they closed their eyes and imagined really hard that they didn't, that it would just sort of go away.
Baring that I'm sure they had some sort if twisted idea that after they won two metric fuck-tons of money from suing company A, and B, that they could then turn around and figure out some way to sue company Z, or at least annoy them enough that they forgot about all that money.
Based on his comments and actions now and in the past, I'm sure he's really broken up about that.
NIN is in a very good position right now. They're well known, they have a following, and honestly they do really good work. Will his circulation go down a bit if they aren't on a major label? Probably. Will they care? Not really. They'll still be making music and distributing it, but it will be on their terms.
Read it, and wasn't impressed. No self consistency, and it totally ignores several well founded principles of physics. Also I understand it's been heavily edited over the years, and there are several contradictory versions floating around. Sounds like it needs more peer review to me.
For one example check out the Eastern Airlines Bankruptcy of 1989. True, there were other factors involved, but leading up to the filing of chapter 11 were a series of strikes, with the final mechanics strike pushed it over the edge.
Ah, ok, I see that now. I made some assumptions about your point based on the question actually being asked. I don't think your solution, although possibly the most practical advice for preventing children from accessing material the parents would rather they not, really meets the spirit of the question being asked. The poster is essentially looking for software that can be run to supervise computer activity without needing a parent actually present, which as has been pointed out by everybody including the original poster of the question, simply not happening.
Bypassed and quite easily at that. Just accept defeat on this pointless fight and move on to more important things.
Same thing basically. Can't burn what doesn't exist. Only something like 10% of all the "money" in the US actually exists as physical money you can hold. The remaining 90% is just figures on ledgers and bits in computers that the various companies and banks trade with each other. In theory they actually could go request that money in cash, but in practice the federal reserve would have to go print some more money to meet that demand.
Biggest problem with a Union is it effectively introduces a third party into the mix with its own goals and motives. There is a long tradition of employers screwing over employees, the employees forming a union, and then the union screwing over the employer and the employees. I would have to go look it up to give you specific names, but I do know there have been several instances where unions have caused strikes to drag on to the point where companies have gone out of business because even though the employer and employees had come up with a compromise they both agreed on, the union wasn't willing to settle for it.
In one of TFA the author mentions looking through at least the Vista license and failed to find anything in the license giving MS permission to perform updates without user consent. So, no, it's not in the license, and they did not have permission.
Note to self, preview more. Maybe the next change they could make to slashdot would flag unmatched tags and reject the post? That seems like something useful to do.
It's an apples and oranges thing. Performing a physical service entails an expenditure of effort on your part, and is a one time thing. Just because you changed the oil in one car, doesn't mean suddenly every other car gets its oil changed. Creating a work such as a program or book is also an expenditure of effort, but is not a one time thing. Once the effort of creating it has been done, it's effectively free to everybody else baring some kind of legal provision against it's free distribution. The whole idea of copyright is to try to put creative endeavors on par with physical ones so that both can be equally profitable, and thus both make economic sense to pursue.
And with the application of IP law, I could prohibit anyone from changing their own oil. Break the seal on the plug, go to jail.IP law, which at this point is mostly just the DMCA, is wrong, and I'm in no way advocating it.
You're analogy doesn't work because you actually had to do something in order to change that oil, you performed a service. And presumably you got paid for it as well. A more accurate way of applying your analogy to changing oil would be to say no one is allowed to charge anything for changing oil. Lets see how many JiffyLubes or equivalent are in existence after that law goes into effect. Better be prepared to be doing your own oil changes.
At last, someone making intelligent counterpoints. You are right about the medicines using patent law rather than copyright, although I think going back to the origin of all this the guy pushing for abolishing copyright would be equally against patents. My mistake for not properly thinking through the difference between patent and copyright.
But I'm guessing that most of them could be preserved by giving away the software, and charging for services (such as online multiplayer play).That is an excellent example of one way of handling things, but it doesn't solve the problem of stand alone software. If the only way to make a profit off something was by services, everything would turn into an MMO. Or companies would go to 100% pure hosted applications, with all the nastiness that entails. No way for someone to redistribute your application if they never actually have a local copy of it.
I'm not saying motivation will not exist without copyright, but that it will be severely reduced. Programming will cease to exist as a profession and will become a hobby. OSS is great, I have contributed to several OSS projects myself. But that doesn't pay the bills, and I couldn't work as a programmer without copyright (well, I might be able to, but with a severely reduced job pool [only large corporations would be able to pay for programmers to create in house projects] the odds of being able to find employment would be slim). Also, with few professional programmers in existence the quality of software in general would be greatly reduced. Look at for instance all the hobbyist JavaScript sites that exist and the quality of code on those.
Copyright, as it was originally intended (although it's been severely modified since then) exists as a way to give an individual a temporary monopoly on an intangible work in order for them to be able to earn a monetary profit from it. Without copyright the only profit possible on an intangible work is one of personal gratification, and the quality and quantity of works created would be reflective of that.
I really like how you cherry picked some of my comments while ignoring others entirely, and then took most of that out of context. Yes people do things sometimes because they want to, but even that is a form of profit. They do it because they gain a sense of personal gratification, which I mentioned previously. However, because the production of any given piece of software (this applies to things other than software as well) requires the talent of many different individuals, as the size of the initiative increases the odds of it being seen to completion shrink.
So now you are going to put a price on SAVING a human life?! Yay for capitalism! Screw the long-term thinking of doing things for the greater good, and focus on the short term solution of making a quick buck.Yes, welcome to the real world. Best get started working on that cure for cancer if your so giving. How about aids, made many breakthroughs there have you? What, people are dieing, don't you care, why aren't you studying biology right now? What do you do for a living? Does that help save lives? Do you donate all your money to charity? People will do things to help others out of generosity, because it makes them feel better about themselves, but don't be confused, it's still self serving. The world is not fair, and not everything is rose colored. Resources are limited, and peoples wants are unlimited. If you don't believe that, go try communism for a few decades and see how it turns out.
I cannot believe you have the balls to advocate DRM in of all places, slashdot. It has been shown time and time again that DRM can NEVER work, as it's inherently flawed. DRM is the answer to nothing. Copyright law, although being terribly abused at the moment (and the DMCA furthers that abuse), is at least a workable solution. Ultimately it depends on the ethics of the consumers backed by the teeth of the legal system. Abolishing copyright would not only prevent atrocities like the RIAA, but it would also destroy the good of things like the GPL.
The thought that an idea or information can be illegal is...just beyond stupid if you ask me.I agree. It's not the idea of information that's the problem though, it's what people do with it.
If you mean stealth as in sneaking through levels without killing anything, then yes, that's not really an option. If however you meant being able to sneak around a take people out without being seen, then that is most definitely an option, and the way I've found myself playing. Ever since I got the camo tonic and a couple of the wrench power ups, I use stealth kills and the wrench almost exclusively. Nothing quite like sneaking up on a splicer and one shotting them with a wrench, or even better, sneaking up on a security camera and hacking it.
As for the ammo creation, yeah, that was kind of lame, but all in all, kind of understandable. If this had been an MMO, then conceivably they could have allowed you to randomly toss components together and see if it makes something useful (destroying the components in the process), but being a FPS with a somewhat limited playtime and therefore component count, it would have been just wasteful and frustrating to players to take that route. Players would just take the easy way ultimately and download a crafting guide telling them exactly what combinations made what which would potentially unbalance the game by allowing the crafting of very powerful items early in the game.
What I think they did a brilliant job of was setting up the atmosphere and providing enough interesting interactions between items to allow players different styles of play. I was quite surprised recently to discover for instance that the trap bolts can be used to take out security bots. A friend of mine also shared his approach to taking down big daddies (apparently tossing a barrel at them can take about half their health in one shot), which was something I hadn't even thought of.
There is a lot of depth to this game, but you need to know where to look. Enjoy it for what they did good on, and not necessarily what the hype lead you to believe it was going to deliver. Having not read any of the hype (well, I read some of what PA said about it) before I bought it, I'm thoroughly enjoying the game. I've also found the PC version to be fairly stable, even though I have had it lock up on me once (no blue screen, it just froze, think it may be a overall stability problem though as I had a problem in another game as well).
Looks like half your screen turning black was caused by
*flips through his BOFH excuse calendar*
extra solar gamma ray bombardment on the graphics cards
*flip*
dynamic oscillation circuit, and as such it's not covered by the warranty, sorry, act of god.
Ok, I'll bite.
I'm a programmer, I make my living writing applications for various companies, and I get paid pretty well to do it because I posses specialized knowledge. I should point out also that at this time I don't work for a "software" company, but I'm writing applications for internal use. Assuming copyright was abolished, this would effectively kill off the entire software industry. Without copyright you would need to recoup the entire cost of an application on its first sale, which in the case of anything major could run into the millions. Effectively this means the only software that would ever be developed would be business applications. Take something like Halo 3, expected by all concerned to be a run away success, and with a huge development budget backing it on the assumption it will easily recoup all the invested money. Without copyright no one would be willing to fund it, because no consumers would be able to afford it. What's that, you want a Halo 3, no problem, just find a way to pay Bungie 10 million dollars, and you'll be the first kid on your block with a copy. Of course, after that you could easily just hand it out to all your friends for free, or you could try to sell it to them for I don't know, maybe 2 million a copy, but odds are they would then either resell it or give it away cheaper than you. It would ultimately turn into a pyramid game, first person to pony up the cash takes the biggest hit, tries to recoup by reselling, but ultimately gets undercut and never recoups the loss. Pretty quickly the ability to sell any given piece of software for more than $0 becomes impossible. Oh yes, this sounds like an excellent system.
Going to a system without copyright would quickly destroy any motivation to provide works not directly beneficial to major corporations (who could afford their huge development costs), or that aren't simple hobbyist pieces. The only thing of value would be physical goods, returning us to an industrial civilization. Way to bring back sweatshops. As an added bonus, medical research would be pretty useless as well. No point researching a drug to cure cancer, you couldn't sell it for more than 10 cents ultimately, so why bother. You seem to forget that people are greedy, and without motivation they don't work. There must be at least a reasonable hope of profit (either in the traditional sense, or as some sort of personal gratification) before someone is willing to undertake the effort.