Frank's story is incredibly interesting and entertaining. Theres no way he would get away with some of his daring escapes today, such as posing as the fbi official when he was completely surrounded. Goes to show how much people have learned from this sort of activity, which is probably more of a contributing factor than technology. Any new form of payment or communication introduces new flaws which for a time only the cleverest can think to exploit, just with the interweb we see something so radically new and different that laws and security experts struggle to keep up.
There seems to be quite a number of largely trivial uses.
You could have some kind of massive spiderry bittorrent network that utilised the various communication methods available to the phone as well as IP to share files, ultimately resulting in a higher number of peers and or seeds. You could use a mobile phone\webserver combo for some kind of distributed CTI application.
I guess the major limiting factor would be the features of the phone itself; A gps enabled phone could use it's webserver as a HTTP based tracking device, or a camera phone could work as a webcam server to relay images back in semi-real time. Not sure what the advantages are of doing any of these with a phone\webserver though as opposed to the other available methods.
The only really usefull thing I can think of while timewasting at work is that it might be usefull though for remote computation of data. A field worker could be out collecting data. The phone could make available the raw data for processing via it's webserver. A client running on a pc could then be configured to periodically query the webphoneserver, retrieve the data, process and then make the results available for the phone.
This does also bring in issues about phones though, and when they stop being phones and become PDAs or even pocket computers!
Hmm should have phrased my post more like a question... But really flamebait!? Cmon guys I'm a programmer not an expert in nuclear power plants... so cut me some slack!
However I now feel reassured, and even a tad silly:/
Personally I think reactors in britain could be invitation for terrorists! It's like building them a bomb in the right place that they need only come along and detonate... surely?
I agree that ID probably should not be taught in schools, and there is absolutely no proof other than the cell division process being very improbable, and following a set pattern, which are the two main requirements for us to recognise something as intelligent (eg easter island; we do not attribute the carvings to the random workings of wind and erosion due to these two factors).
However, as natural selection stands, any change that doesn't benefit the animal directly will be lost quickly in successive generations. So if part of any of life's irriducably complex systems were to eveolve before any of the other parts of that system, then it would not get carried on as only the system as a whole benefits the organism.
This way it would be extremely hard to explain the chance evolution of all these parts simultaneuosly, as evolution by it's nature works in small incremental steps that benefit the lifeform.
Look I'm sorry all this talk of people who support ID being stupid and the like has got me all flamed up.
ID isn't about creationism, and has no religious motivations whatsoever. All it says is that we shouldn't dismiss the intelligent design THEORY out of hand, it is important in humankinds search for the ultimate answer to life the universe and everything that we look at all tha available options to explain where life originally came from.
There is a problem with evolution, in that darwinian THEORY cannot explain where life came from, only how it continued to change. There is no doubt that evolution is occurring as it's just plain obvious, but to me the issue of irreducable complexity rules out evolution or even biochemical predestination. I mean how could DNA or the process of cell division 'evolve' if evolution itself requires cells to divide and carry on it's genetic blueprint.
ID is just the best thing for this we have at the moment, so someone come up with something better and I'd probably go with it...
Slashdot Mirror
"Lurning English reqierz roet memory rather than lojic, he sed."
What on earth is "roet" supposed to be??
You can read a pleasingly detailed yet short account of frank abignales cons here.
Frank's story is incredibly interesting and entertaining. Theres no way he would get away with some of his daring escapes today, such as posing as the fbi official when he was completely surrounded. Goes to show how much people have learned from this sort of activity, which is probably more of a contributing factor than technology. Any new form of payment or communication introduces new flaws which for a time only the cleverest can think to exploit, just with the interweb we see something so radically new and different that laws and security experts struggle to keep up.
There seems to be quite a number of largely trivial uses.
You could have some kind of massive spiderry bittorrent network that utilised the various communication methods available to the phone as well as IP to share files, ultimately resulting in a higher number of peers and or seeds. You could use a mobile phone\webserver combo for some kind of distributed CTI application.
I guess the major limiting factor would be the features of the phone itself; A gps enabled phone could use it's webserver as a HTTP based tracking device, or a camera phone could work as a webcam server to relay images back in semi-real time. Not sure what the advantages are of doing any of these with a phone\webserver though as opposed to the other available methods.
The only really usefull thing I can think of while timewasting at work is that it might be usefull though for remote computation of data. A field worker could be out collecting data. The phone could make available the raw data for processing via it's webserver. A client running on a pc could then be configured to periodically query the webphoneserver, retrieve the data, process and then make the results available for the phone.
This does also bring in issues about phones though, and when they stop being phones and become PDAs or even pocket computers!
Hmm should have phrased my post more like a question... But really flamebait!? Cmon guys I'm a programmer not an expert in nuclear power plants... so cut me some slack! However I now feel reassured, and even a tad silly :/
Personally I think reactors in britain could be invitation for terrorists! It's like building them a bomb in the right place that they need only come along and detonate... surely?
I don't think slashdot rates your qualifications so much as your contribution. Give him points for effort and drawing nice ascii boxes though.
I can write this because I have a computer.
I agree that ID probably should not be taught in schools, and there is absolutely no proof other than the cell division process being very improbable, and following a set pattern, which are the two main requirements for us to recognise something as intelligent (eg easter island; we do not attribute the carvings to the random workings of wind and erosion due to these two factors). However, as natural selection stands, any change that doesn't benefit the animal directly will be lost quickly in successive generations. So if part of any of life's irriducably complex systems were to eveolve before any of the other parts of that system, then it would not get carried on as only the system as a whole benefits the organism. This way it would be extremely hard to explain the chance evolution of all these parts simultaneuosly, as evolution by it's nature works in small incremental steps that benefit the lifeform.
Look I'm sorry all this talk of people who support ID being stupid and the like has got me all flamed up. ID isn't about creationism, and has no religious motivations whatsoever. All it says is that we shouldn't dismiss the intelligent design THEORY out of hand, it is important in humankinds search for the ultimate answer to life the universe and everything that we look at all tha available options to explain where life originally came from. There is a problem with evolution, in that darwinian THEORY cannot explain where life came from, only how it continued to change. There is no doubt that evolution is occurring as it's just plain obvious, but to me the issue of irreducable complexity rules out evolution or even biochemical predestination. I mean how could DNA or the process of cell division 'evolve' if evolution itself requires cells to divide and carry on it's genetic blueprint. ID is just the best thing for this we have at the moment, so someone come up with something better and I'd probably go with it...