New windows 2019 is even more user friendly. You've heard of web TV. This handy device relieves the hassle of constantly bickering over programs by forcing you to watch the shows that we want you to.
See that handy red button on the arm rest? every time that you press it, a worker in the DOJ will feel a sharp and intense pain!
Buy now!
"I've been trying to get into this girl's pants all night"
" Don't bother. She's closed source. "
... and for those people obsessed with making xerox copies of their butt using the company copier, we have these special shorts. Fax machine already installed. Linux. Bringing the world to your drawers.
Of course, if this becomes mainstream...
on
Wearable Computers
·
· Score: 2
then you'll have to have a thing on oprah.
1 gigahertz accessories for 486 prices.
And of course, there'll be some cross dressers out in california who wear windows, mac ANDlinux.
The freaks.
It'll lead to a whole new world of fashion faux pas.
"excuse me sir, but your source is open"
Dang it. I really have to go but my zipper just locked up...
Of course, the company best positioned to take advantage of this whole trend is Red Hat...
`Temporary staffing positions have tripled in the last decade, according to an MIT/CDI study, which
suggests IT workpractices are mainstreaming, spreading well beyond Silicon Valley.''
Is it just me or does anyone else fail to see the correlation here? This is like saying ``rabbits eat carrots
therefore nanotube technology is booming.''
It says "work practices." as in "the business model upon which IT companies have been based is spreading to the rest of the work force."
Of course, I don't agree that these changes began with IT. I think they began in the early 80's with corporate downsizing.
If DNA can be used to conduct electricity (and I've heard this before, too) then couldn't you create a miniturized motor and generate force? Richard Feynman believed that we'd have to build the tools to build the tools to create microrobotics. Of course, I'm not sure what somthing like this would nessicarily be good for.
Could running a charge down a strand of DNA that was coiled into a cylinder be used as an ion pump?
Or could these tubes be used to separate out chiral molecules? (molecues that are similar the way your left and right hands are similar- in parts and connectivity, but not superimposable) This would be significant, since with many drugs (such as aspirin) both forms of the molecule cause side effects, while only one acts as medicine. A cheap method of purification would make many drugs more effective. (of course, use of enzymes would probably be better since many enzymes only produce one form of the molecule, but what the hell, I'm speculating. )
A correction to the above. It should read "it would be unreasonable to expect tech lawyers who work as governement consultants not to work for companies in their off hours"
Kaner and Pels, in their crusade against UCITA, combined with some articles from Infoworld's 'gripe line' describe how most political consutltants on software matters also work for the industry in their off hours. Just a few months back, one of the primary authors of UCITA was shown to have worked for microsoft. It was judged that it would be unreasonable to expect tech lawyers not to work for companies since doing so would prevent them from earning a living.
I admit that this idea is idealistic, since our adversarial justice system would require that a group of easily accessible lawyers remain on the public payroll to represent the state in cases against corporations, America's governing body would have a ready pool of skilled consultants who would be free of the conflicts of interest that private industry might impose.
Of course, unless this idea is somehow institutionalized I doubt that it would be used.
It's not that customers are concerned that they're getting official olympic goods.
The olympic comitte is concerned that some ambitious entrepreneur isn't cutting into their market. They want to be able to control who can make 'official' olympic souveneirs and sell them. The olympic comitte makes a lot of money that way. They don't care what you do with your
"MOCKBA Olympic bag with Michka the cute little bear of the 80's Olympics "
They already have your cash. That's enough for them.
Actually, I would think that replicating DNA would be a lot easier than replicating a hologram. All you'd need are the chemicals for PCR ( polymerase and the 4 respective nucleotide bases) to replicate a good batch of DNA. Then you just need to eletrophorese it out( possibly), visualize the strands with UV light, and remove what you want from the gel. Both the materials needed for PCR and gel electrophoresis can be purchased from educational supply companies.
This technology of DNA tagging wouldn't really become viable until there was a method of stopping the DNA from being replicated through PCR, but if you did that, its debatable whether you could get a large enough sample of testable DNA to analyze.
There are a lot of other cool ways to send stuff into space. For example, Freeman Dyson's alternatly trite and innovative book 'the sun the genome and the internet' talks about either using a mass driver for shooting up people and precious cargo or using a ballistic like device filled with various explosive gasses which could accelerate an object to thousands of miles per hour, sending it into space fairly cheaply.
The second option, at least, would probably be portable.
Incidentaly, why do people assume that this thing has to be built on land? If location is an issue and many nations need to use it, it may very well float. There's already at least one floating launch pad for a shuttle.
p.s. yes, i know 'alternatly trite and innovative' seems contradictory however Dyson's view of the internet and solar power are both at least 5 years behind the times and I'm surprised he gave so much copy to them.
I'm sorry, the correct term would have been 'sexual dyfunction'.
... I don't mind pfizer publishing research. But the Journal of American medicine has a policy whereby you have to disclose any potential conflicts of interest when you publish a study.
Pfizer decided not to.
There are numerous instances where corporate research has produced results showing their product to be more beneficial than it really is, which makes transgressions like pfizer's significant.
There was a reason that JAMA had their policy on disclosure.
And there was a reason, quite possibly, why pfizer chose to violate it.
And when we do, is it going to have the same limitations that the present ones do? Could different light frequencies be used to allow 'fuzzy' rather than binary computation? Or more importantly, could the instantaneous 3D alteration of circuts allow people to 'evolve' intellegent computers like the circut boards that were 'evolved' to recognize a specific tone without a clock.... don't have the link handy. It was in Discover about 2 years ago if anyone knows what I'm talking about. Kind of like evolving an algorithm, but on the hardware scale.
You can't see a laser unless the light is directed at you. That's why they have to have smoke at laser light shows. Otherwise, nothign scatters the light from it's straigh path. Think of it like a stream of bullets. A number of those bullets has to be deflected from the stream and 'hit' your eye in order for you to 'see' the stream of bullets.
I don't imagine that this scattered light would be too easily deciphered since it would probably just be a bunch of random ones and zeros.
Incidentaly, the idea that the use of comptuers by the government helps contribute to the demonization of cracking/hacking isn't just fluff. Check out this article
While it dosen't seem like the makers of this
'armed robot guard' intend to mass produce the thing (it seems more of an intellectual exercise) the US has worked quite seriously on puting computers at the help of some pretty powerful weapons.
Recently, a program to test using windows NT to replace a number of crew members left the ship
dead in the water
The trial was considered a success, of course, and the US has moved to install the system on all its other cruisers. Cruisers, btw, are armed with nuclear weapons.
Similarly, the US army is working with producing a 'smart soldier' armed with everything from radio hookup to a gun with bullets which can explode at a set distance, so as to shoot around corners, plus a variety of other systems totaling over 70 lbs.
The navy justified the move saying that their system will help respond to cutbacks by allowing a skeleton crew to man a ship. Of course, the failure to use an open source operating system is widely regarded as a political rather than a 'smart' decision.
Nuclear missle [not responding]
lovely.
I think that this stuff and stuff like it will eventually become a reality because of the advantages in efficency it offers.
Of course, once you have comptuers armed with nuclear weapons, hacking can be considered treason...
Jon Katz's assertion that this paradigm shift is somthing that Congress has neglected to stop is innaccuarate and unresearched.
Two technology transfer acts have intentionaly tried to make America's research facilities into the private research facilities of corporations.
The pace of this transfer has accelerated remarkably since the end of the cold war. Congress reasoned that since the cold war no longer justified research for the purpose of millitary superiority, America's existing research labs should be turned towards corporate use as best as possible so that the labs could 'earn their own keep' so to speak.
At the same time as this was happening ( I won't assert causation ) conflicts of interest went unchecked in our nation's sources of scientific information. Over 50% of the members of the National Science Foundation own stock in their areas of expertise. ( I believe the number was much higher. I'm being conservative here.)
Similarly, conflicts of interest are rarely exposed.
Pfizer, for example, recently published a study on male and female impotence in the Journal of American Medicine without disclosing their involvement in funding the study. Pfizer, if you remember, just happens to make viagra.
The list goes on, and there are even examples, such as the case of thyroxin, where drug companies have actually managed to suppress or discredit legitimate scientific research that they themselves have funding.
The list goes on. If you want more info, e-mail me at wiserd@angelfire.com
If someone is practicing sensationalistic journalism in order to increase click throughs I don't see why complaining to ABC would do anything. The more effective route would be to attack ABCs ad revenue. Don't buy companies that advertise on ABC. Write an e-mail telling those companies what you're doing and why.
Some of the ad banners listed on that ABC site were;
jeep fidelity investments mastercard family wonder
and (ironicaly enough) IBM
If anyone else knows of common sponsors of ABC, let me know. I'm going to rip off a quick e-mail to any of the companies I might have purchased from and tell them why I won't.
As much as I wish that all these self proclaimed moralists would go piss up a rope, I think that there is a simpler solution; install text only browsers. Not only would this solve the 'problem' of children giving themselves a free lesson in anatomy/health but if such practice became common it might help convince web designers to make sites navigable by text only browsers.
I think we can take it as a given that corporations try and alter the public's consumption of information. This isn't unique to Microsoft. If you were to look at the drug companies, you would see that Searle ( a subsidary of Monsanto) tried to push Celebrex as lacking the side effects of aspirin, while the FDA ranked it as equivalent to aspirin, and much more expensive. Celebrex is still one of the most prescribed drugs (partly because of free giveaways.) Likewise, 90%of ulcers are curable by antibiotics, yet zantac was, until recently, one of the most prescribed drugs, let alone ulcer medications. And Thyroxin, a thyroid medication, conducted an information war to try and discredit a report that it had funded which showed that its product was no better than its generic competitors.
Major corporations do conduct information warfare. They have PR departments. They even become involved in various media and entertainment ventures. All of this indicates a systematic effort to bias the public's consumption of information. Whatever chaos does exist in the news room, it has not served to eliminate that bias, as you recognized.
I appreciate both your acknowledgement of how bias can be transmitted. It seems that your article was intended as a peacemaking effort, however. At the end of the day, our ability to make decisions, as voters, as consumers and as human beings, is only as good as our information. Thomas Jefferson said that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. As uncivil as this may sound, Short of outright assault, I can't think of any activity more harmful to freedom than misinformation.
>>But the same argument used against gun control >>applies here too. If data is outlawed, only >>outlaws will have data.
Unfortunatly, the same flaw in this argument that applies so well to gun control also applies here.
Lets ignore for just one moment all the other issues concerning gun control to analyze this particular statement. ( And we'll apply it to information later. Trust me.)
In any war, increased armament typically gives an advantage to the agressor. The invention of nuclear weapons is the perfect example of this. If one nation can wipe out another nation in a first strike, then the agressor nation has a decided advantage that they didn't have in the pre nuclear era.
I realize that a certain degree of armament can 'level the playing field.' A 6 shooter can let a weak person defend themselves against a bigger, stronger attacker, assuming you can draw the thing in time.
But ask yourself, which would you rather have?
Someone attacking you with an automatic weapon, or a missle launcher, while you have the same weapon to defend yourself.
OR
Someone attacking you with a handgun while you have the same weapon to defend yourself.
Your chances would be a lot better in the second scenerio.
Once you've 'leveled the playing field' by eliminating discrepencies in physical stregnth from the equation, increased firepower only gives the advantage to the attacker.
Now apply this to information; If you think that someone may be mad enough to kill you but you don't have enough info to go to the police with, would you prefer that they you your address and you knew theirs or that neither of you had info on each other?
My father was in exactly this situation. When working as a manager for a paper mill in Jacksonville Fla he carefully hid his home address. If he ever had to fire someone and they got mad, he didn't want them to be able to find his home.
Unless one side is already armed, which is not the case in our information scenario, increased proliferation always gives an advantage to the agressor.
Slashdot Mirror
Gives a new twist to "brute force" cracking.
And of course if you're catholic, "loggin in as root" suddenly becomes a sin.
Yeah, I'm sure Bill Gates is working on it.
New windows 2019 is even more user friendly. You've heard of web TV. This handy device relieves the hassle of constantly bickering over programs by forcing you to watch the shows that we want you to.
See that handy red button on the arm rest? every time that you press it, a worker in the DOJ will feel a sharp and intense pain!
Buy now!
Hmm. I can imagine.
"I've been trying to get into this girl's pants all night"
" Don't bother. She's closed source. "
... and for those people obsessed with making xerox copies of their butt using the company copier, we have these special shorts. Fax machine already installed. Linux. Bringing the world to your drawers.
then you'll have to have a thing on oprah. 1 gigahertz accessories for 486 prices. And of course, there'll be some cross dressers out in california who wear windows, mac ANDlinux. The freaks. It'll lead to a whole new world of fashion faux pas. "excuse me sir, but your source is open" Dang it. I really have to go but my zipper just locked up... Of course, the company best positioned to take advantage of this whole trend is Red Hat...
I've always prefered God@heaven.org. or .com depending on your view of religion
`Temporary staffing positions have tripled in the last decade, according to an MIT/CDI study, which suggests IT workpractices are mainstreaming, spreading well beyond Silicon Valley.''
Is it just me or does anyone else fail to see the correlation here? This is like saying ``rabbits eat carrots therefore nanotube technology is booming.''
It says "work practices." as in "the business model upon which IT companies have been based is spreading to the rest of the work force."
Of course, I don't agree that these changes began with IT. I think they began in the early 80's with corporate downsizing.
If DNA can be used to conduct electricity (and I've heard this before, too) then couldn't you create a miniturized motor and generate force? Richard Feynman believed that we'd have to build the tools to build the tools to create microrobotics. Of course, I'm not sure what somthing like this would nessicarily be good for.
Could running a charge down a strand of DNA that was coiled into a cylinder be used as an ion pump?
Or could these tubes be used to separate out chiral molecules? (molecues that are similar the way your left and right hands are similar- in parts and connectivity, but not superimposable) This would be significant, since with many drugs (such as aspirin) both forms of the molecule cause side effects, while only one acts as medicine. A cheap method of purification would make many drugs more effective. (of course, use of enzymes would probably be better since many enzymes only produce one form of the molecule, but what the hell, I'm speculating. )
A correction to the above. It should read "it would be unreasonable to expect tech lawyers who work as governement consultants not to work for companies in their off hours"
Kaner and Pels, in their crusade against UCITA, combined with some articles from Infoworld's 'gripe line' describe how most political consutltants on software matters also work for the industry in their off hours. Just a few months back, one of the primary authors of UCITA was shown to have worked for microsoft. It was judged that it would be unreasonable to expect tech lawyers not to work for companies since doing so would prevent them from earning a living.
I admit that this idea is idealistic, since our adversarial justice system would require that a group of easily accessible lawyers remain on the public payroll to represent the state in cases against corporations, America's governing body would have a ready pool of skilled consultants who would be free of the conflicts of interest that private industry might impose.
Of course, unless this idea is somehow institutionalized I doubt that it would be used.
It's not that customers are concerned that they're getting official olympic goods.
The olympic comitte is concerned that some ambitious entrepreneur isn't cutting into their market. They want to be able to control who can make 'official' olympic souveneirs and sell them. The olympic comitte makes a lot of money that way. They don't care what you do with your
"MOCKBA Olympic bag with Michka the cute little bear of the 80's Olympics "
They already have your cash. That's enough for them.
Actually, I would think that replicating DNA would be a lot easier than replicating a hologram. All you'd need are the chemicals for PCR ( polymerase and the 4 respective nucleotide bases) to replicate a good batch of DNA. Then you just need to eletrophorese it out( possibly), visualize the strands with UV light, and remove what you want from the gel. Both the materials needed for PCR and gel electrophoresis can be purchased from educational supply companies.
This technology of DNA tagging wouldn't really become viable until there was a method of stopping the DNA from being replicated through PCR, but if you did that, its debatable whether you could get a large enough sample of testable DNA to analyze.
There are a lot of other cool ways to send stuff into space. For example, Freeman Dyson's alternatly trite and innovative book 'the sun the genome and the internet' talks about either using a mass driver for shooting up people and precious cargo or using a ballistic like device filled with various explosive gasses which could accelerate an object to thousands of miles per hour, sending it into space fairly cheaply.
The second option, at least, would probably be portable.
Incidentaly, why do people assume that this thing has to be built on land? If location is an issue and many nations need to use it, it may very well float. There's already at least one floating launch pad for a shuttle.
p.s. yes, i know 'alternatly trite and innovative' seems contradictory however Dyson's view of the internet and solar power are both at least 5 years behind the times and I'm surprised he gave so much copy to them.
I'm sorry, the correct term would have been 'sexual dyfunction'.
... I don't mind pfizer publishing research. But the Journal of American medicine has a policy whereby you have to disclose any potential conflicts of interest when you publish a study.
Pfizer decided not to.
There are numerous instances where corporate research has produced results showing their product to be more beneficial than it really is, which makes transgressions like pfizer's significant.
There was a reason that JAMA had their policy on disclosure.
And there was a reason, quite possibly, why pfizer chose to violate it.
There's another very similar theory which says that the universe will end when all of it is acquired by microsoft.
And when we do, is it going to have the same limitations that the present ones do? Could different light frequencies be used to allow 'fuzzy' rather than binary computation? Or more importantly, could the instantaneous 3D alteration of circuts allow people to 'evolve' intellegent computers like the circut boards that were 'evolved' to recognize a specific tone without a clock. ... don't have the link handy. It was in Discover about 2 years ago if anyone knows what I'm talking about. Kind of like evolving an algorithm, but on the hardware scale.
You can't see a laser unless the light is directed at you. That's why they have to have smoke at laser light shows. Otherwise, nothign scatters the light from it's straigh path. Think of it like a stream of bullets. A number of those bullets has to be deflected from the stream and 'hit' your eye in order for you to 'see' the stream of bullets. I don't imagine that this scattered light would be too easily deciphered since it would probably just be a bunch of random ones and zeros.
Jackie Chan. Rumble in the Bronx. .... or wait, I guess he was chineese. Sorry.
Incidentaly, the idea that the use of comptuers by the government helps contribute to the demonization of cracking/hacking isn't just fluff. Check out this article
While it dosen't seem like the makers of this 'armed robot guard' intend to mass produce the thing (it seems more of an intellectual exercise) the US has worked quite seriously on puting computers at the help of some pretty powerful weapons.
Recently, a program to test using windows NT to replace a number of crew members left the ship dead in the water
The trial was considered a success, of course, and the US has moved to install the system on all its other cruisers. Cruisers, btw, are armed with nuclear weapons.
Similarly, the US army is working with producing a 'smart soldier' armed with everything from radio hookup to a gun with bullets which can explode at a set distance, so as to shoot around corners, plus a variety of other systems totaling over 70 lbs.
The navy justified the move saying that their system will help respond to cutbacks by allowing a skeleton crew to man a ship. Of course, the failure to use an open source operating system is widely regarded as a political rather than a 'smart' decision.
Nuclear missle [not responding]
lovely.
I think that this stuff and stuff like it will eventually become a reality because of the advantages in efficency it offers.
Of course, once you have comptuers armed with nuclear weapons, hacking can be considered treason...
Jon Katz's assertion that this paradigm shift is somthing that Congress has neglected to stop is innaccuarate and unresearched.
Two technology transfer acts have intentionaly tried to make America's research facilities into the private research facilities of corporations.
The pace of this transfer has accelerated remarkably since the end of the cold war. Congress reasoned that since the cold war no longer justified research for the purpose of millitary superiority, America's existing research labs should be turned towards corporate use as best as possible so that the labs could 'earn their own keep' so to speak.
At the same time as this was happening ( I won't assert causation ) conflicts of interest went unchecked in our nation's sources of scientific information. Over 50% of the members of the National Science Foundation own stock in their areas of expertise. ( I believe the number was much higher. I'm being conservative here.)
Similarly, conflicts of interest are rarely exposed.
Pfizer, for example, recently published a study on male and female impotence in the Journal of American Medicine without disclosing their involvement in funding the study. Pfizer, if you remember, just happens to make viagra.
The list goes on, and there are even examples, such as the case of thyroxin, where drug companies have actually managed to suppress or discredit legitimate scientific research that they themselves have funding.
The list goes on. If you want more info, e-mail me at wiserd@angelfire.com
ZZiiiiiiiiiiiiiiip it.
Ziiiiiiiiip it.
Actually, my favorite compression format was
a trash compactor.
It did wonders for my mac.
If someone is practicing sensationalistic journalism in order to increase click throughs I don't see why complaining to ABC would do anything. The more effective route would be to attack ABCs ad revenue. Don't buy companies that advertise on ABC. Write an e-mail telling those companies what you're doing and why.
Some of the ad banners listed on that ABC site were;
jeep
fidelity investments
mastercard
family wonder
and (ironicaly enough)
IBM
If anyone else knows of common sponsors of ABC, let me know. I'm going to rip off a quick e-mail to any of the companies I might have purchased from and tell them why I won't.
wiserd@angelfire.com
As much as I wish that all these self proclaimed moralists would go piss up a rope, I think that there is a simpler solution; install text only browsers. Not only would this solve the 'problem' of children giving themselves a free lesson in anatomy/health but if such practice became common it might help convince web designers to make sites navigable by text only browsers.
I think we can take it as a given that corporations try and alter the public's consumption of information. This isn't unique to Microsoft. If you were to look at the drug companies, you would see that Searle ( a subsidary of Monsanto) tried to push Celebrex as lacking the side effects of aspirin, while the FDA ranked it as equivalent to aspirin, and much more expensive.
Celebrex is still one of the most prescribed drugs (partly because of free giveaways.) Likewise, 90%of ulcers are curable by antibiotics, yet zantac was, until recently, one of the most prescribed drugs, let alone ulcer medications. And
Thyroxin, a thyroid medication, conducted an information war to try and discredit a report that it had funded which showed that its product was no better than its generic competitors.
Major corporations do conduct information warfare. They have PR departments. They even become involved in various media and entertainment ventures. All of this indicates a systematic effort to bias the public's consumption of information. Whatever chaos does exist in the news room, it has not served to eliminate that bias, as you recognized.
I appreciate both your acknowledgement of how bias can be transmitted. It seems that your article was intended as a peacemaking effort, however. At the end of the day, our ability to make decisions, as voters, as consumers and as human beings, is only as good as our information. Thomas Jefferson said that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. As uncivil as this may sound, Short of outright assault, I can't think of any activity more harmful to freedom than misinformation.
>>But the same argument used against gun control >>applies here too. If data is outlawed, only
>>outlaws will have data.
Unfortunatly, the same flaw in this argument that
applies so well to gun control also applies here.
Lets ignore for just one moment all the other issues concerning gun control to analyze this particular statement. ( And we'll apply it to information later. Trust me.)
In any war, increased armament typically gives an advantage to the agressor. The invention of nuclear weapons is the perfect example of this. If one nation can wipe out another nation in a first strike, then the agressor nation has a decided advantage that they didn't have in the pre nuclear era.
I realize that a certain degree of armament can 'level the playing field.' A 6 shooter can let a weak person defend themselves against a bigger, stronger attacker, assuming you can draw the thing in time.
But ask yourself, which would you rather have?
Someone attacking you with an automatic weapon, or a missle launcher, while you have the same weapon to defend yourself.
OR
Someone attacking you with a handgun while you have the same weapon to defend yourself.
Your chances would be a lot better in the second scenerio.
Once you've 'leveled the playing field' by eliminating discrepencies in physical stregnth from the equation, increased firepower only gives the advantage to the attacker.
Now apply this to information; If you think that someone may be mad enough to kill you but you don't have enough info to go to the police with, would you prefer that they you your address and you knew theirs or that neither of you had info on each other?
My father was in exactly this situation. When working as a manager for a paper mill in Jacksonville Fla he carefully hid his home address. If he ever had to fire someone and they got mad, he didn't want them to be able to find his home.
Unless one side is already armed, which is not the case in our information scenario, increased proliferation always gives an advantage to the agressor.