Oh, no. I've seen people lose at tic-tac-toe...I've even seen people (adults, mind you) lose at tic-tac-toe to a chicken. (Why yes, this was in Las Vegas, why do you ask?)
Hunting is a "legal use" of guns, which will change your assumed numbers significantly. Whether it's enough to get over 50% would be a very interesting question, though.
Intent matters for how severe the crime is, but intent doesn't generally turn a crime into a non-crime. To take this to an extreme, intent is the difference between manslaughter and murder. The difference between them is intent, yes, but both are still crimes. You won't get out of a trial by saying you had no intent to cause harm. You might be found innocent of the harder crimes if the jury/judge believes you, but intending no harm doesn't make everything okay...what you *did* still matters.
In this case, whether he intended to cause harm is up for debate, but it's not for the court of public opinion to decide that...it's for a real court to decide that after a trial/evidence, etc. So, in short, he should stand trial.
It isn't in the Constitution, that's correct. However, I believe the GP post was referring to Possee Comitatus. That is the law in the US. It means that the military can't act as police inside the US without clearance from Congress.
BlackHat caved before and they'll likely cave again (for reference, see the Cisco incident 5 years ago), *but*, the issue in this case isn't BlackHat. It's the company that employs the speaker that's feeling the pressure. BlackHat can't make someone give a talk, and if the company or speaker decides to back out, that's their choice.
Curiosity question: how do you interface to it with a DIY setup? (Ie, how do you control display mode, etc?) I'm thinking this would be a fun display to use to DIY a portable unit of some sort, but I can't find any instructions for using it other than for people who are replacing the display in an existing laptop.
Timing is everything: if it gets that touch of reality *soon*, then it might not fail. If it goes forward with it's present design, then when reality comes it'll be pretty painful.
If they mentioned any sort of consideration for things like what I was mentioning above, I'd be much more confident about the program. There is no mention of any of this stuff in their strategy doc (I actually read the PDF, I'm sorry to say). That makes me think they haven't considered it at all.
Mis-use by a provider is one thing, and, yes, I'd agree that I'd expect the gov't to deal with it harshly. But institutional helplessness is a very different beast. Situations that go like "I'm sorry, sir, we can't let you use another company's certificates with our phones. You can still get another identity from us, though." wouldn't be a lock-out, but it would make the system an enormous pain in the ass.
Also, if you can't ever change identity providers, it means companies will be guaranteed a revenue stream from you, perpetually. Even if you decide you want to leave Verizon, if they're your identity provider you would *have* to work with them (and probably pay them). Again, if there had been any consideration made for these sorts of issues I'd be less leery of them...but the PDF was this sunny thing that considered none of the cases where this thing fails.
It's actually a little better and a little worse than what you think. They're proposing setting up a "ecosystem" of identity providers, so commercial organizations will issue identity certs with the gov't just setting the standards they all live by to interoperate, etc. On that front, that isn't as bad as it could have been.
On the other hand, there is an enormous amount of naivete in their "strategy" about how the identity providers will act. Their examples talk about having your cell phone provider be the organization that issues your identity cert for use in this system. What happens when you change providers? When I shift from Verizon to AT&T, can I move the AT&T cert to my Verizon phone? Also, am I forevermore tied to AT&T for my identity verification? What if that company goes bankrupt? What if you *want* to change identity providers? If you can change providers, what happens to the records that provider kept? What about the records that other information providers tied to the old cert? Do they keep the certificate (and therefore the ability to impersonate you online)? What happens if I lose my phone (and therefore lose my cert)?
The effort isn't completely crack-addled, but it is hopelessly naive. I think it'll fail unless it gets a big dose of reality shortly.
Re:Does it have a monitor and full-size keyboard?
on
Flight of the Desktops
·
· Score: 1
<start><recall><porn><repeat>
And thus would the world end...
Re:Military spending, reduced progressive taxes
on
The Real Science Gap
·
· Score: 1
the pentagon has little interest in funding research into coral reef development or studies on dung beetles (I write this wondering if someone is going to pull up a paper on one of those topics that happened to be funded by DARPA).
ask, and ye shall receive. They're working on remote-controlling beetles. So, it's not so much studying the life of the dung beetle, but how we could remotely steer it and use it to spy on people. This probably proves your point more than it disproves it, but it was still amusing to me.
What he's thinking of is a variant of Selective laser sintering. If you can turn the laser on and off rapidly (or redirect the beam somewhere harmless rapidly), you can selectively melt/fuse materials to 3-d print some really fascinating things.
I'm not aware of any open source (a-la RepRap or the like) SLS systems, but I'd be happy to have the slashdot crowd prove me wrong on that point.
"The third and by far most complex step (ERAM Release 1) is the replacement of the Host Computer System with new software and hardware... national deployment begins in FY 2009 and concludes in FY 2011"
Dr. Demento ran a syndicated radio show that focussed on the weird, offbeat, and just silly. Weird Al got his start there, for example. A large number of people in the geek community grew up listening to his show, especially as it's had a forty year run.
What's being lost? A bit of the unique, a bit of the oddball and unusual. Radio has become that little bit more boring and bland.
because the public's trust in the institution is vital to its continued functioning. It's paradoxical, unfair, illogical... and true
No, it isn't true, and that's provable quite easily by looking outside the US. There are plenty of countries where the police are well known to be massively corrupt, and are completely untrusted by the citizens. Russia comes to mind, but there are plenty of other examples. The people know it, many people in the government know it, yet the institution continues to function.
Trust isn't necessary for the police to function....power is. The problem is, when trust is gone, the society functions much less effectively. Corruption flourishes in such an environment, and you're on a quick road to third-world status from there.
This removes all the "integration" BS between facebook and all the external sites. Yes, they shouldn't be doing it at all, but in the meantime, you can shut it down.
The result isn't actually that surprising. A similar result was mentioned in the book Blink that was popular a while ago. The study mentioned in Blink showed that juries were very sensitive to the race of the accused, and that black defendants had a much higher conviction rate, even with very similar evidence.
The image that immediatelly came to my mind was that of a painter selling a painting.
Note that copyright was not required or involved in any way and yet the creator of the artwork got rewarded for that work.
In fact, the only way copyright would be involved would be if someone made a copy of the painting. Even in that situation one could argue that the work of making the copy (say it's one of those painting making shops in China) is the one deserving of a reward.
Interesting that you should bring up selling copies of a painting...a moral question for you: is it fair for someone to mass-produce copies of a painting, making significant money from them, and not recompense the original artist? is the Chinese painting clone shop (or the simple mass production of prints) fair to the original artist?
From your example, the original artist would only make money from their sale of the work once...we, as a society, decided that this situation was unfair since it puts the people with distribution systems (publishers/printers) in an enormously unfair position over the painter. Hence, some system was necessary to re-balance that equation.
That's what copyright is all about. Whether the system has become unbalanced in the other way is an interesting discussion to have, but I really want to shoot down this pernicious idea that copyright decisions are independent of moral decisions.
Frame the argument properly, and we'll make progress...but as long as one side talks morals and the other ignores that, noting will ever get solved.
Nonsense. Law is simply morality that's been codified. We believe killing people is wrong, so we make a law to reflect our shared morality. We have also decided that it's right that the people who create artworks deserve some reward for that work. The system to make that reward possible is copyright. Saying the system is not working properly, and that you want to change it, is a very different statement from saying that breaking copyright isn't about morality. This is, at its core, *completely* about morality...the question is only whether the law reflects your moral view (or, better, society's overall moral view).
Your "private transaction" argument is also legally questionable. For physical things, (and in US law) if you buy something you have reasonable reason to believe is stolen you will also have committed a crime: Receiving Stolen Goods. It's designed to allow the state to punish fences as well as the thieves themselves, but laws like this will be cited in any discussion of similar behavior online. If you have reasonable reason to conclude that the person you're dealing with is selling you an illegitimate copy of a game, you are not free from liability. Your liability is certainly less than the person selling the thing, but you're not completely innocent in the exchange.
Anonymity and political speech have been connected for quite a bit of the US' history, starting even from before independence: many of the messages pushing for independence from the UK were sent around as anonymous pamphlets. So, while it may not be explicitly mentioned the inferred right to privacy and the tradition on anonymous free speech does exist. Whether either of these are applicable to a college kid sharing music is a whole other story, though.
Slashdot Mirror
"C": Nerds sometimes enjoy gratuitously bashing companies and/or their customers for no discernible, logical reason.
Oh, no. I've seen people lose at tic-tac-toe...I've even seen people (adults, mind you) lose at tic-tac-toe to a chicken. (Why yes, this was in Las Vegas, why do you ask?)
Hunting is a "legal use" of guns, which will change your assumed numbers significantly. Whether it's enough to get over 50% would be a very interesting question, though.
Sort of.
Intent matters for how severe the crime is, but intent doesn't generally turn a crime into a non-crime. To take this to an extreme, intent is the difference between manslaughter and murder. The difference between them is intent, yes, but both are still crimes. You won't get out of a trial by saying you had no intent to cause harm. You might be found innocent of the harder crimes if the jury/judge believes you, but intending no harm doesn't make everything okay...what you *did* still matters.
In this case, whether he intended to cause harm is up for debate, but it's not for the court of public opinion to decide that...it's for a real court to decide that after a trial/evidence, etc. So, in short, he should stand trial.
It isn't in the Constitution, that's correct. However, I believe the GP post was referring to Possee Comitatus. That is the law in the US. It means that the military can't act as police inside the US without clearance from Congress.
???
BlackHat caved before and they'll likely cave again (for reference, see the Cisco incident 5 years ago), *but*, the issue in this case isn't BlackHat. It's the company that employs the speaker that's feeling the pressure. BlackHat can't make someone give a talk, and if the company or speaker decides to back out, that's their choice.
Yes...and we already know that the materials won't perform as well if they're all doped up.
Curiosity question: how do you interface to it with a DIY setup? (Ie, how do you control display mode, etc?) I'm thinking this would be a fun display to use to DIY a portable unit of some sort, but I can't find any instructions for using it other than for people who are replacing the display in an existing laptop.
Timing is everything: if it gets that touch of reality *soon*, then it might not fail. If it goes forward with it's present design, then when reality comes it'll be pretty painful.
If they mentioned any sort of consideration for things like what I was mentioning above, I'd be much more confident about the program. There is no mention of any of this stuff in their strategy doc (I actually read the PDF, I'm sorry to say). That makes me think they haven't considered it at all.
Mis-use by a provider is one thing, and, yes, I'd agree that I'd expect the gov't to deal with it harshly. But institutional helplessness is a very different beast. Situations that go like "I'm sorry, sir, we can't let you use another company's certificates with our phones. You can still get another identity from us, though." wouldn't be a lock-out, but it would make the system an enormous pain in the ass.
Also, if you can't ever change identity providers, it means companies will be guaranteed a revenue stream from you, perpetually. Even if you decide you want to leave Verizon, if they're your identity provider you would *have* to work with them (and probably pay them). Again, if there had been any consideration made for these sorts of issues I'd be less leery of them...but the PDF was this sunny thing that considered none of the cases where this thing fails.
It's actually a little better and a little worse than what you think. They're proposing setting up a "ecosystem" of identity providers, so commercial organizations will issue identity certs with the gov't just setting the standards they all live by to interoperate, etc. On that front, that isn't as bad as it could have been.
On the other hand, there is an enormous amount of naivete in their "strategy" about how the identity providers will act. Their examples talk about having your cell phone provider be the organization that issues your identity cert for use in this system. What happens when you change providers? When I shift from Verizon to AT&T, can I move the AT&T cert to my Verizon phone? Also, am I forevermore tied to AT&T for my identity verification? What if that company goes bankrupt? What if you *want* to change identity providers? If you can change providers, what happens to the records that provider kept? What about the records that other information providers tied to the old cert? Do they keep the certificate (and therefore the ability to impersonate you online)? What happens if I lose my phone (and therefore lose my cert)?
The effort isn't completely crack-addled, but it is hopelessly naive. I think it'll fail unless it gets a big dose of reality shortly.
<start><recall><porn><repeat>
And thus would the world end...
the pentagon has little interest in funding research into coral reef development or studies on dung beetles (I write this wondering if someone is going to pull up a paper on one of those topics that happened to be funded by DARPA).
ask, and ye shall receive. They're working on remote-controlling beetles. So, it's not so much studying the life of the dung beetle, but how we could remotely steer it and use it to spy on people. This probably proves your point more than it disproves it, but it was still amusing to me.
What he's thinking of is a variant of Selective laser sintering. If you can turn the laser on and off rapidly (or redirect the beam somewhere harmless rapidly), you can selectively melt/fuse materials to 3-d print some really fascinating things.
I'm not aware of any open source (a-la RepRap or the like) SLS systems, but I'd be happy to have the slashdot crowd prove me wrong on that point.
"The third and by far most complex step (ERAM Release 1) is the replacement of the Host Computer System with new software and hardware ... national deployment begins in FY 2009 and concludes in FY 2011"
That's all well and good except for the part about it not lasting more than 6 days when they tried to use it in production. They may be *trying* to replace the old system. Whether they're succeeding at replacing it is a whole other question.
Dr. Demento ran a syndicated radio show that focussed on the weird, offbeat, and just silly. Weird Al got his start there, for example. A large number of people in the geek community grew up listening to his show, especially as it's had a forty year run.
What's being lost? A bit of the unique, a bit of the oddball and unusual. Radio has become that little bit more boring and bland.
because the public's trust in the institution is vital to its continued functioning. It's paradoxical, unfair, illogical... and true
No, it isn't true, and that's provable quite easily by looking outside the US. There are plenty of countries where the police are well known to be massively corrupt, and are completely untrusted by the citizens. Russia comes to mind, but there are plenty of other examples. The people know it, many people in the government know it, yet the institution continues to function.
Trust isn't necessary for the police to function....power is. The problem is, when trust is gone, the society functions much less effectively. Corruption flourishes in such an environment, and you're on a quick road to third-world status from there.
For the external site thing, I strongly recommend adBlock. Here's what I'm blocking:
This removes all the "integration" BS between facebook and all the external sites. Yes, they shouldn't be doing it at all, but in the meantime, you can shut it down.
Vista's failure was because Microsoft had no idea what it wanted Vista to be.
I disagree. They knew exactly what they wanted Vista to be: Longhorn. They just couldn't pull it off, so we got Vista instead.
The result isn't actually that surprising. A similar result was mentioned in the book Blink that was popular a while ago. The study mentioned in Blink showed that juries were very sensitive to the race of the accused, and that black defendants had a much higher conviction rate, even with very similar evidence.
For a beautiful example of how it works subconsciously, have a look at the Implicit Association Tests from Harvard.
The image that immediatelly came to my mind was that of a painter selling a painting.
Note that copyright was not required or involved in any way and yet the creator of the artwork got rewarded for that work.
In fact, the only way copyright would be involved would be if someone made a copy of the painting. Even in that situation one could argue that the work of making the copy (say it's one of those painting making shops in China) is the one deserving of a reward.
Interesting that you should bring up selling copies of a painting...a moral question for you: is it fair for someone to mass-produce copies of a painting, making significant money from them, and not recompense the original artist? is the Chinese painting clone shop (or the simple mass production of prints) fair to the original artist?
From your example, the original artist would only make money from their sale of the work once...we, as a society, decided that this situation was unfair since it puts the people with distribution systems (publishers/printers) in an enormously unfair position over the painter. Hence, some system was necessary to re-balance that equation.
That's what copyright is all about. Whether the system has become unbalanced in the other way is an interesting discussion to have, but I really want to shoot down this pernicious idea that copyright decisions are independent of moral decisions.
Frame the argument properly, and we'll make progress...but as long as one side talks morals and the other ignores that, noting will ever get solved.
Copyright isn't a moral issue, it's a legal one
Nonsense. Law is simply morality that's been codified. We believe killing people is wrong, so we make a law to reflect our shared morality. We have also decided that it's right that the people who create artworks deserve some reward for that work. The system to make that reward possible is copyright. Saying the system is not working properly, and that you want to change it, is a very different statement from saying that breaking copyright isn't about morality. This is, at its core, *completely* about morality...the question is only whether the law reflects your moral view (or, better, society's overall moral view).
Your "private transaction" argument is also legally questionable. For physical things, (and in US law) if you buy something you have reasonable reason to believe is stolen you will also have committed a crime: Receiving Stolen Goods. It's designed to allow the state to punish fences as well as the thieves themselves, but laws like this will be cited in any discussion of similar behavior online. If you have reasonable reason to conclude that the person you're dealing with is selling you an illegitimate copy of a game, you are not free from liability. Your liability is certainly less than the person selling the thing, but you're not completely innocent in the exchange.
As someone who's actually eaten a stale twinkie (in the name of science!), it won't deteriorate, but it will get kinda gummy...
Anonymity and political speech have been connected for quite a bit of the US' history, starting even from before independence: many of the messages pushing for independence from the UK were sent around as anonymous pamphlets. So, while it may not be explicitly mentioned the inferred right to privacy and the tradition on anonymous free speech does exist. Whether either of these are applicable to a college kid sharing music is a whole other story, though.
And here Apple has shown once again that they're more efficient than Microsoft: they skipped step 2 entirely.