Right, the POINT of shredding documents is... so that they cannot be looked at by anyone. It depends on your adversary. Casual ruffians might steal an untouched stack of papers thrown into the dumpster, but they won't bother with shredded stuff. If we're talking about the Big Corp level where they might actually pay a full timer to rebuild shredded stuff, then... the smart first company would destroy the document even further. Funny thing is, a lot of shredders are pretty dumb - 8 page capacities. (Really?!)
So in my Small Town environment, I just rip my stuff into 16ths, then pour my leftover stale soda all over it.
And yeah, echoing the poster below, only $50,000, really?! For a secret that could be worth BILLIONS in intel?!
You're a ways ahead of me but what I learned between 2004-2010 for Windows "help-desk" stuff is still good for some other 3-4 years. I purposely stayed away from the harder volatile server side stuff, because I like Durable Knowledge. So I'm backup Helpdesk and a "line" accounting administrator.
But when that competitor is Microsoft the metagame changes. MS is famous for doing a little of everything, so they're always Fourth in a market, trying to look like "underdogs" while they still have the fading WinOffice monopoly.
Is it some mix of Anti-Google, so "we must go to Bing, which somehow is related to former Yahoo Search?"
What about the third party providers, ones who could use the traffic metrics? Ask.com comes to mind. Or StartPage that (supposedly) doesn't record your ip address. Or DuckDuckGo. Or something.
Why are there only like 12 players in all of Tech?
Really, this article is interesting because we might see a real risk of corrupt stuff flying everywhere. So far the Copyright War has involved "third tier sites" that the public doesn't really care about. However, taking the theory in the summary as is, if we lost Facebook, Twitter, and Youtube, would that in fact be enough to end "Web 2.0" and kick us over into some kind of Walled Garden Web 3.0?
The other possibility I see is a "differently-horrible" possibility of a site buying a "waiver" for insane amounts of money, so everyone's favorite top 100 companies are all there, but then it falls off a cliff because no one else can afford one.
This I. P. stuff really seems to be accelerating on the fastest track that the players think they can get away with short of just throwing the entire world in jail. It's also exposing a fatal flaw in the legislative process, because it only takes some ten bills to just get it all over with and introduce Big Brother and this bill is one of them.
"The reason why there isn't more research on lucid dreaming could be that lucid dreaming is not recognized as a problem by those who experience it."
Generally, skills make people better, so science should spend some of its time making "normal" people better by studying lucid dreaming. Quick guess is that it's like turbocharged REM, but hey, that would take science now...
The current problem is that it's relegated to the New Age section, which contains some of the most misunderstood topics ever. I rate them as part insightful and part flawed, and the challenge that spins you around is separating each half.
Re:Some day humanity will manage things a better
on
The Real Job Threat
·
· Score: 2
Okay, let's try Star Trek as a decent talking attempt. They occasionally lightly laughed at the Ferengi for being money grubbers, while everyone else tried to be lofty. Replicators are big in this.
Thing is, there WAS an "underground economy" running on Star Trek - Positional Meritocracy. Only if you were good enough did you get to serve on the Enterprise, and a couple squeaked by. So that show was fairly free of backhanded deals, but you can bet the ____-class crews in real life would cut deals to get a form of "Tenure", and we're back to Haves and Have Nots.
Lucid Dreaming is a strange and complicated skill, and Science typically does not measure strange and complicated skill. It kinda scares science.They lump it all under Placebo Effect and try to wash it away.
There's like 20 esoteric mental skills that are relevant here, but of course if you ridicule them enough you can ignore them.
This is a story about professional science, so already they only give the article to other professionals for the Peer review. Whether or not those Peers are revealed (intentionally - we're discussing process here) is a process choice with good and bad. In the first class at least a Senior Board needs to know that the Peers are qualified scientists. Quick example is the (GM) tag for chess grandmasters on ICC. Except for flukes, that tag doesn't get there by accident, but the real name is often private because they want to be left alone from being pestered.
But we need a class of "Intelligent Laypeople", who offer quality comments, even if they make mistakes. That's like a High-Karma user here. (Again, leave out the edge cases of "Karma Experts.)
Apple is where it is because they did the visual interface work that geeks traditionally couldn't be bothered with. I'm seeing lot of anti-Apple articles, but they're based on patent actions, or problems with walled gardens, or the Apple-fans, etc. I'm not seeing many articles laughing at the actual design of iPhones. They deserved to be where they are, compared for example with Microsoft's fumbling on the non-gamer entertainment side.
Is it just me but are we riding the "maturity curve" of tech, away from fun hacking unfinished chaotic projects towards "too old to do that stuff anymore?"
Where does it stand on the Malware front? On one hand I'd think it would let users ride ROFL-Copters over the virus writers. On the other hand it might be really vulnerable to 2012's exploit methods.
True Scotsmen Like this. "Any feature which has been successfully implemented is no longer AI".
That's a pretty sneaky bias for we carbon units to employ. What does it take for us to finally admit "Okay, that's AI. Not very smart AI, but then Smith over there isn't smart either." If for example you hook this Siri thing to the Watson system that can play world class Jeopardy, (tweaked for real sentences back rather than starting with Jeopardy Nouns), then watch out, here comes AI.
Any one person has a "collection of subroutines". We hit our biological limits some 170 years ago, so (basically) no one is a Renaissance Universal Polymath anymore. So we're cherry picking which of 5 billion people we want as our "Human Champion" vs the AI systems that are just on the brink of the Singularity.
We lost Chess, we lost Jeopardy. Your choice of 10 other classic test domains, which used to be hallmarks of Smart People.
So these are steps toward AI. No doubt about it. Then the last piece will be the Killer App, and then we'll all go to our bookshelves and re-read people like Kurzweil. And Asimov's robot stories.
You wouldn't just allow mass audiences to review, you'd Meta-Rank the Reviewers. So if Dr. ______ reviewed something well, and most of his reviews are insightful, you just "follow him" or something. That's what the Peer Review is like in the normal course. "Is this article sane? I am staking a small portion of my rep giving my Yay or Nay."
A big advantage Corps etc have over us is "national influence". So maybe the local reps, *all of them*, have a new duty in the modern age to look at what the nation wants, when making... wait for it... national policy! Because Congress is a function of groups, we have to go national. It does us no good to have a brilliant display in, say, Vermont, at which point the National Media laughs at how small it is, intimidates the Vermont Rep, and then the dangerous idea never comes to pass. But if you get suddenly 12 reps from 8 states voting for it, "the national level of Congress" has to wake up and deal with it.
Absolutely not true in the modern age of computers.
Given a juicy chunk of data, a smart guy with a few software tricks will dig that info out. The power of the internet is it only takes ONE smart guy, (or gal!) and then the results are rebroadcast in sound bite form.
Whatever a government recognizes is what rights you get. All rights are "alienable". You 'deserve' nothing.
It's only what the greater education of a government agrees upon is what you get for rights. Some folks up top found the awesome trifecta to crush us with because they dare us to be "against terrorism", "Against protecting children" and your choice of a third.
Look at that Computer Black Box proposed. That's the attempt at a Grand Slam. Who knows what a Black Box records.
I know now what 2012 is, it's the collision of all this social tech tension. The Mayans nailed it to the year.
Slashdot Mirror
One Britney Spears song should cover that at $150,000 right?
"Their first mistake was ... being a troll. They weren't born that way."
Lady Gaga disagrees with you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wV1FrqwZyKw&ob=av2e
Right, the POINT of shredding documents is ... so that they cannot be looked at by anyone. It depends on your adversary. Casual ruffians might steal an untouched stack of papers thrown into the dumpster, but they won't bother with shredded stuff. If we're talking about the Big Corp level where they might actually pay a full timer to rebuild shredded stuff, then ... the smart first company would destroy the document even further. Funny thing is, a lot of shredders are pretty dumb - 8 page capacities. (Really?!)
So in my Small Town environment, I just rip my stuff into 16ths, then pour my leftover stale soda all over it.
And yeah, echoing the poster below, only $50,000, really?! For a secret that could be worth BILLIONS in intel?!
There is no spoon.
Disruptive would be telling the IP Lobby to GTFO. But that won't happen, so he's not really planning on being disruptive.
You're a ways ahead of me but what I learned between 2004-2010 for Windows "help-desk" stuff is still good for some other 3-4 years. I purposely stayed away from the harder volatile server side stuff, because I like Durable Knowledge. So I'm backup Helpdesk and a "line" accounting administrator.
Be glad that you are not in China to be detained for this Rumor!
Really, there's a thin line between humor and rumor.
But when that competitor is Microsoft the metagame changes. MS is famous for doing a little of everything, so they're always Fourth in a market, trying to look like "underdogs" while they still have the fading WinOffice monopoly.
I don't get the whole point of this version.
Is it some mix of Anti-Google, so "we must go to Bing, which somehow is related to former Yahoo Search?"
What about the third party providers, ones who could use the traffic metrics? Ask.com comes to mind. Or StartPage that (supposedly) doesn't record your ip address. Or DuckDuckGo. Or something.
Why are there only like 12 players in all of Tech?
Really, this article is interesting because we might see a real risk of corrupt stuff flying everywhere. So far the Copyright War has involved "third tier sites" that the public doesn't really care about. However, taking the theory in the summary as is, if we lost Facebook, Twitter, and Youtube, would that in fact be enough to end "Web 2.0" and kick us over into some kind of Walled Garden Web 3.0?
The other possibility I see is a "differently-horrible" possibility of a site buying a "waiver" for insane amounts of money, so everyone's favorite top 100 companies are all there, but then it falls off a cliff because no one else can afford one.
This I. P. stuff really seems to be accelerating on the fastest track that the players think they can get away with short of just throwing the entire world in jail. It's also exposing a fatal flaw in the legislative process, because it only takes some ten bills to just get it all over with and introduce Big Brother and this bill is one of them.
"The reason why there isn't more research on lucid dreaming could be that lucid dreaming is not recognized as a problem by those who experience it."
Generally, skills make people better, so science should spend some of its time making "normal" people better by studying lucid dreaming. Quick guess is that it's like turbocharged REM, but hey, that would take science now...
The current problem is that it's relegated to the New Age section, which contains some of the most misunderstood topics ever. I rate them as part insightful and part flawed, and the challenge that spins you around is separating each half.
That's a lot of TFA's!
Okay, let's try Star Trek as a decent talking attempt. They occasionally lightly laughed at the Ferengi for being money grubbers, while everyone else tried to be lofty. Replicators are big in this.
Thing is, there WAS an "underground economy" running on Star Trek - Positional Meritocracy. Only if you were good enough did you get to serve on the Enterprise, and a couple squeaked by. So that show was fairly free of backhanded deals, but you can bet the ____-class crews in real life would cut deals to get a form of "Tenure", and we're back to Haves and Have Nots.
I read this as a new currency issued by Apple.
Lucid Dreaming is a strange and complicated skill, and Science typically does not measure strange and complicated skill. It kinda scares science.They lump it all under Placebo Effect and try to wash it away.
There's like 20 esoteric mental skills that are relevant here, but of course if you ridicule them enough you can ignore them.
As I see it this is the biggest soft downside to the Mac style.
Either you enjoy the comfy confines of PG, or you take a risk of some Bad Stuff appearing in return for freedom to do what you want with your machine.
So if the question wants Gnu-Linux, I don't think we should change the topic back to Apple.
Debian Mint Xfce edition maybe?
Big problem there.
Semi-correlated (not causation, I know etc) the physically hardy set doesn't capture the Frail But Smart crowd. It's an Intellectual world now.
Two classes of reviewers.
This is a story about professional science, so already they only give the article to other professionals for the Peer review. Whether or not those Peers are revealed (intentionally - we're discussing process here) is a process choice with good and bad. In the first class at least a Senior Board needs to know that the Peers are qualified scientists. Quick example is the (GM) tag for chess grandmasters on ICC. Except for flukes, that tag doesn't get there by accident, but the real name is often private because they want to be left alone from being pestered.
But we need a class of "Intelligent Laypeople", who offer quality comments, even if they make mistakes. That's like a High-Karma user here. (Again, leave out the edge cases of "Karma Experts.)
Apple is where it is because they did the visual interface work that geeks traditionally couldn't be bothered with. I'm seeing lot of anti-Apple articles, but they're based on patent actions, or problems with walled gardens, or the Apple-fans, etc. I'm not seeing many articles laughing at the actual design of iPhones. They deserved to be where they are, compared for example with Microsoft's fumbling on the non-gamer entertainment side.
Is it just me but are we riding the "maturity curve" of tech, away from fun hacking unfinished chaotic projects towards "too old to do that stuff anymore?"
Where does it stand on the Malware front? On one hand I'd think it would let users ride ROFL-Copters over the virus writers. On the other hand it might be really vulnerable to 2012's exploit methods.
"Nothing is AI, that's my point."
True Scotsmen Like this. "Any feature which has been successfully implemented is no longer AI".
That's a pretty sneaky bias for we carbon units to employ. What does it take for us to finally admit "Okay, that's AI. Not very smart AI, but then Smith over there isn't smart either." If for example you hook this Siri thing to the Watson system that can play world class Jeopardy, (tweaked for real sentences back rather than starting with Jeopardy Nouns), then watch out, here comes AI.
Any one person has a "collection of subroutines". We hit our biological limits some 170 years ago, so (basically) no one is a Renaissance Universal Polymath anymore. So we're cherry picking which of 5 billion people we want as our "Human Champion" vs the AI systems that are just on the brink of the Singularity.
We lost Chess, we lost Jeopardy. Your choice of 10 other classic test domains, which used to be hallmarks of Smart People.
So these are steps toward AI. No doubt about it. Then the last piece will be the Killer App, and then we'll all go to our bookshelves and re-read people like Kurzweil. And Asimov's robot stories.
It's a start.
You wouldn't just allow mass audiences to review, you'd Meta-Rank the Reviewers. So if Dr. ______ reviewed something well, and most of his reviews are insightful, you just "follow him" or something. That's what the Peer Review is like in the normal course. "Is this article sane? I am staking a small portion of my rep giving my Yay or Nay."
A big advantage Corps etc have over us is "national influence". So maybe the local reps, *all of them*, have a new duty in the modern age to look at what the nation wants, when making ... wait for it... national policy! Because Congress is a function of groups, we have to go national. It does us no good to have a brilliant display in, say, Vermont, at which point the National Media laughs at how small it is, intimidates the Vermont Rep, and then the dangerous idea never comes to pass. But if you get suddenly 12 reps from 8 states voting for it, "the national level of Congress" has to wake up and deal with it.
Absolutely not true in the modern age of computers.
Given a juicy chunk of data, a smart guy with a few software tricks will dig that info out. The power of the internet is it only takes ONE smart guy, (or gal!) and then the results are rebroadcast in sound bite form.
Nope.
Whatever a government recognizes is what rights you get. All rights are "alienable". You 'deserve' nothing.
It's only what the greater education of a government agrees upon is what you get for rights. Some folks up top found the awesome trifecta to crush us with because they dare us to be "against terrorism", "Against protecting children" and your choice of a third.
Look at that Computer Black Box proposed. That's the attempt at a Grand Slam. Who knows what a Black Box records.
I know now what 2012 is, it's the collision of all this social tech tension. The Mayans nailed it to the year.