retrac
Joined 7 years ago
Karma
12,714
Submissions
4,297
Member since
May 3
Recent submissions
Comment · 1 day ago
10 million dollars in $100 bills weighs 100 kg. Distributing and fencing that much counterfeit is probably hard.
Comment · 6 days ago
I've been reading about the early history of the Internet.
The first ARPANET link to the United Kingdom required an exception to UK law. The traditional interpretation was that the state telecom monopoly (the General Post Office) had a monopoly on data transport. It was assumed that national governments have an absolute sovereign right to inspect data packets at the border, just like they do mail and parcels. That includes searches and seizures of foreign propaganda, material illegal under domestic law, etc.
> In early 1971 Larry proposed to break the circuit and connect in the NPL network to the ARPAnet. Unfortunately for that plan (but not for me), at this time the British government was trying to get the United Kingdom into the European Economic Community (EEC). The EEC governments, particularly France, were in any case suspicious of U.K. links with the United States. It was therefore politically impossible for NPL to be linked directly to a U.S. defense project. [1]
But the Internet was an experimental network. An exception could be made. Everyone would pretend that they were inside the United States legally speaking. This sort of worked when everyone was an academic restricted by network access policies of their institutions.
> I set up a Governing Committee, with the funding partners on it: Ann Letts represented the BPO, Donald Davies represented the NPL, and I was the Chair. Because of the questionable legality of what we were doing, all proposed users had to be approved individually. I put in security procedures so that all users had to log-in, with a password, on our relay.
[2]
This is related to the protocol wars of the 1980s. The X.25 protocol that was supported by all the established telecoms providers, included mechanisms for packet authority, automatic packet billing, and political boundary packet inspection mechanisms. [3]
X.25 was decried as too centralized, too complex, and too centred around the interests of the established telecoms. (Which it was.) TCP was better for both technical and political reasons. But the Protocol Wars were not a permanent victory. It was a wonderful moment in world history but the underlying tensions have resurfaced.
[1] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/224386328_The_early...
[2] http://www0.cs.ucl.ac.uk/research/darpa/internet-history.htm...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Internet-OSI_Standard_War...
Comment · 7 days ago
Annihilation. At low collision energies the antiproton and proton go through an interaction which ultimately results in photons (light energy). Matter is converted into energy as e = mc^2. Though the interaction passes through a number of exotic intermediate stages first.
Comment · 7 days ago
This reminds me of microcity which is a Simcity Clone for the Game Boy Colour.
The author has some great in-depth docs about the design, and how they managed to make a fairly lively-seeming simulation fit into a machine with an 8 MHz 8-bit processor.
https://github.com/AntonioND/ucity/blob/master/docs/index.rs...
Comment · 7 days ago
That depends on whether you consider the air to be part of the property or not. When aviation was invented it was a widespread legal and philosophical thought that the owner of property owned the air above the property. "Cuius est solum, eius est usque ad cœlum et ad inferos" - he who owns the soil has from from Heaven to Hell. So pilots would have to get permission from each property owner they wanted to fly over. From that perspective, a satellite or aircraft flying overhead is trespassing. We didn't go that way. Governments legislated and took seizure of the air as common rights of way, and curtailed private property rights when they did so. It's probably better that way. But there's a certain logic to the old ad cœlum definition.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_rights
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuius_est_solum,_eius_est_usqu...
Comment · 8 days ago
Unless I'm mistaken about 20 years ago Germany was the first country that required that Google blur people's faces and licence plates on Gmap's Street View. There was initially much opprobrium about this limitation on free expression. And many technical objections to the scale of the task of identifying all the people and blurring were raised. These technical issues were overcome. It would seem we now accept the anonymity blurring as both not only necessary but an obviously good idea.
Edit: It was 2009.
https://www.cnet.com/home/smart-home/nearly-3-percent-of-ger...
Comment · 8 days ago
The article about "gridification" in music on the front page seems apropos: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50150163
> [...] it substitutes a corrupted symbolic representation of felt life, one defined by machinic precision and optimization [...] that surrounds us increasingly presents a morphology of unfolding that no human being actually inhabits.
Comment · 9 days ago
Oh look at the last paragraph on the first page. Manually justified:
In order to make machines significantly easier to use, it has been
proposed (to try) to design machines that we could instruct in our native
tongues. This would, admittedly, make the machines much more complicated,
but, it was argued, by letting the machine carry a larger share of the
burden, life would become easier for us. It sounds sensible provided you
blame the obligation to use a formal symbolism as the source of your dif-
ficulties.