Everyone knows, there are no female customers at RSA conferences. (/irony)
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
I'd restate as "harder to invade but easier to lock valid personnel out", which seems a classic problem with any secure location. As such, there has to be existing solutions. Having two crew in the cockpit at all times is a good start but not a complete solution. (You could probably think of at least three ways around this.)
tomorrow's email from management:
"The good news is removing attractive models from the event is positive progress for our society. The bad new is that we already bought the skimpy outfits for the models, so now you have to wear them."
If there is one truth in the world, it's this: Nobody wants to see me in hot pants.
Never mind, I'll just read the literature and save myself a plane ride.
> Vendors are still willing to objectify women to have a chance at winning business.
> If so, are you saying that attractive women are not allowed to represent a company or product?
That appears to be the case, yes. No fun allowed here.
Actually they can still have booth babes they just need to look professional. Personally a beautiful woman tastefully dressed is more of a turn on than the slutty look anyway.
I know you mean well, but you're completely missing the point.
You beat me to it. I was going to ask "What part of 'turn on' did you not understand?"
Obviously what they'd need to do is take a poll of attendees ahead of time, and then revise the rules to something that doesn't turn anyone on.
To prevent lying on the poll, a polygraph would have to be involved.
Earth-size moons of gas giants are definitely a possibility. I think we've already found gas giants in the "goldilocks zone". But I thought I read recently (maybe in Slashdot?) that although rocky planets orbiting close enough to red dwarfs to have liquid water might be fairly common, there was some other reason why life was unlikely in that scenario. I don't remember the details, though. Radiation, perhaps?
> Imagine being bombarded by quasars and blasted by supernova. Life is very possible in that environment, but it would be equally difficult for any life form to organize into something more complex than bits of matter capable of replication.
I've been thinking of this point in particular, and I suspect that if intelligent life happens at all (other than us) it's probably most likely (or least unlikely) out on the edges of a galaxy, where low density of stars vs empty space reduces the odds of nearby supernovae and other types of stellar catastrophe. I suspect (although I have little to base this on except statistics) that the closer you get to the inner, crowded parts of the galaxy, the less likely you'll find life that's managed to have a stable enough environment for long enough to develop intelligence.
Agreed, agreed. "Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is."
The vastness of space actually counts against us in this particular case, I think. The stars, especially out in the backwaters of the galaxy like us, are fairly distant from each other. I agree that as numbers increase, the chances of anything happening, no matter how unlikely, tend to approach certainty. But if as I suspect we're radically off on how likely it is for civilization to happen, the chances become vanishingly small that it will have happened anywhere nearby (as interstellar distances go).
So, we're looking for other civilizations, haven't found any, even though we estimate that life should be common. After all, if it happened here it should be able to happen in a lot more places.
But perhaps the set of circumstances that would create an environment that lasted long enough for life to be created and evolve to this point are wildly, vanishingly improbable. Perhaps the only reason we think it should have happened lots of other places is that we are the ones doing the looking, and we don't realize just how rare we actually are.
But that's a little depressing.
That's a ridiculous argument, as surveillance has a chilling effect. It's not a hard restriction of freedom, but that doesn't really make a difference, and soft restrictions are easier to hide and deny.
First, don't think that I'm supporting spying on the general population. However, I don't feel it is the information that is bad, but what governments will do with it. For example, I don't see Google doing anything bad with the data they have on me. Yes, it's an invasion on my privacy, but frankly, I don't really care. What can they do? However, I can see governments abusing the data, especially given the recent IRS scandal where the government used information to punish groups opposing the president.
As for the "chilling" aspect of it, it's only a problem if 1) You know about it, and 2) You let it.
I can't say that a secret invasion of privacy limits my freedom in any way. How could it? I had no idea. That's not to say that it won't be used to limit my freedoms later. Everyone at one point or another is against the powers in Washington. Today, it's conservatives. In a few years, it will be liberals. Libertarians scare the bejeezus out of both parties.
So... inappropriate for spacecraft, then. Oh well.
It's not a tradeoff at all. Our intelligence agencies are likely the biggest threat to our security today. We are giving up liberty to be in more danger.
You are confusing privacy with liberty. While I view I have a right to a certain level of privacy, it has no effect on my liberty.
For example, if I were to strap a camera to my head and stream my life 24/7 onto the web, am I any less free than I was before? No, even though I had given up 100% of my privacy. My liberty would only be limited if I limited it myself. For example, if i decided not to view porn because the camera on my head would broadcast it and the whole world would know that I'm into midget-barbarian porn.
Liberty is diminished, however, when that lack of privacy is used against you. For example, if the state puts a GPS on your car and sends you a fine every time you exceeded the speed limit, your liberty would obviously be diminished. Or if the state put a camera in your bedroom and arrested you for masturbating in an unapproved manner.
Privacy is nothing more than the securing of information. Information has nothing to do with liberty. However, it could be used to restrict freedom.