Slashdot Mirror

Because the grants could be used for Macintoshes and competing software, Microsoft said, the settlement would not be intended to give the company an even greater advantage in the marketplace.

So, whois Brendan Barnicle , "Vice Principle and Senior Research Analyst", with Pacific Crest "Securities" (requires flash plugin to view?), really? & why is he allowed to provide so much MiSinformation (google) to the "mainstream media" (AP)?

"Last month, former Mylackey [defunct .com/scam] Chief Financial Officer Brendan Barnicle called the cops to report that $53,844 in computers had been stolen from the company.

It's not clear, however, why Barnicle waited until March 16 to report the loss, which originally came to light last October when the company closed down. On that terrible day (October 27, 2000), a computer- leasing company showed up to take away the items, only to discover they were missing.

No word on the current whereabouts of the 21 stray computers. Barnicle, who has gone on to become a financial analyst for Pacific Crest, was unavailable for comment." Nancy Drew

Good thing we've got guise LIEk Brendan to help us decide about "investments" in our future, know? More clues as to whoare the REAL .commIEs/FraUDs. Moron Brendan, who, amusingly enough, is touted as a "former" lawyer (turned stock tout/shill?). Looks LIEk he fills the "lackey" position, perfectly.

Al Gore(s) the Bull? from: CNN

Security Problems? Well, first, don't tell anybody, then smear a glop of this m$ bs on IT, & call us, well, um..., don't bother calling us .

Convicted SoftWar Racketeer Gangsters Agree to Settle Victim's Claims, By Taking MORE Hostages IT doesn't get any better than this?

I can see your argument that this is immoral etc. On one hand - government censorship goes against everything America stands for and this is bad. However, on the other hand, Saudi Arabia (or China) ISN'T America, and whenever different cultures are judged against each other - war seems to be the result. Can we just worry about ourselves and let other countries do what they will (provided they return the favor)? Let China's people have their own democratic revolution if they want, or not. We all have to live together, don't we?

Ha! You think Microsoft pays taxes?

States' Rights was pretty much dissolved by the Civil War, and only lately have there been good arguments for it, such as Oregon and their fight for the right to administer euthanasia.

Please read this article and examine your assumptions.

According to this NY Times article, the US government is actually looking to implement their own secure network for their various agencies to share that would be separate from the larger network. I found the paragraph below quite interesting when taken in the context of the open-ness that this thread is asking about: "Some in the technology industry fear what they see as the implications for the Internet: a separate cyberspace system for the government, they say, might create a trend in which other institutions as well would begin building their own networks separate from the Net. Civil libertarians, meanwhile, ask whether the idea would make the government less accessible to the people."

See that weird red, blue and green globe symbol?

That's trademarked. You can see it on the WTO website, and they have a nice (specific) notice clearly indicating it is theirs.

I'm all for parody. But there is no need for parody to make use of actual trademark symbols, or even trademarked phrases. It is much more funny, and more clever besides. Here's one example, in case you don't already know what I mean.

It's quite clear to me that the Yes Men are more interested in pissing off the WTO than in parody itself. This is not itself a crime, but replicating trademarks like that tends to fool people rather than to get the point across. The WTO has a legitimate complaint here.Trademark law is meant to protect consumers, not businesses, and (for once) the WTO seems to be using it completely legitimately. If the Yes Men aren't deliberately trying to fool the very people they are self-righteously trying to protect from the corporations, they should have no problem with getting off their duffs and altering the trademarked symbols on their website.

That's a really silly statement considering that Jackson had been working on the film for 2 years before the first Harry Potter film had ever been written. Tolkien is the father of fantasy. Check out this sweet article in the nytimes.

Journal of Historical Review

Biowarfare in the 20th Century

Biohazard (Alibek) review

It's hard to imagine anyone much better placed than Alibek to know the truth.

Originally music executives were less worried about artists not getting paid than about the potential for Xbox to become a new Napster, since it has a large hard drive and online capabilities. But in a statement prepared for this article Microsoft said that though music could be stored on the hard drive, it could not be copied on "CD's, MP3's or any other devices."

Too bad it doesn't have video capture . . .

Regards,

-l

NYtimes article.. For MusiciansX box is no jackpot.

I guess they didn't get to be rich by writing a lot of checks.... (thanks homer)..

Once again Micro$oft figures out a way to screw a new group of people. They convinced most of the bands to give them the music for free. The story is here (NYTIMES reg req.). The bands did it for the publicity but guess what, there are no credits and you can replace the music with your own.

"thousands of light detectors imploded in a chain reaction ... [it] must have had something to do with the [water] pressure ... [and] happened as the water tanks were being refilled after ... maintenance."

Super-K is basically a huge underground cylindrical tank, about 40 meters wide and 40 meters deep, containing 50,000 tons of very nearly pure water. The sides, top, and bottom of the tank are covered with PMT's, the photomultiplier tubes which serve as detectors in the telescope. They are all pointed inward toward the mass of water, ready to detect the slightest Cherenkov light. (And slight it is—the Cherenkov light generated by the shockwave of a single muon is about as bright to the detector as a single candle seen from the Moon.)

Fortunately, each PMT is sensitive enough to detect a single photon of Cherenkov light. How does it do this? The same way you eat an elephant—one bite at a time. First, the photon hits a photo-cathode on the inner surface of the PMT's glass bulb, and the photo-cathode, in turn, releases an electron. The electron is attracted to a dynode, which carries a high-voltage positive charge, and accelerates toward it. When it hits, its great kinetic energy causes the dynode to emit several electrons, which are attracted to a second dynode with an even higher positive charge. The process repeats once for every dynode in the detector, until the final dynode is deluged with electrons, and sends a signal indicating that it has detected a photon. Neat, eh?

As you can imagine, PMT's are expensive ($3000 each, in this case), delicate, precision instruments, and you don't move them around like lightbulbs on a Christmas tree. Especially if you've recently gone from having 11,242 of them to having only 4,000 or so in one horrific oops.

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/14/opinion/14KRUG.h tml

Are you sure that you didn't get your statistic from someone who couldn't think up a number bigger than 100 billion or a period longer than a year ?

Also, if we spend 300 million in a day, then we spend 30 million in one tenth that, or 2.4 hours, a lot less than 12.

Calculators are your friend, but if you are stupid in the first place, they won't help much.

I forgot to mention that @home scans your machine daily to make sure you are not running a news server.

They were pressured to do this by Usenet administrators. If they had not, their IPs would have been blocked by many usenet servers. The levels of spam from @Home addresses were unacceptable. These scans fixed the problem.

Never mind they *don't provide the bandwith* to run a news server

Right. They provide fucking insane downstream bandwidth and fairly modest upstream, suitable for clients. I would prefer more upstream, too, but not if it means paying more...which of course it would. Bandwidth costs money. If you haven't noticed, @Home isn't in the best financial shape.

Why would you run a Usenet server anyway? This is a huge resource drain (much more content than you actually read is sent to you), when there are plenty of other usenet servers (for modest fees, or even using the ones @Home provides) or alternatives to Usenet entirely.

... and more often than not the *scans* will disrupt your downloads!

Bullshit. Their scans consist of SYN packets to port nntp (119/tcp). If your machine properly issues a ICMP connection refused packet, nothing more will happen. I am an @Home customer and was when they started doing this. I have not experienced any problems due to these scans.

Seriously, look at the heart of what I am saying: you are paying the same, or more, and getting less and less as @home can take from you. Is this the way to run a business?

Given their terrible financial situation, they must do this or go broke. In that case, they would charge you nothing and provide no service. You have that option now. Take it if you like.

My complaint with @Home is that their support is absolutely terrible. When I call about service interruptions, I'm put on hold for way too long before talking to someone who does not have a clue. I'd much rather see them pour money into fixing this problem than into a little more upstream bandwidth.

http://archive.nytimes.com/2001/11/12/nyregion/12W IRE-PLANE.html

Or for the lazy ones

New York Times (archive)

Text:
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20011112/ts/plane_ crash_dc_1.html
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/11/12/newyork.crash/ind ex.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/12/nyregion/12WIRE- PLANE.html
http://www.usatoday.com/hlead.htm
http://www.reuters.com/news_article.jhtml;jsession id=GX1YUYCNLN1WQCRBAE0CFFAKEEATGIWD?type=topnews&S toryID=365206
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A147 84-2001Nov12.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,38565,00.html
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-a p-plane-crash1112nov12.story?coll=sns%2Dap%2Dnatio nworld%2Dheadlines

Video:
http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/us/popoff/Daily News/STREAM1_video_popoff/index.html

Trying to bring up the story on New York Times I get an Orbitz pop-under ad. Story probably requires the free registration.

Yes, mod the parent of this post up. What would be the basis for art as a legal tactic? I want to know.

I consider myself an artist, with programming as my medium. When I consult for a company to integrate foo into their web service, that is commercial programming, like commercial painting. But when I am constructing a massively multiplayer interactive experience, that is artistic programming. I am trying to break through the existing constructs to something new, something that is my own. That is art.

And I have difficulty articulating the rage I feel at those banal greedy fuckwads who want to take away my artistic tools. The only reason we can do anything as programmers is because of the decades of patent-free ideas and expressions contributed to computer science. If software patents had been the name of the game from the get go there would be no Internet, no home computing, and none of the opportunities available to us now.

What if brush-stroke technique was patentable? So only Monet could paint impressionistically, only Seurat could use little dots, only Pollack could throw paint at a canvas. There would be no growth in art, the art world would wither and die.

Don't talk to me about patent expirations. Art grows and develops only when there is an active body of work and active painters, riffing off each other and each others' techniques. Patents put a lock, a brain-death on the exploration that is critical to art.

Touretzky is really on to something with his library of DeCSS scramblers. Not so much for the DeCSS case, but for the larger point that programming and computer science are not like other "patentable" domains. The library of scramblers shows the easy transition from art to code, that art is code, and this for a DeCSS scrambler.

Thank god for people like Lessig, who have the skills and talents to navigate the world of the fuckwads. As a computer artist (in the larger sense), I am busy trying to do art. By the way, there was a hopeful piece in the NYT today: I say "hopeful" only because it is another indicator that the mass-media zeitgeist is slowly waking up to the tragedy of the fuckwads.

Unfortunately, it's hard to avoid despair when the fuckwads control the government. The other day I was walking, thinking of this and other problems, and I thought, there must be some way we could all retaliate against the fuckwads.

Anyway, someone who is a lawyer, please comment on the art as legal defense possibility. I have to get back to making art.

E-books are impervious to analogy. With most digital products, a pirated copy is worse than the real thing and ends up being more like free publicity than a threat. For example, an MP3 music file sounds worse than a CD, and it's less portable, for now. A pirated software game doesn't give you access to technical support. A pirated Dilbert comic strip isn't as good as a collection of them in a book. And so on. But a pirated e-book is better than the original e-book because it's identical in function, free and you don't have to give anyone your personal and financial information.

Agree with him or don't, he makes an interesting point. I tend to be more sympathetic with the fellow who converted it back to plaintext (and really, how hard can that be, given enough geeks wanting to do so? Dmitry did it pretty quickly) but I also see Scott's point.

As for me, I prefer my books in dead tree format. Easier to deal with in every way. Articles online need to be fairly brief or I won't read them - so news is okay, but a book really isn't.

This kind of thing has been happening with increasing frequency recently, and in many instances the subsequent holder of the domain name is a porner trying to catch those who go to the name thinking that it's still what it used to be.

When the name previously was used for childrens materials my guess is that a case could be made that the second person is intentionally targeting children - and the existing legal system has plenty of cauldrons of boiling oil for those kinds of folks.

There are several useful resources: There's Carl Opendahl's "Considerations for innocent domain name owners"http://www.patents.com/dno.htm

And then there's the collection of things by Ellen Rony at http://www.domainhandbook.com/media.html In particular see: Pornography Takes Over Financial Site for Children http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/26/technology/26NET .html

The fact is that the only time our current lawmakers have mounted a serious threat to patents is when their own lives are specifically threatened. This is quite disturbing to me, as it will be seen by some as legitimizing terrorist actions. Your opinion doesn't matter and your vote doesn't matter. If you can't afford the sort of influence that gets you early Christmas presents from the reigning kleptocracy (IBM $1.4 billion, Enron $300 million, etc.), then what are the alternatives?

I fear that we are quickly approaching the point at which there are only two means of communicating with our government and influencing the media: bribes and violence. And they said organized crime was dead...

The fact is that the only time our current lawmakers have mounted a serious threat to patents is when their own lives are specifically threatened. This is quite disturbing to me, as it will be seen by some as legitimizing terrorist actions. Your opinion doesn't matter and your vote doesn't matter. If you can't afford the sort of influence that gets you early Christmas presents from the reigning kleptocracy (IBM $1.4 billion, Enron $300 million, etc.), then what are the alternatives?

I fear that we are quickly approaching the point at which there are only two means of communicating with our government and influencing the media: bribes and violence. And they said organized crime was dead...

You can also try the following stories.
www.msnbc.com/news/652977.asp

money.cnn.com/2001/11/06/technology/microsoft/

www.cbsnews.com/now/story/0,1597,316946-412,00.sht ml

www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,38145,00.html

www.nytimes.com/2001/11/06/business/06CND-SOFT.htm l (Reg Required)

canoe.ca/MoneyMicrosoft/nov6_msfttwothirds-ap.html

Here http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/05/technology/05OPE N.html?todaysheadlines

Sci-fi is fun. But try The Tunnel by William H. Gaas sometime. Maureen Dowd hates it. You'll love it.

The New York Times had this article A Crystal Beacon Atop a 20's Curiosity about a 42-story glass and steel structure -- inspired by the Crystal Palace built for the Great Exhibition of 1851 in London - that is going to be built atop Hearst Corporation's headquarters at 959 Eighth Avenue, between 56th and 57th Streets in New York. The existing building, completed in 1928, was originally designed as the base of a taller structure.

Architectural critic Herbert Muschamp thinks it's a great project, something the New York skyline has been waiting for. "The possibilities for integrity are limited only by the mind's capacity to hold unity and complexity together. That is the capacity that distinguishes architecture from real estate," he says.

(Yes, I know that reading this entire article requires a dollar for a print copy or a free registration, but in my opinion it was well worth it.)

Link to the article that doesn't require registration

No-reg Link to article:

http://archive.nytimes.com/aponline/business/AP-Ne tworks-ReplayTV.html

Actually NeuLevel is a subsidiary of NeuStar. Or the other way around. The print edition of the NY Times mentioned this. The short online version here does not.

I actually checked out that book from the library and started to read it but didn't get past the first sentence, which is (I shit you not), "What was it that Forrest Gump's mama liked to say? Life is like a box of chocolates: you never know what you're going to get inside." I'm sorry, but I refuse to finish the rest of a book, no matter how good, that begins with a quote from "Forrest Gump's mama".

Anyway, that's beside the point. Friedman has also written many columns on this subject in the NY Times, and in one, he made the point that globalization is neither intrinsically good nor bad. It will be good or bad depending on how we manage or steer it.

I think that is a good point, which leads to a couple of questions: How have we managed globalisation so far? And in what direction will we steer it in the future? And of course, who is "we" in the previous two questions? The UN? A handful of multinationals?

I'm not going to answer those questions, except to say that it is obvious that globalisation could be managed much better than it has been and is being managed. And, I hope that "we" can steer it in towards a better course in the future.

I actually checked out that book from the library and started to read it but didn't get past the first sentence, which is (I shit you not), "What was it that Forrest Gump's mama liked to say? Life is like a box of chocolates: you never know what you're going to get inside." I'm sorry, but I refuse to finish the rest of a book, no matter how good, that begins with a quote from "Forrest Gump's mama".

Anyway, that's beside the point. Friedman has also written many columns on this subject in the NY Times, and in one, he made the point that globalization is neither intrinsically good nor bad. It will be good or bad depending on how we manage or steer it.

I think that is a good point, which leads to a couple of questions: How have we managed globalisation so far? And in what direction will we steer it in the future? And of course, who is "we" in the previous two questions? The UN? A handful of multinationals?

I'm not going to answer those questions, except to say that it is obvious that globalisation could be managed much better than it has been and is being managed. And, I hope that "we" can steer it in towards a better course in the future.

I don't think that Microsoft ever really planned on blocking browsers. At least not yet, and at least not for the long haul. Oh, I think eventually they will block other browsers for real, but just not yet.

So, why did Microsoft block some folks from MSN? What were they so "foolish" you ask?

The answer is obvious. Microsoft are great at marketing. This was free publicity. Tons and tons and tons of free press....

After an Online Ruckus, Microsoft Opens MSN Site to All

What a total win! They have the NY Times giving them a great headline. Oooh, Microsoft the kind, the gentle, the good. Microsoft, so good for people. So willing to bend over for people.

What a crock. Wake up. It is sad that even Berners-Lee was suckered into this whole thing. People are always taking their eye off the ball. Microsoft knew they couldn't keep people out very long, but they knew it would stir things up. Free publicity.

Microsoft = marketing wizards.

By the way, given what I have said, isn't it a shame that we'll spend more time talking about Microsoft? And, isn't it a shame that /. even posted this story...?

Here is some more information about the artwork (NYTimes login required blah blah blah blah)

Time to use another vhost...

http://college.nytimes.com/2001/10/23/opinion/23GO LD.html

ran an essay by George Johnson titled "Quantum Stew: How Physicists Are Redefining Reality's Rules" In its first paragraph, it mentions "Mr. Tompkins in Wonderland" and tells of one of Mr. Tompkins weird experiences when he dreams he is in a world where Plank's constant has been altered. The essay ran on Tuesday, October 16, Section F; Page 4; Column 2; Science Desk

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is just yet another example of why Internet appliances are failing. For that price, I can get a sub-zero fridge, and several high end computers, and still have money left to renovate the rest of my kitchen. No wonder these things don't catch on...

Which is exactly why it's there! I for one would give Funny posts a +1 bonus, and -1 all the Informatives, some days.

More seriously, I would love to see arbitrary bonuses and filtering. Let me add or subtract points for any moderation choice; high mod totals; poster's karma; +1 bonus [used / not used]; on my Friends list; on my Ignore This Person list; and so on. Could be fun.

Nolo.com has a nice short primer on Internet taxation issues, with plenty of additional links for more breadth.

As this NYT article suggests, the taxation ban expiring will have little effect in the short to medium term, as the ban itself was really very limited in scope, and no local politician wants to increase taxes, especially to affluent voters who would be primarily affected.

Registration Required* * *

An optional national identity card could be used in a similar way, offering a similar kind of tradeoff: a little less anonymity for a lot more security. Anyone who had the card could be allowed to pass through airports or building security more expeditiously, and anyone who opted out could be examined much more closely.

As a civil libertarian, I am instinctively skeptical of such tradeoffs. But I support a national identity card with a chip that can match the holder's fingerprint. It could be an effective tool for preventing terrorism, reducing the need for other law-enforcement mechanisms ? especially racial and ethnic profiling ? that pose even greater dangers to civil liberties.

* * *

Finally, there is the question of the right to anonymity. I don't believe we can afford to recognize such a right in this age of terrorism. No such right is hinted at in the Constitution. And though the Supreme Court has identified a right to privacy, privacy and anonymity are not the same. American taxpayers, voters and drivers long ago gave up any right of anonymity without loss of our right to engage in lawful conduct within zones of privacy. Rights are a function of experience, and our recent experiences teach that it is far too easy to be anonymous ? even to create a false identity ? in this large and decentralized country. A national ID card would not prevent all threats of terrorism, but it would make it more difficult for potential terrorists to hide in open view, as many of the Sept. 11 hijackers apparently managed to do.

* * *

From a civil liberties perspective, I prefer a system that takes a little bit of freedom from all to one that takes a great deal of freedom and dignity from the few ? especially since those few are usually from a racially or ethnically disfavored group. A national ID card would be much more effective in preventing terrorism than profiling millions of men simply because of their appearance.

* * *

Now what I want to know is: What do all of the hot heads spouting off on this site know about civil rights and constitutional law that Mr. Dershowitz does not know?

How do you know that this was done using IBM's vast resources? All accounts have this as "a guy" from IBM.

Well, this is how I know: (from the article)

Mr. Comerford is not losing his mind. His organizer can actually recognize his speech in addition to uttering sentences itself. It is one of nearly 100 Palm organizers that I.B.M. ( news/quote) Research has reconfigured in an attempt to create a speech system small enough to reside on a hand-held computer.

I know because I read the article. Whoever modded you up obviously didn't.

From the article: "He said that the protoype was based on three decades of work by I.B.M. scientists to create increasingly nimble programming codes for speech systems. Faster and smaller processors also helped, he said, as did a few improvements in hardware, like adding a speaker, a microphone and an additional processor to the Palm." (emphasis mine) And take a look at the picture

Not that this is not a remarkable achievement -- it is, and certainly a precursor to ubiquitous handheld devices with voice recognition -- but it isn't really a Palm. It is a palm-sized device based on the Palm that can talk.

PS: As I spellchecked my post, I realized the NYT wrote "protoype." Go figure.

And we're so good at it, too.

Okay, slashdotters, the challenge is this: corporate America needs to be offerred a new ideological alliance which won't involve placating fundamentalist monotheists. As Andrew Sullivan noted in last weekend's New York Times Magazine, "it is a war of fundamentalism against faiths of all kinds that are at peace with freedom and modernity."

So how do we do that? How do we build a political alliance that preserves freedom for economic activity (and emphasizes freedom in economic activity, rather than allowing corporations to band together to remove freedoms from individuals), while also preserving freedom from people who are too silly to see that their favorite interpretation of their favorite old text is not a direct order from the sort of God who would have us see free will as the crack through which evil enters an otherwise perfectly ordered creation (which is in fact the theology of our fundamentalists)?

How do we extend open source to make freedom even more of an economic imperative? Just as America has found some strange allies in its struggle, so must we find ways to radically realign our domestic political alliances to regain the freedoms our current unrepresentatives are surrendering in our name.

In the New York Times today there is an article about a guy who built a robot out of Lego which can solve the Rubik's Cube.

It uses a lego-cam linked to a computer with color recognition software and a rubiks solving program, but all the mechanical bits to physically manipulate the cube are Lego.

Stumped by Rubik's Cube? Let the Lego Robot Solve It

This is something the ACLU insists on, even though it greatly limits the authorities. Very likely, this attack would have been prevented if the laws had been just slightly different. Some of the changes make a great deal of sense, such as roving wiretaps. It would have been more convincing to me if the ACLU had suggested some better alternatives. As to those who insist a police state is just around the corner: BULLSHIT!!. Every country in western Europe has different laws about how the police conduct searches. Not one of them is a police state. We can make rational adjustments in our laws. It's fine to point out flaws in the legislation, but slashdotters sound like they are against any changes, which is just paranoid.