Slashdot Mirror

Click here for a link that doesn't require registration, and gives the entire article in one go.

- Stephan.

the reg-free link is here

http://partners.nytimes.com/2001/02/02/technology/ 02CYBERLAW.html

Misqoute? See this article (NYT, so the usual registration bit applies)

The NYTimes has a really interesting article on a couple of math prof's at University of Vermont who using combinatorics designed the XFL's schedule so it met all sorts of crazy constraints.

This is a good article, but the writer misses a next logical step. Counterfit information. If we as members of the market counterfit information (make crap up) then we are polluting the informatio market. Once the information collectors have no easy way to determine if the information is valid or invalid the collected information can not be used for analysis. We must all do our part to destroy these databases which belive they are entitled to our information. GO to nytimes and register with fake information. Delete your cookies and repeat.

As you no doubt know, the no registration version of the article is here.

That said, just as with web gnats/bugs, invisible GIFs, and suchlike, there are many ways to avoid this:

1. Use PINE. Who needs graphics anyway?
2. Turn off all Java, Javascript, etc and view all emails as Text. Then use the Copy and Paste functions to forward only the From:, Subject:, and Date: fields in the email along with the body of the text.
3. If you want to forward pictures or attachments, save them to a file, and convert any DOC or other embedded files to a non-embedded format such as ASCII Text. Then create an email and attach those new files instead.
4. Hunt down and launch boycotts and similar actions against the creators of these things. Show no mercy.
5. Send a copy of all such spam to all your legislators - municipal, county, state, federal, president/etc. Send it with the attachments and javascript. Include your name and adress in the forward so the spam software on their end will not put it in the spam box, and ask them what they will do about it. And send a copy to uce@ftc.gov for fun.

All I have to say is that if you think Java is insecure

Java is rather secure as can be seen by reading any of the numerous articles on the web about it. Javascript on the other hand is a disaster which was foisted on us by Netscape and excarberated by Microsoft.

PS: You do realize that the NY Times article is discussing a Javascript exploit and not a Java one, right?

Grabel's Law

Here is the login-free URL

I'm Brazilian and as such I can tell you: most of Brazil's population will not be able to buy this computer. They wouldn't have the $200, or the telephone line, or the money to pay the phone bill. Pimenta da Veiga is actually helping Brazil's lower middle class.

Another interesting example is the Bangladeshi woman who used microcredit to buy a cell phone, which she rents out to her neighbors. Not a big business by our standards, but one that has a drastic effect on her and her customers.

The importance of both examples is that they show impoverished, even illiterate people gaining access to information. For people like this, information is power, money, and safety. A weather report pulled off a US Navy web site can mean life or death for a fisherman. Being able to talk to a guest-worker family member means their remittances don't get ripped off by go-betweens. There are no end of consequences.

The best thing about these programs is the way they promote mutual aid and collective responsibility. Microloans are administered by peer groups that make sure the recipient has realistic goals and plans. Groups that chip in to buy a computer are going to be personally involved in how it is used -- no dusty impulse purchase this!

__________________

1. While just having internet access won't make poor people less poor, it will at least let them communicate with others in the same boat, and become aware of ways to get out of it. If their lot in life doesn't improve, it's also one avenue for political organization. While they could cut off free net access in the event that happened, it's many rungs up the ladder from the typical impoverished country which would take steps to keep its poor people isolated.

2. This is only part of the story. In a New York Times article I read earlier this week, there was a description of how Brazil is encouraging its researchers to violate American drug company patents and copy AIDS drugs for free treatment of the poor, the net effect being that they're controlling AIDS down there as well as we are here. Now they're distributing cheap computers with no Microsoft tax.

Why is this important? Because for apparently the first time, a less privileged country has realized that there's no need to pay rich countries for stuff that can be copied or has a freely available substitute. You can charge whatever you want for oil and take it away if a country won't pay up, but you can't take away their ability to copy your 'intellectual property'.

If they can do this and survive economically, it will change everything.

File sharing is misnamed. When I share something with you, I only have a portion of it left for me. File sharing is really file copying. This activity is not per se bad; it is how it is often used that is the problem.

I think everybody agrees with that. Now, yes, we all know she's insane and hungry for power, but if you read the rest of the quote in that interview, she almost sounds reasonable, and she makes a few interesting points.

C'mon, people, if we want to argue about something, let's not resort to posting vaguely inflammatory out-of-context quotes.

--

The NYTimes is running this (free reg req'd)article about how Disney is shutting down their portal, go.com.

Perhaps in response to the slashdot suggestion that they take over yahoo? ;)

On a future note, if anyone wants to read an artice on nytimes.com, just change the "www" in the address to "partners" (e.g. http://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/29/technology/29CAP .html becomes http://partners.nytimes.com/2001/01/29/technology/ 29CAP.html).

On a future note, if anyone wants to read an artice on nytimes.com, just change the "www" in the address to "partners" (e.g. http://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/29/technology/29CAP .html becomes http://partners.nytimes.com/2001/01/29/technology/ 29CAP.html).

Internet usage actually declined in December, for the first time ever.
This according to a story in yesterday's New York Times.

Here's the no login link to http://partners.nytimes.com/2001/01/29/technology/ 29CAP.html.
Richy C.

Here's the no login link to http://partners.nytimes.com/2001/01/29/technology/ 29CAP.html.
Richy C.

http://channel.nytimes.com/2001/01/28/business/28T OON.html

No reg required.

http://partners.nytimes.com/2001/01/28/business/28 TOON.html has the article without the registration

-

http://channel.nytimes.com/2001/01/25/technology/2 5SEAR.html
That'll get you in without registration.

at http://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/25/technology/25STA T.html (free registration req).

A recent article in the NY Times talks about how the researchers from Princeton and Rice are having to work out the legality of publishing their results, due to potential problems with the DMCA.

This link works without requiring any registration.

http://partners.nytimes.com/2001/01/18/technology/ 18SELF.html?pagewanted=all

Regarding the topic, though, is this truly the way the web is going to become, with semi-intelligent linking, bringing relevant topics to the forefront and allowing the irrelevant to wither in obscurity? If so, this is a mixed blessing. It's good, because obviously you can search for something rather quickly, getting what you need and getting outta there. However, it's also bad because those little sidetracks most searching takes you on can lead you to other topics that you've never heard of that are interesting in their own right.

I would ever see the day when Hemos would be called Mr. Bates by someone. That was just plain scary. Other than that although wrong in a couple of details (I have seen some things *far* below 0 it was a pretty good introduction. Also why is it that /. won't put this link on the front page?

--

Although I'm not sure why they shouldn't provide the content *they* paid for on *their* terms, you can get in without registering here

Obligatory no log in link

However, I wonder if this could also be used for holography: freeze the interference pattern into the material, and read it out later, reconstructing the image. In theory, since the material could record the interference pattern in three dimensions rather than two (like a photographic plate), this might allow for more detailed holograms.

If one has to get an account first in order to only *read* the damned article in the link, then it is no surprise to get so little response from an audience of which each member already has an overflowing mailbox of so called 'opt-in' stuff.
(From sites like the NYT everyone accepts this, perhaps because we may revisit it some time in the future and it is known to have usefull information).

So, without having seen the info in the link, how can we comment sensibly?
It is not so much about not caring about Open Source, as more about "Well euh... dunno, can't tell, what is this about?"

As an interesting contrast to this thread I submitted an interesting interview from the New York Times this morning. Being that this is /. and all it got rejected. The scientist they interviewed has been researching the effects of microwaves on people for 25 years and has pretty much determined that they are harmless. Her research has gone as far as exposing monkeys and humans to large microwave fields and investigating the feasibility of microwaves for home heating.

I'll freely admit that my post was intended to be a bit over the top, but being trained in physics (now working in embedded systems programming) I know that there is very little likelyhood that microwaves could cause genetic mutations. Microwaves do not have sufficient energy to change the molecular structure on DNA. You must realize that visible light is many orders of magnitude more energetic. No one would even consider that keeping a light bulb over your head would be dangerous even if the UV emissions from said bulb are an actual risk of skin cancer from that radiation (ok, light bulbs tend to be a bit more toward the red side of the spectrum and thus emit rather little UV light, but my point stands).

As far as the saftey value of head-sets goes I remain convinced that their value extends only to keeping your hands free while driving and possibly to prevent neck cramps. The neck cramp problem though isn't unique to mobile phones and is probably more of a problem for those who use conventional phones since most people who work on the phone don't use mobile phones.
_____________

FCLymond writes Extending on the Scores vs. Hooter's case, the Nightlife News reports (cover charge required, under 21 not allowed) that a Manhattan nightclub owner named "Tony the Deuce" has forbidden "his girls" from using 'butts to harvest up-for-some-action prospects from audience members. The theory's that inviting a customer upstairs for some "private action" infringes on the owners right to charge $10 for a bottle of Bud on the main floor. (Question: Would lap dances also be objectionable, because the recipient is unable to get up and saunter over to the bar while receiving one?)

http://channel.nytimes.com/2001/01/12/technology/1 2CYBERLAW.html

Although here is this interesting bit from the middle of the article:

The harm in the New York case was arguably less than that demonstrated in the eBay case. Register.com offered evidence that its computer system's resources were diminished by about 2.3 percent owing to Verio's robot. In her opinion, Judge Jones said that the harm estimate was "thoroughly undercut" by Vario in pretrial discovery, however. She added that Register.com's evidence of harm was "imprecise." Nevertheless, Judge Jones concluded that Verio's search robot occupied "some" of Register.com's system capacity. And because some unmeasured portion of Register.com's computer property was not available to the company, that was harm enough, she said -- especially when combined with the eBay notion that the failure to issue an injunction risks a pile-on from other robots in the wings.

Michael A. Jacobs, a lawyer for Vario, said in an interview that Judge Jones, in effect, said that a showing of present harm was no longer a necessary requirement for trespassing on a computer web site. "In eBay, they showed a 1 or 2 percent" crunch on eBay's system capacity, he said. In his case, even though Register.com's allegation of 2 percent "blew up," he added, "the judge found a sufficient risk of harm. It was literally unprecedented."

William F. Patry, a lawyer for Register.com, said that it was reasonable for Judge Jones to rule that a sufficient showing of harm was made. "If your property is the computer system and somebody comes in and uses it in a way that violates the terms of use," he asserted, the owner can say, " 'Wait, you're using my system under conditions that I said you couldn't.' "

It may be true that the particular use "won't crash my system," Patry said, but any use of the personal property diminishes the owner's rights to a degree. He added that it was not "so crazy" for the court to rule that Register.com's computer response time might be significantly slowed if other companies began to use robots to hammer on Register.com's database.

This one is ok: http://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/12/technology/12CYB ERLAW.html

You Mean http://partners.nytimes.com/2001/01/12/technology/ 12CYBERLAW.html?
(No reg version)

The link to the bot story is here. No free registration is required :)

Although, the other page was a Hoot!
---
Interested in the Colorado Lottery?

Darn cut and paste. One more try: http://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/12/technology/12CYB ERLAW.html

For those of you not afraid of goatse.cx, http://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/12/technology/12CYB ERLAW.html

When the topics are technical, Slashdot has a really good signal/noise ratio. Smart things get modded up; stupid things get modded down and/or stomped on.

Here, though, we see what happens when it's a topic where people don't know much about. The volume is just as high, the opinions are just firm. But most people are just talking out their asses, and moderators are giving big points to Limbaugh-like rants without a scrap of fact in 'em.

Since this article already has enough opinion, I'll just stick to a few facts and some interesting links.

I live in San Francisco, so I've been following this closely. A very interesting site for the curious is the California Independent System Operator, an organization responsible for the long-distance high-voltage lines and the power that flows over them. They have a FAQ, a diagram that shows how the power flows, and an up-to-the-minute graph showing projected and actual power load. (I say we all pick a time tomorrow to turn off everything and see if we can make the graph drop.)

Personally, I use 100% renewable power from utility.com. (I actually pay less than others, but I'd happily pay more for my green preferences.) They are certified by Green-e, a non-profit that verifies the power content. (The typical mix for California uses only 12% renewables, with 20% coal, 20% large hydroelectric, 31% natural gas, and 16% nuclear. (Yes, large hydroelectric is counted separately; it's not considered very environmentally friendly these days.)

There are several good articles in the New York Times about all this, including one on following the money. There is also one on how Texas plans to do it differently. And as subscribers to The Economist know, California's deregulation was a pretty shoddy job compared to other utility deregulations around the world.

So those of you who lay the blame entirely on environmental regs from California's own special blend of fruits, nuts, and flakes should research a little further. You'll find a picture that's much more interesting and complex: political dithering, a lack of foresight, corporate greed, and plenty of plain old stupidity are involved.

When the topics are technical, Slashdot has a really good signal/noise ratio. Smart things get modded up; stupid things get modded down and/or stomped on.

Here, though, we see what happens when it's a topic where people don't know much about. The volume is just as high, the opinions are just firm. But most people are just talking out their asses, and moderators are giving big points to Limbaugh-like rants without a scrap of fact in 'em.

Since this article already has enough opinion, I'll just stick to a few facts and some interesting links.

I live in San Francisco, so I've been following this closely. A very interesting site for the curious is the California Independent System Operator, an organization responsible for the long-distance high-voltage lines and the power that flows over them. They have a FAQ, a diagram that shows how the power flows, and an up-to-the-minute graph showing projected and actual power load. (I say we all pick a time tomorrow to turn off everything and see if we can make the graph drop.)

Personally, I use 100% renewable power from utility.com. (I actually pay less than others, but I'd happily pay more for my green preferences.) They are certified by Green-e, a non-profit that verifies the power content. (The typical mix for California uses only 12% renewables, with 20% coal, 20% large hydroelectric, 31% natural gas, and 16% nuclear. (Yes, large hydroelectric is counted separately; it's not considered very environmentally friendly these days.)

There are several good articles in the New York Times about all this, including one on following the money. There is also one on how Texas plans to do it differently. And as subscribers to The Economist know, California's deregulation was a pretty shoddy job compared to other utility deregulations around the world.

So those of you who lay the blame entirely on environmental regs from California's own special blend of fruits, nuts, and flakes should research a little further. You'll find a picture that's much more interesting and complex: political dithering, a lack of foresight, corporate greed, and plenty of plain old stupidity are involved.

Here's the article: http://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/12/national/12CALI. html

The "under 13 years of age" version is here.

Posting anonymously to avoid any accusations of being a karma whore.

It's also important to note that the appellate court decision came out of the 4th Circuit, known amongst legal circles as one of the most conservative in the nation.

As a matter of fact, Clinton just made a recess appointment of Roger Gregory, a black judge, to the 4th Circuit (previous nominations had been held up by certain Senators...) Previously, the Fourth Circuit had been the only circuit to never have a black member.

See http://www.nytimes.com/2000/12/28/politics/28JUDG. html.

It'll be interesting to see what Bush does with this appointment. Since it's a recess appointment, Gregory will serve for at least a year.

Here

Personally, I don't see why /. doesn't just use these instead of the "please sign in or register" links.

I found the movie very immersive, informative, and thought provoking. It lays out quite vividly something that most smart people already know: why the classic "war on drugs" approach can't work, because the enormous demand for drugs will create a supply, no matter what legal prohibitive steps are taken.

Instead of encouraging the people -- especially the young people -- to lead healthy drug-free lives, this movie basically says that it's useless to fight the drugs; give up already.

I think the move does exactly what you want: it suggests that a large part of the answer is up to us. This is highlighted quite clearly when the drug czar's daughter in the movie ends up in a rehab program (not really giving away any plot.)

You'll see in the reviews something that was made amply clear, in fact stated in so many words, in the movie: that the "war on drugs" is a war, in part, on the people we love: our own children, for example. The movie wasn't saying we should give up; rather, it presents a well-constructed view of the drug industry from a number of different angles, giving some insight into what drives it and why efforts against it have had limited success, and poses the question, is the approach being taking right now really the most effective one? If you're not even willing to discuss the question, then it's your motives that should be scrutinized, not Steven Soderbergh's.

As the article points out, they are pretty expensive to install and you need a *large* open space to put it in. Most of these schemes exploit the fact that the earth is a pretty good heat sink and stays at a remarkably constant temperature. To maintain this, you have to have a "low impedance" path to send your heat away- which is why you need lots of land. A traditional air conditioner uses a "higher impedance" path to get rid of the excess heat, by blowing it into the atmosphere.

In some areas (like central Texas, where I live) it would be especially expensive to put in one of these systems because about 6 inches below the topsoil is limestone, which you would have to grind through and many $/foot. I'm guessing that a geothermal field like this would have to be maintained clear, like a septic field, since the roots of the plants could wreak havoc with your heat exchanger, and finding the leak would be particularly hard if the field is spread out over an acre or so. Drilling straight down can be similarly expensive.

Some areas have natural hot springs that they exploit for heat and power generation, but there aren't too many places like that.

If you can afford it, and you live in the right location, it can be great. Looking at it from a purely economic standpoint, your money is probably better spent with more traditional measures, like good insulation, high efficiency A/C, thermal windows, etc. Geothermal systems are the path of the person with a lot of money that wants to make less of an impact on the environment. But if you do this, please don't take the money you save and buy an SUV.

Without the pesky registration can be found here

is here use and abuse it.