Slashdot Mirror


Slashback: Salon, Privacy, Pricedrops

Slashback with more on Salon's struggle to balance ads and subscriptions, online retailers versus online bargain hunters, the not-at-all-secret government proposal to obtain "Total Information Awareness" (including information about you), and more.

Circumventing the upsell, but not all of it. Responding to the recent post about cable service a la carte, alta writes "I got a response from Jane Black (who wrote the original article) and she said slashdot jumped the gun. You can not pick and choose which channel you want. You can just choose to get basic limited and premium without getting the 2 steps in between. Here's the actual piece of law:

"Buy-through of other tiers prohibited - A cable operator may not require the subscription to any tier other than the basic service tier required by paragraph (7) as a condition of access to video programming offered on a per channel or per program basis. A cable operator may not discriminate between subscribers to the basic service tier and other subscribers with regard to the rates charged for video programming offered on a per channel or per program basis.
Read it all here. Here's what Jane said:
'But please make sure you understand the rule (Slashdot's headline was misleading indeed.) You can't just choose which channels you want. The new rule says that you can get basic (the network and cspan etc) plus HBO/Starz/Showtime *without* having to buy the standard package as well. If you want AMC, Lifetime, whatever, you still need to buy the whole package. Make sense?'
If you still need it, you can find more about the law here. Just type 543 in the "Section" field. The citation is: Section 623(b)(8) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. Found at volume 47 of the US Code Section 543(b)(8)"

The Salon dilemma. A Slashdot post last week reported that Salon was in serious financial trouble, and had dropped its premium section and instituted giant ads. Salon has now moved to over-the-counter trading. "While we valued the prestige of a NASDAQ listing, this move to the OTC market should not affect our core business," says Salon's president and CEO in the story. Update: 11/26 00:42 GMT by J : One correction: Salon has not dropped its premium section.

Dole, or Hormel? MacAndrew writes "As briefly discussed in slashdot a few weeks ago, Senator-elect Elizabeth Dole has been sued by a constituent who received eight unsolicited emails from her. He claims $100 damages including "emotional distress for having received spam from someone who should know better." Salon has now published an article focusing on the critical political versus commercial speech aspect of the case. Courts have recognized political speech as the innermost circle of free speech protection, and groups such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation believe spam laws that interfere with it may be not just unwise but unconstitutional."

Surely, someone's wallet will end up fat. In reaction to the recent story about provisions of the DMCA being used to prevent the posting of post-Thanksgiving sales prices from large retailers, Brian McWilliams writes "I finished up my story about FatWallet after you posted that link on Slashdot. Might help explain some stuff."

Well, we thought this here panopticon would be a nice idea ... McLuhanesque writes "DARPA has posted the architecture for their Total Information Awareness Systems , the uber-database that purports to suck in every scrap of electronic information about everyone, mix in some Human ID at a Distance technology, among other stuff, and profile ... well, just about everyone. More of their proposed fun and games are listed here." And Declan McCullagh writes: "Just posted the transcript of the Pentagon news briefing (worth a read) on Politech. Note this is on the TIA program, not 'eDNA.'

$10,000 is nothing to sneeze at. The idea of buying code into the world of Free software (aka code Ransom, as mentioned on Slashdot a few days ago) is drawing interest. waxed writes "FreePepper is an effort to collect enough money to purchase the source code for the multiplatform text editor Pepper from its author, Maarten Hekkelman, who has ceased development of it and re-release it under a BSD-style license. Donations may be made via PayPal or cheque."

222 comments

  1. Hell with that! by GeckoFood · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...purports to suck in every scrap of electronic information about everyone...

    This kind of crap is exactly what it would take to make me cancel my account with my ISP and do everything by paper again. Big step backwards. Yeah, I know, they have all the dirt by other channels anyway, but why make it easy?

    --
    Be excellent to each other. And... PARTY ON, DUDES!
    1. Re:Hell with that! by seanadams.com · · Score: 3, Funny

      This kind of crap is exactly what it would take to make me cancel my account with my ISP and do everything by paper again.

      Here's an RFC to help you with the transition to paper-based Internet access.

    2. Re:Hell with that! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0



      I particularly enjoyed how privacy and security are rendered as a red dotted line that stands in the way of the whole thing working. :-)

    3. Re:Hell with that! by ncc74656 · · Score: 2
      This kind of crap is exactly what it would take to make me cancel my account with my ISP and do everything by paper again.

      Here's an RFC to help you with the transition to paper-based Internet access.

      ...and here's a group of people who've implemented it, and here's the article /. ran on it.

      --
      20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
  2. wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    people are really gonna /\hate\/love this slashback!

  3. More on FatWallet DMCA notices by wendy · · Score: 5, Informative

    See also the Chilling Effects Weather Report: Bargain Shoppers Chilled by Retailers' DMCA Threats, where we dissect the DMCA safe harbor provision and potential legal claims and responses.

    --

    -- Openlaw: Fighting for fair use and the public domain

    1. Re:More on FatWallet DMCA notices by Brendan+Byrd · · Score: 3, Funny

      Bargain shopping web sites with online forum discussions such as Fatwallet.com and DealExpert.net received DMCA 512 notices with threats of legal action if they did not remove the postings containing these price lists on their web sites.

      Section 512 of the DMCA. The new Super-DMCA bill is S.2048. WTF?! Are the planets aligning in the right way to have these important sections in law to happen to fall on a direct power of two?

    2. Re:More on FatWallet DMCA notices by qbproger · · Score: 0

      I see the DMCA as an excuse for companies to be lazy. It allows them to take legal action after their own rather loose security in the company has leaked some information. At least, that's how it seems to be used in this case. If companies tighten security, problem solved.

      --

      - Joe
  4. Fourmula.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Step 1: Write a bunch of articles you can find anywhere else.
    Step 2: ???
    Step 3: Bankrupcy!

    1. Re:Fourmula.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn lameness filter... blah foo grep....

      Step 1: Post a good gag on Slahdot as AC
      Step 2: ???
      Step 3: Karma!

      Why post AC?!

    2. Re:Fourmula.... by nomadic · · Score: 3, Funny

      You talking about Salon or Slashdot?

    3. Re:Fourmula.... by sczimme · · Score: 4, Funny


      Oh, I get it: it's got steps 1, 2, and 3, and it's called a fourmula! That's a good one! :-)

      (All in good fun, btw.)

      --
      I want to drag this out as long as possible. Bring me my protractor.
    4. Re:Fourmula.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1) Ellen Feiss
      2) Shitty Technicolor Cases
      3) ????????????
      4) Niche computer market losing to Linux of all things

  5. DMCA keeps coming back to bite us by kavel · · Score: 1, Insightful

    'nuff said...

    1. Re:DMCA keeps coming back to bite us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yeah, I'm still not sure how they are playing the DMCA or even copyright card despite reading amany articles on this.

      IANAL of course. But my confusion stems from knowing a little about some past coypright cases.

      See, if the Wal-Mart spokesman Mr. Williams actually did say to the extent 'its sales circulars consist of a "compilation of prices" and that the data contained therein "is very much copyrightable"', and that's an official stance, that's sorta a shot in the foot for them. Compilations are copyrightable if the compilation extends some creativity in the nature of the compilation. Most compilations are copyrighted because the original works included are still under copyright; not because of the nature of the compilation unless there was some special layout. Where do I get this from? The Feist vs. Rural Telephone case. It showed that white pages in phone books are facts which are not copyrightable.

      Other case law extends this further, again involving telephone directories. Hell, yellow pages in one circuit is not considered copyrightable. Addresses, phone numbers, business descriptions are not. So how can a price by copyrightable?

      It's sorta odd--the DMCA argument is being used to squash a consumer pricing site but a side reason being that their leak tips off their competitors so that they can adjust prices. Uhh, they should be more worried about the leaks--in all honesty, if it's getting out to regular web sites, if you have a spy section in a company (which many companies do), you're going to know the prices anyways.

      Who wants to bet at least one of these companies screams "See! The leaks to the internet caused us to lose millions in sales. That's why our holiday season sales are down!" to their Congressman.

    2. Re:DMCA keeps coming back to bite us by illuminatedwax · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm fairly certain FatWallet doesn't steal any of the companies' fonts, colors, pictures, placement of words next to pictures, or even the wording itself. The sad thing is, if one of these companies does scream to their Congressman, they *will* listen. It seems to have become government policy that corporations have a *right* to make money. And in the spirit of this, Congress might simply squelch the means of spreading this information rather than saying, "You had a leak; it's your fault; stop whining." Honestly, this seems just a little bass-ackwards to me. A copyright is not applicable to something simply because it causes your business to lose money.

      --
      Did you ever notice that *nix doesn't even cover Linux?
    3. Re:DMCA keeps coming back to bite us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Holy FUCK, you're serious?! Jeeze...what an incredible insight you must have. I had no idea. Please, get a job as a talking head on a major market news outlet. Fast. The world needs to hear the incredible things you have to say. "DMCS Keeps coming [sic] back to bite us". I mean...woah. I knew it was a bad law, and I knew that it was sometimes being used beyond origonal intent, but you just tied the whole thing together so succinctly. I had never thought of it before in this light. I'm just speachless. This insight you have, I mean...wow. WOW.

    4. Re:DMCA keeps coming back to bite us by stinky+wizzleteats · · Score: 1

      Mr. Williams actually did say to the extent 'its sales circulars consist of a "compilation of prices" and that the data contained therein "is very much copyrightable"

      Okay. I hereby copyright all funds I spend shopping at Wal-Mart and license their use to the explicit and sole purpose of sending me checks for shopping there. After all, they're only compilations of prices.

  6. Spin Control... by craenor · · Score: 0

    What a bunch of BS...and I'm not talking college degrees here. They are just trying to offer-up some positive spin on this whole episode to make it look like they aren't going the way of WorldCom.

  7. Salon Premium still exists by MushMouth · · Score: 5, Informative

    They just allow you to get to the premium content if you click through some long Mercedes Benz ad. On a side note, this news is now 4 days old.

    1. Re:Salon Premium still exists by Siriaan · · Score: 2, Funny

      SlashBACK - to me, that implies a recap of the week's top stories. But that's just me; I suppose it's possible some people might confuse it to mean a section devoted to geeks suffering back problems. Who am I to judge?

    2. Re:Salon Premium still exists by rspress · · Score: 1

      Actually, Salon is due to be kicked out of the NASDAQ listings. I believe that had till the first of the year to get their stock price to over a dollar per share, if not they would be history. In recent weeks it has been as low as a penney a share. In other words there is no way they are going to make the deadline. This latest ploy is just a way to save a little face before 2003. I think they will go under by March, if they last that long.

  8. free Pepper? by citroidSD · · Score: 5, Insightful

    $10,000 sounds like a lot of money for Pepper. Maybe the money would be better spent on other projects?

    [insert] token reference to donating money to EFF here [/insert]

    just a thought...

    1. Re:free Pepper? by iomud · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I dunno, the opensource community really needs another text editor. If things continue they way they have been for the past year we'll have to file for chapter 11. If only we had just one more text editor to save the day.

    2. Re:free Pepper? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think that is the basic problem with ransomware. The author's value of a program vs the actual value of the program to the world at large will always be different. I'm sure that author put 10k worth of his personal time into making the editor work, but when we have to judge the value of a product by a one time chunk fee.. we lose out on both sides.

      ransomware as an idea sucks.

      give 10k to RMS and just use emacs. *cough*

    3. Re:free Pepper? by TekReggard · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I can see this being capitalized on. People will make start selling the source code to their programs for ridiculous prices al la the Microsoft Way off doing things. As Seen Here.

      I would like to see some kind of standard set for pricing. OS's cost too much [as noted above], Most software has a set shelf value from day 1, and many of us have got to remember when you could find website auctions going on... "Buy www.YourCompany'sNameHere.com for $9,999,999!!!"

      Who is going to be watching out for the little guy if there isnt any kind of realistic gauging done on supply and demand in the Tech industry? Its certainly not the government if they're supporting the idea that because we use computers we're criminals.

    4. Re:free Pepper? by prockcore · · Score: 2

      $10,000 sounds like a lot of money for Pepper. Maybe the money would be better spent on other projects?

      That's an odd thing to say. Who's to say that spending money on Pepper is any better or worse than spending it somewhere else? The only people who can make that choice are the ones ponying up the dough.

    5. Re:free Pepper? by WasterDave · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Ten thousand dollars sounds like about a months' worth of hiring someone who knows what they're doing plus computer, desk, coffee etc.

      Fscking bargain, if you want the source to an editor, and it effectively kills selling into OSS as an industry.

      Dave

      --
      I write a blog now, you should be afraid.
    6. Re:free Pepper? by notfancy · · Score: 4, Informative

      $10,000 sounds like a lot of money for Pepper.

      It might be worth perusing the discussion on OSNews. The argument pro revolves around the question of how much is your time worth, as a non-OS programmer. The argument con hinges on various issues of relevance and desirability (as you point out).

      Pepper has a lot for it in that it is an editor that strove from the start to be an outstanding GUI editor. As Hekkelman himself tells in the interview, the architecture has a couple of nice features not really found on other editors (except, perhaps, MPW for Classic Mac OS. Witness the long mourning some regulars to the mpw-dev list go through still to this day): journal-based edit log for unlimited replay (as opposed to merely undo), superior rendering, virtual file editing, programmable syntax highligting, etc. Many Open Source text widgets could benefit enormously from importing/integrating Pepper code.

      Then again, maybe not. Editors tend to be a notoriously religious bone of contention.

    7. Re:free Pepper? by larry+bagina · · Score: 1
      if you want to get a feel for what the pepper code is like, look at it's earlier incarnation, pe

      Of course, pe was first generation, and pepper is 2nd generation, so it's a lot like comparing minix to linux :)

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    8. Re:free Pepper? by Zeinfeld · · Score: 2, Interesting
      $10,000 sounds like a lot of money for Pepper

      There are parts of London where the ground rents are still priced in pepper corns.

      At one time pepper being a valuable spice worth more than its weight in gold was used as currency. So a peppercorn is still legal tender in the UK and other common law countries.

      As such a peppercorn is commonly used as a rent in cases where land is essentially being gifted but for various reasons cannot be given or sold. For example Christ Church College Oxford is build on land owned by Christ Church, given to them under a covenant that prevents sale. So the land is actually leased to CCC on a 499 year lease with a rent (due to expire soon!). I don't know the amount in the CCC case but in similar transactions a peppercorn per year is used.

      --
      Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
      Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
    9. Re:free Pepper? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      $10,000 for one person, for one month? Not in todays economy! You can outsource to India, and get the same quality work at a price of one person for $100 a month!

    10. Re:free Pepper? by CerebusUS · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Something I found interesting: He has an existing offer for $10K on the table and is willing to let the open source community buy it out for $11K...

      What if they only raise $3K and the current buyer withdraws? Was this a bad move? Didn't he just lose $7K?

      or what if the current buyer decides that since the OSS community can't pony up that much money, they adjust their offer down to $5K?

      Maybe he should put the source up on ebay...

    11. Re:free Pepper? by homer_ca · · Score: 1

      Wrapping an app around the Textedit class in your widget library != writing a text editor

    12. Re:free Pepper? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quality? Hardly. The worst code next to Estonian code next to virtually all O.S. code. Pay a hindi $100 for a months worth of work, then a real coder 10k to fix it. Your better off just paying to have it done right in the first case.

      (Note this is not bigotry, it's experience!)

    13. Re:free Pepper? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      (Note this is not bigotry, it's experience!)

      Dude, nobody cares how many wives you have. (g,d,&r)

      ~~~

    14. Re:free Pepper? by ivan256 · · Score: 2

      Of course this is the same editor which the author stopped working on because the event handlers needed to be reentrant as of MacOS 10.2, and it was going to be difficult to make this change for some reason. Making an event handler reentrant is a piece of cake. Take a lock at the begining, and release it at the end. Sure, they'll be serialized, but they were before too, right? If the Pepper code is so messed up that you can't easily make the event handlers reentrant then the code is probably best put in the bit bucket.

      Who needs it anymore anyway? Xemacs and GNU emacs now both run on MacOS X. Save your $10k.

    15. Re:free Pepper? by mbogosian · · Score: 2

      <sarcasm>I dunno, the opensource community really needs another text editor....</sarcasm>

      What I don't understand is this: is it really worth $11,000 to take over someone else's sources and maintain them for a project like Pepper? How difficult would it be to take $8,000, pocket it, use the existing product (as a black/gray box) as a base from which to write something else better (and more informed)?

      I can understand Blender (maybe not $100k worth, but I'm in no position to attempt to assess value on something like that), but Pepper doesn't seem to be all that complicated. Certainly not more so that OpenOffice, Emacs or even VIM.

      Hey, if there are 1,000 Pepper users willing to chip in $10 each for the sources, more power to them....

    16. Re:free Pepper? by abischof · · Score: 2

      Kidding aside, I'm curious about text editors for win32. Sure, there are quite a few (CrimsonEditor is my current favorite, with Source Edit close behind) but, like any good geek, I'm looking for The Best ;).

      Ports of Emacs or Vi[m] to win32 don't interest me very much, primarily because I enjoy the hotkey conventions that I'm used to already in win32 (Ctrl-C to copy, Ctrl-X to cut, and so on). Really, I'm looking for one with syntax highlighting for languages such as HTML and CSS, and a tabbed-interface. Are there any Super Great editors that I should check out?

      --

      Alex Bischoff
      HTML/CSS coder for hire

    17. Re:free Pepper? by Anonymous+DWord · · Score: 2

      I like UltraEdit. I use the AC-mentioned Scite in Linux though.

      --
      "If he thinks he can hide and run from the United States and our allies, he's sorely mistaken." Bush on bin Laden
    18. Re:free Pepper? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are you saying, we should give him 700 pounds of peppercorns instead?

    19. Re:free Pepper? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +1 Insightful

      Been there, done that, watched the company fold over it.

      AC for obvious reasons, but let me just say to all readers: there's a reason why a lot of software development isn't outsourced at all, much less sent off-continent. It increases risk and requires much more active management. When people see the low $ cost of an Indian programmer they loose their minds. Sometimes they don't regain their senses until it's too late. As in, the investors are waiting for a checkpoint of function to send more money, but the code drop from India is hopelessly fucked up, and there's not enough money or time left to hire locals to fix it. Unless you hire them perm and tell them to go 120 hours a week to save the company and bury them in valueless stock options. Then after 3-4 months of this the company folds. Seen it twice.

    20. Re:free Pepper? by iomud · · Score: 2

      If they end up collecting the money, more power to them. I mean that's great but there are probably tons of other worthy projects that could also use the ten bucks. Blender is in the unique position of being the only 3D modeling tool of it's caliber freely available for linux, windows etc. However pepper doesnt fill the editor niche like, blender fills the 3D modeling niche. I can name probably ten decent editors where I can name but one 3D tool. While they're waiting to collect the money, maybe they can take up learning vim or emacs as a hobby.

    21. Re:free Pepper? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TextPad is by far the best text editor around. In fact, TextPad is one of the reasons that I still primarily use Windows.

      Syntax highlighting is available for several languages and is easily extendable.
      Regexp search and replace.
      Keyboard friendly interface.
      Tabs if you want em (they are on the bottom though).
      A good document selector (which I prefer to tabs).
      Massive undo buffer.
      Project workspaces (open all of a project's docs with a click).
      Recordable macros.
      Side by side (or vertical) document comparison.
      Split pane views of the same document.
      Block select mode (you can select/copy/paste any combination of rows and columns)
      Fairly smart auto indent.
      Very stable.

      I can't say enough good things about TextPad. It's available from most of the windows shareware sites. You can also try www.textpad.com...

    22. Re:free Pepper? by n3k5 · · Score: 1

      > Ports of Emacs [gnu.org] or Vi[m] [vim.org] to win32 don't interest
      > me very much, primarily because I enjoy the hotkey conventions that
      > I'm used to already in win32 (Ctrl-C to copy, Ctrl-X to cut, and so on).

      If you use gVim under win32 (as opposed to plain vanilla Vim under win32, but it _is_ in the Vim for win32 package), you _can_ use Ctrl-X/C/V. What I'm still missing is Ctrl-F for searching, but if you definitely _have_ to have that, there's surelely some tool that lets you assign hotkeys to menu items in arbitrary applications.

      --
      but what do i know, i'm just a model.
    23. Re:free Pepper? by John+Sullivan · · Score: 1
      Making an event handler reentrant is a piece of cake.

      Sometimes. Usually it requires more thought. There are many environments where the lock strategy you suggest would be a guaranteed deadlock. Other common strategies include: forget the second event because you know the first will drain the whole work-queue by the time it exits; set a flag which the first will check on exit and re-run itself if necessary; post a message back to the head of the application message queue to do the work later; make the handler extract tasks from the work queue atomically so it really doesn't matter if they two instances "simultaneously"; make the handlers stubs that simply trigger later execution of the work function in a way that can't happen more than once at a time; panic because the rest of the system was supposed to prevent this happening at all costs.

      Without examining the system in detail it's certainly not safe to assert that it's a "piece of cake"!

      --
      This is my World Wide Web of Whatever
    24. Re:free Pepper? by mosch · · Score: 2
      $10k for one person for one month is cheap. That's a $60k/year coder once you figure out the true loaded cost of the employee.

      Sure, you could outsource it to India for $1k, but the overhead with outsourcing it to India winds up costing you more money, because it's extraordinarily expensive to manage a project where the coders require finished and very specific design documents if you want to get what you're expecting, and then communication tends to involve a 24 hour delay, because of time zone differences (unless you like to hold your project meetings at ungodly hours).

      You can save money on one line by going to India, but you'll pay it all back in three other lines of the budget. In general, it's not a good idea.

    25. Re:free Pepper? by CerebusUS · · Score: 2

      I second the recommendation for Ultra Edit. Not free, but very powerful.

      When I installed the demo for Pepper one of the first things I looked for was the "Find in files" and "Replace in files" functions.

    26. Re:free Pepper? by ivan256 · · Score: 1

      There are many environments where the lock strategy you suggest would be a guaranteed deadlock.

      I disagree. If you have a unique lock for each handler, and you never take that lock while holding any other locks you are guaranteed not to introduce any deadlocks. In the case of event handlers, you would only have to worry about deadlocks from locking around your entire handler if some code in your handler blocked on a second event, and if it did that you'd already have to be reentrant. The situation becomes more complicated if you previously could not have more than one of any event handler running at a given time, but that was not my impression of the situation. From what I read, multiple event handlers could already be running at once, and the change involved the same event handler being called multiple times simultainiously. This may be what you were saying required more thought.

  9. Not just Salon by mickwd · · Score: 5, Interesting
    1. Re:Not just Salon by NewtonsLaw · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Hell, I used to be an avid Byte subscriber twenty years or more ago -- but somehow there's something wrong with the transition from print to web.

      Print publications (in this industry anyway) are always 6-8 weeks out of date -- and that's a long, long time in the IT/Net fields.

      Online publications however, just don't seem to represent the same tangible "substance" as a lump of dead tree does. I suspect this is one of the reasons that few online publications have successfully migrated to the subscription model.

      Perhaps it's because reading an online publication simply isn't as convenient as reading a highly portable, high contrast, full color, no batteries required, lightweight, foldable, near infinite transfer-rate printed magazine.

      We all *know* the value is in the information -- but somewhere, deep inside our heads, we're thinking "how can something that we can't touch, feel or taste be of any value?"

      The crazy thing is that we're still happy to pay $39 a month for cable or satellite TV when all we're getting is "information" in the form of entertainment that is equally as "virtual" as an online magazine.

      Perhaps we do this because we know that a single edition of an online publication may cost as much as $100K to produce but a single episode of Enterprise or Farscape probably costs 5-15 times that much.

      So what can a publisher do?

    2. Re:Not just Salon by Sabalon · · Score: 2

      I gave up on Byte when it went from having technical and informative articles to yet another look at our graphs for these two similar products rag.

      It's not as bad as a ZD magazine, but a shadow of its former self.

    3. Re:Not just Salon by Eil · · Score: 2


      The crazy thing is that we're still happy to pay $39 a month for cable or satellite TV

      Speak for yourself, buddy. I'm a cheap bastard *all* the way around when it comes to content. Even though cable is available in my building, my 27" television gets nothing but PBS over rabbit ears and Playstation on the video-in. I listened to much of my music online via streaming mp3 stations when I had broadband. I've been known to emulate a console game or two that I don't legally own. I browse the web from behind an ad-filtering proxy. One time I even downloaded a divx of Fight Club from a LAN party just to see how good the quality was.

      So don't mess with me, mister. A seasoned content veteran like myself *knows* how to stay entertained on the cheap.

    4. Re:Not just Salon by jgalun · · Score: 2

      Online publications however, just don't seem to represent the same tangible "substance" as a lump of dead tree does. I suspect this is one of the reasons that few online publications have successfully migrated to the subscription model....

      We all *know* the value is in the information -- but somewhere, deep inside our heads, we're thinking "how can something that we can't touch, feel or taste be of any value?"


      This is an interesting idea, and I think you may be onto something. However, for me, I think the content feels less substantial not because it is online, but because it comes out daily. Seriously. I read the National Review, Slate, the free stuff on Salon, and the Economist daily online. I read the New Yorker, the New Republic, and the Atlantic Monthly when they arrive in the mail.

      Now, the latter feel more substantial to me. Partly, it's because they are - they're better magazines than the former. :) But also I suspect it's because I'm getting a slow, steady stream of articles one way, and a whole bunch of articles all at once the other way. It's like the difference between turning up the heat on the frog slowly and turning it up all the way at once.

      Now, the same doesn't apply for why I prefer paper newspapers to online newspapers. In that case, it is because I can't read it while I'm eating breakfast (no laptop) and because I read much less when I read online - when I go from front to back of a print newspaper I will read articles that I would never think of looking for on a web site. I.e., I read the Metro section in the print newspaper, I do not online, because I never think that there will be something interesting in there.

    5. Re:Not just Salon by sphealey · · Score: 2
      Print publications (in this industry anyway) are always 6-8 weeks out of date -- and that's a long, long time in the IT/Net fields.
      Really? Could you provide some examples? Perhaps a list of things that substantial organizations (whether they be corporate, non-profit, governments, NGOs, whatever) are doing TODAY that they were not doing 8 weeks ago? Heck, I'll even give you 16 weeks.

      If you have been around the information management world for a while, or read up a bit on its history, you will find that while the overall pace of change is reasonably fast (just as the pace of change in the power delivery market was fast in the 1880s), very little actually changes on a day-to-day basis.

      Heck, in a large organization it can take 8 weeks to schedule a meeting on what changes to make to the web site. Sure, 10 years ago there was no web site. But 10 years is a much different time scale than 8 weeks.

      sPh

  10. Choose your defenses wisely by kennyj449 · · Score: 1

    Reynold's or Glad?

  11. UCE = Unsolicited *Commercial* Email by HaeMaker · · Score: 5, Informative

    While someone has every right to get upset at the sheer volume of political mail received around election time (electronic or otherwise), EFF and the Courts are correct. Political discussion is at the heart of the Constitution and it will be a cold day in hell before there is a successful law to stop it.

    As for Elizabeth Dole's decision to use email for communication to her (future) constituents, when there is so much anger over SPAM (eventhough it technically isn't SPAM), is another matter. If I were her political consultant I would have advised against it.

    1. Re:UCE = Unsolicited *Commercial* Email by j1mmy · · Score: 1

      "Commercial"

      In effect, the candidates are selling themselves, using e-mail as a medium. I still don't want their tripe.

    2. Re:UCE = Unsolicited *Commercial* Email by King+of+the+World · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Funny, I don't consider sending out thousands of generic emails any form of human discussion.

      If political speech is exempt from SPAM laws where do we draw the line? Are only senators allowed? What about local authorities. What about if you're a generic citizen who is organising a political group?

      It's nothing to do with commercial, IMO, it's about the harm done, and that it can render email useless. It's more about the economics of email (that it's so cheap) than anything. If all political speech is exempt from spam laws then 4 emails is only the start. Expect hundreds and hundreds from every "political" cause.

    3. Re:UCE = Unsolicited *Commercial* Email by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It may not be "UCE", but it is definitely spam. The same arguments used against unsolicited commecial email are just as valid for unsolicited political email. (Primarily, that you are wasting the reciever's time and money .) I don't see any reason why it should be treated differently -- mass political mailings should be subject to the same restrictions as commercial mailings.

      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    4. Re:UCE = Unsolicited *Commercial* Email by Angry+White+Guy · · Score: 5, Funny

      Primarily, that you are wasting the reciever's time and money

      Why should they wait until they get elected?

      --
      You think that I'm crazy, you should see this guy!
    5. Re:UCE = Unsolicited *Commercial* Email by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's about consent, not content.

      various peoples love bringing up and arguing how political spam is ok, or how only porn spam is bad. this is irrelevant and only dilutes the issue. 'UCE' is not THE definition of spam; UCE is only one kind of spam.

      last time I checked, trespass to chattels was against the law.

    6. Re:UCE = Unsolicited *Commercial* Email by speleo · · Score: 1

      Had a similar thing happen here in New Hampshire. Complaints did no good to stop the flow of unwanted campaign ads. I had to block at the mail server the entire /24 network of their ISP--they were running their own SMTP server off a DHCP dialup....

      But they won the election...

    7. Re:UCE = Unsolicited *Commercial* Email by ceejayoz · · Score: 2

      Doesn't take much to imagine spam of the future...

      <p><font size="72">PENIS ENLARGERS CHEAP!!!</font></p>

      <p><font size="2" color="white">Spam should be legal. This message brought to you by Citizens for Spam.</font></p>

    8. Re:UCE = Unsolicited *Commercial* Email by charon_on_acheron · · Score: 1

      I don't want their tripe either, but if they are giving away sausage, I'll take a couple pounds. Maybe they can throw in a dozen eggs as well. ;^)

    9. Re:UCE = Unsolicited *Commercial* Email by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As for Elizabeth Dole's decision to use email for communication to her (future) constituents,

      If it was just her (future) constitutents, that'd be one thing. However, American political spammers don't just limit themselves to their own constituents. In the lead up to the November Congressional elections, I got five pieces of political spam, from three different candidates.

      I live in Australia. My email address has a .au ending, just for the bleeding obvious.

    10. Re:UCE = Unsolicited *Commercial* Email by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod this up: funny as hell.

    11. Re:UCE = Unsolicited *Commercial* Email by runchbox · · Score: 1

      Dick Morris was on Fox News a week ago talking about a race he'd consulted with. He said they'd "rented" some lists and sent out 100,000 E-mails a few times. Dole's may not have been spam, but this one definitely was.

      --
      If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal -- Jello Biafra
  12. Make lawmakers publish all their stuff first... by dagg · · Score: 4, Funny
    I propose that all lawmakers make their own data be part of this "Total Information Awareness" technology. They should test out the system on themselves before they test it on me.

    They can start by filling out this - Test - and making the results be available for all. I'm sure many of us would be surprised at the results of some of our lawmakers. :-)

    --
    Sex - Find It
    1. Re:Make lawmakers publish all their stuff first... by Big+Nothing · · Score: 1

      Are you suggesting that a surprisingly high number of our lawmakers are women? Are you gullible or just sexist?

      --
      SIG: TAKE OFF EVERY 'CAPTAIN'!!
  13. Not a fat chance! by The+Bungi · · Score: 5, Funny
    Slashdot's headline was misleading indeed.

    This is slander! This is not possible!!1! I humbly submit to this woman that she needs to get her facts straight because the strict Slashdot editorial process would eliminate any chance of that... happening... and... uh... er...

    1. Re:Not a fat chance! by ubugly2 · · Score: 0

      not possible = unpossible, remember where you are.

  14. I am a strong believer in Darwin by ekrout · · Score: 3, Insightful

    People, even though I'm called a bit "cruel" or "callous" by others, I strongly believe in Darwinism in all aspects of life.

    Whether one's talking about social situations or, as in this case, Web site profit margins, Darwin always applies. I don't feel that people deserve handouts, Salon.com included. They already have a subscription model for their site, yet they still cannot seem to move into the black from the red.

    There once was a small site called Slashdot where all kinds of computer fanatics would propagate to every morning at work. It was also very popular with computer science majors at colleges. It began to have its own atmosphere, and many inside jokes were traded and laughed at amongst members. Essentially, Slashdot became a very valuable entity, and as such, other profit-making companies became interested in it. One day, a software company made an offer to Rob Malda that he couldn't refuse.

    The rest is history, people. Rob and Co. are doing great now and control the site in every aspect, while still bringing home nearly six figure salaries each fiscal year.

    And Slashdot isn't the only successful site. Many other sites, such as Yahoo!, make a ton of profit because they're smart and employ low-cost solutions (FreeBSD on all servers, which means they only pay for hardware and bandwidth). This is the future. Darwin is alive and breathing in all aspects, both in nature and on the World Wide Web.

    While I admire donations, I say this to Salon: If you can't beat 'em, join 'em (merge with another company) or go home (auction away your assets and hope to not lose everything).

    --

    If you celebrate Xmas, befriend me (538
    1. Re:I am a strong believer in Darwin by aussersterne · · Score: 5, Informative

      You don't like social Darwinism at all. You've just argued against it.

      If a firm manages to get handouts, they have managed to survive somehow, showing that they are adept at something useful for survival (i.e. getting handouts), and that is all that social Darwinism implies.

      Darwinism itself is a kind of useless null concept outside the bounds of history (i.e. evolutionary history). It basically states that those things which have survived... did, and those things which haven't... didn't. There is no "deserves to survive" or "doesn't deserve to survive" in natural selection, there is only "those things will survive that have found or adapted a way to survive." It is interested if you want to look backward at a kind of roadmap of development. It is completely uninteresting for predicting what will happen in the future or for explaining what is happening at any given instantaneous observation.

      What you've argued is that charity isn't beneficial to society. Whether or not that is true, it has little to do with Darwinism or natural selection.

      --
      STOP . AMERICA . NOW
    2. Re:I am a strong believer in Darwin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Under a social Darwinian world (which is not Darwinism but is what you present), I would have the right to kill you. That's okay with you?

      After all, if I got away with it, hence showing I was "smart" enough, that would make it legal. Hence, it wouldn't be a "crime" (note the distinction between a crime being an illegal act and a crime due to the person being caught of that illegal act).

      btw, most people would debate /. as a "success", even an economic one.

    3. Re:I am a strong believer in Darwin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But you're missing something.

      The parent post basically said "I believe we should let the strong survive, so if Salon can't, that's too bad".

      So, with that being said, care to explain what your point is?

    4. Re:I am a strong believer in Darwin by Zeinfeld · · Score: 2
      While I admire donations, I say this to Salon: If you can't beat 'em, join 'em (merge with another company) or go home (auction away your assets and hope to not lose everything).

      I am less worried about Salon per se as I am the fact that the US media is ridiculously biased towards the right. Case in point right wing pundits get hours of airtime to discuss their 'liberal media' fantasies while liberal complaints of bias are never reported outside the few liberal outlets.

      The conservatives have an entire network and 24 hour news station. Can anyone honestly claim that there is a liberal network that treats conservatives the way Fox treats liberals?

      I suspect that Salon will stay in business, but most likely because some liberal billionaire will fund it. But then again this is exactly how Cato, Heritage Institute and racks of conservative publications stay afloat.

      It would be much better if publications could operate with reader support rather than handouts from billionaires, left or right. Before the right gets too happy with Murdoch and Fox they should probably look abroad and note that he regularly switches sides according to his commercial interests. The UK Conservatives thought that they had him in their pocket, how wrong they were!

      The one bright spot is Google news which has for me replaced the 6 or 7 news spots I generally read as a portal. With Google I can see instantly what the world press is saying about a topic - not just the insular US media view. I suspect that in time Google will challenge the power of the Washington Post and New York Times to set the agenda. So next election we might just hear as much about Bush's draft dodging, AWOL and DUI incidents as imagined 'lies' about visiting Texas fires with the head of FEMA rather than the deputy head. We might even hear someone state that the smirking chimp has not only broken his campaign promises on practically every issue of substance except those at the top of the list for the extreeme right but that he never had the slightest intention to keep his commitments on the environment, health or balancing the budget.

      --
      Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
      Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
    5. Re:I am a strong believer in Darwin by cyril3 · · Score: 1
      maybe slightly ot but your comment about google being a source of news, i looked up the recent sabbath massacre there after the salon premium teaser on the 'truth' that was being hidden by american media and apart from the fact that it appeared that every other ocuntries media didn't tell the 'truth' almost every newspaper site had exactly the same wording to their lead story on the first few days.

      they all took verbatim the wire service reports and put them out apparently unchanged.

      makes you wonder where the real power lies.

    6. Re:I am a strong believer in Darwin by tfoss · · Score: 2
      If a firm manages to get handouts, they have managed to survive somehow, showing that they are adept at something useful for survival (i.e. getting handouts), and that is all that social Darwinism implies.

      Um, I think social darwinism is more about trying to rationalize social inequality using the theory of natural selection (and it has generally been discredited as a reasonable philosophy)

      Darwinism itself is a kind of useless null concept outside the bounds of history (i.e. evolutionary history). It basically states that those things which have survived... did, and those things which haven't... didn't.

      Sort of...it's more of a "those which were better suited for the environment survived due to the qualities that made it better suited." It is certainly not a null concept outside of evolutionary history. The theory is visible in all ranges of history, long-term evolution or short-term sociological. People have proposed you explain cultural information by the same mechanism. Memes are created, evolve, and are left behind much like dinosaurs. The application of natural selection is used widely in many areas, biomedical research (phage display, directed evolution) to software (genetic programming). To limit the thoery to a useless historical adjective is rather short-sighted.

      What you've argued is that charity isn't beneficial to society. Whether or not that is true, it has little to do with Darwinism or natural selection.

      No, what was argued is that if you can't survive in a context (ie as a business you cant make money), then you are going to be left behind. The argument had nothing to do with charity or its benefit (or lack thereof) to society, rather it was saying that businesses, like nearly everything, are subject to natural selection.

      -Ted

      --
      -=-=- Quantum physics - the dreams stuff are made of.
    7. Re:I am a strong believer in Darwin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ever read Bernard Goldberg's "Bias"? It should answer your question about where the liberal networks are.

    8. Re:I am a strong believer in Darwin by drooling-dog · · Score: 1

      Couldn't agree with you more. Natural selection is value-free, no matter how much we'd like to impose our own values and morality on it. I guess somebody's actually thinking around here...

    9. Re:I am a strong believer in Darwin by aussersterne · · Score: 2

      Sort of...it's more of a "those which were better suited for the environment survived due to the qualities that made it better suited."

      Exactly. And this is an obvious, pointless statement. They wouldn't survive due to the qualities that made it worse suited now, would they? Just what the beneficial qualities were is a subject for useful investigation, and I said that. But were is the operative word here -- past tense. Anyone who proposes that social Darwinism provides some kind of insight into the future or even into present conditions is simply selling snake oil. If you analyze the "selective causes" of the present or future, you're merely analyzing things which either haven't died yet or haven't survived yet -- and you don't know which until it's all over! To draw any conclusions about survivability in the middle of the game using the selective model is at best a precarious task, and at worse... a Slashdot post.

      People have proposed you explain cultural information [vub.ac.be] by the same mechanism.

      I am aware of this (my degree is in cultural anthropology). But be careful -- the uses of social Darwinism are as a model for explaining the past, not as a policy matter for guiding the future. There is a huge difference.

      No, what was argued is that if you can't survive in a context (ie as a business you cant make money), then you are going to be left behind.

      But you are again misusing social Darwinism and natural selection in the same way as the original poster. You can't rule out survivability as a part of the context itself. If Salon.com "survives" due to charity, then it has survived, period. You can't say "But it didn't survive in the 'fair' way -- the way that I wanted it to!" because in Darwinism, the context is the environment -- all of it -- not just the parts you want to look at. If you begin to research anything from organisms to corporations under the Darwinist microscope but circumscribe your context artificially, then your research will be useless and your conclusions wrong.

      Survived is survived, charity or otherwise. "I didn't like the way it survived!" has nothing at all to do with Darwinism -- I'll say once it again.

      --
      STOP . AMERICA . NOW
    10. Re:I am a strong believer in Darwin by aussersterne · · Score: 2

      The parent post basically said "I believe we should let the strong survive, so if Salon can't, that's too bad".

      No, he did not say "if Salon can't survive" he said "if Salon can only survive through charity" and then he used the term 'Darwinist' to describe that condition.

      My point is that the social Darwinist would analyze the situation and say: If this company is able to survive based on charity, then its ability to get charitable donations was a useful adaptation that led to its survival.

      A Darwinist never says "That's going to survive, but because I don't like the way it's going to survive, I think we should remove its means of survival and let it die."

      And Darwinism has nothing , I repeat, nothing to do with "strength" per se. The lack of knowledge about Darwinism on a site like Slashdot should be shocking to all...

      --
      STOP . AMERICA . NOW
    11. Re:I am a strong believer in Darwin by Sloppy · · Score: 1
      Cruel and callous? No, just not very strategic.

      You are a person who has an ego and wants things. That you would just happen to want the same things that The Systems wants, is virtually inconceivable. And if there is a difference between the properties that you value and properties that The System values, then Darwinism will make you lose. Sometimes you'll only lose a little, and a website you used to like, starts showing you ads. (It happened here, but then they got a very excellent clue and let users buy their way out of ads.) Sometimes you'll lose big, and something you valued will be lost.

      It's all fine and dandy to "believe in" Darwin for understanding how the world works, but only a complete selflish egoless slave to nature would adopt it as a policy. Real Men defy nature and force the world to be how they want it to be. Throwing money at problems, is one way they can exert their power and get what they want.

      Now if Salon isn't your bag, baby (it isn't mine), it's fine to leave them to their fate. But if something you care about is ever on the line, you better stab Darwin in the back, before he stabs you.

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    12. Re:I am a strong believer in Darwin by Sloppy · · Score: 1
      only a complete selflish egoless slave
      D'oh... that's "selfless."
      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    13. Re:I am a strong believer in Darwin by tfoss · · Score: 2
      I am assuming you are not using social darwinism in the social justification meaning, so perhaps we should use the term natural selection. [Social Darwinism: "Social Darwinism is a quasi-philosophical, quasi-religious, quasi-sociological view that came from the mind of Herbert Spencer, an English philosopher in the 19th century."]

      Exactly. And this is an obvious, pointless statement.

      As often is the case, something is obvious only after being pointed out. Natural selection is a perfect example.

      Anyone who proposes that social Darwinism provides some kind of insight into the future or even into present conditions is simply selling snake oil. If you analyze the "selective causes" of the present or future, you're merely analyzing things which either haven't died yet or haven't survived yet -- and you don't know which until it's all over! To draw any conclusions about survivability in the middle of the game using the selective model is at best a precarious task

      I partially agree, though the caveats are important. Who is to say when it's all over? You can see trends through the past to the current point and though it may not be over, there is still information there. Say you lived long ago before the tiger had stripes. Say you notice some tigers started having stripes and the ones with more stripes tended to be healthier and better killers. Say you noticed the unstripped tigers were looking more and more lean, more lethargic, etc. Do you have to wait till all tigers have stripes to draw a conclusion? No you don't. Your conclusion might be wrong, and you will have a better chance of being right the more information for have, but that does not preclude a reasonable analysis of the trends. Yes, there are assumptions that may be wrong, and yes, things may take a wild swing but that does not mean you can not or should not attempt analysis.

      To use another example, say you are a business that needs money to survive. Say you have relied on a source that is getting more and more difficult to come by. You notice that many other businesses with similar circumstances have failed. Do you ignore these trends?

      But be careful -- the uses of social Darwinism are as a model for explaining the past, not as a policy matter for guiding the future. There is a huge difference.

      Yes, there is a difference. However, I would submit that when you must deal with an uncertain future, the past often gives you the best guess. If it is either an examination of trends you currently see or asking a magic eight ball, the choice should be clear.

      If Salon.com "survives" due to charity, then it has survived, period. You can't say "But it didn't survive in the 'fair' way -- the way that I wanted it to!" because in Darwinism, the context is the environment -- all of it -- not just the parts you want to look at.

      I have made no claims of survival in a fair or unfair way. If salon survives due ignorant VC giving money, then it survives. If it survives because space aliens shoot beams of pure money into the salon.com offices, it survives. I agree fairness is an irrelevant term. The likelihood of either of those, though, is minimal. My point was that for most businesses, need to earn money to be viable. Yes, this is not always true, and there are also tigers without stripes. Those that do not find a business model that provides money (usually earned, sometimes stolen, rarely given) tend to fail. A look at the past ten or a hundred or a thousand years of business history will support this. Those businesses that don't have financial support don't survive. Natural selection means those that have a better system for getting financial support are more apt to survive.

      -Ted

      --
      -=-=- Quantum physics - the dreams stuff are made of.
  15. Dole... by c0dedude · · Score: 3, Funny

    As briefly discussed in slashdot a few weeks ago, Senator-elect Elizabeth Dole has been sued by a constituent who received eight unsolicited emails from her. He claims $100 damages including "emotional distress for having received spam from someone who should know better."
    Great. Now the buisnesses are supposed to regulate the government, I suppose. Someone should call her ISP.

    --
    Since when has this country used intellectual elite as a pejorative term?
  16. Fatwallet by Aronymous+Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    The first rule of Fatwallet is you DO NOT talk about Fatwallet.

    Like, for example, if I were to tell you that on Fatwallet, you can read that on Friday Wal-Mart is having a sale on OH MY GOD, WHAT'S THAT MECH DOING HERE, IT'S GONNA CR...ARRRGH!

    (DMCA robot lawyer voice): ALL YOUR POST-HOLIDAY SALE PRICE ARE COPYRIGHT TO US, BARGAIN HUNTER DIE NOW, HA HA HA

    1. Re:Fatwallet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean:

      All your prices are belong to us.

      Somebody set us up the sale.

  17. Where's the info come from? by linuxwrangler · · Score: 4, Insightful

    My nagging problem with TIA is not that they want to be efficient about analyzing the info they have but that it implies an unholy collaberation between the military and, well, everyone.

    My question: Did I miss some law change that requires all banks, credit-card processors, ISPs, video rental stores, libraries, stores, etc. to funnel all their transaction and customer information to the military?

    The scope and implications of this project terrify me but I want to be rational as well. Without data, all the analytical capability in the world is useless.

    --

    ~~~~~~~
    "You are not remembered for doing what is expected of you." - Atul Chitnis
    1. Re:Where's the info come from? by jkeyes · · Score: 1

      Did I miss some law change that requires all banks, credit-card processors, ISPs, video rental stores, libraries, stores, etc. to funnel all their transaction and customer information to the military?


      Yeah it was the Homeland Security Act (or should I say law now?) That all mighty dictator Bush signed into law today.

    2. Re:Where's the info come from? by TXG1112 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      My understanding is that there is already too much data to analyze, and no real way to analyze it effectively. Think about how big the databases would need to be, and how much CPU it would take to perform queries on even a subset of that data. (Not that this makes me feel any better about this situation either.)

      This would seem to be especially true if looking for "Terrorist Activities" as it's hard to tell what you're looking for.

      --
      I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered. My life is my own.
    3. Re:Where's the info come from? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I spoke with a police detective once about something like this. She said that all sorts of info is already being kept. Strange-to-me-examples she gave included video rental membership info; not really the videos, just the membership info being kept in searchable databases. They (video rental stores) *must*???, and for a long while, have to hand over the info. Pre-homeland security act, mind you.

    4. Re:Where's the info come from? by EinarH · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If you look at the graphic illustration on the IAO site you will se a interesting entity called "Corporate Memory" witch feeds the system with data (togheter with the entities "Transactional Data", "Biomethric Data" and "Intel Data") The first thing i asscoiate with "Corporate Memory" is customer profiles. Ergo; this system institues a collabaration with the big corporations; Wal-Mart, MS, Visa, Banks, Airlines etc.

      From the IAO site about TIA:
      "can automatically queue analysts based on partial pattern matches and has patterns that cover 90% of all previously known foreign terrorist attacks"

      Ergo it will work if someone travels from Saudia Arabia to US, start taking flying lessons and then buys airline tickets to NY or buying fertilizers.
      But if someone buys a warhead in some former Russian repiblic, ships it (with a non-US transport company) via Hong Kong togheter with hardware from China to California and then create a mayhem, the system will not work.

      [Legal disclaimer: I have no intensions of doing something like that. ]**

      This system is plain stupid an it will *never* work against a terrorist with a working brain.
      Im not an expert in data-mining, but i have heard that it *is* difficault. And most corporations use static data from a couple of databases to create simple customer profiles. This system, TIA, is trying to catch a moving target and the predict future behavior. And if someone really want to avoid getting stamped as an terrorist, they wont follow the patterns that the system expects a terrorist to follow.

      More info from the Pentagon briefing:
      http://www.politechbot.com/p-04186.html

      **People probably need to start inserting these to avoid getting their own profile in this system...
      -

      --

      Melius mori in libertate quam vivere in servitute.

  18. WOW by eadint · · Score: 2, Funny

    The new DARPA projects are cool. think about the comercial value.
    unversal translator (star trek)
    BFDB9000 (marketing) (billboards)
    logical integrator ( twin towers massive)
    i wana work there.

  19. why dont you actually read darwin by eadint · · Score: 1

    darwinisim is not survival of the fittest , its the statistical survivability of a system that can utilie a new rescource. so if they try one rescource and it dosent work than they mutate. looks like salon did follow darwinisim.

    1. Re:why dont you actually read darwin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      As pointed out elsewhere in this thread, Darwinism is survival of the fittest, where the "fittest" is defined as "that most inclined to survive." Kind of a self-validating description.

      In any event, so long as Salon is around, it is more fit for survival than those other online mags that are fosselising somewhere deep in the Wayback machine's directory structure. Perhaps someday we'll be drilling for them as a fuel. Hmm.

      That reminds me, I gotta go subscribe to Salon...

  20. Re:$10k for a Fscking Text Editor !?!?! by eadint · · Score: 1

    hey what about nedit.
    emacs
    vi.
    surley those arent cross platform.
    or for heaven sales. mozilla gecck based text editors.

  21. spam? by Dr.+Awktagon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I dunno about this guy. He seems annoyed that he got some email he wasn't expecting. If Dole or someone sends me email, I would just block their address.

    What gets me most about the (real) spammers is, they LIE about their address, their web pages, their names, everything. They go out of their way to NOT honor people's requests.

    Recently I started receiving some leftist political newsletter. I don't know how exactly I got on the list (I think my address was pulled from a Cc: list that had me in it). I didn't sue anybody, I just edited /etc/mail/access and added the from address, along with a custom message saying "550..please unsubscribe". No problem.

    Let's worry more about the spammers who hide their identities and send mail through korean servers, etc. Yeah it's a fine line, but I think mass-mailing voters with your (noncommercial) campaign message is acceptable, provided you don't lie about your address or identity, or otherwise interfere with my ability to block you, and follow other guidelines like honoring remove requests, and not sending more than one message a month, etc.

    1. Re:spam? by Guppy06 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "If Dole or someone sends me email, I would just block their address."

      But then you'd be changing how your e-mail account works around Dole's e-mail campaign, not the other way around. You've got your priorities out of whack. If her campaign is responsible for abusing my information resources without my permission, it should fall to her, not me, to rectify the problem.

      "They go out of their way to NOT honor people's requests."

      There shouldn't be a need to make a request to begin with.

      "I don't mind Guido. He's a nice guy. When he breaks your kneecap, he won't break the other one if you ask nicely."

      "but I think mass-mailing voters with your (noncommercial) campaign message is acceptable"

      I will no more accept unsolicited political advertisements in my mailbox any more than I would accept somebody's political campaign putting signs up in my front yard/bumper sticker on my car/etc. without my permission.

    2. Re:spam? by pben · · Score: 1

      Funny the only pol who contacts me is this chap in Nigeria or some where around there. He wants some help getting his money that he stole from his goverment out. You think that any pol worth their salt would know about offshore banks. They need to get in touch with US Congress members not me.

    3. Re:spam? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I will no more accept unsolicited political advertisements in my mailbox any more than I would accept somebody's political campaign putting signs up in my front yard/bumper sticker on my car/etc. without my permission.

      The latter uses your private property for public advertising space, perhaps implying your support for the campaign. The former is simply garbage that can't reflect poorly on you. That's a significant difference; I'm surprised the latter doesn't piss you off more. But to each their own.

    4. Re:spam? by Guppy06 · · Score: 2

      "The latter uses your private property for public advertising space, perhaps implying your support for the campaign. The former is simply garbage that can't reflect poorly on you."

      So? They're both examples of using my private property without my consent for their own personal gain. The fact that the potential audiences are different doesn't change the fact that it's still all my property.

    5. Re:spam? by phriedom · · Score: 2

      "Yeah it's a fine line, but I think mass-mailing voters with your (noncommercial) campaign message is acceptable, provided you don't lie about your address or identity, or otherwise interfere with my ability to block you, and follow other guidelines like honoring remove requests, and not sending more than one message a month, etc"

      The Senator-elect DID send more than one message a month. Does that cross the line? What if her campaign sent one message per day, would that cross the line? What if they attached an AVI of her TV advertisement, every day, or maybe twice a day, is that still protected political speech libre?

      I'm sure that you could draw "the line" in a place that would satisfy most people, but that would be dodging the larger question. The larger question is: "Is an email box a public forum, or private property?" Can a campaign "say" anything it wants using my resources at my expense, or are they tresspassing?

      --
      Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
  22. Re:More duplicates... request for more duplicates. by zapfie · · Score: 1

    Always do.

    --
    slashdot!=valid HTML
  23. Political speech vs. commercial speech by Eric+Smith · · Score: 4, Informative
    Courts have recognized political speech as the innermost circle of free speech protection, and groups such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation believe spam laws that interfere with it may be not just unwise but unconstitutional.
    That seems like an extraordinarily bad position for them to take. It's fine to insist that political speech is free speech and protected by the First Amendment, but there's no basis for claiming that it is "more free" than commercial speech. The First Amendment does not make such a distinction, and it would set a very bad precedent if the courts decided that commercial speech was less protected.

    What would be next? Deciding that personal speech is less protected than commercial speech? Distinguishing between different kinds of commercial speech, with some more protected than others? I shudder to think of where this could lead.

    Any spam law that covers political speech is just as constitutional (or unconstitutional) as it would be if it only covers commercial speech. The right to free speech does NOT include a "right to an audience", nor a "right to be published". You are allowed to speak, but you can't force me to listen. You can mail me a leaflet, but you can't force me to pay the postage. You're not allowed to enter my home to speak to me without my permission; similarly an anti-spam law (if it is properly written) doesn't prevent you from speaking, but only prevents you from making me pay for it.

    1. Re:Political speech vs. commercial speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You can mail me a leaflet, but you can't force me to pay the postage.

      Havn't you ever gotten some thinly veiled propaganda from the incumbent under the guise of official "communication to constituents"? They don't pay postage for those.

    2. Re:Political speech vs. commercial speech by Eric+Smith · · Score: 2

      True. There must be some little-known Fourteen-and-a-halfth Amendmendment guaranteeing politicians the right to free postage.

    3. Re:Political speech vs. commercial speech by ivan256 · · Score: 2

      It's fine to insist that political speech is free speech and protected by the First Amendment, but there's no basis for claiming that it is "more free" than commercial speech. The First Amendment does not make such a distinction, and it would set a very bad precedent if the courts decided that commercial speech was less protected.

      The supreme court has interpreted the first amendment to make some speech more free than other speech in the past (and rightly so), so why do you think that political speech may not be more free than commercial speech? Clearly if some speech is more free than other speech it is possible that political speech may be more or less free than any other type of speech acording to the court. I am not aware if any case law specifically mentions political speech vs. other types (anybody?), but distinctions have been made in the past so there's no reason to believe they won't be again.

      What would be next? Deciding that personal speech is less protected than commercial speech? Distinguishing between different kinds of commercial speech, with some more protected than others? I shudder to think of where this could lead.

      It's more likely they'd decide that personal speech is more free than commercial speech, and not the other way around. Some commercial speech is already more free than other commercial speech. Not all speech is free in the US, and it hasn't lead down the evil road you shudder to think about (at least not yet).

      -- Offtopic --

      Woohoo! Post 1000!

    4. Re:Political speech vs. commercial speech by lucasw · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's fine to insist that political speech is free speech and protected by the First Amendment, but there's no basis for claiming that it is "more free" than commercial speech.

      I believe there's a set of supreme court and lesser decisions going back decades or more on the division between commercial speech and other forms. Commercial speech is more restricted: you can't make false claims about a product you're trying to sell. Political speech, either from individuals or organizations, is a fundamental part of our system's democratic features and likewise is most protected, short of libel or slander.

      What would be next? Deciding that personal speech is less protected than commercial speech? Distinguishing between different kinds of commercial speech, with some more protected than others? I shudder to think of where this could lead.

      Some sorts of personal speech are probably less protected than commercial speech, or are even outright illegal. Commercial speech _is_ divvied up into different sorts with different regulations, especially where medication or narcotics are the products in question.

      The First Amendment does not make such a distinction, and it would set a very bad precedent if the courts decided that commercial speech was less protected.

      There's lots of issues not mentioned in the original constitution and the initial amendments, but the system was set up so that clarifications and reasonable exceptions could be made. Also, there's more to the original consitution than the first ten amendments, as in the stuff the amendments were being amended to...

    5. Re:Political speech vs. commercial speech by MacAndrew · · Score: 1

      Actually they have that by statute ("franking privileges") but only for communicating with constituents and not for politics, i.e., campaigning. Some members of Congress press this distinction pretty hard.

    6. Re:Political speech vs. commercial speech by Reziac · · Score: 2

      The difference being that "free speech" of ANY sort has a right to be published. However, it does NOT have the right to be published *at my expense*.

      Spam is typically published at the expense of someone other than the person doing the speaking. So it's not an issue of free speech rights, it's an issue of theft of resources.

      Personally, I tend to regard one-shots and those that go away when told to as legit mail, and repeat offenders as spam. So that's where I'd be inclined to draw the line for political mail: A single mailing or a blind request to opt-in, okay. Multiple mails with no option but to receive them, spam.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  24. But wait, there's hope! by cosmosis · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Hey man, I agree with you about all of this, and there have been days recently with all of the malarky passing into law where I almost felt the urge to chuck it all - and live like it was 1975 - paper and all. But by the time they manage to get this huge bureacratic behometh to do this type of dirty work we could very likely see a massive decentralized ad-hoc and an emerging phenomona called Smart Mobs and anonymous surfing provided by Hacktivismo, censorship-free and anonymous information via Freenet, open spectrum and finally perhaps anonymous digital cash from Yodel Bank.

    Planet P - Liberation With Technology.

    1. Re:But wait, there's hope! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And then the government will probably make those illegal, and arrest you if they see your computer using any of those methods. And maybe limit encryption again.

    2. Re:But wait, there's hope! by cosmosis · · Score: 2

      Well, they can certainly try, and they probably will, but even our own FCC Chairman, Michael Powell agrees that we need to open the spectrum, as software defined radio makes spectrum scarcity obsolete.

    3. Re:But wait, there's hope! by Saeger · · Score: 2, Funny
      Only terrorists would desire to use anonymous digital cash over a communist wireless mesh network via secure channels.

      Real Americans (i.e. cowards unaware of history) have nothing to hide from their totally information-aware and benevolent government.

      --

      --
      Power to the Peaceful
    4. Re:But wait, there's hope! by MortisUmbra · · Score: 1

      Those are some great example of how to get around un-noticed online, but what about the real world? People seem to forget that collecting information is only good when its ACCURATE. For example, between me and friends there is a sort of methodology to the way we buy things, cash is king the the "hard to track" section of things, and seeing as how in this state (MO) any B&M business is reuired to accept cash, it makes it hard not to use this method. Sure it may require a bit more forethought (only so much as to goto the ATM beforehand) but the benefit of knowing that my every purchase isn't scrutinized on a moment-to-moment basis is a very nice feeling indeed. As a rule my Emails are PGP encrypted between me and friends (even if its not sensitive) as are my ICQ communications. Just keep yourself buttoned down, and realize that giving out all your info to anyone who's kind enough to ask isn't the best policy, as much as we would all like the opposite to be true, everone is not neccisarily trustworthy, oddly enough, least of all our own government.

      --

      "The saddest words of mice and men, are not those which were, but should have been."
    5. Re:But wait, there's hope! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But even your paper money is being tracked with those little 'security' strips in them now adays or do you shop with only singles. Is your computer in a tempest cage? They gov't can still find out what you do even if you use PGP. :>

  25. Re:I am a strong believer in in being clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yahoo, Slashdot and Salon do have web sites but they are not in the same business.

    As for your handout comment...please.
    That is the biggest BS of the american way of life. Have you a grasp of the corporate welfare culture and how it sucks the taxpayers?

    When you start complaining of the handouts to the oil and military industries, then you can use that whiny tone.

    zack

  26. salon still has premium section by target · · Score: 2, Informative

    At least, I just went to the site, and the lead article among many others is marked "Premium only".

    It is true that all the non-premium content has huge interstitials as well as inlined ads for non-subscribers, but that's been true for ages now.

    At least they don't have popunders. Actually, I am a subscriber, so it matters little to me what advertising they do if I am not exposed to it. I suppose I should note that banner ads and ads down the sides are still there for me, but the really intrusive ones are gone.

    - target

  27. To: bar code, from: TTT by The+Trolling+Troller · · Score: 0

    hello, here is what I want to buy. please scan the bar code. take my credit card number and use it to pay for bar code item. the bank has my information so you may forward all of my purchase information to proper authorities. thank you bar code!

    hello! I bought condoms today = the government knows I am going to have sex some time soon. thank you bar code!

    hello! I did not buy a gun from a dealership. I didn't buy a gun at all, in fact. but if I bought one from an illegal arms dealer, I'm sure when he scans his bar code at the cash register, and I pay for it with my credit card, this information will be forwarded. thank you bar code!

    I bought shaving cream and toilet paper. thank you bar code!

    I bet they know how many cigarettes I smoke! thank you bar code!

    ultimate paranoia. don't buy any thing incriminating. thank you bar code!

  28. how do you subscribe to salon without paying? by twistedcubic · · Score: 1

    O.k., I'd really like to see some free Salon content w/o having to pay. I don't mind the click through at all. So how is this done? Anybody got a link? I only see a link for "Salon Premium" which still talks about paying money.

    1. Re:how do you subscribe to salon without paying? by cyril3 · · Score: 1
      I don't mind the click through at all.

      then click through from the front page.

    2. Re:how do you subscribe to salon without paying? by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 2

      On some premium articles, there may be an option to get a "day pass" in return for viewing a large advertisement-- it's four pages which must be clicked through. At the end, Salon deposits a cookie which allows access to premium articles for a day.

  29. multiplatform text editor by Eric+Smith · · Score: 1, Insightful
    "FreePepper is an effort to collect enough money to purchase the source code for the multiplatform text editor Pepper from its author
    Is there something wrong with the other multiplatform text editors, such as vim and emacs, which are already free?
    1. Re:multiplatform text editor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      vim -g / gvim brings up vim in its own GUI complete with toolbar, etc.

      xemacs provides emacs functionality in a GUI.

  30. Re:What the fuck?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It looks like he just typed some crap in your search box. Two reccomendations: Limit the size of your search box, and two don't overreact so much.

  31. From the FreePepper Web site: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pepper runs on Mac Classic, OS X, Windows 200/XP, FreeBSD, Linux x86 and Linux PPC.

    Is that the Windows OS that's 1/10 as stable and 10 times as sucky as Win 2K?
    If so, is there a Windows Downgrade site that someone could point me to?

  32. Doesn't look like a hack to me.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What probably tipped it off was the qoutes he used when he wrote his little hate message. What's the sense in getting worked up about it?

  33. Disagree: My Bandwidth, My Money, MY SAY by Myriad · · Score: 5, Insightful
    While someone has every right to get upset at the sheer volume of political mail received around election time (electronic or otherwise), EFF and the Courts are correct. Political discussion is at the heart of the Constitution and it will be a cold day in hell before there is a successful law to stop it. As for Elizabeth Dole's decision to use email for communication to her (future) constituents, when there is so much anger over SPAM (eventhough it technically isn't SPAM), is another matter. If I were her political consultant I would have advised against it.

    //rant
    So what if it's free speech? It's not free as in beer - and that is exactly the problem here.

    You can say whatever the you want, political or otherwise, but I'll be damned if I'll roll over and happily pay for it! It's my bandwidth, my system resources, MY MONEY.

    Be my guest and snail mail me your propaganda - at your own cost. But don't you dare try to hide behind the free/political speech shield when all you want to do is spread your propaganda on my dime. (I do realize that it wasn't "you" who sent said messages)

    By your reasoning I should be able to say to NBC, ABC, CNN, FOX, etc, that I want 10minutes of airtime to express my political views. Do you really think they'd give it to me for free? Didn't think so. Someone has to pay. Why should *I* pay for someone else's message?

    As for your assertion that is isn't really spam:
    From MAPS: ( http://mail-abuse.org/standard.html )

    An electronic message is "spam" IF:
    (1) the recipient's personal identity and context are irrelevant because the message is equally applicable to many other potential recipients; AND
    (2) the recipient has not verifiably granted deliberate, explicit, and still-revocable permission for it to be sent; AND
    (3) the transmission and reception of the message appears to the recipient to give a disproportionate benefit to the sender.

    Political E-Mail meets #1 no problem. #2 is no problem either - unless I asked for it, don't send it! Finally, #3, getting someone I don't support elected is absolutely in their interest more than mine.

    The law is an easy one. It need not strangle free speech, political discussion or otherwise. Simply make bulk E-Mailing to address, who have not specifically (and verifiably) opted into such mailing, prohibited - regardless of content.

    //end rant

    --
    "They do not preach that their god will rouse them, a little before the Nuts work loose." Kipling, 'The Sons of Martha'
    1. Re:Disagree: My Bandwidth, My Money, MY SAY by wiredog · · Score: 2
      Heh. Once they're elected they can send all sorts of stuff via snail mail at taxpayer's (you and me) expense. The 'franking priviledge' that congressmen get.

      I think political spam is a good thing. The low cost means that a third party can communicate as effectively as the two majors.

    2. Re:Disagree: My Bandwidth, My Money, MY SAY by asteinberg · · Score: 2

      While in general I agree with what you're saying, it's worth pointing out that one could probably make a similar argument against junk mail that comes in your regular (snail) mail box. It costs you your time in the amount of time it takes you to stick it in your trash (and depending on how deceptive it is it might even make you open it), wastes "precious" mailbox/trash can space (I bet your computer's hard drive can handle more trash than the trash can I have to throw my junk mail in), etc. Yes, snail-mail costs significantly more to deliver than spam does, but that doesn't really make a difference on MY end. I don't gain anything by Dole or some company being forced to spend more money by sending snail mail vs. e-mail; it's still just as annoying to me either way. Not to mention the whole environmental issue (which, frankly, I don't really care much about but I suppose it might be worth bringing up).

      --
      The first ever Ultimate Frisbee video game: here (now
    3. Re:Disagree: My Bandwidth, My Money, MY SAY by Myriad · · Score: 2
      it's worth pointing out that one could probably make a similar argument against junk mail that comes in your regular (snail) mail box. It costs you your time in the amount of time it takes you to stick it in your trash (and depending on how deceptive it is it might even make you open it), wastes "precious" mailbox/trash can space (I bet your computer's hard drive can handle more trash than the trash can I have to throw my junk mail in), etc.

      I have found that my local mail carrier is much more respecting of my "No Unsolicited Mail Please" sign on my mailbox than spammers are of similar notices in regards to my E-Mail box.

      --
      "They do not preach that their god will rouse them, a little before the Nuts work loose." Kipling, 'The Sons of Martha'
    4. Re:Disagree: My Bandwidth, My Money, MY SAY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Yes, snail-mail costs significantly more to deliver than spam does, but that doesn't really make a difference on MY end
      Er, yes it does. It's unfeasible to send a lot of spam to you via snail-mail.
    5. Re:Disagree: My Bandwidth, My Money, MY SAY by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Ehhh, not really. First and most importantly, you don't pay the post office to deliver mail to you -- the sender pays. Spam is therefore like someone sending you junk mail COD. How long do you think that would last?

      Second, it's worth remembering that junk mail actually saves you money. Everyone bitches about the cost of stamps (with some justification) but the fact is that, at least in the US, the Postal Service is largely subsidized by junk mail. Without it, the cost of first-class mail would be considerably higher. So, if spammers had to pay my ISP to send me stuff, and I got a discount on my bill because of it, I wouldn't be nearly so hostile ... At a guess, charging one cent per spam message would probably pay my entire ISP bill and then some.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    6. Re:Disagree: My Bandwidth, My Money, MY SAY by KjetilK · · Score: 2

      I agree completely, it is spam. However, if you have to have any success in regulating this, you have to take one thing at a time. What should be done is regulating business-to-consumer spam, like we have in Norway. If enforced, it could be effective for other types of spam too.

      --
      Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
    7. Re:Disagree: My Bandwidth, My Money, MY SAY by V.+Mole · · Score: 2

      Everyone bitches about the cost of stamps (with some justification)

      Really? The USPO will carry one ounce of goods across the country, door-to-door, for $0.37. That sounds like an incredible bargain to me.

      As far as junk mail goes, I'm not convinced that that underwriting first-class mail (which it certainly does) is, overall, of sufficient value to outweigh the total cost (paper consumed, waste disposal, time impact).

    8. Re:Disagree: My Bandwidth, My Money, MY SAY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (1) the recipient's personal identity and context are irrelevant because the message is equally applicable to many other potential recipients;

      Political E-Mail meets #1 no problem.


      Wait, the context is applicable. Registered voter in her district, isn't that applicable context. This is totally different than me sending her info on penis enlargement.

  34. Pepper fund raising totals by CmdrTypo · · Score: 1
    Amount Needed: $11,000.00 USD
    Total raised as of 11/22/2002 @ 7:23pm EST: $ 360.00 USD

    [Insert your own joke here]

    1. Re:Pepper fund raising totals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could almost buy a digital camera with this money.

  35. NSA vs the TIA by Alien54 · · Score: 3, Informative
    I seem to recall that the NSA has had problems over the past several years, trying to sort out the insane quantity of data to pick out the droplets of information they needed to know about. This has been likened to trying to drink from a fire house with a straw.

    This was a major contributing fact in not getting enough warning in advance to stop September 11th.

    Now they want everything in the USA, multiplying the effect by an order of magnitude or so. Multipying it in the wrong direction.

    Imagine trying to find the one drop of pure water, while drinking with a straw, from a sewer pipe in Manhattan. Not a pretty picture.

    This with an agency office with a research budget of a few million dollars. Obviously Poindexter is seeing this as a growth industry.

    --
    "It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
    1. Re:NSA vs the TIA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This has been likened to trying to drink from a fire house with a straw.

      I see. So it seems that reducing the amount of water would be in order. That could be done by recalling US troops from the ~130 countries in which they're stationed.

    2. Re:NSA vs the TIA by cyril3 · · Score: 2, Funny
      Imagine trying to find the one drop of pure water, while drinking with a straw, from a sewer pipe in Manhattan. Not a pretty picture

      No, but the American Intelligence Community is up to the task if thats what they have to do to secure the homeland.

    3. Re:NSA vs the TIA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The point is, IS that what is required to defend (your) homeland? Saying "if that's what it takes, that's what we'll do" abdicates your own intelligence. Is that what it takes? This is an idea coming out of the office of one convicted (overturned) felon. Not gospel.

    4. Re:NSA vs the TIA by Guppy06 · · Score: 2

      " I seem to recall that the NSA has had problems over the past several years, trying to sort out the insane quantity of data to pick out the droplets of information they needed to know about. This has been likened to trying to drink from a fire house with a straw.

      This was a major contributing fact in not getting enough warning in advance to stop September 11th."


      But here's the beauty of the plan for politicians: the information, although not interpreted, is collected. So when the "evidence" turns up in NSA or FBI databases after the fact, your elected officials can simply and easily shift blame to the particular agency in question. This isn't about national security, it's about job security.

      What? You say we need more interpreters and translators much more than we need information gathering? That takes too much time. We need our new knee-jerk reactions to terrorism and we need them now! Something we can point to and say next election "See? We're fighting terrorism here!" Now hurry up, before I miss my photo op...

      You don't need to see our legislation... These are not the riders you're looking for... We can go about our junkets... Vote for me...

    5. Re:NSA vs the TIA by ec_hack · · Score: 1
      I seem to recall that the NSA has had problems over the past several years, trying to sort out the insane quantity of data to pick out the droplets of information they needed to know about. This has been likened to trying to drink from a fire house with a straw.

      Now add in the CIA, FBI, TSA and all other TLA databases. A copy of a powerpoint presentation given by DARPA on TIA has been floating around. Interestingly, privacy was listed as one of the major concerns.


      Everyone needs to get out of panic mode. The whole project, as of now, is a research effort to try to build intelligent query agents that can be given what kind of information to look for, to correlate, and to report. The queries go out, look around databases, and then report back to an analyst. The first phase research (which is just starting) will use a few existing government databases. Your credit card transactions are safe for now.


      That said, we need to keep an eye on this and be sure it doesn't evolve into a massive filter of all digital data in the US.

    6. Re:NSA vs the TIA by Alien54 · · Score: 2
      Everyone needs to get out of panic mode. The whole project, as of now, is a research effort to try to build intelligent query agents that can be given what kind of information to look for, to correlate, and to report. The queries go out, look around databases, and then report back to an analyst. The first phase research (which is just starting) will use a few existing government databases. Your credit card transactions are safe for now.

      As usual, this is a matter of trust. How much do you trust the folks in charge. And even if you trust the folks in charge, what happens when they go away and someone less moral takes over?

      I'm sure you can think of a few names that would make it to your worst nightmare list.

      --
      "It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
    7. Re:NSA vs the TIA by freeefalln · · Score: 0

      Bush knew about September 11 because Clinton did. Clinton briefed Bush on the possibility of something stiring up. Bush didnt want any part of Clinton's dealings.

  36. Re:FUCKING USE HEX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    fuck you, that ain't no gray code. forget it.

  37. Is the Internet a "public" place? by gentlewizard · · Score: 2

    I think the court rulings regarding the right of the Hare Krisna's and Moonies to distribute religious propaganda at airports may be relevant here. In essence, the courts said that for free speech to have meaning, there must be places where it can be delivered and heard. So public places could not restrict freedom of expression except as regards danger (like yelling "fire").

    So, is the Internet a public space, and therefore should candidates have the right to use it?

    I say no, email is NOT public. It is private, in the same way that a FAX machine is private. If you want public, put up a web page. When you cross the boundary into my mail server, you are invading my private space.

    Besides, the Internet is global. Whose courts (and whose cultural mores) should govern it? Better to treat it like a common carrier and make it content neutral.

  38. Free Speech My Eye - SPAM is SPAM is SPAM by Ldir · · Score: 2, Informative
    I think justifying SPAM - any SPAM - as free speech is total hogwash. I don't care whether it is commercial (UCE) or political (UPE?) or charitable (UChE?) or whatever (UWE?). SPAM by any other name still costs me money. SPAM is a collect phone call. SPAM is picking my pocket.

    If I claimed you must accept my collect call because I have a right to speak, most people would tell me to take a hike. Make the same claim for SPAM, however, and a lot of otherwise sensible folks nod their head and point to the First Amendment. Nonsense! Freedom of speech is not absolute. Just like a punch in the nose - your rights end where my nose (and my pocket) begins.

    Directly or indirectly, SPAM is taking my time and my money without my permission. The fact that each individual message costs most people only a small amount is immaterial. The fact that the cost of each SPAM is not itemized, but is buried in a monthly ISP or circuit cost is immaterial. Collectively, SPAM costs very real money. SPAM now accounts for roughtly 40% of all e-email. That's a tremendous expense, and it's growing. I wonder if the apologists would be so sanguine if they got a separate $8 bill for their helping of SPAM every month.

    IMHO, it's pretty simple. Yes, you have the right to speak. No, I do NOT have to pay for your desire to do so. Period.

  39. Re:UBE = Unsolicited *Bulk* Email by homer_ca · · Score: 2

    UCE is just one subset of spam. UBE is a broader set that more accurately describes the set of all types of spam. If you don't believe me, try sending some (non-commercial) UBE and see how fast you get kicked by your ISP for spamming.

  40. Include Administration. Look at Ashcroft by bstadil · · Score: 2
    Once in power they seem to forget their prior viewpoints.

    Who would have thunk this was stated by Ashcroft?

    [Senator Ashcroft takes issue with administration views on the Internet and the use of encryption technology.]

    . . . . . . . The Clinton administration would like the Federal government to have the capability to read any international or domestic computer communications. The FBI wants access to decode, digest, and discuss financial transactions, personal e-mail, and proprietary information sent abroad -- all in the name of national security.

    . . . . This proposed policy raises obvious concerns about Americans' privacy, in addition to tampering with the competitive advantage that our U.S. software companies currently enjoy in the field of encryption technology. Not only would Big Brother be looming over the shoulders of international cyber-surfers, but the administration threatens to render our state-of-the-art computer software engineers obsolete and unemployed.

    --
    Help fight continental drift.
  41. maybe... by stego · · Score: 2

    My experience w/ vim and emacs has been as command line applications - are there GUI versions of these? (too lazy to look for myself...) //// Pepper has a nice usuable GUI -- I used it on Mac OS X for while and even paid for my copy. A good cross-platform GUI text editor would work like Open Office in providing a familiar application for OS X or Win users/switchers to Linux.

  42. Great Googily Moogily by waldoj · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Here are some choice excerpts from that Pentagon briefing on TIA, for the lazy, with the bullshit cut out. Obviously, you can read the original if you prefer.

    Q: ... What are the privacy issues ... ?

    Aldridge: There are no privacy issues.

    Q: Can you run over the transactions again? It sounds like every time I would enter or a citizen would enter a credit card, any banking transaction, any medical -- I go see my doctor, any prescription, all of those things become part of this database -- right? -- hypothetically?

    Aldridge: Hypothetically they would...

    Q: Every time they use a telephone, that call enters the database. And if it is voice recognition, for example, then that enters the database, hypothetically, right?

    Aldridge: Hypothetically, yes.


    When this goes into effect, the credit cards go. The checkbook goes. The ATM card goes. No more video rentals. The cellphone goes. Everything I e-mail out will be encrypted, though I expect that I'll use e-mail a lot less.

    Sucks to live in a Republican America.

    -Waldo Jaquith

    1. Re:Great Googily Moogily by flwombat · · Score: 1
      I'm continually dumbfounded by this whole TIA thing. I've heard people invoke various aspects of _1984_ as political invective before, but this is the first time I've ever felt like Big Brother was really coming. I mean, we've created the minitruth for chrissakes. Surreal!

      The fact that they apparently put John freaking Poindexter in charge of this thing makes me feel really secure about it too. At least we know he won't horribly abuse his power in an illegal and unconstitutional effort to support some psychotic partisan ideal and then lie to congress and the American people about it and get off scot-free. Whew! One less thing to worry about!

      Seriously though, I'm wondering if we'll see a big upswing in militia membership. Has Charlton Heston come out against this yet? When's the NRA march on Washington to protest this thing? Do Republican civil libertarians have the courage of their convictions, or are they just as spineless as the Democrats? It'll be interesting to see.

      --
      ---------
      get your war on
    2. Re:Great Googily Moogily by The+AtomicPunk · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I agree completely, but give me a break. The Democrats would've tripped all over themselves trying to implement this too, and the Republicans then would've made some fake gestures at not liking it.

      The only things the Democrats protested against was protecting vaccine manufacturers from being sued, because the trial lawyers donate millions to the democrats every year.

      There is no significant difference between democrats and republicans anymore, if there ever was.

    3. Re:Great Googily Moogily by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I think the difference is still the same. Since and before the 80s, Republicans have been calling for smaller governemnt, except the millitary and law enforcement. They have won many elections by saying the Dems were soft on law enforcement. Still today, the Republicans are the party of tough laws strickly enforced, except say enironmental and tax laws.

      What I think has changed is that we all find these differences stupid and really want to fight about the unspoken issues.

    4. Re:Great Googily Moogily by Reziac · · Score: 2

      The "No privacy issues" quote brings to mind another:

      "No population -- no popular unrest!"

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  43. Nice Going, Captain Obvious by susano_otter · · Score: 2
    "While we valued the prestige of a NASDAQ listing, this move to the OTC market should not affect our core business..."

    Since, you know, Salon's core business has nothing at all to do with trading stock.

    It's clear that Salon's problem all along has been that they saw their magazine as a vehicle to valuate their stock, rather than as a good or service to be exchanged for fair value. It's also clear that they still believe this is the case.

    --

    Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.

    1. Re:Nice Going, Captain Obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whatever. Susano is an idiot. I fucked his mom. In fact, I fucked his *duaghter*. Oh god, she was hot. nice tight wet hole, there. She liked it in the ass even.

      Oh fuck yea. That's how I like it. Tight daughter-ass.

      Susano.. oh yea baby. fucked your whole family. dog too. Mmmmmf

  44. oh really by ArchieBunker · · Score: 0

    Do you really think that out of 250 million people the feds will care that you took $90 out of the ATM or rented Ishtar? Get real. When they see some guy buying 5 tons of ammonium nitrate and a tanker of diesel then a red flag pops up. By the way I voted those republicans into office. You're going to lead one hell of a life without a checkbook or cellphone. Is using a land line phone any more secure? Didn't think so.

    --
    Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    1. Re:oh really by NBarnes · · Score: 1


      I, unlike you, have no desire to leave entirely in the hands of Read Admiral Poindexter and VP Cheney the decision of what to care about. The government has no business recording that data in the first place, and it shouldn't be incumbant upon me to rid myself of the trappings of civil society simply to keep the State from knowing what brand of toilet paper I use.

    2. Re:oh really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Actually, it is - but only marginally so. With a "land line" you have the wire and the phone company to worry about. (For super paranoia, I guess you can use other peoples lines or public phones.) On the other hand, with a cell phone you have the RF signal, wire, and the phone company. The neat thing about the RF is, not only can "they" listen in - two of "them" can also track your movement by triangulation. (Or, for that matter, the phone company could do the same if they can get the signal at two cell sites.) The cell switching can also be used for coarse tracking.

  45. TIA OK with me... IF I get unfettered access to it by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 1

    I'd be happy to live in a world where there is no privacy... there's a great many changes that need to be made for it to work, and a great many that would be made if it came about, but it could be an improvement. You don't need to be ashamed when you know everyone elses laundry is dirty too... However, that having big organizations with shady motives (that includes governments) have this info exclusively is going to lead to the enslavement of humanity to an untouchable totalitarian organization. Not good. Here's a question I've often wondered about: What sort of changes would be needed before you'd be happy surrendering your privacy?

    --
    -1 Uncomfortable Truth
  46. scary pyramid by bshanks · · Score: 2, Funny

    By far the scariest thing about this project is the huge all-seeing pyramid logo on the IAO homepage. Maybe I'd better reread the Illuminatus trilogy sometime soon.

  47. A sad day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This has been in the news for a few months now but it's the first time I've seen it on /.. This is perhaps the largest threat to personal privacy that has ever been brought to us by our government. It's sad to see it lodged into a slashback. As many people as possible need to see what this program is all about... when people start to learn the details they will be shocked. TIA by itelf is bad enough, but when combined with the law changing USA Patriot Act it's a recipe for disaster.

    Oh and by the way, the Supreme Court is due to overturn your Miranda rights next month. It's time for these issues to be brought out into the public and discussed before our rights vanish.

  48. Worry not, citizen. It's for your protection. by Sean+Clifford · · Score: 2
    Worry not, citizen.

    Total Information Awareness will be used for the security of all American citizens, watching over you with the compassion and leadership of a big broth---er, uh - a favorite uncle.

    Our glorious leader will leverage these tools to usher in a new era of safety and prosperity, unfettered by the shackles of complicated and antiquated laws. Never fear, no terrorist will be able to hide behind the The Constitution.

    Of course, we rely on your cooperation and your TIPS to ensure our enduring freedom.

    Everything is warm and fuzzy. War is peace.

    We now return to your regularly scheduled programming.

  49. Re:FUCKING USE HEX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is gray code, you fucking ignorant rag head. Now get the fuck out of america.

  50. How's this for hypocracy? by weave · · Score: 5, Insightful
    This total information awareness crap means everytime you buy a box of kleenex, it's recorded.

    But get this, the city I live near, Wilmington, wants all residents to register their guns. The "conservatives" are screaming against it.

    So, I can buy a gun anonymously (between private individuals) in Delaware legally, not have to report it, and have the full support of the same congressional persons that voted for this homeland defense bill. But if I buy an issue of 2600 with my credit card, I'll be put on someone's list...

    Now, let's not let this degenerate to a flame about 2nd ammendment crap. I'm pointing out hypocracy here, not making a stand for mandatory gun registration... I'm making a stand against mandatory kleenex registration.

    1. Re:How's this for hypocracy? by The+AtomicPunk · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure that we'll end up with de-facto gun registration as a result of this. After all, ALL purchases will be tracked.

      Time to buy a few cases of ammunition, some Islam books, and some head-sized towels!

  51. FreeBEe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I'd chip in for a ransom on BeOS. Am I going to be modded off-topic now?

  52. *Think* by waldoj · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Do you really think that out of 250 million people the feds will care that you took $90 out of the ATM or rented Ishtar? Get real.

    No, but they might care that I purchase ammunition. (I target shoot.) They might have found it real interesting that I purchased .220 ammunition about three months ago, right before the sniper shootings with .220 ammunition started right here in Virginia. They might cross-reference that with my recent purchase of several books on the Muslim faith, and determine that I fit their model of the sniper. I, obviously, am not the sniper (of course, two excellent suspects are in custody now), but I would have had a hell of an experience trying to prove that to the FBI. This database would make exactly that sort of tracking not just possible, but the standard.

    You're going to lead one hell of a life without a checkbook or cellphone.

    I really don't think it will be a problem. You'll be surprised to note that billions of humans managed to survive for untold centuries without either of these things. You'll no doubt be shocked -- shocked -- that billions continue to function without these things. Why, did you know that in America today, there are still millions of people without cellular phones! It's boggling, I know!

    Is using a land line phone any more secure? Didn't think so.

    Much, much more secure. The use of a cellphone allows my location to be tracked. Currently, it can be tracked within a few miles. Soon, by a new FCC regulation ostensibly for E911 purposes, my location will be tracked within a few yards. My phone need not even be in use -- all of my movements can be tracked and databased, such that a permanent record of my every movement can be established. With a landline...um...not so much.

    Christ, McFly, you do think before you reply, don't you? Looking at your posting history, though, it appears that I've answered my own question.

    -Waldo Jaquith

    1. Re:*Think* by MacAndrew · · Score: 3, Informative

      I, obviously, am not the sniper (of course, two excellent suspects are in custody now)

      You haven't heard they're looking for a third sniper? What was your name again?

      Actually, the ammunition used was .223-caliber, not .220. How's that for hair-splitting, and why are there two such similar calibers? Never mind.

      Knowing who is buying ammunition might be constructive for the same reason as knowing who is buying guns. Yes, I know the whole gun control song and dance -- I'm not on either side -- but after we had one of those sniper attacks just down the road I have to wonder about it, and ballistic fingerprinting and so on. Like anything in investigatory law enforcement, there is a difficult balancing of privacy and gov't intrusion.

      Anyway, I don't want my purchases, movements, thoughts tracked in the slightest. I have nothing to hide, so go away. I'm terribly curious where all this is headed.

      Oh, as for traveling with anonymity, have you noticed all those surveillance cameras going up? It's only a matter of time before they can read license plates and recognize faces. Technology.

    2. Re:*Think* by Reziac · · Score: 2

      As I mention in another discussion -- a couple decades ago there was a proposal that ALL phone calls be tracked, and the FBI shot that down as being too much of a hazard to field agents. After all, unless such a database is 100% secure, any breach can be used equally well by The Enemy (whoever that may be this week).

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    3. Re:*Think* by gorilla · · Score: 2
      Actually, the ammunition used was.223-caliber, not.220. How's that for hair-splitting, and why are there two such similar calibers?

      There is more to a cartridge than just the caliber. You actually need about 10 numbers to describe a cartridge completely, including the length and the size of the rim. There are even instances when the caliber are identical but the cartridges are different, eg the AK47 takes a 7.62 x 39 mm cartridge, the standard NATO round is also 7.62, but 51 mm long instead.

    4. Re:*Think* by MacAndrew · · Score: 1

      Thanks -- but you missed the part where I added, "Never mind." :)

      My only experience is with the little bitty .22 cartridges, and shotgun shells. Pretty simple.

      Do you happen to know what special characteristics the .223 shell used in the murders might have? I haven't found too many details. It was for a Bushmaster rifle, a civilian version of the M-16 I think, and I believe the bullet is supersonic, the shock wave accounting for much of the damage. I had thought sniper rifles tended to be high-caliber, up to .50, so I was appalled at the physical damage in these shootings. (If you don't know, all the shootings were with a single bullet, and most resulted in death at the scene.)

      Obviously these incidents will figure in future gun control debates.

      Anyway, morbid stuff.

  53. Ashcroft's angelic twin by wytcld · · Score: 4, Interesting
    "There is a concern that the Internet could be used to commit crimes and that advanced encryption could disguise such activity. However, we do not provide the government with phone jacks outside our homes for unlimited wiretaps. Why, then, should we grant government the Orwellian capability to listen at will and in real time to our communications across the Web?"

    Senator John Ashcroft - evidently no relation to the daemon obsessed (or is that possessed?) Attorney General of the same name.

    --
    "with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
  54. Flavors of speech by MacAndrew · · Score: 3, Informative

    First Amendment law is tough, largely because it deals with fuzzy questions framed in an endless variety of fact patterns. There is a lot of balancing going on, and few hard rules.

    The distinction between commercial and political speech is one such compromise. (Remember there is also plain old expressive speech that covers expressive activity such as books and movies and nude dancing. And there's also speech that's unprotected, such as obscenity, criminal conspiracy, fighting words, libel, copyright violations....) Some conservative would have only political speech protected, leaving a hot debate over what kind of speech is political. If you want to get really strict, go back to WWI or earlier, when sedition laws were broadly interpreted and war protesters jailed for criticizing the government. Others would take the all-or-nothing approach you suggest, such as some left-wingers or libertarians. Then there an infinite number of shadings between the extremes.

    Here is an overview of the legal doctrine of commercial speech, including a timeline -- I simply googled this journalist-oriented site and can't vouch for its accuracy, although my skim of it suggests it is quite objective. It has a general 1st A. resource as well, very readable. The ACLU and EFF certainly have a lot to say about speech, but are more partisan.

    I won't defend the state of the law nor reject it wholesale, but I acknowledge is it complicated. I'm fairly confident that the commercial speech distinction is not going away, and that it is a useful accommodation in dealing with a difficult problem -- peruse the case law and see, and perhaps you'll agree.

    Enjoy! HTH.

    P.S. Ah yes, one more thing -- the thing that the 1st A. doesn't entitle you to a printing press, i.e., subsidies, is true but not perfect. The fact is that unsolicited political email costs us very little (yes, I realize we pay for it through ISP fees -- pennies), what a court might label "de minimis." And even if it collectively amounts to a lot, that doesn't matter for 1st A. analysis because you can only blame a given politician for the 8 emails she sent personally, not for the cumulative effect of 1000 politicians and political groups, and not at all for typical commericial spam which is an entirely separate analytical Q.

    If you still think of political UBE as an unbearable invasion, or complain about the waste of your time, consider that it is 100% legal for that same politician to call you on the phone or come to your door. (No, they don't have a right to drive you crazy if you tell them to go away, nor to keep sending emails after you ask them to stop.) Personally, I would prefer the email.

    Practically, political email is likely self-limiting because the last thing a politician or political group wants to do is alienate voters.

  55. Re:TIA OK with me... IF I get unfettered access to by jasonkohles · · Score: 1

    Well, since you asked, I'd be willing to surrender my privacy under the following conditions:

    1. Pigs fly
    2. A government we can trust is elected
    3. Satan lets me win the snowball fight in hell

    When these things have happened, we can talk about me willingly surrendering my privacy, until then you just get to make up your own jokes about which of these is the least likely.

  56. The only change by Confessed+Geek · · Score: 1

    The only change that would be sufficient would be the permanent end to my heartbeat.

  57. Here's what... by tkrotchko · · Score: 2

    "So what can a publisher do?"

    Continue publishing print magazines.

    It can work. Its a proven business model.

    --
    You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
  58. Fat Wallet alternative listing doesn't infringe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    While I think that the prices in cataloge should not be copyrightable (While the layout can).

    Simply list stores in order of increasing price without listing the actual price. If necessary list the item price as a percentage of the RRP.

    eg:

    Crap portable stereo

    Walmart - 1 (75%)
    K-mart - 2 (74.67%)
    Bestbuy - 3 (74.66%)

    It doesn't take a lot of coding to dynamically adjust the precision until all prices are unique (Where they are). And well lets face it, even on $300 does it matter if you are out by .0001% ?

  59. Re:order by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes the percentage order is the wrong way around, oops.

  60. Has to be said by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 2

    When Kleenex(tm) is outlawed ...

    Well, you know the rest.

    --
    The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
  61. Not really by tkrotchko · · Score: 2

    "Natural selection is value-free"

    I always laugh when people say "nature selected 5 fingers because it could work tools more easily. Evolution or natural selection doesn't care about elegence, tools, intelligence. None of that matters.

    On the other hand, its not value-free.

    Natural selection means "whoever has the most offspring wins". Its really that simple. If you breed successfully, you have a successful strategy.

    There's no value judgement in natural selection.

    --
    You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
  62. Nice editor = SciTE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    SciTE Is a great little editor for Windows and Linux. It may not have all the features of some programs (I'm not sure if there is any way to get tabs), but it does do sintax highlighting and plenty of other useful things, and is ultra fast compared to many editors I've tried (at least as fast as notepad on my system).

    I think there might also be a version with more project management functions, but I haven't tried it out and I don't know what OS(es) it's for. It is basicly just a shell window for the Scintilla editing component, so it should be easy to extend.

  63. ROBOLAWYER by Fastball · · Score: 2
    (Mechanized lawyer enters the room.)

    ROBOLAWYER: You are in violation of the DMCA. Drop the coupon and back away. You have fifteen seconds to comply!

    (Terrified, consumer drops coupon and takes a step back.)

    ROBOLAWYER: You have ten seconds to comply!

    (Confused, the consumer looks around nervously.)

    ROBOLAWYER: You have five seconds to comply!

    (Consumer panics and darts a couple steps to his right, then back to left ending up where he started before the coupon and droid. ROBOLAWYER opens fire and shreds the consumer riddling him with bullets. The consumer falls forward. Cut to close-up of consumer, the coupon, bloodied, rests in front of his nose.)

    ROBOLAWYER: Will that be cash or credit for the bullets?

  64. Gun laws characteristically fubar by Fastball · · Score: 2
    I'm pro second amendment, but from what I've seen gun laws are very odd things. E.g., in one or more states it is illegal to buy an AK-47 (and other assault rifles, I think) if it has a bayonet attachment. No bayonet? Cool and the gang.

    Now, I don't know what about the bayonet, a scary last line of defense if you tote an AK-47, nullifies the deal. But from what I know, this kind of "compromise" by gun lobbyists is commonplace. Oh well. Sorry for the off-topic post.

  65. Re:FUCKING USE HEX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Calm down, man. Starting from the top:
    0
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    Stupid Slashdot lameness filters.

    # Important Stuff: Please try to keep posts on topic.
    # Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads.
    # Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said.
    # Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about.
    # Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page)
    # If you want replies to your comments sent to you consider loging in or creating an account..

    Problems regarding accounts or comment posting should be sent to CowboyNeal.
  66. Interview with the guy (long) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://daringfireball.net/2002/08/pepper_author_ma arten_hekkelman.html

  67. Minor nitpick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Posted anonymously because I ph33r the gubment:

    The use of a cellphone allows my location to be tracked. Currently, it can be tracked within a few miles. Soon, by a new FCC regulation ostensibly for E911 purposes, my location will be tracked within a few yards.

    Just to clarify what you may already be saying, this is not a technological issue, it's a political one. Your cellphone can already be tracked to within a few feet, not meters (or miles). Don't think that because there's no FCC regulation as of yet, that it's not being done. But that's ok. We have nothing to hide, right?

  68. Uhh...Landlines by interactive_civilian · · Score: 4, Funny
    About landlines, you said...
    Much, much more secure. The use of a cellphone allows my location to be tracked. Currently, it can be tracked within a few miles. Soon, by a new FCC regulation ostensibly for E911 purposes, my location will be tracked within a few yards.
    Uhm...correct me if I am wrong, but if you are using a Landline, can they not find your exact location w/in a few tens of centimeters, depending on the length of the cord from the hand-set to the base.

    Of course, if you are using a cordless phone, it may be more difficult for them to find your exact location...that is, unless you ever need to use the base to recharge the phone.

    Just a thought.

    --
    "Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
    1. Re:Uhh...Landlines by waldoj · · Score: 2

      Uhm...correct me if I am wrong, but if you are using a Landline, can they not find your exact location w/in a few tens of centimeters, depending on the length of the cord from the hand-set to the base.

      *Laugh* You got me on poor phrasing and a well-chosen segment of my stating for quoting purposes. :) Of course, I was referring not to having my telephone's location known, but, rather, my own location known, whether or not I'm talking on my phone.

      But it's still funny. :)

      -Waldo Jaquith

  69. Pepper License by yuri · · Score: 1

    "We are strongly considering having a BSD/MIT style license."

    Ugghhhh.... I'm not suggesting these guys are con artists, but wouldn't it be wiser to get them to select the license first. If they are bad people then they can still choose a license which makes unreasonable demands on people ie money, change restrictions etc.

    If even one project of this type gets screwed over, then it could effectively kill the model.

  70. In the interests of free software by yatest5 · · Score: 1

    has anyone got a registration key for Pepper I can have?

    --
    • Mod parent up! [a] by Anonymous Coward (Score:5) Thurs, June 31, @13:37
  71. You must be very young suburbanite indeed. by jeko · · Score: 1
    even though I'm called a bit "cruel" or "callous" by others, I strongly believe in Darwinism in all aspects of life.

    Unless you were born in a hovel at the bottom end of Bangladesh or Rwanda, you simply have no idea what you're talking about.

    Taking a wild guess, I'd say you were probably born in a civilized nation with reasonably strong rule of law. Furthermore, since you're posting from a computer, and I'm assuming there isn't blood from its previous owner splashed across the keyboard and monitor, you were probably born into a reasonably affluent place.

    I don't care how hard you think you've worked. Unless you spent your childhood stealing food every day, then you've been the beneficiary of some form of charity in your life.

    Assuming you're not a Hindu, then you must understand that where you were born was a matter of blind, dumb luck, and if you've worked hard and studied diligently, then all you've done is realize the potential of the massive amount of charity you were gifted with.

    What you are is a manicured pink poodle who's been taken to the zoo by your owner who calls you "Pookums" and carries you in her purse. You smirck at the tigers and wolves in their cages and lecture the lions on the virtues of "Survival of the Fittest," and even try to give them advice on how to be cuter so that maybe one day some woman might put them in her purse and take them home.

    And every so often, that woman drops her purse, with you in it, inside one of the cages. And poodles like you are the first ones to start squealing and whining and crying about "police protection" and "the rule of law" and "can't we all get along" and "That's not fair!"

    Of course, I could be wrong. You might actually be half the badass you think you are. So, lets put this hypothesis to a test. I encourage you to visit the nearest maximum security prison and prove your superiority by dominating that substandard population. With your remarkable mental prowess matched against their mere clumsy brute force, you should have them all begging to be your bitch within days.

    Until you do, though, please spare those of us at the grown-ups' table your adolescent delusions of grandeur.

    --
    He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
  72. Fatwallet=good publicity by techstar25 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Before the Fatwallet story this week, I had never heard of them, but now I'll probably visit the site regularly. That kind of publicity is golden, especially on the net where gaining unique visitors is so competitive. Now that wired has an article, Fatwallet must be getting tons of hits. Good for them. There's no such thing as bad publicity.

  73. Dems vs. Repubs by waldoj · · Score: 1

    The Democrats would've tripped all over themselves trying to implement this too, and the Republicans then would've made some fake gestures at not liking it.

    Oh, I don't know. I mean, you could be right, but I suspect not. I think that the current batch of weak-kneed stock of Democrats in power (upon reflection, "power" might be too strong of a word) are willing to allow themselves to be run over roughshod with such a program, but I don't think that they would have implemented it themselves. At least, I'd like to hope not.

    -Waldo Jaquith

  74. God? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "how can something that we can't touch, feel or taste be of any value?"

    Strange, I find I ask this question of god and religion...

  75. Last Post! by alpg · · Score: 1

    A man from AI walked across the mountains to SAIL to see the Master,
    Knuth. When he arrived, the Master was nowhere to be found. "Where is the
    wise one named Knuth?" he asked a passing student.
    "Ah," said the student, "you have not heard. He has gone on a
    pilgrimage across the mountains to the temple of AI to seek out new
    disciples."
    Hearing this, the man was Enlightened.

    - this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...