Yeah, of course you can opt out. I personally have been obliged to opt out fully five times, for each of the web-browsers on each of the computers I use on a regular basis.
The question is, why should the obligation be on -me- to avoid being tracked? Why is Big Brother the default?
Um, do those 23.8% actually believe that the advancement of technology has just STOPPED?
Personally, I see it this way. We have the technology now to go, but it'll be tough. In ten years we'll have the technology to go without much problem. In thirty years we'll be able to go with ease.
Conversely, what are the chances that we'll nuke ourselves first? At last count, there are thousands of active nuclear warheads both on ground and on submarines. Each one represents the equivalent amount of firepower that was used in Europe during the entirety of World War II. The US already loves to lob missiles at people, and it's just a matter of time before someone ups the ante. Sure, they tell us that they'll never be used. Pardon me if I dig a shelter anyway...
Anyway, just pointing out that a cessation of technology advance is not the only way we'll never reach Mars.
So here we finally arrive at the pinnacle of man's audacty.
Heheh. you really think so? Consider that we haven't touched on mind/computer interfaces, reengineering of living creatures (As in, changing an already born animal or person), terraformation, and, of course, the military applications of all of this. (And you know damn well the US Military is already drooling over the possibility of genertic warfare)
We're not at the pinnacle, not by a long shot. We've just got a clearer view of the top from here, that's all.
I suppose this could have been predicted as early as last year. If I recall correctly, India has been pursuing a rocketry program, which most people have assumed was to launch those lovely nuclear bombs they've been testing. If they do this, then they get even better experience, without the international complaints.
I would not be at all surprised to see Pakistan make a similar statement within the next year (Although I doubt their economy is in good enough shape to handle the strain of a serious space program)
The gecko's adhesive never leaves residue, never gets dirty and never wears out. That means the animal isn't emitting a sticky substance from its feet in order to stick. It also works in a vacuum, which rules out the possibility that the adhesion relies on suction, because suction uses trapped air to operate. It works underwater, which means it doesn't rely on static cling.
What in the hell did they do to these poor geckos?!
Does anybody know if any of the (presumed) extra-solar planets would be visible from the Hubble? That'd be pretty cool. ("I can see CowboyNeal's house from here!")
iii.The transfer of ownership of the Separated Business by means of a spin-off of stock of the Separated Business to Non-Covered Shareholders of Microsoft, or by other disposition that does not result in a Covered Shareholder owning stock in both the Separated Business and the Remaining Business.
All in all, I'd say they're really serious about Bill not getting his hands on the Baby Bills. Not a bad idea, since they belatedly traced most of the problems with the company back to his attitude...
My question is, why are you punishing these kids for being different?
The thing is, they probably don't see it that way at all. They will most likely come into this under the impression that if a kid is reported who happens to be 'normal', then that kid will be quickly determined to be OK, and sent on his merry way.
You and I know that this is not the case. We know perfectly well that anyone considered 'antisocial' will be called in, as well as unpopular, 'weird', geeky, and similar kids. Now that VA Linux has its advertising list, what happens? What do people want to happen? Are we talking, "Lock them all in small iron boxes for the rest of their lives" or counseling, or what?
Personally, if the attitude is right, this could be a fantastic way of picking bright students out of a crowd and giving them a lift. Pointing them to scholarships, helping them identify their particular skills, and -- if they really are unhappy -- getting them the hell out of there and into gifted programs elsewhere.
I'm saying that there's a way to do this without adding stress to the kids being targeted. The stress is coming from being different? Don't change them, try to place them with their peers (Private school? Early entrance to college?) or provide them with things to do more suited to their interests and abilities.
One of the documents on the page, the opinion on interception, quotes the search warrant:
[c]omputer hardware... and computer software... and... documents relating to the use of the computer system..., and financial documents and licensing documentation relative to the computer programs and equipment at... [SJG]... which constitute evidence... of federal crimes.... This warrant is for the seizure of the above described computer and computer data and for the authorization to read information stored and contained on the above described computer and computer data.
It seems to me that the problem in the first place was the idiotic judge who issued them the search warrant. I thought the whole point behind requiring a judge's permission was to ensure from the beginning that crap like this wouldn't happen? Instead, it seems to be just another rubber stamp on the whole damned process.
The system seems to be designed so that the cops ask for whatever they think they could get, and the legal system is supposed to rein them in. But obviously, this isn't happening. I mean, financial documents?!
Yes, clearly education is needed -- how about educating some of these judges?
Reading over the description of the process, the article just -screamed- "Low Gravity" to me. If I recall correctly, early plans for the International Space Station included various materials furnaces that could probably be used for something like this. Basically, they were just flying toasters -- you would load the material, and it would be heated and analyzed according to some pretty intricate heating gradients and timings.
I've no idea if that's still in the plan, but the idea is still viable, I'd imagine, and would definitely help study the structure of the material, if not gain insight into ways to improve it.
Whats wrong with a ballot? Thats why you vote, guy. So that you have control over your government.
I absolutely agree. Me, I'd take things a bit further. I would let any group with the signatures of 1% of the town's population add any initiative to the ballot. I would not only allow frivolous, stupid and inane votes, but encourage them. Keep people coming to the polls simply to vote the dumb stuff down.
I'd like to see stuff like:
An allowance to schtupp a goat in public on the third Sunday of every month,
The ability to pay parking tickets with a photocopy of CmdrTaco's butt
The right to stun-gun fools (a la Dogbert)
Mandate that libraries use Smurfbotch, the latest tool to keep your children from being exposed to the color bl*e
If we go to the polls and assume that every initiative was well-thought-out by reasonable people, we've given up half our democracy already.
Windows-only or not, you can persuade them to release it for Linux just by downloading it.
Part of the (somewhat lengthy, but polite and thorough) download process is a questionnaire about intended development. If enough people state that they intend to do Linux-only development, then a week or so down the line a few POLITE emails drift in wondering about a Linux port, then I think it'll probably happen.
That last question was fantastic, and I'm quite glad that Ben chose to address it -- I'm not sure that his was a response, exactly, but this is at least a start.
I disagree, though, that a web site is necessarily aimed toward the average American. TV ads are aimed toward the average American, and even those have varying level of content and complexity depending on the time of day and the channel on which they air. This particular "channel" is an important one. When Al Gore references his web page in an interview, I personally expect to find -more- information there, not less. The only reason I will let a candidate get away with saying "Check out my webpage at foo.com" is because of the promise of a full opinion, more thoughtful because the candidate has had time to write it. Reading over Ben's responses, I do believe that Gore gives feedback on the page. But I don't believe he's written a word of it. Nor do I believe that George W has written anything on any of the myriad web pages he's sitting on (Does that count as cybersquatting, BTW?)
It comes down to this: Is this web page going to have content, or is it going to be another commercial? Because if it's just another commercial, I'd rather watch TV; at least there a premium is placed on brevity.
I'm curious, then, about NASA's testing processes for these things. It's a shame these things are too expensive to try out in Earth's orbit, where breakage is immediately obvious.
So do NASA engineers test on computer? Run tests on individual parts? Or do they just rely on calculation and past performance? If anyone has any information, I'd be glad for it.
First thought: This is really nifty. Think scope here. If these things are so cheap, what's to prevent us from stringing them around the moon or Mars? A handful of these could in time be just as powerful as a large-scale satellite.
Second thought: What's to prevent the random linking and de-linking of these things as needed? Electromagnets, perhaps, powered by solar cells, could provide enough impetus to move by, say, "swimming" through ferromagnetic debris that's already clouding the Earth's upper upper atmosphere.
Third thought: The more of these we send up, the more shooting stars we'll see when they re-enter and burn. Sounds cool to me.
Last thought: Apparently, the government now has the ability to track a cell-phone type signal from a hundred or so miles away, with enough accuracy to communicate / monitor the device. This makes me slightly unhappy.
There was no privacy element in what Jon wrote, but I don't see that as a big problem.
Yes, there are potential privacy problems here, at least in the US. (the privacy ruling with NW has no bearing on Ford's computers in other countries, so far as I know) There are other issues as well, such as Ford's choice of OS, ISP, manufacturer. I think that Jon would agree, though, that these things are minor, if it boils down to "Having a computer" vs. "Not having a computer".
Privacy issues will at one point have to be resolved, yes. As will things such as use of the machines by family members (I, for instance, am not permitted to drive my father's company car), the use of the computers to access pr0n or other politically sensitive content, etc. etc.
But pessimism now might turn out to be a very bad thing, if focus on these issues prevents other companies from doing the same as Ford.
This is a commendable move by Ford -- particularly their inclusion of non-US workers. One can only imagine the further possibilities if Ford embraced Open Source as well...
I'm not sure that this is entirely original, though. I seem to recall from History class that the Soviet Union gave away free television sets. Hell of a difference, though, from giving away propaganda devices to giving away the most possibly empowering machines known to man!
I repeat... I am not not supportive of filtering. But if it came down to it, these are probably far better than commercial closed-list solutions.
I am not particularly supportive of filtering, either. But the laws just require filters -- If they happen not to be filtering anything out, so much the better.
Lots of things could conceivably be added -- A password system, perhaps. Or something to take info from a library card.
The point is that the technology is better off in public hands. A simple, well-documented Open Source censorware program (And it is censorware, I'm not kidding myself) would do a lot of good in places with intelligent librarians, and the least bad in places where they buy into this crap.
May I remind you too, that not only are these lists hidden, but it may very well be illegal to even attempt to unhide them? According to the Digital Copyright act, getting around it technologically can get you dragged into court, and it's only a matter of time before Net Nanny or Surf Watch decides to sue for cataloging the blocked sites that we find by typing in the URL and having it blocked -- after all, those are corporate secrets!
It comes down to this: If the Open Source community doesn't have something available when these laws start passing, then something awful is going to become the standard. From there, the battle is all uphill.
The key thing when dealing with zealots is to recognise that the average person is more reasonable than your average zealot, but also quite a bit lazier. Thinking about that, there is a solution which should meet the zealot's stated goals (Blocking children from viewing pr0n), while not also enforcing unstated goals. Coming from an Open Source perspective, the solution seems obvious. We want a program that does the following:
* Monitors web traffic by keyword and URL
* Blocks any such traffic with selected keywords, or from selected sites
How difficult, really, is that to write? I'd propose designing it so that on any machine running this program, the list of URLs and keywords can be called up at any time, and modified (Addition or deletion) if need be.
This does not block the howling horde from publishing lists of sites and keywords that they want people to never ever see. It does prevent them from enforcing it on everyone, because every librarian can use their own discretion (!) to decide when a site should not be banned, as well as to much more quickly add a site that should be (And I think that we can all agree that there are at least -some- sites which children should at least have to ask an adult to see)
If this software is free, and easy to set up and use, I see no reason why there should be objections to it. (Other than from the halls of Surf Watch, but fuck them anyway) After all, we meet the stated goal of the zealots -- protecting children -- in what seems to me a much more effective and dynamic way than relying on a closed list. And we also protect ourselves from the zealots.
I'm frankly surprised we heard about this at all, considering how tight-lipped the NSA is. An admission that a depended-on computer has crashed -- and even more surprising, an admission for how long it's been down!
On the other hand, this admission tells me that they think that the glitch is internal. That is, they are not worried about providing confirmation that an outside attack has worked. (Or, conversely, there -was- an attack, and they think they know how to trap whoever did it and so want to goad them into trying again) Isn't it fun analyzing press releases?
Yes, the IMF may have effectively removed Suharto with their demands -- but how often have other governments done similar things?
I think what we're beginning to see here is the rise of the alternative-government structure. Corporations control a significant amount of capital, labor, intellectual property (Whether you recognise it or not) and in some cases land. However, they have not really ever exerted a very strong influence on the way the world works except in small, limited affairs. In many countries, there is an ultimate authority of several layers above the heads of these companies.
Is it any wonder, then, that these corporations are looking toward organisations that give them the power to negotiate with these authorities on more equal terms, more commensurate with their resources and effect on society? Forget conspiracy -- this is being done completely transparently. Huge corporations by their very nature strain at any and all legal bounds placed on them. By banding together -- unionizing, in some respects -- they can further common goals to ensure their own well-being. Among these goals is cheap labor, wide markets, maximized revenues -- all those things that corporations have explicitly sought for years.
We look at the WTO and we see that when they band together with a few sycophantic politicians, they have power. Who gives them that power? We do, in one form or another. Our governments make concession after concession to corporations over land and mineral rights. Grants from our taxes support their research while they reap the rewards. Our money flows into their coffers whenever we buy Pokemon cards, Office 2000, Chevy trucks and Nike shoes.
So who controls that power and for whom does it work? Us. Almost every one of us owns stock in these companies in one form or another -- outright ownerships, bank accounts, pension plans. The problem is, we aren't using this power effectively for the sheer reason, I think, that we don't know we have it, and we don't know how to use it. For the reason that we allow certain people to amass incredible economic power under the sole criterion that they can make money.
If there's anything I've learned from the geek community is that a lot of people bound by common goals can do a hell of a lot. We build world-class OSes from scratch. Using thousands of desktop machines we break strong encryption (distributed.net, anyone?) We unite like-minded people from around the world and spread information like wildfire. Instead of watching in horror as these organizations do things we can't stand, why don't we hack these things, figure out how they work, and see what we can do? That's the sort of article I'd like to see, anyway. If I want doom and gloom, I'll go watch TV.
I keep seeing that phrase ("Tough but fair") repeated in press item Microsoft has any hand in. There seems to be the mentality that anything not explicitly illegal is fair game -- is this accurate? Is it accurate for both monopolies and non-monopolies?
Slashdot Mirror
The question is, why should the obligation be on -me- to avoid being tracked? Why is Big Brother the default?
Personally, I see it this way. We have the technology now to go, but it'll be tough. In ten years we'll have the technology to go without much problem. In thirty years we'll be able to go with ease.
Conversely, what are the chances that we'll nuke ourselves first? At last count, there are thousands of active nuclear warheads both on ground and on submarines. Each one represents the equivalent amount of firepower that was used in Europe during the entirety of World War II. The US already loves to lob missiles at people, and it's just a matter of time before someone ups the ante. Sure, they tell us that they'll never be used. Pardon me if I dig a shelter anyway...
Anyway, just pointing out that a cessation of technology advance is not the only way we'll never reach Mars.
Heheh. you really think so? Consider that we haven't touched on mind/computer interfaces, reengineering of living creatures (As in, changing an already born animal or person), terraformation, and, of course, the military applications of all of this. (And you know damn well the US Military is already drooling over the possibility of genertic warfare)
We're not at the pinnacle, not by a long shot. We've just got a clearer view of the top from here, that's all.
I would not be at all surprised to see Pakistan make a similar statement within the next year (Although I doubt their economy is in good enough shape to handle the strain of a serious space program)
On behalf of all those Slashdotters who solder on a ruglar basis, I'd like to say that I need a third arm -much- more than I need C#.
What in the hell did they do to these poor geckos?!
Does anybody know if any of the (presumed) extra-solar planets would be visible from the Hubble? That'd be pretty cool. ("I can see CowboyNeal's house from here!")
All in all, I'd say they're really serious about Bill not getting his hands on the Baby Bills. Not a bad idea, since they belatedly traced most of the problems with the company back to his attitude...
The thing is, they probably don't see it that way at all. They will most likely come into this under the impression that if a kid is reported who happens to be 'normal', then that kid will be quickly determined to be OK, and sent on his merry way.
You and I know that this is not the case. We know perfectly well that anyone considered 'antisocial' will be called in, as well as unpopular, 'weird', geeky, and similar kids. Now that VA Linux has its advertising list, what happens? What do people want to happen? Are we talking, "Lock them all in small iron boxes for the rest of their lives" or counseling, or what?
Personally, if the attitude is right, this could be a fantastic way of picking bright students out of a crowd and giving them a lift. Pointing them to scholarships, helping them identify their particular skills, and -- if they really are unhappy -- getting them the hell out of there and into gifted programs elsewhere.
I'm saying that there's a way to do this without adding stress to the kids being targeted. The stress is coming from being different? Don't change them, try to place them with their peers (Private school? Early entrance to college?) or provide them with things to do more suited to their interests and abilities.
[c]omputer hardware ... and computer software ... and ... documents relating to the use of the computer system ..., and financial documents and licensing documentation relative to the computer programs and equipment at ... [SJG] ... which constitute evidence ... of federal crimes.... This warrant is for the seizure of the above described computer and computer data and for the authorization to read information stored and contained on the above described computer and computer data.
It seems to me that the problem in the first place was the idiotic judge who issued them the search warrant. I thought the whole point behind requiring a judge's permission was to ensure from the beginning that crap like this wouldn't happen? Instead, it seems to be just another rubber stamp on the whole damned process.
The system seems to be designed so that the cops ask for whatever they think they could get, and the legal system is supposed to rein them in. But obviously, this isn't happening. I mean, financial documents?!
Yes, clearly education is needed -- how about educating some of these judges?
I've no idea if that's still in the plan, but the idea is still viable, I'd imagine, and would definitely help study the structure of the material, if not gain insight into ways to improve it.
I absolutely agree. Me, I'd take things a bit further. I would let any group with the signatures of 1% of the town's population add any initiative to the ballot. I would not only allow frivolous, stupid and inane votes, but encourage them. Keep people coming to the polls simply to vote the dumb stuff down.
I'd like to see stuff like:
An allowance to schtupp a goat in public on the third Sunday of every month,
The ability to pay parking tickets with a photocopy of CmdrTaco's butt
The right to stun-gun fools (a la Dogbert)
Mandate that libraries use Smurfbotch, the latest tool to keep your children from being exposed to the color bl*e
If we go to the polls and assume that every initiative was well-thought-out by reasonable people, we've given up half our democracy already.
Remember: Vote Nut in 2000!!
Part of the (somewhat lengthy, but polite and thorough) download process is a questionnaire about intended development. If enough people state that they intend to do Linux-only development, then a week or so down the line a few POLITE emails drift in wondering about a Linux port, then I think it'll probably happen.
I disagree, though, that a web site is necessarily aimed toward the average American. TV ads are aimed toward the average American, and even those have varying level of content and complexity depending on the time of day and the channel on which they air. This particular "channel" is an important one. When Al Gore references his web page in an interview, I personally expect to find -more- information there, not less. The only reason I will let a candidate get away with saying "Check out my webpage at foo.com" is because of the promise of a full opinion, more thoughtful because the candidate has had time to write it. Reading over Ben's responses, I do believe that Gore gives feedback on the page. But I don't believe he's written a word of it. Nor do I believe that George W has written anything on any of the myriad web pages he's sitting on (Does that count as cybersquatting, BTW?)
It comes down to this: Is this web page going to have content, or is it going to be another commercial? Because if it's just another commercial, I'd rather watch TV; at least there a premium is placed on brevity.
So do NASA engineers test on computer? Run tests on individual parts? Or do they just rely on calculation and past performance? If anyone has any information, I'd be glad for it.
Second thought: What's to prevent the random linking and de-linking of these things as needed? Electromagnets, perhaps, powered by solar cells, could provide enough impetus to move by, say, "swimming" through ferromagnetic debris that's already clouding the Earth's upper upper atmosphere.
Third thought: The more of these we send up, the more shooting stars we'll see when they re-enter and burn. Sounds cool to me.
Last thought: Apparently, the government now has the ability to track a cell-phone type signal from a hundred or so miles away, with enough accuracy to communicate / monitor the device. This makes me slightly unhappy.
Yes, there are potential privacy problems here, at least in the US. (the privacy ruling with NW has no bearing on Ford's computers in other countries, so far as I know) There are other issues as well, such as Ford's choice of OS, ISP, manufacturer. I think that Jon would agree, though, that these things are minor, if it boils down to "Having a computer" vs. "Not having a computer".
Privacy issues will at one point have to be resolved, yes. As will things such as use of the machines by family members (I, for instance, am not permitted to drive my father's company car), the use of the computers to access pr0n or other politically sensitive content, etc. etc.
But pessimism now might turn out to be a very bad thing, if focus on these issues prevents other companies from doing the same as Ford.
I'm not sure that this is entirely original, though. I seem to recall from History class that the Soviet Union gave away free television sets. Hell of a difference, though, from giving away propaganda devices to giving away the most possibly empowering machines known to man!
I repeat... I am not not supportive of filtering. But if it came down to it, these are probably far better than commercial closed-list solutions.
I am not particularly supportive of filtering, either. But the laws just require filters -- If they happen not to be filtering anything out, so much the better.
The point is that the technology is better off in public hands. A simple, well-documented Open Source censorware program (And it is censorware, I'm not kidding myself) would do a lot of good in places with intelligent librarians, and the least bad in places where they buy into this crap.
May I remind you too, that not only are these lists hidden, but it may very well be illegal to even attempt to unhide them? According to the Digital Copyright act, getting around it technologically can get you dragged into court, and it's only a matter of time before Net Nanny or Surf Watch decides to sue for cataloging the blocked sites that we find by typing in the URL and having it blocked -- after all, those are corporate secrets!
It comes down to this: If the Open Source community doesn't have something available when these laws start passing, then something awful is going to become the standard. From there, the battle is all uphill.
* Monitors web traffic by keyword and URL
* Blocks any such traffic with selected keywords, or from selected sites
How difficult, really, is that to write? I'd propose designing it so that on any machine running this program, the list of URLs and keywords can be called up at any time, and modified (Addition or deletion) if need be.
This does not block the howling horde from publishing lists of sites and keywords that they want people to never ever see. It does prevent them from enforcing it on everyone, because every librarian can use their own discretion (!) to decide when a site should not be banned, as well as to much more quickly add a site that should be (And I think that we can all agree that there are at least -some- sites which children should at least have to ask an adult to see)
If this software is free, and easy to set up and use, I see no reason why there should be objections to it. (Other than from the halls of Surf Watch, but fuck them anyway) After all, we meet the stated goal of the zealots -- protecting children -- in what seems to me a much more effective and dynamic way than relying on a closed list. And we also protect ourselves from the zealots.
On the other hand, this admission tells me that they think that the glitch is internal. That is, they are not worried about providing confirmation that an outside attack has worked. (Or, conversely, there -was- an attack, and they think they know how to trap whoever did it and so want to goad them into trying again) Isn't it fun analyzing press releases?
Why not? They use Windows, don't they?
"Mommy, why is the screen blue?"
I think what we're beginning to see here is the rise of the alternative-government structure. Corporations control a significant amount of capital, labor, intellectual property (Whether you recognise it or not) and in some cases land. However, they have not really ever exerted a very strong influence on the way the world works except in small, limited affairs. In many countries, there is an ultimate authority of several layers above the heads of these companies.
Is it any wonder, then, that these corporations are looking toward organisations that give them the power to negotiate with these authorities on more equal terms, more commensurate with their resources and effect on society? Forget conspiracy -- this is being done completely transparently. Huge corporations by their very nature strain at any and all legal bounds placed on them. By banding together -- unionizing, in some respects -- they can further common goals to ensure their own well-being. Among these goals is cheap labor, wide markets, maximized revenues -- all those things that corporations have explicitly sought for years.
We look at the WTO and we see that when they band together with a few sycophantic politicians, they have power. Who gives them that power? We do, in one form or another. Our governments make concession after concession to corporations over land and mineral rights. Grants from our taxes support their research while they reap the rewards. Our money flows into their coffers whenever we buy Pokemon cards, Office 2000, Chevy trucks and Nike shoes.
So who controls that power and for whom does it work? Us. Almost every one of us owns stock in these companies in one form or another -- outright ownerships, bank accounts, pension plans. The problem is, we aren't using this power effectively for the sheer reason, I think, that we don't know we have it, and we don't know how to use it. For the reason that we allow certain people to amass incredible economic power under the sole criterion that they can make money.
If there's anything I've learned from the geek community is that a lot of people bound by common goals can do a hell of a lot. We build world-class OSes from scratch. Using thousands of desktop machines we break strong encryption (distributed.net, anyone?) We unite like-minded people from around the world and spread information like wildfire. Instead of watching in horror as these organizations do things we can't stand, why don't we hack these things, figure out how they work, and see what we can do? That's the sort of article I'd like to see, anyway. If I want doom and gloom, I'll go watch TV.
I keep seeing that phrase ("Tough but fair") repeated in press item Microsoft has any hand in. There seems to be the mentality that anything not explicitly illegal is fair game -- is this accurate? Is it accurate for both monopolies and non-monopolies?