...you were allowed to send e-mail not only to the people who have whitelisted you, but to those people who have whitelisted the people that have whitelisted you.
Something like a network, a "web of trust" of people that have verified each other of not-spammers.
The recipient could check on an e-mail: "who authorized this sender to send me an e-mail" and see a chain of authorizations, like this:
You authorized John Dewey John Dewey authorized Bill Gates Bill Gates authorized G.W.Bush Bush authorized Saddam Hussein
You are absolutely right! They are right-wing extr
on
The Free State Project
·
· Score: 1
...extremists. (attached to the libertarian party)
Such a community project would make great sense if it had a left-wing bent to it, with a sort of good community-owned & controlled utilities (such as a community-operated broadband ISP that lets you do anything, etc)
Again it could "pose as a model", but one of development and direct democracy, especially for underdeveloped nations trying to figure a way to survive in this competitive world.
Near the beginning of 2002, the head of the parliamentary anti-gambling group (also member of the ruling labor party) was recorded by a journalist's hidden camera while he was playing electronic slot machines (illegal) in an arcade shop.
When the journalist notified the man in private that he's been caught on the act, and the MP approached him to reach a compromise - he offered the journalist scandalous evidence about members of his own political party in exchange for hiding the evidence about him from the public. But the journalist (Triantafyllopoulos) showed both pieces of evidence (the video he took, as well as the documents he was given by the useless MP) on his increasingly interesting bi-weekly TV show.
The ruling party expelled the MP Xrysanthakopoulos from its parliamentary group.
Revelations continued however, from the same journalist. He visited the biggest importers and manufacturers of those illegal slot machines (which were being sold to ordinary arcade shops, not casinos where they are legal). He exposed the social effect it had on the youth of poor areas of Greece with high unemployment - it was not uncommon that people would loose tens of thousands of dollars getting addicted and playing on those machines. Many cases were exposed where a family would loose more than a hundred thousand dollars, for example sons who had sold the truck that their father had given them, or people who borrowed money from (surprise) the same people who manufactured and operated the biggest of those shops and then had to sell their house in order to pay their debt.
What was particularly worrying to the ruling party (PASOK) was the fact that many of its members in parliament were implicated in one way or another in this illegal activity. How can it be that the police would not care about shutting down some very big arcade shops full of such machines? How is it that the only policeman who confiscated thousands of such machines and paid from his own pocket to have them transported in safe warehouses, was deported and had to work in a city far away from where his family lived? (He was restored to his old position only after the journlalist showed everything on TV) How was it that local politicians had rented their political campaign shops for almost free in real-estate that was owned by those same barons of illegal gambling and black un-taxed money?
And most importantly why did the prime-minister not express shock at the revelations about the members of his own party? While all of the media, except for the channel where the journalist was working, were condemning the journalist's methods ('spycam' = 'big brother', even though he never intruded in private life matters as opposed to what other journlalists have been doing quite often), he kept defending himself from false accusations and continued looking at the illegal transfers of money from one person to the other, which more and more started looking like the drug trade in a 3rd world country (maybe even in 1st world? who knows...).
This story was getting so embarassing for the ruling party that it decided to ban the arcade shops altogether to protect the image of the party. It probably knew that once you allow ordinary arcade games, the local politicians won't miss the chance they have to become protectors.
So, now you know why the government doesn't care so much about entertainment per se. There are much bigger issues at stake... like people finding out how the system works. And that would be bad.
As for why the law doesn't allow electronic games to be played in private places (like home), I think that is an unintended effect of the poorly-written law they drafted.
[In another quite shocking case I remembered, a man called the police to have himself arrested while he was playing such illegal gambling games. He then brought the paper of his arrest as proof that the shop was operating illegal gambling machines, and asked for the shop to be closed down but... guess what, nothing happened.]
Similarly, one could say: All I wanted was a warm, crispy waffle, but I ended up paying for Turkey's attack helicopters used for human rights violation.
then the recipients of that money would put it back in the bank, or spend it to people who put it in the bank.
But if M$ just took the money back from the banks and held it in private coffers, that might create the problem you describe. Perhaps if they find a way to profit from such an action, they might do it.
You're shown what the media owners want you to see. If the media owners happen to want wars, it makes sense that the world will not be a global village.
When they say that a package has been removed from the distribution, does it mean we'll get the version of the program we had in Potato, or aren't we going to have it at all?
You're neglecting something: This policy will clean-up the british gene pool of this disease, as parents carrying the disease would be hesitant to make babies. And so health insurance for future generations will be cheaper for everyone.
Slashdot Mirror
...you were allowed to send e-mail not only to the people who have whitelisted you, but to those people who have whitelisted the people that have whitelisted you.
Something like a network, a "web of trust" of people that have verified each other of not-spammers.
The recipient could check on an e-mail: "who authorized this sender to send me an e-mail" and see a chain of authorizations, like this:
You authorized John Dewey
John Dewey authorized Bill Gates
Bill Gates authorized G.W.Bush
Bush authorized Saddam Hussein
...extremists. (attached to the libertarian party)
Such a community project would make great sense if it had a left-wing bent to it, with a sort of good community-owned & controlled utilities (such as a community-operated broadband ISP that lets you do anything, etc)
Again it could "pose as a model", but one of development and direct democracy, especially for underdeveloped nations trying to figure a way to survive in this competitive world.
...is greek and doesn't belong to the country-with-similar-name, namely FYROM (former yugoslav republic of...).
ISP's could help those applications become more efficient by hosting the application servers on their own servers.
What simpler method than that, to make your ISP more efficient?
Near the beginning of 2002, the head of the parliamentary anti-gambling group (also member of the ruling labor party) was recorded by a journalist's hidden camera while he was playing electronic slot machines (illegal) in an arcade shop.
When the journalist notified the man in private that he's been caught on the act, and the MP approached him to reach a compromise - he offered the journalist scandalous evidence about members of his own political party in exchange for hiding the evidence about him from the public. But the journalist (Triantafyllopoulos) showed both pieces of evidence (the video he took, as well as the documents he was given by the useless MP) on his increasingly interesting bi-weekly TV show.
The ruling party expelled the MP Xrysanthakopoulos from its parliamentary group.
Revelations continued however, from the same journalist. He visited the biggest importers and manufacturers of those illegal slot machines (which were being sold to ordinary arcade shops, not casinos where they are legal). He exposed the social effect it had on the youth of poor areas of Greece with high unemployment - it was not uncommon that people would loose tens of thousands of dollars getting addicted and playing on those machines. Many cases were exposed where a family would loose more than a hundred thousand dollars, for example sons who had sold the truck that their father had given them, or people who borrowed money from (surprise) the same people who manufactured and operated the biggest of those shops and then had to sell their house in order to pay their debt.
What was particularly worrying to the ruling party (PASOK) was the fact that many of its members in parliament were implicated in one way or another in this illegal activity. How can it be that the police would not care about shutting down some very big arcade shops full of such machines? How is it that the only policeman who confiscated thousands of such machines and paid from his own pocket to have them transported in safe warehouses, was deported and had to work in a city far away from where his family lived? (He was restored to his old position only after the journlalist showed everything on TV) How was it that local politicians had rented their political campaign shops for almost free in real-estate that was owned by those same barons of illegal gambling and black un-taxed money?
And most importantly why did the prime-minister not express shock at the revelations about the members of his own party? While all of the media, except for the channel where the journalist was working, were condemning the journalist's methods ('spycam' = 'big brother', even though he never intruded in private life matters as opposed to what other journlalists have been doing quite often), he kept defending himself from false accusations and continued looking at the illegal transfers of money from one person to the other, which more and more started looking like the drug trade in a 3rd world country (maybe even in 1st world? who knows...).
This story was getting so embarassing for the ruling party that it decided to ban the arcade shops altogether to protect the image of the party. It probably knew that once you allow ordinary arcade games, the local politicians won't miss the chance they have to become protectors.
So, now you know why the government doesn't care so much about entertainment per se. There are much bigger issues at stake... like people finding out how the system works. And that would be bad.
As for why the law doesn't allow electronic games to be played in private places (like home), I think that is an unintended effect of the poorly-written law they drafted.
[In another quite shocking case I remembered, a man called the police to have himself arrested while he was playing such illegal gambling games. He then brought the paper of his arrest as proof that the shop was operating illegal gambling machines, and asked for the shop to be closed down but... guess what, nothing happened.]
There's no real ethics in business. Never was, never will be.
They can't forge the hashes, if the protocol is not hacked and the program is closed source.
> All I wanted was a warm, crispy waffle. But I
> ended up sending a night-vision rifle scope to
> some unidentified criminal in Saudi Arabia.
Similarly, one could say: All I wanted was a warm, crispy waffle, but I ended up paying for Turkey's attack helicopters used for human rights violation.
Yes, it is here.
...hence the delay. The agenda is not here, but I'll call tomorrow to see if it's been sent.
Right. So what happens when a "barter exchange" site has its own currency that helps the exchange of items?
Will the E.U. be paid in... "e-acorns", if that's the name of the virtual currency?
What happens when I hand over a table in exchange for a music download?
Let's see how the E.U. legislation will apply on that!
then the recipients of that money would put it back in the bank, or spend it to people who put it in the bank.
But if M$ just took the money back from the banks and held it in private coffers, that might create the problem you describe. Perhaps if they find a way to profit from such an action, they might do it.
...it should be here in a week.
I'll keep you up to date with details
Judge rules games offer no conveyance of ideas, expression, or anything else that could possibly amount to speech
Just a thought:
You're shown what the media owners want you to see. If the media owners happen to want wars, it makes sense that the world will not be a global village.
When they say that a package has been removed from the distribution, does it mean we'll get the version of the program we had in Potato, or aren't we going to have it at all?
He should get the patent to spur controversy over the subject of patents and get them cancelled.
And to succeed, he could try changing the minds of companies that like patents, by charging them a lot of money.
Isn't it so?
Perhaps citizens of other countries can sue their representatives of NAI and Symantec for intentionally giving FBI access to their machines.
I wonder why an MP3-player manufacturer would implement SDMI in its products, since a non-SDMI model would sell more units.
Alex
This pretty much says it all:
http://www.humanist.de/erik/cloning.html
I think it comes down to whether the University sees itself as an institution of knowledge and learning or as a profit-making enterprise.
You're neglecting something: This policy will clean-up the british gene pool of this disease, as parents carrying the disease would be hesitant to make babies. And so health insurance for future generations will be cheaper for everyone.
They do it all the time with foreign leaders.
Of course not, because news is supposed to be objective and un-biased.
His comment was objective.
Can a shopkeeper forbid you from ever sending again an iron robot disguised as a human in his store? Or maybe not.