I especially like Section 1008, which says that noncommerical use is exempt from the Act:
Sec. 1008. Prohibition on certain infringement actions
No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings.
Businesses didn't build the streets, but we use streets to go to the office. Businesses also create wealth which is taxed which is used to pay for the streets. Therefore, Business Interests should trump all other concerns. If the Company decides that my house would be a convenient location for them, they should, by right of their ominous size and wealth, be entitled to my house. I should thank them as they drive me out of my house.
All new subdivisions should be zoned for commercial interests. Residential developement should occur only after businesses have declined to take advantage new developments.
Free speech was nice 200 years ago, but the Companies are much larger now and they often find this "free speech" used against them to publicize boycotts and the like. Consumer advocacy should be outlawed because no one is a bigger advocate of the consumer than the Companies.
There should be no notion of balance in public policy. Just because we *could* create TLDs for non-commercial interests (personal home pages, free software, consumer advocacy, etc), doesn't mean we *should*. We must seek to make sure that Business Interests are catered to at every corner to show our debt to the Companies.
At the Tcl/Tk Conference, Brent Welch of Scriptics presented a paper on TEA. From the abstract:
"The goal of TEA is to create a standard for Tcl extensions that makes it easier to build, install, and share Tcl extensions. In its current form, TEA specifies a standard compilation environment for Tcl and its extensions. The standard uses autoconf, configure and make on UNIX and Windows."
Specifically, the standard uses Cygwin on Windows. More info is available at: http://dev.scriptics.com/doc/tea/
One huge advantage to using TEA is that you won't need to recompile your extensions for each new version of Tcl/Tk (as long as you only call the public APIs).
What's needed is an encryption method that will allow multiple "fake" keys and will legitimatly decrypt something else when used (perhaps you can give it n documents and n passwords, and it just encrypts them in the same file. When asked to produce a key, give them a fake key.
Stegonography could also be useful. Encrypt your email and hide the bits in a jpeg of a weather map and email that.
The problem with just deleting emails is the fact that they may still exist on a backup tape. When I came into the office this morning, I had unread email that was delivered after COB yesterday but before the backups were run. No matter what I do now, a copy of that email (encrypted or not) exists and can be discovered.
I'm filled with a desire to make the pilgrimage to the Smithsonian to lay my unworthy eyes upon the mystical specs! I fear my knees will buckle under the awe-inspiring glow emitting from the pages, touched as they were by the Masters Cutler and Lucovsky (who were themselves personally touched by the Great Innovator Gates Himself).
And a copy of a file on the same partition is, by no stretch of imagination, a "backup", since a HD failure usually frags the whole disk.
What? First, I'm pretty sure fsck has, from time to time, been able to clean up a partition without requiring a complete reformat.
And second, backups aren't *just* for hardware failure. What if I'm the one that intends to alter the original file? For example, before I change config files, I'll usually copy them to 'filename.orig' and then muck with 'filename'. If I screw up, I've got a backup. In this case, I don't want the system touching my copy.
On the other hand, there are times where I *would* want redundant information to be changed. That's why I use symbolic links. I change it in one place and the links "just work".
I don't see how this product works, but I can't see how the computer can automagically tell what my intention is when I modify a file.
I'm not a fascist administrator or anything, but if I were, and I wanted to avoid an "arms race"... I'd simply expel students who used napster after the ban was announced.
> By rebroadcasting programming, advertising compaines were loosing money
Please explain this. Were advertisers annoyed that too many people were seeing their ads?
You do understand that *all* the original content was being rebroadcast? Commercials were not removed, muted, or altered in any way. Additional ads were *added*, but nothing was removed.
> they didn't make it easy enough to remove their advertising banners.
Does this mean NBC be suing SONY soon because it's not easy to remove that "SONY" logo on my TV and remote? The SONY logo isn't inside the TV frame, but then, neither were iCrave's banners...
It's not like iCrave was removing any ads. Were advertisers complaining that too many people were seeing their ads?
> they did not bother to understand every nuance of the law
Actually, I think they understand Canadian law pretty clear. The only nuance they missed was how deep Corporate American pockets are. Does Canada's law that allows rebroadcast somehow limit adding additional material?
At the Tcl/Tk Conference in Austin (Feb 13-18), Usenix provided a free Aironet wireless network. They had about 100 (I don't think they ran out) 11Mb PCMCIA cards that you could check out. You gave them your credit card and if you didn't return them, they would charge you $395. They provided drivers for Windows, Linux, BSD and Mac.
They worked well when they worked, but they had a pretty limited range. They didn't work, for example, at the podium and thus no presenters were able to do any "real" demonstrations.
This was the first time Usenix tried offering such a service, so it's understandable that it wasn't perfect. I hope they continue to offer this service, but don't think they're close to eliminating traditional network services just yet.
There are open source solutions to the quake1 cheating problem, but they require more bandwidth (you need to change the protocolls to give less advance information -> more bandwidth -> only dorm room kids can play).
I have an idea. Why not encrypt the data that is sent, but only send the (small) decryption key when the client is allowed to use the data? Alternatively, send all the data as well as some decoy data and only send an authenticator when the data should be used. If you see someone reacting to the decoys, you know you've got a cheater.
> Since when does a company advocating openness only when they stand to gain == antitrust violations.
When AOL was advocating openness, they were warning that the the cable operators were going to have a monopoly. Now that they're a cable company, they've decided that maybe monopolies aren't so bad after all.
> As for the short paragraphs in his usual posts, that's a good thing.
No, it's not! A paragraph should contain a point or an idea. There is actually a logic to writing. A good writer will make a point in one paragraph and when he finishes, he will start a new paragraph. A writer should not arbitrarily start a new paragraph without finishing his point, which is what Jon does.
> Would you prefer 50-line paragraphs, or 5 line paragraphs?
A writer who spends 50 lines on a single paragraph is almost certainly expressing more than a single idea in that paragraph. Paragraphs should not be arbitrarily long anymore than they should be arbitrarily short. With Jon, I'm always left guessing why he started a new paragraph.
Reading an entire Jon Katz article is hard work. Scanning it can be even harder. When scanning, one usually reads the beginning of a sentence. If the reader is uninterested or he feels the point is sufficiently clear, he can skip ahead. In a Jon Katz article, it is difficult to determine how far to skip. You can't just go to the next paragraph because it is usually part of the same idea and should have been included in the last paragraph.
> This is what you do when you need to present information in a dense, cluttered layout.
Actually, you should start with an outline and try to make your point clearly. Jon writes about lay topics for a lay audience. He's not presenting any extreme depth to his topic. There's no reason for him to write in a disorganized stream of conciousness. He's trying to make a point and it shouldn't be a chore for me to "get it".
The problem with Jon is not that his articles are long, but that they are too long and say too little. He repeats his ideas. He says the same thing in different ways. He rewords his last sentence and says it over.
Sometimes, he repeats an idea in a new paragraph for no reason.
He labors on his topic. He doesn't know when to stop. He feels that his every word is precious and is unwilling to delete any of it. He spends too many words saying too little. He says the same thing in new ways without adding anything. He paraphrases himself. He doesn't present new ideas, he just reiterates his original idea.
What gives you a reason to attack me? Are you his lap dog or something?
For the record, this was a sincere question. I realize that both sentences were not next to each other, but I believe each represent opposing points of view. In the first instance, I left out his quote about how "steering software is the anti-thesis of community." I don't feel my quote was out of context and, if anything, the context adds to my interpretation. He is clearly stating his opposition to the existance of moderation software and finds them detrimental to the health of discussion boards.
Later, he begins bashing ACs and flames and suddenly Rob's moderation system seems to be the solution.
So I honestly want to know: Does moderation kill a community or does it save the community? These are diametrically opposite points of view.
Others have commented on *their* opinion that moderation can be useful even if they don't use it or perhaps that they just use it to read high posts first. But that's not the opinion Jon has expressed. He stated that "steering" software was detrimental. While many people have perfectly valid reasons to both love and hate the moderation system at the same time, I do not understand the logic behind Jon's reasoning.
"In addition, the source code, that provides outsiders with the ability to insert this code and attack Solaris and Linux systems, has been posted on the Internet for some time, making it easy accessible by anyone."
I don't know, why this writer, doesn't have an editor, who could remove, all the extra commas, and replace, the adjective, "easy," with the adverb, "easily".
Finally got through the/. effect to read the article...
> What I see is that a lot of Linux/Solaris systems are vulnerable because their IT folks don't know how to manage them.
What I see is "the current spate of attacks takes advantage of an *inherent* vulnerability in these systems" [emphasis added]. They're not blaming sys admins or failure to apply patches. They're claiming that it something wrong with the OS that can not be fixed.
Slashdot Mirror
The Audio Home Recording Act is at:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ 17/1001.html
I especially like Section 1008, which says that noncommerical use is exempt from the Act:
Sec. 1008. Prohibition on certain infringement actions
No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings.
Businesses didn't build the streets, but we use streets to go to the office. Businesses also create wealth which is taxed which is used to pay for the streets. Therefore, Business Interests should trump all other concerns. If the Company decides that my house would be a convenient location for them, they should, by right of their ominous size and wealth, be entitled to my house. I should thank them as they drive me out of my house.
All new subdivisions should be zoned for commercial interests. Residential developement should occur only after businesses have declined to take advantage new developments.
Free speech was nice 200 years ago, but the Companies are much larger now and they often find this "free speech" used against them to publicize boycotts and the like. Consumer advocacy should be outlawed because no one is a bigger advocate of the consumer than the Companies.
There should be no notion of balance in public policy. Just because we *could* create TLDs for non-commercial interests (personal home pages, free software, consumer advocacy, etc), doesn't mean we *should*. We must seek to make sure that Business Interests are catered to at every corner to show our debt to the Companies.
At the Tcl/Tk Conference, Brent Welch of Scriptics presented a paper on TEA. From the abstract:
"The goal of TEA is to create a standard for Tcl extensions that makes it easier to build, install, and share Tcl extensions. In its current form, TEA specifies a standard compilation environment for Tcl and its extensions. The standard uses autoconf, configure and make on UNIX and Windows."
Specifically, the standard uses Cygwin on Windows. More info is available at: http://dev.scriptics.com/doc/tea/
One huge advantage to using TEA is that you won't need to recompile your extensions for each new version of Tcl/Tk (as long as you only call the public APIs).
What's needed is an encryption method that will allow multiple "fake" keys and will legitimatly decrypt something else when used (perhaps you can give it n documents and n passwords, and it just encrypts them in the same file. When asked to produce a key, give them a fake key.
Stegonography could also be useful. Encrypt your email and hide the bits in a jpeg of a weather map and email that.
The problem with just deleting emails is the fact that they may still exist on a backup tape. When I came into the office this morning, I had unread email that was delivered after COB yesterday but before the backups were run. No matter what I do now, a copy of that email (encrypted or not) exists and can be discovered.
Not to mention that great invention of theirs: IPv6. It's almost ready!
I'm filled with a desire to make the pilgrimage to the Smithsonian to lay my unworthy eyes upon the mystical specs! I fear my knees will buckle under the awe-inspiring glow emitting from the pages, touched as they were by the Masters Cutler and Lucovsky (who were themselves personally touched by the Great Innovator Gates Himself).
What? First, I'm pretty sure fsck has, from time to time, been able to clean up a partition without requiring a complete reformat.
And second, backups aren't *just* for hardware failure. What if I'm the one that intends to alter the original file? For example, before I change config files, I'll usually copy them to 'filename.orig' and then muck with 'filename'. If I screw up, I've got a backup. In this case, I don't want the system touching my copy.
On the other hand, there are times where I *would* want redundant information to be changed. That's why I use symbolic links. I change it in one place and the links "just work".
I don't see how this product works, but I can't see how the computer can automagically tell what my intention is when I modify a file.
I'm not a fascist administrator or anything, but if I were, and I wanted to avoid an "arms race"... I'd simply expel students who used napster after the ban was announced.
Usually, the tax is dependent on where the product is shipped.
> By rebroadcasting programming, advertising compaines were loosing money
Please explain this. Were advertisers annoyed that too many people were seeing their ads?
You do understand that *all* the original content was being rebroadcast? Commercials were not removed, muted, or altered in any way. Additional ads were *added*, but nothing was removed.
> they didn't make it easy enough to remove their advertising banners.
Does this mean NBC be suing SONY soon because it's not easy to remove that "SONY" logo on my TV and remote? The SONY logo isn't inside the TV frame, but then, neither were iCrave's banners...
It's not like iCrave was removing any ads. Were advertisers complaining that too many people were seeing their ads?
> they did not bother to understand every nuance of the law
Actually, I think they understand Canadian law pretty clear. The only nuance they missed was how deep Corporate American pockets are. Does Canada's law that allows rebroadcast somehow limit adding additional material?
> Following that logic, the years 1700...
Except that this rule wasn't adopted in 1700 and 1700 *was* a leap year.
> Again IIRC 1600 was the last leap year at the turn of a century.
Nope. 1700. The 400 rule is a recent addition.
> Correct me if I?m wrong
Consider yourself corrected.
Leap years occur when the year is divisible by 4, except when the year is divisible by 100, unless the year is also divisible by *400* (not 1,000).
Would you care to comment on the usability of slashdot? Good? Bad? Ugly? Be sure to read the apache section before answering that last one.
At the Tcl/Tk Conference in Austin (Feb 13-18), Usenix provided a free Aironet wireless network. They had about 100 (I don't think they ran out) 11Mb PCMCIA cards that you could check out. You gave them your credit card and if you didn't return them, they would charge you $395. They provided drivers for Windows, Linux, BSD and Mac.
They worked well when they worked, but they had a pretty limited range. They didn't work, for example, at the podium and thus no presenters were able to do any "real" demonstrations.
This was the first time Usenix tried offering such a service, so it's understandable that it wasn't perfect. I hope they continue to offer this service, but don't think they're close to eliminating traditional network services just yet.
PS: The ISP was jump.net.
I have an idea. Why not encrypt the data that is sent, but only send the (small) decryption key when the client is allowed to use the data? Alternatively, send all the data as well as some decoy data and only send an authenticator when the data should be used. If you see someone reacting to the decoys, you know you've got a cheater.
> Since when does a company advocating openness only when they stand to gain == antitrust violations.
When AOL was advocating openness, they were warning that the the cable operators were going to have a monopoly. Now that they're a cable company, they've decided that maybe monopolies aren't so bad after all.
> As for the short paragraphs in his usual posts, that's a good thing.
No, it's not! A paragraph should contain a point or an idea. There is actually a logic to writing. A good writer will make a point in one paragraph and when he finishes, he will start a new paragraph. A writer should not arbitrarily start a new paragraph without finishing his point, which is what Jon does.
> Would you prefer 50-line paragraphs, or 5 line paragraphs?
A writer who spends 50 lines on a single paragraph is almost certainly expressing more than a single idea in that paragraph. Paragraphs should not be arbitrarily long anymore than they should be arbitrarily short. With Jon, I'm always left guessing why he started a new paragraph.
Reading an entire Jon Katz article is hard work. Scanning it can be even harder. When scanning, one usually reads the beginning of a sentence. If the reader is uninterested or he feels the point is sufficiently clear, he can skip ahead. In a Jon Katz article, it is difficult to determine how far to skip. You can't just go to the next paragraph because it is usually part of the same idea and should have been included in the last paragraph.
> This is what you do when you need to present information in a dense, cluttered layout.
Actually, you should start with an outline and try to make your point clearly. Jon writes about lay topics for a lay audience. He's not presenting any extreme depth to his topic. There's no reason for him to write in a disorganized stream of conciousness. He's trying to make a point and it shouldn't be a chore for me to "get it".
The problem with Jon is not that his articles are long, but that they are too long and say too little. He repeats his ideas. He says the same thing in different ways. He rewords his last sentence and says it over.
Sometimes, he repeats an idea in a new paragraph for no reason.
He labors on his topic. He doesn't know when to stop. He feels that his every word is precious and is unwilling to delete any of it. He spends too many words saying too little. He says the same thing in new ways without adding anything. He paraphrases himself. He doesn't present new ideas, he just reiterates his original idea.
> So, what gives you a reason to attack him?
What gives you a reason to attack me? Are you his lap dog or something?
For the record, this was a sincere question. I realize that both sentences were not next to each other, but I believe each represent opposing points of view. In the first instance, I left out his quote about how "steering software is the anti-thesis of community." I don't feel my quote was out of context and, if anything, the context adds to my interpretation. He is clearly stating his opposition to the existance of moderation software and finds them detrimental to the health of discussion boards.
Later, he begins bashing ACs and flames and suddenly Rob's moderation system seems to be the solution.
So I honestly want to know: Does moderation kill a community or does it save the community? These are diametrically opposite points of view.
Others have commented on *their* opinion that moderation can be useful even if they don't use it or perhaps that they just use it to read high posts first. But that's not the opinion Jon has expressed. He stated that "steering" software was detrimental. While many people have perfectly valid reasons to both love and hate the moderation system at the same time, I do not understand the logic behind Jon's reasoning.
"In addition, the source code, that provides outsiders with the ability to insert this code and attack Solaris and Linux systems, has been posted on the Internet for some time, making it easy accessible by anyone."
I don't know, why this writer, doesn't have an editor, who could remove, all the extra commas, and replace, the adjective, "easy," with the adverb, "easily".
Finally got through the /. effect to read the article...
> What I see is that a lot of Linux/Solaris systems are vulnerable because their IT folks don't know how to manage them.
What I see is "the current spate of attacks takes
advantage of an *inherent* vulnerability in these systems" [emphasis added]. They're not blaming sys admins or failure to apply patches. They're claiming that it something wrong with the OS that can not be fixed.
But he claims not to agree with it at all:
"To me, steering software is the anti-thesis of community."
...
Rob's moderation systems have definitely made this better, and he thinks quite a bit about this issue.
Which is it, man? Make up your mind.
Spoon!