> Making this freely available downloadable in nicely printable.ps and.pdf files Granted that they have authorization to do so (so it doesn't really kill your argument, but rather complements it), but libraries do this - they let you borrow that book and copy parts of it - or let you go through said papers on microfilm and make a hard copy of the articles you like. In fact, you can also borrow CDs and videos and stuff, and copy them at home. Not that this is legal or anything. Except, in this day and age, many people have forgotten that libraries even exist, and so they don't pose a threat to RIAA. The question for Jon - not trying to make an argument for or against anything - but let's say that I set up a store front, where you could walk in, with a copy of your book. Show me that you bought "Geeks". If you can show me that book, then I give you access to read it online from anywhere you might be, so that you don't have to bring that book with you wherever you go. While this would be an AWSOME service for people who buy books, how would you feel about it? Of course, I am still free to buy books only from people who have that kind of business model, so, if you DON'T have your book available in that way, I really don't feel like buying it. And if more people do that, then you and your publisher have a more compelling reason to "go digital".
Re:When marketing data becomes a Biography
on
The Eroded Self
·
· Score: 1
I used to be a little paranoid myself about privacy. For a while. Then I realized that if anything would steer "their" attention towards me, it would be the fact that I tried to hide from "them". And for what? I can't say I have anything to hide. As long as you don't show up with a photo of me in the shower. I'll keep my rights as a model, than you very much.
When I say that I don't have anything to hide, I'm *not* saying that I'm perfect. Not at all, not by far. And I'm sure anyone can come up with something from my life that would make most people today squirm... You know... the stories about you, that your mom likes to tell your girlfriend, while you sit there, squirming in the chair. But you know what? I'm glad that those stories exist, to prove that I'm not perfect, to show that I'm just a human after all.
Quite frankly, if anyone has a problem with anything in my biography, then that is their problem, not mine. And for that reason, I can't say that I'm very concerned with my privacy at all. But then... that's me. *shrug*
You don't know if it is good or bad before you have listened to it. On Napster and mp3.com alike, I have experimented by searching for keywords that would give me a wide range of responses. Try, for example, to search for "Milk" (because it was in a glass on my computer desk at the moment I was searching). I found lots of bands I had never heard of. Downloaded, played, found that some of it was crap, and some of it was good.
Music that I don't like, I delete. I mean, why waste the disk space on crap? Music I like, I go out of my way to find "real life", because I like to have "the entire package". However, without said method, there would be no way I would ever know that this band existed.
The 30 second samples you get on CDNow.com etc are often not representative for the entire song, and it doesn't give me enough to get a good FEEL for the song. I really need the entire song to figure out if I really would want it.
And hey... a lot of the MP3s I have gotten through Napster were flawed anyway. A great number of the MP3s have been quickly ripped and never tested, so there's the occational skip and bad data "and stuff". But that's just my own experience with Napster.
I think I have answered your questions... though being a little bit too lengthy with it.
Why limit yourself to the record industry. If you don't like someone's behaviour, do what the US is doing to Cuba - don't support them. I, for on, am disgusted with Metallica's way of handling the case, and will refrain from buying their CDs. In fact, the commercial record industry in the US is so bad these days, that I am spending less and less on that market, and putting my money in other markets, such as European music and, of course, MP3.com.
It is actually interesting to note that through Napster, I have been introduced to new music that I'm now hunting up and down to get the original CD of. Alas, these artists would never have gotten my money if I had not stumbled over them by accident.
Which also shows that just because I'm able to get the MP3 for free, doesn't mean that I don't buy the CD. In fact, this is one of the things that draws me towards making more business with MP3.com - that, and the fact that I know that more of my money is indeed going to the artist. For that reason alone, I support MP3.com's business model much more than the model of the traditional record industry.
If this is really what you feel, then put your buck where your heart is (and do not put your heart where your buck is). Do business with the people who "behave" within your standards, and boycott those you "don't like". I mean... just because you like their music doesn't mean you need to have it. There are plenty of alternatives.
Long before Wolfenstein 3D, I just loved to hook up a network of Atari ST's and play MIDI Maze. Can someone say "prior art"? Oh... before MIDI Maze on the ST, there was also this game I played on my Spectrum (Timex/Sinclair 2000 for Americans - yeah, the one with the rubber keyboard)... can't remember the title, but it took place in a castle, and I had to fight bats and stuff in order to eventually find and kill Dracula. I think. Was a very long time ago.
I remember being asked... why on Earth did I want my own web site? I didn't get paid for it or anything. Why did I modify the desktop, why did I fine tune my operating system and not just go with the default settings?
I couldn't answer the question right out of the box, and in a way, I felt that it was a) because I can, and b) because I felt that I had to. None of which carries a lot of weight when arguing with "do what you need to do to get money". Hell, why am I into photography? Actually, the same person asked me that, too. And yes, she was a woman.
Over and over again, I have seen media (and others) mention that the major difference between guys and girls with computers, is that guys fiddle with them and do all kinds of unnecessary things with them, while women just want them to WORK. And if they work - don't touch. They do the job quite well, thank you very much.
But what is being lost in this entire debate is the fact that by tinkering with your computer, your car, your camera, or even just writing, you are effectively training yourself, increasing your skillset, and you essentially become more valuable, because you understand more.
This has the short term effect of your own satisfaction of having accomplished something and learned something that few others know, which certainly should boost your self image, and it has the long term effect of higher salaries and a healthier retirement.
Now, why is this so hard to understand, that everybody just shake their heads and say "but why???!?"
Another idea that I have implemented on my own server is to have several "spam attractor" addresses. If an e-mail hits one of these addresses, the from-address from the SMTP-envelope automatically goes on a spam block list, and everyone that is not a spam attractor becomes 550 for that sender.
You can't prevent the future
on
Planet Gattaca
·
· Score: 1
...but trying to see what technology will bring might be useful in order to make sure that the technology is not abused. An example of technology going way too fast for society can be seen with the atom bomb. But even though the atom bomb is something that can be easily abused, you do not see much atom bomb terrorism these days. I would think that genetics will go the same way.
One thing to remember with cloning and the creation of life, is that while it is easy to assume that this might turn humans into "expendable life forms", none of this technology can replicate the things that formed the PERSON inside. All the influences of growing up. Even if you could genetically engineer someone who was really intelligent, there is no guarantee that they will actually use that intelligence. Less anything that they specifically want the person to use his/her brains for.
Would there be a two-tiered class system of "valids" and "invalids" as in Gattaca? Not very likely, because if there is ONE thing that science has proven, it is that what is first considered a bad thing is turned around five months later and considered a very necessary thing and therefore a good thing.
Perhaps the engineering of a human might actually prove once and for all that it doesn't matter how "perfect" the species is in the eyes of that specific scientist, there will never be a perfect human, and it will never turn out exactly the way you wanted it, because biology is only one tiny blipp of what makes a human.
2^44 potential clear text messages is still a large amount to consider brute force. Of course, knowing that US military is about 12 years ahead of civilian technology (by contract), they probably have good enough AI to hack that simple code. White space can be removed by using caps to signify a new word, and then switching caps and lowercase on every other character.
Of course, now that I have released the algorithm, they already know about it, so there's no use.:^>
Though seeing the responses, may I add my 2c... after seeing the video in question...
The video reeks "home made" - a lot of home/movie-like phrases. Had this video been made, I am certain that there would be phrases that are NOT known by the public. (Not to mention that this is FAR from organized enough to be proper briefing)
I can see that, given the obvious fakeness of the material, the video can have three obvious side-effects:
Generate yet another Y2K scare (probably the intention)
Push the paranoid over the limit, inviting MORE trigger happy guns into the NYC new year celebration, ready to start shooting at anything suspicious.
Inspire people who understand that the video is a hoax, to actually go do it! (Keep in mind the "inspiration factor" after Columbine)
Thus, I can see why, for the public saftey, the FBI would ask the artist to shut it down. Sometimes, nay, OFTEN, art like this fits the bill, but IMHO, this is NOT one of those occasions and the video is likely to cause more damage than anything else.
Given the obvious fakeness of the video, I would also not be surprised if the so called FBI intervension is also a hoax. After all, THE way to get exposure on the Internet is to cry "First Amendment!" Well, that, or appealing to Art Bell's audience with the keyword government oppression. These guys cry "censorship" every time Art has technical problems. So much that even Art gets irritated about it!
The contents of the video is a conspiracy to a crime.
Do I believe that the FBI actually shut the site down? No. Do I believe that the FBI should have shut the site down for public saftey? Yes. It really comes down to understanding the reactions from your audience, and, uh, there are enough weirdo's out there who would react with gunfire on this one. Sorry.
The NBC movie? Piece of cake compared to this. The NBC movie had the message "Things might not work, and people will panic". This home video had the message "You have reason to panic, because we're out to get you". Big difference.
Speaking of understanding the reactions from your audience... I understand that I will now be flamed by "first amendment at all cost" advocates. Which is ok. They have their right of opinion. They have the right to express that opinion. However, they do not have the right to make a video, say that it came from me, detailing how I would crush free speech. Because at this point, it is no longer just freedom of expression, it is also impersonation. (Mmmm... another thing to add to the list above)
"...indicative of an antisocial behavior that could lead to more problems later"
Does this mean that Jesus doesn't save? That the church will rather lock out people who need to be saved, than to guide them away from their sins and into the light?
Or is it just yet another example of administration displaying authority by setting an example instead of sitting back and thinking of what signal they are sending out. What I read into this is that "our school is very unforgiving and will not accept sinners. We are a superior society, much better than the rest. We will not show your children our ways, but throw them out if we feel that they are not perfect enough for us."
I believe the immigration thingies ask you, not just if you have ever been convicted of any criminal acts, but it also continues, "with the exception of traffic violations". Always read the entire paragraph before checking off the box.:^)
...because no human is going to actually read every single unencryption attempt, the computer will most likely rely on a dictionary of some sort to determine if the key was right. S0 4ll y0 h4f t0 d0 1s t' r1t3 l1k 215h, & 23y w0nt h4x t. J05t = 5ur !tb c0ns15tn'.
Easy enough for a human to understand, but a pain the butt for computers - and with that kind of scheme, they'd be likely to get multiple "possible" unencrypted messages if their dictionary allowed this kind of stuff.
Of course, they can just read directly off my monitor as it is anyway.:^)
It is the end of the millenium. People are preparing for the society to go down the tubes. A family is spending tons of money on preparing their own little bomb shelter. The new millenium arrives, and... nothing happens.
In the new millenium, the family has to face the huge bills for all the stuff they got in preparation for the non-event and decide to go into hiding anyway. Eventually, they have a stand-off with police, when it turns out that the son in the family went out on a killing-spree, because "the war had started".
Slashdot Mirror
> Making this freely available downloadable in nicely printable .ps and .pdf files Granted that they have authorization to do so (so it doesn't really kill your argument, but rather complements it), but libraries do this - they let you borrow that book and copy parts of it - or let you go through said papers on microfilm and make a hard copy of the articles you like. In fact, you can also borrow CDs and videos and stuff, and copy them at home. Not that this is legal or anything. Except, in this day and age, many people have forgotten that libraries even exist, and so they don't pose a threat to RIAA. The question for Jon - not trying to make an argument for or against anything - but let's say that I set up a store front, where you could walk in, with a copy of your book. Show me that you bought "Geeks". If you can show me that book, then I give you access to read it online from anywhere you might be, so that you don't have to bring that book with you wherever you go. While this would be an AWSOME service for people who buy books, how would you feel about it? Of course, I am still free to buy books only from people who have that kind of business model, so, if you DON'T have your book available in that way, I really don't feel like buying it. And if more people do that, then you and your publisher have a more compelling reason to "go digital".
I used to be a little paranoid myself about privacy. For a while. Then I realized that if anything would steer "their" attention towards me, it would be the fact that I tried to hide from "them". And for what? I can't say I have anything to hide. As long as you don't show up with a photo of me in the shower. I'll keep my rights as a model, than you very much.
When I say that I don't have anything to hide, I'm *not* saying that I'm perfect. Not at all, not by far. And I'm sure anyone can come up with something from my life that would make most people today squirm... You know... the stories about you, that your mom likes to tell your girlfriend, while you sit there, squirming in the chair. But you know what? I'm glad that those stories exist, to prove that I'm not perfect, to show that I'm just a human after all.
Quite frankly, if anyone has a problem with anything in my biography, then that is their problem, not mine. And for that reason, I can't say that I'm very concerned with my privacy at all. But then... that's me. *shrug*
You don't know if it is good or bad before you have listened to it. On Napster and mp3.com alike, I have experimented by searching for keywords that would give me a wide range of responses. Try, for example, to search for "Milk" (because it was in a glass on my computer desk at the moment I was searching). I found lots of bands I had never heard of. Downloaded, played, found that some of it was crap, and some of it was good.
Music that I don't like, I delete. I mean, why waste the disk space on crap? Music I like, I go out of my way to find "real life", because I like to have "the entire package". However, without said method, there would be no way I would ever know that this band existed.
The 30 second samples you get on CDNow.com etc are often not representative for the entire song, and it doesn't give me enough to get a good FEEL for the song. I really need the entire song to figure out if I really would want it.
And hey... a lot of the MP3s I have gotten through Napster were flawed anyway. A great number of the MP3s have been quickly ripped and never tested, so there's the occational skip and bad data "and stuff". But that's just my own experience with Napster.
I think I have answered your questions... though being a little bit too lengthy with it.
Why limit yourself to the record industry. If you don't like someone's behaviour, do what the US is doing to Cuba - don't support them. I, for on, am disgusted with Metallica's way of handling the case, and will refrain from buying their CDs. In fact, the commercial record industry in the US is so bad these days, that I am spending less and less on that market, and putting my money in other markets, such as European music and, of course, MP3.com.
It is actually interesting to note that through Napster, I have been introduced to new music that I'm now hunting up and down to get the original CD of. Alas, these artists would never have gotten my money if I had not stumbled over them by accident.
Which also shows that just because I'm able to get the MP3 for free, doesn't mean that I don't buy the CD. In fact, this is one of the things that draws me towards making more business with MP3.com - that, and the fact that I know that more of my money is indeed going to the artist. For that reason alone, I support MP3.com's business model much more than the model of the traditional record industry.
If this is really what you feel, then put your buck where your heart is (and do not put your heart where your buck is). Do business with the people who "behave" within your standards, and boycott those you "don't like". I mean... just because you like their music doesn't mean you need to have it. There are plenty of alternatives.
Transylvanian Tower! That's the one! :^)
Long before Wolfenstein 3D, I just loved to hook up a network of Atari ST's and play MIDI Maze. Can someone say "prior art"? Oh... before MIDI Maze on the ST, there was also this game I played on my Spectrum (Timex/Sinclair 2000 for Americans - yeah, the one with the rubber keyboard) ... can't remember the title, but it took place in a castle, and I had to fight bats and stuff in order to eventually find and kill Dracula. I think. Was a very long time ago.
I couldn't answer the question right out of the box, and in a way, I felt that it was a) because I can, and b) because I felt that I had to. None of which carries a lot of weight when arguing with "do what you need to do to get money". Hell, why am I into photography? Actually, the same person asked me that, too. And yes, she was a woman.
Over and over again, I have seen media (and others) mention that the major difference between guys and girls with computers, is that guys fiddle with them and do all kinds of unnecessary things with them, while women just want them to WORK. And if they work - don't touch. They do the job quite well, thank you very much.
But what is being lost in this entire debate is the fact that by tinkering with your computer, your car, your camera, or even just writing, you are effectively training yourself, increasing your skillset, and you essentially become more valuable, because you understand more.
This has the short term effect of your own satisfaction of having accomplished something and learned something that few others know, which certainly should boost your self image, and it has the long term effect of higher salaries and a healthier retirement.
Now, why is this so hard to understand, that everybody just shake their heads and say "but why???!?"
Another idea that I have implemented on my own server is to have several "spam attractor" addresses. If an e-mail hits one of these addresses, the from-address from the SMTP-envelope automatically goes on a spam block list, and everyone that is not a spam attractor becomes 550 for that sender.
One thing to remember with cloning and the creation of life, is that while it is easy to assume that this might turn humans into "expendable life forms", none of this technology can replicate the things that formed the PERSON inside. All the influences of growing up. Even if you could genetically engineer someone who was really intelligent, there is no guarantee that they will actually use that intelligence. Less anything that they specifically want the person to use his/her brains for.
Would there be a two-tiered class system of "valids" and "invalids" as in Gattaca? Not very likely, because if there is ONE thing that science has proven, it is that what is first considered a bad thing is turned around five months later and considered a very necessary thing and therefore a good thing.
Perhaps the engineering of a human might actually prove once and for all that it doesn't matter how "perfect" the species is in the eyes of that specific scientist, there will never be a perfect human, and it will never turn out exactly the way you wanted it, because biology is only one tiny blipp of what makes a human.
...think about it... because of this entire patent fiasco, 99% of Slashdot readers are dropping Amazon, and taking their business to B&N instead.
rexec
Of course, now that I have released the algorithm, they already know about it, so there's no use. :^>
Though seeing the responses, may I add my 2c... after seeing the video in question...
- The video reeks "home made" - a lot of home/movie-like phrases. Had this video been made, I am certain that there would be phrases that are NOT known by the public. (Not to mention that this is FAR from organized enough to be proper briefing)
- I can see that, given the obvious fakeness of the material, the video can have three obvious side-effects:
- Given the obvious fakeness of the video, I would also not be surprised if the so called FBI intervension is also a hoax. After all, THE way to get exposure on the Internet is to cry "First Amendment!" Well, that, or appealing to Art Bell's audience with the keyword government oppression. These guys cry "censorship" every time Art has technical problems. So much that even Art gets irritated about it!
- The contents of the video is a conspiracy to a crime.
Do I believe that the FBI actually shut the site down? No.- Generate yet another Y2K scare (probably the intention)
- Push the paranoid over the limit, inviting MORE trigger happy guns into the NYC new year celebration, ready to start shooting at anything suspicious.
- Inspire people who understand that the video is a hoax, to actually go do it! (Keep in mind the "inspiration factor" after Columbine)
Thus, I can see why, for the public saftey, the FBI would ask the artist to shut it down. Sometimes, nay, OFTEN, art like this fits the bill, but IMHO, this is NOT one of those occasions and the video is likely to cause more damage than anything else.Do I believe that the FBI should have shut the site down for public saftey? Yes. It really comes down to understanding the reactions from your audience, and, uh, there are enough weirdo's out there who would react with gunfire on this one. Sorry.
The NBC movie? Piece of cake compared to this. The NBC movie had the message "Things might not work, and people will panic". This home video had the message "You have reason to panic, because we're out to get you". Big difference.
Speaking of understanding the reactions from your audience... I understand that I will now be flamed by "first amendment at all cost" advocates. Which is ok. They have their right of opinion. They have the right to express that opinion. However, they do not have the right to make a video, say that it came from me, detailing how I would crush free speech. Because at this point, it is no longer just freedom of expression, it is also impersonation. (Mmmm... another thing to add to the list above)
Does this mean that Jesus doesn't save? That the church will rather lock out people who need to be saved, than to guide them away from their sins and into the light?
Or is it just yet another example of administration displaying authority by setting an example instead of sitting back and thinking of what signal they are sending out. What I read into this is that "our school is very unforgiving and will not accept sinners. We are a superior society, much better than the rest. We will not show your children our ways, but throw them out if we feel that they are not perfect enough for us."
I believe the immigration thingies ask you, not just if you have ever been convicted of any criminal acts, but it also continues, "with the exception of traffic violations". Always read the entire paragraph before checking off the box. :^)
Easy enough for a human to understand, but a pain the butt for computers - and with that kind of scheme, they'd be likely to get multiple "possible" unencrypted messages if their dictionary allowed this kind of stuff.
Of course, they can just read directly off my monitor as it is anyway. :^)
In the new millenium, the family has to face the huge bills for all the stuff they got in preparation for the non-event and decide to go into hiding anyway. Eventually, they have a stand-off with police, when it turns out that the son in the family went out on a killing-spree, because "the war had started".