For the record, I pretty much agree with what RMS says. Restricting civil liberties won't solve the problems at hand, but it will take away the very freedom we're supposed to have.
I strongly disagree with having security/facial recognition technologies in public places. We've already seen what that does. Nor can I actually believe I'm about to support the use of facial recognition for preventive measures, but I really don't have a problem with this type of use for airline passengers.
Is an airplane a public place? I can't get on a plane without identifying myself. I am required to verbally acknowledge responsibility for the items I bring on the plane. It is, in fact, a private company's plane. They have the right to know who's traveling on it.
We check our rights at the gate when we get on a plane. If I'm going to do that, I would hope to get better security in return.
Of course, this does lead down the slippery slope to a police state, and I see the dangers. I'm not a fanatic on either side, it's a matter of properly using technology in areas where it actually has value, and properly using technology so that innocent people are not harmed/disrupted in the name of security.
This is about the scariest thing I have ever heard out of Bush's mouth, and I'm really embarassed to be an American at this point.
Should we take Bin Laden out? Probably. But using an old cowboy analogy trivialized the problem, and makes this country look like a bunch of idiots. I can't imagine what the rest of the world thinks of us now.
Bin Laden's got buddies. Getting rid of him won't stop ANY of his men from retaliating. Trivializing the problem to one bad guy is dangerous. When we get him, are we free from terrorism? Not likely.
These tensions have been building up for decades. This act of violence alone has been planned for years. This problem will not be solved by going in and capturing/terminating one person in a week, nor will it be solved by the instant carpet bombing a nation. Decades of politics got us here, it'll take decades of politics to get us out.
Red Cross Needs Tech Help
on
More WTC News
·
· Score: 2, Redundant
Dshor and I had simutaneously posted this just a few minutes ago in the previous story on this, but I thought it would be worth a repost just because it's rather appropriate. Not a karma whore, just wanted people to see it.
techtv is reporting that the Red Cross needs tech donations
Red Cross Needs Tech Equipment!
on
More On Tragedy
·
· Score: 1
techtv is reporting that the red cross needs tech donations -- by means of computers, equipment, and services.
Try not to slashdot it, and they also ask to only send in your contact request in once, since their mail server is overwhelmed.
but I haven't seen a single one in which
fighting wasn't almost a goal in itself.
Check out MOOs as an alternative -- where the kids would be involved in creating and extending the world rather than beating it up. (Not that that's a bad thing...) A search for MOO at mudlinks provides quite a few results...several with a more educational (as opposed to combat) flavor.
Perhaps the house analogy is flawed as well...
on
Software Aesthetics
·
· Score: 1
Take a look at the average house today as opposed to one built in the early 1900s. Today's houses are cookie cutter style boxes that look exactly like the ones next to them. Furthermore, these houses aren't going to last very long...I know WAY too many people who have dealt with shoddy construction of newer houses.
Houses today aren't nearly as ornate as before -- there is very little woodworking, no secret passages, not too much stands out.
The software world is much like today's house market -- contract to the lowest bidder, make sure it doesn't show any weaknesses until after purchase, and who really cares if the sheetrock cracks and the beams bow after you've sold it?
It's hard to try and make software look like Victorian houses -- nobody wants to pay for the added effort and longer wait. Especially when a cookie cutter Colonial will get the job done.
Imagine, for a sec, that the judges only used government material for work related issues.
In this case, the monitoring is even scarier. Based on the judges' private communications, sites visted, things like that, anyone with access to the log files can begin to recreate the judge's state of mind DURING the case.
Imagine what happens when this gets into the wrong hands. There are some very creative journalists who can take small bits of nformation and blow them out of proportion. We learn that people are likely to be convicted before the trial is complete. We learn that people who appear to be guilty are going to walk. And worse, we learn this because of things that the judges has said and done, rather than just speculation (as it is now) How much harder will it be to keep an untainted jury? Besides, if we know what the judge is thinking, why have a jury?
Yes, it's an exaggeration, but it's frightening to think that the scenario they are trying to achieve is actually worse than finding out which judge has what fetish...
despite the fact that he knowingly and willfully comitted an act of copyright infringement. This is a crime.
Not necessarily the case. If it is the case that
-in Russia, it is legal to copy software and its content for backup purposes
-in Russia, it is legal to sell software to create said backups
-Elcomsoft made no sales of circumventing software to US companies
then in fact, it's pretty hard to enforce a US law, because it doesn't take place in the US. If this had happened to a US programmer in a US company, the case would be much cleaner...because it WOULD be illegal. In fact, it's surprising that they aren't choosing a local to hold up as an example. It would be much easier to convict an American who broke the law in the US.
Granted, Slashdot creates cult heros, but I think this is the wrong example to pick on them for. In this case, it's not a matter of someone not getting their free-as-in-beer stuff. It's a much more complicated scheme of making an example of someone who didn't necessarily break the law.
this at least allows any publisher in such a situtation to take steps to block access to material if necessary
Actually, I think this is the meat of the problem. By forcing the publisher to be responsible for content generation based on the location of the subscriber, we open up the whole can of worms. Suddenly, publishers are responsible for knowing ALL the limitations of every country that has a modem somewhere in it. I think this is the case people don't want -- IANAL in America, and I shouldn't have to be one in Australia either to prevent myself from getting sued under some law in another country.
It's placing the responsibility on the wrong people. A country is responsible for enforcing its own laws. It can not expect the rest of the world to abide by the laws it has set for it's own society.
..if you consider democratic as an ideal where everyone has a voice.
The net has always had an access cost -- you had to have a machine, you had to have a connection. In the "ideal" net of late 80's and early 90's, it wasn't necessarily more democratic. Only people with computers and net connections had access.
With commercialization came lower costs and greater access. So while the proportion of content has become less democratic, the number of people who have been given the opportunity to access it has become more.
No, it's not the wacky little connection of home grown websites that it used to be, but it's not necessarily a bad thing that more people have been given access either.
Interestingly enough, though, there is a footnote on page 116 which states:
...purchasers outside North America who are willing to buy region 1 DVDs, that concern has nothing to do with section 1201. Section 1201...has no effect outside the United States. Consequently, a purchaser in Hong Kong could modify a region 6 player so that it could play a region 1 DVD without fear of any repercussions under section 1201.
This kind of makes it a twisted double standard in more than one way. We can export region 1 DVDs, but can't import anything else. Because we're only going to enforce the DMCA inside the US...
I think the most positive thing to come out of this article is that at least the legislators are realizing that we currently have no metaphor linking the online world to the real world. They make several references to similar situations involving books/VCRs (especially when trying to pin down fair use) -- but also note where that real world metaphor breaks down.
While I think the DMCA sucks as much as the next person, it is forcing people to come up with a way of thinking about online media, and forcing legislation to define things like fair-use and distribution in terms of things that aren't necessarily physical.
Actually, I think the point of it has very little to do with porn, and far more to do with control over content. The problem with moral authority cases is that once a group successfully removes content based on moral decisions, it sets a precedent for others to do so.
It becomes even more interesting when the "moral decisions" of one company conflict with state (but not necessarily national) legislation. What happens when this goes further -- to the "gay/lesbian/pro-life/pro-choice/insert controversial topic here" clubs, some of which have state law protection?
Margaret Mead wrote years ago that the pace of cultural change in the West was accelerating so rapidly that the young were coming to believe they had nothing to learn from their elders. And that was before the Net. Her prediction has been fulfilled, more than even she imagined.
There is a long held stigma that teenagers have no respect for their elders, teenagers think they're invincible, teenagers know everything...the list goes on. Not that it doesn't have some truth, but the fact is, this idea has been around long before everyone flooded the net.
The net isn't making kids any more disrespectful of their elders, or any more invincible, or any more knowledgable. It is, however, making them more of a presence. 30 years ago the geek in the corner was the geek in the corner. Now the geek in the corner has met up with hundreds of others.
It's quite possible that this isn't such a negative thing -- for every obnoxious, annoying kid on the net there's another one who is getting a lot of support from it.
It's just easier to focus on the troublemakers -- they're the ones that want to be noticed anyway. But to say that the net made them that way isn't really correct. It just made them more obvious.
While this whole thing is probably going to get blown out of proportions as most things do, there are a couple of creepy things going on.
This guy's image was used in a demo of criminal software to the press -- without his knowledge.
The press then sold the image to US News and World report -- without his knowledge, AND without the context that he was not a wanted criminal.
If the guy had volunteered to be a test dummy for the software, that would be all well and good, but to have all this happen without ANY prior knowledge is a little creepy. The Tampa Police were just incredibly sloppy on this one -- how hard would it have been to ask?
While it's interesting to think that federal judges wanting their privacy might have an effect on how the workplace monitors people, how will it actually affect the private business sector? It may be a case where they could (eventually...) decide that the government has no right to monitor, but private businesses might remain unaffected...
The only real revolution here is that experts will no longer be identified by education or experience, but instead their ability to market themselves
I'm not sure that the net has changed any of this. A ton of identification through both education and experience has actually become a marketing tool in itself. Certain educational institutions carry an enormous amount of clout with their degree -- it's effectively a marketing tool. Experts will still remain experts.
I think the revolution actually lies in the accessibility of the local expert. Not everyone needs the advice of a prestigious lawyer, or an expert stock analyst. It's the cases where someone needs the advice of someone more knowledgable, but not necessarily an expert...that the age and education barriers become less important and accessibility becomes more so.
It seems that the media tends to pick up on the viruses that are easy to explain and have big name targets. It's much easier to come up with an obnoxious "Virus attacks White House" headline to attract attention -- even though something along the lines of "Guess what -- those pictures you took? Your boss has 'em." is probably more important to the average Joe.
I think the more generalized algorithm (which might be what they are talking about) is the PSLQ, which is only like a year and a half old. They talk a little about it at http://www.nersc.gov/news/bailey1-20-00.html, but the PSLQ link seems to have been removed due to a copyright lawsuit.
Slashdot Mirror
I strongly disagree with having security/facial recognition technologies in public places. We've already seen what that does. Nor can I actually believe I'm about to support the use of facial recognition for preventive measures, but I really don't have a problem with this type of use for airline passengers.
Is an airplane a public place? I can't get on a plane without identifying myself. I am required to verbally acknowledge responsibility for the items I bring on the plane. It is, in fact, a private company's plane. They have the right to know who's traveling on it.
We check our rights at the gate when we get on a plane. If I'm going to do that, I would hope to get better security in return.
Of course, this does lead down the slippery slope to a police state, and I see the dangers. I'm not a fanatic on either side, it's a matter of properly using technology in areas where it actually has value, and properly using technology so that innocent people are not harmed/disrupted in the name of security.
This is about the scariest thing I have ever heard out of Bush's mouth, and I'm really embarassed to be an American at this point.
Should we take Bin Laden out? Probably. But using an old cowboy analogy trivialized the problem, and makes this country look like a bunch of idiots. I can't imagine what the rest of the world thinks of us now.
Bin Laden's got buddies. Getting rid of him won't stop ANY of his men from retaliating. Trivializing the problem to one bad guy is dangerous. When we get him, are we free from terrorism? Not likely.
These tensions have been building up for decades. This act of violence alone has been planned for years. This problem will not be solved by going in and capturing/terminating one person in a week, nor will it be solved by the instant carpet bombing a nation. Decades of politics got us here, it'll take decades of politics to get us out.
techtv is reporting that the Red Cross needs tech donations
Original posts here and here
techtv is reporting that the red cross needs tech donations -- by means of computers, equipment, and services.
Try not to slashdot it, and they also ask to only send in your contact request in once, since their mail server is overwhelmed.
Boston.com is listing that Daniel Lewin, co-founder of Akamai, did in fact die in the WTC plane crash
Having a TV, 4 different radio stations, and a decent connection...
American Airlines flight 11 out of Boston to LA hijacked, presumed to be first hit on trade center.
American Airlines lost a second plane out of DC. Unknown where it is (possible second hit on WTC)
Both WTC collapsed.
Unknown plane crashed into Pentagon.
United Airlines 747 down in Pittsburgh.
A United Airlines plane from Boston to LA is missing - potentially the same.
All airports closed, flight being rerouted to Canada. All Canadian airports closed, only open to allow incoming USbound flights.
Reports of multiple bombs going off in NYC which can not be confirmed due to the lack of communication.
Is this the kind of thing that starts world war III? I'm not sure I wanted to live to see it.
Check out MOOs as an alternative -- where the kids would be involved in creating and extending the world rather than beating it up. (Not that that's a bad thing...) A search for MOO at mudlinks provides quite a few results...several with a more educational (as opposed to combat) flavor.
Take a look at the average house today as opposed to one built in the early 1900s. Today's houses are cookie cutter style boxes that look exactly like the ones next to them. Furthermore, these houses aren't going to last very long...I know WAY too many people who have dealt with shoddy construction of newer houses.
Houses today aren't nearly as ornate as before -- there is very little woodworking, no secret passages, not too much stands out.
The software world is much like today's house market -- contract to the lowest bidder, make sure it doesn't show any weaknesses until after purchase, and who really cares if the sheetrock cracks and the beams bow after you've sold it?
It's hard to try and make software look like Victorian houses -- nobody wants to pay for the added effort and longer wait. Especially when a cookie cutter Colonial will get the job done.
Imagine, for a sec, that the judges only used government material for work related issues.
In this case, the monitoring is even scarier. Based on the judges' private communications, sites visted, things like that, anyone with access to the log files can begin to recreate the judge's state of mind DURING the case.
Imagine what happens when this gets into the wrong hands. There are some very creative journalists who can take small bits of nformation and blow them out of proportion. We learn that people are likely to be convicted before the trial is complete. We learn that people who appear to be guilty are going to walk. And worse, we learn this because of things that the judges has said and done, rather than just speculation (as it is now) How much harder will it be to keep an untainted jury? Besides, if we know what the judge is thinking, why have a jury?
Yes, it's an exaggeration, but it's frightening to think that the scenario they are trying to achieve is actually worse than finding out which judge has what fetish...
Not necessarily the case. If it is the case that
-in Russia, it is legal to copy software and its content for backup purposes
-in Russia, it is legal to sell software to create said backups
-Elcomsoft made no sales of circumventing software to US companies
then in fact, it's pretty hard to enforce a US law, because it doesn't take place in the US. If this had happened to a US programmer in a US company, the case would be much cleaner...because it WOULD be illegal. In fact, it's surprising that they aren't choosing a local to hold up as an example. It would be much easier to convict an American who broke the law in the US.
Granted, Slashdot creates cult heros, but I think this is the wrong example to pick on them for. In this case, it's not a matter of someone not getting their free-as-in-beer stuff. It's a much more complicated scheme of making an example of someone who didn't necessarily break the law.
Actually, I think this is the meat of the problem. By forcing the publisher to be responsible for content generation based on the location of the subscriber, we open up the whole can of worms. Suddenly, publishers are responsible for knowing ALL the limitations of every country that has a modem somewhere in it. I think this is the case people don't want -- IANAL in America, and I shouldn't have to be one in Australia either to prevent myself from getting sued under some law in another country.
It's placing the responsibility on the wrong people. A country is responsible for enforcing its own laws. It can not expect the rest of the world to abide by the laws it has set for it's own society.
The net has always had an access cost -- you had to have a machine, you had to have a connection. In the "ideal" net of late 80's and early 90's, it wasn't necessarily more democratic. Only people with computers and net connections had access.
With commercialization came lower costs and greater access. So while the proportion of content has become less democratic, the number of people who have been given the opportunity to access it has become more.
No, it's not the wacky little connection of home grown websites that it used to be, but it's not necessarily a bad thing that more people have been given access either.
This kind of makes it a twisted double standard in more than one way. We can export region 1 DVDs, but can't import anything else. Because we're only going to enforce the DMCA inside the US...
riiiiight...
While I think the DMCA sucks as much as the next person, it is forcing people to come up with a way of thinking about online media, and forcing legislation to define things like fair-use and distribution in terms of things that aren't necessarily physical.
He's got the RIAA letter, the statement contradicting the RIAA letter, the agreement to the competition, and other such nifty info.
Straight from the horse's mouth... the RIAA letter
It becomes even more interesting when the "moral decisions" of one company conflict with state (but not necessarily national) legislation. What happens when this goes further -- to the "gay/lesbian/pro-life/pro-choice/insert controversial topic here" clubs, some of which have state law protection?
Ironic that Yahoo will post its own bashing...
Margaret Mead wrote years ago that the pace of cultural change in the West was accelerating so rapidly that the young were coming to believe they had nothing to learn from their elders. And that was before the Net. Her prediction has been fulfilled, more than even she imagined.
There is a long held stigma that teenagers have no respect for their elders, teenagers think they're invincible, teenagers know everything...the list goes on. Not that it doesn't have some truth, but the fact is, this idea has been around long before everyone flooded the net.
The net isn't making kids any more disrespectful of their elders, or any more invincible, or any more knowledgable. It is, however, making them more of a presence. 30 years ago the geek in the corner was the geek in the corner. Now the geek in the corner has met up with hundreds of others.
It's quite possible that this isn't such a negative thing -- for every obnoxious, annoying kid on the net there's another one who is getting a lot of support from it.
It's just easier to focus on the troublemakers -- they're the ones that want to be noticed anyway. But to say that the net made them that way isn't really correct. It just made them more obvious.
This guy's image was used in a demo of criminal software to the press -- without his knowledge.
The press then sold the image to US News and World report -- without his knowledge, AND without the context that he was not a wanted criminal.
If the guy had volunteered to be a test dummy for the software, that would be all well and good, but to have all this happen without ANY prior knowledge is a little creepy. The Tampa Police were just incredibly sloppy on this one -- how hard would it have been to ask?
While it's interesting to think that federal judges wanting their privacy might have an effect on how the workplace monitors people, how will it actually affect the private business sector? It may be a case where they could (eventually...) decide that the government has no right to monitor, but private businesses might remain unaffected...
I'm not sure that the net has changed any of this. A ton of identification through both education and experience has actually become a marketing tool in itself. Certain educational institutions carry an enormous amount of clout with their degree -- it's effectively a marketing tool. Experts will still remain experts.
I think the revolution actually lies in the accessibility of the local expert. Not everyone needs the advice of a prestigious lawyer, or an expert stock analyst. It's the cases where someone needs the advice of someone more knowledgable, but not necessarily an expert...that the age and education barriers become less important and accessibility becomes more so.
It seems that the media tends to pick up on the viruses that are easy to explain and have big name targets. It's much easier to come up with an obnoxious "Virus attacks White House" headline to attract attention -- even though something along the lines of "Guess what -- those pictures you took? Your boss has 'em." is probably more important to the average Joe.
I think the more generalized algorithm (which might be what they are talking about) is the PSLQ, which is only like a year and a half old. They talk a little about it at http://www.nersc.gov/news/bailey1-20-00.html, but the PSLQ link seems to have been removed due to a copyright lawsuit.