This whole WAVE thing is really unsettling. First off, it puts unstable teenagers and the like in charge of other unstable teenagers. In highschool, at least for my first year, I was a loner. Accorrding to this, I could have a SWAT team banging down my door searching my house for guns and stuff. Why? Not because the government was concerned about my checking out an anarchy web site, but rather because I didn't conform to societies deffinition of what's normal. This is the first step to bring about the Macarthy (sp?) era again. Everyone looking at everyone else with a careful eye, do you think they're a comunist? Better to be safe than sorry, let's tell the authorities that he/she is. How long before someone turns someone in because they don't like the other person. This has the potential to get out of hand really fast. Now I know that some people think that this is a great idea, and if one person can be stopped before he goes on a killing spree then it's worth it, but it's like they say: "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." Let's stop this before we're looking behind our backs every minute, not for big brother, but for everyone else.
Einstein new full well what the Manhatten project wanted to do with his theories. Now he may not have thought that the bomb was the ideal way to use his theories, but Einstein approved of the use to change the tide in the war (especially since he was wanted by Hitler). And as far as technology in the wrong hands, no one can keep that from happening, it's inevitable. What we need to have is more people involved in this. The more people involved, the less taboo, and then it won't seem as enticing to the "Mad Scientists" of the world. They will move on to bigger and better things. If you prevent it from coming out, then you et into the same problems as cloning. Other countries are flying ahead with it, and the US is tentative. By the time the US gets cloning to any usefull point other countries will be using cloning to replace body parts and what nots (maybe even regenerate nerves and the spinal column.) and we will be sitting here with our thumbs up our butts because someone 'might' clone a full human and then abuse it's rights...
When most people hear the words nanotechnology (or in this case bionanotechnology) their minds almost automatically go to cool little computer gadgets and the bionic woman (well, we all go there sometimes). But in all seriousness, bionanotechnology is already planned for use in alot of phase I and pre phase I cures for cancer and similar disease. No technogadgets are involved, only goold ol genetic engineering of viruses and such that are 'fixed' to go after the cancerous, or otherwise evil cells. Then there are also some freaks like the guy who would be Borg (forgot his name, but he's put some neat gadgets into his body) who push the limits of bionanotechnology and turn everyone into skeptics. So let's keep it real so that more respected scientists flock to this field and one day cures the ever evil common cold.
In light of todays DMCA post, I think it would be really cool if they incorporated DNA into copy protection. It'll shut the corporations up because only the purchaser can use it, and you can make as many copies as you wan't cause they'll all contain your DNA.
Now to the topic at hand. I think the coolest thing about all this DNA stuff is that in NY we had a warrent out for the arrest of someone's DNA (and it's owner of course). The DNA was charged with rape. This was done in order to bypass the statute of limitations on rape cases in NY. I think that we should all submit to mass DNA tests so that there is a large database for use during criminal investigations. How many innocent people would have been freed and how many more guilty ones would have been fried?
I wasn't saying that we shouldn't protest, only that it be civilized, because when they get afraid of us, they use it as a justification for putting more controls on things.
I understand what you are saying, but we can't punish the smaller corporations, which are the ones that are really hurt without these copy protection acts. Big business can usually cover their losses. I think that the courts are the ones that need to make sure the big corporations don't abuse the copy protections acts. If this case would go to court and the judge seeing the obvious, then big corporations will think twice about suing for this kind of garbage. Anyway, thanks for not ripping me apart.:)
I wasn't all that familiar with the DMCA, so I visited one of the provided links to brush up on it. When I got there, I took a look at the link to the DVD CCA law suit. It seems to me that the DMCA is not at fault here. As the FAQ states: "The DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) clearly states that "reverse-engineering on the basis of interoperability" is legal." so why is it that people are so upset. The DMCA seems to be the same as any other copyright act out there, protecting the owners of the copyright from people who intentionally illegaly misuse products. The guilty ones here are the corporations who are trying to bend the DMCA to their distorted views of reality. I know I'll probably be blasted for this post, but come on, deep down we all have to agree that some form of copy protection must be allowed to exist.
I know that alot of companies in NY have policies that allow their techies to work from home at least 4/5 days a week. They give it as an option, and usually requires a VPN or something similar. My office, which is a small company, is soon going to set something like that up where I only have to come into work once a week for a couple of hours to coordinate with managers. We are getting a VPN where I'll be able to dial in (or connect through TCP/IP) and, from my home computer, be another one of the computers on the network. I am sure that similar oportunities exist out there by you if they exist here, you just have to ask.
Look, if the guy really wanted to use it as a cocaine awareness site he would've had a site up already (after two years). And besides, I'm not saying that coke should win, all I'm doing is deffending their rights to do something about it. If someone had my companies name as their web site name I'd be pissed. If the courts feel that I am legaly in the right to demand my domain back then who are you to say I can't? The only reason cybersquating laws are so strict is because of the malicious people who forced companies to spend millions of dollars to purchase domain names that they should rightfully own. The web is a new media much like TV used to be and if someone took my company name and named a channel the same name, I'd sue. Maybe we (meaning corporations) have gone a little nuts with the law suits, but it's all of those people out there that try to make a profit off of trademarked items that mess it up for all of us. So the next time you see a story like this, don't blame the corporations for doing what's within their legal rights, blame the jerks who started this whole thing by trying to use corporate names to gain publicity and money.
You know, I'm really getting sick of this. Just because a large company is deffending its rights doesn't mean that they are wrong. This guy, after 2 years, is not even using the site, and coke is a registered trademark. Why is it that when anybody patents anything they are automaticcally termed evil? They are protecting their own interests, much like any of you would in the same situation. If he were not a cybersquatter he would have already had his site up. He was probably just waiting for coke to come around and offer him money for the domain. I was recently involved in something where someone tried to infringe on one of my clients' trademarks (and guess what, they were not a big company either) but they faught it and won. Does that make my client a big bully? We need controls, cause otherwise people who do these things with malicious intent will win, and it won't be the big bad companies that lose, it will be the small ones that rely on these types of things.
I agree that AI is not what it could be, and that alot of research is required in order to get a computer to "think" outside of its programed parameters, but game AI is not a valid guage. The bottom line is that games are developed with the players in mind. Make it too hard or too easy, and they won't play. So gaming AI is usually a quick fix on bad AI where the computer is given a tactical advantage of added resources or men. I have, however, witnessed some major, non brute-force, AI that takes a step in the right direction. But in my mind the only way to have a true AI that can think outside its programming will require a combination of some sort of bio-neural circutry and computers. I don't know if this will ever be possible, but if this does happen it will not mean the end of human civilization, but rather the next stage in human evolution. And you know what they say, survival of the fitest (or was it resistance is futile?).
PF wrote a sensationalistic article the type of which has become comonplace on the internet when it comes to privacy. The reason the article was written was a complaint about a marginal infringement on user privacy. The bottom line is, most people register all of their software programs with the same name, which isn't necessarily their real name. The reason why PF went into the discussion about the blacklist was to enrage the readers before they came to the marginal offense to the point where it didn't seem mariginal anymore. First off, after looking at all the sites, with the exception of a few, which is normal when building a large black list, they were all legitamate blacklists. They mostly contained lists of or referenses to sexually explicit material. Now anyone who is going to purchase this product is already agreeing to err on the side of caution and understands that they are oing to miss out on some legit sites. Second of all, even if all 38 were "invalid", they only looked at the first 50. Had they looked at the entire list, with an unbiased eye, they would have seen much better results in the long run. The bottom line is, though Symantec was wrong in taking the NT reg name instead of its own, it hardly warrents such a vicious attack. I also don't agree with the steps Symantec tried to take to get rid of the article, but the bottom line is, it's no different than the numerous articles out there that rip the open source community by showing how poorly designed open source projects are hacked and therefore open source is evil.
After reading the "rules" I went and took a look at the real Audio Home Recording Act. This is what I found:
"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."
I'm just waiting for the first plant/algae rights activist. We are torturing poor helpless little algae to serve our own selfish needs. They'll start polluting our ponds and labs with sulfer preventing the switch from taking over. I just hope that they not only continue to go ahead with this, but they ignore the intimidation tactics of other parties, including the oil industry. You know, if you think about it, this is basically the end result of cold fusion... No splitting of molecules, but geting H2 from water... Anyway, I think that it's high time for a new fuel, prices are going nuts and Clinton is sitting on those oil reserves like they're Monica Lewinsky or something. I'm sick of paying 1.50+ for gas... I just want to have a tank full of green ooze sitting in my garage to fuel my car whenever I need. Thanks for letting me rant.
To begin with, this is only the first version of the Itanium line of chips. For all we know, by the time the chip ships in SOHO computers, things will change. Also, the IA64 has one major advantage over the Alpha, the IA64 can run 32 bit programs (albeit at a considerable performance hit). For the first few years of the new chips, 32 bit software is what allot of people will use, so most computer manufacturers will only sell the IA64... Look, I am not anti-alpha, nor anti anyone else, I like competition, it lowers prices, but a realist must take all such releases with a grain of salt (Compaq is pushing its AMD line over its Intel line of machines, maybe they are trying to help AMD out, who knows). Either way, I look forward to owning a 64 bit computer someday.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, they'll have banner adds streaming accross the outside of the station. For every minute of adds you whatch, you get a minute in space. :)
This whole WAVE thing is really unsettling. First off, it puts unstable teenagers and the like in charge of other unstable teenagers. In highschool, at least for my first year, I was a loner. Accorrding to this, I could have a SWAT team banging down my door searching my house for guns and stuff. Why? Not because the government was concerned about my checking out an anarchy web site, but rather because I didn't conform to societies deffinition of what's normal. This is the first step to bring about the Macarthy (sp?) era again. Everyone looking at everyone else with a careful eye, do you think they're a comunist? Better to be safe than sorry, let's tell the authorities that he/she is. How long before someone turns someone in because they don't like the other person. This has the potential to get out of hand really fast. Now I know that some people think that this is a great idea, and if one person can be stopped before he goes on a killing spree then it's worth it, but it's like they say: "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." Let's stop this before we're looking behind our backs every minute, not for big brother, but for everyone else.
Einstein new full well what the Manhatten project wanted to do with his theories. Now he may not have thought that the bomb was the ideal way to use his theories, but Einstein approved of the use to change the tide in the war (especially since he was wanted by Hitler). And as far as technology in the wrong hands, no one can keep that from happening, it's inevitable. What we need to have is more people involved in this. The more people involved, the less taboo, and then it won't seem as enticing to the "Mad Scientists" of the world. They will move on to bigger and better things. If you prevent it from coming out, then you et into the same problems as cloning. Other countries are flying ahead with it, and the US is tentative. By the time the US gets cloning to any usefull point other countries will be using cloning to replace body parts and what nots (maybe even regenerate nerves and the spinal column.) and we will be sitting here with our thumbs up our butts because someone 'might' clone a full human and then abuse it's rights...
When most people hear the words nanotechnology (or in this case bionanotechnology) their minds almost automatically go to cool little computer gadgets and the bionic woman (well, we all go there sometimes). But in all seriousness, bionanotechnology is already planned for use in alot of phase I and pre phase I cures for cancer and similar disease. No technogadgets are involved, only goold ol genetic engineering of viruses and such that are 'fixed' to go after the cancerous, or otherwise evil cells. Then there are also some freaks like the guy who would be Borg (forgot his name, but he's put some neat gadgets into his body) who push the limits of bionanotechnology and turn everyone into skeptics. So let's keep it real so that more respected scientists flock to this field and one day cures the ever evil common cold.
I'd be interested to know where you got a 10 year lifespan from.
In light of todays DMCA post, I think it would be really cool if they incorporated DNA into copy protection. It'll shut the corporations up because only the purchaser can use it, and you can make as many copies as you wan't cause they'll all contain your DNA.
Now to the topic at hand. I think the coolest thing about all this DNA stuff is that in NY we had a warrent out for the arrest of someone's DNA (and it's owner of course). The DNA was charged with rape. This was done in order to bypass the statute of limitations on rape cases in NY. I think that we should all submit to mass DNA tests so that there is a large database for use during criminal investigations. How many innocent people would have been freed and how many more guilty ones would have been fried?
I wasn't saying that we shouldn't protest, only that it be civilized, because when they get afraid of us, they use it as a justification for putting more controls on things.
I understand what you are saying, but we can't punish the smaller corporations, which are the ones that are really hurt without these copy protection acts. Big business can usually cover their losses. I think that the courts are the ones that need to make sure the big corporations don't abuse the copy protections acts. If this case would go to court and the judge seeing the obvious, then big corporations will think twice about suing for this kind of garbage. Anyway, thanks for not ripping me apart. :)
I wasn't all that familiar with the DMCA, so I visited one of the provided links to brush up on it. When I got there, I took a look at the link to the DVD CCA law suit. It seems to me that the DMCA is not at fault here. As the FAQ states: "The DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) clearly states that "reverse-engineering on the basis of interoperability" is legal." so why is it that people are so upset. The DMCA seems to be the same as any other copyright act out there, protecting the owners of the copyright from people who intentionally illegaly misuse products. The guilty ones here are the corporations who are trying to bend the DMCA to their distorted views of reality. I know I'll probably be blasted for this post, but come on, deep down we all have to agree that some form of copy protection must be allowed to exist.
No offense, but it's attitudes like that that make lawmakers afraid of us. Respectfully is the way to go.
I know that alot of companies in NY have policies that allow their techies to work from home at least 4/5 days a week. They give it as an option, and usually requires a VPN or something similar. My office, which is a small company, is soon going to set something like that up where I only have to come into work once a week for a couple of hours to coordinate with managers. We are getting a VPN where I'll be able to dial in (or connect through TCP/IP) and, from my home computer, be another one of the computers on the network. I am sure that similar oportunities exist out there by you if they exist here, you just have to ask.
Look, if the guy really wanted to use it as a cocaine awareness site he would've had a site up already (after two years). And besides, I'm not saying that coke should win, all I'm doing is deffending their rights to do something about it. If someone had my companies name as their web site name I'd be pissed. If the courts feel that I am legaly in the right to demand my domain back then who are you to say I can't? The only reason cybersquating laws are so strict is because of the malicious people who forced companies to spend millions of dollars to purchase domain names that they should rightfully own. The web is a new media much like TV used to be and if someone took my company name and named a channel the same name, I'd sue. Maybe we (meaning corporations) have gone a little nuts with the law suits, but it's all of those people out there that try to make a profit off of trademarked items that mess it up for all of us. So the next time you see a story like this, don't blame the corporations for doing what's within their legal rights, blame the jerks who started this whole thing by trying to use corporate names to gain publicity and money.
You know, I'm really getting sick of this. Just because a large company is deffending its rights doesn't mean that they are wrong. This guy, after 2 years, is not even using the site, and coke is a registered trademark. Why is it that when anybody patents anything they are automaticcally termed evil? They are protecting their own interests, much like any of you would in the same situation. If he were not a cybersquatter he would have already had his site up. He was probably just waiting for coke to come around and offer him money for the domain. I was recently involved in something where someone tried to infringe on one of my clients' trademarks (and guess what, they were not a big company either) but they faught it and won. Does that make my client a big bully? We need controls, cause otherwise people who do these things with malicious intent will win, and it won't be the big bad companies that lose, it will be the small ones that rely on these types of things.
I agree that AI is not what it could be, and that alot of research is required in order to get a computer to "think" outside of its programed parameters, but game AI is not a valid guage. The bottom line is that games are developed with the players in mind. Make it too hard or too easy, and they won't play. So gaming AI is usually a quick fix on bad AI where the computer is given a tactical advantage of added resources or men. I have, however, witnessed some major, non brute-force, AI that takes a step in the right direction. But in my mind the only way to have a true AI that can think outside its programming will require a combination of some sort of bio-neural circutry and computers. I don't know if this will ever be possible, but if this does happen it will not mean the end of human civilization, but rather the next stage in human evolution. And you know what they say, survival of the fitest (or was it resistance is futile?).
PF wrote a sensationalistic article the type of which has become comonplace on the internet when it comes to privacy. The reason the article was written was a complaint about a marginal infringement on user privacy. The bottom line is, most people register all of their software programs with the same name, which isn't necessarily their real name. The reason why PF went into the discussion about the blacklist was to enrage the readers before they came to the marginal offense to the point where it didn't seem mariginal anymore. First off, after looking at all the sites, with the exception of a few, which is normal when building a large black list, they were all legitamate blacklists. They mostly contained lists of or referenses to sexually explicit material. Now anyone who is going to purchase this product is already agreeing to err on the side of caution and understands that they are oing to miss out on some legit sites. Second of all, even if all 38 were "invalid", they only looked at the first 50. Had they looked at the entire list, with an unbiased eye, they would have seen much better results in the long run. The bottom line is, though Symantec was wrong in taking the NT reg name instead of its own, it hardly warrents such a vicious attack. I also don't agree with the steps Symantec tried to take to get rid of the article, but the bottom line is, it's no different than the numerous articles out there that rip the open source community by showing how poorly designed open source projects are hacked and therefore open source is evil.
After reading the "rules" I went and took a look at the real Audio Home Recording Act. This is what I found:
"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."
For those of you interested in seeing for yourselves, here is the web site: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ 17/1008.html
I'm just waiting for the first plant/algae rights activist. We are torturing poor helpless little algae to serve our own selfish needs. They'll start polluting our ponds and labs with sulfer preventing the switch from taking over. I just hope that they not only continue to go ahead with this, but they ignore the intimidation tactics of other parties, including the oil industry. You know, if you think about it, this is basically the end result of cold fusion... No splitting of molecules, but geting H2 from water... Anyway, I think that it's high time for a new fuel, prices are going nuts and Clinton is sitting on those oil reserves like they're Monica Lewinsky or something. I'm sick of paying 1.50+ for gas... I just want to have a tank full of green ooze sitting in my garage to fuel my car whenever I need. Thanks for letting me rant.
To begin with, this is only the first version of the Itanium line of chips. For all we know, by the time the chip ships in SOHO computers, things will change. Also, the IA64 has one major advantage over the Alpha, the IA64 can run 32 bit programs (albeit at a considerable performance hit). For the first few years of the new chips, 32 bit software is what allot of people will use, so most computer manufacturers will only sell the IA64... Look, I am not anti-alpha, nor anti anyone else, I like competition, it lowers prices, but a realist must take all such releases with a grain of salt (Compaq is pushing its AMD line over its Intel line of machines, maybe they are trying to help AMD out, who knows). Either way, I look forward to owning a 64 bit computer someday.
Popular Science also has it's rundown of this years greatest inventions, prety cool. http://www.popularscience.com/fea tures/bown/bown99/.