The FCC has already stated that they will fine any company that abuses their ability to Tier bandwidth.
And they will know about it how?
I'm not against QoS, but as a comcast customer who has vonage, I know what can happen when an isp offers a service that competes with another service that goes over their lines. I also have absolutely no faith in the FCC when it comes to standing up to telecoms and cable companies. They only have backbone when it comes to Stern and wardrobe malfunctions.
The kind of crowd that is likely to buy the iPhone will be the kind that probably travels a lot (i.e. business and corporate users).
You mean the same crowd that needs outlook/exchange sync capability? They will most likely stick with their blackberries and (to a lesser extent) Treos.
Agreed, but I am not willing to pay more than the cost of one of those "everything but the kitchen sink" smart phones for a decidedly dumb phone.
And iPhone for $200 would probably sell like hotcakes (I know I would get one), but Apple is dreaming if they think they are going to go up against Treos and Blackberries (same price point) with a video iPod that has a basic phone attached. If it doesn't sync with outlook you lose corporate Amercia (a HUGE demographic for $500+ phones) and if you cannot install 3rd party apps you lose the techie geeks who make up the rest of the $500+ phone buying demographic. Who is their target here? Spoiled rich kids who think every device is improved with a video/music player attached? Chances are they already have a Verizon music phone of some sort.
As for Microsoft Outlook... who uses it these days anyway? I sure as hell don't.
Everyone who isn't using some webmail (gmail, hotmail, yahoo) as their primary email client.
Yeah, there are some stastically insidnificant numbers using Thunderbird (me), Eudora, and probably a decent number using OSX's Mail.app, but other than that, everyone using outlook.
I've been asked to turn my laptop on a few times in airport security (oddly enough all pre 9/11, they seemed to stop this after that). Nothing suspicious about, normal IBM T series laptop. It was running linux but they didn't care, they just wanted to see that it worked. I guess the thinking was that if a laptop can boot it must not have a bomb inside it. Sony proved them wrong I suppose.
Authorities (and by that I mean law enforcement primarily) always likes to to throw cameras on the citizens. Public places, private places, etc. Constant surveillance makes it much easier to catch criminals, no doubt. We can debate the merits of this and whether or not it is worth the trade off till the cows come home.
The camera phone however, has turned the tables a bit. Now those authorities are finding that they are being watched and recorded as well. Historically, a corrupt or abusive cop has little problem having his story believed over that of the evil criminal. Recently we have seen a near explosion of police abusing their power and assaulting people. Cops beating up a guy in Pittsburgh no long ago, the UCLA campus police tazering a mouthy student multiple times (and threating to tazer bystanders who simply asked for badge numbers), etc. Once these are up on youtube, suddenly action is taken against the police where it would ordinarily have been ignored, laughed off, or denied.
This is good for everyone, the more corrupt and abusive police kicked off the force, the better for citizens and police alike. For any authority's position to work, they need trust. Right now there is a bit of a trust problem between the police and general public and only by taking care of the problem officers will that ever change.
I guess we are cool giving a big "FU!" to anyone who is disabled (blind) and using a specialized browser. After all 99% of the population can see just fine. For that matter lets get rid of all those damn wheelchair ramps cluttering up the place.
If you are going to take someone else's source code you must abide by their license. Nothing more, nothing less. Heck, not much to even get a lawyer over.
If you are not prepared to do that, write your own damn code.
Now if you are referring to software patents, I'm with you.
I think you missed the joke. "Where more people get their news than probably should" used to be one of the Daily Show's slogans. Along with "When news breaks, we fix it"
Good times. I like Stewart, but sometimes I miss Kilborn. Not as much biting political sarcasm, but certainly entertaining.
It' sad to think that the prosecutor was more interested in the conviction than the truth.
All prosecutors are more interested in the conviction than the truth. Every single one.
Go back and re-read that, I'm serious.
Prosecutors do not get re-elected for finding the truth, or upholding justice. They are solely judged on convictions. Look at this case, look at the duke rape case. Can you picture what the TV and radio ads for the opponent would have said if they decided not to prosecute those cases? I'm not making excuses, clearly many of them are dicks (certainly the duke one), but lets also partially blame the system we put into place that values them only for number of convictions.
Additionally, every single defense attorney is more interested in defending their client than the truth. Sure you might find one who refuses a particularly horrible case, but they will not make a career out of following their conscience or they will starve.
How about a home inspector who actually finds real problems with houses? Do that too much and you lose the referrals from real estate agents, which is where most of them get business.
A relevant one in Pennsylvania is road construction. Imagine if the road crews actually fixed roads? Thousands of people who stand around eating every summer on the side of the road would be out of a job.
Or consider the police. Pretend everyone in a town agreed to follow all traffic laws (especially speed limits) for a couple of months. I'll bet a police officer or two would be fired for not writing tickets. Or would they invent traffic offenses to avoid that?
Why do we expect certain people in certain jobs to do things when it is not those things that their job performance is judged on? Or worse, expect them to do something that would remove the need for their job?
So, the CA oligopoly is now going to be charging extra for doing the assurance checking they should have been doing all along but now admit they were not. And once they decide they need more money I am sure they will claim that they have been screwing up their assurance checking on these new ones as well but for a little bit extra, they will do SUPER DUPER identity validation. Then we can REALLY trust the certs.
(1) There is literally no technical difference between legal copying and illegal copying. How would a drm scheme detect that I was moving to a device I own vs one I don't. Heck, the concept of fair use is legally murky, trying to reduce it to an algorithm would be impossible. How would a drm scheme detect my "intent" which is central to fair use?
(2) Laws change.
(3) Not matter how it is spun, DRM as implemented today is a technically flawed concept. Trying to turn pki upside down by giving my a private key and encrypting data to it while simultaneously trying to keep my from accessing my private key is an exercise in futility, which is why nearly every attempt so far has failed. The key needs to be anywhere that the media is decrypted (computer, handheld devices, etc), every one of those places is a chance for someone to get at it. And don't give me "trusted device path" garbage, it all ends with two wires going into a speaker cone, and it can be retrieved that way if all else fails.
What Apple's doing with the iPhone, OTOH, is what Verizon customers are used to: the carrier tells you what you can do with your phone. You buy it, but you don't really own it. They say it's about quality assurance, and to some degree it might even be, but what it's really about is making sure you pay for extra features, instead of downloading freeware or writing your own.
I have a treo 700p on Verizon's network and I can install anything I want onto it, including apps I write on my own. So your comparison does not really hold up in the case of smart phones (which the iPhone was supposed to be). My understanding is that Verizon is this way about ringtones on "dumb" phones, but really who cares?
From where I sit, it looks like Nintendo are perfectly content to do lots of business without being the market leaders - but Sony seem very fixated on the "being number one" mentality.
In my experience, Nintendo's approach is one of the keys to success, Sony's is a sure way to fail.
Whether or not there is a law is irrelevant. It's still airport and/or airline policy to require proof of identity. Policies and rules don't require law to back them up unless they are in directly conflict with existing law.
You are missing the larger picture here. Whether or not there is a law is the ONLY relevant aspect of this. Because if there is a law, and us lowly citizens are expected to follow it but are not allowed to SEE it, then something is horribly wrong. It turns out there is a law basically saying "the TSA can set regulations for air travel and those regulations are effectively law". The problem is that the TSA keeps these regulations secret for security purposes (which is funny because so little they do actually has anything to do with security), so viola, we have secret laws. They can change them at will, we are not allowed to know, but we can be detained, arrested, etc for now following them.
How long before we start seeing other laws delegated to "agency regulations" which carry the same weight but are put into place by bureaucrats (circumventing congress) and kept secret for our own good? Would we even know if they already started this? Like pretty much all our existing legit laws they could be selectively enforced.
Permanent, in the case of the PATRIOT Act, means "not set to expire". The PATRIOT Act is set to expire every few years. This means that a majority of congress is needed to extend it.
There have been repeated attempts to make it permanent, or at least make many of the provisions of it permanent.
Yes a majority of congress is required to make that happen, but it IS their goal. The President is also taking the legally disputed position that his office has always had the ability to circumvent the FISA court and order warrant less wiretapping. Rather than try to get a new law passed (temporary or not), that position makes it something that is permanent (albeit illegal according to most experts).
Back to this case, the president is asserting that he is able to order the opening of any mail (and detain anyone, tap any phones, etc) because he is a wartime president and will only do so in emergencies. However we are engaged in a war that almost by definition cannot ever end, and we only have his word (no legal agreement) that he will not use these powers in non-emergency (or even non-terrorism related) reasons.
Slashdot Mirror
In a nutshell, stacking hash functions makes it worse.
Finkployd
The FCC has already stated that they will fine any company that abuses their ability to Tier bandwidth.
And they will know about it how?
I'm not against QoS, but as a comcast customer who has vonage, I know what can happen when an isp offers a service that competes with another service that goes over their lines. I also have absolutely no faith in the FCC when it comes to standing up to telecoms and cable companies. They only have backbone when it comes to Stern and wardrobe malfunctions.
Finkployd
So what you always wanted was a palm pilot you could not install apps onto?
Finkployd
The kind of crowd that is likely to buy the iPhone will be the kind that probably travels a lot (i.e. business and corporate users).
You mean the same crowd that needs outlook/exchange sync capability? They will most likely stick with their blackberries and (to a lesser extent) Treos.
Finkployd
Agreed, but I am not willing to pay more than the cost of one of those "everything but the kitchen sink" smart phones for a decidedly dumb phone.
And iPhone for $200 would probably sell like hotcakes (I know I would get one), but Apple is dreaming if they think they are going to go up against Treos and Blackberries (same price point) with a video iPod that has a basic phone attached. If it doesn't sync with outlook you lose corporate Amercia (a HUGE demographic for $500+ phones) and if you cannot install 3rd party apps you lose the techie geeks who make up the rest of the $500+ phone buying demographic. Who is their target here? Spoiled rich kids who think every device is improved with a video/music player attached? Chances are they already have a Verizon music phone of some sort.
Finkployd
As for Microsoft Outlook... who uses it these days anyway? I sure as hell don't.
Everyone who isn't using some webmail (gmail, hotmail, yahoo) as their primary email client.
Yeah, there are some stastically insidnificant numbers using Thunderbird (me), Eudora, and probably a decent number using OSX's Mail.app, but other than that, everyone using outlook.
Certainly 99% of corporate users
ECC is a potential replace for RSA, an asymmetric cryptographic algorithm. It still requires a hash function.
Finkployd
I've been asked to turn my laptop on a few times in airport security (oddly enough all pre 9/11, they seemed to stop this after that). Nothing suspicious about, normal IBM T series laptop. It was running linux but they didn't care, they just wanted to see that it worked. I guess the thinking was that if a laptop can boot it must not have a bomb inside it. Sony proved them wrong I suppose.
Finkployd
Authorities (and by that I mean law enforcement primarily) always likes to to throw cameras on the citizens. Public places, private places, etc. Constant surveillance makes it much easier to catch criminals, no doubt. We can debate the merits of this and whether or not it is worth the trade off till the cows come home.
The camera phone however, has turned the tables a bit. Now those authorities are finding that they are being watched and recorded as well. Historically, a corrupt or abusive cop has little problem having his story believed over that of the evil criminal. Recently we have seen a near explosion of police abusing their power and assaulting people. Cops beating up a guy in Pittsburgh no long ago, the UCLA campus police tazering a mouthy student multiple times (and threating to tazer bystanders who simply asked for badge numbers), etc. Once these are up on youtube, suddenly action is taken against the police where it would ordinarily have been ignored, laughed off, or denied.
This is good for everyone, the more corrupt and abusive police kicked off the force, the better for citizens and police alike. For any authority's position to work, they need trust. Right now there is a bit of a trust problem between the police and general public and only by taking care of the problem officers will that ever change.
Finkployd
I guess we are cool giving a big "FU!" to anyone who is disabled (blind) and using a specialized browser. After all 99% of the population can see just fine. For that matter lets get rid of all those damn wheelchair ramps cluttering up the place.
Finkployd
Actually it is real simple with source code.
If you are going to take someone else's source code you must abide by their license. Nothing more, nothing less. Heck, not much to even get a lawyer over.
If you are not prepared to do that, write your own damn code.
Now if you are referring to software patents, I'm with you.
Finkployd
I think you missed the joke. "Where more people get their news than probably should" used to be one of the Daily Show's slogans. Along with "When news breaks, we fix it"
Good times. I like Stewart, but sometimes I miss Kilborn. Not as much biting political sarcasm, but certainly entertaining.
Finkployd
According to the article, some of it was uploaded to a yahoo group from an ip addressed tracked to the family's ISP.
Finkployd
It' sad to think that the prosecutor was more interested in the conviction than the truth.
All prosecutors are more interested in the conviction than the truth. Every single one.
Go back and re-read that, I'm serious.
Prosecutors do not get re-elected for finding the truth, or upholding justice. They are solely judged on convictions. Look at this case, look at the duke rape case. Can you picture what the TV and radio ads for the opponent would have said if they decided not to prosecute those cases?
I'm not making excuses, clearly many of them are dicks (certainly the duke one), but lets also partially blame the system we put into place that values them only for number of convictions.
Additionally, every single defense attorney is more interested in defending their client than the truth. Sure you might find one who refuses a particularly horrible case, but they will not make a career out of following their conscience or they will starve.
How about a home inspector who actually finds real problems with houses? Do that too much and you lose the referrals from real estate agents, which is where most of them get business.
A relevant one in Pennsylvania is road construction. Imagine if the road crews actually fixed roads? Thousands of people who stand around eating every summer on the side of the road would be out of a job.
Or consider the police. Pretend everyone in a town agreed to follow all traffic laws (especially speed limits) for a couple of months. I'll bet a police officer or two would be fired for not writing tickets. Or would they invent traffic offenses to avoid that?
Why do we expect certain people in certain jobs to do things when it is not those things that their job performance is judged on? Or worse, expect them to do something that would remove the need for their job?
Finkployd
So, the CA oligopoly is now going to be charging extra for doing the assurance checking they should have been doing all along but now admit they were not. And once they decide they need more money I am sure they will claim that they have been screwing up their assurance checking on these new ones as well but for a little bit extra, they will do SUPER DUPER identity validation. Then we can REALLY trust the certs.
Why are we paying and trusting them again?
Finkployd
One of the three:
(1) Han was bluffing to see if he could dazzle these farmer hicks
(2) The Kessel Run involves warping space to find the "shortest" distances between two points in spacetime.
(3) Lucas doesn't know what he is talking about, wrote the nonsensical line, which I repeated here with some value added words for comic value. laugh
Finkployd
Three points:
(1) There is literally no technical difference between legal copying and illegal copying. How would a drm scheme detect that I was moving to a device I own vs one I don't. Heck, the concept of fair use is legally murky, trying to reduce it to an algorithm would be impossible. How would a drm scheme detect my "intent" which is central to fair use?
(2) Laws change.
(3) Not matter how it is spun, DRM as implemented today is a technically flawed concept. Trying to turn pki upside down by giving my a private key and encrypting data to it while simultaneously trying to keep my from accessing my private key is an exercise in futility, which is why nearly every attempt so far has failed. The key needs to be anywhere that the media is decrypted (computer, handheld devices, etc), every one of those places is a chance for someone to get at it. And don't give me "trusted device path" garbage, it all ends with two wires going into a speaker cone, and it can be retrieved that way if all else fails.
Finkployd
I was kinda looking forward to the scene where the Millennium Falcon makes the Kessel run in 12 parsecs with the left blinker on the whole time.
Finkployd
What Apple's doing with the iPhone, OTOH, is what Verizon customers are used to: the carrier tells you what you can do with your phone. You buy it, but you don't really own it. They say it's about quality assurance, and to some degree it might even be, but what it's really about is making sure you pay for extra features, instead of downloading freeware or writing your own.
I have a treo 700p on Verizon's network and I can install anything I want onto it, including apps I write on my own. So your comparison does not really hold up in the case of smart phones (which the iPhone was supposed to be). My understanding is that Verizon is this way about ringtones on "dumb" phones, but really who cares?
Finkployd
From where I sit, it looks like Nintendo are perfectly content to do lots of business without being the market leaders - but Sony seem very fixated on the "being number one" mentality.
In my experience, Nintendo's approach is one of the keys to success, Sony's is a sure way to fail.
Finkployd
That is between Microsoft and Google.
Finkployd
Whether or not there is a law is irrelevant. It's still airport and/or airline policy to require proof of identity. Policies and rules don't require law to back them up unless they are in directly conflict with existing law.
You are missing the larger picture here. Whether or not there is a law is the ONLY relevant aspect of this. Because if there is a law, and us lowly citizens are expected to follow it but are not allowed to SEE it, then something is horribly wrong.
It turns out there is a law basically saying "the TSA can set regulations for air travel and those regulations are effectively law". The problem is that the TSA keeps these regulations secret for security purposes (which is funny because so little they do actually has anything to do with security), so viola, we have secret laws. They can change them at will, we are not allowed to know, but we can be detained, arrested, etc for now following them.
How long before we start seeing other laws delegated to "agency regulations" which carry the same weight but are put into place by bureaucrats (circumventing congress) and kept secret for our own good? Would we even know if they already started this? Like pretty much all our existing legit laws they could be selectively enforced.
Finkployd
My uid is smaller than your uid! nya!
Not only do I have you beat, but your UID is the closest to mine I have seen yet (115 away)
Finkployd
pioneering work being done by educators in the e-learning 2.0 space
I was mildly interested until that. Then my "pretentious, meaningless buzzword" alarm went off.
I hope they are at least leveraging their e-synergies and fully embracing AJAX and SOAP in that 2.0 space.
Finkployd
Permanent, in the case of the PATRIOT Act, means "not set to expire". The PATRIOT Act is set to expire every few years. This means that a majority of congress is needed to extend it.
l ?tid=158&tid=103c le/2005/07/11/AR2005071101359.html
http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/03/04/09/1534234.shtm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/arti
There have been repeated attempts to make it permanent, or at least make many of the provisions of it permanent.
Yes a majority of congress is required to make that happen, but it IS their goal. The President is also taking the legally disputed position that his office has always had the ability to circumvent the FISA court and order warrant less wiretapping. Rather than try to get a new law passed (temporary or not), that position makes it something that is permanent (albeit illegal according to most experts).
Back to this case, the president is asserting that he is able to order the opening of any mail (and detain anyone, tap any phones, etc) because he is a wartime president and will only do so in emergencies. However we are engaged in a war that almost by definition cannot ever end, and we only have his word (no legal agreement) that he will not use these powers in non-emergency (or even non-terrorism related) reasons.
Finkployd
Finkployd