The idea of something that can passively detect drowsiness is intriguing, but from the articles, it seems this technology can't tell if you're sleepy without activately talking with you. So it will be a distraction when you're wide awake (99% of the time if you're a remotely compotent driver), and still be a distraction when you're drowsy until it does whatever it does to wake you up entirely. Seems like this would do more harm than good.
An "on / off" switch is appealing, but only useful if you remember to turn it on when you're drowsy, which you can't bet on.
I don't parse mangled German well, so I may be totally off base, but...
I suspect the "10 year" figure is the estimate for going through all possible keys. This brute force method is an old standby for
code-cracking because it works for almost everything, but many encryption algorithms allow more efficient attacks.
128 bits is a pretty large key to attack with brute force, but depending on algorithm they used (and the attacks it is vulnerable to) it may not be enough to stop serious efforts.
It's okay if the site in question just bitches about a company, but not if they make money?
In a way, you're right. Under fair use you can often violate IP for critical purposes but generally not for profit. The fair use doctrine does not apply to trademarks (only to copyrights) but are you surprised many of us like the fair use doctrine?
Plus, the fuckgeneralmotors.com domain is being fought by Ford, not General Motors, so that is sort of a different issue.
Aimster is sort of an add-on to the AIM client. What does the "Aim" in "Aimster" refer to? Isn't "Aimster" directly dirived from "AIM"? It's clear to me that they were infringing the trademark.
Somebody has a very generous notion of "evidence". Brief statements aren't evidence; we aren't even signing the statements or verifying our identity. This sort of collection is not evidence; it doesn't prove that P2P has been used for good.
At best it will be a collection of ideas on how P2P could be used, which is nice, but isn't the idea to get something more concrete than that?
...the amazing thing is that if this feature weren't included, somebody would sue when their eight-year-old is exposed to synthetically-spoken profanity.
Hardly useless. The hordes of consumers won't use that device because they don't know it exists, or they can't find a way to get it, or they're afraid of the legions of lawyers.
I'm not necessarily in favor of cloning, just in favor of logical arguments...
The technology, for one, isn't perfected yet....
But eventually it probably will be. If research continues, it will eventually be possible to create clones with about the same "failure" rate as with conventional embryo implants or maybe even natural pregnancy.
This is slavery and THIS is against the law in the U.S. and immoral no matter how you look at it. Sadly, this would be the primary reason for cloning human beings... NOT for medical reasons.
How do you support your statement that this would be the primary reason? It seems the only people qualified to say why they want clones are the people who want clones. You do not seem to be one of those people.
Thirdly, the world already has a serious population problem....
The same argument would apply to "natural" reproduction. If the argument is sufficient to justify banning cloning, is it sufficient to ban natural reproduction for "undesirables"? Should we not allow people to breed if they will tend to pass on genetic weaknesses? Or, to more directly address the problem of food shortages, maybe we shouldn't allow people to breed if they have a genetic predisposition to obesity.
Finally, everytime a baby is born it inherits certain characteristics from it's mother and father and essentially evolves. Cloning/bin/halt's evolution.
Three counterpoints, because I study evolution a bit:
First, evolution occurs over many generations partly due to mixing of genes (as you said) and partly due to mutation. Mutation is still possible for clones.
Second, clones are not perfect genetic copies, just very nearly. Some genetic material is found outside a cell nucleus; this material is not copied from the person cloned. Therefore, some recombination of genetic material will still happen.
Third, to varying degrees, humans have already botched evolution. We can evolve only if "survival of the fittest" still applies, meaning that the fittest are more likely to produce viable offspring than the unfit. But at least in the United States, virtually everybody has children. Unless a defect is extremely serious or directly hinders reproduction, the genes contributing to the defect will probably be passed on to children who will in turn have children. The subtle differences in probabilities that drive evolution in nature just aren't fashionable anymore.
I may be smoking crack. I haven't found the text of any proposed law, only vague news stories. "Import" may not mean what I think it does.
My mom is not a Karma whore!
Re:Violation of human rights of cloned individuals
on
Send out the Clones?
·
· Score: 3
I agree that barring "importing" is a bad mistake, but you've mistated the problem. Cloned people won't be people at all under this law. Makes me wonder whether it will be a crime to murder a clone, or steal their wallets.
Judge Kaplan, who "banned" DeCSS as a circumvention device, said that source code is not entitled to First Amendment protection because it is "functional". An academic paper is not functional, it is purely expressive. An academic paper is protected expression. Even the most crack-brained judges don't question this.
The RIAA might be able to successfully sue the researchers for circumventing the protection at all (since they didn't exactly enter the contest) but the paper itself is still legal. Even Kaplan (collective boo's, hisses) would give the paper protection.
Yes, software can be necessary to perform your job. Sometimes the choice is between evil software and going out of business. So make the choice. Welcome to capitalism, sometimes it sucks.
You haven't presented an argument as to why that means that Microsoft should be forced to give certain terms on licenses.
The fact that you really want the software, and even that your livlihood depends on it, does not automatically give the (U.S.) government the justification or the authority to force certain terms on software companies.
I think the problem is with anti-trust / monopoly laws and fights in general. It just takes too long to get results, and the solution is not retroactive. The problem may be extra bad with rental software, but not unique to it.
Maybe some form of reparations should be made when a monopoly gets broken up, to compensate the customers who were getting shafted for the time between determining that a monopoly existed and the time the solution is implemented. It would be a big change from the way anti-monopoly law works now, but it might be a good update to deal with modern business.
If you (or your company) are comfortable with the risks of renting software, then rent software. If you're not, don't.
Nobody is going to force you to rent software. If you want to pay the (arguably) extra money, then go buy some non-terminating software. Even if every piece of software in existence is rental-based, nobody will force you to use it.
Just don't accept a license you don't want to agree to.
Just like most free services, the agreement you "sign" for a hotmail account is subject to change without notice. Basically, you agree to whatever Microsoft wants, and they agree to nothing.
If they change to something perfectly nice and friendly, all it means is that they will be good for at least as long as it takes to change the policy again.
Even if the new agreement is only binding if you continue to use the service (I forget how Hotmail phrases their "subject to change" clause), it would just be another case of waiting for customers to become dependent on the service then changing the terms. Some could reject the new terms to stopping service, others couldn't afford to.
"Dropping the 'OpenIL' name seems like the easiest way out."
Easy, yes. But you'd be doing the rest of the world a favor if you hold out as long as you can. Every time somebody folds under this kind of pressure, it encourages the big corporations to use the same tactics again.
If nothing else, publicize the conflict as much as possible. Grab some free web space and post copies of the e-mails and such. Submit stories to Slashdot to warn others... oh, wait...
Well, fight the good fight, but try not to get sued into oblivion.
Convert to UNICODE before transmitting? That's their big solution? I'm not sure whether to be pissed at for Walid the painfully obvious patent, or the IETF for taking so long to figure it out.
When will these people see that people are not going to pay for hardware which prevents them from exercising their legal right to fair use of copyrighted material. The arrogance of these companies is breath-taking, that they think they can make me pay for something which hurts my interests.
You mean like encrypted, region coded DVDs, PlayStations that won't play copies of game CDs, and nontrasferable software that has to be registered to function?
Funding does not "come from the federal government". It comes from citizens' paying taxes; the government just decides how to allocate it. I will be taxed regardless of whether I donate privately (minus a modest tax deduction), so I will continue to bitch and moan when it is spent badly or misallocated. Since congress is supposed to "represent" us, we ought to let them know how we feel.
"If he does this, would the "open record requests" require him to relinquish the key?"
I would certainly hope so. The FOIA requires certain government information to be made available; letting them release the ciphertext while hiding the keys would basically make the FOIA meaningless. Personally, I *like* the FOIA.
If he thinks that personal correspondense should be excempt (as it apparently is for telephone calls) then he should take it up with congress. The use of technology to skirt the law has created such lovely things as encrypted DVDs and using IR images of a house as evidence to get a warrant to search the house.
It's been a while since I've read the Constitution. Not exactly my idea of entertainment. But on closer inspection, it seems that the 4th Amendment has indeed been pretty thoroughly shit upon.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Probable cause? That is still usually intact, in that the court says there is probable cause. Unfortunately, the definition of "probable cause" has been expanded to being black in a rich neighborhood or peaceably assembling to protest.
Supported by oath or affirmation? Or anonymous tip, or evidence gathered (voluntarily, w/o a warrant) from some outside source.
Particularly describing? That one is pretty much gone now. If you're suspected of a computer crime, they'll take anything with a circuit board in it and any literature (journals, textbooks, etc.) vaguely related to computers.
My faith in the American judicial system as a counterbalance to overenthusiastic, vote-scrounging lawmakers has just dropped another notch.
Slashdot Mirror
The idea of something that can passively detect drowsiness is intriguing, but from the articles, it seems this technology can't tell if you're sleepy without activately talking with you. So it will be a distraction when you're wide awake (99% of the time if you're a remotely compotent driver), and still be a distraction when you're drowsy until it does whatever it does to wake you up entirely. Seems like this would do more harm than good.
An "on / off" switch is appealing, but only useful if you remember to turn it on when you're drowsy, which you can't bet on.
My mom is not a Karma whore!
I suspect the "10 year" figure is the estimate for going through all possible keys. This brute force method is an old standby for code-cracking because it works for almost everything, but many encryption algorithms allow more efficient attacks.
128 bits is a pretty large key to attack with brute force, but depending on algorithm they used (and the attacks it is vulnerable to) it may not be enough to stop serious efforts.
My mom is not a Karma whore!
In a way, you're right. Under fair use you can often violate IP for critical purposes but generally not for profit. The fair use doctrine does not apply to trademarks (only to copyrights) but are you surprised many of us like the fair use doctrine?
Plus, the fuckgeneralmotors.com domain is being fought by Ford, not General Motors, so that is sort of a different issue.
My mom is not a Karma whore!
Aimster is sort of an add-on to the AIM client. What does the "Aim" in "Aimster" refer to? Isn't "Aimster" directly dirived from "AIM"? It's clear to me that they were infringing the trademark.
My mom is not a Karma whore!
At best it will be a collection of ideas on how P2P could be used, which is nice, but isn't the idea to get something more concrete than that?
My mom is not a Karma whore!
...the amazing thing is that if this feature weren't included, somebody would sue when their eight-year-old is exposed to synthetically-spoken profanity.
My mom is not a Karma whore!
Hardly useless. The hordes of consumers won't use that device because they don't know it exists, or they can't find a way to get it, or they're afraid of the legions of lawyers.
My mom is not a Karma whore!
I'm not necessarily in favor of cloning, just in favor of logical arguments...
But eventually it probably will be. If research continues, it will eventually be possible to create clones with about the same "failure" rate as with conventional embryo implants or maybe even natural pregnancy.
How do you support your statement that this would be the primary reason? It seems the only people qualified to say why they want clones are the people who want clones. You do not seem to be one of those people.
The same argument would apply to "natural" reproduction. If the argument is sufficient to justify banning cloning, is it sufficient to ban natural reproduction for "undesirables"? Should we not allow people to breed if they will tend to pass on genetic weaknesses? Or, to more directly address the problem of food shortages, maybe we shouldn't allow people to breed if they have a genetic predisposition to obesity.
Three counterpoints, because I study evolution a bit:
My mom is not a Karma whore!
I may be smoking crack. I haven't found the text of any proposed law, only vague news stories. "Import" may not mean what I think it does.
My mom is not a Karma whore!
I agree that barring "importing" is a bad mistake, but you've mistated the problem. Cloned people won't be people at all under this law. Makes me wonder whether it will be a crime to murder a clone, or steal their wallets.
My mom is not a Karma whore!
The RIAA might be able to successfully sue the researchers for circumventing the protection at all (since they didn't exactly enter the contest) but the paper itself is still legal. Even Kaplan (collective boo's, hisses) would give the paper protection.
My mom is not a Karma whore!
They did, but it would be hypocritical for them to enforce the patent. So OSDN will be doing it instead.
My mom is not a Karma whore!
So we can use a Sun system to power our electronic doodads? I think that violates a few laws of thermodynamics, but other than that it sounds great.
My mom is not a Karma whore!
What is this "sun" thing of which you speak?
My mom is not a Karma whore!
You haven't presented an argument as to why that means that Microsoft should be forced to give certain terms on licenses.
The fact that you really want the software, and even that your livlihood depends on it, does not automatically give the (U.S.) government the justification or the authority to force certain terms on software companies.
My mom is not a Karma whore!
Maybe some form of reparations should be made when a monopoly gets broken up, to compensate the customers who were getting shafted for the time between determining that a monopoly existed and the time the solution is implemented. It would be a big change from the way anti-monopoly law works now, but it might be a good update to deal with modern business.
My mom is not a Karma whore!
If you (or your company) are comfortable with the risks of renting software, then rent software. If you're not, don't.
Nobody is going to force you to rent software. If you want to pay the (arguably) extra money, then go buy some non-terminating software. Even if every piece of software in existence is rental-based, nobody will force you to use it.
Just don't accept a license you don't want to agree to.
My mom is not a Karma whore!
If they change to something perfectly nice and friendly, all it means is that they will be good for at least as long as it takes to change the policy again.
Even if the new agreement is only binding if you continue to use the service (I forget how Hotmail phrases their "subject to change" clause), it would just be another case of waiting for customers to become dependent on the service then changing the terms. Some could reject the new terms to stopping service, others couldn't afford to.
My mom is not a Karma whore!
Easy, yes. But you'd be doing the rest of the world a favor if you hold out as long as you can. Every time somebody folds under this kind of pressure, it encourages the big corporations to use the same tactics again.
If nothing else, publicize the conflict as much as possible. Grab some free web space and post copies of the e-mails and such. Submit stories to Slashdot to warn others... oh, wait...
Well, fight the good fight, but try not to get sued into oblivion.
My mom is not a Karma whore!
Convert to UNICODE before transmitting? That's their big solution? I'm not sure whether to be pissed at for Walid the painfully obvious patent, or the IETF for taking so long to figure it out.
My mom is not a Karma whore!
You mean like encrypted, region coded DVDs, PlayStations that won't play copies of game CDs, and nontrasferable software that has to be registered to function?
My mom is not a Karma whore!
Funding does not "come from the federal government". It comes from citizens' paying taxes; the government just decides how to allocate it. I will be taxed regardless of whether I donate privately (minus a modest tax deduction), so I will continue to bitch and moan when it is spent badly or misallocated. Since congress is supposed to "represent" us, we ought to let them know how we feel.
My mom is not a Karma whore!
That would be a lot more persuasive if we could also decline a portion of the tax.
My mom is not a Karma whore!
I would certainly hope so. The FOIA requires certain government information to be made available; letting them release the ciphertext while hiding the keys would basically make the FOIA meaningless. Personally, I *like* the FOIA.
If he thinks that personal correspondense should be excempt (as it apparently is for telephone calls) then he should take it up with congress. The use of technology to skirt the law has created such lovely things as encrypted DVDs and using IR images of a house as evidence to get a warrant to search the house.
My mom is not a Karma whore!
Probable cause? That is still usually intact, in that the court says there is probable cause. Unfortunately, the definition of "probable cause" has been expanded to being black in a rich neighborhood or peaceably assembling to protest.
Supported by oath or affirmation? Or anonymous tip, or evidence gathered (voluntarily, w/o a warrant) from some outside source.
Particularly describing? That one is pretty much gone now. If you're suspected of a computer crime, they'll take anything with a circuit board in it and any literature (journals, textbooks, etc.) vaguely related to computers.
My faith in the American judicial system as a counterbalance to overenthusiastic, vote-scrounging lawmakers has just dropped another notch.
My mom is not a Karma whore!