There is a definite killer Internet app, and as broadband deployment rises, it becomes more and more popular: P2P filesharing. Sure, in most cases it is illegal, but that hasn't stopped anyone. My two sisters, who do nothing else but wordprocess and 'surf', do a lot of P2P sharing. So do all of their friends. So do all of my freinds. In fact, myself, who I consider fairly computer literate (runs linux, does some programming, hacks random things together), do very little P2P sharing.
Hell, half of the people I know doing P2P sharing just use it for downloading over their phoneline. They just can't wait till broadband is deployed in their area. Don't worry, its becoming a reality, I feel, even though deployment rates have slowed down lately. I feel that in a few years, prices will have to drop, as there is a lot of untapped demand out there, that is waiting for a commonplace broadband solution in the ~$30/month price range.
You all are missing the point. The fact that the pigs....I mean law enforcement can so quickly circumvent due process REALLY REALLY bugs. Enough of all you bozos who say that confiscating their system is enough of punishment without arresting them. Innocent till proven guilty? You can't punish them until they are tried and CONVICTED.
Wake up. Smell the coffee. Bad things are happening to our liberty. They aren't even arresting these people, they are just stealing their computers. Ongoing investigation? My ass--even if they never prosecute, those system will not be returned of years, they will just sit in a warehouse somewhere, or be sold on the auction block. This IS theft. Sure, it maybe technically legal, but what is legal, and what is right, are often different. These kids did something wrong. They should have their service cut off (idiotic ISP would have shut off their service in Feburary if they really gave a damn about their customers(no, not for the defendant's sake, but for the other customers sake, "Oh yeah, we wanted to stop them from using excessive bandwith, so we let it go on for 5 more months, impedeing your service, so we could have the FBI confiscate their systems and then NOT EVEN PROSECUTE THEM")). They should have fines levied against them. Maybe even community service, couple weeks of jail time. But confiscation of property before trial, without due process, with little to no hope of it ever being returned? This is a dark, dark road we begin to trot down.
I want to see the Prez. Bush 24/7 head cam---or maybe the Osama 24/7 head cam.
Now that would be good tv.
Re:While I will not address the eco-notions. . .
on
Cradle to Cradle
·
· Score: 1
Man is different, because EVOLUTIONARY processes determined that man with self-awareness is more effective. Man is able to comprehend complex processes more effectively than animals, and thus, is able to 'see' the future more effectively as well. This is the only difference, but the consequences of it are expansive.
Re:While I will not address the eco-notions. . .
on
Cradle to Cradle
·
· Score: 1
you are missing the point. I am saying that nature is not designed with an intelligent, self-sufficent plan. Rather, evolution tends to mark those things which are able to use plentiful resources as succesful. Any given waste product of a successful species is plentiful. Thus, things which consume waste, often become succesful. If externalities are internalized in a capitalistic, laissez-faire system, a capitalist system will function in the same way.
If you believe in the intelligent designer, well, you have other problems.
While I will not address the eco-notions. . .
on
Cradle to Cradle
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
This is not how nature works. Nature is not a harmonious system where all waste is designed as "food". There is no intelligent design in nature. Rather, evolution uses fundamentally random changes, with negative modifications being discarded, and positive modifications being kept, through survival of the succesful. Efficency is important. Not minimal environmetal impact.
Environmetal impact only matters if it threatens the survival of the species. Thus, locusts can not do their thing unchecked. This is the same with most other species. There are checks and balances against everything. Except us, but if we can determine most environmental externalties and associate them with economic production costs, our economic system will 'weed' out net (environmental/economical) producers.
The Problem, of course, is correctly analyzing externalities. This is what needs more work, and even with more work, will probably prove impossible in some cases.
And what is wrong with that? Would you rather I didn't give you any money at all? I give you permission to use MY code, FOR ANYTHING, as long as you redistribute MY code + whatever modifcations you want to make as source code. If you don't want to use MY code, don't. If you are afraid of using MY code, because you think you can't make money with an opensource business model, come up with a better business model. Me thinks I, and many others, are tired of specific corporations leaching from works in the public domain, and not returning to the communitry. Think sustainable foresting versus clear-cutting.
I like it when people say, "I'll give you a $100, as long as you spend it on certain things only". Unequivocaly, I am better off.
Re:Segway is irrelevant to American cities
on
This is IT?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
My whole problem with the international market---they generally don't accept prices as high as we do. And we probably wouldn't accept the price.
Personally, I would get a bike. A good deal cheaper, less maintenance required, easy to lug up stairs. Probably in less danger of getting stolen outside.
If IT is truly targeted at those who live inside cities, then IT is competing with either the bike (which is a lot cheaper), or just plain walking (which is a hell of a lot cheaper), not the car.
If it got down alot cheaper, that would help. If it was made lighter (you know those batteries are going to be heavy), that would also help. I just can't see anyone getting one, except for the coolness factor.
Re:Not to sound like an asshole, but...
on
Message from Kabul
·
· Score: 1
You have my vote:)
Mod this parent up as insightful
No need for the tech to be 15 years old. The taliban only took over outright in 1994.
Not that I believe Katz, I'm highly skeptical of the communication infrastructure in Afganistan-- I thought that the majority of the phone system had been damaged in the past month.
It seems that their entire product line consists of other products with an FT attached to them.
Like FTKDE, and FTMandrake, and FTRedhat, and FTOSX, which I don't really understand, since they are bundling a 68k mac emulator with it, nothing which is capable of powerpc apps.
Really weird, they apparently are just a bunch of crack pots who figured they could sell some marketing buzz to businesses: "How would you like to use this new, hot linux thing? Our version is everything everyone else's is, but it looks cooler?"
I'm just going to stop upgrading, disconnect myself from the 'net, sit at home with my pile of cds/and grandfathered PCs, and when they all fail, I'll become a serious luddite.
I'm tired of the government interfering where it doesn't belong. Too tired to fight. Too tired to do anything about it-
Some problems I forsee. Well, really, one major problem.
Assuming, that we, encompasses the entire slashdot community (which it doesn't), plus the entire linux community, and a fair number of communication studies people, librarians, and most other digital libertarians, I would say thay we has about as much political force as an. . .
Ant.
Seriously, the DMCA passed with flying colors, and parts of it have been upheld (at least with complete technical neophytes like Judge Kaplan). And whose to say that the Supreme Court would be any better? Its not the democrats fault, its not the republicans...Its both.
And it really sucks.
Even #4 is unlikely to occur. Content controls will not hurt business at large (thought they will hurt small and upcoming businesses). The economy will easily maintain its current levels for a long time. This would not be the beginning of a collapse; It is the next step in a long line of steps toward stasis.
I have a problem with the congressman presenting the bill, because it is idiotic. Anyone who believes in controls like these does not understand them, and should have absolutely no right to legislate over them.
I know kindergardeners who I would rather trust with legal authority over the U.S. tech sector.
I don't believe that our system will fail. Why do I say that? Because our system, as it is now, supports legislation such as this. Failure would be a failure to pass legislation such as this.
And saying this is a logical intent fallacy is a mere quibble. We can never truely know the intent of the senator in the same way we can never truely know anything. But there is plenty of evidence which suggests the sun will come up tomorrow, the speed of light will remain c, and Senator Fritz is a rotten, paid-for-and-bought-lock-stock-and-barrel congressperson.
I think that while the analogy between highways, and the information superhighway suggests itself, there are some major differences.
The existance of the internet as a world of intellectual property changes the nature of what kind of crimes can be committed. I fundamentally believe that one should be able to do anything, as long as that action does not hurt another, or damage property, or something to that effect.
Thus, speeding is something that should be prevented, as is driving without certain basic safety measures. However, police do not stop everyone at points in the highway system to check for contraband. Nor do they use any sort of electronic surveillance to search your car.
Similarly, I think that while certain type of behavior on the internet should be illegal (like DDoSing, or malicious hacks), the government should not have the right to examine everything I do on the internet in a proactive attempt to prevent me from committing a crime.
The form of the checks and limitations is critical. We know what the police do to watch you on the roads. We know what the government sets a default regulations. But systems like carnavore have their inner workings hidden from the public, since they are national security secrets.
Basically, I don't trust the government to not read everything I e-mail. Similarly, I believe what I do in my house should remain private. Without probable cause, the government should not be able to conduct surveillance over me, through any outlet, be it cameras,electronic equipment, through the internet, wiretaps, etc.... without probable cause.
I suppose that my argument is less than crystal clear, but I shall try restating it here: The security measures that congress and the majority of the public seem to be willing to implement post this terrorist disaster seem ineffectual at solving terrorism, but increase the degree of government surveillance significantly.
Yes, they should be some form of policing on the internet. No, that should not include carnavore, or encryption backdoors, or any other system which would allow (either overtly or covertly) the government to access everyone's private information on a whim.
[It is nice to have a real discussion everyonce in the while, isn't {grin}]
I don't believe that Terrorism can be solved by domestic survelliance, or any other static sieve to catch information.
Some terrorists will always slip through the cracks. We need to do something about where and why terrorists are spanned.
Funny. It seems like international action against terrorism can be done without limiting domestic civil liberties.
The U.S. was founded on domestic civil liberties. Sure, there were problems (like the genocidal slavery, like civil rights for women, etc.), and there still are major problems. But that is the direction we should continue to move in.
I have said it before, and I will say it again, if the U.S. decides to radically increase survellance, I am moving somewhere else (don't know where, but anywhere, really).
And no, I don't think BF would change his tune if anthrax was released into the local water. Water facilities should have better security, and we should be trying to figure out why the fuck anyone would want to put anthrax in our water to begin with.
The idea of temporary infringments of rights offends me. So does the idea that rights exist on a continuum, and if issues of security become more difficult, rights become less important.
No, it doesn't work that way, unless you live in a war zone.
And as much as you would like to rhetorically spin it as such, Mr. Katz, we do not live in a warzone. Wiretapping, Survelliance, etc.... will not prove effective at stopping terrorists. Why? Because all of their activities start internationally. Sure, you might get a few extra leads here or there regarding their behaviors in the United States. But that will only last through one iteration of terrorist activity. Think about it. The group of terrorists who took down these planes didn't really establish bizarre lines of communication, didn't talk to each other on cellphone about death and destruction, and didn't send Osama Bin Laden pretty little post-cards discussing 757s and 767s. Terrorists will just plan everything ahead of time, open up a checking account instead of paying cash, and talk only in person, and in safer places, like cabs, or the subway.(maybe those aren't the safest places, but I am sure there will be places in the U.S. that will not be under surveillance).
Rather, instead of domestic surveillance, or stupid immagration limitations (which I don't think will stop terrorists, either), we need to engage in proactive, specific measure to stop terrorism.
1. Air Marshalls. These will work to prevent hijackings. If terrorists don't have guns, and the Air Marshalls have their sweet rubber pellet guns, Air Marshalls win. Always.
2. Better scanning technology for airline baggage. 'Nuff Said.
3. No carry on luggage (well, that isn't very well x-rayed, anyways).
4. International Anti-Terrorist regimes. And I don't mean the current ones which exist, like the half-assed U.N. commission on Terrorism, INTERPOL, or the extenstion of various NPT-related organs. We need a multinational coalition to stop terrorism. And preferably, which should be able to get the entire world to work with us on this one. Even states like Iran and Afgahnistan. How do we do that? Look at Israel/Palestine. Excellent example. We bribe whoever we need, into being peaceful. Brillant, isn't it? Bribe Iran, bribe Afganhistan. Then make it one of the tennants of the multinational to be really, really harsh against these terrorists. Everyone wins. Underdeveloped rouge nations become interdependant upon the world trade regime, stability abounds, the fascist leaders of those nations would slowly become more prosperous and maybe even lenient. A good of example of that is Iran vs Iraq. Since the revolution in Iran, slowly, the majority of the world has started trading with Iran (except the U.S.). And, even though Iran's human right's record still blows, it is a democracy, they have a pro-reform leader, the fascist mullahs are on the declining end of the political spectrum, and the masses are becoming more prosperous. Now look at Iraq. Although we have let more money in the country than most American radicals admit ($30 billion every six months since the oil-for-food deal began, but Saddam has stolen all the money), lack of trade has prevented any sort of domestic economy from developing. People have placed more faith in fascism than ever, and Saddam, who is a rational actor, has increased in domestic political power, and has played himself off as the vicitim international.
Iran is clearly the preferable outcome. The only problem is Iran's hatred of the U.S. But surely that would decrease if we started trading with them again. After, the majority of people in Iran do not hate the U.S. How do I know? I am from Iran. It is a question of the governments response to a continually negative attitude from the U.S. As much as I am a libertarian domestically, we can buy this stability in the international arena, and I think that and universal, multinational regime against terrorism can be bought with a degree of patience from us, and a fair, multnational development system.
And, if individual countries refuse to cooperate (which I don't believe would happen, as even Afgahnistan has approached the U.S. trying to negotiate, and Iran has been trying to negotiate forever, as are most rogue states), we bomb the ever-loving sh*t out of them.
There was no way to evacute the buildings. Over 40,000 people may have been there, and power was cutoff as soon as the first two planes crashed--Elevators were disable, and the buildings collapsed within 30 minutes.
Slashdot Mirror
Hell, half of the people I know doing P2P sharing just use it for downloading over their phoneline. They just can't wait till broadband is deployed in their area. Don't worry, its becoming a reality, I feel, even though deployment rates have slowed down lately. I feel that in a few years, prices will have to drop, as there is a lot of untapped demand out there, that is waiting for a commonplace broadband solution in the ~$30/month price range.
Wake up. Smell the coffee. Bad things are happening to our liberty. They aren't even arresting these people, they are just stealing their computers. Ongoing investigation? My ass--even if they never prosecute, those system will not be returned of years, they will just sit in a warehouse somewhere, or be sold on the auction block. This IS theft. Sure, it maybe technically legal, but what is legal, and what is right, are often different. These kids did something wrong. They should have their service cut off (idiotic ISP would have shut off their service in Feburary if they really gave a damn about their customers(no, not for the defendant's sake, but for the other customers sake, "Oh yeah, we wanted to stop them from using excessive bandwith, so we let it go on for 5 more months, impedeing your service, so we could have the FBI confiscate their systems and then NOT EVEN PROSECUTE THEM")). They should have fines levied against them. Maybe even community service, couple weeks of jail time. But confiscation of property before trial, without due process, with little to no hope of it ever being returned? This is a dark, dark road we begin to trot down.
Now that would be good tv.
Man is different, because EVOLUTIONARY processes determined that man with self-awareness is more effective. Man is able to comprehend complex processes more effectively than animals, and thus, is able to 'see' the future more effectively as well. This is the only difference, but the consequences of it are expansive.
If you believe in the intelligent designer, well, you have other problems.
Environmetal impact only matters if it threatens the survival of the species. Thus, locusts can not do their thing unchecked. This is the same with most other species. There are checks and balances against everything. Except us, but if we can determine most environmental externalties and associate them with economic production costs, our economic system will 'weed' out net (environmental/economical) producers.
The Problem, of course, is correctly analyzing externalities. This is what needs more work, and even with more work, will probably prove impossible in some cases.
The only question is should we GPL it? or should we put it into the public domain. . .
I like it when people say, "I'll give you a $100, as long as you spend it on certain things only". Unequivocaly, I am better off.
Personally, I would get a bike. A good deal cheaper, less maintenance required, easy to lug up stairs. Probably in less danger of getting stolen outside.
If IT is truly targeted at those who live inside cities, then IT is competing with either the bike (which is a lot cheaper), or just plain walking (which is a hell of a lot cheaper), not the car.
If it got down alot cheaper, that would help. If it was made lighter (you know those batteries are going to be heavy), that would also help. I just can't see anyone getting one, except for the coolness factor.
You have my vote:)
Mod this parent up as insightful
Not that I believe Katz, I'm highly skeptical of the communication infrastructure in Afganistan-- I thought that the majority of the phone system had been damaged in the past month.
No mention of it on LCS website, no evidence of any release in 1993 on google....
Doesn't exist.
Sure got my hopes up, though. I was looking for a cool new toy like that.
Like FTKDE, and FTMandrake, and FTRedhat, and FTOSX, which I don't really understand, since they are bundling a 68k mac emulator with it, nothing which is capable of powerpc apps.
Really weird, they apparently are just a bunch of crack pots who figured they could sell some marketing buzz to businesses: "How would you like to use this new, hot linux thing? Our version is everything everyone else's is, but it looks cooler?"
Idiotic, really
Not Jefferson....Ben Franklin, me thinks
I understand it is satire
In all honesty, it was both, because they go together.
Strongest/Smartest survive....
I've given up...
I'm just going to stop upgrading, disconnect myself from the 'net, sit at home with my pile of cds/and grandfathered PCs, and when they all fail, I'll become a serious luddite.
I'm tired of the government interfering where it doesn't belong. Too tired to fight. Too tired to do anything about it-
I hear fishing/golfing are a lot of fun.
Hmm---Whats up Ghoser
Some problems I forsee. Well, really, one major problem.
Assuming, that we, encompasses the entire slashdot community (which it doesn't), plus the entire linux community, and a fair number of communication studies people, librarians, and most other digital libertarians, I would say thay we has about as much political force as an. . .
Ant.
Seriously, the DMCA passed with flying colors, and parts of it have been upheld (at least with complete technical neophytes like Judge Kaplan). And whose to say that the Supreme Court would be any better? Its not the democrats fault, its not the republicans...Its both.
And it really sucks.
Even #4 is unlikely to occur. Content controls will not hurt business at large (thought they will hurt small and upcoming businesses). The economy will easily maintain its current levels for a long time. This would not be the beginning of a collapse; It is the next step in a long line of steps toward stasis.
I have a problem with the congressman presenting the bill, because it is idiotic. Anyone who believes in controls like these does not understand them, and should have absolutely no right to legislate over them.
I know kindergardeners who I would rather trust with legal authority over the U.S. tech sector.
I don't believe that our system will fail. Why do I say that? Because our system, as it is now, supports legislation such as this. Failure would be a failure to pass legislation such as this.
And saying this is a logical intent fallacy is a mere quibble. We can never truely know the intent of the senator in the same way we can never truely know anything. But there is plenty of evidence which suggests the sun will come up tomorrow, the speed of light will remain c, and Senator Fritz is a rotten, paid-for-and-bought-lock-stock-and-barrel congressperson.
The close carnivore system really just scares me---I want to know what makes it tick
I think that while the analogy between highways, and the information superhighway suggests itself, there are some major differences.
The existance of the internet as a world of intellectual property changes the nature of what kind of crimes can be committed. I fundamentally believe that one should be able to do anything, as long as that action does not hurt another, or damage property, or something to that effect.
Thus, speeding is something that should be prevented, as is driving without certain basic safety measures. However, police do not stop everyone at points in the highway system to check for contraband. Nor do they use any sort of electronic surveillance to search your car.
Similarly, I think that while certain type of behavior on the internet should be illegal (like DDoSing, or malicious hacks), the government should not have the right to examine everything I do on the internet in a proactive attempt to prevent me from committing a crime.
The form of the checks and limitations is critical. We know what the police do to watch you on the roads. We know what the government sets a default regulations. But systems like carnavore have their inner workings hidden from the public, since they are national security secrets.
Basically, I don't trust the government to not read everything I e-mail. Similarly, I believe what I do in my house should remain private. Without probable cause, the government should not be able to conduct surveillance over me, through any outlet, be it cameras
I suppose that my argument is less than crystal clear, but I shall try restating it here: The security measures that congress and the majority of the public seem to be willing to implement post this terrorist disaster seem ineffectual at solving terrorism, but increase the degree of government surveillance significantly.
Yes, they should be some form of policing on the internet. No, that should not include carnavore, or encryption backdoors, or any other system which would allow (either overtly or covertly) the government to access everyone's private information on a whim.
[It is nice to have a real discussion everyonce in the while, isn't {grin}]
Some terrorists will always slip through the cracks. We need to do something about where and why terrorists are spanned.
Funny. It seems like international action against terrorism can be done without limiting domestic civil liberties.
The U.S. was founded on domestic civil liberties. Sure, there were problems (like the genocidal slavery, like civil rights for women, etc.), and there still are major problems. But that is the direction we should continue to move in.
I have said it before, and I will say it again, if the U.S. decides to radically increase survellance, I am moving somewhere else (don't know where, but anywhere, really).
And no, I don't think BF would change his tune if anthrax was released into the local water. Water facilities should have better security, and we should be trying to figure out why the fuck anyone would want to put anthrax in our water to begin with.
No, it doesn't work that way, unless you live in a war zone.
And as much as you would like to rhetorically spin it as such, Mr. Katz, we do not live in a warzone. Wiretapping, Survelliance, etc.... will not prove effective at stopping terrorists. Why? Because all of their activities start internationally. Sure, you might get a few extra leads here or there regarding their behaviors in the United States. But that will only last through one iteration of terrorist activity. Think about it. The group of terrorists who took down these planes didn't really establish bizarre lines of communication, didn't talk to each other on cellphone about death and destruction, and didn't send Osama Bin Laden pretty little post-cards discussing 757s and 767s. Terrorists will just plan everything ahead of time, open up a checking account instead of paying cash, and talk only in person, and in safer places, like cabs, or the subway.(maybe those aren't the safest places, but I am sure there will be places in the U.S. that will not be under surveillance).
Rather, instead of domestic surveillance, or stupid immagration limitations (which I don't think will stop terrorists, either), we need to engage in proactive, specific measure to stop terrorism.
1. Air Marshalls. These will work to prevent hijackings. If terrorists don't have guns, and the Air Marshalls have their sweet rubber pellet guns, Air Marshalls win. Always.
2. Better scanning technology for airline baggage. 'Nuff Said.
3. No carry on luggage (well, that isn't very well x-rayed, anyways).
4. International Anti-Terrorist regimes. And I don't mean the current ones which exist, like the half-assed U.N. commission on Terrorism, INTERPOL, or the extenstion of various NPT-related organs. We need a multinational coalition to stop terrorism. And preferably, which should be able to get the entire world to work with us on this one. Even states like Iran and Afgahnistan. How do we do that? Look at Israel/Palestine. Excellent example. We bribe whoever we need, into being peaceful. Brillant, isn't it? Bribe Iran, bribe Afganhistan. Then make it one of the tennants of the multinational to be really, really harsh against these terrorists. Everyone wins. Underdeveloped rouge nations become interdependant upon the world trade regime, stability abounds, the fascist leaders of those nations would slowly become more prosperous and maybe even lenient. A good of example of that is Iran vs Iraq. Since the revolution in Iran, slowly, the majority of the world has started trading with Iran (except the U.S.). And, even though Iran's human right's record still blows, it is a democracy, they have a pro-reform leader, the fascist mullahs are on the declining end of the political spectrum, and the masses are becoming more prosperous. Now look at Iraq. Although we have let more money in the country than most American radicals admit ($30 billion every six months since the oil-for-food deal began, but Saddam has stolen all the money), lack of trade has prevented any sort of domestic economy from developing. People have placed more faith in fascism than ever, and Saddam, who is a rational actor, has increased in domestic political power, and has played himself off as the vicitim international.
Iran is clearly the preferable outcome. The only problem is Iran's hatred of the U.S. But surely that would decrease if we started trading with them again. After, the majority of people in Iran do not hate the U.S. How do I know? I am from Iran. It is a question of the governments response to a continually negative attitude from the U.S. As much as I am a libertarian domestically, we can buy this stability in the international arena, and I think that and universal, multinational regime against terrorism can be bought with a degree of patience from us, and a fair, multnational development system.
And, if individual countries refuse to cooperate (which I don't believe would happen, as even Afgahnistan has approached the U.S. trying to negotiate, and Iran has been trying to negotiate forever, as are most rogue states), we bomb the ever-loving sh*t out of them.
Pretty much any experiment to do with wide-scale tests of ebola is far too dangerous, even if it is not straight up stupid like the one I mentioned.
Tests of ebola spreading in a greenhouse among specices of monkeys. Far too dangerous.
There are also a lot of tests involving atomic weaponry, and chemical weaponry which are too dangerous to conduct.
There was no chance of evacuation.
I hope we fry whoever did this.
I hope it isn't, but if this does have something to do with the PLO, I hope Israel runs them into the ground.
Generally, I have been a supporter of the PLO, and a denouncer of Israel, but if this is associated with the PLO, fuck them.
I sure hope it isn't, I guess only time will tell.
This is really depressing.