Maybe one reason for such a poor correlation between alleged copyright infringement and malware rates is that most who engage in and enable copyright infringement actually do have higher ethics than some companies which deliberately add creepy spyware and malware-like features to their applications in the name of controlling what user's do. Indeed, I wonder if some even explicitly choose copyright infringement sources simply to get spy and malware disabled versions of certain applications.
"Carrier Grade NAT" is a brilliant way to gain control over net neutrality and "consumers" who "publish" services even on asymetrical DSL, such as VoIP, and hence by "enabling" a crisis that requires a carrier "managed" Internet solution that effectively can make these services impossible for people to use or external providers to offer in the future. Ultimately, the carriers I think would love walled gardens, little AOL's if you will, all their own, with tollbridges everywhere, including for companies that wish to offer hosted services to users, whether by bandwidth throttling that has run into regulatory problems, or by access control offered through carrier NAT instituted as a "solution" to a problem they deliberately refuse to resolve by other means.
Dystopias usually are meant to illustrate what can go wrong and where it could potentially lead taken to it's logical extreme. However, that is not always the case. For example, unfortunately, western governments seem to have decided that "1984" was not a dystopic warning, but rather a blueprint to implement!
The private sector was clearly interested only in hoping "data islands" from which "publishing" could be strictly controlled (and billed) along with limited interconnection through proprietary network protocols, and not in creating some kind of generic interconnection as such where network services and data could be offered by any participating peer. If we did not have the government funded Internet at the start, we would still be today essentially experiencing some decadent of or something like Compuserve or AoL, that is a metered data service delivered from an isolated digital island, and perhaps even things like broadband may never have become widely available outside of businesses looking to connect ipx over x.25 networks:).
I recall an annoying plugin for pidgen that advertises what music people are playing/listening to. Heck, there are far older examples of such things for irc, and over 5 years ago we had an annoying plugin for Bayonne that would announce incoming calls and other noteworthy events over im. Nice to see IBM has finally "caught up";).
A friend of mine used the new 311 line promoted by NYC's new Boss Tweed, Mayor Bloomberg, to complain about Q-Line service, and was arrested last Friday by 4 MTA police officers and held in city jail overnight until his arraignment on Saturday. So at this point nothing surprises me about what the MTA might try to do.
You misunderstand. It is not that they want to block their articles and summaries from being carried and indexed, hence darwining themselves out of business, such as the Belgium publishers who refuse to use robots.txt to block Google demonstrate. Ultimately they both actually want their stuff to be indexed and carried, even if becomes necessary to find ways to force others to carry their links and summarizes, while at the same time they want to force those they hope they can force to carry their stuff to also pay them for the conveyance. That is what they are really after.
I had experimented with pairing a PC bluetooth with a cell phone. Mostly though I was experimenting with establishing a ZRTP-like session over bluetooth audio to do secure end-to-end media over the cellular network, rather than the application proposed here.
And that sounds much like parts of corporate America and the "rank" system, where those best able to manipulate their managers and stab their co-workers in the back successfully are best enabled for advancement, leading to pure sociopaths at the top tier. Corporations like Microsoft in particular use the rank system...
"Some say that power comes with responsibility, but this is not correct. Freedom is responsibility, and if one fails to be responsible for their own freedom then those who claim 'power' will become responsible for your freedom, and both will be taken from you." - me
So basically because you fear the ability of law enforcement to abuse their powers in ways that may harm you personally, you are afraid to host this document that I have to presume relates to revealing some potentially illegal police activities? The press refuses to carry this story? And people say they live in a free society, when they are free only to be afraid of the power of government??
Let me say this. If I had such documents, well, speaking from their presumed perspective and content, I would choose to host them. I would do so proudly. And I would share them with others to host as well, openly, without question. I would make sure they were also mirrored of course on something outside the U.S. as I do have resources for that. But I would happily apply my own resources to host them also.
Fascism happens when the efficiency and fear of the state becomes more important than the freedom and rights of the people.
As they also claim Microsoft Windows is Posix compliant! It is simply to be able to tic a "mandated" requirement in some government procurement, not as something one would actually use or deploy.
Basically it is potentially a government sanctioned blackmail scenario. A kind of quid-pro-quo, "you support our legislation and we will not release what we know about you"...please explain how it is not illegal?
This is a point that is very clear and not missed. The goal is not to put all the Chinese dissidents together on the same sipwitch server so they can all be easily found:). In fact, the goal is for sipwitch itself to eventually exchange sip users (callable uri's) peer-to-peer in a gnutella-like fashion, so that one can locate the person you want to call by querying a large public network cloud where ALL secure users can participate and are mixed together whoever they are or whatever they are doing, and NOT collected together through common servers or service providers.
One does not need to rely on proprietary or otherwise closed source solutions and protocols which may have or can in the future carry backdoors to achieve communication privacy. For the past three years, one could simply apt-get install twinkle with ZRTP support from any Debian repository, which has an open and proven model for peer-to-peer media security and a reference implementation of the ZRTP stack that is part of the GNU Project. More recently, there is SIP Communicator, purely Java based and truly multi-platform, which uses the newer ZRTP4J stack. Existing non-B2BUA based SIP servers like opensips or GNU sipwitch can be used to organize and coordinate scalable secure calling networks. All the tools are there to do verifiable communication privacy in freedom today.
Like many people, you seem to assume incorrectly that copyright law, as defined historically, can be used to artificially control what people do with something they have received and use in their own privacy in the first place. You actually do not have to do anything outside of existing copyright law as it is historically understood and intended to accomplish what you desire. This is why the GNU General Public License, as a copyright license, has to explicitly offer the right to sub-license (distribute) original or derivative works.
Now some evil companies try to attach additional restrictions using common contract law to claim additional rights they do not actually have under copyright to deprive people of their existing and even constitutional rights (and what can in many situations be considered contracts of adhesion), and the results of these bastardizations are what is often called things like eula's.
Javascript is usually restricted to client-side stuff, so this simply suggests that there is a LOT of new web 2.0/ajax type stuff being written; this seems possible.
Perl is widely used as a system scripting language, and for various kinds of applications, as well as for creating web sites, and I think the perl numbers reflect this more general use over php. This seems highly probable.
I would not be entirely surprised to see someone claim Ruby usage is still rather low, but I gather python was not even mentioned. That is rather surprising.
With all the lists they now use, who knows. I am reminded of the Nixon "enemies list", and can see clearly how it can apply and be so readily abused in this situation. Last time I re-entered the country I learned I was on a list! Fortunately I was only on the list for what amounted to "search and question", for about an hour, rather than, thankfully, "taser and send to Guantanamo..."
First, there is this statement that Richard Stallmen is "not interested" in freedom for users of remote web services. The truth is much simpler. For a long time, there was valid concern that the ability to effectively utilize existing law to sustain such a license was perhaps weaker than the use of copyleft in more direct and traditional linking and code reuse scenarios. However, this did not stop the FSF (and Richard) from producing and endorsing the GNU Affero General Public License, which does try to address this very issue:
The broader question of the FSF this addresses is the use of direct action. Sometimes direct action campaigns can be ugly to some. I happen to personally believe strongly in direct action activism. Often direct action campaigns are NECESSARY because conditions offer no other alternative, whether we speak about what used to be political freedom in this "thing" called America, or we speak about traditional technical and social freedoms, all of which are under fundamental assault.
Is this particular campaign a form of direct activism? If so, is it an effective one? These to me are the more important questions to consider.
Slashdot Mirror
That is because most Libertarians association freedom with greed rather than freedom with responsibility.
One Server Per Human?
Hmm...amusingly Google was down while trying to do some research for this post!
Maybe one reason for such a poor correlation between alleged copyright infringement and malware rates is that most who engage in and enable copyright infringement actually do have higher ethics than some companies which deliberately add creepy spyware and malware-like features to their applications in the name of controlling what user's do. Indeed, I wonder if some even explicitly choose copyright infringement sources simply to get spy and malware disabled versions of certain applications.
"Carrier Grade NAT" is a brilliant way to gain control over net neutrality and "consumers" who "publish" services even on asymetrical DSL, such as VoIP, and hence by "enabling" a crisis that requires a carrier "managed" Internet solution that effectively can make these services impossible for people to use or external providers to offer in the future. Ultimately, the carriers I think would love walled gardens, little AOL's if you will, all their own, with tollbridges everywhere, including for companies that wish to offer hosted services to users, whether by bandwidth throttling that has run into regulatory problems, or by access control offered through carrier NAT instituted as a "solution" to a problem they deliberately refuse to resolve by other means.
What next for Mr. Thompson, sue Slashdot? Maybe I shouldn't feed potential ideas for that Troll though ;).
Dystopias usually are meant to illustrate what can go wrong and where it could potentially lead taken to it's logical extreme. However, that is not always the case. For example, unfortunately, western governments seem to have decided that "1984" was not a dystopic warning, but rather a blueprint to implement!
The private sector was clearly interested only in hoping "data islands" from which "publishing" could be strictly controlled (and billed) along with limited interconnection through proprietary network protocols, and not in creating some kind of generic interconnection as such where network services and data could be offered by any participating peer. If we did not have the government funded Internet at the start, we would still be today essentially experiencing some decadent of or something like Compuserve or AoL, that is a metered data service delivered from an isolated digital island, and perhaps even things like broadband may never have become widely available outside of businesses looking to connect ipx over x.25 networks :).
I recall an annoying plugin for pidgen that advertises what music people are playing/listening to. Heck, there are far older examples of such things for irc, and over 5 years ago we had an annoying plugin for Bayonne that would announce incoming calls and other noteworthy events over im. Nice to see IBM has finally "caught up" ;).
A friend of mine used the new 311 line promoted by NYC's new Boss Tweed, Mayor Bloomberg, to complain about Q-Line service, and was arrested last Friday by 4 MTA police officers and held in city jail overnight until his arraignment on Saturday. So at this point nothing surprises me about what the MTA might try to do.
You misunderstand. It is not that they want to block their articles and summaries from being carried and indexed, hence darwining themselves out of business, such as the Belgium publishers who refuse to use robots.txt to block Google demonstrate. Ultimately they both actually want their stuff to be indexed and carried, even if becomes necessary to find ways to force others to carry their links and summarizes, while at the same time they want to force those they hope they can force to carry their stuff to also pay them for the conveyance. That is what they are really after.
I had experimented with pairing a PC bluetooth with a cell phone. Mostly though I was experimenting with establishing a ZRTP-like session over bluetooth audio to do secure end-to-end media over the cellular network, rather than the application proposed here.
And that sounds much like parts of corporate America and the "rank" system, where those best able to manipulate their managers and stab their co-workers in the back successfully are best enabled for advancement, leading to pure sociopaths at the top tier. Corporations like Microsoft in particular use the rank system...
Like much of America itself, America's army is "broke", and lots of people involved are unemployed...life is it's own parody.
The real trick is not flying, but rather landing, that is letting yourself fall back to the ground and successfully missing.
"Some say that power comes with responsibility, but this is not correct. Freedom is responsibility, and if one fails to be responsible for their own freedom then those who claim 'power' will become responsible for your freedom, and both will be taken from you." - me
So basically because you fear the ability of law enforcement to abuse their powers in ways that may harm you personally, you are afraid to host this document that I have to presume relates to revealing some potentially illegal police activities? The press refuses to carry this story? And people say they live in a free society, when they are free only to be afraid of the power of government??
Let me say this. If I had such documents, well, speaking from their presumed perspective and content, I would choose to host them. I would do so proudly. And I would share them with others to host as well, openly, without question. I would make sure they were also mirrored of course on something outside the U.S. as I do have resources for that. But I would happily apply my own resources to host them also.
Fascism happens when the efficiency and fear of the state becomes more important than the freedom and rights of the people.
As they also claim Microsoft Windows is Posix compliant! It is simply to be able to tic a "mandated" requirement in some government procurement, not as something one would actually use or deploy.
Any category of "cat" can certainly help with that...
Basically it is potentially a government sanctioned blackmail scenario. A kind of quid-pro-quo, "you support our legislation and we will not release what we know about you"...please explain how it is not illegal?
This is a point that is very clear and not missed. The goal is not to put all the Chinese dissidents together on the same sipwitch server so they can all be easily found :). In fact, the goal is for sipwitch itself to eventually exchange sip users (callable uri's) peer-to-peer in a gnutella-like fashion, so that one can locate the person you want to call by querying a large public network cloud where ALL secure users can participate and are mixed together whoever they are or whatever they are doing, and NOT collected together through common servers or service providers.
One does not need to rely on proprietary or otherwise closed source solutions and protocols which may have or can in the future carry backdoors to achieve communication privacy. For the past three years, one could simply apt-get install twinkle with ZRTP support from any Debian repository, which has an open and proven model for peer-to-peer media security and a reference implementation of the ZRTP stack that is part of the GNU Project. More recently, there is SIP Communicator, purely Java based and truly multi-platform, which uses the newer ZRTP4J stack. Existing non-B2BUA based SIP servers like opensips or GNU sipwitch can be used to organize and coordinate scalable secure calling networks. All the tools are there to do verifiable communication privacy in freedom today.
Like many people, you seem to assume incorrectly that copyright law, as defined historically, can be used to artificially control what people do with something they have received and use in their own privacy in the first place. You actually do not have to do anything outside of existing copyright law as it is historically understood and intended to accomplish what you desire. This is why the GNU General Public License, as a copyright license, has to explicitly offer the right to sub-license (distribute) original or derivative works.
Now some evil companies try to attach additional restrictions using common contract law to claim additional rights they do not actually have under copyright to deprive people of their existing and even constitutional rights (and what can in many situations be considered contracts of adhesion), and the results of these bastardizations are what is often called things like eula's.
Javascript is usually restricted to client-side stuff, so this simply suggests that there is a LOT of new web 2.0/ajax type stuff being written; this seems possible.
Perl is widely used as a system scripting language, and for various kinds of applications, as well as for creating web sites, and I think the perl numbers reflect this more general use over php. This seems highly probable.
I would not be entirely surprised to see someone claim Ruby usage is still rather low, but I gather python was not even mentioned. That is rather surprising.
Only if you post in this topic ;)!
With all the lists they now use, who knows. I am reminded of the Nixon "enemies list", and can see clearly how it can apply and be so readily abused in this situation. Last time I re-entered the country I learned I was on a list! Fortunately I was only on the list for what amounted to "search and question", for about an hour, rather than, thankfully, "taser and send to Guantanamo..."
First, there is this statement that Richard Stallmen is "not interested" in freedom for users of remote web services. The truth is much simpler. For a long time, there was valid concern that the ability to effectively utilize existing law to sustain such a license was perhaps weaker than the use of copyleft in more direct and traditional linking and code reuse scenarios. However, this did not stop the FSF (and Richard) from producing and endorsing the GNU Affero General Public License, which does try to address this very issue:
http://www.techspot.com/news/27937-Free-Software-Foundation-releases-GPL-for-web-services.html
The broader question of the FSF this addresses is the use of direct action. Sometimes direct action campaigns can be ugly to some. I happen to personally believe strongly in direct action activism. Often direct action campaigns are NECESSARY because conditions offer no other alternative, whether we speak about what used to be political freedom in this "thing" called America, or we speak about traditional technical and social freedoms, all of which are under fundamental assault.
Is this particular campaign a form of direct activism? If so, is it an effective one? These to me are the more important questions to consider.