But why shouldn't the US prevent you from selling stuff to US persons in a US domain, which means that you're, by definition, doing business with a US company. Its always been the law that if you use US assetts to commit something considered a crime in the US, those assets get seized/frozen.
Hey American--There are other people on the internet. And sometimes, we don't even care if you're on the internet or not.
In fact the rest of the internet can quite happily function if the US decides to seal itself up behind a firewall like the Chinese. But we can't function if the US decides to unilaterally interfere with our business on the internet in its own interest. If that happens, then current US custodianship of the internet/DNS will be de-legitimised and ended before too long.
This doesn't have to happen, but it will if the US continues to regard its own domestic laws as superior to those others countries even within the jurisdiction of those countries. The the US cannot recognise basic principles of jurisdiction, then the international system of internet controls cannot continue be based there.
so that was kind of my point. The US only retains certain domains, and other countries have domains that they control. This isn't the 90s anymore, where the US controls all domain registration. Not even close. But lets set all that aside.... Someone is committing fraud on the internet (bearing in mind that this time we're not talking about piracy, but people selling fake goods as 'real'), what do you think should be done?
I'm just saying that every country should keep it to themselves. If US government wants to block those domains, feel free to make your own firewall. But as it is now, US is deciding for the whole world. Regardless if other countries want it or not.
So once upon a time, I would've agreed. But these days? If you don't want to be subject to a country's laws, then don't register your domain in their country. Every country in the world has its own domain registry, pretty much. Yes, its true, if you have a.CH domain or something, people are likely to think your stuff is fake and not buy it. But why shouldn't the US prevent you from selling stuff to US persons in a US domain, which means that you're, by definition, doing business with a US company. Its always been the law that if you use US assetts to commit something considered a crime in the US, those assets get seized/frozen. If this was going after the 'free' sites, that'd be one thing, but this is pretty much within the narrower interpretations, and i think its perfectly fine.
My understanding is that most of the IA "scanning" tools out there have very high "false positive" rates, but that's because they're really designed to eliminate all "known good" and present anything slightly questionable to the user, as an alternative to purely manual review. So a 90% FP rate is not necessarily something that would prevent people from using the tool.
Wave was amazing.
And no one uses them because in early beta they are closed down.
I tried Wave and it didn't make any damn sense so I didn't use it any more.
Wave is good for some collaboration stuff. We loved it for online char-sheet work, for instance, some types of editing. I think Wave was awesome, if Niche, in many respects. I don't think Google spent enough time taking a truly awesome technology and researching/marketing use cases.
Its not. However from the sounds of the South Africa law, the NYT would ALSO be in trouble there. Actually the US is very liberal when it comes to the publication of classified data compared to most countries, even in the western world. (as a friend of mine used to joke, around the time the UK was updating its Official Secrets Act, the US was updating FOIA)
I agree. I think its just easier to lie in writing, and that there is an intrinsic nature to the fact that it is indelibly recorded which makes humans more inclined to lie. I might be willing to admit to my boss off-the-record that I called in sick one day 'cuz I just didn't feel like it, as opposed to actually being sick. I'd never write it down in an e-mail, because then he'd have a written record to use against me....
Well you get what you paid for.... Oh that's right, you didn't pay the editors anything.
So I'm not a "Bash the editors" type at all. But . . . I certainly do pay the editors, if indirectly. This is a for-profit site. They monetize the time I spend here, the clicks on the ads etc. (And I don't ever turn off ads on slashdot just on principle to allow them to monetize me more successfully.) That said, they probably only get fractional pennies off me, so if they gave me a penny for my thoughts they're probably overpaying, which is why I feel obliged to provide my thoughts for free.
"The labels are eager for a serious iTunes competitor", OK, why?
So we can see competition and lower prices, unlikely.
So they can have a different pricing structure? If it's more than current iTunes, how many people are going to pay more?
Or do they just think, more selling options == more sales?
*shrugs* Possibly they wish to do to Apple what Apple did to Amazon with books . . . force a raise in prices because Publishers no longer have to accept selling at the lower price to sell their product. Personally, though, I don't see it. Apple had specific motives to get the publishers in a war with Amazon to boost device sales. In the digital music world I don't think the particular dynamics involved will apply.
But what percentage of traffic is this? Assuming even that quantum encryption really does start changing the game . . . . this sort of thing presumes you have a record of all traffic from all that time ago. But the percentage of today's encrypted data that's useful in 20 years is . . . low. Even if you target it to DoD, lets say you had every piece of encrypted traffic off SIPRNET... in 20 years, I'd be surprised if 0.1% of it was useful. You would not only need to decrypt it (and its a lot of data with continually changing keys you have to crack) you also then need to find the interesting bits... so you spent a fortune intercepting my encrypted communications, an additional fortune storing the petabytes of data at archival quality for 20 years and then time and materials to decrypt it, analyze it etc. there's so incredibly few targets that are worth 20 years of sustained effort, and frankly most of those, if you're in a position to execute that sort of sustained effort, you can probably find the same secret a different way for less.
actually, I can totally see the point of what they're trying for. The absolute most difficult part of a teleconference is managing when/how people speak, and all the nonverbal cues we use in 'real' meetings to handle this. Videoconferencing doesn't usually fix the issue if you've got more than two sites. Some sort of reliable technology that could give me real non-verbal feedback as to what's going on in a meeting for managing speakers would be awesome. Though I have a hard time believing that any system could currently really achieve anything that wasn't just another approach to strictly-moderated (which you can do just fine with text-chat during a telecon)
I think it doesn't really matter whether what they did was legal or not... It really comes down to this. Even if we grant that Apple wasn't thrilled with the phone being lost... there is NO DAMN QUESTION that, being apple, if a phone is going to go missing, they want all the articles to be about how cool the phone is, not about them coming in the heavy during the retrieval.
I doubt it. The CIA isn't supposed to, and generally doesn't bother, to collect the latest trends of opinion in the US. Frankly speaking, a modern US president should have better sources than the CIA for that. On the other hand, knowing what issues are trending in europe right now?? Or China? THAT is the CIA's business... Also, that said, I'm pretty sure that these things are just factors fed into the PDB and generally not line items, and certainly not line items that make the main sections. *shrugs* Unless Obama happens to be interested. One of the perks (and responsbilities, honestly) of being president is getting to have a fair amount of control over the content and structure of your data stream.
You can plan for and mitigate the former, you can't plan for and mitigate disaster on the level necessary for nuclear. When a coal plant blows up, it just blows up and you go right back in and rebuild. We just choose not to plan for and mitigate the normal operation aspects of coal.
See, that's where I disagree. I mean, we build dams. Do you have any idea what would happen if Hoover dam were to collapse?? You CAN plan for and (to some degree) mitigate disasters. That said, the primary prerequisite for this is honesty, and I"ll admit that the fuukushima incident was depressing largely in the sense that honesty seemed to be lacking. Without honest risk assesments you can't do anything (granted an honest risk assessment is not the same as a wholly accurate one, but any honest risk assessment dealing with nuclear power plants includes a plan for 'and we totally fucked up somewhere and it all came apart on us anyhow'.) You can make serious arguments about the impacts of major oil spills vs. nuclear power plant events when it comes to world-wide environmental impact. And coal mining incidents, while they don't have massive environmental impacts, per se, have killed many more people than nuclear power plants have.
While I agree with your point (That is to say, that the damage from Fission is not carbon-based but clearly still exists) I will point out that the difference is that fission and carbon fuels output in the same way. I can measure the output of both on the same scale, whereas when I try to measure the flavor of an apple in units of "citrusy goodness" people look at me funny.
That said, and I've been out of the business for a long time, I remember back when I _WAS_ in the business that this was exactly the sort of thing we were looking for in the hopes that it could help explain inflation . . . although we never came up with a good mathematical construct for the variance that did what we wanted, setting aside any sort of observational evidence (pesky stuff, that.) I have to say that that abstract, though, is one of the best examples of pretzel twisting to avoid stating a conclusion I've seen in a bit. Personally I miss stuff like this. We need some more "weird" observations out there, to hopefully give the theoreticians a nudge in a significant direction. Besides, this is the sort of finding that funds new observatories to confirm or deny them! Finally, while I agree that publishing in a peer reviewed journal does not signify correctness, with a finding of this potential significance, I would argue that the peer review to double check the math for stupid mistakes was a critical step.
Actually, neither the FBI nor the CIA are part of DHS.
The FBI is very much under the Department of Justice (DoJ)
The CIA is an independent agency, recently subordinated under the Director for National Intelligence, who reports directly to the president, not through the DHS. I'm not sure what the precise relationship of the FBI to the actual 'intelligence' agencies is anymore, but they're not direct-chain reporting, though I think they funnel relevant information to both the DNI's office and the DHS.
For what it's worth, I haven't flown since they came up with their new toys. Freaking rent-a-cops with federal backing...
So I want to be clear that I am NOT a supporter of the TSA per se, and certainly not the body scanners. That said . . . I remember when it WAS rent-a-cops at airport security, and overall I think the TSA does a better job. I'm not saying they do a GOOD job, just that they are more consistently trained, more polite, and more competent than the airline-purchased lowest-bidder rent-a-cops I used to deal with in the 90s. Just to be clear, this is not a high bar to exceed, and the security theatre is obnoxious. But at least in the last couple of years its gotten fairly consistent.
That's why keeping the US Dollar as the unit of international exchange is so important.
By some accounts, the biggest threat to the US economy is that international drug and/or arms trade will switch from the dollar to the euro as the international medium of exchange.
Well yes, I haven't been able but to think that there are SOME benefits to the whole Greece situation. Since this started nobody has even thought to suggest that the euro is a safer currency than the dollar;)
I remember all that (You forgot the PC JR.! My best friend had one while I still had an Apple II . . . then I got a packard Bell that beat the pants off his computer (being a packard bell it died several times, of course, but that's beside the point)) but where's the IBM PC now?
So I was about to mark you insightful, but then I remembered . . . the IBM PC doesn't qualify. Yes "PC Compatible" became the most popular thing around because of copying, but after that, the only IBM PC of note was the thinkpad, and no one bought an ACTUAL IBM desktop. In fact, the IBM PC would arguably be exactly the case requested of an innovator whose business got destroyed by copying even though they tried desperately to keep it alive.
I feel obliged to note that on most of the systems likely to have this sort of thing attached, encryption is nearly the default setting for e-mail, and is basically never considered a bad thing. This program isn't about e-mails and outbound comms so much as it is about what you access internally, and media writes etc.
I'm not aware of any license required to offer credit, with or without interest. There are some interesting rules if you are offering credit as your primary form of business, to prevent loansharking, but I can make you a loan tomorrow with a formal contract, including interest and repayment terms.
Verbal contracts aren't a fucking magic wand to make this law go away.
The law states that second hand cash sales are verboten. If you want to introduce some sort of debt scheme so cash can be used, you'll need to document that scheme and provide that documentation to the authorities when they hassle you. If the entire agreement was verbal, or a fucking wink and a nod, you'll still have to divulge the details of who, what, when, where, and how much.
True. But in any scenario where someone is actually bothering to ASK you have to provide the details anyhow. If someone comes to me and sells me stolen copper, paying cash, I can be subpoenaed to tell all the details of the transaction. In order to get that same information on my IOU records, or to ask about verbal contracts, they would likewise need a subpoena or a warrant...
The rules in question are the part of US law as well. I think you will find that it is hard to find any definition of 'abandoned property' that includes items in a federal property book. And it ABSOLUTELY is, legally speaking, theft to mark federal property destroyed when its in your pocket instead.
Your argument MIGHT be valid if you went, as a private citizen, to the moon today and removed something left behind. It would certainly be a fascinating legal issue. (see things like laws related to sunken treasure recovery.) However, I have difficulty coming up with any legal interpretation of 'abandoned' that could apply in this case until AFTER all federal employees had left the surface of the moon.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey American--There are other people on the internet. And sometimes, we don't even care if you're on the internet or not.
In fact the rest of the internet can quite happily function if the US decides to seal itself up behind a firewall like the Chinese. But we can't function if the US decides to unilaterally interfere with our business on the internet in its own interest. If that happens, then current US custodianship of the internet/DNS will be de-legitimised and ended before too long.
This doesn't have to happen, but it will if the US continues to regard its own domestic laws as superior to those others countries even within the jurisdiction of those countries. The the US cannot recognise basic principles of jurisdiction, then the international system of internet controls cannot continue be based there.
so that was kind of my point. The US only retains certain domains, and other countries have domains that they control. This isn't the 90s anymore, where the US controls all domain registration. Not even close. But lets set all that aside.... Someone is committing fraud on the internet (bearing in mind that this time we're not talking about piracy, but people selling fake goods as 'real'), what do you think should be done?
I'm just saying that every country should keep it to themselves. If US government wants to block those domains, feel free to make your own firewall. But as it is now, US is deciding for the whole world. Regardless if other countries want it or not.
So once upon a time, I would've agreed. But these days? If you don't want to be subject to a country's laws, then don't register your domain in their country. Every country in the world has its own domain registry, pretty much. Yes, its true, if you have a .CH domain or something, people are likely to think your stuff is fake and not buy it. But why shouldn't the US prevent you from selling stuff to US persons in a US domain, which means that you're, by definition, doing business with a US company. Its always been the law that if you use US assetts to commit something considered a crime in the US, those assets get seized/frozen. If this was going after the 'free' sites, that'd be one thing, but this is pretty much within the narrower interpretations, and i think its perfectly fine.
My understanding is that most of the IA "scanning" tools out there have very high "false positive" rates, but that's because they're really designed to eliminate all "known good" and present anything slightly questionable to the user, as an alternative to purely manual review. So a 90% FP rate is not necessarily something that would prevent people from using the tool.
Wave was amazing. And no one uses them because in early beta they are closed down.
I tried Wave and it didn't make any damn sense so I didn't use it any more.
Wave is good for some collaboration stuff. We loved it for online char-sheet work, for instance, some types of editing. I think Wave was awesome, if Niche, in many respects. I don't think Google spent enough time taking a truly awesome technology and researching/marketing use cases.
Its not. However from the sounds of the South Africa law, the NYT would ALSO be in trouble there. Actually the US is very liberal when it comes to the publication of classified data compared to most countries, even in the western world. (as a friend of mine used to joke, around the time the UK was updating its Official Secrets Act, the US was updating FOIA)
I agree. I think its just easier to lie in writing, and that there is an intrinsic nature to the fact that it is indelibly recorded which makes humans more inclined to lie. I might be willing to admit to my boss off-the-record that I called in sick one day 'cuz I just didn't feel like it, as opposed to actually being sick. I'd never write it down in an e-mail, because then he'd have a written record to use against me....
Well you get what you paid for.... Oh that's right, you didn't pay the editors anything.
So I'm not a "Bash the editors" type at all. But . . . I certainly do pay the editors, if indirectly. This is a for-profit site. They monetize the time I spend here, the clicks on the ads etc. (And I don't ever turn off ads on slashdot just on principle to allow them to monetize me more successfully.) That said, they probably only get fractional pennies off me, so if they gave me a penny for my thoughts they're probably overpaying, which is why I feel obliged to provide my thoughts for free.
"The labels are eager for a serious iTunes competitor", OK, why?
So we can see competition and lower prices, unlikely. So they can have a different pricing structure? If it's more than current iTunes, how many people are going to pay more?
Or do they just think, more selling options == more sales?
*shrugs* Possibly they wish to do to Apple what Apple did to Amazon with books . . . force a raise in prices because Publishers no longer have to accept selling at the lower price to sell their product. Personally, though, I don't see it. Apple had specific motives to get the publishers in a war with Amazon to boost device sales. In the digital music world I don't think the particular dynamics involved will apply.
But what percentage of traffic is this? Assuming even that quantum encryption really does start changing the game . . . . this sort of thing presumes you have a record of all traffic from all that time ago. But the percentage of today's encrypted data that's useful in 20 years is . . . low. Even if you target it to DoD, lets say you had every piece of encrypted traffic off SIPRNET... in 20 years, I'd be surprised if 0.1% of it was useful. You would not only need to decrypt it (and its a lot of data with continually changing keys you have to crack) you also then need to find the interesting bits... so you spent a fortune intercepting my encrypted communications, an additional fortune storing the petabytes of data at archival quality for 20 years and then time and materials to decrypt it, analyze it etc. there's so incredibly few targets that are worth 20 years of sustained effort, and frankly most of those, if you're in a position to execute that sort of sustained effort, you can probably find the same secret a different way for less.
actually, I can totally see the point of what they're trying for. The absolute most difficult part of a teleconference is managing when/how people speak, and all the nonverbal cues we use in 'real' meetings to handle this. Videoconferencing doesn't usually fix the issue if you've got more than two sites. Some sort of reliable technology that could give me real non-verbal feedback as to what's going on in a meeting for managing speakers would be awesome. Though I have a hard time believing that any system could currently really achieve anything that wasn't just another approach to strictly-moderated (which you can do just fine with text-chat during a telecon)
I think it doesn't really matter whether what they did was legal or not... It really comes down to this. Even if we grant that Apple wasn't thrilled with the phone being lost... there is NO DAMN QUESTION that, being apple, if a phone is going to go missing, they want all the articles to be about how cool the phone is, not about them coming in the heavy during the retrieval.
I doubt it. The CIA isn't supposed to, and generally doesn't bother, to collect the latest trends of opinion in the US. Frankly speaking, a modern US president should have better sources than the CIA for that. On the other hand, knowing what issues are trending in europe right now?? Or China? THAT is the CIA's business... Also, that said, I'm pretty sure that these things are just factors fed into the PDB and generally not line items, and certainly not line items that make the main sections. *shrugs* Unless Obama happens to be interested. One of the perks (and responsbilities, honestly) of being president is getting to have a fair amount of control over the content and structure of your data stream.
You can plan for and mitigate the former, you can't plan for and mitigate disaster on the level necessary for nuclear. When a coal plant blows up, it just blows up and you go right back in and rebuild. We just choose not to plan for and mitigate the normal operation aspects of coal.
See, that's where I disagree. I mean, we build dams. Do you have any idea what would happen if Hoover dam were to collapse?? You CAN plan for and (to some degree) mitigate disasters. That said, the primary prerequisite for this is honesty, and I"ll admit that the fuukushima incident was depressing largely in the sense that honesty seemed to be lacking. Without honest risk assesments you can't do anything (granted an honest risk assessment is not the same as a wholly accurate one, but any honest risk assessment dealing with nuclear power plants includes a plan for 'and we totally fucked up somewhere and it all came apart on us anyhow'.) You can make serious arguments about the impacts of major oil spills vs. nuclear power plant events when it comes to world-wide environmental impact. And coal mining incidents, while they don't have massive environmental impacts, per se, have killed many more people than nuclear power plants have.
Fission is a zero-carbon system.
In other news, apples are a zero orange food...
While I agree with your point (That is to say, that the damage from Fission is not carbon-based but clearly still exists) I will point out that the difference is that fission and carbon fuels output in the same way. I can measure the output of both on the same scale, whereas when I try to measure the flavor of an apple in units of "citrusy goodness" people look at me funny.
That said, and I've been out of the business for a long time, I remember back when I _WAS_ in the business that this was exactly the sort of thing we were looking for in the hopes that it could help explain inflation . . . although we never came up with a good mathematical construct for the variance that did what we wanted, setting aside any sort of observational evidence (pesky stuff, that.) I have to say that that abstract, though, is one of the best examples of pretzel twisting to avoid stating a conclusion I've seen in a bit. Personally I miss stuff like this. We need some more "weird" observations out there, to hopefully give the theoreticians a nudge in a significant direction. Besides, this is the sort of finding that funds new observatories to confirm or deny them! Finally, while I agree that publishing in a peer reviewed journal does not signify correctness, with a finding of this potential significance, I would argue that the peer review to double check the math for stupid mistakes was a critical step.
The FBI is very much under the Department of Justice (DoJ)
The CIA is an independent agency, recently subordinated under the Director for National Intelligence, who reports directly to the president, not through the DHS. I'm not sure what the precise relationship of the FBI to the actual 'intelligence' agencies is anymore, but they're not direct-chain reporting, though I think they funnel relevant information to both the DNI's office and the DHS.
>
For what it's worth, I haven't flown since they came up with their new toys. Freaking rent-a-cops with federal backing...
So I want to be clear that I am NOT a supporter of the TSA per se, and certainly not the body scanners. That said . . . I remember when it WAS rent-a-cops at airport security, and overall I think the TSA does a better job. I'm not saying they do a GOOD job, just that they are more consistently trained, more polite, and more competent than the airline-purchased lowest-bidder rent-a-cops I used to deal with in the 90s. Just to be clear, this is not a high bar to exceed, and the security theatre is obnoxious. But at least in the last couple of years its gotten fairly consistent.
That's why keeping the US Dollar as the unit of international exchange is so important.
By some accounts, the biggest threat to the US economy is that international drug and/or arms trade will switch from the dollar to the euro as the international medium of exchange.
Well yes, I haven't been able but to think that there are SOME benefits to the whole Greece situation. Since this started nobody has even thought to suggest that the euro is a safer currency than the dollar ;)
I remember all that (You forgot the PC JR.! My best friend had one while I still had an Apple II . . . then I got a packard Bell that beat the pants off his computer (being a packard bell it died several times, of course, but that's beside the point)) but where's the IBM PC now?
So I was about to mark you insightful, but then I remembered . . . the IBM PC doesn't qualify. Yes "PC Compatible" became the most popular thing around because of copying, but after that, the only IBM PC of note was the thinkpad, and no one bought an ACTUAL IBM desktop. In fact, the IBM PC would arguably be exactly the case requested of an innovator whose business got destroyed by copying even though they tried desperately to keep it alive.
I feel obliged to note that on most of the systems likely to have this sort of thing attached, encryption is nearly the default setting for e-mail, and is basically never considered a bad thing. This program isn't about e-mails and outbound comms so much as it is about what you access internally, and media writes etc.
I'm not aware of any license required to offer credit, with or without interest. There are some interesting rules if you are offering credit as your primary form of business, to prevent loansharking, but I can make you a loan tomorrow with a formal contract, including interest and repayment terms.
Verbal contracts aren't a fucking magic wand to make this law go away.
The law states that second hand cash sales are verboten. If you want to introduce some sort of debt scheme so cash can be used, you'll need to document that scheme and provide that documentation to the authorities when they hassle you. If the entire agreement was verbal, or a fucking wink and a nod, you'll still have to divulge the details of who, what, when, where, and how much.
True. But in any scenario where someone is actually bothering to ASK you have to provide the details anyhow. If someone comes to me and sells me stolen copper, paying cash, I can be subpoenaed to tell all the details of the transaction. In order to get that same information on my IOU records, or to ask about verbal contracts, they would likewise need a subpoena or a warrant...
News Corp is an American company, based in NYC IIRC. Murdoch is a US Cit, I'm sad to say.
Your argument MIGHT be valid if you went, as a private citizen, to the moon today and removed something left behind. It would certainly be a fascinating legal issue. (see things like laws related to sunken treasure recovery.) However, I have difficulty coming up with any legal interpretation of 'abandoned' that could apply in this case until AFTER all federal employees had left the surface of the moon.