This is an interesting idea, provided that the city authorities are competent. I live in San Francisco and can tell you that if the SF government ever got into this it would be an unmitigated disaster.
Look at your local government: do they keep the streets clean and paved, buses running on time, crime under control, etc.? No? Then why do you think they will somehow get fiber right?
(If your govt. is that good, then yes, this might make sense. Palo Alto tried it, as I recall.)
Interesting analysis, but as you note it depends on the publisher being able to track each individual copy sold. In addition to being highly impractical until we have universal 802.11 at all beaches in the world, the privacy impact is severe and negative. So I still doubt very much that this scheme (scam) will be effective, even if it is briefly protected by a patently unconstitutional law.
Just get 10 different copies, compare against each other, and change what's different. Microsoft Word can do that, and something tells me that it won't ever be ruled a circumvention device.
DRM == Dead, Ridiculous, Moronic. The IETF should stay far, far away from this shit.
I agree. But don't wish: write to them and ask them to. This is a nice program that would only benefit from ogg support. (Yeah, I know, not OSS, yadda yadda. It's the most user-friendly oen I've seen.)
Expidant. What a dumb-ass name! Totally forgettable and meaningless - and I bet they paid $100Ks for it. At least their logo doesn't have a fsckingswoosh.
Seriously, folks, do you think you're impressing anyone by choosing random syllables and attaching them to each other? Any two-year-old can do that. Maybe you would need a twelve-year-old who just took a SAT vocabulary class to pick out "impressive" "bold" "corporate" yet "soft" "fuzzy" syllables, but please! Can't your name have some content?
Yeah, I know, trademarkable, yadda yadda. Well, there are still "new" companies with good names. In fact, some of them are bankrupt and surely willing to sell the names to the highest bidder!
Seriously, this is smart anyway, and if you use ipsec for remote access, this isn't difficult at all. Just make sure everyone connects via ipsec over 802.11 and signs in with good authentication (e.g. SecurID) and you should be okay.
Companies who don't use ipsec for remote access should start anyway - it's much nicer over DSL or fast hotel lines than dialup.
and the future is clearly Project Gutenberg, where out-of-copyright books are distributed as plain text. Anyone who distributes in any other forum is just asking for failure - KISS rule still applies!
Yes, this means that "new" books won't be distributed that way. So what? We'll have some paper books, some e-books, all will be happy - except the Adobes of the world, who will waste $millions on a technology that will turn out to be useless.
I work for a big ISP offering DSL from Covad (bankrupt but still operating) and we don't filter nuthin'. Individual users get a dynamic IP, so you have to buy a multi-user setup if you want to put up a permanent web server, but if you run personal web sharing (for example) there's no trouble.
Maybe it's because we don't have as many subscribers as the big boyz, we keep things simple and user-friendly?
What was the monitoring tool used, and (more importantly) how do we find and disable it? I have deleted lots of remote-admin tools from my PC but not because of pr0n - they are slow and cause crashes, particularly when they try to update Internet Explorer when I'm on a dial connection from an airport payphone. (I think that was the last straw.)
Think of it this way: Users should have the ability to maximize performance and reduce overhead, just like admins.
Okay, so let me get this straight. This language includes all that shite I try to avoid - pop-ups, "rich" "media", slow-loading applets, sound, viruses, and everything else in one package? All the benefits of Flash, Java, and [various]Script all in the "new language for the web"?!
You've got to be smoking something particularly potent to think this is GOOD news.
The problem with ATM, btw, was that nobody figured out a good price model. QoS costs money to provide. When you provide QoS with an
"Internet" label, it will still cost money, and the price problems will still exist.
And - very importantly folks! - nobody is willing to pay for it! If nobody is willing to pay for QoS, and I don't see anyone calling their ISP asking for a higher bill for "priority packets" or whatever, bye-bye QoS.
We have heard these articles talking about how the internet would become more "intelligent" (read: feature-rich and expensive) for years. But it has never happened. Why? Very simple: people would rather have speed than features such as QoS that an intelligent network would provide.
As long as this simple fact stays true, and I see no reason why it won't, this guy's vision will remain a pipe dream. Think of it this way: would you pay extra for FancyNet? Didn't think so.
Excuse me, but WTF are you smoking? Do you expect ISPs to filter email for sircam, or block sircam-sending IPs, or... precisely what exactly?
Outlook viruses are, in my opinion, the responsibility of (1) Mictosoft, and (2) the Outlook user, who should be trained not to open crap that comes from random people with attachments! I really don't see how an ISP can help. (Of course, helpdesk people need to know about it, etc.)
Slashdot Mirror
When IBM sprayed SF sidewalks with Linux graffiti (some is still there)
Look at your local government: do they keep the streets clean and paved, buses running on time, crime under control, etc.? No? Then why do you think they will somehow get fiber right?
(If your govt. is that good, then yes, this might make sense. Palo Alto tried it, as I recall.)
Interesting analysis, but as you note it depends on the publisher being able to track each individual copy sold. In addition to being highly impractical until we have universal 802.11 at all beaches in the world, the privacy impact is severe and negative. So I still doubt very much that this scheme (scam) will be effective, even if it is briefly protected by a patently unconstitutional law.
DRM == Dead, Ridiculous, Moronic. The IETF should stay far, far away from this shit.
You should be doing more important stuff than reading slashdot.
Key word: supposed to be
Cray cluster of (Thing)? is that what we need to say now?
I agree. But don't wish: write to them and ask them to. This is a nice program that would only benefit from ogg support. (Yeah, I know, not OSS, yadda yadda. It's the most user-friendly oen I've seen.)
No, I believe it was the Bay of Pigs.
Seriously, folks, do you think you're impressing anyone by choosing random syllables and attaching them to each other? Any two-year-old can do that. Maybe you would need a twelve-year-old who just took a SAT vocabulary class to pick out "impressive" "bold" "corporate" yet "soft" "fuzzy" syllables, but please! Can't your name have some content?
Yeah, I know, trademarkable, yadda yadda. Well, there are still "new" companies with good names. In fact, some of them are bankrupt and surely willing to sell the names to the highest bidder!
Oh, you mean like BlueLight.com?
But they do want DSL now! Wouldn't you, if you just lost your free employee connection from RTHM?
Seriously, this is smart anyway, and if you use ipsec for remote access, this isn't difficult at all. Just make sure everyone connects via ipsec over 802.11 and signs in with good authentication (e.g. SecurID) and you should be okay.
Companies who don't use ipsec for remote access should start anyway - it's much nicer over DSL or fast hotel lines than dialup.
Even "Star Wars" is a hokey name. That's the point, isn't it?
Yes, this means that "new" books won't be distributed that way. So what? We'll have some paper books, some e-books, all will be happy - except the Adobes of the world, who will waste $millions on a technology that will turn out to be useless.
Maybe it's because we don't have as many subscribers as the big boyz, we keep things simple and user-friendly?
Think of it this way: Users should have the ability to maximize performance and reduce overhead, just like admins.
You've got to be smoking something particularly potent to think this is GOOD news.
By being Redundant it's On Topic!
to make this analogy complete, though, you'd need to publish an article saying "roads are dead!" Then you'd have to find a way to get home...
And - very importantly folks! - nobody is willing to pay for it! If nobody is willing to pay for QoS, and I don't see anyone calling their ISP asking for a higher bill for "priority packets" or whatever, bye-bye QoS.
As long as this simple fact stays true, and I see no reason why it won't, this guy's vision will remain a pipe dream. Think of it this way: would you pay extra for FancyNet? Didn't think so.
So that's what Banjo is running on!
Outlook viruses are, in my opinion, the responsibility of (1) Mictosoft, and (2) the Outlook user, who should be trained not to open crap that comes from random people with attachments! I really don't see how an ISP can help. (Of course, helpdesk people need to know about it, etc.)
There's an Upgrades category ... too bad we don't have one for Downgrades!