I don't think so. A determined cracker, with enough skill, and the necessary resources can crack any system. Even if it were possible to create a new, better internet, with complete anomynity, and security of data transfer, it would not be feasable to do so. It would require disassembling the existing system, and building the new system, with all the requisit hardware and software. The financial impact would be catastrophic, especially on the user end, the system would collapse.
And even if you could, would you want to? Perfect anomynity also protects those who would abuse the system, and every system creates it's own unique abuses.
Our only recourse is a legal one, though, given the international nature of the internet this can be extremely difficult. Only by making it cost prohibitive for people to violate your privacy, as in the new anti spam law, can we insure any security on the net.
Though I rarely agree with your opinions, and most of the time you are in space, they are always entertaining and contraversial, and provide me with a forum to express my opinion. So I hope it doesn't come soon.
You're not thinking out the implications of what you are saying. No one thinks they have anything to hide, until their most private thoughts are made public. Imagine being fired for a comment about your company or boss you made in an email to your spouse or a friend, on your own time from your home computer, using your personal email account. Or how about being sued for sexual harrassment, because you mentioned in an email message to a friend that the new receptionist was attractive.
Do you really promote the concept of inforced DNA profiling? If the need arose, I have no problem with voluntary DNA profiling through ones personal physician, but before you give up your civil rights, you must consider the worst case senerio for abuses of those rights (by the government, by profiteering corportations, by terrorists, or by your local lunitic).
I apologize for repeating an early comment, but, though I have never heard of this being done with Barns and Nobles, it is a common practice for people to do this in other retail environments. They are called brokers and consultants.
Yes, but you could go into the library, make a list of the books contained there, and freely distribute that list without violating any copyrights, this is what a search engine is doing. My public domain argument (public domain is not the correct legal term, as it does have specific implications as to copyright, my apologies for it's use) is specific to public access and trespass, I acknowledged the copyright issue if the metabrowser copies any of the text from the originating site.
Actually people do this all the time, they are usually called brokers or consultants. A broker will usually buy the product from you directly, where as a consultant usually sends the customer directly to you, just like a search engine.
(mind you the anti-MS block on Slashdot will of course equate Microsoft's involvement with the project to mean that this is really about mind control or the corporately financed return of the plague, but what are ya gonna do?)
We just equate Microsoft's involvement with the project to mean that it won't work.
Your missing several points, first is the concept of public domain. If you allow the public free access to your property, it essencially becomes public domain. IE: a department store, cannot pick out a specific individuals and claim they are trespassing while allowing the rest of the public free access. The same applies to the internet, if you allow free public access to your site, you can't pick out a specific individual, such as a metabrowser, and claim they are trespassing, where everyone else is free to go. The court was clearly wrong on this point. If ebay required membership to browse their website, then they would have a case, but they don't. The second point, and Yahoo seemed to ignore this also in their article, is that metabrowsers are a form of advertisement, in many cases free advertisement. Unfortunately the article doesn't go into ebay's motivations for the suit, but it is self destructive for a company to try to prevent users from finding their products. As to your copyright argument, the only copyright infringement I can see is the short quotations that search engines show to identify the site. Admittedly, they should request permission to use the quotes, and "robots.txt" qualifies as implied consent.
What we are talking about here is freedom of speach, our single most important civil right. Though it is sad that journalists and news agencies are not afforded the same confidentiality protections as attorneys,it is paramount that they act as if they did. Journalists and their publishers must stand up to the courts even if it means jail time, it is the price they pay for jounalistic integrity, and the ability to do their jobs. Slashdot is no different, if people are afraid to post to Slashdot then there is no freedom of speach, and there is no Slashdot. Of course Slashdot could change their format, and limit their postings to non controversial subjects, to protect their investors, but if they wish to continue as an open forum, then they have to accept the consequences, and so do their investors. Remember, news papers are also public corporations.
What you fail to understand is that "Carnivore" is just another step in the direction of the type of government you left. Unfortunately the FBI has not shown a great deal of responsiblity in the use of wiretaps and similar invasion of privacy techniques in times past. In fact the simple act of making a post to/. may have brought you to their notice. When it comes politics, the FBI has no sense of humor or perspective.
I think keeping point to point logs is a good idea, if for no other reason than your own protection. The real question is who should have access to those logs. The answer is no one, unless there is a problem. If it is a cracker problem, then the only person who should have access to those logs is you. If it is a legal problem, then the logs should only be released by court order. Don't volunteer to third parties that the info exists, and let your users know what your policy is. I also agree that the logs should be encrypted. If a user has a complaint or problem, you could offer to monitor data to and from that particular user as a service, but should require written permission from user.
Though Blade Runner draws as much from Dan O'Banon's, "The Long Tommorrow" (illustrated by Mobius, both Dan and Mobius worked on Blade Runner)as it does from "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep", I think Philip K Dick should be the authority on whether Deckard was a replicant or not. I think the story is much more poignant with the issue unresolved, but prefer to think that he wasn't a replicant. After all, the idea was that the replicants were more human than Deckard.
Actually, current geological theory (current being the last twenty years or so, since it's been a long while since I did any research into the subject) is that the deserts are due to a drop in the overall global temperature as a precurser to our next ice age. As temperatures drop, moisture levels drop, greenhouse effect drops, everything dies, and we have desert. Back to the original subject, I think this an issue of the microcosm reflecting the macrocosm. Since they are having such a hard time convincing people that civilization is effecting global weather, if they can show how much a single city effects weather in the surrounding areas, maybe people will get a clue as to fragility and connectedness of our ecosphere.
First we need to consider the nature of the device, it is based on airborne particles. Unless it is operated in a perfect vacuum (making it useless for it's intended purpose), it is not likely to be admissable as evidence in court. On the negative side, it might constitute probable cause for further investigation, search and ceasure. What the device will do, is change the nature of profiling. Currently probable cause is not required for search and ceasure at an international airport or port of entry, and profiling is the primary method used in determining who to search. Profiling is done on the basis of appearance (primarily race and dress). What this device could do is eliminate profiling entirely, a boon for civil rights. As to using the DNA for identification for use in market profiling, it is currently cost prohibitive. When and if it ever becomes cost effective, they'll probably put sensors in the air conditioning ducts, as anonymous sampling is always preferable.
Though it is more likely that the meeting with Jobs and Disney is to discuss future joint projects, a merger is not totally unthinkable. Since both companies are doing fairly well at this time, a merger would benefit both. Disney would definitly benefit from Pixar's animation department, and Apple's hardware and software resources would only help. On the other hand, Apple could certainly benefit from Disney's marketing department, it's a win, win situation. But, Jobs as CEO of Disney? Not any time soon, big waves are moving at Disney, but none of them include a position for Jobs. Jobs doesn't have the vision necessary for Disney, even as President, a appropriate position for Jobs, Eisner isn't going anywhere.
"it's hard to imagine a more poorly equipped society" Let me think, here's some popular ones, Yugoslavia, Iran, Lebanon, most third world countries. Actually, the more interesting, and completely ignored question is "Who would be better equipped?" Though the US may not necessarily be the most enlightened country, or even my first choice, had I the resources to live anywhere I choose, I can think of no country better equipped to deal with this technology. Consider these facts, the US is number 1 in financial resourses to deal with it, number 1 in freedom of information exchange, number 1 in medical research, and number 1 in public scrutiny of said research. Though a majority of the public is unaware of what the Human Genome Project is, including, appearantly, JonKatz, that certainly doesn't mean no one does. "Only a handful of educational institutions in America teach technology well, or even at all" HMMM, like say, MIT, CAL TECH, TEXAS A&M, Berkley, Stanford to name a few, I think it can easily be said that there are more top technology colleges in the US than in the rest of the world combined. "Discussions surrounding the ethics of technology are unheard of outside very few academic circles." In fact, there is a whole field of study in genetic ethics, for the first time in decades philosophy majors are able to get jobs in their field, outside of education.
It is not likely that HMO's would be allowed to use genetics to deny medical service, but it is very possible that genetics will redefine the concept of pre-existing conditionl. HMO's may very well modify premiums based on pre-existing genetic conditions, or require special waivers for those conditions. As to employers using genetic markers to exclude potential employees, laws already exist preventing employers from discrimination based on physical handicaps, I don't see this changing any time soon, and I don't see any legitimate excuse that would allow genetic screening of employees.
It is clear to me, that non of you read the article, or at least failed to read it with an open mind. There was no internet con here. This is a story of a con man, on the run from the law, who created a legitimate software company, who overbilled their product (Microsoft does this all the time), and made some major marketing blunders,and had his company stolen from under him by his board of directers, which then collapsed without him. Nobody was cheated, the company is still estimated to be worth 25 million dollars, only slightly less than the actual investments, which is a whole lot better than most internet companies. All marketing is in reality a con, you emphasis the good and ingnore the bad. This man is doing time for his previous crimes, not for anything in connection with his software business.
let's take a historical perspective, they said the same thing about radio, cassette recorders, mini disc recorders, photo copiers, cd burners, vcrs and the internet in general. Guess what, people still publish books, people still by cds, people still go to the movies. Given that mp3s have lower sound quality that a cassette tape, I just can't see the begining of the end. If mp3s did not exist, the people who download them would not be running out and buyings cds, the would be recording the songs off the radio. Don't let the greed and paranoia of the publishing industry, (and that includes the software industry)destroy the freedom of information provided by the internet, IP is still, and will continue to be protected by Copyright. Though the publishing gravy train that was created by the cd revolution ($11.00 wholesale for a $.75 cd as opposed to a $4.00 wholesale for a $2.00 lp) may be finally reaching its end, the artist, (though some appear to be completely ignorant of this) will continue to profit from their work. In fact, the internet expands the viablity of self publishing, funneling a lot more of the profits to the artist, and a lot less to the money changers.
the laws of physics are rewritten daily, ten years ago, the concept of quantum computers didn't even exist, ten years from now they will be a reality. personally, I'd like to see what the application of controlled paired electrons, will do to computer technology. just because, I don't have the genious of Stephen Hawkings and the resources of Bill Gates, doesn't mean I can't see the potential to break the fourth wall.
like a new computer, this book was obsolete before it hit the bookshelves. this book represents the most dangerous kind of hide your head in the sand type of thinking. as old A.E. once said, there are no absolutes, you simply can't make blanket statements that something is impossible. in times past it was impossible to go over 60 mph, because you couldn't breathe. in times past, much of what we take for granted today, was impossible. nay sayers stifle creativity, and hold back innovation. the only limits to what computers can do are current computer technology, current computer software, and human imagination, and the first two are constantly changing. computers may not be a lifeform, but computer science is, and it will continue to grow and adapt to meet all challenges, unless people stop trying to do something, because they have decided it can't be done.
there are 3 regulons I can think of off hand
on
The Regulon
·
· Score: 2
thermal dynamics, memory density and credibility.
if information density reaches a high enough level, it will become indistiguishable from background noise and therefore a die off will take place. though memory density continues to increase geometrically, one assumes that at some point that it will reach a maximum, though theoretically it could be infinite. if the former is true then natural selection will take place as less important information is replaced by more important information (the criteria for this will probably be fiscal). if the latter is true, then the biological model falls apart as it is based on finite environments, and resources, if you have an infinite environment, then there is no need for a die off. if a piece of information lacks sufficient credibility to be of interest, it will eventually die of its own weight, or be killed off by those who deplore waste.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think so. A determined cracker, with enough skill, and the necessary resources can crack any system. Even if it were possible to create a new, better internet, with complete anomynity, and security of data transfer, it would not be feasable to do so. It would require disassembling the existing system, and building the new system, with all the requisit hardware and software. The financial impact would be catastrophic, especially on the user end, the system would collapse.
And even if you could, would you want to? Perfect anomynity also protects those who would abuse the system, and every system creates it's own unique abuses.
Our only recourse is a legal one, though, given the international nature of the internet this can be extremely difficult. Only by making it cost prohibitive for people to violate your privacy, as in the new anti spam law, can we insure any security on the net.
Though I rarely agree with your opinions, and most of the time you are in space, they are always entertaining and contraversial, and provide me with a forum to express my opinion. So I hope it doesn't come soon.
You're not thinking out the implications of what you are saying. No one thinks they have anything to hide, until their most private thoughts are made public. Imagine being fired for a comment about your company or boss you made in an email to your spouse or a friend, on your own time from your home computer, using your personal email account. Or how about being sued for sexual harrassment, because you mentioned in an email message to a friend that the new receptionist was attractive.
Do you really promote the concept of inforced DNA profiling? If the need arose, I have no problem with voluntary DNA profiling through ones personal physician, but before you give up your civil rights, you must consider the worst case senerio for abuses of those rights (by the government, by profiteering corportations, by terrorists, or by your local lunitic).
I apologize for repeating an early comment, but, though I have never heard of this being done with Barns and Nobles, it is a common practice for people to do this in other retail environments. They are called brokers and consultants.
Yes, but you could go into the library, make a list of the books contained there, and freely distribute that list without violating any copyrights, this is what a search engine is doing. My public domain argument (public domain is not the correct legal term, as it does have specific implications as to copyright, my apologies for it's use) is specific to public access and trespass, I acknowledged the copyright issue if the metabrowser copies any of the text from the originating site.
Actually people do this all the time, they are usually called brokers or consultants. A broker will usually buy the product from you directly, where as a consultant usually sends the customer directly to you, just like a search engine.
(mind you the anti-MS block on Slashdot will of course equate Microsoft's involvement with the project to mean that this is really about mind control or the corporately financed return of the plague, but what are ya gonna do?)
We just equate Microsoft's involvement with the project to mean that it won't work.
Your missing several points, first is the concept of public domain. If you allow the public free access to your property, it essencially becomes public domain. IE: a department store, cannot pick out a specific individuals and claim they are trespassing while allowing the rest of the public free access. The same applies to the internet, if you allow free public access to your site, you can't pick out a specific individual, such as a metabrowser, and claim they are trespassing, where everyone else is free to go. The court was clearly wrong on this point. If ebay required membership to browse their website, then they would have a case, but they don't. The second point, and Yahoo seemed to ignore this also in their article, is that metabrowsers are a form of advertisement, in many cases free advertisement. Unfortunately the article doesn't go into ebay's motivations for the suit, but it is self destructive for a company to try to prevent users from finding their products. As to your copyright argument, the only copyright infringement I can see is the short quotations that search engines show to identify the site. Admittedly, they should request permission to use the quotes, and "robots.txt" qualifies as implied consent.
What we are talking about here is freedom of speach, our single most important civil right. Though it is sad that journalists and news agencies are not afforded the same confidentiality protections as attorneys,it is paramount that they act as if they did. Journalists and their publishers must stand up to the courts even if it means jail time, it is the price they pay for jounalistic integrity, and the ability to do their jobs. Slashdot is no different, if people are afraid to post to Slashdot then there is no freedom of speach, and there is no Slashdot. Of course Slashdot could change their format, and limit their postings to non controversial subjects, to protect their investors, but if they wish to continue as an open forum, then they have to accept the consequences, and so do their investors. Remember, news papers are also public corporations.
What you fail to understand is that "Carnivore" is just another step in the direction of the type of government you left. Unfortunately the FBI has not shown a great deal of responsiblity in the use of wiretaps and similar invasion of privacy techniques in times past. In fact the simple act of making a post to /. may have brought you to their notice. When it comes politics, the FBI has no sense of humor or perspective.
I think keeping point to point logs is a good idea, if for no other reason than your own protection. The real question is who should have access to those logs. The answer is no one, unless there is a problem. If it is a cracker problem, then the only person who should have access to those logs is you. If it is a legal problem, then the logs should only be released by court order. Don't volunteer to third parties that the info exists, and let your users know what your policy is. I also agree that the logs should be encrypted. If a user has a complaint or problem, you could offer to monitor data to and from that particular user as a service, but should require written permission from user.
Their numbers don't add up, given the measurments of their display, I get only 121 ppi, at 200 ppi their monitor would only be 12" by 10".
Though Blade Runner draws as much from Dan O'Banon's, "The Long Tommorrow" (illustrated by Mobius, both Dan and Mobius worked on Blade Runner)as it does from "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep", I think Philip K Dick should be the authority on whether Deckard was a replicant or not. I think the story is much more poignant with the issue unresolved, but prefer to think that he wasn't a replicant. After all, the idea was that the replicants were more human than Deckard.
Actually, current geological theory (current being the last twenty years or so, since it's been a long while since I did any research into the subject) is that the deserts are due to a drop in the overall global temperature as a precurser to our next ice age. As temperatures drop, moisture levels drop, greenhouse effect drops, everything dies, and we have desert. Back to the original subject, I think this an issue of the microcosm reflecting the macrocosm. Since they are having such a hard time convincing people that civilization is effecting global weather, if they can show how much a single city effects weather in the surrounding areas, maybe people will get a clue as to fragility and connectedness of our ecosphere.
First we need to consider the nature of the device, it is based on airborne particles. Unless it is operated in a perfect vacuum (making it useless for it's intended purpose), it is not likely to be admissable as evidence in court. On the negative side, it might constitute probable cause for further investigation, search and ceasure. What the device will do, is change the nature of profiling. Currently probable cause is not required for search and ceasure at an international airport or port of entry, and profiling is the primary method used in determining who to search. Profiling is done on the basis of appearance (primarily race and dress). What this device could do is eliminate profiling entirely, a boon for civil rights. As to using the DNA for identification for use in market profiling, it is currently cost prohibitive. When and if it ever becomes cost effective, they'll probably put sensors in the air conditioning ducts, as anonymous sampling is always preferable.
Though it is more likely that the meeting with Jobs and Disney is to discuss future joint projects, a merger is not totally unthinkable. Since both companies are doing fairly well at this time, a merger would benefit both. Disney would definitly benefit from Pixar's animation department, and Apple's hardware and software resources would only help. On the other hand, Apple could certainly benefit from Disney's marketing department, it's a win, win situation. But, Jobs as CEO of Disney? Not any time soon, big waves are moving at Disney, but none of them include a position for Jobs. Jobs doesn't have the vision necessary for Disney, even as President, a appropriate position for Jobs, Eisner isn't going anywhere.
"it's hard to imagine a more poorly equipped society" Let me think, here's some popular ones, Yugoslavia, Iran, Lebanon, most third world countries. Actually, the more interesting, and completely ignored question is "Who would be better equipped?" Though the US may not necessarily be the most enlightened country, or even my first choice, had I the resources to live anywhere I choose, I can think of no country better equipped to deal with this technology. Consider these facts, the US is number 1 in financial resourses to deal with it, number 1 in freedom of information exchange, number 1 in medical research, and number 1 in public scrutiny of said research. Though a majority of the public is unaware of what the Human Genome Project is, including, appearantly, JonKatz, that certainly doesn't mean no one does. "Only a handful of educational institutions in America teach technology well, or even at all" HMMM, like say, MIT, CAL TECH, TEXAS A&M, Berkley, Stanford to name a few, I think it can easily be said that there are more top technology colleges in the US than in the rest of the world combined. "Discussions surrounding the ethics of technology are unheard of outside very few academic circles." In fact, there is a whole field of study in genetic ethics, for the first time in decades philosophy majors are able to get jobs in their field, outside of education.
It is not likely that HMO's would be allowed to use genetics to deny medical service, but it is very possible that genetics will redefine the concept of pre-existing conditionl. HMO's may very well modify premiums based on pre-existing genetic conditions, or require special waivers for those conditions. As to employers using genetic markers to exclude potential employees, laws already exist preventing employers from discrimination based on physical handicaps, I don't see this changing any time soon, and I don't see any legitimate excuse that would allow genetic screening of employees.
It is clear to me, that non of you read the article, or at least failed to read it with an open mind. There was no internet con here. This is a story of a con man, on the run from the law, who created a legitimate software company, who overbilled their product (Microsoft does this all the time), and made some major marketing blunders,and had his company stolen from under him by his board of directers, which then collapsed without him. Nobody was cheated, the company is still estimated to be worth 25 million dollars, only slightly less than the actual investments, which is a whole lot better than most internet companies. All marketing is in reality a con, you emphasis the good and ingnore the bad. This man is doing time for his previous crimes, not for anything in connection with his software business.
let's take a historical perspective, they said the same thing about radio, cassette recorders, mini disc recorders, photo copiers, cd burners, vcrs and the internet in general. Guess what, people still publish books, people still by cds, people still go to the movies. Given that mp3s have lower sound quality that a cassette tape, I just can't see the begining of the end. If mp3s did not exist, the people who download them would not be running out and buyings cds, the would be recording the songs off the radio. Don't let the greed and paranoia of the publishing industry, (and that includes the software industry)destroy the freedom of information provided by the internet, IP is still, and will continue to be protected by Copyright. Though the publishing gravy train that was created by the cd revolution ($11.00 wholesale for a $.75 cd as opposed to a $4.00 wholesale for a $2.00 lp) may be finally reaching its end, the artist, (though some appear to be completely ignorant of this) will continue to profit from their work. In fact, the internet expands the viablity of self publishing, funneling a lot more of the profits to the artist, and a lot less to the money changers.
the laws of physics are rewritten daily, ten years ago, the concept of quantum computers didn't even exist, ten years from now they will be a reality. personally, I'd like to see what the application of controlled paired electrons, will do to computer technology. just because, I don't have the genious of Stephen Hawkings and the resources of Bill Gates, doesn't mean I can't see the potential to break the fourth wall.
like a new computer, this book was obsolete before it hit the bookshelves. this book represents the most dangerous kind of hide your head in the sand type of thinking. as old A.E. once said, there are no absolutes, you simply can't make blanket statements that something is impossible. in times past it was impossible to go over 60 mph, because you couldn't breathe. in times past, much of what we take for granted today, was impossible. nay sayers stifle creativity, and hold back innovation. the only limits to what computers can do are current computer technology, current computer software, and human imagination, and the first two are constantly changing. computers may not be a lifeform, but computer science is, and it will continue to grow and adapt to meet all challenges, unless people stop trying to do something, because they have decided it can't be done.
thermal dynamics, memory density and credibility. if information density reaches a high enough level, it will become indistiguishable from background noise and therefore a die off will take place. though memory density continues to increase geometrically, one assumes that at some point that it will reach a maximum, though theoretically it could be infinite. if the former is true then natural selection will take place as less important information is replaced by more important information (the criteria for this will probably be fiscal). if the latter is true, then the biological model falls apart as it is based on finite environments, and resources, if you have an infinite environment, then there is no need for a die off. if a piece of information lacks sufficient credibility to be of interest, it will eventually die of its own weight, or be killed off by those who deplore waste.