> It's an instinctive subsecond keystroke for me now.
That's not instinctual. That's classical conditioning. Instinct is what you're born with. If you were born with the impulse to hit [F4][r], then your mother was taking the wrong kinds of drugs when you were conceived.;)
Recipes are not copyrightable. So all cookbooks are opensource.
(Okay, the way a recipe is written can be copyrighted, e.g. "mix until the color of sour hazelnuts" or using a specific page layout. But the recipes themselves are all free.)
> And, of course, your post gives it way.
> . . . You should only mention that
> something crucial was given away;-)
This is why I put "Spoiler Warning" at the top of my message.
And I'll bet this trailer gets played at Fellowship showings. Which means -- Spoiler warning again -- before newbies even know he DIES, they find out he comes back.
My wife is currently reading each book before its movie is released. She has never read them before, and doesn't know any of the plot twists, so she's asked all her friends not to give away any spoilers. After seeing Fellowship, she was lamenting Gandalf's demise when someone had to spill the beans. Since then, it's happened so often that it's become a running joke to see how many inconsiderate people mention Gandalf's return - arguably the most important surprise in the books - to those who don't yet know.
I hate that this sounds so negative, but I'm pretty demoralized about the whole thing -- it would be interesting to see if someone comes up with a solution.
I hate to proceletize[*], but there are alternatives. For example, there's the South Carolina Libertarian Party. They run more candidates than any other third party, and they don't support the religious right's agenda, corporate welfare, the war on drugs, irresponsible military expenditures, wiretapping, mandatory censorware, anti-abortion laws, or any other expansion of government power.
And don't believe the taunts of "You're throwing your vote away!". You're vote will never change the outcome of a state-wide election no matter who you vote for, but it will make a difference. And it makes more of a difference when you support a smaller party.
I'd like to second the motion that modding and meta-modding be exempt from page-count charges. These are methods of giving back to the community, not consuming a product. I won't be modding if I have to pay for the privelege.
On the other hand, selling Karma sounds like a bad idea to me. Just my 2 cents.
I'm afraid most Americans are less discriminating than the average/. poster. Junk mail and telemarketing calls really are profitable enterprizes. If people weren't afraid to use their credit card on-line, spam would be much more profitable as well.
Besides, personal information can be used for much more than just ads and spam. Insurance companies might want to purchase this information to adjust rates. Employers might find it valuable to know a candidate's gun purchase history, for instance. In fact, it's not too far off that I expect to buy a book at my local book-seller and hear the cashier say "Mr. Waddell, our records indicate that you may be interested in Jackie Chan, and he has a new biography out. We have a special today on this book, just for you, at 20% off. Would you like me add this book to your order?"
What we need is a system that would allow us to treat our personal information as our property, that we can choose to sell or withhold. Kroger's policy of giving you discounts if you give them personal information is a good example. If my video store asked me "Would you like to let us track this rental information for 50 cents off?", I wouldn't mind a bit. But I do believe my personal information should be mine to use as I wish.
Is it immoral to take money for search results?
on
Search Engine Payola
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
It feels unethical to me for a search engine to take money for top spots. I'm not saying it should be illegal, don't get me wrong - I'm as libertarian as the next guy - but it feels somewhere between sleazy and fraudulent.
Imagine if you called directory assistance and asked for the number for Burger King, and they instead gave you the number for McDonalds (since McDonalds paid a hefty sum), and then only after a pause gave you Burger King's number. Or if Channel 5 listed the top ten films at the box office, and showed you all Paramount films as being at the top (since Paramount paid Channel 5). It's dishonest.
So what can we do about it? Use Google instead. And click their ads occasionally.
The SSSCA is the bill that the copyright-holding industries (e.g. the MPAA) want to see as law. They know, however, that it isn't likely to pass in it's current form. It's a first bid, asking the other players (hardware manufacturers) to make a bid of their own.
So now the hardware manufactures get to try. They might say "No, we don't want unencrypted players to be illegal, but we'll agree to a substantial mark-up for these players." Or they might say "Ok, we'll agree to make unencrypted players illegal, but then you have to give us this other concession we want." Once they agree to the terms, the modified SSSCA will go to Congress, and will be rubber-stamped through.
This is how copyright law is always made. The only problem is that the consumers' interests are never effectively addressed. The consumers don't get a chance to say "I'll agree to pay more for unencypted players" or "I'll agree to only encrypted players, so long as there's no law against me circumventing the copyright protection" or whatever. Congress should be representing the public at large here, and not just the corporate players. I'm afraid a letter-writing campaign, or large-scale noncompliance with current copyright law, is the only way we can have our interests heard.
(For more info on the background of our copyright law, check out Digital Copyright by Jessica Litman. It's a very informative read.
Usually, I think MS has an undeservedly bad reputation. But I can't stomach their assertion that open discussion about their bugs is somehow unethical.
We can and should discuss security vulnerabilities, but we should be smart, prudent, and responsible in the way we do it.
Who chooses what sort of speech is smart, prudent, and responsible? The speaker? Or Microsoft? Since they branded it irresponsible to reveal a security flaw only "days" after telling Microsoft about it, it seems obvious to me that this is a request to let Microsoft control all discussion about their security flaws. This is patently unacceptable.
If we can't eliminate all security vulnerabilities, then it becomes all the more critical that we handle them carefully and responsibly when they're found. Yet much of the security community handles them in a way that fairly guarantees their use, by following a practice that's best described as information anarchy. This is the practice of deliberately publishing explicit, step-by-step instructions for exploiting security vulnerabilities, without regard for how the information may be used.
I don't think it's best described as information anarchy. Anarchy is an emotionally loaded term, like piracy. But anarchy just means "not centrally controlled or regulated". Do we want all discussion of security to be centrally controlled and regulated? If you replace the phrase "information anarchy" with "free speech", the article becomes much more enlightening. The author seems to try to address this by saying:
By analogy, this isn't a call for people for give up freedom of speech; only that they stop yelling "fire" in a crowded movie house.
But the movie house is on fire. The bug exists - your private information is vulverable. The responsible thing for Microsoft to do is admit that they made a mistake, and work to put out the fire. Unfortunately, they've chosen to blame the messenger.
It's natural for a powerful organizion to want to surpress speech that points out its flaws. It's natural - but it should never be tolerable.
There's really only one way to make them take us seriously. Stop watching movies released by the Big Seven. Yeah, that's just about all new movies. But they won't care until they feel the squeeze. Sure, all the new movies are "cool", but you're supporting an industry that treats you like crap. I won't be watching any more new movies put out by the seven companies represented by the MPAA until they change their stance, and I hope others will join with me in this. Your rights aren't worth anything unless you stand up for them. Your Quadell
Slashdot Mirror
That's not instinctual. That's classical conditioning. Instinct is what you're born with. If you were born with the impulse to hit [F4][r], then your mother was taking the wrong kinds of drugs when you were conceived. ;)
(Okay, the way a recipe is written can be copyrighted, e.g. "mix until the color of sour hazelnuts" or using a specific page layout. But the recipes themselves are all free.)
> . . . You should only mention that
> something crucial was given away;-)
This is why I put "Spoiler Warning" at the top of my message.
And I'll bet this trailer gets played at Fellowship showings. Which means -- Spoiler warning again -- before newbies even know he DIES, they find out he comes back.
I still think a trailer like that is a bad idea.
Okay, Spoiler warning.
My wife is currently reading each book before its movie is released. She has never read them before, and doesn't know any of the plot twists, so she's asked all her friends not to give away any spoilers. After seeing Fellowship, she was lamenting Gandalf's demise when someone had to spill the beans. Since then, it's happened so often that it's become a running joke to see how many inconsiderate people mention Gandalf's return - arguably the most important surprise in the books - to those who don't yet know.
And now it's in the figgin' trailer! Sheesh.
I hate that this sounds so negative, but I'm pretty demoralized about the whole thing -- it would be interesting to see if someone comes up with a solution.
I hate to proceletize[*], but there are alternatives. For example, there's the South Carolina Libertarian Party. They run more candidates than any other third party, and they don't support the religious right's agenda, corporate welfare, the war on drugs, irresponsible military expenditures, wiretapping, mandatory censorware, anti-abortion laws, or any other expansion of government power.
And don't believe the taunts of "You're throwing your vote away!". You're vote will never change the outcome of a state-wide election no matter who you vote for, but it will make a difference. And it makes more of a difference when you support a smaller party.
[*]Okay, so maybe I don't really hate it. ;)
I'd like to second the motion that modding and meta-modding be exempt from page-count charges. These are methods of giving back to the community, not consuming a product. I won't be modding if I have to pay for the privelege.
On the other hand, selling Karma sounds like a bad idea to me. Just my 2 cents.
I'm afraid most Americans are less discriminating than the average /. poster. Junk mail and telemarketing calls really are profitable enterprizes. If people weren't afraid to use their credit card on-line, spam would be much more profitable as well.
Besides, personal information can be used for much more than just ads and spam. Insurance companies might want to purchase this information to adjust rates. Employers might find it valuable to know a candidate's gun purchase history, for instance. In fact, it's not too far off that I expect to buy a book at my local book-seller and hear the cashier say "Mr. Waddell, our records indicate that you may be interested in Jackie Chan, and he has a new biography out. We have a special today on this book, just for you, at 20% off. Would you like me add this book to your order?"
What we need is a system that would allow us to treat our personal information as our property, that we can choose to sell or withhold. Kroger's policy of giving you discounts if you give them personal information is a good example. If my video store asked me "Would you like to let us track this rental information for 50 cents off?", I wouldn't mind a bit. But I do believe my personal information should be mine to use as I wish.
It feels unethical to me for a search engine to take money for top spots. I'm not saying it should be illegal, don't get me wrong - I'm as libertarian as the next guy - but it feels somewhere between sleazy and fraudulent.
Imagine if you called directory assistance and asked for the number for Burger King, and they instead gave you the number for McDonalds (since McDonalds paid a hefty sum), and then only after a pause gave you Burger King's number. Or if Channel 5 listed the top ten films at the box office, and showed you all Paramount films as being at the top (since Paramount paid Channel 5). It's dishonest.
So what can we do about it? Use Google instead. And click their ads occasionally.
The SSSCA is the bill that the copyright-holding industries (e.g. the MPAA) want to see as law. They know, however, that it isn't likely to pass in it's current form. It's a first bid, asking the other players (hardware manufacturers) to make a bid of their own.
So now the hardware manufactures get to try. They might say "No, we don't want unencrypted players to be illegal, but we'll agree to a substantial mark-up for these players." Or they might say "Ok, we'll agree to make unencrypted players illegal, but then you have to give us this other concession we want." Once they agree to the terms, the modified SSSCA will go to Congress, and will be rubber-stamped through.
This is how copyright law is always made. The only problem is that the consumers' interests are never effectively addressed. The consumers don't get a chance to say "I'll agree to pay more for unencypted players" or "I'll agree to only encrypted players, so long as there's no law against me circumventing the copyright protection" or whatever. Congress should be representing the public at large here, and not just the corporate players. I'm afraid a letter-writing campaign, or large-scale noncompliance with current copyright law, is the only way we can have our interests heard.
(For more info on the background of our copyright law, check out Digital Copyright by Jessica Litman. It's a very informative read.
Usually, I think MS has an undeservedly bad reputation. But I can't stomach their assertion that open discussion about their bugs is somehow unethical.
From Microsoft's article:
We can and should discuss security vulnerabilities, but we should be smart, prudent, and responsible in the way we do it.
Who chooses what sort of speech is smart, prudent, and responsible? The speaker? Or Microsoft? Since they branded it irresponsible to reveal a security flaw only "days" after telling Microsoft about it, it seems obvious to me that this is a request to let Microsoft control all discussion about their security flaws. This is patently unacceptable.
If we can't eliminate all security vulnerabilities, then it becomes all the more critical that we handle them carefully and responsibly when they're found. Yet much of the security community handles them in a way that fairly guarantees their use, by following a practice that's best described as information anarchy. This is the practice of deliberately publishing explicit, step-by-step instructions for exploiting security vulnerabilities, without regard for how the information may be used.
I don't think it's best described as information anarchy. Anarchy is an emotionally loaded term, like piracy. But anarchy just means "not centrally controlled or regulated". Do we want all discussion of security to be centrally controlled and regulated? If you replace the phrase "information anarchy" with "free speech", the article becomes much more enlightening. The author seems to try to address this by saying:
By analogy, this isn't a call for people for give up freedom of speech; only that they stop yelling "fire" in a crowded movie house.
But the movie house is on fire. The bug exists - your private information is vulverable. The responsible thing for Microsoft to do is admit that they made a mistake, and work to put out the fire. Unfortunately, they've chosen to blame the messenger.
It's natural for a powerful organizion to want to surpress speech that points out its flaws. It's natural - but it should never be tolerable.
It's even "Mr. bin Laden", which looks really weird. Are his initials Ob or ObL? :)
There's really only one way to make them take us seriously. Stop watching movies released by the Big Seven. Yeah, that's just about all new movies. But they won't care until they feel the squeeze. Sure, all the new movies are "cool", but you're supporting an industry that treats you like crap. I won't be watching any more new movies put out by the seven companies represented by the MPAA until they change their stance, and I hope others will join with me in this. Your rights aren't worth anything unless you stand up for them. Your Quadell