I don't agree with SiteFinder, but I don't agree with your reasoning either. Censorship is the act of removing from view objectionable material. The fact that this was done not by the individual deciding not to receive SF's results, but by a third party controlling their network access, is a direct example of censorship.
Let's have an example, shall we?
FCC censors cut dirty words out of programming on broadcast TV, regardless of wheather or not the person on the other end wants to hear it. That is censorship. The V-Chip in newer TV's allows the viewer to decide what not to watch. That is self choice.
So please, don't mistake a third party acting on their own for freedom of speech. That's just plain dangerous, and just plain wrong.
I highly doubt IBM would make this technology a "dead stop" measure. More than likely, the drive that parks itself in a 10th of a second also returns itself to operation just as quickly once the conditions return to normal. I'd say it's similar to setting your HD to spin down after inactivity, but the platters don't even have to stop turning, just the read arms move out of the way to prevent a head crash. More than likely you wouldn't notice this protective measure kicking in, which is just how it should be.
As someone who has used and stood in line to use one of these machines, let me just say that they are a far cry from the efficiency of the current ATMs. Just on a rough estimate, it takes 3-4 times longer for your average Joe Sixpack to make a transaction.
From my own experience, and knowing what I'm doing, the OS runs a good bit slower than the tried and true green on black systems. Top that off with the annoying pointy finger and IE "click" noises, and you have an example of change for change's sake.
Of course, the only reason at all they seem to be using this new system is so they can bombard you with advertising while you're using the machine.
You know, this is just going to place a good bit more load on everyone's nameserver, not just the roots. Every request that used to be discarded from NS caches because it didn't exist will now be cached normally as a "good" request. 10-12% more data load might not be much for small DNS uses, but for companies like AOHell and other large ISPs, VeriSign is just screwing them over.
On another note, this would have to be some form of nameserver hack, not a root file hack(correct me if I'm wrong). But not all of the root servers are controlled by Verisign. Are those independant roots going to go along with this? Why should they?
This is a benevolent decision, folks. They want to share the wealth with the rest of the world who buys those shares when their stock price skyrockets. You know, after they prove their claims.
Or, we could simply do away with the Mission Impossible-esque idea and simply say that the pictures are probably encrypted in some fashion and need to be read via the Ritz hardware. Sometimes the simplest answer is usually the right one.
Personally, I thought it was one of those little birds from the flintstones chilseling out the pictures, and breaking them if someone but a Ritz guy opened it. Then I thought about it.
As for suing anybody who bought a smart card reader, that's bull. They are going after the customers of sites that pretty much state that use as the purpose of the product.
Old news, this. As for suing anybody who bought a smart card reader, that's bull. They are going after the customers of sites that pretty much state that use as the purpose of the product. The only possible defense is that the chips aren't programmed (usually) out of the store to write DTV's cards, but thats been even harder to use since the hardware itself is being put together to send the right kind of signals to break into their cards.
That being said, they usually just demand money and the return of the equipment purchased. Of course the people they sue usually don't have the resources to fight the claims, so who knows if this will actually be tested in court?
The problem with this argument is that you're looking at it from the standpoint of someone who has at least a partial clue. 90% of the people in the world that use a web browser only use it because that's what browser was there for them to use.
Ask the average Joe off the street what web browser he uses, and you can expect either a blank look or "uh...AOL?" to be the answer. Do you really expect them to have the skill to go download another browser and install it? Why should they?
It's the principle of Path of Least Resistance. If you want Mozilla to take over, get Dell and Gateway to make it the default browser, and AOL to replace IE in its client. They won't. That would piss off MS. Hey, maybe that's why they say monopolies stifle change?
You know what? I'm a victim of this too. That little E is sitting right next to my start menu. Want to bet which browser gets used most? From a technology standpoint, both browsers show web pages almost identically, and the differences are only visible on pages where people consciously use the latest-and-greatest. You know, the ones that any sane company wouldn't use because it doesn't work with the Lowest Common Denominator.
As a past and present freenet user, I have to disagree. The main problem with Freenet is that it relies so heavily on people who claim they will run permanent nodes. Far from the promise of consistent, anonymous storage, you're lucky if you can still retrieve all the pieces of a large file within a week of its publication. For small files or recently introduced files, you get pretty good results. Just don't expect to get anything relatively old. "Permanent" nodes come and go way too often, even with the admittedly very cool file correction protocol that reassembles missing pieces.
\Ex*tor"tion\, n. [F. extorsion.] 1. The act of extorting; the act or practice of wresting anything from a person by force, by threats, or by any undue exercise of power; undue exaction; overcharge.
2. (Law) The offense committed by an officer who corruptly claims and takes, as his fee, money, or other thing of value, that is not due, or more than is due, or before it is due. --Abbott.
3. That which is extorted or exacted by force.
Last time I checked, extorting things from anyone, be they a company or an individual, is illegal. What next, they'll ask for "protection money"?
Come off it people. It isn't about the DMCA. It's about a company trying to protect its profits.
To anyone who is whining now about "its my hardware, I should be able to do what I want with it!" I say to you, YOU knew the limitations placed on it when you purchased it. It was designed to play games, and that's it. Don't like it, don't buy it. MS wasn't out to make a cheap computer, just a decent game system.
You know, it always amazes me listening to the slashdot rants and bitches about copyright protection. The "everything should be free, nobody should make money off of anything!" crap astounds me.
If someone creates something, be they a penniless mother of 6 living in a hovel someplace, or a big heartless, greedy corporation, they deserve to profit from it. Why should anyone create anything - programs, music, movies - and get nothing for it?
Before I get the "But Open Source" speech, wasn't that Linus I saw driving around in a very expensive Italian sports car? I more than suspect he knew his work would get him a very good paying job. Good for him. Just like a lot of other OS people are now getting paid well because of their work.
I'm a capitalist. People's inventions deserve to be protected, because it encourages them to keep on inventing.
To those of you who still say everything should be free, remember this:
Eventually your mom will kick you out of the basement, and you'll have to work to feed yourself. You better hope to God not too many people steal your company's product, or you'll be out looking for work again.
Its a good move to hold patents like this, if for no other reason than quick resolution to silly patents granted by the USPTO. But that's pretty much stating the obvious, eh?
No, actually the Constitution does not give the judicial branch of government the power of review.
From the Court's website (supremecourtus.gov):
"While the function of judicial review is not explicitly provided in the Constitution, it had been anticipated before the adoption of that document. Prior to 1789, state courts had already overturned legislative acts which conflicted with state constitutions. Moreover, many of the Founding Fathers expected the Supreme Court to assume this role in regard to the Constitution; Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, for example, had underlined the importance of judicial review in the Federalist Papers, which urged adoption of the Constitution."
John Marshall, the first Chief Justice established the precedent of judicial review, and it has since become custom as strong as written law. The court's purpose has always been to interpret and explain the laws of the country, but if they put the kibash on something as unconstitutional, it becomes by decree unenforceable under the law(the court being the embodiment of law in the country).
But I have to say it. For anyone who isn't a Montana militia, I hate everything law type, this isn't really a bad thing if proper judicial controls are instituted.
We do have an amendment to the constitution that protects against random search and seizure. Frankly, if law enforcement can give enough evidence to an informed judge that the party in question needs to be monitored in connection to a criminal offense, more power to them.
If you really think your geeky attempts at phone sex with some hot level 5,000,000 elf from EverQuest with a +50 con dildo are worth protecting from the evil shadow government, please encrypt!
Oh, and to head off all the "But the PATRIOT Act.." replies I'm sure to get, I firmly believe that its wire tap provisions are too ambiguous and when truly challenged in the Supreme Court, it will be shot down. Amazing how the whole checks and balances thing works, isn't it?
Once again, we have another/. double standard. How many times have I watched people here applaud when a former cracker gets appointed to a top position in security?
But God Forbid someone who knows the ins and outs of privacy abuses, a person who would know BEST how to protect against them, gets the chance to do so. They're evil and will always be evil!
Apparently, Slashdot and its editors have never been taught how news reporters/sites gain respectability.
In order to report the news well, objectivity and a lack of bias should be maintained. When you start taking pot shots at what you report, you turn into the national enquirer, and people start to not take you seriously. What the people in the peanut gallery say is one thing, but what you put up in the story is another. Now you can say/. is an editorial site, and maybe get away with it, but as such it will never really be able to sway opinion very well.
I'm expecting to see how aliens took over MS soon, and Bill Gates having an affair with .
Slashdot Mirror
I don't agree with SiteFinder, but I don't agree with your reasoning either. Censorship is the act of removing from view objectionable material. The fact that this was done not by the individual deciding not to receive SF's results, but by a third party controlling their network access, is a direct example of censorship.
Let's have an example, shall we?
FCC censors cut dirty words out of programming on broadcast TV, regardless of wheather or not the person on the other end wants to hear it. That is censorship. The V-Chip in newer TV's allows the viewer to decide what not to watch. That is self choice.
So please, don't mistake a third party acting on their own for freedom of speech. That's just plain dangerous, and just plain wrong.
I highly doubt IBM would make this technology a "dead stop" measure. More than likely, the drive that parks itself in a 10th of a second also returns itself to operation just as quickly once the conditions return to normal. I'd say it's similar to setting your HD to spin down after inactivity, but the platters don't even have to stop turning, just the read arms move out of the way to prevent a head crash. More than likely you wouldn't notice this protective measure kicking in, which is just how it should be.
As someone who has used and stood in line to use one of these machines, let me just say that they are a far cry from the efficiency of the current ATMs. Just on a rough estimate, it takes 3-4 times longer for your average Joe Sixpack to make a transaction.
From my own experience, and knowing what I'm doing, the OS runs a good bit slower than the tried and true green on black systems. Top that off with the annoying pointy finger and IE "click" noises, and you have an example of change for change's sake.
Of course, the only reason at all they seem to be using this new system is so they can bombard you with advertising while you're using the machine.
All and all, a bad change all around.
Who wants to be the first to hack a fix for this into BIND?
You know, this is just going to place a good bit more load on everyone's nameserver, not just the roots. Every request that used to be discarded from NS caches because it didn't exist will now be cached normally as a "good" request. 10-12% more data load might not be much for small DNS uses, but for companies like AOHell and other large ISPs, VeriSign is just screwing them over.
On another note, this would have to be some form of nameserver hack, not a root file hack(correct me if I'm wrong). But not all of the root servers are controlled by Verisign. Are those independant roots going to go along with this? Why should they?
This site is now censored by the Slashdot Effect...ironic, or conspiracy? ;)
That popup window says we can join their mailing list for FREE!
*signs up his boss*
This is a benevolent decision, folks. They want to share the wealth with the rest of the world who buys those shares when their stock price skyrockets. You know, after they prove their claims.
What? It could happen!
Or, we could simply do away with the Mission Impossible-esque idea and simply say that the pictures are probably encrypted in some fashion and need to be read via the Ritz hardware. Sometimes the simplest answer is usually the right one.
Personally, I thought it was one of those little birds from the flintstones chilseling out the pictures, and breaking them if someone but a Ritz guy opened it. Then I thought about it.
As I said. Maybe you'd care to read it again?
As for suing anybody who bought a smart card reader, that's bull. They are going after the customers of sites that pretty much state that use as the purpose of the product.
Old news, this. As for suing anybody who bought a smart card reader, that's bull. They are going after the customers of sites that pretty much state that use as the purpose of the product. The only possible defense is that the chips aren't programmed (usually) out of the store to write DTV's cards, but thats been even harder to use since the hardware itself is being put together to send the right kind of signals to break into their cards.
That being said, they usually just demand money and the return of the equipment purchased. Of course the people they sue usually don't have the resources to fight the claims, so who knows if this will actually be tested in court?
The problem with this argument is that you're looking at it from the standpoint of someone who has at least a partial clue. 90% of the people in the world that use a web browser only use it because that's what browser was there for them to use.
Ask the average Joe off the street what web browser he uses, and you can expect either a blank look or "uh...AOL?" to be the answer. Do you really expect them to have the skill to go download another browser and install it? Why should they?
It's the principle of Path of Least Resistance. If you want Mozilla to take over, get Dell and Gateway to make it the default browser, and AOL to replace IE in its client. They won't. That would piss off MS. Hey, maybe that's why they say monopolies stifle change?
You know what? I'm a victim of this too. That little E is sitting right next to my start menu. Want to bet which browser gets used most? From a technology standpoint, both browsers show web pages almost identically, and the differences are only visible on pages where people consciously use the latest-and-greatest. You know, the ones that any sane company wouldn't use because it doesn't work with the Lowest Common Denominator.
As a past and present freenet user, I have to disagree. The main problem with Freenet is that it relies so heavily on people who claim they will run permanent nodes. Far from the promise of consistent, anonymous storage, you're lucky if you can still retrieve all the pieces of a large file within a week of its publication. For small files or recently introduced files, you get pretty good results. Just don't expect to get anything relatively old. "Permanent" nodes come and go way too often, even with the admittedly very cool file correction protocol that reassembles missing pieces.
The protocol is rather inefficient, because of the Canadian necessity of adding "eh?" to the header of every packet.
*drum hit*
Thank you folks, I'll be here all week!
\Ex*tor"tion\, n. [F. extorsion.] 1. The act of extorting; the act or practice of wresting anything from a person by force, by threats, or by any undue exercise of power; undue exaction; overcharge.
2. (Law) The offense committed by an officer who corruptly claims and takes, as his fee, money, or other thing of value, that is not due, or more than is due, or before it is due. --Abbott.
3. That which is extorted or exacted by force.
Last time I checked, extorting things from anyone, be they a company or an individual, is illegal. What next, they'll ask for "protection money"?
Come off it people. It isn't about the DMCA. It's about a company trying to protect its profits.
To anyone who is whining now about "its my hardware, I should be able to do what I want with it!" I say to you, YOU knew the limitations placed on it when you purchased it. It was designed to play games, and that's it. Don't like it, don't buy it. MS wasn't out to make a cheap computer, just a decent game system.
Thank you, drive through.
Except for one detail. The FCC voted yesterday to share the list with the FTC, making most of those calls illegal too. One more step.
That's nothing. I just invented an internet emulator emulator. Beat that!
You know, it always amazes me listening to the slashdot rants and bitches about copyright protection. The "everything should be free, nobody should make money off of anything!" crap astounds me.
If someone creates something, be they a penniless mother of 6 living in a hovel someplace, or a big heartless, greedy corporation, they deserve to profit from it. Why should anyone create anything - programs, music, movies - and get nothing for it?
Before I get the "But Open Source" speech, wasn't that Linus I saw driving around in a very expensive Italian sports car? I more than suspect he knew his work would get him a very good paying job. Good for him. Just like a lot of other OS people are now getting paid well because of their work.
I'm a capitalist. People's inventions deserve to be protected, because it encourages them to keep on inventing.
To those of you who still say everything should be free, remember this:
Eventually your mom will kick you out of the basement, and you'll have to work to feed yourself. You better hope to God not too many people steal your company's product, or you'll be out looking for work again.
DirecTV sues Slashdot.org under the DMCA for linking to an illegal site...
Go ahead. Laugh. I tells ya it just might happen!
Its a good move to hold patents like this, if for no other reason than quick resolution to silly patents granted by the USPTO. But that's pretty much stating the obvious, eh?
Who wonders how those game chicks with 40DDD bazooms and the 20 inch waists can do flips and the like without falling on their faces?
Yeah, I thought I was. Carry on.
No, actually the Constitution does not give the judicial branch of government the power of review.
:)
From the Court's website (supremecourtus.gov):
"While the function of judicial review is not explicitly provided in the Constitution, it
had been anticipated before the adoption of that document. Prior to 1789, state courts had
already overturned legislative acts which conflicted with state constitutions. Moreover,
many of the Founding Fathers expected the Supreme Court to assume this role in regard
to the Constitution; Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, for example, had underlined
the importance of judicial review in the Federalist Papers, which urged adoption of the
Constitution."
John Marshall, the first Chief Justice established the precedent of judicial review, and it has since become custom as strong as written law. The court's purpose has always been to interpret and explain the laws of the country, but if they put the kibash on something as unconstitutional, it becomes by decree unenforceable under the law(the court being the embodiment of law in the country).
Class dismissed.
But I have to say it. For anyone who isn't a Montana militia, I hate everything law type, this isn't really a bad thing if proper judicial controls are instituted.
We do have an amendment to the constitution that protects against random search and seizure. Frankly, if law enforcement can give enough evidence to an informed judge that the party in question needs to be monitored in connection to a criminal offense, more power to them.
If you really think your geeky attempts at phone sex with some hot level 5,000,000 elf from EverQuest with a +50 con dildo are worth protecting from the evil shadow government, please encrypt!
Oh, and to head off all the "But the PATRIOT Act.." replies I'm sure to get, I firmly believe that its wire tap provisions are too ambiguous and when truly challenged in the Supreme Court, it will be shot down. Amazing how the whole checks and balances thing works, isn't it?
Once again, we have another /. double standard. How many times have I watched people here applaud when a former cracker gets appointed to a top position in security?
But God Forbid someone who knows the ins and outs of privacy abuses, a person who would know BEST how to protect against them, gets the chance to do so. They're evil and will always be evil!
Apparently, Slashdot and its editors have never been taught how news reporters/sites gain respectability.
/. is an editorial site, and maybe get away with it, but as such it will never really be able to sway opinion very well.
In order to report the news well, objectivity and a lack of bias should be maintained. When you start taking pot shots at what you report, you turn into the national enquirer, and people start to not take you seriously. What the people in the peanut gallery say is one thing, but what you put up in the story is another. Now you can say
I'm expecting to see how aliens took over MS soon, and Bill Gates having an affair with .