Why not have a PDA-sized unit with PGP installed as firmware. You could keep your key on a flash-memory card in your wallet. The unit would never need to leave your person. Enter the plaintext, the unit encrypts it, upload the encrypted message your computer.
Q: What's this about a lawsuit?
A: In March 2000, CRC Press LLC, a subsidiary of Information Holdings
Inc., filed a copyright infringement lawsuit in the Southern District
of Florida, claiming that the web site mathworld.wolfram.com
violates their copyright in Eric Weisstein's CRC Concise Encylopedia
of Mathematics published by CRC in November 1998.
Q: Why do they think the site violates their copyright?
A: Three and one-half years ago, Eric signed a book deal with CRC in which
he agreed to provide printed, camera-ready pages for the encyclopedia. He
thought he was selling them a printed snapshot of his existing web site,
not the whole web site. CRC now claims that he sold them his whole web site,
not just a printed book.
Q: So, did he sell them the web site or not?
A: Eric did not believe he was selling them his web site: he thought he
was selling them the right to print a book and that he would be able to
keep his web site up. If he had had more experience in the publishing
industry, he would have insisted on a contract that made this crystal
clear, but he didn't. Eric's contract, which is a standard boilerplate
book contract that has probably been signed by many other CRC authors,
does not give CRC explicit rights to the website. However, the court
found that the contract is ambiguous on this point. What Eric intended
to sell CRC is at the heart of this lawsuit.
Q: Doesn't the standard "right to reproduce in all media" clause
cover the web site?
A: The web site is not based on or derived from the printed book: it
existed for years beforehand. We believe and argue that the printed book
is a derivative work. We don't dispute that CRC would have the right to
put up a web site containing, for example, PDF files of the printed book.
But we strongly object to the idea that their copyright in the printed
book allows them to reach back and gain control of Eric's preexisting,
ever-changing, collaborative internet community.
Q: Did Wolfram Research just cave in and yank the site to avoid
trouble?
A: Absolutely not. We have kept the site up as long as we were able,
but unfortunately CRC requested and was granted a preliminary injunction
that orders us to take the site down until the case goes to trial.
By direct order of the court, we had no choice and no alternative but
to take it down.
Q: Isn't a lot more harm being caused by taking it down than leaving
it up?
A: We respect the judge's well-reasoned opinion that the site should
be taken down until the dispute is settled: he considered the evidence
available to him in the legal record. He simply did not agree that the
harm to the community at large would be enough to justify keeping the
site available.
While it might seem like sentience, it is just as likely the result of conditioning.
It works like this:
Two dogs are given treats at the same time. This happens every day. On of the dogs always inhales the treat, and the other always takes a little while to finish.
The first dog, now bored, ususally goes over to the window to check out the neighbor's poodle. One day, there's a strange man in the neighbor's yard. Dog goes nuts. Second dog drops treat to check out the situation. First dog sees the treat & snatches it.
If this scenario repeats itself, say, twice in one week, the first dog is now conditioned to bark at the window as soon as he's finished his treat. It's an experience thing. You're suggesting that the dog was licking his balls one day & thought to himself: "I know, if I can distract that bitch over there, I can get her treat!"
Really, it's not sentience any more than a mouse navigating a maze. It's not like the mouse thinks "Okay, that's two rights & a long straightaway...I must be near the outer wall of the maze now - I should turn left at the next intersection." He's simply repeating a sequence that's worked for him in the past.
Re:Would it be possible for the editors to preview
on
Grokking The Gimp
·
· Score: 1
George,
I seriously doubt you'd be 'perfectly happy' if your local/county/state govt. stopped fixing potholes & enforcing common-sense (Hammurabi) laws.
While I tend toward Libertarian ideals, I am realistic enough to see that we need some laws to be enforced. If you say I'm wrong, you're either lying, kidding yourself, or stupid.
Hello John McCain, my friend,
I've come to talk with you again,
Because a vision softly creeping,
Left its seeds while I was sleeping,
And the vision that was planted in my brain
Still remains...
Within the sound of silence.
tracking of all the finger tips in a 3 dimensional space
Ahh... There you go.
As I mentioned earlier, I think the next step lies in, for lack of a better term, gestural input. I'm probably demonstrating my ignorance on the subject, so if anybody has a better label, please let me know.
That nothwithstanding, I think you've missed my point. I'm talking about the primary mode by which we interact with the software. Sure, there will be new methods of input, tailored for specific purposes (user authentication, etc.), but I don't know of anything coming down the pipe that will fundamentally change the way we interact with the computer. OS X certainly doesn't. It may have some slick new features, but it's essentially the same thing we've seen for the past 16 years.
Let me put it this way: How long do you think it will take the average user to adapt to OS X. I'm not talking about learning the specifics. I mean, how long would it take the average computer user to become familiar enough with the interface to begin to use OS X to the extent he/she has been using a previous operating system. Surf the Web, check email, type a letter, balance the checkbook, whatever? I'd say it would be second nature in about 30 seconds.
A tcsh prompt, while new to the Mac, is not a new interface.
I don't have a gripe about GUI's. I just take issue with all the hype OS X gets about having a new interface.
The interface is the way in which the user & software can come together and have an effect on each other. There's nothing new in OS X. There hasn't been anything new since the original Mac.
I realize somebody's probably going to chime in about voice recognition, but that's just not a viable solution, even if the technology delivers. While it may prove useful working in tandem with other methods, it will never be the main route of interaction. Have you ever tried to walk somebody through even the simplest operation on a computer? I don't mean tech support, I mean telling your girlfriend how to change the printer settings. If you just grab the mouse/keyboard, you can accomplish in fifteen seconds what would have taken five minutes to explain.
I envision an interface driven by gestural input. I'm not sure exactly what I mean by that - yet. Any takers?
How about an eye-tracking system like fighter pilots have in their helmets & those used by the disabled? Why are we still working in two dimensions? What about biofeedback?
I certainly don't claim to have the answers. I don't even think I'm asking the right questions. I do know, however, that there's something better out there.
Slashdot Mirror
Why not have a PDA-sized unit with PGP installed as firmware. You could keep your key on a flash-memory card in your wallet. The unit would never need to leave your person. Enter the plaintext, the unit encrypts it, upload the encrypted message your computer.
legislators should seriously consider revamping their system
Yeah, they're as interested in chucking the Electoral College as they are in implementing campaign finance reform.
How do you spell 'vicious circle'?
Here
2000-11-07 17:58:35 GOP Website Hacked (articles,news) (rejected)
Go figure.
Fresh from the FAQ:
Q: What's this about a lawsuit?
A: In March 2000, CRC Press LLC, a subsidiary of Information Holdings Inc., filed a copyright infringement lawsuit in the Southern District of Florida, claiming that the web site mathworld.wolfram.com violates their copyright in Eric Weisstein's CRC Concise Encylopedia of Mathematics published by CRC in November 1998.
Q: Why do they think the site violates their copyright?
A: Three and one-half years ago, Eric signed a book deal with CRC in which he agreed to provide printed, camera-ready pages for the encyclopedia. He thought he was selling them a printed snapshot of his existing web site, not the whole web site. CRC now claims that he sold them his whole web site, not just a printed book.
Q: So, did he sell them the web site or not?
A: Eric did not believe he was selling them his web site: he thought he was selling them the right to print a book and that he would be able to keep his web site up. If he had had more experience in the publishing industry, he would have insisted on a contract that made this crystal clear, but he didn't. Eric's contract, which is a standard boilerplate book contract that has probably been signed by many other CRC authors, does not give CRC explicit rights to the website. However, the court found that the contract is ambiguous on this point. What Eric intended to sell CRC is at the heart of this lawsuit.
Q: Doesn't the standard "right to reproduce in all media" clause cover the web site?
A: The web site is not based on or derived from the printed book: it existed for years beforehand. We believe and argue that the printed book is a derivative work. We don't dispute that CRC would have the right to put up a web site containing, for example, PDF files of the printed book. But we strongly object to the idea that their copyright in the printed book allows them to reach back and gain control of Eric's preexisting, ever-changing, collaborative internet community.
Q: Did Wolfram Research just cave in and yank the site to avoid trouble?
A: Absolutely not. We have kept the site up as long as we were able, but unfortunately CRC requested and was granted a preliminary injunction that orders us to take the site down until the case goes to trial. By direct order of the court, we had no choice and no alternative but to take it down.
Q: Isn't a lot more harm being caused by taking it down than leaving it up?
A: We respect the judge's well-reasoned opinion that the site should be taken down until the dispute is settled: he considered the evidence available to him in the legal record. He simply did not agree that the harm to the community at large would be enough to justify keeping the site available.
If there was such a thing in place, then the powers that be would have an easy target.
I run a Website.
One of the pages on my site contains the full text of the Bill of Rights.
Fifty other sites link to that page.
I post DeCSS on that page.
Through no fault of their own, fifty people are now in violation of some ridiculous law.
So, you used to be a former Meta-Editor?
When did you come out of retirement?
While it might seem like sentience, it is just as likely the result of conditioning.
It works like this:
Two dogs are given treats at the same time. This happens every day. On of the dogs always inhales the treat, and the other always takes a little while to finish.
The first dog, now bored, ususally goes over to the window to check out the neighbor's poodle. One day, there's a strange man in the neighbor's yard. Dog goes nuts. Second dog drops treat to check out the situation. First dog sees the treat & snatches it.
If this scenario repeats itself, say, twice in one week, the first dog is now conditioned to bark at the window as soon as he's finished his treat. It's an experience thing. You're suggesting that the dog was licking his balls one day & thought to himself: "I know, if I can distract that bitch over there, I can get her treat!"
Really, it's not sentience any more than a mouse navigating a maze. It's not like the mouse thinks "Okay, that's two rights & a long straightaway...I must be near the outer wall of the maze now - I should turn left at the next intersection." He's simply repeating a sequence that's worked for him in the past.
No.
George, I seriously doubt you'd be 'perfectly happy' if your local/county/state govt. stopped fixing potholes & enforcing common-sense (Hammurabi) laws.
While I tend toward Libertarian ideals, I am realistic enough to see that we need some laws to be enforced. If you say I'm wrong, you're either lying, kidding yourself, or stupid.
I'm pretty sure that...
There's a wonderful tool for doing research such as this. It's called the Internet.
Try this: Enter "http://www.google.com" into your Web browser.
I will refrain from calling for violence, even though you are guilty of assault against Microsoft employees. (Look it up, jackass.)
How about a spell-checker in Slash 2.0?
Note to moderators: The blatant misspelling in the subject is a parody of the incorrect spelling of the word 'integrated'.
Wee! Down I go!
Whether or not all men were created equal is moot.
All men must be treated equally.
I can usually out-think and outperform anybody around me, even WHILE stoned.
Perhaps that's because everyone around you is also impaired.
It's the the fucking NYT (registration required) article! There should be an IQ prerequisite for moderation.
Hello John McCain, my friend,
I've come to talk with you again,
Because a vision softly creeping,
Left its seeds while I was sleeping,
And the vision that was planted in my brain
Still remains...
Within the sound of silence.
He becomes somewhat responsible for the content of comments.
IANAFL.
tracking of all the finger tips in a 3 dimensional space
Ahh... There you go.
As I mentioned earlier, I think the next step lies in, for lack of a better term, gestural input. I'm probably demonstrating my ignorance on the subject, so if anybody has a better label, please let me know.
Hard to say how accurate this is.
or a new way to write.
You can call it new pen, but I doubt you'd market it as a new kind of writing implement.
I don't think speech recognition is the way to go. (see previous post)
That nothwithstanding, I think you've missed my point. I'm talking about the primary mode by which we interact with the software. Sure, there will be new methods of input, tailored for specific purposes (user authentication, etc.), but I don't know of anything coming down the pipe that will fundamentally change the way we interact with the computer. OS X certainly doesn't. It may have some slick new features, but it's essentially the same thing we've seen for the past 16 years.
Let me put it this way: How long do you think it will take the average user to adapt to OS X. I'm not talking about learning the specifics. I mean, how long would it take the average computer user to become familiar enough with the interface to begin to use OS X to the extent he/she has been using a previous operating system. Surf the Web, check email, type a letter, balance the checkbook, whatever? I'd say it would be second nature in about 30 seconds.
Amazon ships books anywhere. Even to the Amazon.
How about our feet? Do you have any problems driving a car with a manual trasmission?
A tcsh prompt, while new to the Mac, is not a new interface.
I don't have a gripe about GUI's. I just take issue with all the hype OS X gets about having a new interface.
The interface is the way in which the user & software can come together and have an effect on each other. There's nothing new in OS X. There hasn't been anything new since the original Mac.
I realize somebody's probably going to chime in about voice recognition, but that's just not a viable solution, even if the technology delivers. While it may prove useful working in tandem with other methods, it will never be the main route of interaction. Have you ever tried to walk somebody through even the simplest operation on a computer? I don't mean tech support, I mean telling your girlfriend how to change the printer settings. If you just grab the mouse/keyboard, you can accomplish in fifteen seconds what would have taken five minutes to explain.
I envision an interface driven by gestural input. I'm not sure exactly what I mean by that - yet. Any takers?
How about an eye-tracking system like fighter pilots have in their helmets & those used by the disabled?
Why are we still working in two dimensions?
What about biofeedback?
I certainly don't claim to have the answers. I don't even think I'm asking the right questions. I do know, however, that there's something better out there.