Even since Janet Reno was quoted on the front page of the Wall Street Journal joking with the media about *their* inappropriate name for the system, I couldn't put my finger on it.
Earthlink already established that Carnivore isn't really needed.
Crosland said hundreds of thousand of restaurants and bars pay ASCAP an annual fee - which varies widely but averages about $200 to $600 -- for permission to play any of the more than 4 million songs it has in its repertory.
Could there be flat fee licensing to consumers, say $20 to $60 per year, for digital access of 4 million songs?
Though this question is kindof off-topic, the article makes an interesting read on the interpretation of United States Copyright Law (Title 17, United States Code).
RIAA wants to protect physical distribution monopoly. RIAA wants control of digital distribution and has started down this path by seeking control of Napster's fate. However, RIAA cannot enjoy physical distribution margins in the digital distribution space. That's monopoly abuse.
But what is scary, RIAA could lobby for mp3 sniffers, or state controlled ISPs, or...I'm not even going to think about it. Umm, like maybe the USPS will get the monopoly on email accounts and ISP access for the 60 something million U.S. households. U.S. Postal Inspectors would have a field day!
This CAN very well happen if the internet community doesn't figure out how to resolve these historically signficant conflicts, such as the one surrounding digital distribution of music.
Not only does the RIAA want to control digital music, but I suspect that the RIAA quietly wished it had total control of MYMP3.com. This distribution model is the best protector of copyright infringement. That is, 'best' in the sense of 'not perfect,' because there will never be 'perfect'. And the MP3 format is most likely here to stay regardless of the most likely outcomes.
Once there is an IP ruling, this will give RIAA some leverage concerning MYMP3.com. On the flip side, the value of MYMP3.com increases significantly because these other distribution channels will be significantly dampened.
The IP ruling gives the labels hardball leverage in negotiating a deal with MYMP3.com. Labels obviously would want to seize control the site at the expense of the MP3 shareholders....Faced with realistic extinction prospects, MP3.com would supposedly be more willing to give into a generous distribution revenue sharing arrangement, including board seats. But MP3 should not underestimate the value of its equity, given any IP ruling.
Disclaimer: No one knows what is going to happen, but we know it's not going to happen overnight.
While Echelon is billed to intercept messages containing keywords, giving the NZ government the power to intercept email would give the service "carte blanche" to spy on a wide range of community groups, political organisations, trade unions and individuals "of interest" to (the NZ government).
Imagine your boss giving you the feedback: "Ooops, your poorly worded e-mail got the organization into trouble today..."
Your last jibe about corporate spying could shed more insight into the continued Echelon sabre rattling...
This could substantially reduce or even eliminate the need for amplifiers in optical networks. Secondly it will offer a bandwidth capacity that could potentially be several orders of magnitude greater than conventional single-mode optical fibers.
Curious to know what is the dieletric constant of the OmniGuide material.
The (British) government says it merely updates police powers to intercept and monitor communications, bringing them up to speed with technologically sophisticated criminals. People who refuse to yield encryption codes could face up to two years in jail.
You think the Echelon sabre rattling is a coincidence?
Interbrand starts with the economic profit generated by the brand to the underlying business, a similar concept to economic value added (EVA). The valuation process examines three areas: the future economic earnings the branded business is expected to generate, the role of the brand in generating those earnings, and the risk profile of the brand's expected earnings....There must be sufficient marketing and financial data publicly available for preparing a reasonable valuation (since no internal company data could be used).
Notice, brand recognition is not a factor here. Companies like Ferrari probably don't have enough publicly available information.
Not sure how well you can decouple a business model from a brand. Whereas there's stiff competition in the cola wars, the mainstream Operating System/Application markets are dominated by Microsoft. So, how can one distinguish between brand value and the value created through business practices and market position, using publicly available marketing and financial data?
Unfortunately, I don't think that answer is possible without more detailed information.
"It smells like cooking oil, burning vegetable oil," said Joe Jobe, executive director of the National Biodiesel Board, which coordinates research and development of the fuels.
Looked at the Interbrand site to find clues on the brand valuation methodology, and found some reference to balance sheets increasingly confirm that brands are a corproation's most valuable asset. Couldn't account for the $70.5 billion on Microsoft's Balance sheet.
But in the article, the Interbrand consultants say that for many companies, their brands are their most important asset, estimated at more than half their total stock market value.
Maybe there's a relationship between stock market valuation and total tangible assets? But Microsoft lost over $100bn in market cap recently, while Microsoft's brand value increased by 24%.
Hmmm. Maybe the only way to learn about their brand valuation methodology, is to spend $10K on a presentation;)
If you poke around the Survivor site, in particular the source of the Show section, you'll notice that (at least some of) the development was outsourced to xceed.com. In fact, the site was in development from February to April, and therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the entire site, up through episode 13, had been built and reviewed by CBS.
The show section is driven by "episode" logic. When you click on Show option at main page, you are brought to an article on the latest aired episode...currently 7. When episode 8 is aired, that directory of content will be added, plus the dynamic code generator logic will create the browser code to provide latest episode access. The point? This is how team isolated the content for site maintainability, which presumably, the CBS folks are now responsible.
OK. Everyone saw the site working through episode 13. Remove all the content and set the episode variable to 0. "Don't change anything else, or the site could break." And thus, through this backward development approach, the security issue on the voting history image was never raised. If so, they would have added to the unique episode 13 logic of the voting history grid, the ability to update the image of the last surviving person.
But they don't have "x pictures" ready for everybody in the _VH.gif set. That's true for the tribal council set, but not the "voting history" set.
Sure they do, that's what this whole controversy is about. There's a _VH picture with an X for everyone except Gervase.
Yes, exactly. There is a {name}_VH.gif picture for each of the 16, and only one of those is "clean" : Gervase's.
Where would they put the picture of Gervase without an X anyway? What exactly is it's use? I would find this whole theory much more credible it there was NO gervase_VH picture at all.
They would put it at the top of the final column on the Voting History Grid. There are sixteen slots. Last slot is for the winner even though it is marked "voted off." (and yes that discrepancy bothers me a tad).
Why do the other Gervase pictures, used in different areas on the site, have an X version?
The one other place that there is a picture of Gervase with an "x" is in the Tribal Council pictures. There, you need two sets of pictures -- one set without x's that you are going to use a lot: they are used to show how people voted and who got votes. Then there's a second set : the x'd set that you reference to show the person in the upper left corner who got voted off. In putting this page together, it's convenient to generate two full sets first and then use them as necessary in all the various spots. You are going to end up with one picture you don't use.
The top row of the Voting History page is different. You need only one set of pictures to show the results of the voting, and it is in this single set of pictures that you have 15 red x's and 1 picture that is clean.
It's so much more believable that it was simply an error in putting an X on the one picture.
Not if this was all done with full knowledge of the results and the assumption that people just wouldn't call up the {name}_VH.gif files that hadn't been posted to the top bar of the Voting History chart yet.
"This is clearly wrong. We are going to continue going after these cybersquatters for three main reasons," Mr. Pound added. "One, we don't want people making profit from Olympic trademarks that does not get returned to the athletes in some way. Two, we don't want consumers duped into purchasing items they think are Olympic-related when they are not. Three, we need to protect the values of the Olympic Movement against uses out there that are clearly illicit."
Principles for a New System. In making a decision to enter into an agreement to establish a process to transfer current U.S. government management of DNS to such a new entity, the U.S. will be guided by, and consider the proposed entity's commitment to, the following principles:
1. Stability
The U.S. Government should end its role in the Internet number and name address system in a manner that ensures the stability of the Internet. The introduction of a new management system should not disrupt current operations or create competing root systems. During the transition and thereafter, the stability of the Internet should be the first priority of any DNS management system. Security and reliability of the DNS are important aspects of stability, and as a new DNS management system is introduced, a comprehensive security strategy should be developed.
2. Competition.
The Internet succeeds in great measure because it is a decentralized system that encourages innovation and maximizes individual freedom. Where possible, market mechanisms that support competition and consumer choice should drive the management of the Internet because they will lower costs, promote innovation, encourage diversity, and enhance user choice and satisfaction.
3. Private, Bottom-Up Coordination.
Certain management functions require coordination. In these cases, responsible, private-sector action is preferable to government control. A private coordinating process is likely to be more flexible than government and to move rapidly enough to meet the changing needs of the Internet and of Internet users. The private process should, as far as possible, reflect the bottom-up governance that has characterized development of the Internet to date.
4. Representation.
The new corporation should operate as a private entity for the benefit of the Internet community as a whole. The development of sound, fair, and widely accepted policies for the management of DNS will depend on input from the broad and growing community of Internet users. Management structures should reflect the functional and geographic diversity of the Internet and its users. Mechanisms should be established to ensure international participation in decision making.
Slashdot Mirror
If they do, so what? The FBI has described the functional specifications at a high level. The source code only confirms that.
Not disclosing the source code would lend credence to the belief that the source code does not conform to the described functional specifications.
As Linux zealots are beginning to find out, it's a lot easier to masquerade as a better product than it is to go out and be one.
Maybe somebody is scared by Linux taking away marketshare?
(Microsoft is successfully managing Linux boxes in their IT environment.)
Earthlink already established that Carnivore isn't really needed.
Is the joke on us?
Crosland said hundreds of thousand of restaurants and bars pay ASCAP an annual fee - which varies widely but averages about $200 to $600 -- for permission to play any of the more than 4 million songs it has in its repertory.
Could there be flat fee licensing to consumers, say $20 to $60 per year, for digital access of 4 million songs?
Though this question is kindof off-topic, the article makes an interesting read on the interpretation of United States Copyright Law (Title 17, United States Code).
Universal Music Confirms Digital Download Trials
RIAA wants to protect physical distribution monopoly. RIAA wants control of digital distribution and has started down this path by seeking control of Napster's fate. However, RIAA cannot enjoy physical distribution margins in the digital distribution space. That's monopoly abuse.
But what is scary, RIAA could lobby for mp3 sniffers, or state controlled ISPs, or...I'm not even going to think about it. Umm, like maybe the USPS will get the monopoly on email accounts and ISP access for the 60 something million U.S. households. U.S. Postal Inspectors would have a field day!
This CAN very well happen if the internet community doesn't figure out how to resolve these historically signficant conflicts, such as the one surrounding digital distribution of music.
Not only does the RIAA want to control digital music, but I suspect that the RIAA quietly wished it had total control of MYMP3.com. This distribution model is the best protector of copyright infringement. That is, 'best' in the sense of 'not perfect,' because there will never be 'perfect'. And the MP3 format is most likely here to stay regardless of the most likely outcomes.
Once there is an IP ruling, this will give RIAA some leverage concerning MYMP3.com. On the flip side, the value of MYMP3.com increases significantly because these other distribution channels will be significantly dampened.
The IP ruling gives the labels hardball leverage in negotiating a deal with MYMP3.com. Labels obviously would want to seize control the site at the expense of the MP3 shareholders. ...Faced with realistic extinction prospects, MP3.com would supposedly be more willing to give into a generous distribution revenue sharing arrangement, including board seats. But MP3 should not underestimate the value of its equity, given any IP ruling.
Disclaimer: No one knows what is going to happen, but we know it's not going to happen overnight.
Imagine your boss giving you the feedback: "Ooops, your poorly worded e-mail got the organization into trouble today..."
Your last jibe about corporate spying could shed more insight into the continued Echelon sabre rattling...
US spy relic has Europe talking quietly
(I doubt the referenced corporate example was from a *random* Echelon interception.)
Curious to know what is the dieletric constant of the OmniGuide material.
The (British) government says it merely updates police powers to intercept and monitor communications, bringing them up to speed with technologically sophisticated criminals. People who refuse to yield encryption codes could face up to two years in jail.
You think the Echelon sabre rattling is a coincidence?
Lo siento mucho.
Interbrand starts with the economic profit generated by the brand to the underlying business, a similar concept to economic value added (EVA). The valuation process examines three areas: the future economic earnings the branded business is expected to generate, the role of the brand in generating those earnings, and the risk profile of the brand's expected earnings....There must be sufficient marketing and financial data publicly available for preparing a reasonable valuation (since no internal company data could be used).
Notice, brand recognition is not a factor here. Companies like Ferrari probably don't have enough publicly available information.
Not sure how well you can decouple a business model from a brand. Whereas there's stiff competition in the cola wars, the mainstream Operating System/Application markets are dominated by Microsoft. So, how can one distinguish between brand value and the value created through business practices and market position, using publicly available marketing and financial data?
Unfortunately, I don't think that answer is possible without more detailed information.
"It smells like cooking oil, burning vegetable oil," said Joe Jobe, executive director of the National Biodiesel Board, which coordinates research and development of the fuels.
See Biodiesel's site.
But in the article, the Interbrand consultants say that for many companies, their brands are their most important asset, estimated at more than half their total stock market value.
Maybe there's a relationship between stock market valuation and total tangible assets? But Microsoft lost over $100bn in market cap recently, while Microsoft's brand value increased by 24%.
Hmmm. Maybe the only way to learn about their brand valuation methodology, is to spend $10K on a presentation ;)
If you poke around the Survivor site, in particular the source of the Show section, you'll notice that (at least some of) the development was outsourced to xceed.com. In fact, the site was in development from February to April, and therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the entire site, up through episode 13, had been built and reviewed by CBS.
The show section is driven by "episode" logic. When you click on Show option at main page, you are brought to an article on the latest aired episode...currently 7. When episode 8 is aired, that directory of content will be added, plus the dynamic code generator logic will create the browser code to provide latest episode access. The point? This is how team isolated the content for site maintainability, which presumably, the CBS folks are now responsible.
OK. Everyone saw the site working through episode 13. Remove all the content and set the episode variable to 0. "Don't change anything else, or the site could break." And thus, through this backward development approach, the security issue on the voting history image was never raised. If so, they would have added to the unique episode 13 logic of the voting history grid, the ability to update the image of the last surviving person.
Only hypothetical speculation, of course...
But they don't have "x pictures" ready for everybody in the _VH.gif set. That's true for the tribal council set, but not the "voting history" set.
Sure they do, that's what this whole controversy is about. There's a _VH picture with an X for everyone except Gervase.
Yes, exactly. There is a {name}_VH.gif picture for each of the 16, and only one of those is "clean" : Gervase's.
Where would they put the picture of Gervase without an X anyway? What exactly is it's use? I would find this whole theory much more credible it there was NO gervase_VH picture at all.
They would put it at the top of the final column on the Voting History Grid. There are sixteen slots. Last slot is for the winner even though it is marked "voted off." (and yes that discrepancy bothers me a tad).
Why do the other Gervase pictures, used in different areas on the site, have an X version?
The one other place that there is a picture of Gervase with an "x" is in the Tribal Council pictures. There, you need two sets of pictures -- one set without x's that you are going to use a lot: they are used to show how people voted and who got votes. Then there's a second set : the x'd set that you reference to show the person in the upper left corner who got voted off. In putting this page together, it's convenient to generate two full sets first and then use them as necessary in all the various spots. You are going to end up with one picture you don't use.
The top row of the Voting History page is different. You need only one set of pictures to show the results of the voting, and it is in this single set of pictures that you have 15 red x's and 1 picture that is clean.
It's so much more believable that it was simply an error in putting an X on the one picture.
Not if this was all done with full knowledge of the results and the assumption that people just wouldn't call up the {name}_VH.gif files that hadn't been posted to the top bar of the Voting History chart yet.
"This is clearly wrong. We are going to continue going after these cybersquatters for three main reasons," Mr. Pound added. "One, we don't want people making profit from Olympic trademarks that does not get returned to the athletes in some way. Two, we don't want consumers duped into purchasing items they think are Olympic-related when they are not. Three, we need to protect the values of the Olympic Movement against uses out there that are clearly illicit."
Government White Paper
Principles for a New System. In making a decision to enter into an agreement to establish a process to transfer current U.S. government management of DNS to such a new entity, the U.S. will be guided by, and consider the proposed entity's commitment to, the following principles:
1. Stability
The U.S. Government should end its role in the Internet number and name address system in a manner that ensures the stability of the Internet. The introduction of a new management system should not disrupt current operations or create competing root systems. During the transition and thereafter, the stability of the Internet should be the first priority of any DNS management system. Security and reliability of the DNS are important aspects of stability, and as a new DNS management system is introduced, a comprehensive security strategy should be developed.
2. Competition.
The Internet succeeds in great measure because it is a decentralized system that encourages innovation and maximizes individual freedom. Where possible, market mechanisms that support competition and consumer choice should drive the management of the Internet because they will lower costs, promote innovation, encourage diversity, and enhance user choice and satisfaction.
3. Private, Bottom-Up Coordination.
Certain management functions require coordination. In these cases, responsible, private-sector action is preferable to government control. A private coordinating process is likely to be more flexible than government and to move rapidly enough to meet the changing needs of the Internet and of Internet users. The private process should, as far as possible, reflect the bottom-up governance that has characterized development of the Internet to date.
4. Representation.
The new corporation should operate as a private entity for the benefit of the Internet community as a whole. The development of sound, fair, and widely accepted policies for the management of DNS will depend on input from the broad and growing community of Internet users. Management structures should reflect the functional and geographic diversity of the Internet and its users. Mechanisms should be established to ensure international participation in decision making.
FWIW, here is the FBI's policy.
By the way, a sniffer looks for crime, not just tracks it, if the analogy holds... I guess no one liked "Digital Storm."
Roentgen