While I must admit I really haven't heard much of your music, your stance with regards to the RIAA and Peer-to-Peer song swapping has ceratly drawn my attention both to you and your music. With bills in the US congress to allow entities such as the RIAA and MPAA to 'attack' p2p networks, specifically those allowing copyrighted works for download, do you think the RIAA and/or the MPAA has any concious understanding of the mistrust and Orwellian thoughts that their lobbying efforts are creating? Lastly, what do you think it would take to get them to realize the light at the end of the tunnel that they see is actually an oncomming train?
Thank you for your recent communication to my cellphone. While I appreciate your message, "WNT2BYurVOTE", especially it's efforts at minimizing my time, I would like to refer you to the enclosed copy of my the bill I received from my wireless carrier.
Also enclosed you will find an invoice charging you the $.10 I was charged for the reception of this unsolicited message. While I understand [Insert Political Party Here]'s fundraising isn't what it used to be, I still think this is reprehensible behavior.
Lastly, you'll notice the bill includes a $30,000 handling fee for the disposal of your message.
Thank you for your time, and if you really need to buy votes, please try Florida.
H.R. Bill 6969 - Admendments to the National Anti-SPAM Law
... "The Law" shall be amdeded as follows to include the following excemtions to the law: (a) Sending of Unsolicited Mass E-Mail for the Purposes of: (a)(1) Governmental Communications (a)(2) Communications Originating by an Elected Official (a)(3) Communications Originating by a person or persons seeking Elected Ofice (a)(4) Communications regarding Laws, Governmental Regulations, Policies or activities (a)(6) Communications by a non-governmental entity for the puroses of selling a product or service (a)(7) Any Communication with the word "the" in it.
Patient: Doctor... I seem to have a problem with my teeth. Doctor: Yes, what is it? Patient: I have his nagging pain here, is there anything you can do? Doctor: Let me see... HOLY CRAP! (cough) Well uh... let me put it to you straight. You seem to have a Gnome stuck inbetween your teeth. I'd get the FLOSS out, but I don't think it'd help your problem. Perhaps we should knock your teeth out and replace them all with KDE bridges.
The entire VoD system that TW is building out requires the 'Digital Cable' service they sell.
The way the VoD controls work (They call it iControl) is that when you hit your 'pause' key, the receiver sends that command back upstream to the VoD server which pauses it there. There is a small delay (200ms or less), but it works.
The switchout of the cable box was probibly to facilitate the send/receive of the commands from your unit/remote.
iControl has been available here in the Albany, NY market for some time now... If only the pricing wan't a ripoff.
1) There are 2 'obvious' databases. First is the database held by the identity provider. This is the entity that holds your 'master' username/password. They own the database, and you cede them rights as they lay out in their privacy document. There can be multiple identity providers (unlike passport). The 2nd is the database held by the service provider (site/system/etc you are logging in to). They know no other information about you from the identity provider other then what is needed to authenticate you (username, identity, expiration, etc). That database is owned by the Service Provider. Neither the SP or the IP exchange information other then what is *technically* needed to authenticate you. (username, id hashes, expiration info etc). 2) Yes. (IAMAL - but there are patents involved in this technology - read the disclamers on the documents. I don't know about licences or enforcement on those patents tho.)
I've just finished reading through the overview in detail, and skimming the other documents.
Before everyone starts bringing out their copy of 1984 (sorry - not going to link to Amazon, thank you very much) to compare lets take a good look at what they're doing.
First, a Service Provider (some place you might want to use your "Liberty" ID) has no requirment to use the Liberty IDs exclusively. The Service Provider can authenticate you with a 'local' username/password as well. (It's up to them.) The examples they use indicate this as well.
Second, if you don't trust an Identity Provider (The entity that you have your cross-site identity with), you don't have to use them -- there can (and hopefully will) be others. There's no built in monopoly, like some other system.
Lastly, if you're worried about your Identity Provider (who holds your 'master account') knowing all sorts of jucy information about you, you can relax (mostly). Other then when and where you signed on, or re-signed on, no personal information gets transferred from Service Provider to the Identity Provider. (With the exception of information needed to verify the identity you give.) This is unlike this system who wants to hold alot of information for itself. The key here is that there is no requirment forcing the Identity Provider to do this, and if you don't like it - don't use it.
If enough people stand up and say "NO", we can affect change.
On the positive side, if the Identity Provider has reasonable policies regarding the use of my personal information, and a compelling base of like-minded Service Providers using it's authentication service, I would likely avail myself of it's use. At the same time I'd burn a monopolistic Identity Provider in effigy.
From their filter checker everyone is talking about after entering the SourceForge URL
Internal Server Error The server encountered an internal error or misconfiguration and was unable to complete your request.
Please contact the server administrator, webadmin@securecomputing.com and inform them of the time the error occurred, and anything you might have done that may have caused the error.
More information about this error may be available in the server error log.
We can all sit here an argue until the cows come home that he's either right, wrong, or 'grey'... but one thing to note:
Just how much money are the music companies willing to burn on finding ways to 'copy-protect' their discs and spend in court fight after court fight?
Perhaps the first lesson they need to take is Accounting 101. Control the costs you can see, instead of fighting in court to, and here's the kicker, 'possibly' make them buy the records and increase revenue that you may, in fact, have already realized.
Slashdot Mirror
There apparently will be several live feeds available of the hearing tomorrow for those away from their TVs.
While I must admit I really haven't heard much of your music, your stance with regards to the RIAA and Peer-to-Peer song swapping has ceratly drawn my attention both to you and your music. With bills in the US congress to allow entities such as the RIAA and MPAA to 'attack' p2p networks, specifically those allowing copyrighted works for download, do you think the RIAA and/or the MPAA has any concious understanding of the mistrust and Orwellian thoughts that their lobbying efforts are creating? Lastly, what do you think it would take to get them to realize the light at the end of the tunnel that they see is actually an oncomming train?
And, of course, no one bothers to note that there is no #5 either.
:)
I'd like to say that was intentional to let the 'conspiracy advo^H^H^H nuts' have some fun...
But then again, if I did that I would just as full of $hit as most politicians. I guess you can leave it as "I just can't count".
Dear Senator Jacka$$,
Thank you for your recent communication to my cellphone. While I appreciate your message, "WNT2BYurVOTE", especially it's efforts at minimizing my time, I would like to refer you to the enclosed copy of my the bill I received from my wireless carrier.
Also enclosed you will find an invoice charging you the $.10 I was charged for the reception of this unsolicited message. While I understand [Insert Political Party Here]'s fundraising isn't what it used to be, I still think this is reprehensible behavior.
Lastly, you'll notice the bill includes a $30,000 handling fee for the disposal of your message.
Thank you for your time, and if you really need to buy votes, please try Florida.
H.R. Bill 6969 - Admendments to the National Anti-SPAM Law
...
"The Law" shall be amdeded as follows to include the following excemtions to the law:
(a) Sending of Unsolicited Mass E-Mail for the Purposes of:
(a)(1) Governmental Communications
(a)(2) Communications Originating by an Elected Official
(a)(3) Communications Originating by a person or persons seeking Elected Ofice
(a)(4) Communications regarding Laws, Governmental Regulations, Policies or activities
(a)(6) Communications by a non-governmental entity for the puroses of selling a product or service
(a)(7) Any Communication with the word "the" in it.
Touche!
:)
Another excellent addition... Now where did that article on that AMD chip go?
I have been using a slightly modified slogan alot recently. Usually in refrence to medical studies but it may be very applicable here...
Lies, Damn Lies, Statistics, and Studies
Patient: Doctor... I seem to have a problem with my teeth.
Doctor: Yes, what is it?
Patient: I have his nagging pain here, is there anything you can do?
Doctor: Let me see... HOLY CRAP! (cough) Well uh... let me put it to you straight. You seem to have a Gnome stuck inbetween your teeth. I'd get the FLOSS out, but I don't think it'd help your problem. Perhaps we should knock your teeth out and replace them all with KDE bridges.
The entire VoD system that TW is building out requires the 'Digital Cable' service they sell.
The way the VoD controls work (They call it iControl) is that when you hit your 'pause' key, the receiver sends that command back upstream to the VoD server which pauses it there. There is a small delay (200ms or less), but it works.
The switchout of the cable box was probibly to facilitate the send/receive of the commands from your unit/remote.
iControl has been available here in the Albany, NY market for some time now... If only the pricing wan't a ripoff.
1) There are 2 'obvious' databases. First is the database held by the identity provider. This is the entity that holds your 'master' username/password. They own the database, and you cede them rights as they lay out in their privacy document. There can be multiple identity providers (unlike passport).
The 2nd is the database held by the service provider (site/system/etc you are logging in to). They know no other information about you from the identity provider other then what is needed to authenticate you (username, identity, expiration, etc). That database is owned by the Service Provider.
Neither the SP or the IP exchange information other then what is *technically* needed to authenticate you. (username, id hashes, expiration info etc).
2) Yes. (IAMAL - but there are patents involved in this technology - read the disclamers on the documents. I don't know about licences or enforcement on those patents tho.)
I've just finished reading through the overview in detail, and skimming the other documents.
Before everyone starts bringing out their copy of 1984 (sorry - not going to link to Amazon, thank you very much) to compare lets take a good look at what they're doing.
First, a Service Provider (some place you might want to use your "Liberty" ID) has no requirment to use the Liberty IDs exclusively. The Service Provider can authenticate you with a 'local' username/password as well. (It's up to them.) The examples they use indicate this as well.
Second, if you don't trust an Identity Provider (The entity that you have your cross-site identity with), you don't have to use them -- there can (and hopefully will) be others. There's no built in monopoly, like some other system.
Lastly, if you're worried about your Identity Provider (who holds your 'master account') knowing all sorts of jucy information about you, you can relax (mostly). Other then when and where you signed on, or re-signed on, no personal information gets transferred from Service Provider to the Identity Provider. (With the exception of information needed to verify the identity you give.) This is unlike this system who wants to hold alot of information for itself. The key here is that there is no requirment forcing the Identity Provider to do this, and if you don't like it - don't use it.
If enough people stand up and say "NO", we can affect change.
On the positive side, if the Identity Provider has reasonable policies regarding the use of my personal information, and a compelling base of like-minded Service Providers using it's authentication service, I would likely avail myself of it's use. At the same time I'd burn a monopolistic Identity Provider in effigy.
From their filter checker everyone is talking about after entering the SourceForge URL
Internal Server Error
The server encountered an internal error or misconfiguration and was unable to complete your request.
Please contact the server administrator, webadmin@securecomputing.com and inform them of the time the error occurred, and anything you might have done that may have caused the error.
More information about this error may be available in the server error log.
We can all sit here an argue until the cows come home that he's either right, wrong, or 'grey'... but one thing to note:
Just how much money are the music companies willing to burn on finding ways to 'copy-protect' their discs and spend in court fight after court fight?
Perhaps the first lesson they need to take is Accounting 101. Control the costs you can see, instead of fighting in court to, and here's the kicker, 'possibly' make them buy the records and increase revenue that you may, in fact, have already realized.
Lies, Damn Lies, Statistics... and Studies.
'Nuff said.