If they do in fact delete you from the database before you have ever scanned ANYTHING, then they have no data to sell and no way to collect the data. If they don't, you sue them for big bucks, or the FCC fines them for big bucks.
Wait a second. Now, I haven't done extensive research on this one, but I don't think that the FCC fines companies for violating their privacy policies. It's all pretty much self-policed as far as I know. (See TrustE). At any rate, I think it's better not to give them any info in the first place. Personal info is a very hard genie to put back into a bottle.
Could have some fun with that one -- I can just imagine all the slashdot trolls entering in http://goatse.cx/ as the URL for god knows what (something to do with Natalie Portman or course).
[Man, I can't believe I actually remembered that URL -- I think I need a break....]
mkLinux is dead and never ran on very many machines anyway.
MkLinux is most definitely NOT dead. Check out mklinux.org. And there are many older machines that can only run MkLinux. For the newer machines that can't run the MkLinux kernel, you can install the MkLinux distribution (which, by the way, is much better and more up to date than the LinuxPPC distro) and swap in an up-to-date monolithic kernel. Also -- they are (or will soon be) working on getting MkLinux running on the Darwin Mach microkernel (since they both use versions of Mach 3.0) -- which would get it running on all up-to-date machines now and in the future (as Apple will do the porting).
Please check it out -- there is a very active (and helpful) mailing list.
They might not be using it now, but they will be, if they can. Companies would love to have a tracking mechanism that can't be disabled by privacy-minded individuals.
While I'm on the subject, an example that you see here frequently is the use of "xtian" and "fundie". I'm neither an xtian nor a fundie, but I find that sort of gratuitous nastiness distasteful. It only makes me think less of the person who uses it, not the person it's directed at.
I'm not sure I see what's so nasty about the term xtian, being that x is a fairly commonly accepted abbreviation for Christ. (Think Xmas, and my favorite -- Xtal for crystal) At any rate, it was the christians who came up with it in the first place.
As for the term "fundie", while I agree that it's certainly somewhat belittling, I think that it reflects more of a "political" (for lack of a better word -- at least one that comes to me at 1 in the morning) distaste for rigid adherence to readily disprovable beliefs as opposed to the belittling of a religious orientation per se.
While I agree that in this particular case it doesn't seem like such a big deal for a big store to voluntarily restrict a product, there are other cases where it has a more profound effect.
For instance, WalMart announced not so long ago that they would no longer carry birth-control pills in their pharmacy. It is all well and good to say "They are a private institution and should be free so sell/not sell whatever they damn please", but the fact of the matter is that WalMart is so big (and getting bigger) that in many communities they are the only source for many products, so WalMart saying that we won't sell product x is equivilent of an outright ban.
Also, many stores (like WalMart and Blockbuster video) sell/rent modified versions of CD's and movies without labeling them as such.
I think that once a corporation gets to be a certain size, it takes on a quasi-governmental power, and should be held accountable to the same standards as a public institution. [Putting on flame-proof underwear].
The first is essentially being dishonest, while the second means that your vote is basically useless: You voted, but you will not under any circumstances be represented. The only advantage to this over not voting is really just to artificially enhance the voter turnout numbers, to no particular advantage to your position.
Actually, this is not neccessarily true. Just the presense of a viable third party would probably force the major partys to change some of their positions in order to prevent losing support. By viable third party, think one that consistently gets 20% or so of the vote.
Of course, really what we need here is some sort of electoral reform so that a vote for a third party means more. For instance, if a true majority of the popular vote were required to get elected, then a vote for Nader truly would be a vote against Bush. (Then have a runoff between the top vote getters -- at which point you may feel free to stay home;-).)
Are privacy policies legally binding? It seems pretty irrellevant what their policy might be in the case where they are acquired by another company -- what do they care if the new owners violate their policy?
It certainly makes sense that customer info goes to the new owner if the business gets sold. It would be nice, however, if the new owner were held legally accountable to the old privacy policy though. Otherwise they could get bought by doubleclik or some such company and all the info you thought was private is suddenly getting auctioned off to the highest bidder.
Just my completely uniformed opinion, of course.
Never used Applescript, have you?
on
KDE Strikes Back
·
· Score: 1
As for scripting: Find a programmer. Ask that programmer these questions: Is it feasible for ALL applications to use one single scripting API? If it is feasible, would you want to use it? Sure, "Save As" is probably quite similar across apps. But how would you implement "rotate scene" needed for Blender in an API designed for AbiWord?
In Applescript, there is a "required" suite of commands that every app should support (like "Quit", etc.), then there is a "Standard" suite of common commands (like "open", "close") but in addition every app has its own commands that only it uses. You can use the AppleScript Editor to look at the dictionary of supported calls in any app. After all, when you write a script, you are generally scripting a specific app -- there is no need to have a platform-wide API that every application needs to support.
Wow, that brings back some memories. I used CPM86/80 on a DEC Rainbow (anyone remember that?) back in the early 80s. After a while I installed MSDOS 1.?. I remember learning to program with GWBASIC on that thing. Ah, those were the days...
I tell you, mobile phones, PDA's, they *own* the future. People don't even think of mobile phones as computers (mostly because they don't go wrong).
I couldn't agree more. I remember thinking when I first saw Apple's Newton that this was the future of computing -- perhaps not that desktop computers would disappear but that the Newton was the first completely new platform that I had seen that really made sense. I really think that in order to come up with a revolutionary new interface paradigm, you need a completely different form factor.
I still can't believe that they killed that thing. I was trying to buy a MessagePad 2100 on ebay the other day, and they still go for $800 or so. Can you imagine anyone buying a used Palm Pilot 3 years from now for more than $40?
Clearly not. You seem to be confusing materialism with determinism. Just because things have a material cause does not mean that everything happens in a strictly deterministic fashion. In fact we know (or at least believe we know) that this is not the case.
You also imply that materialism is incompatible with spirituality. Being a Buddhist, I have to disagree -- though it doesn't really mesh very well with most organized religion. I find it somewhat amusing that you mention C.S. Lewis. Now I liked "The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe" as much as the next guy, but why does every fundamentalist x-ian with an inferiority complex feel the need to trot out Lewis to try to validate their intellectual standing? Is there no other fundie with a modicum of respect in academia? Oh, I guess not...
Well, you'd have to pepper the forum with plenty of bogus stories so that if someone were to simply do what you say without waiting for the community comment they would likely end up being pretty embarrased;)
This whole article makes very little sense -- I get the feeling that the author doesn't really understand the subject. From the talk of DNA "entering the quantum multiverse" (as if it is some sort of alternate reality), to the assumption that the existence of said multiverse implies some sort of choice on the part of evolving molecules, nothing really follows here.
It doesn't really contradict Darwinian theory, as far as I can tell. In fact, it pretty much demolishes one of the main arguments of the anti-evolutionists -- that evolution is just too unlikely to have occured. Well in this theory everything that can happen does happen, no matter how unlikely. Well clearly there is no one in any universe where life didn't evolve to ponder why it didn't happen. If life is possible, then it must happen in some universe, and whoever is in that universe will ponder the sheer unlikeliness of their own existence.
a) Stay down. Barring your own vanity, releasing something anonymously on the Internet is not that difficult. Put everything together nicely, and then send it to a mailing list or newsgroup on the subject through a Mixmaster or Cypherpunk mailing list. Leave spreading it to the power of the masses and of the Internet, by just creating it you have done enough.
As DeCSS has shown us, just creating it is not enough. I agree with you that it is sometimes neccessary to be anonymous to speek freely, but something like this isn't exactly speech. The value of what this person is creating can only be realized if it is actually used, and as we've seen with the DeCSS case, the lawyers will go after everyone who uses the work, not just the creator. In a pure speech case (like the guy who posted Scientology's "secret" information) just getting the info out there is enough, because just knowing the info is what the whole case is about.
But in these cases we need to make it legal somehow, because the scientists who use this work are presumably not in a position to do so anonymously (after all, they must publish their results).
Hopefully your option B wouldn't actually require martyrdom, merely lots of community support (both financial and otherwise).
QT streaming server can serve any codec -- it doesn't really care what it is. Likewise, the quicktime player will play multiple codecs, including MP3 and mpeg2.
Also, does anyone actually stream mpeg2? This is a serious question. I haven't seen it, but of course I don't have much time to look for content at the only place I have access to enough bandwidth to make streaming video worthwhile.
I'm not sure exactly what your point is. Of course polititians are people. Does that mean they should not be held responsible for their policy decisions?
Or are you saying that they should be let off the hook because they are just doing what anyone else would do in their shoes? If that's true, (which I suspect it may well be) then the problem is not with the people but with the system in which they operate. Either way we have to remain vigilant.
Come on everybody, there's no day like today for a revolution!
The problem is that something more than just proof of prior art is needed. Just look at the number of patents that are granted that really seem to have pretty clear examples of prior art -- the Microsoft one about using sub-pixels of LCD screens to get sharper text, for instance, or some of IPIX's patents. We need more than just evidence - we need the resources to back it up.
I guess that the fundamental flaw of this idea is that the playing field is not level because we are not the government. Patent law seems harder to subvert than copyright law, unfortunately, making some version of the GPL less effective. Maybe we just need to move to a country that doesn't recognize US patents.
This doesn't really have much to do with this particular case, but with patents in general: especially the fear that they can impinge on the freedom of free software.
Some people have suggested the idea of having an online database of ideas, as a way of providing ammunition to fight patent suits: if you can provide evidence that such-and-such an idea existed prior to such-and-such a date... you get the idea.
I like the idea, but the big problem is that a database in and of itself doesn't really provide much evidence. So I've been trying to think of a practical way of implementing what (for lack of a better term) I call an anti-patent. It would essentially be just like a patent, except that it would be used to prove prior art in patent infringment cases. That way, anything that is covered by an anti-patent you can use with impunity in free software with little fear of litigation (hopefully).
The way it would work is that you would make a submission (like an application) and some research would be done to verify the viability of the submission, then if it "passes", evidence would be collected, dated, notarized (or whatever is legally neccessary), and put into a searchable database.
So far the main problems I've run into revolve around financing the system. How can you make the system cheap enough to be practical, but still provide enough revenue to administer the program? I know that some people would probably volunteer for the project, but in addition to the administration costs, it would be necessary to build up a war chest to fund legal challenges/defenses. How much would people really pay for this (especially since they might already be sacrificing potential income from patenting their idea)? How else can this be funded?
Slashdot Mirror
Wait a second. Now, I haven't done extensive research on this one, but I don't think that the FCC fines companies for violating their privacy policies. It's all pretty much self-policed as far as I know. (See TrustE). At any rate, I think it's better not to give them any info in the first place. Personal info is a very hard genie to put back into a bottle.
Could have some fun with that one -- I can just imagine all the slashdot trolls entering in http://goatse.cx/ as the URL for god knows what (something to do with Natalie Portman or course).
[Man, I can't believe I actually remembered that URL -- I think I need a break....]
This was a brilliant troll.
I salute you.
but what the hell are you talking about?
MkLinux is most definitely NOT dead. Check out mklinux.org. And there are many older machines that can only run MkLinux. For the newer machines that can't run the MkLinux kernel, you can install the MkLinux distribution (which, by the way, is much better and more up to date than the LinuxPPC distro) and swap in an up-to-date monolithic kernel. Also -- they are (or will soon be) working on getting MkLinux running on the Darwin Mach microkernel (since they both use versions of Mach 3.0) -- which would get it running on all up-to-date machines now and in the future (as Apple will do the porting).
Please check it out -- there is a very active (and helpful) mailing list.
They might not be using it now, but they will be, if they can. Companies would love to have a tracking mechanism that can't be disabled by privacy-minded individuals.
I'm not sure I see what's so nasty about the term xtian, being that x is a fairly commonly accepted abbreviation for Christ. (Think Xmas, and my favorite -- Xtal for crystal) At any rate, it was the christians who came up with it in the first place.
As for the term "fundie", while I agree that it's certainly somewhat belittling, I think that it reflects more of a "political" (for lack of a better word -- at least one that comes to me at 1 in the morning) distaste for rigid adherence to readily disprovable beliefs as opposed to the belittling of a religious orientation per se.
While I agree that in this particular case it doesn't seem like such a big deal for a big store to voluntarily restrict a product, there are other cases where it has a more profound effect.
For instance, WalMart announced not so long ago that they would no longer carry birth-control pills in their pharmacy. It is all well and good to say "They are a private institution and should be free so sell/not sell whatever they damn please", but the fact of the matter is that WalMart is so big (and getting bigger) that in many communities they are the only source for many products, so WalMart saying that we won't sell product x is equivilent of an outright ban.
Also, many stores (like WalMart and Blockbuster video) sell/rent modified versions of CD's and movies without labeling them as such.
I think that once a corporation gets to be a certain size, it takes on a quasi-governmental power, and should be held accountable to the same standards as a public institution. [Putting on flame-proof underwear].
OK -- maybe it should have been moderated up as funny.
Actually, this is not neccessarily true. Just the presense of a viable third party would probably force the major partys to change some of their positions in order to prevent losing support. By viable third party, think one that consistently gets 20% or so of the vote.
Of course, really what we need here is some sort of electoral reform so that a vote for a third party means more. For instance, if a true majority of the popular vote were required to get elected, then a vote for Nader truly would be a vote against Bush. (Then have a runoff between the top vote getters -- at which point you may feel free to stay home
Are privacy policies legally binding? It seems pretty irrellevant what their policy might be in the case where they are acquired by another company -- what do they care if the new owners violate their policy?
It certainly makes sense that customer info goes to the new owner if the business gets sold. It would be nice, however, if the new owner were held legally accountable to the old privacy policy though. Otherwise they could get bought by doubleclik or some such company and all the info you thought was private is suddenly getting auctioned off to the highest bidder.
Just my completely uniformed opinion, of course.
In Applescript, there is a "required" suite of commands that every app should support (like "Quit", etc.), then there is a "Standard" suite of common commands (like "open", "close") but in addition every app has its own commands that only it uses. You can use the AppleScript Editor to look at the dictionary of supported calls in any app. After all, when you write a script, you are generally scripting a specific app -- there is no need to have a platform-wide API that every application needs to support.
Wow, that brings back some memories. I used CPM86/80 on a DEC Rainbow (anyone remember that?) back in the early 80s. After a while I installed MSDOS 1.?. I remember learning to program with GWBASIC on that thing. Ah, those were the days...
They break the news that Apple is being sued by the Borg over the G4 cube.
I still can't believe that they killed that thing. I was trying to buy a MessagePad 2100 on ebay the other day, and they still go for $800 or so. Can you imagine anyone buying a used Palm Pilot 3 years from now for more than $40?
What was the name of the flight-sim on the Mac that used to let you have 3 monitors?
Flight sims seem to make a more ideal application for multi-head gaming than FPS's, IMHO.
Clearly not. You seem to be confusing materialism with determinism. Just because things have a material cause does not mean that everything happens in a strictly deterministic fashion. In fact we know (or at least believe we know) that this is not the case.
You also imply that materialism is incompatible with spirituality. Being a Buddhist, I have to disagree -- though it doesn't really mesh very well with most organized religion. I find it somewhat amusing that you mention C.S. Lewis. Now I liked "The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe" as much as the next guy, but why does every fundamentalist x-ian with an inferiority complex feel the need to trot out Lewis to try to validate their intellectual standing? Is there no other fundie with a modicum of respect in academia? Oh, I guess not...
Well, you'd have to pepper the forum with plenty of bogus stories so that if someone were to simply do what you say without waiting for the community comment they would likely end up being pretty embarrased ;)
This whole article makes very little sense -- I get the feeling that the author doesn't really understand the subject. From the talk of DNA "entering the quantum multiverse" (as if it is some sort of alternate reality), to the assumption that the existence of said multiverse implies some sort of choice on the part of evolving molecules, nothing really follows here.
It doesn't really contradict Darwinian theory, as far as I can tell. In fact, it pretty much demolishes one of the main arguments of the anti-evolutionists -- that evolution is just too unlikely to have occured. Well in this theory everything that can happen does happen, no matter how unlikely. Well clearly there is no one in any universe where life didn't evolve to ponder why it didn't happen. If life is possible, then it must happen in some universe, and whoever is in that universe will ponder the sheer unlikeliness of their own existence.
As DeCSS has shown us, just creating it is not enough. I agree with you that it is sometimes neccessary to be anonymous to speek freely, but something like this isn't exactly speech. The value of what this person is creating can only be realized if it is actually used, and as we've seen with the DeCSS case, the lawyers will go after everyone who uses the work, not just the creator. In a pure speech case (like the guy who posted Scientology's "secret" information) just getting the info out there is enough, because just knowing the info is what the whole case is about.
But in these cases we need to make it legal somehow, because the scientists who use this work are presumably not in a position to do so anonymously (after all, they must publish their results).
Hopefully your option B wouldn't actually require martyrdom, merely lots of community support (both financial and otherwise).
QT streaming server can serve any codec -- it doesn't really care what it is. Likewise, the quicktime player will play multiple codecs, including MP3 and mpeg2.
Also, does anyone actually stream mpeg2? This is a serious question. I haven't seen it, but of course I don't have much time to look for content at the only place I have access to enough bandwidth to make streaming video worthwhile.
I'm not sure exactly what your point is. Of course polititians are people. Does that mean they should not be held responsible for their policy decisions?
Or are you saying that they should be let off the hook because they are just doing what anyone else would do in their shoes? If that's true, (which I suspect it may well be) then the problem is not with the people but with the system in which they operate. Either way we have to remain vigilant.
Come on everybody, there's no day like today for a revolution!
The problem is that something more than just proof of prior art is needed. Just look at the number of patents that are granted that really seem to have pretty clear examples of prior art -- the Microsoft one about using sub-pixels of LCD screens to get sharper text, for instance, or some of IPIX's patents. We need more than just evidence - we need the resources to back it up.
I guess that the fundamental flaw of this idea is that the playing field is not level because we are not the government. Patent law seems harder to subvert than copyright law, unfortunately, making some version of the GPL less effective. Maybe we just need to move to a country that doesn't recognize US patents.
This doesn't really have much to do with this particular case, but with patents in general: especially the fear that they can impinge on the freedom of free software.
Some people have suggested the idea of having an online database of ideas, as a way of providing ammunition to fight patent suits: if you can provide evidence that such-and-such an idea existed prior to such-and-such a date... you get the idea.
I like the idea, but the big problem is that a database in and of itself doesn't really provide much evidence. So I've been trying to think of a practical way of implementing what (for lack of a better term) I call an anti-patent. It would essentially be just like a patent, except that it would be used to prove prior art in patent infringment cases. That way, anything that is covered by an anti-patent you can use with impunity in free software with little fear of litigation (hopefully).
The way it would work is that you would make a submission (like an application) and some research would be done to verify the viability of the submission, then if it "passes", evidence would be collected, dated, notarized (or whatever is legally neccessary), and put into a searchable database.
So far the main problems I've run into revolve around financing the system. How can you make the system cheap enough to be practical, but still provide enough revenue to administer the program? I know that some people would probably volunteer for the project, but in addition to the administration costs, it would be necessary to build up a war chest to fund legal challenges/defenses. How much would people really pay for this (especially since they might already be sacrificing potential income from patenting their idea)? How else can this be funded?