NY Times has more. Including links to PDF's of the response. Parts of which are also quite funny: “While we appreciate your desire to revise the statute to reflect your expansive vision of it, the fact is that we must work with the actual language of the statute, not the aspirational version” that the F.B.I. had provided.
If they want to put a "kill switch" on the main connections; then I thinks it's time that all these home wireless ROUTERS were reprogrammed to interconnect and route around the "killed" connections.:-) Like the old quote "Censorship is just another routing problem".
Subjugated no... But I do think it is a part of the President's responsibility that his decision making process also be completely documented so that it can be reviewed (AT A LATER DATE). So that at a minimum; all future administrations have the benefit of of the documentation in figuring out what both went right and what went wrong...
I think the matter should be quite clear. If President-elect Obama thinks that using this device would let him do his job job more efficiently then he has a responsibility to do so.
It would also go a long way to saying (as he himself said on Meet The Press the other day when talking about CIA officials) that he is going to focus on getting the job done, and not about covering thing up from lawyers.
Lastly it makes for a great step in trying to repair the image of the executive branch of US government in that the presumption is that what he writes doesn't NEED to be censored from public scrutiny.
The way this reads to me is that this is only an "Advisory" council. So they may not have the actual power to implement anything, and the MS lobbyist is only one voice. Hopefully reasonable decisions can still be reached.
This is really a discussion you need to have with the School officials, and they need to decide what their teaching goals are....
Certain types of classes are just fine as resatations, which would be fine if they were posted immeadiately, while others really require that the students engage in classroom dialog to cover the various nuaunces of certain subjects.
What ever system you build should allow the professor to decide how the content could be used.
Weather or not the students attend class can be covered by the professors tracking "classroom participation". No pod-cast system is going to releive the students of that responsibilty, and you can address that in whatever training/access documentation you come up with for the system. This of course needs to be done in conjunction with the professors giving the students that reminder as well durring their first classes....
As for restricting access; The faculty could easily enter their attendance sheets for the class if they keep those records, and students clould be allowed access based on that, assuming you hae a centralized account system to tie this to.... (This doesn't address students "sharing" the dowloaded file with others, for that you'd be looking at some sort of DRM, even that won't stop determined students, but there is a certain ammount of assumed academic honesty.... Violations of that can be left to your school disiplanary board.)
Programmers using drugs to enhance their abilities... Nahhhh.....
Thank goodness caffeine is it's own food group and not just a drug....
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion, It is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed, The hands acquire shaking, the shaking becomes a warning, It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
Ok, So it's litening to the connection as it goes past on the wire....
Why don't we simply have a system whereby mail server A and B encrypt the entire mail exchange transaction?
The only real problem then would be getting people to employ it, and that could be done if it were made backwards compatible by accepting older smtp connections but adding a header that indicated it was at some point transmited in the clear, and accepting a security header that commanded it not to forward to in older servers.
It would seems like it would be a simple modification to SMTP. Though I suppose it would have to get through the IETF first. This still leaves it in clear on the client side when it's uploaded to the server and downloaded, but similar mods could be made to the POP and IMAP connections.
Ok, Is it just me or does this look amazingly like the Star Trek "Warp fields"..... Use something along the lines of the ST nacells and you get more elongation to your field. (Ok I don't know how multiple fields might interact, but there's another way to gain a little control.) Also as long as your not talking about supra liminal velocities just stick a couple of "feild generators" out on some sort of boom arm and there you have some steering control with more or less pressure being applied to one side of the craft or the other. X wing them for more than one plane of control.
For additional thrust (at least at the onset, or possibly for breaking) vent the plasma gases, that you just used to expand your field, through a nozzel.
OK, I'm certain there's some lawyer type out there who could find the right legalese to do this, But here's the basics that I'm proposing.
Since the IETF is the org in charge of RFC's, and since RFC's are what we are using to define the protocols. How about having the IETF, through it's working groups, release all RFC's under some form of the GPL, and trademark the generic name for the protocols.
This should have the effect that all interoperability protocols are published as public documents, and extended private protocols cannot use the publicly defined name.
This would allow the companies like MS who want to "innovate" their own protocols to do so. But without confusing the market. (ie kerberos v. MS kerberos), and with out being able to "extend" (read "Steal") the work of others who do publish open standards.
Additionally, this should be applied retroactively to all published IETF RFC's
(Should this be submitted to the IETF as an RFC of it's own? If so contact me and lets get the ball rolling.)
Ok, we're talking about the Atorney General and the FBI Director. Aren't their depts. limited to "INTERNAL" US investigations and prosecutions? How does the "EXPORT" of these technologies affect their jurisdiction? Now if were the Director of the CIA and NSA repectively making these claims on behalf of the Clinton administration then it would make "SOME" sence to me. Then only way restriction "EXPORT" of these technologies should affect the two agencies in question is if cryptography became a generally accepted "WORLD WIDE"; then it would gain more recognition here in the US and "THAT" would make Reno's and Freech's jobs harder. In that they would no longer have a privacy invading tool at their disposal. Because we all know that they would never use it as a blanket way to gain information against someone whom they didn't already have reason to beleive was commiting a crime. (Oh was I being sarcastic again.... I'm so sorry):-)
SCO's unhappy that RH is selling something that was developed for free.....
Ok, is it just me or doesn't that seem just a tad hipocritical. SCO uses sendmail (a program developed for free, and ported to SCO's kernel) Hmm, and if we put a wee bit of thought into it the list of "Freely Developed" programs that are sold as part of just about every *nix, would seem quite large to me.
Of course being a CEO he probably has very little clue about what goes into his product
Ok we've now seen lots of reports of what Mindcraft did wrong either intentionally or not. There must be someone here from one of the other publishing groups either ZD or Networkfusion. Lets repeat the test and get the proper configuration on the linux box. It was reported somewhere that RedHat would have helped if they'd know, let's do this, publisize the hell out of it, and see which way it goes.
Of course that would mean the linux community would need to aggree on what "proper configuration" means, and we could probably see a weeks worth of flame war just on that.;-) [I say, I say, that's a joke son...]
What would have made this a better joke, would be if Salon had contacted CmdrTaco and had him actually set up a fake/.investment page.:-) but now that I've mentioned it....
It may be an April fools joke, but as someone else pointed out, there is a semi-tradition in the "hacker" community. But it may be a joke being played on them. I have no evidence of this, but their sites could have been "cracked" and semi-maliously shut-down as an April Fools joke.
Until such time as someone comes forward with more details, everything else like this is just speculation. And that's the other thing about this possibly being an April Fools joke, there's supprisingly little on the rumor mills. Somebody in this community must know the maintainers of these sites why hasn't anything come around from that angle.
Slashdot Mirror
All they would need now is one holding a sword aloft, and the words will flow from the mouths of geeks everywhere: "I have the Power!!!".... :-)
NY Times has more. Including links to PDF's of the response. Parts of which are also quite funny: “While we appreciate your desire to revise the statute to reflect your expansive vision of it, the fact is that we must work with the actual language of the statute, not the aspirational version” that the F.B.I. had provided.
If they want to put a "kill switch" on the main connections; then I :-) Like the
thinks it's time that all these home wireless ROUTERS were reprogrammed
to interconnect and route around the "killed" connections.
old quote "Censorship is just another routing problem".
Scooter was charged, and convicted... He just got his sentence commuted by Bush (Heck of a job Scootie)
Oh well I guess that means Peter Parker will be banned from Louisiana....
"Spider-Law, Spider-Law. 'Cause some nut job priest was outraged at what he saw..."
Subjugated no... But I do think it is a part of the President's responsibility that his decision making process also be completely documented so that it can be reviewed (AT A LATER DATE). So that at a minimum; all future administrations have the benefit of of the documentation in figuring out what both went right and what went wrong...
I think the matter should be quite clear. If President-elect Obama thinks that using this device would let him do his job job more efficiently then he has a responsibility to do so.
It would also go a long way to saying (as he himself said on Meet The Press the other day when talking about CIA officials) that he is going to focus on getting the job done, and not about covering thing up from lawyers.
Lastly it makes for a great step in trying to repair the image of the executive branch of US government in that the presumption is that what he writes doesn't NEED to be censored from public scrutiny.
The way this reads to me is that this is only an "Advisory" council. So they may not have the actual power to implement anything, and the MS lobbyist is only one voice. Hopefully reasonable decisions can still be reached.
This is really a discussion you need to have with the School officials, and they need to decide what their teaching goals are....
Certain types of classes are just fine as resatations, which would be fine if they were posted immeadiately, while others really require that the students engage in classroom dialog to cover the various nuaunces of certain subjects.
What ever system you build should allow the professor to decide how the content could be used.
Weather or not the students attend class can be covered by the professors tracking "classroom participation". No pod-cast system is going to releive the students of that responsibilty, and you can address that in whatever training/access documentation you come up with for the system. This of course needs to be done in conjunction with the professors giving the students that reminder as well durring their first classes....
As for restricting access; The faculty could easily enter their attendance sheets for the class if they keep those records, and students clould be allowed access based on that, assuming you hae a centralized account system to tie this to.... (This doesn't address students "sharing" the dowloaded file with others, for that you'd be looking at some sort of DRM, even that won't stop determined students, but there is a certain ammount of assumed academic honesty.... Violations of that can be left to your school disiplanary board.)
Programmers using drugs to enhance their abilities... Nahhhh.....
Thank goodness caffeine is it's own food group and not just a drug....
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion,
It is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed,
The hands acquire shaking, the shaking becomes a warning,
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
If you haven't had a chance to hear it, this is porbably worth it. (About an hour long)
http://www.educause.edu/elements/pol06feldgs.mp3
More can be read at: http://www.wetmachine.com/totsf/
Ok, So it's litening to the connection as it goes past on the wire....
Why don't we simply have a system whereby mail server A and B encrypt the entire mail exchange transaction?
The only real problem then would be getting people to employ it, and that could be done if it were made backwards compatible by accepting older smtp connections but adding a header that indicated it was at some point transmited in the clear, and accepting a security header that commanded it not to forward to in older servers.
It would seems like it would be a simple modification to SMTP. Though I suppose it would have to get through the IETF first. This still leaves it in clear on the client side when it's uploaded to the server and downloaded, but similar mods could be made to the POP and IMAP connections.
Ok, Is it just me or does this look amazingly like the Star Trek "Warp fields"..... Use something along the lines of the ST nacells and you get more elongation to your field. (Ok I don't know how multiple fields might interact, but there's another way to gain a little control.) Also as long as your not talking about supra liminal velocities just stick a couple of "feild generators" out on some sort of boom arm and there you have some steering control with more or less pressure being applied to one side of the craft or the other. X wing them for more than one plane of control.
For additional thrust (at least at the onset, or possibly for breaking) vent the plasma gases, that you just used to expand your field, through a nozzel.
OK, I'm certain there's some lawyer type out there who could find the right legalese to do this, But here's the basics that I'm proposing.
Since the IETF is the org in charge of RFC's, and since RFC's are what we are using to define the protocols. How about having the IETF, through it's working groups, release all RFC's under some form of the GPL, and trademark the generic name for the protocols.
This should have the effect that all interoperability protocols are published as public documents, and extended private protocols cannot use the publicly defined name.
This would allow the companies like MS who want to "innovate" their own protocols to do so. But without confusing the market. (ie kerberos v. MS kerberos), and with out being able to "extend" (read "Steal") the work of others who do publish open standards.
Additionally, this should be applied retroactively to all published IETF RFC's
(Should this be submitted to the IETF as an RFC of it's own? If so contact me and lets get the ball rolling.)
Ok, we're talking about the Atorney General and the FBI Director. Aren't their depts. limited to "INTERNAL" US investigations and prosecutions? How does the "EXPORT" of these technologies affect their jurisdiction? Now if were the Director of the CIA and NSA repectively making these claims on behalf of the Clinton administration then it would make "SOME" sence to me. :-)
Then only way restriction "EXPORT" of these technologies should affect the two agencies in question is if cryptography became a generally accepted "WORLD WIDE"; then it would gain more recognition here in the US and "THAT" would make Reno's and Freech's jobs harder. In that they would no longer have a privacy invading tool at their disposal. Because we all know that they would never use it as a blanket way to gain information against someone whom they didn't already have reason to beleive was commiting a crime. (Oh was I being sarcastic again.... I'm so sorry)
SCO's unhappy that RH is selling something that was developed for free.....
Ok, is it just me or doesn't that seem just a tad hipocritical. SCO uses sendmail (a program developed for free, and ported to SCO's kernel) Hmm, and if we put a wee bit of thought into it the list of "Freely Developed" programs that are sold as part of just about every *nix, would seem quite large to me.
Of course being a CEO he probably has very little clue about what goes into his product
Ok we've now seen lots of reports of what Mindcraft did wrong either intentionally or not. There must be someone here from one of the other publishing groups either ZD or Networkfusion. Lets repeat the test and get the proper configuration on the linux box. It was reported somewhere that RedHat would have helped if they'd know, let's do this, publisize the hell out of it, and see which way it goes.
;-) [I say, I say, that's a joke son...]
Of course that would mean the linux community would need to aggree on what "proper configuration" means, and we could probably see a weeks worth of flame war just on that.
What would have made this a better joke, would be if Salon had contacted CmdrTaco and had him actually set up a fake /.investment page. :-) but now that I've mentioned it....
It may be an April fools joke, but as someone else pointed out, there is a semi-tradition in the "hacker" community. But it may be a joke being played on them. I have no evidence of this, but their sites could have been "cracked" and semi-maliously shut-down as an April Fools joke.
Until such time as someone comes forward with more details, everything else like this is just speculation. And that's the other thing about this possibly being an April Fools joke, there's supprisingly little on the rumor mills. Somebody in this community must know the maintainers of these sites why hasn't anything come around from that angle.
Opps I posted it as a sorty of its own when i wanted to reply to this discussion.
h tml
here's a link describing an 8Mb upgrade for the Palm III
http://www.interlog.com/~tcharron/Palm8M/index.