Stay in line, little sheep. You are only allowed to use the service we provide in the maner that we have planned, so that we can make lots of money from you. If you were to decide to you our service (that you pay for) any way you want, we may not be able to guarantee a 12% per annum growth to wall street.
So... do what you're told, or we won't let you particiapte in our money making enterprise.
Regards, The Phone Compa^H^H^H^H Industry.
PS (WHAT NO ONE IS REALLY TALKING ABOUT IS THAT P2P SHIFTS COSTS, AND WE REALLY REALLY REALLY DON'T WANT THE COST, JUST THE PROFIT)
a facebook or other social app for people to self report symptoms is a great idea that no one has uilt yet. one could even "out" symptoms of their friends or speculate which friends made them sick. lots of issues with it, but a different data source for inf disease folks, even if the data was not completely accurate, would be helpful in predictions.
No, I meant leverage: as in gain more power by building on (using) existing functionality, as a lever arm has more power by using the length of the lever arm.
I think whitelists, in some form or another are the only viable answer.
Basically all the social sites are building personal whitelists.
Once their time runs out - and we build decentralized social networks, individuals will build their own social map nodes - and thoes will work as whitelists though no one will call them that.
Basically, the point people have realized is that most people do not want people they do not know contacting them. And, with a connected world, you'll be connected to the people you know, so they will be in your whitelist, automatically (and no, it will not require that you know their email, just who they are - the whitelisting will be automatic).
Now I would include OpenID, but otherwise the idea still applies: migrate existing eail infrastructure to an optional permission based system that includes 1 or 2 additional headers in the email, and whitelist management facility in mail clients.
it is no wonder that the "under 25" crowd now says "myspace me" or "facebook me" and no longer use email. why would they?
in a globally connected world with several billion possible users - open email simply won't work much longer.
when we need are permission based systems - ones in which people need permission before they can contact another person. it would eliminate spam entirely, by integrating whitelists into mail clients. because no one has built a system like this that leverages and extends existing email servers - private organizations leveraging social connections have moved in to fill the gap. sadly, because facebook messages and myspace messages are not built on an open standard - you have to go through those companies to contact people.
the word used by most of the rest of the content industry is "redistribution"
and as a solution, we offer a way for Content Creators and producers to release materials online for broad distribution and accept financial sponsorship directly. go to http://www.egaltorrents.com/
P2P shifts costs of distribution from central servers and spreads the load out among the downloaders. This is *helpful*, and it is more equitable given that the marginal costs of data copying is near zero - pushing the price of downloaded content lower and lower.
The pricing seems like such a non issue. The elephant in the room is that companies like Comcast are making a killing, taking a ton of money selling services that largely go unused. many service businesses over sell their capacity to ensure high usage rates, but broadband has taken it to an absolute extreme.
The obvious and easy solution is for providers of cable and DSL services to price their offerings according to usage, and when it comes to bandwidth, the accurate solution is 95% billing: you use a ton of bandwidth, the customer gets charged more. They don't really want to do this though - they make a lot more money buying in bulk and selling little access services for much higher rates than the bandwidth used.
One huge upside of changing the pricing system for home Internet to 95% billing is that you don't have to go metering and capping bandwidth to homes. People could get an *extremely* fast connection, but if they utilize it fully 24/7 then they get billed a high rate. This is not that complex a concept to implement technically.
Quoth the ONDCP: "Well folks, there is no rational or reasonable argument we can use, so lets make people think that using drugs is like putting leeches on themselves. (Intern sucks up:) Yeah yeah - that'll work! They'll fall for that, for sure."
I was really looking for the 2003 Superbowl commercial that with a straight line basically told teens that pot got them pregnant, and completely avoided the possibility that, oh, let's see, condoms might be a good thing to mention, or that when you're 14 and do mess up and get pregnant, then abortion is an option to take seriously.
It is almost impossible to have a large discussion about drugs and medical effects in the public sphere. There is a massive, taxpayer funded multi-media campaign from the U.S. federal government that has for many years taught a large fraction of the public a series of messages about drugs that are just plain false. Almost anyone with significant experience with using these same drugs knows this to be the case, but their voices are typically marginalized or not taken seriously.
Good thing there are still some competition on who provides Internet service. I expect that this behavior would have the obvious effect that users will simply use different providers: providers that focus on their customers and not other business' interests.
Here in the San Francisco area, for example, there are locally owned ISP companies that have focused on high quality service and support and have grown and down well while providing DSL at faster speeds and lower cost than the larger providers.
FTA "The scanners bounce harmless "millimeter waves" off passengers"
What the fSck does that mean? In the many years I studies physics, there were no particles I knew of that created something called "millimeter waves". Marketing 1-0-1: tell people it's harmless.
The correct words they meant to use were: "backscatter radiation". Those are photos, baby. Granted, it is a very low dose, but the biological effects of radiation are extremely complex. Even though there are some documented cases where low radiation doeses can have beneficial side effects, almost all cases of increased exposure to radiation are harmful to some degree.
I recently saw signs for this when going through LAX - but the serurity point I wnt through did not have them installed yet.
The sign I read had one line at the bottom that said you could opt/ask not to go through the screening process. It did not say what horrid, annoying or time conuming process was the alternative.
Like so many other times when dealing with law enforcement, simply say "no, I'd rather not."
Has anyone else tried to find videos referenced in the "news" and from "government sources" in the past? On more than one occasion I've looked for videos after I saw clips on mainstream news broadcasts to see for myself - and *poof* just not online, anywhere. searched Google and other search engines - searched middle eastern news sites, US news sites, IRC channels - all over, and the *only* place talking about them were US news outlets, who got copies from ?? usually not referenced sources. This was about the same time I stopped regularly watching TV around 2004/2005.
The US *used* to stand for free speech. They used to be the standard for the world of democratic, open society. I find it sad that US leaders are so blind to their own history and so fearful and ignorant to call for censorship of videos.
which states: "If you have downloaded copyright-protected files without paying for them then, quite simply, you have broken the law."
No, quite simply, that statement is bullshit as well as many other statements on that page. It is under-informed fear mongering and spreading the big-media meme that downloading and sharing is somehow bad.
There are many options (including our site) for people who own copyrights to distribute creative works, get financial sponsorship, or distribute their works for free if they choose to - and furthermore to allow others to distribute their works for them if they license their work in away to enable it. While these issues (downloading, payment, redistribution, illegal actions) are all closely connected to the copyright on the content, making such a blanket statement is irresponsible.
Paying for content rarely enables sharing today. It is the *licensing* and the actual laws are the important part for users to understand when they download or redistribute content. People need to read and understand the licenses and the law to know if they are breaking them.
''' The Federal Communications Commission has recently encountered mounting scrutiny in response to its broad deregulatory practices. Public frustration regarding the FCC has peaked at a time of fierce debate on net neutrality.
In a memo obtained Tuesday by The Washington Post, 30 current and former commission employees complained about the leadership of FCC Chairman Kevin Martin.
Staff members observed that "the FCC process appears broken and most of the blame appears to rest with Chairman Martin."
The memo, written to chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee John Dingell and chairman of the House Energy Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Bart Stupak, increases pressure on the FCC chairman, who, in particular, has been accused of a rigidly anti-regulatory, pro-corporate approach. Many critics assert that his approach has contributed to a lack of oversight over network providers. '''
What's a little deregulation between friends, right?
While open source is good, the real issue is the license. The only mention in the article is some parts were not compatible with GPL(I assume v2). What will the license be for OpenJDK? Looking here (http://freejdk.org/faqs/openjdk_license.html) and here (http://www.gnu.org/software/classpath/license.html) it looks interesting...
Does this mean the Classpath exceptions will be removed? Not clear. Kind of a problem for some if it is removed.
FTA: "Once Java is 100 percent open source, it can be shipped as part of Linux, Sands said. Ubuntu has distributed Java as separately available commercial software, he noted. But once Java is fully open source, it can be offered as part of the free Ubuntu distribution and other Linux variants, Sands said."
For me, and I assume most people interested in open development platforms - the real question about using Java will be around the license (once it is open source) and what that means in terms of success, options, and longevity for the projects we build.
Slashdot Mirror
Dear Valued Customer,
Stay in line, little sheep. You are only allowed to use the service we provide in the maner that we have planned, so that we can make lots of money from you. If you were to decide to you our service (that you pay for) any way you want, we may not be able to guarantee a 12% per annum growth to wall street.
So... do what you're told, or we won't let you particiapte in our money making enterprise.
Regards,
The Phone Compa^H^H^H^H Industry.
PS (WHAT NO ONE IS REALLY TALKING ABOUT IS THAT P2P SHIFTS COSTS, AND WE REALLY REALLY REALLY DON'T WANT THE COST, JUST THE PROFIT)
a facebook or other social app for people to self report symptoms is a great idea that no one has uilt yet. one could even "out" symptoms of their friends or speculate which friends made them sick. lots of issues with it, but a different data source for inf disease folks, even if the data was not completely accurate, would be helpful in predictions.
too busy to do it myself now...
a story about unfair convictions, from, of all places, Craigslist. worth the read.
http://www.craigslist.org/about/best/sfo/734069587.html
no idea how accurate it is, but I found it a very strong argument to get convictions right
read draft linked above. Permission exchange messages to pass private strings (keys).
No, I meant leverage: as in gain more power by building on (using) existing functionality, as a lever arm has more power by using the length of the lever arm.
I think whitelists, in some form or another are the only viable answer.
Basically all the social sites are building personal whitelists.
Once their time runs out - and we build decentralized social networks, individuals will build their own social map nodes - and thoes will work as whitelists though no one will call them that.
Basically, the point people have realized is that most people do not want people they do not know contacting them. And, with a connected world, you'll be connected to the people you know, so they will be in your whitelist, automatically (and no, it will not require that you know their email, just who they are - the whitelisting will be automatic).
you're right, it wouldn't work well for that case. they could still use email
I wrote up the ideas in a draft in Jan 2007
http://biocontact.org/pmail/PMAIL_DRAFT_001.doc
but it didn't get much attention at all..
Now I would include OpenID, but otherwise the idea still applies: migrate existing eail infrastructure to an optional permission based system that includes 1 or 2 additional headers in the email, and whitelist management facility in mail clients.
it is no wonder that the "under 25" crowd now says "myspace me" or "facebook me" and no longer use email. why would they?
in a globally connected world with several billion possible users - open email simply won't work much longer.
when we need are permission based systems - ones in which people need permission before they can contact another person. it would eliminate spam entirely, by integrating whitelists into mail clients. because no one has built a system like this that leverages and extends existing email servers - private organizations leveraging social connections have moved in to fill the gap. sadly, because facebook messages and myspace messages are not built on an open standard - you have to go through those companies to contact people.
the word used by most of the rest of the content industry is "redistribution"
and as a solution, we offer a way for Content Creators and producers to release materials online for broad distribution and accept financial sponsorship directly. go to http://www.egaltorrents.com/
when will these companies get it - if done well, open systems work better in a globally connected world.
billions of monkeys typing on computers will inevitably create a small handful that can and will consistently break your closed source world.
P2P shifts costs of distribution from central servers and spreads the load out among the downloaders. This is *helpful*, and it is more equitable given that the marginal costs of data copying is near zero - pushing the price of downloaded content lower and lower.
The pricing seems like such a non issue. The elephant in the room is that companies like Comcast are making a killing, taking a ton of money selling services that largely go unused. many service businesses over sell their capacity to ensure high usage rates, but broadband has taken it to an absolute extreme.
The obvious and easy solution is for providers of cable and DSL services to price their offerings according to usage, and when it comes to bandwidth, the accurate solution is 95% billing: you use a ton of bandwidth, the customer gets charged more. They don't really want to do this though - they make a lot more money buying in bulk and selling little access services for much higher rates than the bandwidth used.
One huge upside of changing the pricing system for home Internet to 95% billing is that you don't have to go metering and capping bandwidth to homes. People could get an *extremely* fast connection, but if they utilize it fully 24/7 then they get billed a high rate. This is not that complex a concept to implement technically.
This pretty much speaks for itself:
http://boss.streamos.com/download/federal/aspen/slom_h_1.mov
Quoth the ONDCP: "Well folks, there is no rational or reasonable argument we can use, so lets make people think that using drugs is like putting leeches on themselves. (Intern sucks up:) Yeah yeah - that'll work! They'll fall for that, for sure."
For more of the recent ones:
http://www.mediacampaign.org/mg/television.html
I was really looking for the 2003 Superbowl commercial that with a straight line basically told teens that pot got them pregnant, and completely avoided the possibility that, oh, let's see, condoms might be a good thing to mention, or that when you're 14 and do mess up and get pregnant, then abortion is an option to take seriously.
It is almost impossible to have a large discussion about drugs and medical effects in the public sphere. There is a massive, taxpayer funded multi-media campaign from the U.S. federal government that has for many years taught a large fraction of the public a series of messages about drugs that are just plain false. Almost anyone with significant experience with using these same drugs knows this to be the case, but their voices are typically marginalized or not taken seriously.
changeable domestic airline flight on miles: 25,000 miles, $10 in taxes
an extra round trip on the train to the airport: 2*5.65=$11.30
a few hours the day before your real flight date: free
getting banned from flying by government thugs just for the principle: priceless
Good thing there are still some competition on who provides Internet service. I expect that this behavior would have the obvious effect that users will simply use different providers: providers that focus on their customers and not other business' interests.
Here in the San Francisco area, for example, there are locally owned ISP companies that have focused on high quality service and support and have grown and down well while providing DSL at faster speeds and lower cost than the larger providers.
FTA
"The scanners bounce harmless "millimeter waves" off passengers"
What the fSck does that mean? In the many years I studies physics, there were no particles I knew of that created something called "millimeter waves". Marketing 1-0-1: tell people it's harmless.
The correct words they meant to use were: "backscatter radiation". Those are photos, baby. Granted, it is a very low dose, but the biological effects of radiation are extremely complex. Even though there are some documented cases where low radiation doeses can have beneficial side effects, almost all cases of increased exposure to radiation are harmful to some degree.
I recently saw signs for this when going through LAX - but the serurity point I wnt through did not have them installed yet.
The sign I read had one line at the bottom that said you could opt/ask not to go through the screening process. It did not say what horrid, annoying or time conuming process was the alternative.
Like so many other times when dealing with law enforcement, simply say "no, I'd rather not."
"The Silverlight plugin does not work on pre-Intel Macs. Sorry."
embrace, extend, extinguish.
Shortest path from Kevin Bacon to drug overdose:
Kevin Bacon
Christmas
The Beatles
Drug overdose
3 clicks needed:
It appears that Kevin OD'ed on Christmas with the Beatles.
http://www.netsoc.tcd.ie/~mu/cgi-bin/shortpath.cgi?from=Kevin+Bacon&to=drug+overdose
Has anyone else tried to find videos referenced in the "news" and from "government sources" in the past? On more than one occasion I've looked for videos after I saw clips on mainstream news broadcasts to see for myself - and *poof* just not online, anywhere. searched Google and other search engines - searched middle eastern news sites, US news sites, IRC channels - all over, and the *only* place talking about them were US news outlets, who got copies from ?? usually not referenced sources. This was about the same time I stopped regularly watching TV around 2004/2005.
The US *used* to stand for free speech. They used to be the standard for the world of democratic, open society. I find it sad that US leaders are so blind to their own history and so fearful and ignorant to call for censorship of videos.
Google hit #1 for "Missouri University copyright quiz"
is
From http://mizzouit.missouri.edu/security/dmca-quiz.html
which states:
"If you have downloaded copyright-protected files without paying for them then, quite simply, you have broken the law."
No, quite simply, that statement is bullshit as well as many other statements on that page. It is under-informed fear mongering and spreading the big-media meme that downloading and sharing is somehow bad.
There are many options (including our site) for people who own copyrights to distribute creative works, get financial sponsorship, or distribute their works for free if they choose to - and furthermore to allow others to distribute their works for them if they license their work in away to enable it. While these issues (downloading, payment, redistribution, illegal actions) are all closely connected to the copyright on the content, making such a blanket statement is irresponsible.
Paying for content rarely enables sharing today. It is the *licensing* and the actual laws are the important part for users to understand when they download or redistribute content. People need to read and understand the licenses and the law to know if they are breaking them.
feature:
http://sourcefrog.net/weblog/software/linux-kernel/free-mem.html
use vmstat
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/050508R.shtml
'''
The Federal Communications Commission has recently encountered mounting scrutiny in response to its broad deregulatory practices. Public frustration regarding the FCC has peaked at a time of fierce debate on net neutrality.
In a memo obtained Tuesday by The Washington Post, 30 current and former commission employees complained about the leadership of FCC Chairman Kevin Martin.
Staff members observed that "the FCC process appears broken and most of the blame appears to rest with Chairman Martin."
The memo, written to chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee John Dingell and chairman of the House Energy Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Bart Stupak, increases pressure on the FCC chairman, who, in particular, has been accused of a rigidly anti-regulatory, pro-corporate approach. Many critics assert that his approach has contributed to a lack of oversight over network providers.
'''
What's a little deregulation between friends, right?
While open source is good, the real issue is the license. The only mention in the article is some parts were not compatible with GPL(I assume v2). What will the license be for OpenJDK? Looking here (http://freejdk.org/faqs/openjdk_license.html) and here (http://www.gnu.org/software/classpath/license.html) it looks interesting...
Does this mean the Classpath exceptions will be removed? Not clear. Kind of a problem for some if it is removed.
FTA: "Once Java is 100 percent open source, it can be shipped as part of Linux, Sands said. Ubuntu has distributed Java as separately available commercial software, he noted. But once Java is fully open source, it can be offered as part of the free Ubuntu distribution and other Linux variants, Sands said."
For me, and I assume most people interested in open development platforms - the real question about using Java will be around the license (once it is open source) and what that means in terms of success, options, and longevity for the projects we build.