But I suppose that you could always just give people a code that would allow them to talk to you for that phone number. No matter where they call from they always use that code, and the code you give them is unique for each friend. This way, you could just blacklist one particular code, or all but one and nobody needs caller id. (Maybe I should patent that?)
I've tried Safari in one of those Apple stores in the mall, but I think that I'm spoiled from using Opera, because I find that Opera outperforms Safari by at least a factor of two, even on my 500MHz machine at work. But to be fair, these are across different platforms. And of course, I'm still in love with OSX... I just hope that they keep making Opera for it.
Given their bandwidth and high-speed connections, college computer networks are a frequent haven for illegal file-copying. As a result, many have become so clogged -- often because of file-copying by users from outside of the college community -- that such legitimate uses of the network as email or academic research have dramatically slowed.
The filesharing services that they are trying to shut down are internal to the college's network and as such does not have such a negative impact. In many cases, traffic passes between two dorm rooms on the same switch. It NEVER leaves the network, and in my experiences, NOTHING slows down. The network admins at (some school I know of) are aware of this, and actually ENCOURAGE this type of filesharing as it cuts down on the outbound/inbound traffic to/from the University's internet connection. This is great stuff...
And add to that the notion that encrypted speech is still speech and as such is free and should continue to be free from restrictions. What if the government said, "Sure, you have the right to free speech, as long as you don't use your mouth to say it, we want to keep a written record of everything that you say..."? Encryption is no different, and should not be able to be regulated, not even for the sake of national security. Encryption algorithms are also just ideas and as such should not be able to be silenced. You don't have "thought police" in a free society.
Again, I think that my toothbrush is considered "portable" and obviously electronic. What other type of device would need to be charged? And again, there is no relevance here to the laws of physics. The point is that people have been doing this for a while, and that patents are getting WAY WAY WAY out of hand (search slashdot for "patent").
Excuse me, but I think there is definately a PRIOR art on induction. Or believe me - there definately would be patents and a lot of other hoopla. On a side note, my electric toothbrush has been charging wirelessly for about two years now. This is news?
Yes, it would definately deter hundreds of thousands of filesharers from his reelection... Let's face it, if the American people made enough stink about changing the copyright laws to allow casual filesharing, it would happen. There are enough people who do this and vote that it would make a significant difference. All we need is ONE candidate up for election who makes this his issue and the rest will scurry into place, either immediately agreeing, or seeing the light after they lose.
Yes, just find the criteria that ALL websites allow. For instance, using a combination of letters numbers and different cases. Just because a sight allows you to have a risky password, doesn't mean that you NEED to have one.
Spam is transmitted using bandwidth stolen from the recipient.
Using this logic, then ALL email is transmitted using bandwidth stolen from the recipient (which is not actually true). As a recipient I can only incur a bandwidth loss if I agree to download the message - which means I am expecting someone to have sent me email. Don't like it? Don't use email.
By your reasoning, there should be no action against a murderer unless the victim sends a complaint
No, murder (unlike speech) is not protected under the constitution. I should have the right to send anyone any email I want, unless they first express their disinterest. A government that can regulate commercial email can also regulate personal email and this opens the door for censorship and other such undesirable impairments of civil liberties. How is this any different than receiving unsolicted junk mail via USPS? Should it also be illegal to hand out flyers to passer-bys? I'll say it again: legislation on this matter will only serve to hamper civil liberties. I for one do NOT want congress telling me what I can communicate to other people.
Freedom of speech, not freedom to listen is what is at stake. I should be able to send as much SPAM as I want, provided the individual recipients don't tell me otherwise. That is where a do not spam list comes into play. Unfortunately, such a solution will only fuel the fire for international spammers and as such is not feasible. A better solution would be perhaps to change the protocol to have a flag set for whether or not unsolicited email is allowed. People who do not want it would then simply set the server to tell spammers to go away. If they don't comply, THEN there is a cause for legal action - not before they have been warned by recipient for the first time.
Does anyone believe that SPAMming should really be illegal? Why stop there? Why not make all encrypted emails illegal as well? Then we could go onto anti-government email and other such ridiculous things. The same goes for the telephone. I do hate spam and telemarketers, but I'd rather have 500 emails/day then have my freedom of speech impaired.
Now a do not call/email list is different. You are telling these people that you do not want them to talk to you. Violations of this type could be a type of harassment. That being said, the best way to fight technology is with technology. Legislation does not work - it only serves to restrict civil liberties.
Perhaps it's time for a new mail protocol that employs public key encryption with signed messages that get filtered on the server level. This way, somebody who gets added to your "go-away" list cannot disguise himself as someone else, or at least someone who is on your "love to hear from you" list.
Slashdot crowds are fickle, one minute they are all up in a rage over freedom of speech and civil liberties and "code is speech", free P2P, etc... and the next they are calling a legislative "jihad" against the very technology that they don't want regulated. Give me a break.
No, but I remember C+... whatever happened to that anyway? Damn c++ comes along and everyone forgets about the good ol' days;-)
Re:Nothing happens to your privacy...
on
NYT on RFID Tags
·
· Score: 3, Funny
Yes, but now I can eliminate bad date choices with my minature RFID scanner. I can choose only the women wearing the black thongs. Now, does no signal mean nothing at all?
Re:That's not really the problem.
on
NYT on RFID Tags
·
· Score: 2, Funny
Okay, I have the solution people:
Everyone take of all of your clothes right now, and find the nearest microwave!
They think that the fact they use Linux makes them better than the "lusers who use Windoze".
Yeah, there was nothing quite like changing your buddy's Win98 password by deleting his.pwl file and logging back in as him "for the first time". Damn that ESC key....
But seriously, why don't they just print the text of the EULA either on the back of the box in tiny font size 1 print, or else seal the contents of the box in shrink wrap and provide a copy of the EULA between the box and the shrink wrapped product. You could then return the software if the product remained sealed.
You laugh, but my university has all of their busses connected to a GPS system and then to the internet. Go to www.whereismybus.com and you will find times and exact positions of the busses for Rutgers University!
Do you have to include the code with the hardware that is running the software? I thought that you only have to include the source if you distribute the software. (I.E. download the binaries, etc...) The linux source code is freely availabe many places anyhow, if they don't make any modifications, do they still have to produce the source? This is too confusing - ARGGHHHHH!
Don't leave @HOME out; I bet they're facing a subscriber decline over the past year as well!
And I'll be one of them if they don't change their attitude soon. I am tired of their 15k upload cap. It's freakin ridiculous! I encourage everyone who switches from Comcast to some other ISP to tell them that it is BECAUSE of their upload cap. Maybe they'll start listening. (I can't get DSL, not available yet... and sat costs too much).
Slashdot Mirror
But I suppose that you could always just give people a code that would allow them to talk to you for that phone number. No matter where they call from they always use that code, and the code you give them is unique for each friend. This way, you could just blacklist one particular code, or all but one and nobody needs caller id. (Maybe I should patent that?)
I've tried Safari in one of those Apple stores in the mall, but I think that I'm spoiled from using Opera, because I find that Opera outperforms Safari by at least a factor of two, even on my 500MHz machine at work. But to be fair, these are across different platforms. And of course, I'm still in love with OSX... I just hope that they keep making Opera for it.
...is Virtual Valerie CE. Well, that and an attachment to my other battery operated device...
The filesharing services that they are trying to shut down are internal to the college's network and as such does not have such a negative impact. In many cases, traffic passes between two dorm rooms on the same switch. It NEVER leaves the network, and in my experiences, NOTHING slows down. The network admins at (some school I know of) are aware of this, and actually ENCOURAGE this type of filesharing as it cuts down on the outbound/inbound traffic to/from the University's internet connection. This is great stuff...
Why not? I'm pretty sure that they give away 1000 free hours of AOL at my car dealership...
And add to that the notion that encrypted speech is still speech and as such is free and should continue to be free from restrictions. What if the government said, "Sure, you have the right to free speech, as long as you don't use your mouth to say it, we want to keep a written record of everything that you say..."? Encryption is no different, and should not be able to be regulated, not even for the sake of national security. Encryption algorithms are also just ideas and as such should not be able to be silenced. You don't have "thought police" in a free society.
Again, I think that my toothbrush is considered "portable" and obviously electronic. What other type of device would need to be charged? And again, there is no relevance here to the laws of physics. The point is that people have been doing this for a while, and that patents are getting WAY WAY WAY out of hand (search slashdot for "patent").
Excuse me, but I think there is definately a PRIOR art on induction. Or believe me - there definately would be patents and a lot of other hoopla. On a side note, my electric toothbrush has been charging wirelessly for about two years now. This is news?
Yes, it would definately deter hundreds of thousands of filesharers from his reelection... Let's face it, if the American people made enough stink about changing the copyright laws to allow casual filesharing, it would happen. There are enough people who do this and vote that it would make a significant difference. All we need is ONE candidate up for election who makes this his issue and the rest will scurry into place, either immediately agreeing, or seeing the light after they lose.
Yes, just find the criteria that ALL websites allow. For instance, using a combination of letters numbers and different cases. Just because a sight allows you to have a risky password, doesn't mean that you NEED to have one.
Doesn't everybody store secret information on the Gibson, relying on ThePlague to keep the information safe?
Using this logic, then ALL email is transmitted using bandwidth stolen from the recipient (which is not actually true). As a recipient I can only incur a bandwidth loss if I agree to download the message - which means I am expecting someone to have sent me email. Don't like it? Don't use email.
No, murder (unlike speech) is not protected under the constitution. I should have the right to send anyone any email I want, unless they first express their disinterest. A government that can regulate commercial email can also regulate personal email and this opens the door for censorship and other such undesirable impairments of civil liberties. How is this any different than receiving unsolicted junk mail via USPS? Should it also be illegal to hand out flyers to passer-bys? I'll say it again: legislation on this matter will only serve to hamper civil liberties. I for one do NOT want congress telling me what I can communicate to other people.
Freedom of speech, not freedom to listen is what is at stake. I should be able to send as much SPAM as I want, provided the individual recipients don't tell me otherwise. That is where a do not spam list comes into play. Unfortunately, such a solution will only fuel the fire for international spammers and as such is not feasible. A better solution would be perhaps to change the protocol to have a flag set for whether or not unsolicited email is allowed. People who do not want it would then simply set the server to tell spammers to go away. If they don't comply, THEN there is a cause for legal action - not before they have been warned by recipient for the first time.
Now a do not call/email list is different. You are telling these people that you do not want them to talk to you. Violations of this type could be a type of harassment. That being said, the best way to fight technology is with technology. Legislation does not work - it only serves to restrict civil liberties.
Perhaps it's time for a new mail protocol that employs public key encryption with signed messages that get filtered on the server level. This way, somebody who gets added to your "go-away" list cannot disguise himself as someone else, or at least someone who is on your "love to hear from you" list.
Slashdot crowds are fickle, one minute they are all up in a rage over freedom of speech and civil liberties and "code is speech", free P2P, etc... and the next they are calling a legislative "jihad" against the very technology that they don't want regulated. Give me a break.
IPv5?
No, but I remember C+ ... whatever happened to that anyway? Damn c++ comes along and everyone forgets about the good ol' days ;-)
Yes, but now I can eliminate bad date choices with my minature RFID scanner. I can choose only the women wearing the black thongs. Now, does no signal mean nothing at all?
Everyone take of all of your clothes right now, and find the nearest microwave!
Yeah, there was nothing quite like changing your buddy's Win98 password by deleting his .pwl file and logging back in as him "for the first time". Damn that ESC key....
I'd be more worried about getting confused with Dirk Diggler....
But seriously, why don't they just print the text of the EULA either on the back of the box in tiny font size 1 print, or else seal the contents of the box in shrink wrap and provide a copy of the EULA between the box and the shrink wrapped product. You could then return the software if the product remained sealed.
You laugh, but my university has all of their busses connected to a GPS system and then to the internet. Go to www.whereismybus.com and you will find times and exact positions of the busses for Rutgers University!
testing
Do you have to include the code with the hardware that is running the software? I thought that you only have to include the source if you distribute the software. (I.E. download the binaries, etc...) The linux source code is freely availabe many places anyhow, if they don't make any modifications, do they still have to produce the source? This is too confusing - ARGGHHHHH!
And I'll be one of them if they don't change their attitude soon. I am tired of their 15k upload cap. It's freakin ridiculous! I encourage everyone who switches from Comcast to some other ISP to tell them that it is BECAUSE of their upload cap. Maybe they'll start listening. (I can't get DSL, not available yet... and sat costs too much).