...while management of personal identity and keys will reside in a centralized database...
Yes the rest of it doesn't make sense. I was only pointing to the already known idea of Microsoft having it's own large database of your personal info.
"you can make it so the user can, say, only read this book on Tuesday."
'...the file security will live within the file while management of personal identity and keys will reside in a centralized database...'
"The real enabler," he said, "will be the persistence of the infrastructure."
That's scary. It may be vaporous in that these things don't exist yet, but it's scary in that I'm sure there are people who aren't thinking critically and are eating up these ideas as if it's completely normal for one company to take this kind of social freedom away from its citizens.
"This will open a Pandora's box," he said, promoting the idea of "elaborate rights." These, he said, could move the concept of buy-once rights to time-based rights -- "you can make it so the user can, say, only read this book on Tuesday" -- or location-based rights.
This, plus Microsoft's.Net plans, would add up to "persistent rights management," Ramos said; in other words, he said, the file security will live within the file while management of personal identity and keys will reside in a centralized database. "The real enabler," he said, "will be the persistence of the infrastructure."
(*shakes from fear realizing that probably a large number of people out there are eating this garbage up as if it were as natural as poop.*)
It's funny how quick to blame crypto people are...
on
Blaming Encryption
·
· Score: 1
I mean, these terrorists didn't even use guns. They used non-metallic knives, or utility knives. They used probably hollow threats that certain packages were bombs. They abused the trust of our public that if you comply with the hijackers, you have little reason to fear.
They abused every social loophole possible to carry out these attacks. You don't need crypto to hijack a plane with tools like those.
Yet so many are convinced that crypto is partly to blame. I truly hope MSNBC's poll is badly skewed.
This isn't a war of bloodshed, nukes not needed.
on
Handling the Loads
·
· Score: 1
This is a psychological war, not a war of bloodshed. These islamic-fundamentalist-terrorists don't desire bloodshed as much as they desire destroying the world image of Americans. They don't fear us, they hate us, and everything about us. They hate all of our habits, everything about our lifestyle. They hate it all, from the simple and inconceivable things like letting our women reveal as much of their skin as they like, to the mundane and life-dedicating work of acquiring wealth. This is not a war of bloodshed, though I'm sure the terrorists would like us to think that. This is a psychological war. They want us to stop living the way we live, or die off the planet. We are an aberration to their understanding and living proof that their fundamentalist views don't mean jack shit.
That being said, it may come to nukes, thought I doubt it since we have weapons of mass destruction that do the same damage as a nuke with no nuclear fallout. Yes, this "war" as people call it could heat up into some previously inconceivable Protestant-versus-muslim war where it's all about who has the better imaginary friend. (to quote an IRC friend of mine)
But, and I repeat this again, this is not a war of bloodshed, it is not a war to end the lives of others. This is about the simple shit, like should you be allowed to shave your beard (which the fundamentalist-islamics in Afghan forbid), should you be allowed to pursue your own destiny, SHOULD YOU BE FREE. To complicate matters further, the enemy is elusive. One is tempted to blame all muslims, but this is wrong. The FUNDAMENTALIST muslims are responsible for this. In practice, the fundamentalist muslims are not much different from the fundamentalist protestants we have in our own country. They are both groups of people who seek to restrict freedom because they believe only one view is possible, and that view is the only way to live life.
Fundamentalism is the true "new evil" as Prime Minister Blair tried to explain, even though it's an evil that's existed for centuries. The belief that your beliefs are superior to others, that your way of life is how everone should live, has existed probably since the original homo sapiens. But make no mistake, it is the antithesis to freedom. When you consider the foreign ways of another to be inferior or wrong, you are by definition creating intolerance.
This is a psychological war. Who will win? Will freedom win? Will fundamentalism win? Freedom exists in muslim states just as fundamentalism exists in protestant America. I just hope people recognize where the real evil is coming from before too many innocent lives are lost.
The commercial software industry has succeeded in subscribing many people to this concept of "intellectual property" and it's supposed sovereign position over free speech. They seem to have even convinced our representatives in congress, to whom this message is primarily addressed, which is most terrifying of all.
Copyright law, from which this concept of Intellectual Property sprang, was a set of laws GRANTED TO ARTISTS by the people of the United States to allow the creative American to earn a living off their creation and encourage them to continue working. Now the good capitalists in our country have formed business models based on buying, selling, and licensing those copyrights. There is nothing wrong with this, this makes good business sense. Just as services have a value, so do works of art, ideas, and many forms of entertainment. However, it is a mistake to believe that copyright law supercedes the right to freely innovate and work towards new invention. That is what this bill would do. This bill would squelch any possibility of free innovation in digital devices, including computers, mobile communications, cyptography, etc. This bill, if passed, would put a business model based on distributing culture above the first amendment that gave birth to that culture. In the blink of a voting button, the copyright would become more important than the first amendment. Why is it suddenly more important that we protect the business model of distributors of copyrighted material than it is to protect the freedom that allows the creators of our country to build upon prior knowledge? This makes little sense to me, unless our representatives themselves have given up on the constitution, and it's meaning.
Why is everyone suddenly so blind to the fact that without free speech in the first place, there would be no "intellectual property", that "intellectual property" does in fact take a back seat to free speech and the free flow of information? Why do people suddenly treat the business model based on selling "intellectual property" as if it were as important as national defense by protecting it with laws that erode personal freedom? Why is it suddenly more important that we protect the media distribution business model than it is to protect the freedom that allows the creators of our country to create?
Frankly, if this bill passes, not only will I vote for your opponent in the coming election, I will leave this country and naturalize elsewhere. This bill would make criminals of innovators, it would nearly eliminate any possibility that free men could create something new in the digital realm. Learning a new language is a small price to pay for the inalienable freedom to innovate. I seriously doubt that I am alone in that sentiment. I beg of you to do whatever possible to defeat this bill and protect the civil liberties of educated Americans.
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.
I just now sent that to Bush and Cheney, Diane Feinstein (one of the strongest supporters of the DMCA I'm told), Barbara Boxer, and Stephen Horn. What's amazing to me is the threat to leave the U.S. is not an idle one. Mexico sounds much more fun than a U.S. regulated by that absurd law.
... in convincing everyone of this concept of "intellectual property" and it's supposed sovereign position over free speech. They seem to have even convinced our representatives in congress, which is most terrifying.
Why is everyone suddenly so blind to the FACT that without free speech in the first place, there would be no "intellectual property", that "intellectual property" does in fact take a BACK SEAT to free speech and the free flow of information? Why do people suddenly treat the business model based on selling "intellectual property" as if it were as important as national defense by protecting it with laws that erode personal freedom?
Copyright law, from which this concept of IP sprang was a set of laws GRANTED TO ARTISTS by the people of the United States to allow them to earn a living off their creation and encourage them to continue working. Now capitalists have formed business models based on buying and selling those copyrights and suddenly the copyright is more important than the first amendment?? Why is it suddenly more important that we protect the business model of distributors of copyrighted material than it is to protect the freedom that allows the creators of our country to build upon prior knowledge?
Re:It stems from something beyond software.
on
Microsoft vs. Ximian
·
· Score: 1
Not really.
For one, patents expire, they are not a "forever" proposition like copyrights have become.
Second, sharing is still going on in that scenario. The scientists are still sharing their data so other people can build on it. In the copyrighted software industry, there is no sharing whatsoever.
Third, the patent only protects the scientist's ability to make money off of what they've come up with for a short period of time. It does not prevent others from doing so indefinitely, nor does it prevent others from learning on their own and possibly improving on it.
Stallman's stance is not just about software, it's about the future of software innovation. Stallman knew that if source code were kept secret, innovation would suffer for it. I believe he was correct in that assessment.
The argument is not so different from the scientific community. If scientists started withholding their data, their abstracts, their papers, noone would be able to build upon prior knowledge and the inventive forward motion of the human race would hit a brick wall.
This is why he advocates making ALL software "free" (free meaning free to redistribute and modify). To ignore copyrighted software is to deny potential innovation. To keep the Windows 9x source code from the public is to deny them ideas, to deny them the ability to look at the code and create from it, improve it, build upon it. It's logical, though extreme.
Frankly I think Russia might just be able to afford this one. They're keeping the design very simple. The picture shown on spacedaily.com shows one module that's smaller than the ISS Svezda (zvezda?) service module (not the FGB).
I think making movies in space is overrated. Movie sets require actual open space to film, and staff on hand. For Ministation 1 we're talking three people max, at least one of which has to be a Soyuz pilot, a max of 20 days, and habitable volume comparible to a minivan. That just doesn't sound realistic for making movies to me.
But space tourism, fuck yeah I'd go. Hell, I want to do it badly enough to try out what that guy in oregon is doing. Don't laugh at me, I was born and raised in Oregon, so maybe it's the air and greenery that implants insane desires.
The open source movement may not yet be providing tools for the "common man", but it is providing probably the most amazing hobbyist tools yet seen through history.
Legos encouraged social interaction for me. I have 3 brothers, and we had about 5-6 different cousins close by while growing up. Most of the best times we had were bringing out collective sets of bricks together to build large structures/cities/vehicles.
My country has humiliated me. My country, the United States, has deeply embarassed me. How is it that the country that stood for freedom of speech has now gone so low as to begin warping laws that it's citizens granted artists to restrict civil rights? Worse yet, we're not restricting the civil rights of our own citizens, WE'RE RESTRICTING THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF CITIZENS FROM COUNTRIES WHOM WE ENCOURAGED TO EMBRACE FREE SPEECH. In fact, we're doing such a good job of it, that now Russia is warning it's citizens not to travel to our country, just like our country constantly warns us not to travel to China.
This is exceedingly humiliating and depressing. It was less than 15 years ago that we encouraged Gobachev to tear down the wall, to enact change in a totalitarian regime that completely restricted freedom of speech.Now that same country is warning it's citizens against our lack of freedoms.
It doesn't take a "million workarounds" or "130 IQ"... it's called Mandrake people, It's Linux for average people. It's probably easier to install than Windows.
The amount of desk space in that cube is a problem. I doubt if I could work in it because of how little it has. I liked all the other stuff though, the fish tank, removable/interchangeable modules, the window sim, etc.. put more desk space in it and I would use it.
Slashdot Mirror
are run into homes, i.e., most california homes.
I'm sure that will help the power crisis... oh wait, what power crisis?
Yes the rest of it doesn't make sense. I was only pointing to the already known idea of Microsoft having it's own large database of your personal info.
That's scary. It may be vaporous in that these things don't exist yet, but it's scary in that I'm sure there are people who aren't thinking critically and are eating up these ideas as if it's completely normal for one company to take this kind of social freedom away from its citizens.
Well, I consider mine man-made, so doesn't that make it artificial?
(*shakes from fear realizing that probably a large number of people out there are eating this garbage up as if it were as natural as poop.*)
I mean, these terrorists didn't even use guns. They used non-metallic knives, or utility knives. They used probably hollow threats that certain packages were bombs. They abused the trust of our public that if you comply with the hijackers, you have little reason to fear.
They abused every social loophole possible to carry out these attacks. You don't need crypto to hijack a plane with tools like those.
Yet so many are convinced that crypto is partly to blame. I truly hope MSNBC's poll is badly skewed.
This is a psychological war, not a war of bloodshed. These islamic-fundamentalist-terrorists don't desire bloodshed as much as they desire destroying the world image of Americans. They don't fear us, they hate us, and everything about us. They hate all of our habits, everything about our lifestyle. They hate it all, from the simple and inconceivable things like letting our women reveal as much of their skin as they like, to the mundane and life-dedicating work of acquiring wealth. This is not a war of bloodshed, though I'm sure the terrorists would like us to think that. This is a psychological war. They want us to stop living the way we live, or die off the planet. We are an aberration to their understanding and living proof that their fundamentalist views don't mean jack shit.
That being said, it may come to nukes, thought I doubt it since we have weapons of mass destruction that do the same damage as a nuke with no nuclear fallout. Yes, this "war" as people call it could heat up into some previously inconceivable Protestant-versus-muslim war where it's all about who has the better imaginary friend. (to quote an IRC friend of mine)
But, and I repeat this again, this is not a war of bloodshed, it is not a war to end the lives of others. This is about the simple shit, like should you be allowed to shave your beard (which the fundamentalist-islamics in Afghan forbid), should you be allowed to pursue your own destiny, SHOULD YOU BE FREE. To complicate matters further, the enemy is elusive. One is tempted to blame all muslims, but this is wrong. The FUNDAMENTALIST muslims are responsible for this. In practice, the fundamentalist muslims are not much different from the fundamentalist protestants we have in our own country. They are both groups of people who seek to restrict freedom because they believe only one view is possible, and that view is the only way to live life.
Fundamentalism is the true "new evil" as Prime Minister Blair tried to explain, even though it's an evil that's existed for centuries. The belief that your beliefs are superior to others, that your way of life is how everone should live, has existed probably since the original homo sapiens. But make no mistake, it is the antithesis to freedom. When you consider the foreign ways of another to be inferior or wrong, you are by definition creating intolerance.
This is a psychological war. Who will win? Will freedom win? Will fundamentalism win? Freedom exists in muslim states just as fundamentalism exists in protestant America. I just hope people recognize where the real evil is coming from before too many innocent lives are lost.
The article that changed my thinking on this.
Peace.
I just now sent that to Bush and Cheney, Diane Feinstein (one of the strongest supporters of the DMCA I'm told), Barbara Boxer, and Stephen Horn. What's amazing to me is the threat to leave the U.S. is not an idle one. Mexico sounds much more fun than a U.S. regulated by that absurd law.
... in convincing everyone of this concept of "intellectual property" and it's supposed sovereign position over free speech. They seem to have even convinced our representatives in congress, which is most terrifying.
Why is everyone suddenly so blind to the FACT that without free speech in the first place, there would be no "intellectual property", that "intellectual property" does in fact take a BACK SEAT to free speech and the free flow of information? Why do people suddenly treat the business model based on selling "intellectual property" as if it were as important as national defense by protecting it with laws that erode personal freedom?
Copyright law, from which this concept of IP sprang was a set of laws GRANTED TO ARTISTS by the people of the United States to allow them to earn a living off their creation and encourage them to continue working. Now capitalists have formed business models based on buying and selling those copyrights and suddenly the copyright is more important than the first amendment?? Why is it suddenly more important that we protect the business model of distributors of copyrighted material than it is to protect the freedom that allows the creators of our country to build upon prior knowledge?
Not really.
For one, patents expire, they are not a "forever" proposition like copyrights have become.
Second, sharing is still going on in that scenario. The scientists are still sharing their data so other people can build on it. In the copyrighted software industry, there is no sharing whatsoever.
Third, the patent only protects the scientist's ability to make money off of what they've come up with for a short period of time. It does not prevent others from doing so indefinitely, nor does it prevent others from learning on their own and possibly improving on it.
FROM MY POINT OF VIEW:
Stallman's stance is not just about software, it's about the future of software innovation. Stallman knew that if source code were kept secret, innovation would suffer for it. I believe he was correct in that assessment.
The argument is not so different from the scientific community. If scientists started withholding their data, their abstracts, their papers, noone would be able to build upon prior knowledge and the inventive forward motion of the human race would hit a brick wall.
This is why he advocates making ALL software "free" (free meaning free to redistribute and modify). To ignore copyrighted software is to deny potential innovation. To keep the Windows 9x source code from the public is to deny them ideas, to deny them the ability to look at the code and create from it, improve it, build upon it. It's logical, though extreme.
Frankly I think Russia might just be able to afford this one. They're keeping the design very simple. The picture shown on spacedaily.com shows one module that's smaller than the ISS Svezda (zvezda?) service module (not the FGB).
I think making movies in space is overrated. Movie sets require actual open space to film, and staff on hand. For Ministation 1 we're talking three people max, at least one of which has to be a Soyuz pilot, a max of 20 days, and habitable volume comparible to a minivan. That just doesn't sound realistic for making movies to me.
But space tourism, fuck yeah I'd go. Hell, I want to do it badly enough to try out what that guy in oregon is doing. Don't laugh at me, I was born and raised in Oregon, so maybe it's the air and greenery that implants insane desires.
how is this on-topic?
SpaceDaily's story
They explain some of the logistics, such as making the commercial station a stopover point for soyuz taxi flights to the ISS to save launch costs.
I'm curious, what legal reason might one have to delete e-mail older than 3 months?
The open source movement may not yet be providing tools for the "common man", but it is providing probably the most amazing hobbyist tools yet seen through history.
Legos encouraged social interaction for me. I have 3 brothers, and we had about 5-6 different cousins close by while growing up. Most of the best times we had were bringing out collective sets of bricks together to build large structures/cities/vehicles.
If they had medical trials for integrating human thought with a data stream, I think I might honestly consider signing up.
for being a borg drone... mmmm... borg implants...
My country has humiliated me. My country, the United States, has deeply embarassed me. How is it that the country that stood for freedom of speech has now gone so low as to begin warping laws that it's citizens granted artists to restrict civil rights? Worse yet, we're not restricting the civil rights of our own citizens, WE'RE RESTRICTING THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF CITIZENS FROM COUNTRIES WHOM WE ENCOURAGED TO EMBRACE FREE SPEECH. In fact, we're doing such a good job of it, that now Russia is warning it's citizens not to travel to our country, just like our country constantly warns us not to travel to China.
This is exceedingly humiliating and depressing. It was less than 15 years ago that we encouraged Gobachev to tear down the wall, to enact change in a totalitarian regime that completely restricted freedom of speech.Now that same country is warning it's citizens against our lack of freedoms.
Words fail.
I suspect MS will be working towards similar appliances soon.
It doesn't take a "million workarounds" or "130 IQ"... it's called Mandrake people, It's Linux for average people. It's probably easier to install than Windows.
The amount of desk space in that cube is a problem. I doubt if I could work in it because of how little it has. I liked all the other stuff though, the fish tank, removable/interchangeable modules, the window sim, etc.. put more desk space in it and I would use it.
If noone can prove that it's unsafe to fly, we fly - - Pre-Challenger NASA mindset.
Jet fighters won't help us win the war, let's move those R&D funds elsewhere - Adolf Hitler, 1942
Mp3? What's that? - RIAA, 1996
How about the enormous chunk of Linux webservers? Last I read, Linux has supported IPv6 for some time now.