Anytime a Navigator user performs a search by typing terms into the browser's URL bar and pressing the adjacent Search button, or by using the Search tab on the browser's My Sidebar feature, the user data is sent to a server at info.netscape.com using a uniform resource locator (URL) forwarding system.
Am I the only one who doesn't see this as an issue? The unique ID number is a bit much, but the url forwarding system?
Don't get me wrong, I dispise AOL/TW and I haven't used Netscape since version 5 because I don't like the way it works - (Shoot me - I like IE) but I just don't see what the big deal of using a url forward is. If you can, according to the article, disable it by typing "http://www.google.com" directly into the address bar, whats the deal?
Apparently they aren't using it to maximize bandwidth, because it's not configured to serve cached data.
I'm not a fan of Comcast (or for that matter cable modems in general) BUT I must ask - Where is your proof that they aren't caching any of the pages and only using it to gather marketing data? Once can configure a transparent proxy to completely mask its existance. I do this quite often with customers on their firewalls I don't give a crap about what they are browsing, I just try to get the most/$$ for THEIR bandwidth.
Mod me down as a troll if you wish, but quite frankly, I'm glad to see this...
Since tech details are a bit sparse, I'm not quite sure which patent this is or whether it is frivilous, but quite frankly, I like seeing someone (try to) take a bite out of the big guy... And Adobe is the Microsoft of the digital image world.
I am from South Carolina, and since I am from SC, I decided to exercise my power as a constituent... I called his local office in the capitol of SC, Columbia (my home).
The State Director had not heard of it at all. I had to spell it for him ("Sierra-Sierra-Sierra-Charlie-Alpha") and describe it. His question was "Are you sure Mr. Hollings proposed this?"
Since it is close to closing time on the East Coast, he could offer me no further assistance.
He did promise to put me in touch with the right people on Monday, though.
In an interesting section on the wireless internet [economist.com] at The Economist they suggest the name Wi-Fi, which stands for Wireless fidelity or some such silliness.
I don't think they are the ones who suggested WiFi... It has been on many vendor's packages for quite a while...
I think that the W3C incorporating a "non-discriminatory" license to patents does just the opposite -
Lets take a look at open source, shall we?
According to a Netcraft survey (http://www.netcraft.com/survey/) taken in July 2001, 60% of the internet's web servers STILL RUN APACHE. The reasons for this? It is fast, cheap, and secure. The reason it is all three of these is it is OPEN SOURCE. If the W3C began considering patented technology for standards, and incorporated those standards into core web systems (example: secure, uncopyable web page) then, if that technology uses some server-side component, Apache, the LONG TIME leader in web servers, would be LEFT OUT IN THE COLD and hence, discriminated against.
Granted, that may the whole point for this move - the authors are from some of the largest IT companies in the US - Microsoft (well, their IP law firm), Apple Computer, and HP. That's fine. It is also counter to the goals of the W3C.
(quoting from http://www.w3.org/Consortium/#goals)
"W3C's long term goals for the Web are:
1) Universal Access: To make the Web accessible to all by promoting technologies that take into account the vast differences in culture, education, ability, material resources, and physical limitations of users on all continents;
2) Semantic Web : To develop a software environment that permits each user to make the best use of the resources available on the Web;
3) Web of Trust : To guide the Web's development with careful consideration for the novel legal, commercial, and social issues raised by this technology."
So unless the W3C wants to become a hypocrisy and a joke, either this proposal has to go, or the original goals have to go. I'd hate to see the goals change. W3C has provided an amazing service to the web community, and if its goals change, I'm afraid that service would cease to exist.
Don't get me wrong - I am a small business owner and as a small business owner I understand the value of intellectual property as much as if not more than a large company. If my business model is based on my IP, then with it I make money, without it, I fall into the (if I'm not mistaken) 95% of companies that close their doors within the first five years of existence. HOWEVER, I don't think that STANDARDS should be based on patented technologies unless the patent owner freely licenses it to anyone who uses the standard.
According to the article: "Citing ``people familiar with the situation,'' the paper said AOL would hold a 40 percent interest in the business and leave AT&T with the majority control it wants.
So AOL/TW won't get the entire AT&T cable market, just part of it.
Good magazine normally, but I think they are a little short on news here, so they are trying to make something out of nothing...
Once again, a "respectable" firm calls everyone, from the good guys to the bad hackers. So because I like lego mindstorm, I can shut down your website. Right.
Business 2.0 is an american firm, and hence they are trying to invoke the "sue sue sue" response that the country is in right now... I must say I've lost some respect for them now.
I do have one question though - I can understand a trademark infringement case ("LegOs") but intellectual property? That just isn't flying. Do I have to sign a license agreement when I buy mindstorm? Is there a shrinkwrap agreement saying I can't toy with the hardware? As far as I'm concerned (granted, IANAL), Noga is doing nothing wrong, and Business 2.0 is trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill. Paul Keegan, go do some more research.
We all know that our "Friends" at the power company are as good of a monopoly as we could possibly ever know - perhaps even better than the phone/telco monopolies because deregulation occurs at the city/state level instead of at the national level with FCC Regulation....
So... We go from the hands of one monopoly (Cable) to another monopoly (Phone) to yet a third monopoly (Power).
I'm not sure which devil is going to be better.
For areas with limited telco/cable service, this may be the monopoly - and we know how the energy companies are on rates...
Another question - will this be handled as well as power in California? I hope not...
I advocate law enforcement being able to do their jobs responsibly. Responsibly means that any methods they use to catch criminals should be open to public scrutiny for two reasons: a) the public should be aware of what can and will be used against them and b) to allow weaknesses to be discovered so that the right man goes to jail and the wrong one does not.
That's what this system is about, remember? Making sure that the people who don't break the law don't get thrown in jail, and making sure those who do DO get thrown in jail.
when the jack-booted thugs of government come to take your sorry ass away at 4am, i won't miss you.
It is because of the checks and balances designed into the justice system that the jack-booted thugs WON'T come in and take my sorry ass away at 4am. We have things such as due process. Granted, that is violated at times, and when it is, I am all for finding out WHY it was violated and punishing those who violate it. Those checks and balances were what our founding fathers envisioned. The politicians today have warped that some, but we can not abandon the principals upon which this country was founded.
Ever been investigated by a major law enforcement group like the FBI? I have. I was completely innocent. A competitor thought that they could "level" the playing field by using some powerful friends to get the FBI on our backs.... They said we hacked their server, and since their powerful friends said so, the FBI went ape shit. They had NO EVIDENCE mind you... NONE - save for the fact that our IP addresses (static w/ reverse DNS saying exactly what company it was) turned up on their web server logs as ACCESSING the site like every one else in the world who went there.
Being the network engineer and the only one with the technical knowledlge to do it, they investigated me.
They treated me as if I was guilty until proven innocent. You think they only use those intimidation tactics in movies? HA! So yes, everyone has something to hide... not just the criminals.
(Disclaimer: For those who have read my other posts, yes, I advocate the use of carnivore and other invasive means of tracking criminals. I also advocate the opening of such tactics to public scrutiny because when used properly and under court supervision, law enforcement agencies do their jobs and do them well. I recently saw a statistic (grain of salt time) that said the FBI catches 94% of the fugitives it goes after.)
Abolishing copyright law won't do a hill-of-beans worth of difference -
Sure, it might keep a few people out of jail, but then instead of reporting it to the feds, they'll just sue the pants off of anyone who violates their copyrights... and guess what - the little guys will be screwed - they BIG companies will be able to walk ALL OVER the little guys because there is no CRIMINAL penalty for it and hence whoever can keep the most motions going in court will win. Small development firms won't stand a chance. At least now, they have a small chance.
Slashdot Mirror
Problem with SF EE:
Minimum user license is 30 users, and that is roughly $30,000!!!
I run a small development firm and I wanted to use the enterprise edition. I'll pay a few thousand for something, but $30k for 30 people? I think not.
oops, maybe it was 4.x that I last used. My point is, it has been a while.
Am I the only one who doesn't see this as an issue? The unique ID number is a bit much, but the url forwarding system?
Don't get me wrong, I dispise AOL/TW and I haven't used Netscape since version 5 because I don't like the way it works - (Shoot me - I like IE) but I just don't see what the big deal of using a url forward is. If you can, according to the article, disable it by typing "http://www.google.com" directly into the address bar, whats the deal?
Good luck to you both!
Great, but did HE do that? He gives no documentation, only accusations.
I'm not a fan of Comcast (or for that matter cable modems in general) BUT I must ask - Where is your proof that they aren't caching any of the pages and only using it to gather marketing data? Once can configure a transparent proxy to completely mask its existance. I do this quite often with customers on their firewalls I don't give a crap about what they are browsing, I just try to get the most/$$ for THEIR bandwidth.
Major problems include: PLAYING VIDEO GAMES SEVEN HOURS PER DAY!
Amaya is NOT blocked by MSN.com - at least the 5.1 version isn't.
I was able to load MSN.com...
Only problem - it didn't interpret it correctly, probably because as he pointed out, they do not use proper XHTML formatting. Screenshot here.
What is REALLY funny is you get something different every time you reload :).
Since tech details are a bit sparse, I'm not quite sure which patent this is or whether it is frivilous, but quite frankly, I like seeing someone (try to) take a bite out of the big guy... And Adobe is the Microsoft of the digital image world.
The State Director had not heard of it at all. I had to spell it for him ("Sierra-Sierra-Sierra-Charlie-Alpha") and describe it. His question was "Are you sure Mr. Hollings proposed this?"
Since it is close to closing time on the East Coast, he could offer me no further assistance.
He did promise to put me in touch with the right people on Monday, though.
Anyone?
I don't think they are the ones who suggested WiFi... It has been on many vendor's packages for quite a while...
It has been brought to my attention by an AC that I misrepresented the Netcraft survey.
Sixtey percent of HOSTNAMES that provide an http service that they polled used Apache, not necessarily 60% of the physical number of SERVERS.
This does not change my argument in the slightest.
I think that the W3C incorporating a "non-discriminatory" license to patents does just the opposite -
Lets take a look at open source, shall we?
According to a Netcraft survey (http://www.netcraft.com/survey/) taken in July 2001, 60% of the internet's web servers STILL RUN APACHE. The reasons for this? It is fast, cheap, and secure. The reason it is all three of these is it is OPEN SOURCE. If the W3C began considering patented technology for standards, and incorporated those standards into core web systems (example: secure, uncopyable web page) then, if that technology uses some server-side component, Apache, the LONG TIME leader in web servers, would be LEFT OUT IN THE COLD and hence, discriminated against.
Granted, that may the whole point for this move - the authors are from some of the largest IT companies in the US - Microsoft (well, their IP law firm), Apple Computer, and HP. That's fine. It is also counter to the goals of the W3C.
(quoting from http://www.w3.org/Consortium/#goals)
"W3C's long term goals for the Web are:
1) Universal Access: To make the Web accessible to all by promoting technologies that take into account the vast differences in culture, education, ability, material resources, and physical limitations of users on all continents;
2) Semantic Web : To develop a software environment that permits each user to make the best use of the resources available on the Web;
3) Web of Trust : To guide the Web's development with careful consideration for the novel legal, commercial, and social issues raised by this technology."
So unless the W3C wants to become a hypocrisy and a joke, either this proposal has to go, or the original goals have to go. I'd hate to see the goals change. W3C has provided an amazing service to the web community, and if its goals change, I'm afraid that service would cease to exist.
Don't get me wrong - I am a small business owner and as a small business owner I understand the value of intellectual property as much as if not more than a large company. If my business model is based on my IP, then with it I make money, without it, I fall into the (if I'm not mistaken) 95% of companies that close their doors within the first five years of existence. HOWEVER, I don't think that STANDARDS should be based on patented technologies unless the patent owner freely licenses it to anyone who uses the standard.
"Citing ``people familiar with the situation,'' the paper said AOL would hold a 40 percent interest in the business and leave AT&T with the majority control it wants.
So AOL/TW won't get the entire AT&T cable market, just part of it.
Yet another reason I use ADSL.
Once again, a "respectable" firm calls everyone, from the good guys to the bad hackers. So because I like lego mindstorm, I can shut down your website. Right.
Business 2.0 is an american firm, and hence they are trying to invoke the "sue sue sue" response that the country is in right now... I must say I've lost some respect for them now.
I do have one question though - I can understand a trademark infringement case ("LegOs") but intellectual property? That just isn't flying. Do I have to sign a license agreement when I buy mindstorm? Is there a shrinkwrap agreement saying I can't toy with the hardware? As far as I'm concerned (granted, IANAL), Noga is doing nothing wrong, and Business 2.0 is trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill. Paul Keegan, go do some more research.
We all know that our "Friends" at the power company are as good of a monopoly as we could possibly ever know - perhaps even better than the phone/telco monopolies because deregulation occurs at the city/state level instead of at the national level with FCC Regulation....
So... We go from the hands of one monopoly (Cable) to another monopoly (Phone) to yet a third monopoly (Power).
I'm not sure which devil is going to be better.
For areas with limited telco/cable service, this may be the monopoly - and we know how the energy companies are on rates...
Another question - will this be handled as well as power in California? I hope not...
Far from it.
I advocate law enforcement being able to do their jobs responsibly. Responsibly means that any methods they use to catch criminals should be open to public scrutiny for two reasons: a) the public should be aware of what can and will be used against them and b) to allow weaknesses to be discovered so that the right man goes to jail and the wrong one does not.
That's what this system is about, remember? Making sure that the people who don't break the law don't get thrown in jail, and making sure those who do DO get thrown in jail.
when the jack-booted thugs of government come to take your sorry ass away at 4am, i won't miss you.
It is because of the checks and balances designed into the justice system that the jack-booted thugs WON'T come in and take my sorry ass away at 4am. We have things such as due process. Granted, that is violated at times, and when it is, I am all for finding out WHY it was violated and punishing those who violate it. Those checks and balances were what our founding fathers envisioned. The politicians today have warped that some, but we can not abandon the principals upon which this country was founded.
IT MOST CERTAINLY DOES NOT! I stand by both my link and my post.
Ever been investigated by a major law enforcement group like the FBI? I have. I was completely innocent. A competitor thought that they could "level" the playing field by using some powerful friends to get the FBI on our backs.... They said we hacked their server, and since their powerful friends said so, the FBI went ape shit. They had NO EVIDENCE mind you... NONE - save for the fact that our IP addresses (static w/ reverse DNS saying exactly what company it was) turned up on their web server logs as ACCESSING the site like every one else in the world who went there.
Being the network engineer and the only one with the technical knowledlge to do it, they investigated me.
They treated me as if I was guilty until proven innocent. You think they only use those intimidation tactics in movies? HA! So yes, everyone has something to hide... not just the criminals.
(Disclaimer: For those who have read my other posts, yes, I advocate the use of carnivore and other invasive means of tracking criminals. I also advocate the opening of such tactics to public scrutiny because when used properly and under court supervision, law enforcement agencies do their jobs and do them well. I recently saw a statistic (grain of salt time) that said the FBI catches 94% of the fugitives it goes after.)
I'm going to setup a store online to purchase dark sunglasses, hats, and trenchcoats - with technology like this face recognition, I'll make a MINT!
I will say, though, it is about the "best" goatse.cx trick i've seen - using a download on sourceforge.net to redirect you...
The SLD may be sourceforge, but it redirects you to goatse.cx!!!
Gotta love the /. effect. I had a chance to mirror it quickly here.
Make sure you try the original link first, please - it seems to come and go
Sure, it might keep a few people out of jail, but then instead of reporting it to the feds, they'll just sue the pants off of anyone who violates their copyrights... and guess what - the little guys will be screwed - they BIG companies will be able to walk ALL OVER the little guys because there is no CRIMINAL penalty for it and hence whoever can keep the most motions going in court will win. Small development firms won't stand a chance. At least now, they have a small chance.