It will be ineteresting to see what posters say about the Gartner group in this article. In the past, when Gartner has commented negatively on Linux, there were roundly cursed as great fools. Now that they are at least mildly pro-linux, I wonder what people will say?
Assuming that the chinese definition of "state secrets" is not too different from ours (i.e. national defense) you couldn't do this in the US either. It's called espionage boys and girls.
Its not enough for geeks to opt out. We need to get the whole 'net to opt out. Attached is the email I sent to about 20 people. May I suggest that all of you go and do likewise?
--
Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Since I am probably the biggest spam-hater alive, you can imagine for me to originate one of these chain things is pretty unusual. (In fact, its more than unusual, its unprecidented). Nevertheless, I think that the danger to our society (and the internet as a whole) represented by the situation I am about to describe is great enough that I will take the flames and pass this on.
There is a company called "doubleclick.com". They provide the little banner ads that you see on most web-sites nowadays. That is, when you pull up a web page with advertising, the company making that web page points your web-browser towards DoubleClick's web servers to get an appropriate ad. DoubleClick then pays the company if you click on the ad (anywhere from 1 to 10 cents for a click-through -- if you just look at it, they often get some small fraction of a penny for showing it to you).
In order to target the ads, DoubleClick sets what is called a "cookie" in your browser. This cookie uniquely identifies your computer on the internet. DoubleClick uses this information to target advertisements towards you based on your previous viewing patterns: if you typically click on ads for computer hardware, DoubleClick will show you lots of ads for computer hardware. However, all of this is still anonymous.
That is, it was thought to be until the following story came out:
To summarize, the above story relates how DoubleClick bought a direct marketing company called Abacus Direct. Abacus Direct maintains a database covering over 90% of all American households. And DoubleClick acknowledges that they have begun linking Abacus Direct's database with theirs.
The net effect of this is that, for a price, a vendor can get your name, address, phone number,/and/ your reading habits. They can find out what newspapers you read (over the web), what web sites you visit, etc. They can find out what products you buy -- it is simple to link information from amazon.com to doubleclick as well. They can then use this information to target advertisements at you.
Many people don't see the problem with this. May I suggest that you consider this: the express purpose of advertising is to get you to buy things which you would not ordinarily buy. That is, the perfect person in their eyes is a profligate spend-thrift. Happiness through possesions is the mantra they push.
The advertising industry has already demonstrated that they will stop at nothing to sell products. For example, consider that the "June Cleaver" perfect housewife of the 1950's is acknowledged to have been created by and for the advertising industry! Or consider some of the tactics used by the baby formula companies to get mothers to not breastfeed, despite the acknowledged medical fact that breast-feeding is far better for the child. (Some of the tactics used in developing countries were exceptionally gruesome.) What about the toilet-training "experts" who are employed by the diaper companies? Ever wonder why we suddenly need Size 5 Pampers?
We have already seen what advertising can do with statistical sampling alone: what will they be able to do with specific data about you? That is, what will happen when, instead of marketing to a mythical (but frighteningly accurate) average household, they are marketing to you personally?
Fortunately, there is a way out. You can visit:
http://www.doubleclick.net/optout/optout.asp
And decline to have your information tracked. I highly recommend it. I could go on for pages about why this is important -- the point is that once we have given Madison Avenue this power, we will never be able to take it back. The time to opt out is now.
From Frances Bacon (if you don't know who he was, try google -- suffice to say that he was up there with Einstein and Newton):
For men imagine that their reason governs words, whilst, in fact, words react upon the understanding; and this has rendered philosophy and the sciences sophistical and inactive. Words are generally formed in a popular sense, and define things by those broad lines which are most obvious to the vulgar mind; but when a more acute understanding, or more diligent observation is anxious to vary those lines, and to adapt them more accurately to nature, words oppose it. Hence, the great and solemn disputes of learned men often terminate in controversies about words and names, in regard to which it would be better (imitating the caution of mathematicians) to proceed more advisedly in the first instance, and to bring such disputes toa regular issue by definitions. Such definitions, however, canoot remedy the evil in natural and material objects, because the consist themselves of words, and these words produce other, so that we must necessarily have recourse to particular instances, and their regular series and arrangement, as we shall mention when we come to them mode and scheme of determining notions and axioms.
--
That is, language does limit our thought processes and, even worse, the knowledge that we can express. Scary, huh?
Allow me to restate this (since DrNomad seems to have much better mathematical skill than written english skill).
For all P & Q greater than 3, one of the following is always true:
((P*Q) + 1) % 6 = 0
((P*Q) - 1) % 6 = 0
RSA (and most other public key algorithms) depend on the difficulty of factoring sums of large prime numbers. So, if you can come up with a convenient, low cost way to factor these sums, you can in theory crack RSA.
It is perfectly conceivable that the above numerical relationship could be used to come up with an easy way to factor these sums. Does that mean RSA is cracked? Hardly. It just means that what DrNomad is saying makes/some/ sense. And the counterexamples that people have posted are irrelevant since RSA would never use a prime number so small as 2 or 3.
Look guys... RSA was formed for the specific purpose of cornering the encryption market and they have been screwing the entire industry with their draconian licensing costs. Their patents are expiring -- do they really think that I, as a developer that has been putting up with their bugware and outrageouse prices for year, am going continue to license their bugware when there are numerous free, high quality implementations?
I think not. Ding, dong the witch is dead! The witch is dead! Hail to a new era when lions and hyenas can communicate securely! Death to RSA!
I think you are right. Flame does create a "chilling effect" on people speaking online.
However, I don't think its a problem. In fact, its probably the only thing that keeps the online communities from spiraling down into pure demagoguery. People who are not willing to take the heat for their opinions probably don't have opinions worth hearing. I post often (especially on religious topics) and have taken my share of ad hominem attacks and flame. I have survived, and don't see why others cannot do the same. I think flame has made me a better poster.
Gark, you say! What about freedom of speech? What about it? This isn't prior restraint -- and the only legal right to free speech you have (at least in the US) is that congress may not pass laws prohibiting it. I am so sick of people who think that the first amendment (which they've never read) grants them some magical right to say any kind of idiocy that crosses their mind with impunity.
Also, I would hardly say that flame is something new, or unique to the net. Ever read the arguments of the sophists?
Just not responsible. Have you ever tried to explain to a two year old why he shouldn't color on the walls? Its rather difficult.
I think the real problem is that our societ has defined childhood as ending at an absurdly high age (18 or 21). In most past societies, childhood ended at around 14. It is not reasonable to force the same rules on an 17 year old that I would on a six year old.
Yeah! That will teach them to bank on the good will, common sense, and moral character of the american people! They took a chance that people would prefer not to take money that they hadn't earned and didn't deserve froma company, however despised, and they lost.
But Bill Gates wasn't walking down the street passing out $400. There was a clear quid pro quo implied -- even if it wasn't in the contract.
And I would not have taken advantage of it. I happen to believe that taking advantage of this would be fraudulent at best. Since when did all of America turn into a bunch of latrine lawyers?
As much as I dislike Microsoft, is it really right to take their money in this fashion? I mean, it's kind of like stealing candy from a baby. And the clear intent of the agreement was that you have MSN service for three years -- some lawyer at MSN's corporate offices made a mistake -- which was compounded by some flunky believing in the good will of the citizens of California.
And everyone took advantage of their vulnerability and kicked them while they were down. Granted, Microsoft is not exactly the nicest company on the planet. But should we really stoop to their level?
Anyone else remember Mark Williams Games? They were basically shut down because one of their systems ran a BBS that was used to transfer a description of the 911 system in Georgia. (See "the hacker crackdown" for more information. Look in google.) The company was never charged with anything, and after all the equipment was obsolete and the game they were making was passe, was returned.
The bottom line is that, under current law, federal law enforcement can seize your entire business with little or no judicial oversight, you have no right to appeal, and no right to due process. It happens all the time, and noone cares because it's just the drug-dealers and the hackers whining about it, right?
You want an issue: this is it. Law & Order is not an excuse for unreasonable search and seizure. And the fact that this kind of nonsense is tolerated is wonderful evidence of just how downhill our courts have gone -- civil rights, RIP. Killed by judicial activism.
I am not a interbase expert -- does this mean that Interbase could be used to create something a la microsft Jet. That is, an easy file-based database format?
First off, your characterization of how the Christian faith rose is patently false. Yes, the Roman government endorsed the christian faith in an attempt to restore public morals. But: the Roman government just endorsed a religion that was already accepted by the plurality of its citizens. Prior to this endorsement (that did not happen until the fourth century) the church spread by being the only organization that cared for the little guy.
As for you being God: I'll buy that as soon as I see you or hear from a half-dozen sources that you rose from the dead and have said report confirmed by the holy spirit and believed by otherwise wise people for 2000 years. I'll beleive that as soon as I see faith in you turn alcoholics into missionaries; slave traders into preachers. Where are your saints? Jesus has many, most of whom will never be heard of because they were doing good for people who the world had decided didn't matter.
You also betray a gross misunderstanding of Christian doctrine. Nowhere does the bible say that we are to love only other Christians. We are called to love other Christians, but we are also called to love all mankind. Love them enough to spread the gospel. That you think the gospel is worthless is irrelevant -- we think it is worthwhile, and it requires a lot of effort and money to spread it.
As for voluntary self-discipline: I've seen where that route goes. Nowhere. I have yet to see any evidence that voluntary self-discipline will produce anything like the levels of character found in the Christian saints -- heralded and unheralded. Maybe you should pay more attention to the saints and less to the Popes (who were with only a few exceptions a miserable lot)?
Finally: historically, Christianity has not spread primarily through force. While there were some isolated incidents, we left spreading at the point of a sword to Islam and... Oops! Hinduism. (Or are you unfamiliar with Indian history? The centuries of holy wars between Shaivites and Vishnite? The thugee?) I used to be a Hindu monk (Sanyassin) -- I might know a bit more than you gambled for.
Prove to me that you exist. Prove to me that Julius Caesar existed -- or Socrates. Why do you question the existence of Jesus (who is documented in several sources outside the Bible, plus at least 6 seperate authors within the bible) but not the existence of Socrates (who is only mentioned as a primary source by Plato and one other Greek philosopher whose name escapes me)?
Ultimately, I can't prove anything. But I can tell you that there is very good evidence for Jesus.
Tolerance of the minority is key for the majority.
So, forcing the children of a minority who do not accept the theory of evolution to learn about evolution is tolerant... How?
All the Kansas ruling said was that schools (for example, parochial schools) could choose not to teach evolution! Not that they couldn't teach evolution -- that they could choose not to.
Tolerance has to be for all comers, not just those you agree with.
Slashdot Mirror
Bias is not how we get to truth guys.
Assuming that the chinese definition of "state secrets" is not too different from ours (i.e. national defense) you couldn't do this in the US either. It's called espionage boys and girls.
Its not enough for geeks to opt out. We need to get the whole 'net to opt out. Attached is the email I sent to about 20 people. May I suggest that all of you go and do likewise?
--
Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
Since I am probably the biggest spam-hater alive, you can imagine for me to originate one of these chain things is pretty unusual. (In fact, its more than unusual, its unprecidented). Nevertheless, I think that the danger to our society (and the internet as a whole) represented by the situation I am about to describe is great enough that I will take the flames and pass this on.
There is a company called "doubleclick.com". They provide the little banner ads that you see on most web-sites nowadays. That is, when you pull up a web page with advertising, the company making that web page points your web-browser towards DoubleClick's web servers to get an appropriate ad. DoubleClick then pays the company if you click on the ad (anywhere from 1 to 10 cents for a click-through -- if you just look at it, they often get some small fraction of a penny for showing it to you).
In order to target the ads, DoubleClick sets what is called a "cookie" in your browser. This cookie uniquely identifies your computer on the internet. DoubleClick uses this information to target advertisements towards you based on your previous viewing patterns: if you typically click on ads for computer hardware, DoubleClick will show you lots of ads for computer hardware. However, all of this is still anonymous.
That is, it was thought to be until the following story came out:
To summarize, the above story relates how DoubleClick bought a direct marketing company called Abacus Direct. Abacus Direct maintains a database covering over 90% of all American households. And DoubleClick acknowledges that they have begun linking Abacus Direct's database with theirs.The net effect of this is that, for a price, a vendor can get your name, address, phone number, /and/ your reading habits. They can find out what newspapers you read (over the web), what web sites you visit, etc. They can find out what products you buy -- it is simple to link information from amazon.com to doubleclick as well. They can then use this information to target advertisements at you.
Many people don't see the problem with this. May I suggest that you consider this: the express purpose of advertising is to get you to buy things which you would not ordinarily buy. That is, the perfect person in their eyes is a profligate spend-thrift. Happiness through possesions is the mantra they push.
The advertising industry has already demonstrated that they will stop at nothing to sell products. For example, consider that the "June Cleaver" perfect housewife of the 1950's is acknowledged to have been created by and for the advertising industry! Or consider some of the tactics used by the baby formula companies to get mothers to not breastfeed, despite the acknowledged medical fact that breast-feeding is far better for the child. (Some of the tactics used in developing countries were exceptionally gruesome.) What about the toilet-training "experts" who are employed by the diaper companies? Ever wonder why we suddenly need Size 5 Pampers?
We have already seen what advertising can do with statistical sampling alone: what will they be able to do with specific data about you? That is, what will happen when, instead of marketing to a mythical (but frighteningly accurate) average household, they are marketing to you personally?
Fortunately, there is a way out. You can visit:
And decline to have your information tracked. I highly recommend it. I could go on for pages about why this is important -- the point is that once we have given Madison Avenue this power, we will never be able to take it back. The time to opt out is now.That is, language does limit our thought processes and, even worse, the knowledge that we can express. Scary, huh?
Of course, here are some counterexamples (from my handy-dandy perl script I wrote to check this): 42139:104579 42139:104593 42139:104597 42139:104623 42139:104639 42139:104651 42139:104659 42139:104677 42139:104681 42139:104683 42139:104693 42139:104701 42139:104707 42139:104711 42139:104717 42139:104723 42139:104729 42157:101891 42157:101917 42157:101921 42157:101929 42157:101939 42157:101957 42157:101963 Nice try slick.
For all P & Q greater than 3, one of the following is always true:
RSA (and most other public key algorithms) depend on the difficulty of factoring sums of large prime numbers. So, if you can come up with a convenient, low cost way to factor these sums, you can in theory crack RSA.It is perfectly conceivable that the above numerical relationship could be used to come up with an easy way to factor these sums. Does that mean RSA is cracked? Hardly. It just means that what DrNomad is saying makes /some/ sense. And the counterexamples that people have posted are irrelevant since RSA would never use a prime number so small as 2 or 3.
Do you have a source for your assertion that a large percentage of the flat earth society are in the south? Just curious.
Look guys... RSA was formed for the specific purpose of cornering the encryption market and they have been screwing the entire industry with their draconian licensing costs. Their patents are expiring -- do they really think that I, as a developer that has been putting up with their bugware and outrageouse prices for year, am going continue to license their bugware when there are numerous free, high quality implementations?
I think not. Ding, dong the witch is dead! The witch is dead! Hail to a new era when lions and hyenas can communicate securely! Death to RSA!
However, I don't think its a problem. In fact, its probably the only thing that keeps the online communities from spiraling down into pure demagoguery. People who are not willing to take the heat for their opinions probably don't have opinions worth hearing. I post often (especially on religious topics) and have taken my share of ad hominem attacks and flame. I have survived, and don't see why others cannot do the same. I think flame has made me a better poster.
Gark, you say! What about freedom of speech? What about it? This isn't prior restraint -- and the only legal right to free speech you have (at least in the US) is that congress may not pass laws prohibiting it. I am so sick of people who think that the first amendment (which they've never read) grants them some magical right to say any kind of idiocy that crosses their mind with impunity.
Also, I would hardly say that flame is something new, or unique to the net. Ever read the arguments of the sophists?
Publish the source in the LA Times... What a LOVELY idea.
So, kind of like multics? I guess everything is coming full circle now.
Just not responsible. Have you ever tried to explain to a two year old why he shouldn't color on the walls? Its rather difficult.
I think the real problem is that our societ has defined childhood as ending at an absurdly high age (18 or 21). In most past societies, childhood ended at around 14. It is not reasonable to force the same rules on an 17 year old that I would on a six year old.
Human nature and moral are not the same thing.
What does legal and illegal have to do with right and wrong? You seem to assume that the two are equivalent, whereas I assume that the two are not.
And I would not have taken advantage of it. I happen to believe that taking advantage of this would be fraudulent at best. Since when did all of America turn into a bunch of latrine lawyers?
And everyone took advantage of their vulnerability and kicked them while they were down. Granted, Microsoft is not exactly the nicest company on the planet. But should we really stoop to their level?
You're right... Guess I took a GPF on the brain.
The bottom line is that, under current law, federal law enforcement can seize your entire business with little or no judicial oversight, you have no right to appeal, and no right to due process. It happens all the time, and noone cares because it's just the drug-dealers and the hackers whining about it, right?
You want an issue: this is it. Law & Order is not an excuse for unreasonable search and seizure. And the fact that this kind of nonsense is tolerated is wonderful evidence of just how downhill our courts have gone -- civil rights, RIP. Killed by judicial activism.
I am not a interbase expert -- does this mean that Interbase could be used to create something a la microsft Jet. That is, an easy file-based database format?
As for you being God: I'll buy that as soon as I see you or hear from a half-dozen sources that you rose from the dead and have said report confirmed by the holy spirit and believed by otherwise wise people for 2000 years. I'll beleive that as soon as I see faith in you turn alcoholics into missionaries; slave traders into preachers. Where are your saints? Jesus has many, most of whom will never be heard of because they were doing good for people who the world had decided didn't matter.
You also betray a gross misunderstanding of Christian doctrine. Nowhere does the bible say that we are to love only other Christians. We are called to love other Christians, but we are also called to love all mankind. Love them enough to spread the gospel. That you think the gospel is worthless is irrelevant -- we think it is worthwhile, and it requires a lot of effort and money to spread it.
As for voluntary self-discipline: I've seen where that route goes. Nowhere. I have yet to see any evidence that voluntary self-discipline will produce anything like the levels of character found in the Christian saints -- heralded and unheralded. Maybe you should pay more attention to the saints and less to the Popes (who were with only a few exceptions a miserable lot)?
Finally: historically, Christianity has not spread primarily through force. While there were some isolated incidents, we left spreading at the point of a sword to Islam and... Oops! Hinduism. (Or are you unfamiliar with Indian history? The centuries of holy wars between Shaivites and Vishnite? The thugee?) I used to be a Hindu monk (Sanyassin) -- I might know a bit more than you gambled for.
Ultimately, I can't prove anything. But I can tell you that there is very good evidence for Jesus.
(I have a karma of 150+ -- I can be a jerk. -1 here I come!)
D'oh!
If you don't think he was oppressed, nerdy, ignored, and shunned, then boy do I have a book for you to read.
All the Kansas ruling said was that schools (for example, parochial schools) could choose not to teach evolution! Not that they couldn't teach evolution -- that they could choose not to.
Tolerance has to be for all comers, not just those you agree with.