The idea that this has no impact, or, more properly, would have no impact if done on a large scale (even if it won't happen) is ridiculous in the extreme.
That's exactly what I'm claiming because it's a drop in the bucket compared to industrial use (I'm talking bout energy in general, not the electrical grid). Yes, consumer consumption is a major portion of the electrical grid, and yes, conservation would reduce that consumption. But not as much as you seem to think. Really, what can you lose? We discussed this earlier and most of your suggestions that would make a significant impact beyond what we are already doing (improved appliances, etc.) involved redesigning homes and communities, which seems unrealistic.
It is in some areas, slowly, not widespread, and not at all here, but the trend is encouraging.
If I lived in Minnesota I wouldn't expect solar panels either. But here in sunny California, it makes sense. We've also lobbied our legislature for tax breaks and incentives for solar power.
The idea that we have the right, let alone the ability, to form energy policy for Chile is astounding. Our own policy is held hostage to special interests and cut-throat politics. Besides, what in the world gives us the right to impose limitations on Chile we are not willing to accept ourselves?
Because we can? World politics is not a game of moral one-upsmanship but of power relations and, specifically, control of trade. If they want our money, like loans for economic development, then they have to do what we say. And though we might decry how the US government strongarms foreign governments to aid US business, there can be little doubt that this benefits the American consumer in many ways.
Energy policy and "moral foreign relations" are two different things. I'm concerned about pollution elsewhere in the world because it ultimately affects me. If I thought marching the Chinese into concentration camps was a realistic solution to pollution problems I would recommend that. Foreign nations (and ultimately, foreigners) who poison me don't have any "rights".
At the moment, saving energy reduces pollution (and reduces foreign fuel dependence, one of my early stated purposes).
We will always need oil. Nobody is talking about getting rid of plastic. The notion of "independence from Middle East oil" is a fantasy unless major oil reserves are discovered elsewhere, which seems unlikely.
At some point as well, energy is itself a pollutant. If everyone had essentially unlimited energy supplies, usage would skyrocket and mere thermal waste would become a problem. At some point, the slope has to flatten.
Since this is impossible, it won't be a problem. As standard of living increases (globally), energy consumption will also increase. The only way to "flatten the slope" is to reduce standard of living or population.
Politically, nuclear power is not (allowed to be) a global solution; not unless we decide that everyone has the right to build bombs.
America's reluctance to adopt nuclear power in the past 30 years hasn't prevented third-world nations like India, Pakistan, and North Korea from obtaining nuclear weapons. And I was talking about nuclear power as a solution for China and India, both of whom already have nuclear weapons. Eventually, we will see wide adoption of nuclear power due to cost pressures, I just wish it would happen sooner rather than later.
Modern coal plants can be quite clean and are more efficient than gas plants.
Some plants yes, but there's no such thing as clean coal MINING. The "clean" coal plants are more bullshit from an industry trying to hide the fact that it's the world's #1 polluter, by a wide margin. Coal is bad, worse than oil in most cases. Just like ethanol, it's a deception by people wanting a handout. Wind power is pretty much in the same camp too.
Sam William's book is hardly the "original recount". I'm telling you the story as Stallman told me back when I met him in 1990. He was talking to a group of us at a computer club and he related the story. And as HE related the story, he was talking about the firmware (essentially) on the Xerox laser printer. He talked about other features he wanted to add too, like timestamping (or something like that). Most of the talk at the meeting was about Bill's 386BSD which was eagerly anticipated.
And even if your details on the story WERE correct, Stallman agrees with me that the INTENT was to allow people to modify the software inside their hardware.
Well, not so in Europe.... It's up to the banks to make biometric verification something people want, not something people just consider an extra hassle.
I can understand the demand for biometrics in banking in Europe, but this has NOTHING do do with the technology and EVERYTHING to do with European banking laws.
In the USA, if someone steals your credit card and racks up a bunch of charges you only has a maximum liability of $50, the rest in paid by the bank. In Europe (I think these are the EU rules now), if your credit card is stolen you are liable for the full amount of the false charges. The laws are similar regarding ATM transactions. IOW, in the USA the customer has little incentive to pay extra for biometrics as they don't have the liability issues Europeans have.
Also, in Europe ATM systems tend to be government-subsidized. And to be blunt, I think we have enough government handouts for dubious security technologies already. Basically, biometrics in banking are largely a scam used to shift liability.
I simply can't figure out how you would consider a high speed internet connection expensive
Ask me how cheap it is in rural Kansas. Remember, you're designing a system that has to work THERE. The ATM links in the USA for the most part use conventional phone lines and are extremely low bandwidth (in the 3-5k range) specifically to deal with the issue of noisy phone lines. And without high-speed internet you can't do enrollment.
We use face recognition in one of our prison facilities and enrolment is done by wards.
How many thousands of dollars does the prison lose if visitation is delayed? Not many I'll wager. More importantly, let's assume there's absolutely no backup for this system. Let me play you through the prison scenario:
Let's say the prison warden (or whatever you call the person in charge) walks up to system and it rejects him. Now the warden could simply have the gate guard buzz him in using the backup system of the guard's eyeballs, since the guard would recognize him. But in the bank scenario there is no backup. So the guard, EVEN THOUGH HE RECOGNIZED THE WARDEN, would have to turn him away.
Yet the system works flawlessly
No such thing. Your inability to acknowledge serious flaws in the system (as there are in any system) strikes me as evidence you're peddling snake oil.
You are also dealing with people in a security environment (like a prison or military base) that have no choice in using the technology, as it was undoubtedly government mandated. The government mandate and "security paranoia" reduce the obvious cost concerns. I've used or heard about all sorts of kludgy biometric systems at military facilities, systems the private sector would never consider deploying in a million years, so this doesn't wow me very much.
Either this was a few years ago (when facial recognition software was in a pretty bad state), or the people handling this are highly incompetent, or both.... There was a very unhealthy market five years ago with lots of fraudsters selling silver bullets at high cost but not delivering. These times are about over, fortunately.
The year was 2003. And you're acknowledging that the field is rife with fraud, but you're pushing it to secure our banks anyway. Why the hell should I, or any sane person, devote the security of our banking system to a technology with a successful track record of less than 5 years that has "lots of fraudsters"? At this point I want an example of a working, large-scale (dozens of sites), PRIVATE deployment.
From a security stand point PINs are outdated and will go away, whether you like it or not.
We'll be using passwords, in one form or another, for the next 100 years at least.
The opening of the iron curtain has not just created good business oportunities for us europeans, it also opened the flood gates for all sorts of crimina
Also, concert attendance has stayed flat. The pirating of their music hasn't suddenly increased attendance like they hoped it would. I can tell you what the problem is right now: Your brother's band sucks. Or maybe they just suck live. If you have a band that is REGULARLY doing shows, isn't a cover band, and isn't generating any "buzz"... they suck. Or maybe he's in Austin and has lots and lots of competition. Or maybe his music appeals to a tiny niche (goth-industrial-rap-metal) and he's maxed out that niche locally.
Think conceptually about this a minute. How is the "piracy" different from radio airplay? It's people listening to the music. Now you're implying that they're downloading the music, listen to it over and over again, and then have NO INTEREST in seeing the band live. Does that make any sense to you? The question you should be asking is: Why aren't more people who hear his music going to his shows?
Or maybe he just has bad luck. I've know a lot of great, popular local bands with huge followings that went nowhere. It's VERY tough to make it in the rock business.
They haven't (yet) gotten a recording contract, and I personally hope they do And what would this accomplish? With most major label contracts you start by OWING the label money for the startup costs (production, etc.). You won't make a dime on the first album. Assuming the first album sold well, you'll be paid a small percentage on your next album. Basically, artists should assume they're going to make ALL of their money from touring and swag until they get about 3 or 4 albums into a major label deal. So if they were signed RIGHT NOW, they probably won't be making ANY money off their albums for the next 8 years.
Of course, the promotion the label gives them will do wonders for ticket sales at concerts (and swag sales, assuming they get that Hot Topic t-shirt deal), so they certainly will be making more money that they would without the label. But that assumes the label is bothering to promote them. If not, then they've just signed away almost all potential revenue from their albums (it doesn't matter if it's pirated if you don't own it) for very little gain. I've run into bands that sold bootleg copies of their OWN CDs at concerts for $2 for exactly this reason.
This war? Less then 4K dead Americans. Technology helps a great deal -- and not only to the side, that has it. It's been a fucking disaster. You seem to be forgetting the 35,000 wounded soldiers. Yeah, really expensive medical technology has done a great job of keeping soldiers alive after they get their limbs blown off and skulls cracked open, but they're still out of the fight. And what about the 600,000 dead Iraqis, millions of wounded and homeless Iraqis, and nearly a third of the Iraqi population displaced as refugees in large part due to US bombing?
The US strategy of "shock and awe" in the early days of the war destroyed most of Iraq's remaining infrastructure (like hospitals, sewage treatment, water treatment, power plants, etc.) and killed countless civilians. A continued reliance on heavy firepower as a way to protect US troops (a rain of heavy machinegun fire in every encounter, extensive use of artillery and air attack in urban areas, etc.) has caused even more devastation to Iraq's urban areas. Some cities, like Fallujah, have been bombed into rubble. None of this helps win "hearts and minds".
And what about the COST of all this technology? The Iraq War has been the most expensive conflict, in adjusted dollars, the United States has ever engaged it. It eats up about 40% of the national budget. The Iraq conflict has gone on longer than WW2, cost more, and accomplished a LOT less.
Really, the technological "heavy firepower" approach of the US military in Iraq has proved to be one of the worst military disasters in recent history.
will be happily provided by its rightful owner if he wants access to a room protected by a biometric verification system or to his money through a biometric ATM machine. No, he won't. If he has a lot of problem using the biometric system at his local bank (the scenario we're discussing) he'll complain to the bank and then switch banks. Customers already CONSTANTLY complain about how hard ATMs are to use. Have you ever done customer service in a bank?
As far as computational power is concerned: An Intel Celeron M running at 1.5 GHz does a high quality face comparison in well under a second. So your keypad may be cheaper in the short run. A keypad is cheaper under any scenario. A 1.5 GHz Celeron is dramatically faster than the capacity of all but the newest ATM machines. Though any way you slice it under this system you will have to replace the entire ATM network and all the data links links anyway, so new machines are really just a drop in the bucket. How is this cheap again?
But you forgot about additional costs because people forget their PINs or leave notes with that info lying around where it can be seen by not so honest folks. You seem to forget the MASSIVE additional costs of maintaining an up-to-date photo database of every customer. This requires a quality video/still camera with internet capability (cheap), a high-speed internet connection (expensive), and an IT staffer (very expensive) at EVERY SINGLE BRANCH. That's the absolute minimum. Busy branches would presumably need multiple cameras and branches. And yes, it's needed at EVERY branch. Nobody is going to drive 50 or 100 miles just to get their ATM cards (I'm thinking about people in rural areas).
Remember the push a while back to put photos of the customer on ATM and credit cards? Do you have one? Probably not. This initiative certainly SEEMED like a good idea and a good way to prevent fraud, so why didn't it happen? Because of the logistical difficulty of actually taking the photos at the branches.
Typical false rejection rates are far below 1%. This includes people not looking perfectly straight the first time. After the third time you can be pretty sure that you can make it through the system - if you were enrolled properly. Key thing: Enrolled properly. In my experience, with the help of experts including the designer of the facial recognition system, it took about one hour to enroll each staffer. And false negatives were in the 60% range (i.e. a staffer would have to try to verify an average of 3 times to use the system) and the scanning was not exactly fast. It ALWAYS took between 1 and 5 minutes to verify (in large part due to the false negatives). Within a week the door was just propped open.
You get much higher rejection rates due to people mistyping or forgetting PIN codes. Probably true. But it's a lot faster to retype a PIN code, and if it IS forgotten the code can be reset quickly and MUCH more importantly, remotely. With a facial recognition system a customer would have to go into the branch and talk to the dedicated "biometrics officer" for ANY problem.
Buy this you violate the contract of every ATM provider I know of. And who gives a fuck? Do you actually think the bank enforces these contracts, and that if they did, customers would put up with it? To the customer this is simply lost functionality. Yes, a customer can could enroll his brother with another card, but that would involved putting his brother through the inconvenient and laborious enrollment process.
And in this context, "cracking" means "stripping the DRM". Nobody actually WANTS a "protected AAC" file that happens to work with their system, what they want is to remove the protection. You're implying that because cracks can't REPLICATE the encryption it isn't cracked. That is not the purpose.
it still less secure than having separate credentials to access everything. But is this realistic? Maybe you can memorize long lists of strong passwords, but I can assure you this ability is VERY rare. I certainly can't do it. So is the remaining 99.9% of the population supposed to do? Tokens?
Biometrics are less than ideal, but they are better than the two solutions I've seen at virtually every site I've worked at: weak passwords or strong passwords written on post-it notes stuck to monitors. Any solution that recommends memorizing long lists of passwords isn't a solution.
Re:All bank vaults and locks have also been cracke
on
The DRM Scorecard
·
· Score: 1
It also makes the cracking act more deliberate and makes it far harder for someone to claim: "That diamond got in my pocket.... I just found it on the sidewalk and thought it had been thrown out." or "Oh that music on my MP2 player... I thought it was free!" A consumer almost always has plausible deniability because it's very difficult to prove that a customer knew, with absolute certainty, that he was buying an counterfeit product. Women are rarely charged for buying fake Prada purses for the same reasons.
You're misunderstanding the point of copy prevention (aka DRM, I agree with RMS on this, we shouldn't use "their" terminology as it implies nonexistent "rights") which is not to prevent theft. Nothing is lost in "illegal copying". As the phrase should tell you, software copying is a form of COUNTERFEITING. A much better analogy are the "security features" (microprinting, holograms, metal strips, etc.) inserted into US currency to prevent copying. And not casual copying either. Right now the "casual" counterfeiter can photocopy a few bills with a quality color copier and pass them pretty easily. The security features exist to a large extent to prevent large-scale counterfeiting, even some nations (like Cuba) are said to counterfeit American currency. Again few people are arrested for unknowingly (or even knowingly) passing a few counterfeit bills.
So this whole reasoning behind copy prevention, to prevent "casual copying", is bass-ackwards. Companies are SOLD this software to prevent counterfeiting and, shockingly, it doesn't work because most copy prevention software vendors are snake-oil salesmen. No offense to Russians, but why do you think most of the so-called DRM software you see comes from tiny Russian outfits? It's because reputable software vendors won't sell the shit.
When you do business with residents of another country you have to take the legal jurisdiction of that country into account. It's the same thing as selling Cuban goods, or illegal substances to US citizens, it is illegal and you can be found guilty and charge do too agreements between he countries. Countries have these agreements to keep people from fleeing legal responsibility. And it's THIS very interpretation that I have a problem with. Their activity is LEGAL in Hong Kong, but ILLEGAL in the EEA. Legal agreements between Hong Kong and the EEA make judgments (and effectively the laws of) the EEA enforceable in Hong Kong. How is this not "venue shopping" by Sony? How is this fair and democratic, since Lik-Sang has to obey laws of a nation thousands of miles away that they have no democratic control over? The appropriate thing to do would have been to enjoin Lik-Sang from doing business in the EEA or to go after the customers themselves since they're the ones who reside in the nation whose laws are being violated. But that would have been less effective at putting Lik-Sang out of business, which was Sony's goal.
It's not Sony's fault that the Laws enforced by the High Court of London are in their favor, Yes, it is. Since Sony was one of the players in pushing (and writing) these kinds of trade agreements it's disengenous to claim that they are just "defending their rights under the law" since they CREATED the law and these so-called "rights" to begin with. You are wearing blinders if you don't believe lobbyists control legislation, especially trade legislation.
Your convenience does not override my rights. If it would shave 5 minutes from your bike to work by biking through my yard, that does not mean that I have to allow you to do so. You're still trespassing and I have every right to sic the cops on you. What I am saying is that you should lobby your local city/county officials to build more convenient access rather than complain to police who have better things to do.
People living off grid cut their energy usage by an order of magnitude. This is simply not true, because people living "off the grid" in the USA really aren't "off the grid". They are still indirectly consuming vast resources, like the resources the government and business is spending to support their non-third world lifestyle. Simply turning off your refrigerator doesn't make a MAJOR impact. That doesn't mean you don't save some energy, but it's certainly not "an order of magnitude" and it's certainly not enough to cause major changes to energy production needs.
smaller refrigerators, chest-style refrigerators, refrigerators with clear panels (so you don't have to open them to see in), insulated cold boxes for the cold season in applicable climates, cistern or spring house coolers, etc. All of these are used by people in off-grid situations to reduce consumption I got a small dorm fridge to replace the full-sized fridge we were using for drinks. And we have a chest-style freezer. Windows leak heat unless made of very thick insulated glass, which is very expensive. That's why you only see windows in expensive European refrigerators. People are doing this for the simple reason of saving money. That's why we did it.
They rarely make efficient use of landscaping, floorplan or other features for heating and cooling. Most developers now choose to make the most effective use of SPACE in given lots. This relative density has it's own advantages. Floorplans have to consider other, more important, issues than conservation like safety and accessibility. Many new developments make use of solar power, solar heating, or other environmental technology. So this is certainly being implement where economical and practical.
Again, there is a cost associated with that (oranges from Chile). Ignoring the cost and then saying "I can't do anything" is a lie. It is a choice. Additionally, much of our society is now deliberately set up to be dependent on exports/imports to the point of instability. This is especially true of South America (you mention Chile) where the cash crop economies were set up by colonial powers to keep countries dependent on foreign control ("Banana Republic"). There is a cost associated with that too. But of course, we can't do anything about that, either. This is a political argument, not an environmental one. Whether or not our oranges are picked by unionized workers in the USA or poorly paid workers in foreign nations is not relavent to the laws of physics. And one could certainly argue that if the USA had direct imperial control over nations like Chile it would be better because the US could force regulation (like limiting industrial development) that would hurt Chile in the short term but aid the environment in the long term (and thereby aid the USA). Of course, maintaining a military force is expensive (both in terms of energy and currency) as well.
We have to think globally. It doesn't mean shit that Americans are cutting energy consumption if the Chinese have skyrocketing energy consumption and are burning coal to do it. US investment in the Chinese hydroelectric and nuclear power industry will do far more to reduce pollution globally in the long term. MY goal isn't to "save energy", it's to reduce pollution.
There is a deployment cost with walking two blocks to the store instead of driving? I was talking about biofuels.
A 'sacrifice' would be buying a smaller car, carpooling, taking the bus, bicycling, getting to know the neighbors, making less trips to town, etc., etc., etc. Lots of people carpool and use the (inadquate) public transportation systems we have now. No, a REAL sacrifice would accepting a 20% income tax hike to pay for massive foreign aid to the developing world where the money will help prevent environmental disaster there. A REAL sacrifice would be moving your family into a small urban apartment rather than a large suburban house. These are changes that might actually have an impact.
In 1980, Stallman and some other hackers at the AI Lab were not given the software's source code for the Xerox 9700 laser printer (code-named Dover), the industry's first. Stallman had modified the software on an older printer (the XGP, Xerographic Printer), so it electronically messaged a user when the person's job was printed, and would message all logged-in users when a printer was jammed. Not being able to add this feature to the Dover printer was a major inconvenience, as the printer was on a different floor from most of the users. This one experience convinced Stallman of the ethical need to require free software.
This is pretty much how I heard the story back in 1991. So if it's a lie, he's been telling it for a long time.
This is similar to the Tivo situation in that it is ADDING a feature to the printer. I think that Tivo hackers would very much like th ability to add features to the Tivo software, like an improved search function, different skins, commercial skip, or other features. The ability to turn a Tivo into a general purpose PC or a router is hardly what people want, as in most cases it would be a waste of money.
Actually, I'm not. I'm someone in exactly the same situation as you (maybe). I needed a free CRM system for non-profit use. I looked at SugarCRM Community Edition and was disappointed to find it was essentially broken without paying big bucks to Sugar, which is exactly what I wanted to avoid. I was basically going to give up on SugarCRM before I discovered vTiger, which was forked for EXACTLY this reason. vTiger certainly is buggy, but it also provides more of a complete package for deployment. Especially the Outlook plugin, which was important for my client.
I should have said "MANY phones" instead of "MOST phones". Most PHONES in the USA are CDMA (because Verizon uses CDMA exclusively and they're one of the three biggest carriers), but most CARRIERS support GSM. AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile, Helio, BoostMobile, Virgin, MetroPCS, and probably a dozen others I can't think of support GSM.
For the record, I do know that some European carriers require contracts and most of them offer yearly or multi-year contracts. My point was that most European carriers offer competitive monthly plans.
Few people realize that Because this crap isn't true.
A.) It takes 10-15 minutes to feel full. No, it doesn't. You can feel full quickly if you eat quickly or if you aren't very hungry to begin with. Not every meal is seven courses consumed by someone near-starvation.
B.) Thirst is often mistaken for hunger Based on what, by whom? *I* can certainly tell the difference.
Eat a pack of star-bursts over 2-3 days, not 10 minutes. Show me a child who does this. Who has EVER done this without compulsion by their parents. It's not human nature.
Basically, people are either too ignorant, apathetic, or lazy to make good nutrition choices. You really shouldn't even give little kids that much juice, becauses its nutritional content (high simple carbs) is similar to soda-pop. Nonsense. You can live to 110 years old eating nothing but steak, eggs, and whiskey. Specific diet, beyond the amount of calories and protein you get, really doesn't have a major long term effect on health. The primary problem in the USA is a lack of exercise. Most people spend too much time on their ass in front of a TV or computer and too much time riding around in cars instead of walking or biking. Want to lose weight and get healthy? Give up the car.
No, this is just proof that you can scam new parents into just about anything if it's "for the children". Newborn babies have extremely poor motor skills and fumble with EVERYTHING. So most newborns will fumble to latch on to a nipple somewhat, whether they are "taught" or not. The difference is whether or not the mother gets hysterical after the baby has been fumbling for a few minutes and starts crying.
People will "certify" you in astrology and phone sex. It doesn't mean anything. For the most part "Lactation Consultants" are POLITICAL operatives advocating against formula as being "unnatural" and against laws forbidding breastfeeding in public.
Most young mothers shouldn't be going to classes and pissing away money on consultants. They should be talking to THEIR mothers who, for the most part, will tell them to calm the fuck down and that they're not evil if they use formula.
'll simply say I agree with the position Linus takes. You get the code, you get to modify it, you get to run it. You get all the freedoms the FSF and the GPL was talking about before the GPLv3 came around. What you don't get is a glorified VCR that you can use as a general purpose computer. Since you probably don't know your history, the FSF was founded because Stallman was unable to modify the firmware of a Xerox laser printer to add functionality. The FSF for founded to give you the freedom to hack your Tivo's software to add functionality. And that's exactly what the "black box" loophole of GPLv2 allows.
The GPLv3 aims to control the distribution of hardware. Nonsense. The GPLv3 aims to control the sale of "black boxes" containing open source software. If you release ALL of the source code for the software in a given hardware appliance, you're good under the GPLv3. What is to stop someone (including business competitors) from taking your software, building their own hardware, and then selling it as their own? Absolutely nothing. That's the whole point.
Trouble is, that's a free systems issue, not a free software issue. The two could be conflated to some degree back then, but that doesn't work so well now that we have DRM and signed code. Which is why DRM AKA copy protection and "signed code" are antithetical to the idea of Free Software. It's specifically designed to make your hardware more difficult and expensive to use. All such systems will eventually lead to massive data loss (if not swiftly broken) for consumers, and this is BY DESIGN. Copy protection is viciously anti-consumer and if you don't understand this you aren't very familiar with it.
There is a market for Linux-based devices which are essentially black boxes as far as the end user is concerned - Google's own search device proves that. In fact Google's search appliance, and Google's business strategy in general, is specifically the exploitation loophole in the GPL that v3 is trying to close.
The subject say it all. This is consistent with Seagate's moves to make the "Seagate" brand for professionals and "Maxtor" for consumers. IDE is seen as a "consumer" item now, so it has been relegated to the less-prestigious Maxtor brand. That's it. Expect to see Maxtor making IDE drives for another 2 years.
And even if they stop, there are small SATA to IDE bridges available for about $20 which should work just about everywhere when space isn't a problem. Laptops might have issues, but I suspect 2.5" IDE dives will stay fround for a while for this reason.
This has happened in the past people. Remember MFM?
Vtiger *IS* SugarCRM, freed from the bullshit of Sugar. Virtually all of the open source contributers to SugarCRM have already jumped ship to vtiger. It's so bad that Sugar won't even allow vtiger to be mentioned in their forums for fear it will draw away more users.
Also, contrary to this announcement, THEY ARE NOT SWITCHING TO GPLv3!!!!! They plan to release the "Open Source Community Edition" as GPLv3. The "Community Edition" is not a COMPLETE version of SugarCRM, it doesn't include the Outlook connectors for example. Yet they intend to keep the "Open Source" logo on the commercial versions, in violation of the GPLv3. Make no mistake, they are NOT releasing all their code. This is just more stalling and manipulation.
This pays for the Californian manages to do most of this crap without tagging people like dogs and without outrageous service fees, and we have a lot more beaches.
strangely, (and I originally found it shocking too) it works.. much like the toll roads, it's a pay to play system. In other words, much like toll roads, it screws poor people and limits their access to resources. You obviously like it because the program is enriching you personally. However the goal of our government is to "provide for the general welfare", not make seaside tourist traps rich. This is the sort of thing our exorbitant income taxes are supposed to pay for. I certainly can't keep your shyster local government from passing these kinds of regs to line their pockets, but I can tell you that I won't be visiting Ocean City anytime soon.
Slashdot Mirror
The idea that this has no impact, or, more properly, would have no impact if done on a large scale (even if it won't happen) is ridiculous in the extreme.
That's exactly what I'm claiming because it's a drop in the bucket compared to industrial use (I'm talking bout energy in general, not the electrical grid). Yes, consumer consumption is a major portion of the electrical grid, and yes, conservation would reduce that consumption. But not as much as you seem to think. Really, what can you lose? We discussed this earlier and most of your suggestions that would make a significant impact beyond what we are already doing (improved appliances, etc.) involved redesigning homes and communities, which seems unrealistic.
It is in some areas, slowly, not widespread, and not at all here, but the trend is encouraging.
If I lived in Minnesota I wouldn't expect solar panels either. But here in sunny California, it makes sense. We've also lobbied our legislature for tax breaks and incentives for solar power.
The idea that we have the right, let alone the ability, to form energy policy for Chile is astounding. Our own policy is held hostage to special interests and cut-throat politics. Besides, what in the world gives us the right to impose limitations on Chile we are not willing to accept ourselves?
Because we can? World politics is not a game of moral one-upsmanship but of power relations and, specifically, control of trade. If they want our money, like loans for economic development, then they have to do what we say. And though we might decry how the US government strongarms foreign governments to aid US business, there can be little doubt that this benefits the American consumer in many ways.
Energy policy and "moral foreign relations" are two different things. I'm concerned about pollution elsewhere in the world because it ultimately affects me. If I thought marching the Chinese into concentration camps was a realistic solution to pollution problems I would recommend that. Foreign nations (and ultimately, foreigners) who poison me don't have any "rights".
At the moment, saving energy reduces pollution (and reduces foreign fuel dependence, one of my early stated purposes).
We will always need oil. Nobody is talking about getting rid of plastic. The notion of "independence from Middle East oil" is a fantasy unless major oil reserves are discovered elsewhere, which seems unlikely.
At some point as well, energy is itself a pollutant. If everyone had essentially unlimited energy supplies, usage would skyrocket and mere thermal waste would become a problem. At some point, the slope has to flatten.
Since this is impossible, it won't be a problem. As standard of living increases (globally), energy consumption will also increase. The only way to "flatten the slope" is to reduce standard of living or population.
Politically, nuclear power is not (allowed to be) a global solution; not unless we decide that everyone has the right to build bombs.
America's reluctance to adopt nuclear power in the past 30 years hasn't prevented third-world nations like India, Pakistan, and North Korea from obtaining nuclear weapons. And I was talking about nuclear power as a solution for China and India, both of whom already have nuclear weapons. Eventually, we will see wide adoption of nuclear power due to cost pressures, I just wish it would happen sooner rather than later.
Modern coal plants can be quite clean and are more efficient than gas plants.
Some plants yes, but there's no such thing as clean coal MINING. The "clean" coal plants are more bullshit from an industry trying to hide the fact that it's the world's #1 polluter, by a wide margin. Coal is bad, worse than oil in most cases. Just like ethanol, it's a deception by people wanting a handout. Wind power is pretty much in the same camp too.
Coal plants can be reconfigured to burn tires,
and the original recount
Sam William's book is hardly the "original recount". I'm telling you the story as Stallman told me back when I met him in 1990. He was talking to a group of us at a computer club and he related the story. And as HE related the story, he was talking about the firmware (essentially) on the Xerox laser printer. He talked about other features he wanted to add too, like timestamping (or something like that). Most of the talk at the meeting was about Bill's 386BSD which was eagerly anticipated.
And even if your details on the story WERE correct, Stallman agrees with me that the INTENT was to allow people to modify the software inside their hardware.
Here's a linkhttp://www.gsmworld.com/roaming/gsminfo/cou_us .shtml to lots of carriers.
For some reason I thought Sprint and it's affiliates was GSM. I was thinking of Alltel.
Well, not so in Europe. ... It's up to the banks to make biometric verification something people want, not something people just consider an extra hassle.
I can understand the demand for biometrics in banking in Europe, but this has NOTHING do do with the technology and EVERYTHING to do with European banking laws.
In the USA, if someone steals your credit card and racks up a bunch of charges you only has a maximum liability of $50, the rest in paid by the bank. In Europe (I think these are the EU rules now), if your credit card is stolen you are liable for the full amount of the false charges. The laws are similar regarding ATM transactions. IOW, in the USA the customer has little incentive to pay extra for biometrics as they don't have the liability issues Europeans have.
Also, in Europe ATM systems tend to be government-subsidized. And to be blunt, I think we have enough government handouts for dubious security technologies already. Basically, biometrics in banking are largely a scam used to shift liability.
I simply can't figure out how you would consider a high speed internet connection expensive
Ask me how cheap it is in rural Kansas. Remember, you're designing a system that has to work THERE. The ATM links in the USA for the most part use conventional phone lines and are extremely low bandwidth (in the 3-5k range) specifically to deal with the issue of noisy phone lines. And without high-speed internet you can't do enrollment.
We use face recognition in one of our prison facilities and enrolment is done by wards.
How many thousands of dollars does the prison lose if visitation is delayed? Not many I'll wager. More importantly, let's assume there's absolutely no backup for this system. Let me play you through the prison scenario:
Let's say the prison warden (or whatever you call the person in charge) walks up to system and it rejects him. Now the warden could simply have the gate guard buzz him in using the backup system of the guard's eyeballs, since the guard would recognize him. But in the bank scenario there is no backup. So the guard, EVEN THOUGH HE RECOGNIZED THE WARDEN, would have to turn him away.
Yet the system works flawlessly
No such thing. Your inability to acknowledge serious flaws in the system (as there are in any system) strikes me as evidence you're peddling snake oil.
You are also dealing with people in a security environment (like a prison or military base) that have no choice in using the technology, as it was undoubtedly government mandated. The government mandate and "security paranoia" reduce the obvious cost concerns. I've used or heard about all sorts of kludgy biometric systems at military facilities, systems the private sector would never consider deploying in a million years, so this doesn't wow me very much.
Either this was a few years ago (when facial recognition software was in a pretty bad state), or the people handling this are highly incompetent, or both. ... There was a very unhealthy market five years ago with lots of fraudsters selling silver bullets at high cost but not delivering. These times are about over, fortunately.
The year was 2003. And you're acknowledging that the field is rife with fraud, but you're pushing it to secure our banks anyway. Why the hell should I, or any sane person, devote the security of our banking system to a technology with a successful track record of less than 5 years that has "lots of fraudsters"? At this point I want an example of a working, large-scale (dozens of sites), PRIVATE deployment.
From a security stand point PINs are outdated and will go away, whether you like it or not.
We'll be using passwords, in one form or another, for the next 100 years at least.
The opening of the iron curtain has not just created good business oportunities for us europeans, it also opened the flood gates for all sorts of crimina
Think conceptually about this a minute. How is the "piracy" different from radio airplay? It's people listening to the music. Now you're implying that they're downloading the music, listen to it over and over again, and then have NO INTEREST in seeing the band live. Does that make any sense to you? The question you should be asking is: Why aren't more people who hear his music going to his shows?
Or maybe he just has bad luck. I've know a lot of great, popular local bands with huge followings that went nowhere. It's VERY tough to make it in the rock business. They haven't (yet) gotten a recording contract, and I personally hope they do And what would this accomplish? With most major label contracts you start by OWING the label money for the startup costs (production, etc.). You won't make a dime on the first album. Assuming the first album sold well, you'll be paid a small percentage on your next album. Basically, artists should assume they're going to make ALL of their money from touring and swag until they get about 3 or 4 albums into a major label deal. So if they were signed RIGHT NOW, they probably won't be making ANY money off their albums for the next 8 years.
Of course, the promotion the label gives them will do wonders for ticket sales at concerts (and swag sales, assuming they get that Hot Topic t-shirt deal), so they certainly will be making more money that they would without the label. But that assumes the label is bothering to promote them. If not, then they've just signed away almost all potential revenue from their albums (it doesn't matter if it's pirated if you don't own it) for very little gain. I've run into bands that sold bootleg copies of their OWN CDs at concerts for $2 for exactly this reason.
The US strategy of "shock and awe" in the early days of the war destroyed most of Iraq's remaining infrastructure (like hospitals, sewage treatment, water treatment, power plants, etc.) and killed countless civilians. A continued reliance on heavy firepower as a way to protect US troops (a rain of heavy machinegun fire in every encounter, extensive use of artillery and air attack in urban areas, etc.) has caused even more devastation to Iraq's urban areas. Some cities, like Fallujah, have been bombed into rubble. None of this helps win "hearts and minds".
And what about the COST of all this technology? The Iraq War has been the most expensive conflict, in adjusted dollars, the United States has ever engaged it. It eats up about 40% of the national budget. The Iraq conflict has gone on longer than WW2, cost more, and accomplished a LOT less.
Really, the technological "heavy firepower" approach of the US military in Iraq has proved to be one of the worst military disasters in recent history.
Remember the push a while back to put photos of the customer on ATM and credit cards? Do you have one? Probably not. This initiative certainly SEEMED like a good idea and a good way to prevent fraud, so why didn't it happen? Because of the logistical difficulty of actually taking the photos at the branches. Typical false rejection rates are far below 1%. This includes people not looking perfectly straight the first time. After the third time you can be pretty sure that you can make it through the system - if you were enrolled properly. Key thing: Enrolled properly. In my experience, with the help of experts including the designer of the facial recognition system, it took about one hour to enroll each staffer. And false negatives were in the 60% range (i.e. a staffer would have to try to verify an average of 3 times to use the system) and the scanning was not exactly fast. It ALWAYS took between 1 and 5 minutes to verify (in large part due to the false negatives). Within a week the door was just propped open. You get much higher rejection rates due to people mistyping or forgetting PIN codes. Probably true. But it's a lot faster to retype a PIN code, and if it IS forgotten the code can be reset quickly and MUCH more importantly, remotely. With a facial recognition system a customer would have to go into the branch and talk to the dedicated "biometrics officer" for ANY problem. Buy this you violate the contract of every ATM provider I know of. And who gives a fuck? Do you actually think the bank enforces these contracts, and that if they did, customers would put up with it? To the customer this is simply lost functionality. Yes, a customer can could enroll his brother with another card, but that would involved putting his brother through the inconvenient and laborious enrollment process.
As of 7.3.1, all tracks purchased on the iTunes Music Store can be cracked. Check out QTFairUsehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QTFairUse6 .
And in this context, "cracking" means "stripping the DRM". Nobody actually WANTS a "protected AAC" file that happens to work with their system, what they want is to remove the protection. You're implying that because cracks can't REPLICATE the encryption it isn't cracked. That is not the purpose.
Biometrics are less than ideal, but they are better than the two solutions I've seen at virtually every site I've worked at: weak passwords or strong passwords written on post-it notes stuck to monitors. Any solution that recommends memorizing long lists of passwords isn't a solution.
You're misunderstanding the point of copy prevention (aka DRM, I agree with RMS on this, we shouldn't use "their" terminology as it implies nonexistent "rights") which is not to prevent theft. Nothing is lost in "illegal copying". As the phrase should tell you, software copying is a form of COUNTERFEITING. A much better analogy are the "security features" (microprinting, holograms, metal strips, etc.) inserted into US currency to prevent copying. And not casual copying either. Right now the "casual" counterfeiter can photocopy a few bills with a quality color copier and pass them pretty easily. The security features exist to a large extent to prevent large-scale counterfeiting, even some nations (like Cuba) are said to counterfeit American currency. Again few people are arrested for unknowingly (or even knowingly) passing a few counterfeit bills.
So this whole reasoning behind copy prevention, to prevent "casual copying", is bass-ackwards. Companies are SOLD this software to prevent counterfeiting and, shockingly, it doesn't work because most copy prevention software vendors are snake-oil salesmen. No offense to Russians, but why do you think most of the so-called DRM software you see comes from tiny Russian outfits? It's because reputable software vendors won't sell the shit.
We have to think globally. It doesn't mean shit that Americans are cutting energy consumption if the Chinese have skyrocketing energy consumption and are burning coal to do it. US investment in the Chinese hydroelectric and nuclear power industry will do far more to reduce pollution globally in the long term. MY goal isn't to "save energy", it's to reduce pollution. There is a deployment cost with walking two blocks to the store instead of driving? I was talking about biofuels. A 'sacrifice' would be buying a smaller car, carpooling, taking the bus, bicycling, getting to know the neighbors, making less trips to town, etc., etc., etc. Lots of people carpool and use the (inadquate) public transportation systems we have now. No, a REAL sacrifice would accepting a 20% income tax hike to pay for massive foreign aid to the developing world where the money will help prevent environmental disaster there. A REAL sacrifice would be moving your family into a small urban apartment rather than a large suburban house. These are changes that might actually have an impact.
Um, no. From the freaking Wikipedia article:
In 1980, Stallman and some other hackers at the AI Lab were not given the software's source code for the Xerox 9700 laser printer (code-named Dover), the industry's first. Stallman had modified the software on an older printer (the XGP, Xerographic Printer), so it electronically messaged a user when the person's job was printed, and would message all logged-in users when a printer was jammed. Not being able to add this feature to the Dover printer was a major inconvenience, as the printer was on a different floor from most of the users. This one experience convinced Stallman of the ethical need to require free software.
This is pretty much how I heard the story back in 1991. So if it's a lie, he's been telling it for a long time.
This is similar to the Tivo situation in that it is ADDING a feature to the printer. I think that Tivo hackers would very much like th ability to add features to the Tivo software, like an improved search function, different skins, commercial skip, or other features. The ability to turn a Tivo into a general purpose PC or a router is hardly what people want, as in most cases it would be a waste of money.
Actually, I'm not. I'm someone in exactly the same situation as you (maybe). I needed a free CRM system for non-profit use. I looked at SugarCRM Community Edition and was disappointed to find it was essentially broken without paying big bucks to Sugar, which is exactly what I wanted to avoid. I was basically going to give up on SugarCRM before I discovered vTiger, which was forked for EXACTLY this reason. vTiger certainly is buggy, but it also provides more of a complete package for deployment. Especially the Outlook plugin, which was important for my client.
Corrections:
I should have said "MANY phones" instead of "MOST phones". Most PHONES in the USA are CDMA (because Verizon uses CDMA exclusively and they're one of the three biggest carriers), but most CARRIERS support GSM. AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile, Helio, BoostMobile, Virgin, MetroPCS, and probably a dozen others I can't think of support GSM.
For the record, I do know that some European carriers require contracts and most of them offer yearly or multi-year contracts. My point was that most European carriers offer competitive monthly plans.
No, this is just proof that you can scam new parents into just about anything if it's "for the children". Newborn babies have extremely poor motor skills and fumble with EVERYTHING. So most newborns will fumble to latch on to a nipple somewhat, whether they are "taught" or not. The difference is whether or not the mother gets hysterical after the baby has been fumbling for a few minutes and starts crying.
People will "certify" you in astrology and phone sex. It doesn't mean anything. For the most part "Lactation Consultants" are POLITICAL operatives advocating against formula as being "unnatural" and against laws forbidding breastfeeding in public.
Most young mothers shouldn't be going to classes and pissing away money on consultants. They should be talking to THEIR mothers who, for the most part, will tell them to calm the fuck down and that they're not evil if they use formula.
The subject say it all. This is consistent with Seagate's moves to make the "Seagate" brand for professionals and "Maxtor" for consumers. IDE is seen as a "consumer" item now, so it has been relegated to the less-prestigious Maxtor brand. That's it. Expect to see Maxtor making IDE drives for another 2 years.
And even if they stop, there are small SATA to IDE bridges available for about $20 which should work just about everywhere when space isn't a problem. Laptops might have issues, but I suspect 2.5" IDE dives will stay fround for a while for this reason.
This has happened in the past people. Remember MFM?
Please mod the parent up.
Vtiger *IS* SugarCRM, freed from the bullshit of Sugar. Virtually all of the open source contributers to SugarCRM have already jumped ship to vtiger. It's so bad that Sugar won't even allow vtiger to be mentioned in their forums for fear it will draw away more users.
Also, contrary to this announcement, THEY ARE NOT SWITCHING TO GPLv3!!!!! They plan to release the "Open Source Community Edition" as GPLv3. The "Community Edition" is not a COMPLETE version of SugarCRM, it doesn't include the Outlook connectors for example. Yet they intend to keep the "Open Source" logo on the commercial versions, in violation of the GPLv3. Make no mistake, they are NOT releasing all their code. This is just more stalling and manipulation.