Yes. But if you look at it, Earth is only broadcasting in a very narrow part of the spectrum. We are just now developing the ability to broadcast on gigahertz frequencies. Who knows how many areas of frequency there are, that we simply haven't touched yet. Who's to say they need radio at all? I mean, it's kind of slow over long distances.
Guys, I know everyone wants a ruling that says that api's can't be copyrighted, like the one that just came out of Europe a couple weeks ago, but that's not what happened here. The judge was very careful to limit the ruling to the specific Java apis in the case. It doesn't apply to any other api's like WINE. Hell, it doesn't even cover all of Java. And it's very likely that Oracle will try to appeal it. So no need to throw a party yet. This fight isn't over yet.
The US doesn't have unbridled surveillance yet. But we're getting it with CISPA. And given the nature of the root server system, that makes it a global problem. Like I said earlier. I don't think either body understands the internet well enough not to totally screw it up over the next ten years or so; and that they need to hand it over to a body that understands the key concepts involved. I can't imagine anyone having an issue with that point of view, but everyone's entitled to their opinion, I suppose.
I tend to agree. I keep offering to help my elected representatives with this stuff. None of them seem especially interested. Except Roy Blunt. He's an idiot, but at least he listens to reason.
I think the question lies in what you consider worse. Do you fear unlimited, unaccountable, and unbridled surveillance, like the kind that's being proposed in the US, that effectively covers the entire world... or are you more worried about censorship, virtual toll roads that make the doing business more expensive, and totally unrepresented taxation? Not to mention regional fragmentation, which you'll see in some of the proposals. Neither agenda is good, but which is worse? Personally, I don't think either side of this debate understands the internet at all. If the internet is going to be controlled by anyone, it should be the people who work and live in it. It's mine, damn it.
That is true. The real purpose of an alternative tld is for cool business cards. Like when I reserved my name.asia for the fuck of it. Biggest problem I'm having is that people who get my.asia business card are still typing in my.com email address. Even if they don't have my.com email address. That's a huge problem. Of course, the day will come when nobody uses email addresses either. And on that day, I will throw a wild party, and only people who have had to live with the unending horror that is email administration will be invited.
I hadn't thought to look at it that way, but now that you mention it... if they ever release.satan or.evil as a TLD, I'll be the first to sign up. No, seriously, I'll write a program that'll use timers accurate to the billionth of a second, so I can be the first in the door.
Dave, every time they make a change like this, they get hammered. They made some big changes the release before "panda" and the site was useless for almost a year.
You're totally missing the point. This law effects everyone, not just those that are tracking you for profit. It's not even possible to run a web server that doesn't track you with some kind of analytics. It can't be done easily, and you just need to accept that. So you can talk about how much you want your privacy all you like. But at the end of the day, you, and your uneducated, dangerously inept government need to understand that we live in reality, and these things happen.
That said, if the Parliament really cared about this, they would have required browser makers and software makers that produce web servers to disable cookies by default, with a built in notification process, rather than requiring the entire uk internet to change.
Nobody's really sure what they meant when they wrote it. The wording doesn't make sense. Web developers don't have the legal background to understand it, and lawyers don't have the technical background to know what it's about. If my reading of it is correct, it requires an entirely new server architecture because apache cares way too much what's going on. At work, the head of legal couldn't tell me what kind of cookies are covered either. He said to "air on the side of caution" and remove all cookies. I explained to him what that means, and he said "I think it's just for e-commerce sites anyway." I truly hope that they don't try to make an example of us. We're huge, and we do a lot of business in the UK. And we're totally un-fucking-prepared.
See, as they make very clear when you download Microsoft Visual Studio 11 for Windows 8, Microsoft controls the publishing rights of all Metro applications. Which, pretty much makes building them pointless. Why, as a developer, should I put my time, hard work, and money on the line, only to give Microsoft the option of never allowing my app to see the light of day? It just doesn't make sense. I would say the same thing of Apple, also, before you point out that they also have a walled garden. In the case of Microsoft, I don't think it can work because it's the opposite strategy of the one that made them successful in the first place. And if they want the opposite of success, they can have it. As a developer, I find the mobile platforms more compelling anyway.
It's inevitable. Someone will figure out a way to abuse the system that google hasn't thought to make contingencies for yet. I'm on the fence as to whether this is a good idea. I just hope they know what they're doing.
It's not just Hbo. Watching them behave this way, it really does seem like the entire entertainment industry no longer understands their business model, or how to execute it. It's like I keep saying. All they have to do is hire me in the lower six figures, and I could easily work all this stuff out for them. This is probably the 900th time I've said that, and not one phone call. Would you believe that?
I've offered to pay extra for their internet based service. Unfortunately, it's simply not available without buying cable, which is something I won't do. I have no desire to have cable when my Roku and Apple Tv do a better job for a fraction of the price. So I guess I can live without HBO, it's just a shame, that's all.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. But if you look at it, Earth is only broadcasting in a very narrow part of the spectrum. We are just now developing the ability to broadcast on gigahertz frequencies. Who knows how many areas of frequency there are, that we simply haven't touched yet. Who's to say they need radio at all? I mean, it's kind of slow over long distances.
I've been able to do this since 2008 or so. For awhile, I was using it to make posting to craigslist a little easier.
Guys, I know everyone wants a ruling that says that api's can't be copyrighted, like the one that just came out of Europe a couple weeks ago, but that's not what happened here. The judge was very careful to limit the ruling to the specific Java apis in the case. It doesn't apply to any other api's like WINE. Hell, it doesn't even cover all of Java. And it's very likely that Oracle will try to appeal it. So no need to throw a party yet. This fight isn't over yet.
The US doesn't have unbridled surveillance yet. But we're getting it with CISPA. And given the nature of the root server system, that makes it a global problem. Like I said earlier. I don't think either body understands the internet well enough not to totally screw it up over the next ten years or so; and that they need to hand it over to a body that understands the key concepts involved. I can't imagine anyone having an issue with that point of view, but everyone's entitled to their opinion, I suppose.
I tend to agree. I keep offering to help my elected representatives with this stuff. None of them seem especially interested. Except Roy Blunt. He's an idiot, but at least he listens to reason.
I think the question lies in what you consider worse. Do you fear unlimited, unaccountable, and unbridled surveillance, like the kind that's being proposed in the US, that effectively covers the entire world... or are you more worried about censorship, virtual toll roads that make the doing business more expensive, and totally unrepresented taxation? Not to mention regional fragmentation, which you'll see in some of the proposals. Neither agenda is good, but which is worse? Personally, I don't think either side of this debate understands the internet at all. If the internet is going to be controlled by anyone, it should be the people who work and live in it. It's mine, damn it.
Damn, I really did a mojojo with that last sentence.
That is true. The real purpose of an alternative tld is for cool business cards. Like when I reserved my name .asia for the fuck of it. Biggest problem I'm having is that people who get my .asia business card are still typing in my .com email address. Even if they don't have my .com email address. That's a huge problem. Of course, the day will come when nobody uses email addresses either. And on that day, I will throw a wild party, and only people who have had to live with the unending horror that is email administration will be invited.
I hadn't thought to look at it that way, but now that you mention it... if they ever release .satan or .evil as a TLD, I'll be the first to sign up. No, seriously, I'll write a program that'll use timers accurate to the billionth of a second, so I can be the first in the door.
It totally could have been. I'm great with faces. Names, not so much.
Dave, every time they make a change like this, they get hammered. They made some big changes the release before "panda" and the site was useless for almost a year.
Is that what they call it now? I always called him bob.
You're totally missing the point. This law effects everyone, not just those that are tracking you for profit. It's not even possible to run a web server that doesn't track you with some kind of analytics. It can't be done easily, and you just need to accept that. So you can talk about how much you want your privacy all you like. But at the end of the day, you, and your uneducated, dangerously inept government need to understand that we live in reality, and these things happen.
That said, if the Parliament really cared about this, they would have required browser makers and software makers that produce web servers to disable cookies by default, with a built in notification process, rather than requiring the entire uk internet to change.
Nobody's really sure what they meant when they wrote it. The wording doesn't make sense. Web developers don't have the legal background to understand it, and lawyers don't have the technical background to know what it's about. If my reading of it is correct, it requires an entirely new server architecture because apache cares way too much what's going on. At work, the head of legal couldn't tell me what kind of cookies are covered either. He said to "air on the side of caution" and remove all cookies. I explained to him what that means, and he said "I think it's just for e-commerce sites anyway." I truly hope that they don't try to make an example of us. We're huge, and we do a lot of business in the UK. And we're totally un-fucking-prepared.
See, as they make very clear when you download Microsoft Visual Studio 11 for Windows 8, Microsoft controls the publishing rights of all Metro applications. Which, pretty much makes building them pointless. Why, as a developer, should I put my time, hard work, and money on the line, only to give Microsoft the option of never allowing my app to see the light of day? It just doesn't make sense. I would say the same thing of Apple, also, before you point out that they also have a walled garden. In the case of Microsoft, I don't think it can work because it's the opposite strategy of the one that made them successful in the first place. And if they want the opposite of success, they can have it. As a developer, I find the mobile platforms more compelling anyway.
Depends how often they hit your site. Google has been known to check sites pretty regularly.
Well, there was this http://tech.slashdot.org/story/11/11/30/1356218/google-throws--under-bus-to-snag-patent Remember that one? Good times.
Or one that generates useful looking links to other sites you own (on different servers and subnets, of course).
It's inevitable. Someone will figure out a way to abuse the system that google hasn't thought to make contingencies for yet. I'm on the fence as to whether this is a good idea. I just hope they know what they're doing.
This is what they're wasting my tax money on today? Jesus. Why not ddos them, or post a hate blog while they're at it?
Facebook was over priced at 100x earnings.
Now I just need to remember where I put my knee high socks...
I doubt they would put in the effort, honestly. Even if they did, the most they could get would be minimum statutory damages.
It's not just Hbo. Watching them behave this way, it really does seem like the entire entertainment industry no longer understands their business model, or how to execute it. It's like I keep saying. All they have to do is hire me in the lower six figures, and I could easily work all this stuff out for them. This is probably the 900th time I've said that, and not one phone call. Would you believe that?
I've offered to pay extra for their internet based service. Unfortunately, it's simply not available without buying cable, which is something I won't do. I have no desire to have cable when my Roku and Apple Tv do a better job for a fraction of the price. So I guess I can live without HBO, it's just a shame, that's all.