How is this a bad thing for customers? I'm nowhere close to being an expert, but it seems to me that customers benefit from not being identifiable by a static IP. Doesn't it enhance privacy? According to the article, "PPPoE schemes make it easier for hackers to gain unauthorized access by seizing or guessing at dynamic addresses." Huh? Is it any harder to 'seize or guess' at static IP's? Once they know a static IP, isn't it easier to attack a specific target, or 'mark a favorite' victim? Again, I'm no expert, it's just seems obvious to me. I'm also not what you would call a fan of Bell, so it's not like I'm looking to justify this. But when "competing ISP's and (the ever-elusive) experts," try to inform me, I get a little skeptical. Not to mention that InternetWeek's about page doesn't exactly strike me as consumer-oriented. Judging by the other comments, it seems to me like a benefit to customers is being weighed against inconvenience to business. And while I doubt Bell's motives are so pristine, forgive me for not being sympathetic.
Ok, maybe it's just that I hate GSI, it's questionable business ethics, it's crappy content, and it's lame humor, but why is this news? Front page news even? I could spend the next 5 years making a list of all the 5,000 gaming networks and the 20,000 lists they've made that rate games in every possible way by all categories imaginable. But it only takes one sentence to describe every single list: Useless content-filler written by people that have to pander to the company responsible for every eligible game, or risk being refused 'exclusive content' in the future. I'd be curious to know how many of the 50 asses that were kissed in this list are presently in no position to reciprocate.
Well thank god we have Microsoft to solve all our problems so us morons don't have to deal with them. I'm done putting peoples' rights over the rights of a for-profit business. I want passport and hailstorm, I want my news handpicked by MS-spinsters before I wake up, I want my computer tailored to MS's idea of what I should be using it for, I want my car fixed before I even knew it was broken, and when I become utterly vacant of dignity and turn to suicide as a last resort, I want hailstorm tobe able to notify the authorities when I purchase a noose. Now, please bend over.
Felten & EFF vs. RIAA is a perfect case. This guy's been through enough, he's got a family to get home to. I'm definitely not gonna be the one to suggest that he put himself on the line.
This fact should serve as proof to everyone that commercialism cannot be allowed to become the backbone of the internet. Without the 'e-blitz' (I made that up just now -- thank you, thank you) that gave birth to this freed medium by beating lawmakers and profiteers to the punch, would we even be talking about this right now? Hell no. The only reason we are; the only reason we can muster thousands of protestors for a cause; is because we get swarms of unfiltered opinions over our computers. People make up their own minds for change, and the the issues that come to the frontlines get there because, guess what, it's common sense that jailing a visitor for breaking the pathetic security protected by a fascist law is wrong.
So what will happen when the same "journalism" that dumbed down generation after generation before the internet moves the bulk of it's weight online? Why should sites like Slashdot, that got where they are through the ingenuity of a few schmucks like you and I, be bought out by a bigger fish? I trust the integrity of this site and the owners, from top to bottom, (I've done my homework), but do you think they could resist a million dollar offer from a big fish in the mainstream media? And I wish I had an answer or an alternative, but I don't because this is what happens when the greedy minority is allowed to lobby on capitol hill while the rest of the country watches breaking news of a shark attack on stations owned completely by that minority. They can piss on the constitution because they own it. They paid their way into deregulation that stood for over 100 years as a shield for democracy against greed and corruption. The biggest mistake of the plutocratic movement was to let the internet slip through, and they're going to correct it.
Call me an extremist, but the way I see it, if we don't succeed in using the internet to get people interested in politics, and ruthlessly protective of their rights -- if the transition to online life doesn't help the people and their elected officials to restore antitrust laws, to denounce the words that gave corporations the rights of a living, breathing person -- if this all, instead, ends in a hostile takeover of the internet by profiteers, then mark my words, the next civil war will be fought between Americans and Corporate Americans. You'll see an end to unions, minimum wage will drop, working conditions will resemble pre-union factories where 1 in 5 workers was dismembered or killed because of a lack of safety requirements. Businesses that grow tired of listening to complaints will build sweatshops. Dissent would be minimal considering that all information and events are under the influence or control of one or two corporations. Believe it or not, because that reality is already in it's early stages today. It's a horrible picture to paint, but it's the logical conclusion to the path we're on. Nobody wants it to happen. Not even the CEO's of corporate america. But business operates like a well-oiled machine when it reaches a certain complexity and size. It's only goal is profit, and it's going to that end whether people like it's methods or not. To make that point; do you think any actual human wakes up in the morning, goes to work at the clothing business they own, and says "I think I'll enslave a few children and construct a sweatshop today." No. They compromise, they convince themselves that it's not as bad as it looks, and the machine continues to operate independently towards it's goal. This brings me back full circle, to the idiocy of deregulation.
(Apologies for the long rant and weird grammar, I got carried away with my ramblings)
Illegal!?this is illegal. These labels are licensed by the public. We gave them the privelege of providing a service that we would reward with our hard earned money; they subverted our position to buy legislative influence and squelch all activity that might take a bite out of profits. And I'm supposed to abide by legislation that demands I continue to line their pockets!? At this point, vilifying music piracy is about as insulting as a prohibition law. When the RIAA sets out to step on the rights of all citizens, including the people it's comprised of (whether they can see past their wallets to realize it or not), it's going to get a collective pimp-slap -- because the RIAA is our bitch, and they need to be reminded of that.
By that logic, you can't make copies of software you own for use on other computers or for some sort of use on your own computer because it would be stealing. This is where fair use supercedes the profits of a business that, according to law, exists to serve the people (and thus, serve their rights).
Just to nitpick, this would make for copyright infringement, not theft. You can't steal something by making a copy of it. If you were to find a car parked outside, make a replica of it, and drive off in the replica, could the owner of the original charge you with theft?
Yeah really, damn those consumer advocates and their stylish conformity. Next thing you know we'll be getting our news from these rediculously self-righteous organizations; FTCNBC or some such nonsense. You know what else is disgusting? How it's become cool punish criminals, and 'vogue' to 'dis Nike sweatshops. Damn communists and their civil rights.
Sorry, but you're just wrong. It might appear that way, but the fact is that (mostly thanks to the Telecommunications Act of 1996), control hasn't just failed to diversify, it's shrunk down to ownership by about 5 companies alone. Meaning 5 companies that represent about 95% of the media in the country. It's also not by popularity that they rose to this position, because many services and products people buy are ultimately traced back to these companies, despite the fact that the purchase might've happened at a 'mom and pop' store which doesn't disclose the identity of it's parent company, or is independently owned but *supplied* by one of these 5. For instance, when you buy a book there is a 50% chance that the store and the book can be traced through ownership and suppliers to one of only 2 of those 5 giants. (Some of these statistics come from an old article by Michael Moore, so hopefully they won't be as unbelievable as they look).
I think the 1996 act itself said it best,
"(4) COMPETITOR CONSIDERATION PROHIBITED- In making the
determinations specified in paragraph (1) or (2), the
Commission shall not consider whether the public interest,
convenience, and necessity might be served by the grant of a
license to a person other than the renewal applicant.'.
"
For the last few years the only thing seperating Canada from a radiated hole in the ground has been constant reruns of kids in the hall. You're on very thin ice.
Whether Adobe's PR and legal team think so or not, I would bet my life savings that the only purpose to this case, and to the related provisions in the DMCA, is to save money when providing security. Consider this: only security experts hired by Adobe are allowed to expose security problems -- exposing these problems publicly is a violation of the DMCA -- Adobe's whining complaint is 'if only they'd came to us first'. In a tongue-and-cheek comparison, Hitler claimed to have no problem with Jews procreating, he just wanted them to come to him first, *wink* *wink*.
So, Adobe provides pseudo-security to the public, because any discussion of security flaws that doesn't take place in Adobe's controlled environment is verboten.
I love it. We could make a wet paper bag inpenetrable by outlawing the act of penetrating paper.
I considered that, but remember this story? Some fuss was raised about the web-bug on this site, though I think it was just a hitcounter. A few days later, it was removed. The bug was from the OSDN site, and the Doubleclick banners are hosted on a doubleclick ad-server in an OSDN subdirectory. I don't know much of anything about OSDN, except that the reputation that surrounds the open source community should put them above giving support to a company like Doubleclick. My thought was, if Slashdot had a role in getting the web-bug removed, how much of a leap could it be to get Doubleclick ads removed?
This seems like a good thread to ask if anyone else has noticed the Doubleclick ads on Slashdot. I've asked before and even tried an "ask slashdot" submission to no avail. It just find it very annoying that I have to block ads from a doubleclick server on my way to read stories like these. Out of all the sites that have banner ads, I would think that Slashdot would be one of the first to refuse to support Doubleclick's idea of ethical business practices.
Slashdot Mirror
No mention of Dupont grabbing Science.info?
Makes a lot more sense now.
How is this a bad thing for customers? I'm nowhere close to being an expert, but it seems to me that customers benefit from not being identifiable by a static IP. Doesn't it enhance privacy? According to the article, "PPPoE schemes make it easier for hackers to gain unauthorized access by seizing or guessing at dynamic addresses." Huh? Is it any harder to 'seize or guess' at static IP's? Once they know a static IP, isn't it easier to attack a specific target, or 'mark a favorite' victim? Again, I'm no expert, it's just seems obvious to me. I'm also not what you would call a fan of Bell, so it's not like I'm looking to justify this. But when "competing ISP's and (the ever-elusive) experts," try to inform me, I get a little skeptical. Not to mention that InternetWeek's about page doesn't exactly strike me as consumer-oriented. Judging by the other comments, it seems to me like a benefit to customers is being weighed against inconvenience to business. And while I doubt Bell's motives are so pristine, forgive me for not being sympathetic.
Ok, maybe it's just that I hate GSI, it's questionable business ethics, it's crappy content, and it's lame humor, but why is this news? Front page news even? I could spend the next 5 years making a list of all the 5,000 gaming networks and the 20,000 lists they've made that rate games in every possible way by all categories imaginable. But it only takes one sentence to describe every single list: Useless content-filler written by people that have to pander to the company responsible for every eligible game, or risk being refused 'exclusive content' in the future. I'd be curious to know how many of the 50 asses that were kissed in this list are presently in no position to reciprocate.
Well thank god we have Microsoft to solve all our problems so us morons don't have to deal with them. I'm done putting peoples' rights over the rights of a for-profit business. I want passport and hailstorm, I want my news handpicked by MS-spinsters before I wake up, I want my computer tailored to MS's idea of what I should be using it for, I want my car fixed before I even knew it was broken, and when I become utterly vacant of dignity and turn to suicide as a last resort, I want hailstorm tobe able to notify the authorities when I purchase a noose. Now, please bend over.
Set phasers for 'fascism'.
Felten & EFF vs. RIAA is a perfect case. This guy's been through enough, he's got a family to get home to. I'm definitely not gonna be the one to suggest that he put himself on the line.
This fact should serve as proof to everyone that commercialism cannot be allowed to become the backbone of the internet. Without the 'e-blitz' (I made that up just now -- thank you, thank you) that gave birth to this freed medium by beating lawmakers and profiteers to the punch, would we even be talking about this right now? Hell no. The only reason we are; the only reason we can muster thousands of protestors for a cause; is because we get swarms of unfiltered opinions over our computers. People make up their own minds for change, and the the issues that come to the frontlines get there because, guess what, it's common sense that jailing a visitor for breaking the pathetic security protected by a fascist law is wrong.
So what will happen when the same "journalism" that dumbed down generation after generation before the internet moves the bulk of it's weight online? Why should sites like Slashdot, that got where they are through the ingenuity of a few schmucks like you and I, be bought out by a bigger fish? I trust the integrity of this site and the owners, from top to bottom, (I've done my homework), but do you think they could resist a million dollar offer from a big fish in the mainstream media? And I wish I had an answer or an alternative, but I don't because this is what happens when the greedy minority is allowed to lobby on capitol hill while the rest of the country watches breaking news of a shark attack on stations owned completely by that minority. They can piss on the constitution because they own it. They paid their way into deregulation that stood for over 100 years as a shield for democracy against greed and corruption. The biggest mistake of the plutocratic movement was to let the internet slip through, and they're going to correct it.
Call me an extremist, but the way I see it, if we don't succeed in using the internet to get people interested in politics, and ruthlessly protective of their rights -- if the transition to online life doesn't help the people and their elected officials to restore antitrust laws, to denounce the words that gave corporations the rights of a living, breathing person -- if this all, instead, ends in a hostile takeover of the internet by profiteers, then mark my words, the next civil war will be fought between Americans and Corporate Americans. You'll see an end to unions, minimum wage will drop, working conditions will resemble pre-union factories where 1 in 5 workers was dismembered or killed because of a lack of safety requirements. Businesses that grow tired of listening to complaints will build sweatshops. Dissent would be minimal considering that all information and events are under the influence or control of one or two corporations. Believe it or not, because that reality is already in it's early stages today. It's a horrible picture to paint, but it's the logical conclusion to the path we're on. Nobody wants it to happen. Not even the CEO's of corporate america. But business operates like a well-oiled machine when it reaches a certain complexity and size. It's only goal is profit, and it's going to that end whether people like it's methods or not. To make that point; do you think any actual human wakes up in the morning, goes to work at the clothing business they own, and says "I think I'll enslave a few children and construct a sweatshop today." No. They compromise, they convince themselves that it's not as bad as it looks, and the machine continues to operate independently towards it's goal. This brings me back full circle, to the idiocy of deregulation.
(Apologies for the long rant and weird grammar, I got carried away with my ramblings)
Uhhhh, sorry, but I fail to see how this is informative when Lessig's article was mentioned in the Slashdot article right up there.
*pulls Nastard away with a giant hook*
Thank god, for a moment I thought we might start killing other species on other planets instead of just slowly exterminating mankind.
Funny, yes. Informative, no. It's a porn joke you moderating genius you.
The DMCA employs federal agents as tools to increase the profits of companies that can't or won't provide adequate security for their customers.
I'm surprised the people at SPAM haven't threatened Slashdot directly. Not for the word, but the use of the can image.
Illegal!? this is illegal. These labels are licensed by the public. We gave them the privelege of providing a service that we would reward with our hard earned money; they subverted our position to buy legislative influence and squelch all activity that might take a bite out of profits. And I'm supposed to abide by legislation that demands I continue to line their pockets!? At this point, vilifying music piracy is about as insulting as a prohibition law. When the RIAA sets out to step on the rights of all citizens, including the people it's comprised of (whether they can see past their wallets to realize it or not), it's going to get a collective pimp-slap -- because the RIAA is our bitch, and they need to be reminded of that.
By that logic, you can't make copies of software you own for use on other computers or for some sort of use on your own computer because it would be stealing. This is where fair use supercedes the profits of a business that, according to law, exists to serve the people (and thus, serve their rights).
Just to nitpick, this would make for copyright infringement, not theft. You can't steal something by making a copy of it. If you were to find a car parked outside, make a replica of it, and drive off in the replica, could the owner of the original charge you with theft?
Yeah really, damn those consumer advocates and their stylish conformity. Next thing you know we'll be getting our news from these rediculously self-righteous organizations; FTCNBC or some such nonsense. You know what else is disgusting? How it's become cool punish criminals, and 'vogue' to 'dis Nike sweatshops. Damn communists and their civil rights.
I think the 1996 act itself said it best,
- US Government
For the last few years the only thing seperating Canada from a radiated hole in the ground has been constant reruns of kids in the hall. You're on very thin ice.
Whether Adobe's PR and legal team think so or not, I would bet my life savings that the only purpose to this case, and to the related provisions in the DMCA, is to save money when providing security. Consider this: only security experts hired by Adobe are allowed to expose security problems -- exposing these problems publicly is a violation of the DMCA -- Adobe's whining complaint is 'if only they'd came to us first'. In a tongue-and-cheek comparison, Hitler claimed to have no problem with Jews procreating, he just wanted them to come to him first, *wink* *wink*.
So, Adobe provides pseudo-security to the public, because any discussion of security flaws that doesn't take place in Adobe's controlled environment is verboten.
I love it. We could make a wet paper bag inpenetrable by outlawing the act of penetrating paper.
I considered that, but remember this story? Some fuss was raised about the web-bug on this site, though I think it was just a hitcounter. A few days later, it was removed. The bug was from the OSDN site, and the Doubleclick banners are hosted on a doubleclick ad-server in an OSDN subdirectory. I don't know much of anything about OSDN, except that the reputation that surrounds the open source community should put them above giving support to a company like Doubleclick. My thought was, if Slashdot had a role in getting the web-bug removed, how much of a leap could it be to get Doubleclick ads removed?
This seems like a good thread to ask if anyone else has noticed the Doubleclick ads on Slashdot. I've asked before and even tried an "ask slashdot" submission to no avail. It just find it very annoying that I have to block ads from a doubleclick server on my way to read stories like these. Out of all the sites that have banner ads, I would think that Slashdot would be one of the first to refuse to support Doubleclick's idea of ethical business practices.