By the time one can implement this cost-effectively, a newer technology with 40 times the bandwidth will be in place.
Well, to be fair, whatever new technology comes along, these megacar dudes have their technology to make it 16 times faster. Their main acheivement is in the multiplexing.
Fat cat early adoptors will always be ready to pay extra to be ahead of the crowd.
but this announcement from doubleclick is probably mainly important for the stock market.
DoubleClick?! Wow, has anyone considered the implications of their linking their web-advert-viewing database to the genome database? ("Due to your genetic disposition for dry skin we'll target you with ads for Nivea (TM) skin-cream")
I have. I was asking if this search has been performed in Real Life - not in a work of fiction.
I mailed SETI about but go no reply. They have (or had) no info about such a search in their FAQs. Maybe a few more people should ask the same question.
I guess MS have to make the X-Box so that people stop playing games on their PCs. Only then can MS can safely drop the MS-DOS compatibility from Windows ME (Millenium Edition).
Meanwhile, this is another odd name choice for MS - the MS X-box - shortened to MSX - reminds me that failed MS-Japanese home-computer initiative of 10 or so years ago.
Still not as painful as WINCE tho. For a marketing firm they make some pretty strange name choices sometimes, don't they?
One example: there's a local record store I've always frequented. The owner is a personal friend. I've been looking for specific records there for _years_. When one shows up, it can be $50, for instance Steve Vai's out-of-print original pressing of 'Flex-able'. That's the way things used to be. Now, I can look on eBay and within five minutes find every last record I ever searched for, usually for something like $8. What am I supposed to do? What is my friend supposed to do?
Shut up and die like an aviator, apparently.
When all your local shops are dead and everyone is using eBay then your Steve Vai's out-of-print original pressing of 'Flex-able' will be $50 (or more) again. That's the market. Your friend will be out of business and you'll still be paying the same. Or more.
With Amazon & co. we're saving at the moment through the competition between them. When the competition is over then we'll be paying. And how.
Today's innovative web-pioneers are tomorrow's profiteering monopolists.
Your quote comes from a 1997 article. Read down and you'll see the following added from a reader in August 1999:
Amazon has updated their program since this was published. If someone goes to amazon.com through your site and purchases the book/cd/video you recommend, you get the full percentage commission. If they purchase a different book/cd/video, you get a lower percentage commission.
Having said that, the affiliate plan is probably still pretty bad (for the affiliate) only not as bad as you're painting it.
see the "communities" on the net and how they interact and relate to each other.
Hmm, so to really hide from Echelon you'd have to maintain a constant background noise of plausible looking traffic to a wide variety of (random?) other sites. The "real" traffic would be hidden in the smog.
Of course, for privacy for the whole community it would be ideal if this random traffic was being generated from just about everywhere at the same time.
I guess the DDoS code could be a useful basis for this. Does anyone know if stacheldraht is Open Source?
Can somebody explain why a right not to self-incriminate is actually a good idea? I'm sure there's a good reason, just not sure what it is.
Well, it's not so much the self-incrimination here that's a bad idea, it's placing laws that make it obligatory to self-incriminate. That is, making it punishable if you refuse to self-incriminate just by remaining silent.
This, I'd imagine, is to avoid a situation where where people can be routinely thrown in jail just because they refused to incriminate themselves in whatever "crime" they've been accused of.
Not finding guilt on self-incrimination alone is also an important protection against cops "pressuring" confession.
IANAL, if someone knows of better reasons then please speak up. (However, this thread is now so old in/. terms that I expect nothing but silence.)
Interesting. I've now checked the BBC report and it seems the cops hadn't actually seen her driving the car at all - so the the only evidence they had is the apparently illegal legally forced self-incrimination.
I still think this could apply to the encryption case. The cops can find the key or break the encryption themselves. Why should I be legally forced to help them.
A search warrant is something else, I'd say. The cops are entitled to break their way in if I refuse to co-operate with it (aren't they?)
The case in question pertained to a woman caught drink driving who under UK law had to say whether she was the driver of the car.
Really? Are you sure? I mean, if she was caught drink driving wasn't it enough for the cops to see where she was sitting to know if she was the driver of the car?
At I.B.M., Dr. Wisnieff's laboratory rewrote the underlying code of Windows NT to inflate its display pixel counts.
I remember they did something similar with an earlier version of OS/2. It really pissed me off. I reconfigured a OS/2 box such that instead of the default 640x480 it was working in 1024x764, only to find that IBM in its infinite wisdom was now showing all the text at the same size as before, only with higher resolution.
Very clever, they no doubt thought, the 9 point text is still 9 point text - only smoother. Of course, what I actually wanted was more bloody text on the screen - and bugger the point size.
I'm pretty sure they played the same game with the icons too. Damn their eyes.
When I get my hands on one of these 200dpi LCDs I do not want one of IBM's inflating pixel drivers with it.
it's like saying evidence from CCTVs should be inadmissable
Well, not really. The CCTV will identify a person, whereas the speed camera identifies the vehicle alone (unless they snap you through the front windscreen).
Heard on the news yesterday the the Scottish courts have rendered the law on speed cameras obsolete (in Scotland anyhow).
AFAIR the argument went as follows: If your car gets caught on a speed camera the UK law requires the owner to identify the driver at the time so that the fine/license points can be levied at the appropriate person. If you refuse then the owner gets the punishment.
However, the Scottish courts (which are independent of the rest of the UK legal system) have noticed that the European laws say that no-one is obliged to incriminate themselves - it's the responsibility of the accusers to gather enough evidence to find them guilty.
Thus, in Scotland at least, if you get snapped by a speed camera, then the right defence is to not to deny you were the driver but simply to refuse to incriminate yourself. Then under Euro law they have no right to fine you.
Now this has to also apply to this data encryption business doesn't it? Just tell you refuse to incriminate yourself (by giving them the key) then they'll have to try and crack it themselves, not just punish you anyhow.
(I guess this is equivalent of "pleading the 5th" in US?)
It seems to have been modified in the last few minutes such that only submit value="I Accept" will work successfully.
Since your own HTML page including this code is unlikely to have the license text, I wonder what the SPI webpage author believes he/she has achieved with this change?
Slashdot Mirror
Well, to be fair, whatever new technology comes along, these megacar dudes have their technology to make it 16 times faster. Their main acheivement is in the multiplexing.
Fat cat early adoptors will always be ready to pay extra to be ahead of the crowd.
Regards, Ralph.
Now, my defense will be my examples of prior art.
No, you can't afford the legal fees, so you'll roll over to Big Business like you're supposed to do.
Justice favours those with the deepest pockets.
Regards, Ralph.
Regards, Ralph.
Try EPOC/ARM then - from Symbian. Built in MS-synchronisable Office and email progs. No Netscape but Opera is good enough. And has Java support.
How's this for a tasty (albeit expensive) "net appliance".
(There is life beyond MS and Linux ...)
Regards, Ralph.
Regards, Ralph.
That's a description of Slashdot, isn't it?
Regards, Ralph.
Double Click ?! Wow, has anyone considered the implications of their linking their web-advert-viewing database to the genome database? ("Due to your genetic disposition for dry skin we'll target you with ads for Nivea (TM) skin-cream")
Regards, Ralph.
I have. I was asking if this search has been performed in Real Life - not in a work of fiction.
I mailed SETI about but go no reply. They have (or had) no info about such a search in their FAQs. Maybe a few more people should ask the same question.
Regards, Ralph.
Alternatively, when you've missed an episode of South Park, maybe you could view later it in glorious textorama on Deja.
Keep up the good work.
Regards, Ralph.
I wonder if SETI have ever tried passing the human genome data through their spot-an-alien filters. Or pi or e if it comes to that.
Why should messages from alien intelligences always be expected to come from Out There? Why not In There?
Regards, Ralph.
Meanwhile, this is another odd name choice for MS - the MS X-box - shortened to MSX - reminds me that failed MS-Japanese home-computer initiative of 10 or so years ago.
Still not as painful as WINCE tho. For a marketing firm they make some pretty strange name choices sometimes, don't they?
Regards, Ralph.
Shut up and die like an aviator, apparently.
When all your local shops are dead and everyone is using eBay then your Steve Vai's out-of-print original pressing of 'Flex-able' will be $50 (or more) again. That's the market. Your friend will be out of business and you'll still be paying the same. Or more.
With Amazon & co. we're saving at the moment through the competition between them. When the competition is over then we'll be paying. And how.
Today's innovative web-pioneers are tomorrow's profiteering monopolists.
Regards, Ralph.
Amazon has updated their program since this was published. If someone goes to amazon.com through your site and purchases the book/cd/video you recommend, you get the full percentage commission. If they purchase a different book/cd/video, you get a lower percentage commission.
Having said that, the affiliate plan is probably still pretty bad (for the affiliate) only not as bad as you're painting it.
Regards, Ralph.
Hmm, so to really hide from Echelon you'd have to maintain a constant background noise of plausible looking traffic to a wide variety of (random?) other sites. The "real" traffic would be hidden in the smog.
Of course, for privacy for the whole community it would be ideal if this random traffic was being generated from just about everywhere at the same time.
I guess the DDoS code could be a useful basis for this. Does anyone know if stacheldraht is Open Source?
Regards, Ralph.
The most satisfactory solution I've found is to locate the "Actors" directory and rename it "Dead Actors".
Regards, Ralph.
Forget about a movie ... does anyone know why the TV series is still only available on video and not on DVD?
Regards, Ralph
Well, it's not so much the self-incrimination here that's a bad idea, it's placing laws that make it obligatory to self-incriminate. That is, making it punishable if you refuse to self-incriminate just by remaining silent.
This, I'd imagine, is to avoid a situation where where people can be routinely thrown in jail just because they refused to incriminate themselves in whatever "crime" they've been accused of.
Not finding guilt on self-incrimination alone is also an important protection against cops "pressuring" confession.
IANAL, if someone knows of better reasons then please speak up. (However, this thread is now so old in /. terms that I expect nothing but silence.)
Regards, Ralph.
I still think this could apply to the encryption case. The cops can find the key or break the encryption themselves. Why should I be legally forced to help them.
A search warrant is something else, I'd say. The cops are entitled to break their way in if I refuse to co-operate with it (aren't they?)
Regards, Ralph.
Really? Are you sure? I mean, if she was caught drink driving wasn't it enough for the cops to see where she was sitting to know if she was the driver of the car?
Am I missing something here?
Regards, Ralph.
I remember they did something similar with an earlier version of OS/2. It really pissed me off. I reconfigured a OS/2 box such that instead of the default 640x480 it was working in 1024x764, only to find that IBM in its infinite wisdom was now showing all the text at the same size as before, only with higher resolution.
Very clever, they no doubt thought, the 9 point text is still 9 point text - only smoother. Of course, what I actually wanted was more bloody text on the screen - and bugger the point size.
I'm pretty sure they played the same game with the icons too. Damn their eyes.
When I get my hands on one of these 200dpi LCDs I do not want one of IBM's inflating pixel drivers with it.
Regards, Ralph.
Well, not really. The CCTV will identify a person, whereas the speed camera identifies the vehicle alone (unless they snap you through the front windscreen).
Regards, Ralph.
Well, my wife and I have to routinely refer to "McDonalds" as "M.C.D.s" to avoid over-exciting our 3yr old.
More seriously, I wouldn't like to do any online shopping if there wasn't at least a rudimentary form of cryptography going on.
Basically, you don't have to be a spy to need encrypted data.
Regards, Ralph.
Heard on the news yesterday the the Scottish courts have rendered the law on speed cameras obsolete (in Scotland anyhow).
AFAIR the argument went as follows: If your car gets caught on a speed camera the UK law requires the owner to identify the driver at the time so that the fine/license points can be levied at the appropriate person. If you refuse then the owner gets the punishment.
However, the Scottish courts (which are independent of the rest of the UK legal system) have noticed that the European laws say that no-one is obliged to incriminate themselves - it's the responsibility of the accusers to gather enough evidence to find them guilty.
Thus, in Scotland at least, if you get snapped by a speed camera, then the right defence is to not to deny you were the driver but simply to refuse to incriminate yourself. Then under Euro law they have no right to fine you.
Now this has to also apply to this data encryption business doesn't it? Just tell you refuse to incriminate yourself (by giving them the key) then they'll have to try and crack it themselves, not just punish you anyhow.
(I guess this is equivalent of "pleading the 5th" in US?)
Regards, Ralph.
Since your own HTML page including this code is unlikely to have the license text, I wonder what the SPI webpage author believes he/she has achieved with this change?
Odd.
Regards, Ralph.
Yeah, I'm sure it's just a coincidence that these DoS attacks start up just after Kevin is let out of jail.
:-)
Regards, Ralph.