Artificial Inteligence will have that many more cycles to use searching state-space trees
Completely true. However, ask a producer if they want to lose 10% of their bragging rights worth of frame rate or polygon count in return for an AI improvement that they won't be able to comprehend, and they'll stab you in the back and leave for 20% more stock options at another company. No, wait, first they'll tell you to forget the AI, then they'll stab you in the back...
And since when does the Consitution state the right to create encrypted messages that the government can't read is an essential liberty?
Oooh, ooh, wait, I've got another one. 9th Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
The Constitution actually says that it's not the final word on rights. Clever old Constitution.
how, exactly, will you ban personal ads and face to face meetings
Er... IANAL, but aren't there already laws making it a felony to use the telephone or postal system, or to meet face to face to discuss illegal activies ("Conspiracy to..."). There's no reason why you can't pass an equally redundant law for personal ads, or smoke signals, or tapping out Morse code on sewer pipes.
It doesn't have to be Constitutional, or enforcable, or even sane, the idea is just to give yourself another shot at getting a probably cause warrant whenever that pesky old 4th Amendment becomes a problem.
If the final destination is outside, escrow is required, if not, then not
How does Joe User know where a.com/.org/.net is hosted? What about servers located outside the US, but used by people inside the US, or vice versa? Who is going to monitor this and decide intent?
If we're looking for a way to turn everyone into a felon, then this is as good as any.
What would be wrong with a narrow law that said that if you are in the US on a visa that you cannot send encrypted messages across US borders without key escrow
Er, how does Joe User ensure that his message doesn't leave the US while it's in transit, or that it isn't intercepted while it's bouncing off of satellites or rattling around a Canadian mail server?
I the poll simply asked "Do you think law enforcement having 'backdoors' in crypto tools would help reduce terrorism?" then of course a majority would say yes. It is true as well - it would help
How? You just crypto your stuff with a strong non-backdoored package, then wrap it in the Fed approved stuff. It doesn't even help you to spot it unless you habitually decrypt and examine the contents of all traffic.
I find myself overcome with heartfelt respect and admiration for this brave, principled person. Perhaps there is hope for us after all. Thank you for posting this.
then it'll be easy to spot terrorists : it will be all those who have software with no backdoor
In case anyone takes you seriously, I'll just point out that you first encrypt your message in you own 4096 bit MujaCrypt 3.0, then wrap that in the backdoored Fed-O-Crypt 1.0 and it all looks lovely and innocent.
(Or you use disposable phones, face to face meetings, mail drops and personals ads like they actually do...)
You *can't* register just surnames [...] noone can buy just the lastname and deny people access to it
Uh, wait... how does that work then? You have to have a first.last.name? Doesn't that prang the whole top/second/third level domain heirarchy? Didn't you give an example of firstname@lastname.name? And what about madonna.name? And isn't one explicit intended use of.name for nicknames, which tend to be one word? Who's monitoring and enforcing non-abuse of 2ndLD.names?
By the way, thanks for all the informed responses on this issue, vidarh, it's appreciated. Do you have a link to an idiot's guide to.name?
Re:I *only* use WAP for sports scores
on
WAP Bashing
·
· Score: 2
it's great to be able to stand in the middle of the stadium and find out the scores from all the other matches in the league [...] Previously we used to have to find someone with a radio while we were leaving the stadium [...] the one decent WAP scores service gets slashdotted at 4.45 every Saturday afternoon
Would it be a stupid question to ask what's wrong with a phone with a built in FM radio, the Motorolla V2282 or equivelant? This is what broadcast media is made for.:)
since the target market [for.biz] is companies, they already are likely to have.com names, thus making this redundant.
Redundant, and yet strangely compelling and lucrative...;)
Really, a going.com can't afford not to have.biz, as it weakens their brand and signals that the.com might be snatchable..biz is a tax, a doubled renewal free, pure and simple.
And now, from what I understand, I would have to send in the trademarks papers (or #s) and all that stuff, plus (guess what) pay extra fees... for what....BIZ
I agree with your stance, but aren't you worried that if you don't defend.biz/.bob/.trademark then you're setting yourself up for a snatch of your.com?
I don't mean that you'll lose it, but have you weighed up the costs of having to defend it?
recent figures prove that file-sharing services actually generate sales and put more money in artists' pockets.
And there's the problem. If you're getting your music through KazaNapTella, and paying for it through FairTunes, where does that leave the corporate weasels at OmniGlobalMegaHyperLabel?
They don't care about the artists, they don't care about you or me. I honestly believe that they will buy as many politicians as it takes to ensure that the law keeps changing so that if you get music through any method other than by paying money to a big label, you will be made a criminal, and you will be threatened, harassed and denied access until you knuckle under.
Until then though, let's keep supporting FairTunes and highlighting that the "all sharing is piracy" argument is bunk.
Company X downloads GPL'd code Y which would be really useful as part of the new commercial product they're writing. Company X uses code Y and locks it into the binary of the program and breaks the GPL, releasing it as closed source payware and not giving any credit either. Hacker Z suspects his GPL'd code was used in the software but can do nothing because company X can use the DMCA to stop anyone from reverse engineering the program
Not hypothetical at all: it very nearly just happened here. Company X's Employee A tried to use GPL code because it was "free" (I kid you not), and tried to keep it in even after being caught by Employee B and having the GPL explained to him in very short words. Employee B had to point out that this was theft, and that if it got back to Hacker Z, then Company X would fry Employee A on the spot. Employee B had to make it very clear that he considered that he would have a moral duty to inform Hacker Z of the theft before Employee A eventually relented.
I agree though, if we'd shipped this (in an embedded product) there's no way that the auther would ever have found out. I guess we just have to rely on there being an Employee B at every company.
As an aside, we're just about to ship with uncredited Mozilla code. I've told my boss and Legal that this is theft. I really hope that they don't force me to find out if I've actually got the balls to see my own company burn.
defense: "Your Honor, we have an excerpt from the author's web site where my client found the software in question:" This program is Free Software, you can download it from
Yup. I caught one of our developers trying to sneak GPL code into our (closed source) commercial product. He claimed that it was OK because it was "free". Honestly.
Also, we're just about to ship with a pile of uncredited Mozilla licensed stuff in there. I've told legal and I've told my boss that this is theft. I await their response.
Based on this, think "free" software is probably used uncredited and unlicensed all over the place, both through ignorance and through obstinance.
Unfortunately for your cause, you're all talk and no action. By your own standards, your inaction has branded you with the guilt of Iraqi death. Perhaps, this is why you are so filled with hate? Hate for your own impotence in the face the hard decision to work and suffer to help someone else - the kind of hate that you can't deal with, so you transfer to others.
You are exactly correct.
Now, what do you win for being right about that? What's your point?
That it's wrong to do something rather than nothing? That it's better to not point out the hyprocrisy of the US government? That it's better to keep quiet about the mass murders of civilians carried out by the US government in the name of "freedom"?
Go ahead and have the last word. Feel free to make it another personal critique rather than addressing the issue of the civilian deaths, or expounding on why you apparently don't care about them.
"[you] really [don't] care about the plight in Iraq - [You] just use it as a stage to bash Americans and Euorpeans".
What do I care whether the UN accepts that it's OK to kill civilians? I don't. Haven't you ever formed an opinion of your own?
And I do care about the dead in Iraq (and Cuba, and Sudan, and everywhere else that is being punished for defying the will of the US government). If I didn't care, why would I keep posting?
I hate and despite the US government for their mass murder of civilans. I don't hate "America" or US citizens as the US government does not represent its citizens (and that's the problem). I do reserve a smattering of contempt for anyone who attempts to justify or deny these murders.
Yes, I set up a straw man. Ya got me. That doesn't invalidate the main point, which is the civilian deaths.
Debunk the deaths. You can't. But I'll graciously allow you the last post.
A holy war that nobody embraces is dead before it gets off the ground. Don't forget that even a holy war can be derailed by a nuclear war
Again, you're applying career politics rules. It's quite possible that you're right, but there is the alternative that he really truly believes that his actions, no matter how extreme, will lead to ultimate victory, and that escalation and not consolidation is the way forward. Provenance? Adolf Hitler.
On the other hand, the fact that he hasn't (yet) used biological or chemical weapons gives weight to your argument. The US has a stated policy of responding to weapons of mass destruction with nuclear reprisal, so maybe he does fear the ultimate consequences of his actions.
I think the only thing that we can say for sure is that nobody is sure what he'll do next if allowed to continue.:(
Why do you try to paint me with such a "red-necked" brush? Do you usually set up straw men when you can't face the reason and logic put across by someone?
I judge people by their opinions and actions, not by their assertions about their morality. And reason and logic based on shaky foundations (i.e. not knowing the global impact of US sanctions) is worthless.
I'm afraid you've been trolled. He really dosen't care about the plight in Iraq - he just uses it as a stage to bash Americans and Euorpeans
How curious. And there I was maintaining a consistent stance, providing references, and pointing out that actions and not rhetoric decide the actual morality of a state. But now that you point it out, it seems so obvious that I must have been trolling, because I disagree with you.
OK, UNICEF says that 5,000 Iraqi children die each month due to US sanctions. Go ahead and debunk that one point.
I regularly write to my elected representatives protesting our global actions. I contribute to relief agencies. I post references to articles that ameliorate the media blackout imposed on European and US citizens.
, how is it that the US is responsible for the Iraqi children [dying]
I dunno, but I know who does. Ask UNICEF or the two UN directors in charge of overseeing the Iraq sanctions who have resigned in disgust over the hypocrisy of the US's stance.
You might also want to ask the US government why water filtration devices and antibiotics are on the banned items list. Just a thought.
Once we institute rules to deal with these types of "suicide" situations, you will not see NON-suicidal hijackers take over large vessels, because they will realize it is pointless to do so. (Since we will now treat them as suicidal, and act accordingly.)
Now you think about my post. The number of suicidal hijackers is very small compared to the number of suicidal ones. Do you honestly believe that we will ask civilian pilots to sacrifice innocent lives on the slight chance that their hijackers are suiciders, just to make a point?
Apply some real world thought to your own glib solutions.
Slashdot Mirror
Completely true. However, ask a producer if they want to lose 10% of their bragging rights worth of frame rate or polygon count in return for an AI improvement that they won't be able to comprehend, and they'll stab you in the back and leave for 20% more stock options at another company. No, wait, first they'll tell you to forget the AI, then they'll stab you in the back...
Oooh, ooh, wait, I've got another one. 9th Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
The Constitution actually says that it's not the final word on rights. Clever old Constitution.
Er... IANAL, but aren't there already laws making it a felony to use the telephone or postal system, or to meet face to face to discuss illegal activies ("Conspiracy to..."). There's no reason why you can't pass an equally redundant law for personal ads, or smoke signals, or tapping out Morse code on sewer pipes.
It doesn't have to be Constitutional, or enforcable, or even sane, the idea is just to give yourself another shot at getting a probably cause warrant whenever that pesky old 4th Amendment becomes a problem.
How does Joe User know where a .com/.org/.net is hosted? What about servers located outside the US, but used by people inside the US, or vice versa? Who is going to monitor this and decide intent?
If we're looking for a way to turn everyone into a felon, then this is as good as any.
Er, how does Joe User ensure that his message doesn't leave the US while it's in transit, or that it isn't intercepted while it's bouncing off of satellites or rattling around a Canadian mail server?
How? You just crypto your stuff with a strong non-backdoored package, then wrap it in the Fed approved stuff. It doesn't even help you to spot it unless you habitually decrypt and examine the contents of all traffic.
I find myself overcome with heartfelt respect and admiration for this brave, principled person. Perhaps there is hope for us after all. Thank you for posting this.
In case anyone takes you seriously, I'll just point out that you first encrypt your message in you own 4096 bit MujaCrypt 3.0, then wrap that in the backdoored Fed-O-Crypt 1.0 and it all looks lovely and innocent.
(Or you use disposable phones, face to face meetings, mail drops and personals ads like they actually do...)
And since when did the Constitution not need Amended to reflect changing attitudes on what is essential?
Uh, wait... how does that work then? You have to have a first.last.name? Doesn't that prang the whole top/second/third level domain heirarchy? Didn't you give an example of firstname@lastname.name? And what about madonna.name? And isn't one explicit intended use of .name for nicknames, which tend to be one word? Who's monitoring and enforcing non-abuse of 2ndLD .names?
By the way, thanks for all the informed responses on this issue, vidarh, it's appreciated. Do you have a link to an idiot's guide to .name?
Would it be a stupid question to ask what's wrong with a phone with a built in FM radio, the Motorolla V2282 or equivelant? This is what broadcast media is made for. :)
Ouch. I'd never even considered registering just surnames, then reselling all the third level given names. I wonder who's got smith.name.
Redundant, and yet strangely compelling and lucrative... ;)
Really, a going .com can't afford not to have .biz, as it weakens their brand and signals that the .com might be snatchable. .biz is a tax, a doubled renewal free, pure and simple.
I agree with your stance, but aren't you worried that if you don't defend .biz/.bob/.trademark then you're setting yourself up for a snatch of your .com?
I don't mean that you'll lose it, but have you weighed up the costs of having to defend it?
And there's the problem. If you're getting your music through KazaNapTella, and paying for it through FairTunes, where does that leave the corporate weasels at OmniGlobalMegaHyperLabel?
They don't care about the artists, they don't care about you or me. I honestly believe that they will buy as many politicians as it takes to ensure that the law keeps changing so that if you get music through any method other than by paying money to a big label, you will be made a criminal, and you will be threatened, harassed and denied access until you knuckle under.
Until then though, let's keep supporting FairTunes and highlighting that the "all sharing is piracy" argument is bunk.
Not hypothetical at all: it very nearly just happened here. Company X's Employee A tried to use GPL code because it was "free" (I kid you not), and tried to keep it in even after being caught by Employee B and having the GPL explained to him in very short words. Employee B had to point out that this was theft, and that if it got back to Hacker Z, then Company X would fry Employee A on the spot. Employee B had to make it very clear that he considered that he would have a moral duty to inform Hacker Z of the theft before Employee A eventually relented.
I agree though, if we'd shipped this (in an embedded product) there's no way that the auther would ever have found out. I guess we just have to rely on there being an Employee B at every company.
As an aside, we're just about to ship with uncredited Mozilla code. I've told my boss and Legal that this is theft. I really hope that they don't force me to find out if I've actually got the balls to see my own company burn.
Yup. I caught one of our developers trying to sneak GPL code into our (closed source) commercial product. He claimed that it was OK because it was "free". Honestly.
Also, we're just about to ship with a pile of uncredited Mozilla licensed stuff in there. I've told legal and I've told my boss that this is theft. I await their response.
Based on this, think "free" software is probably used uncredited and unlicensed all over the place, both through ignorance and through obstinance.
You are exactly correct.
Now, what do you win for being right about that? What's your point?
That it's wrong to do something rather than nothing? That it's better to not point out the hyprocrisy of the US government? That it's better to keep quiet about the mass murders of civilians carried out by the US government in the name of "freedom"?
Go ahead and have the last word. Feel free to make it another personal critique rather than addressing the issue of the civilian deaths, or expounding on why you apparently don't care about them.
What do I care whether the UN accepts that it's OK to kill civilians? I don't. Haven't you ever formed an opinion of your own?
And I do care about the dead in Iraq (and Cuba, and Sudan, and everywhere else that is being punished for defying the will of the US government). If I didn't care, why would I keep posting?
I hate and despite the US government for their mass murder of civilans. I don't hate "America" or US citizens as the US government does not represent its citizens (and that's the problem). I do reserve a smattering of contempt for anyone who attempts to justify or deny these murders.
Yes, I set up a straw man. Ya got me. That doesn't invalidate the main point, which is the civilian deaths.
Debunk the deaths. You can't. But I'll graciously allow you the last post.
Again, you're applying career politics rules. It's quite possible that you're right, but there is the alternative that he really truly believes that his actions, no matter how extreme, will lead to ultimate victory, and that escalation and not consolidation is the way forward. Provenance? Adolf Hitler.
On the other hand, the fact that he hasn't (yet) used biological or chemical weapons gives weight to your argument. The US has a stated policy of responding to weapons of mass destruction with nuclear reprisal, so maybe he does fear the ultimate consequences of his actions.
I think the only thing that we can say for sure is that nobody is sure what he'll do next if allowed to continue. :(
I judge people by their opinions and actions, not by their assertions about their morality. And reason and logic based on shaky foundations (i.e. not knowing the global impact of US sanctions) is worthless.
How curious. And there I was maintaining a consistent stance, providing references, and pointing out that actions and not rhetoric decide the actual morality of a state. But now that you point it out, it seems so obvious that I must have been trolling, because I disagree with you.
OK, UNICEF says that 5,000 Iraqi children die each month due to US sanctions. Go ahead and debunk that one point.
I regularly write to my elected representatives protesting our global actions. I contribute to relief agencies. I post references to articles that ameliorate the media blackout imposed on European and US citizens.
Your turn.
I dunno, but I know who does. Ask UNICEF or the two UN directors in charge of overseeing the Iraq sanctions who have resigned in disgust over the hypocrisy of the US's stance.
You might also want to ask the US government why water filtration devices and antibiotics are on the banned items list. Just a thought.
Now you think about my post. The number of suicidal hijackers is very small compared to the number of suicidal ones. Do you honestly believe that we will ask civilian pilots to sacrifice innocent lives on the slight chance that their hijackers are suiciders, just to make a point?
Apply some real world thought to your own glib solutions.