Sorry, should have said "pursue." Corps don't procecute, but it is easy to forget this, given the influence they had on the creation of the DMCA and on identifying the targets for procecution and providing the evidence (!).
K-Mart doesn't procecute shoplifters either, but they do just about everything else to see that they are caught.
At the very least, it puts the studios (etc.) in a more tenuous position when the prosecute the more "disheveled" hackers. Not sure about legally--i.e., equal protection under the law and the constitutionality of a restriction that is decided mostly by a prosecutor--but at least in terms of PR and argument, they will have to show clearly how what Perens did was different from what some lesser-known hacker does.
I could be wrong here, but I would venture to guess that deep linking has little effect on how often your Site pops up on Google. Ideally, you want all incoming links to funnel through a single page, and that page will end up with a high rating. Those who try to ban deep linking still want you to link to their front door...
I should begin by saying that many students are exploited by their mentors, and when this exploitation becomes extreme, there should absolutely be recourse.
However, in my experience it is not uncommon for students to overestimate their contribution to a project. In many cases, as a student you are expected to do a lot of the "heavy lifting" while the advisor helps guide the process. You trade your willingness to work for the opportunity to gain expertise by working with someone with more experience.
In reality, this ruling is unlikely to have a significant effect on the relationship. However, the mechanism the poster suggests would likely have a significant chilling effect on how profs use students. Mentoring students is rarely all wine and roses: sometimes the research is done more slowly, or less rigorously, or not at all. Adding increased levels of bureaucracy to this process just guarantees students will be passed over, and more experienced researchers used.
What??? Sorry, but Erector Sets really didn't do it for me. Great for static stuff, but not really there for things that actually move. How can anyone who likes programming not enjoy the modularity of a Lego set? And the pneumatic kits kicked some serious butt.
However, my first love was FischerTechnik. They hurt your fingers, they went together in only the most illogical configurations, but they came with enough gears and actuators to keep a young soul busy for years. The frustration of trying to assemble/disassemble the stuff was just part of the fun. So, sell your car immediately and use the proceeds to buy a kit or two!
Thusly: FT > Lego > Capsela (with an E!) > Clay> Dirt> Erector Set.
The Red Army claim is from an AFP wire story. It's getting remarkably little play in television coverage.
Do a search on Lexis-Nexis or on Yahoo for the warning issued on 7 September to bases and US interests in Japan to be on alert for possible terrorist actions. These threats were not from bin-Laden, but had a "Middle-East connection" (as does the Red Army). Also note the Red Army's handy history with hijackings and recent arrests in Japan.
This is certainly an idea that has been around for a while. Consider a 1989 interview with Clifford Stoll ("The Cuckoo's Egg") in The Boston Globe:
THE BIG PUSH IN THE COMPUTER INDUSTRY IS TOWARD STANDARDS. DO YOU THINK STANDARDS HELP OR HURT SECURITY?
Viruses spread because of standardization. If a virus gets into one hole in a standard computer operating system, it's everywhere. Diversity in computing causes survival just like its biological counterpart.
Of course, the solution is to make every system idiosyncratic. And (also) of course, this is not anything like a reasonable solution to the problem of security. Rather, we should view networked computing as a whole system--a system that could not even exist but for standardization--and attack the real problems: exploitable weaknesses in widely used software.
Basically, this represents a cluster analysis of the linkage network. Elevation represents those domains that are most interlinked. More details are available in the directory above, under c5.doc.
They take our money, at gunpoint, because they know that we wouldn't otherwise hand over our money for their causes... Why don't they have a simple check box for things we don't want to support? To try to hold non-essential causes in the same arena as the Military and other essential services is disingenuity, thievery, or stupidity.
Am I to gather then that the NEA in not essential, but that the "Military" is? Why shouldn't I be able to have check-boxes next to the NSA suggesting I do not want to pay for their mission? Or next to the Navy, because I happen to not like ships much? It seems particularly odd that you think that supplying the military is an unquestioned necessity, but that you also object to the government collecting taxes "at gunpoint."
I am impressed by your ability to equate "pro-fascism" with freedom to identify oneself with political positions that are not in line with the Founding Aristocracy's views. This is especially impressive when you yourself seem to be arguing that their funky First Amendment encourages people to be "anti-American."
I am most curious to know your wide ranging views on military exploitation of space. Should this be funded or does it fall into the "optional" category?
Agreed. I have a 1st edition of the Space Child's Mother Goose, and though I've considered buying copies from Purple House to give as gifts, this certainly gives me pause. Not everyone has heard of the book; you would think that they would be happy for the free advertising.
It just seems funny that they excerpt a poem on their own site, but don't want anyone else to do it--not from a legal standpoint, but from an advertising standpoint. Oh, well...
Agreed, Python is a language that students really can jump on. I'll be using it in a non-CS class this summer, just to give non-programmers a taste and let them go from there. But a quick note...
OOP is important, but it is not something you can grok as a beginning programmer, IMHO. Python is a multiparadigm language, you can start with imperative programming (modules and functions), later you can introduce the OOP style with classes.
When I started in CS program about 15 years ago, we began with Pascal and Assembly (68000, with holes drilled in the Mac cases so we could reset them:) ). I think that once you get procedural programmin in your blood, the jump to OOP is a difficult one. It certainly has been for me. In either case, though, Python is the way to go.
Any Seattlite knows that on any given night you are likely to see the black helicopters, despite lack of coverage in our local media. It seem strange that anyone could avoid s sL:JKFnxxxxxxxxx
Of course, I'm sure there are a few Swedes who aren't particularly happy about how this might affect them. The reality of the arrangement is that lowering of legislative borders will likely affect others even more than those of us in the US. We are living in a country that breeds lawyers like rabbits--don't tell me that some of them are not salivating at the possibility of taking their practices global. Frankly, although I am not happy with the idea of Korean law extending to Americans living in the US, I can't imagine how such an agreement has found any favor in small countries that hope to maintain some autonomy and local democracy.
In 1908, Kipling wrote a story about the ABC, a board (not unlike ICANN) that oversaw a global communication system in the year 2000. (Details weren't perfect: the system was based on mail delivered via dirigible.) He had this to say about the ABC:
The A.B.C., that semi-elected, semi-nominated body of a few score persons, controls the Planet. Transportation is Civilisation, our motto runs. Theoretically we do what we please, so long as we do not interfere with the traffic and all it implies. Practically, the A.B.C. confirms or annuls all international arrangements, and, to judge from its last report, finds our tolerant, humorous, lazy little Planet only too ready to shift the whole burden of public administration on its shoulders.
Yes, I have been accused of being a conspiracy theorist. What threat are we acting against here? What crime are we pre-empting? At present, individuals can engage in "regulatory arbitrage" operating in areas in which regulation is less onerous. As if it isn't bad enough to have countries increasing control of communications within their own borders, they are now willingly giving up sovereignty in exchange for a global reach?
There are two ways to look at this. On the one hand, it may be that the cases raised by such an agreement would open more eyes to the problems with intellectual property. But this is an unreasonably rosy outcome. The more likely result is that Romanian cops will (with the cybercrime convention in place) be searching your hard drive--with US complicity--in the next few years.
I remember when I first encountered Gutenberg, back in the pre-web days, it seemed like the coolest possible use of the net. Then there's that whole copyright thing. Now, if I had to choose between saving all the works that have "fallen" into the public domain or everything that remains in the firm hands of the publishing houses (and, more rarely, the original authors), the choise would be easy. There are going to be some very wet new books on the sea bed.
That said, it seems the latter group is creeping a lot. Short of copyright reform (I'd go for 5 years from first publication, maybe 10), the best way of countering this is (a) authoring copyleft materials, and (b) "liberating" copyrighted works. Unless Gutenberg has taken a radical turn, I don't think any copywrited works are on their wish list...
A quick clarification here. I don't mean to imply that the global dominance of engineered crops is a good thing (it is clearly not). Rather, I am suggesting that this is a case where direct action can have a real effect on the future. With genetically engineered crops, corporations moved quickly enough to make regulation moot. In this case, too, the fastest movers will be the winners. Let's make the fastest movers those who open up access to knowledge, not corporate copyright-holders.:)
This is a great overview, and it goes in some interesting directions. I think it is right to look at the copyright issues as being of primary interest. (Multimedia books: yeah, in limited instances. In most cases, narrative text is still the way to go!)
There is a model, still prevalent in IT, of giving away the razor (hardware) and making money on the blades (software/content). The early stages of radio took the opposite approach: commercial-free radio was supported by the manufacturers of the radio sets.
Hardware is never going to be free, but I think we need to make content free. MIT's efforts to open up course materials are a good step in this direction. There really isn't a good middle ground. We need to recognize that any limits to copying screw things up. And we need to fight to un-screw them.
We need to do what with books what has already happened with genetic foods and with music. We need to scan and release as many books as possible in order to make it a technological imperative. We need to push the genie out of the bottle.
I am as cynical as anyone when it comes to corporate greed. On the other hand, cell phone radiation is hardly a closed matter. It's all a matter of assessing the risk. If someone wants to include a 25 cent shield in my phone, why should I complain?
Beware any claims of "scientific proof." There have been several studies, and some of them have shown that in the short run, there are no statistically significant differences in brain tumors between those who use cell phones that those who do not. Frankly, I plan on living more than 5 years. I'd be willing to spend a couple of bucks to reduce that risk, even if improbable.
On the other hand, your grandfather is hardly a representative sample:). And i doubt either of you used your antenna as a pillow--distance matters (inverse square laws and all).
See Brand's 1972 article on Spacewar! in the Rolling Stone:
Within weeks of its invention Spacewar was spreading across the country to other computer research centers, who began adding their own wrinkles.
There was a variation called Minnesota Hyperspace in which you kept your position but became invisible; however if you applied thrust, your rocket flame could be seen.... Score-keeping. Space mines, Partial damage - if hit in a fin you could not turn in that direction.
Then "2½-D" Spacewar, played on two consoles. Instead of being God viewing the whole battle, you're a mere pilot with a view put the front of your spaceship and the difficult task of finding your enemy. (Perspective could be compressed so that even though far away the other ship would be large enough to see.)
Adding incentive, MIT introduced an electric shock to go with the explosion of your ship. A promising future is seen for sound effects. And now a few commercial versions of Spacewar - 25 cents a game - are appearing in university coffee shops.
Steve Russell still dreams: "Something which I wanted to do is get some interesting sort of fleet action. There are some versions of Spacewar which allow two, three ships, but as far as I know no one has been sufficiently clever to set things up so there are ships with noticeably different characteristics that could fight in interesting combinations."
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, should have said "pursue." Corps don't procecute, but it is easy to forget this, given the influence they had on the creation of the DMCA and on identifying the targets for procecution and providing the evidence (!).
K-Mart doesn't procecute shoplifters either, but they do just about everything else to see that they are caught.
At the very least, it puts the studios (etc.) in a more tenuous position when the prosecute the more "disheveled" hackers. Not sure about legally--i.e., equal protection under the law and the constitutionality of a restriction that is decided mostly by a prosecutor--but at least in terms of PR and argument, they will have to show clearly how what Perens did was different from what some lesser-known hacker does.
I could be wrong here, but I would venture to guess that deep linking has little effect on how often your Site pops up on Google. Ideally, you want all incoming links to funnel through a single page, and that page will end up with a high rating. Those who try to ban deep linking still want you to link to their front door...
Tokyo actually.
I should begin by saying that many students are exploited by their mentors, and when this exploitation becomes extreme, there should absolutely be recourse.
However, in my experience it is not uncommon for students to overestimate their contribution to a project. In many cases, as a student you are expected to do a lot of the "heavy lifting" while the advisor helps guide the process. You trade your willingness to work for the opportunity to gain expertise by working with someone with more experience.
In reality, this ruling is unlikely to have a significant effect on the relationship. However, the mechanism the poster suggests would likely have a significant chilling effect on how profs use students. Mentoring students is rarely all wine and roses: sometimes the research is done more slowly, or less rigorously, or not at all. Adding increased levels of bureaucracy to this process just guarantees students will be passed over, and more experienced researchers used.
What??? Sorry, but Erector Sets really didn't do it for me. Great for static stuff, but not really there for things that actually move. How can anyone who likes programming not enjoy the modularity of a Lego set? And the pneumatic kits kicked some serious butt.
However, my first love was FischerTechnik. They hurt your fingers, they went together in only the most illogical configurations, but they came with enough gears and actuators to keep a young soul busy for years. The frustration of trying to assemble/disassemble the stuff was just part of the fun. So, sell your car immediately and use the proceeds to buy a kit or two!
Thusly: FT > Lego > Capsela (with an E!) > Clay> Dirt> Erector Set.
The Red Army claim is from an AFP wire story. It's getting remarkably little play in television coverage.
Do a search on Lexis-Nexis or on Yahoo for the warning issued on 7 September to bases and US interests in Japan to be on alert for possible terrorist actions. These threats were not from bin-Laden, but had a "Middle-East connection" (as does the Red Army). Also note the Red Army's handy history with hijackings and recent arrests in Japan.
Certainly worth looking into.
This is certainly an idea that has been around for a while. Consider a 1989 interview with Clifford Stoll ("The Cuckoo's Egg") in The Boston Globe:
Of course, the solution is to make every system idiosyncratic. And (also) of course, this is not anything like a reasonable solution to the problem of security. Rather, we should view networked computing as a whole system--a system that could not even exist but for standardization--and attack the real problems: exploitable weaknesses in widely used software.
Basically, this represents a cluster analysis of the linkage network. Elevation represents those domains that are most interlinked. More details are available in the directory above, under c5.doc.
I especially like the idea of giving the user a feeling of spatial orientation when browsing the internet (but what would that mean??)...
I'm reluctant to post this without having had more time to revise, but one way of spatializing the data is by making it into more familiar terrain. Again, still early stages, but for an example, how about the terrain described by the hyperlinks surrounding Slashdot in a typical week.
They take our money, at gunpoint, because they know that we wouldn't otherwise hand over our money for their causes... Why don't they have a simple check box for things we don't want to support? To try to hold non-essential causes in the same arena as the Military and other essential services is disingenuity, thievery, or stupidity.
Am I to gather then that the NEA in not essential, but that the "Military" is? Why shouldn't I be able to have check-boxes next to the NSA suggesting I do not want to pay for their mission? Or next to the Navy, because I happen to not like ships much? It seems particularly odd that you think that supplying the military is an unquestioned necessity, but that you also object to the government collecting taxes "at gunpoint."
I am impressed by your ability to equate "pro-fascism" with freedom to identify oneself with political positions that are not in line with the Founding Aristocracy's views. This is especially impressive when you yourself seem to be arguing that their funky First Amendment encourages people to be "anti-American."
I am most curious to know your wide ranging views on military exploitation of space. Should this be funded or does it fall into the "optional" category?
Agreed. I have a 1st edition of the Space Child's Mother Goose, and though I've considered buying copies from Purple House to give as gifts, this certainly gives me pause. Not everyone has heard of the book; you would think that they would be happy for the free advertising.
It just seems funny that they excerpt a poem on their own site, but don't want anyone else to do it--not from a legal standpoint, but from an advertising standpoint. Oh, well...
Agreed, Python is a language that students really can jump on. I'll be using it in a non-CS class this summer, just to give non-programmers a taste and let them go from there. But a quick note...
OOP is important, but it is not something you can grok as a beginning programmer, IMHO. Python is a multiparadigm language, you can start with imperative programming (modules and functions), later you can introduce the OOP style with classes.
When I started in CS program about 15 years ago, we began with Pascal and Assembly (68000, with holes drilled in the Mac cases so we could reset them :) ). I think that once you get procedural programmin in your blood, the jump to OOP is a difficult one. It certainly has been for me. In either case, though, Python is the way to go.
Any Seattlite knows that on any given night you are likely to see the black helicopters, despite lack of coverage in our local media. It seem strange that anyone could avoid s sL:JKFnxxxxxxxxx
Of course, I'm sure there are a few Swedes who aren't particularly happy about how this might affect them. The reality of the arrangement is that lowering of legislative borders will likely affect others even more than those of us in the US. We are living in a country that breeds lawyers like rabbits--don't tell me that some of them are not salivating at the possibility of taking their practices global. Frankly, although I am not happy with the idea of Korean law extending to Americans living in the US, I can't imagine how such an agreement has found any favor in small countries that hope to maintain some autonomy and local democracy.
In 1908, Kipling wrote a story about the ABC, a board (not unlike ICANN) that oversaw a global communication system in the year 2000. (Details weren't perfect: the system was based on mail delivered via dirigible.) He had this to say about the ABC:
Yes, I have been accused of being a conspiracy theorist. What threat are we acting against here? What crime are we pre-empting? At present, individuals can engage in "regulatory arbitrage" operating in areas in which regulation is less onerous. As if it isn't bad enough to have countries increasing control of communications within their own borders, they are now willingly giving up sovereignty in exchange for a global reach?
There are two ways to look at this. On the one hand, it may be that the cases raised by such an agreement would open more eyes to the problems with intellectual property. But this is an unreasonably rosy outcome. The more likely result is that Romanian cops will (with the cybercrime convention in place) be searching your hard drive--with US complicity--in the next few years.
Where the hell did you learn how to spell? "Choise"? "Copywrited"?
Oh, wait, that was me *blush*.
This is 2:30am kicking my ass.
I remember when I first encountered Gutenberg, back in the pre-web days, it seemed like the coolest possible use of the net. Then there's that whole copyright thing. Now, if I had to choose between saving all the works that have "fallen" into the public domain or everything that remains in the firm hands of the publishing houses (and, more rarely, the original authors), the choise would be easy. There are going to be some very wet new books on the sea bed.
That said, it seems the latter group is creeping a lot. Short of copyright reform (I'd go for 5 years from first publication, maybe 10), the best way of countering this is (a) authoring copyleft materials, and (b) "liberating" copyrighted works. Unless Gutenberg has taken a radical turn, I don't think any copywrited works are on their wish list...
A quick clarification here. I don't mean to imply that the global dominance of engineered crops is a good thing (it is clearly not). Rather, I am suggesting that this is a case where direct action can have a real effect on the future. With genetically engineered crops, corporations moved quickly enough to make regulation moot. In this case, too, the fastest movers will be the winners. Let's make the fastest movers those who open up access to knowledge, not corporate copyright-holders. :)
This is a great overview, and it goes in some interesting directions. I think it is right to look at the copyright issues as being of primary interest. (Multimedia books: yeah, in limited instances. In most cases, narrative text is still the way to go!)
There is a model, still prevalent in IT, of giving away the razor (hardware) and making money on the blades (software/content). The early stages of radio took the opposite approach: commercial-free radio was supported by the manufacturers of the radio sets.
Hardware is never going to be free, but I think we need to make content free. MIT's efforts to open up course materials are a good step in this direction. There really isn't a good middle ground. We need to recognize that any limits to copying screw things up. And we need to fight to un-screw them.
We need to do what with books what has already happened with genetic foods and with music. We need to scan and release as many books as possible in order to make it a technological imperative. We need to push the genie out of the bottle.
I am as cynical as anyone when it comes to corporate greed. On the other hand, cell phone radiation is hardly a closed matter. It's all a matter of assessing the risk. If someone wants to include a 25 cent shield in my phone, why should I complain?
But then, I have trouble figuring stuff out lately.
Beware any claims of "scientific proof." There have been several studies, and some of them have shown that in the short run, there are no statistically significant differences in brain tumors between those who use cell phones that those who do not. Frankly, I plan on living more than 5 years. I'd be willing to spend a couple of bucks to reduce that risk, even if improbable.
:). And i doubt either of you used your antenna as a pillow--distance matters (inverse square laws and all).
On the other hand, your grandfather is hardly a representative sample