Spam sucks big-time (especially forged spam), but do we really want to bring the government into this? The more the 'net community asks the government to get involved in regulating the net, the more they will... The problem is they won't ever stop. This is exactly the kind of ammo that anti-anonymity supporters want.
Are there any technological solutions to this, especially forged spam? What about tighter permissions on mail servers, the Real-time Blackhole List, etc?
Given a choice between dealing with spam (i.e., adding the sender to my spam filter), and dealing with an overzealous government, which would you pick?
I'm all for vigilante anti-spam lynch mobs, though:-)
My apologies to Stephen Hawking for stealing the title (as best I remember it) of a chapter of "A Brief History of Time".
IAAPS (I Am A Physics Student, though somewhat rusty at the moment;-)
Black holes can shrink (this is not to say they must shrink). While it may seem impossible, since matter and energy can not escape the event horizon of a black hole, black holes do radiate energy. Some other law of physics (pertaining to black body radiation, IIRC) requires that black holes radiate a certain minimum amount of energy, causing Hawking (and others) to ponder how this could be. Quantum mechanics provides a solution.
Space, even a perfect vacuum, is not devoid of matter. Although a perfect vacuum has an average energy of zero, this is only an average. Quantum mechanics allows for the spontaneous creation of "virtual" particle-antiparticle pairs, which quickly annihilate each other (virtual because they are annihilated before they ever interact with other matter). I forget the details, but the more energy such a pair has, the shorter the amount of time it can exist for--there's a Planck constant in there somewhere:-)
The trick is that near a black hole, sometimes these particle pairs sap energy from the black hole, and at least one of the particles becomes "real". You could imagine the other particle falls into the hole or something...
As for the article about Yilmaz's version of General Relativity (which predicts the non-existance of black holes), I don't yet know enough to criticize his General Relativity on the basis of the mathematics or theoretical physics. AFAIK, most of the "observations" of black holes have simply been of the motion of stars perturbed by massive, relatively dark objects, or of radiation thrown from the disk of material spiraling into a massive black hole candidate. I don't see why a small, massive (non-black hole) object as predicted by Yilmaz couldn't have been responsible for all these effects.
Do I think Yilmaz is right? Probably not, but it would be pretty damn cool if he is. I admire the guts of physicists who do "monkey wrench physics", and dare to challenge the established theories.
Please don't flame me if I've blown some of the details; I haven't done a physics course for over a year (I've been working on the comp sci half of my degree). I would appreciate any corrections or additions, though. I hope there are lots of other physics geeks on/. who appreciate the occasional change of pace from computer topics.
In the article, it is mentioned that Excite@home is losing tons of cash ($1.5 Billion, or something like that). Put yourself in the place of their execs:
PHB#1: "We have this huge, rapidly-growing userbase, and a kick-ass network, but we're losing money (damn ADSL bastards). We need another source of revenue... But we can't charge the customers more and stay competitve."
PHB#2: "We'll charge content providers for direct access to our networks (and thus our huge customer base). We make more money (or lose less -cough-), some content providers have better access to our customers, customers get faster access to some sites, other content providers notice no difference (except that their competitors have gained a speed advantage). We offer better service, and our price stays the same."
PHB#1: "Where's the downside?"
The downside is they get flamed on Slashdot.
The real purpose of DeCSS
on
DeCSS Update
·
· Score: 4
DeCSS has two uses: ripping DVDs for distribution over the net, and integration into an open source linux player.
I've heard the argument that DeCSS isn't useful for piracy--this is mostly crap. Sure, professional pirates could already copy DVDs bit-for-bit, but home users can't since there's a small section that's pre-burned on most DVD-RAMS that prevents that. DeCSS is useful for ripping DVDs so they can be encoded in MPEG-(pick a number) format, and then distributed through your local warez d00d.
The legit use of DeCSS is to build an Open Source linux player. With the advent of one or two closed source Linux DVD player projects (with the blessing of the DVD consortium), why do we still need this? For all the reasons Open Source is superior to closed source. The commercial LinuxDVD player will probably be x86, at least at first, which means my iMac running Linux PPC is SOL. In short, for the freedom Open Source gives us (insert RMS or ESR rant here).
Is it right to ban something because one of its uses is for piracy? IMHO, no. What if it's primary use is piracy? That's much more difficult to decide...
Of course, piracy is not the only claim the DeCSS opponents are making. They also claim DeCSS was created illegally. This is, to my knowledge, bull, as it was created outside the jurisdiction of DMCA, and CSS was cracked through reverse engineering, not industrial espionage, so there was no illegal theft of trade secrets.
As I understand things, there are two ways to protect proprietary technology: patent it and make it public (but nobody else can use it for 25 years), or keep it a trade secret (anyone is free to do it as long as they come by the knowledge legally). CSS was a trade secret, not a patent, so, now that the cat is out of the bag, there's not much the powers that be can do from that legal angle.
Yes, I am ignoring DMCA. Why? The US isn't everything--I personally don't live there. Most countries don't have DMCA-like laws, but they do have trade secret and patent laws.
If someone can convince me that the primary use of DeCSS is a Linux DVD player, I'll firmly support the effort to fight the restraining order. Otherwise, I'm not so sure what's right...
Under fair use provisions, aren't I allowed to use trademarks for educational or journalistic purposes without the permission of the trademark holder? In other words, I don't have to agree to their annoying license to mention their name in a negative review.
If I'm right about this, their license is just smoke to make it look like they're actively protecting their trademark, as they're required to do. UCITA applies to software shrinkwrap licenses, which is somewhat different.
BTW, if you were a reviewer, you could always circumvent UCITA by having a colleague install and use the program while you watched and reviewed it.
With the "power of the people" already so diminished (only 5 seats out of 19), I think we need to play a little dirty to even the odds.
What if Slashdot holds a mock election for those 5 board members, with all Slashdot/ICANN members who participate agreeing to abide by the results and vote that way in the real elections?
That way, our vote will count for much more, since we won't be voting against each other.
This would be especially useful if we can get people helping from Latin America and Africa... Any Slashdot readers from there? We have a shot at influencing the selection of 9 board members, then.
I taught myself BASIC from a book called "Kids to Kids: BASIC on the C64" when I was about 8 or 9.
I think any simple language would work. Scripting languages are a good start for a GUI-based OS. You could even try them with Java. The simplicity of creating UI would probably appeal to them. Of course, then they might be making more than you by the time they're 16;-)
Check out Infowave's products. Their wireless division makes several software products that enable wireless email, scheduling, etc. They just announced a deal with Clearnet today (a big Canadian PCS/digital cell company), and have agreements with Nokia, AT&T, and other big names.
I also interviewed with Human Resources Canada for a co-op job. They are the most clueless people I have ever met or spoken to when it comes to computers (and I used to work in tech support!). I took a different job, needless to say.
And just when I thought the Canadian government was being smart about privacy, cryptography, and other geek issues (i.e., Ontario's pamplet encouraging citizens to use crypto, CSE's public key infrastructure, the law preventing the CRTC (think FCC) from regulating the net.)...
Well, that just cinches it. Unless the US makes some particularly bonehead moves about net taxes or patents or something, I'm heading south as soon as I graduate...
Braindrain? Count me in... I can make twice as much in the States, and get a better job and have my rights respected (sort of).
Here's a (not so brief) history of Apple's attempts at a modern operating system:
A Brief History of Apple
Pink, announced in 1989, was Apple's first public attempt at producing a modern operating system. After IBM joined the Pink project, it was renamed Taligent and spun off as a separate company. Taligent meandered aimlessly, and was killed in 1995. In 1993, before the final death of Taligent, word began to leak out of Apple that a new OS project, codenamed Copland, was underway.
In 1995, with the death of Taligent and the imminent arrival of Windows 95, Apple began hyping Copland and its successor, Gershwin. Apple demonstrated Copland at WWDC, and promised full preemptive multitasking and protected memory support in Gershwin, with partial support in Copland. As the estimated release date for Copland slipped from 1995 to 1996 to 1998, it became apparent that Copland had gone very wrong. Copland was killed in 1996, and replaced by a plan to gradually add many of its promised features to the Mac OS. Many of the UI changes and some of the other, more minor changes were indeed added with Mac OS 8. Unfortunately, the much-needed preemptive multitasking and protected memory features never made it into the Mac OS (even Mac OS 9 lacks these features). The Copland strategy underwent a few more twists, but none had a major impact besides generating rumors and wasting Apple's resources. There were also rumors that Apple would acquire Be and use its BeOS as the basis of the new Mac OS, but this possibility was soon discounted.
Apple acquired NeXT in December of 1996. NeXT, founded by Steve Jobs after his ousting from Apple in 1985, had a modern OS called NeXTSTEP with many of the technologies Apple needed. With NeXT came Steve Jobs, who soon regained control of Apple and his former position as CEO. Apple announced Rhapsody, which was to be a port of NeXTSTEP to the PowerPC, with a Mac-ified UI and the Blue Box for running classic Mac applications. Rhapsody was renamed Mac OS X Server (to distinguish it from Mac OS X), and was Apple's first attempt at a modern OS that actually shipped. Mac OS X Server targeted the small to medium server market, and did reasonably well. Although easy to set up and use by server standards (a few Linux distributions are getting very good, too), Mac OS X Server is not suitable for use as a consumer OS. Interestingly, some of the development releases of Mac OS X Server would run on Intel-based systems in addition to PowerPC-based machines.
When it became apparent that Adobe and other key software companies were not willing to spend years porting their software to Rhapsody, Apple was forced to make yet another attempt at producing a modern OS suitable for consumers. Called Mac OS X, it combines the modern features and architecture of Rhapsody/OS X Server with a new UI (Aqua) and an application environment called Carbon that simplifies porting current Mac applications to Mac OS X.
Mac OS X combines elements of the current Mac operating system (Carbon, QuickTime), components of NeXTSTEP which are themselves drawn from other operating systems (Mach, portions of BSD), and entirely new components, such as Aqua and Quartz.
Apple has been trying to develop a modern OS (i.e., pre-emptive multitasking, buzzword-compliant, doesn't crash almost as much as Windows) since 1989, and has suffered delay after delay. I personally have been waiting since 1995, when I read about Copland in MacUser.
For the record, I use both MacOS and Linux, and am a Mac software developer and a comp sci student.
Having used Mac OS DP3, I can see significant promise, but that was the case with Copland, too... I'm sick of waiting... I guess I'll just spend more time in Linux (I have a dual boot iMac). As good as Gnome and KDE are (no religious wars/flames about those, please), IMHO, Apple has always had the best GUI. It's cleaner and more consistent than the alternatives. How many other GUIs have published Human Interface Guidelines? Unfortunately, the underlying technology has serious problems. Mac OS X will fix that, if it ever ships.
Apple is really losing credibility by doing this, even though it may be the Right Thing to do. I guess I'm just sick of waiting...
Doesn't this reek of a Ponzi scheme? RHAT IPOs, goes up insanely. RHAT reinvests money in more tech startups, which in turn IPO and go up insanely, all without turning a profit... Lather, rinse, repeat...
Intellectual Property is a Good Thing (tm): What NetPD is doing is necessary to enforce the copyrights of Metallica and other artists. This is NOT a privacy violation since they only find people who are SERVING (not downloading) copyrighted mp3s. You can't really demand privacy for a public server. Yeah, free music would be nice, but that's up to Metallica.
Intellectual Property is a Bad Thing(tm) Then this is wrong, since information (including mp3s) should be free, and NetPD is just aiding and abetting a corrupt legal system.
Make up your minds about whether IP is right or wrong, so you don't end up being hypocritical and asking for copyright protection only when it suits you.
I personally haven't yet made up my mind--it's a very complex issue.
Maybe we can't target the spam companies, but we can target their customers. They have to mention the product somewhere in the spam (otherwise, what's the point?), and we can use that to track down the company who commissioned the spam. There will always be more spammers, but if we get the message to execs that spam doesn't pay, maybe it will stop.
Spam and DDoS are two fundamentally different activities. DDoS is malicious in intent, and has no constructive purpose. Spam is a form of (very obnoxious) advertising, and does have a legitimate purpose (I'm not saying the ends justify the means, though).
DDoS is AFAIK (IANAL;-) already illegal. Spam is kinda illegal in some places, but different laws should apply to each.
I personally think that we should just maintain a database of the home phone numbers and addresses of the execs of all companies responsible for spam, and politely call them (once) for each piece of spam they send, asking them to stop. Nothing illegal about that, and they get a taste of their own medicine... Anyone volunteer to collect the data and maintain the database?
Why don't some enterprising hackers trace spam back to its source, find out the names of the executives of the spam company, and publicly post their names, phone numbers, mailing and email addresses? Everyone who recieves spam can politely call them once (at 3am or whenever is convenient) and ask them to stop spamming. There's nothing illegal about that, and spammers will quickly get the message (or go nuts). We could register spam-the-spammers.org, and use it to co-ordinate our efforts. Simple, quick (except for a few volunteers who do the actual tracing), legal, and very satisfying.
Nobody has been able to prove that NP != P. If someone were to discover proof that NP = P (which would most likely be done simply by finding an efficient solution for any NP-complete problem, such as TSP), then most of Harel's objections would be shot down. In short, he's basing this on a guess that NP!=P.
You sound like you hold the same viewpoint as Roger Penrose, famed mathematician and author of The Emperor's New Mind (which is probably a lot better than this book). Nonetheless, quantum computing offers an answer to all your criticisms of computers as conscious machines.
Quantum computing introduces true randomness, non-determinacy, and other strange things into computing. It's hard to imagine how it it would not be possible to build a conscious quantum computer (theoretically, that is).
Some people aren't satisfied with solving their own problems, and letting other people control their own lives. They believe themselves to be 1337 in some sort of politcial/philosophical sense, and appoint themselves guardians of the common good. They then seek to impose controls on what others can say, do, hear, and see. They often are incapable of solving even their own problems, so they imagine that others must be similarly incapable, and in need of "protection". Jon Katz is such a person.
What is this? This is the second article in the past few days that's basically saying too much information is bad, and that we need some sort of regulation (or [snicker] Regulon). I'll judge information for myself, thank you. Anyone who tries to control the information I can access may be learning about the downside of Darwinian evolution in a hurry.
Is there too much information? Maybe, so what? I'll just find people/organizations I trust, and use them as filters. I'll periodically check up on them to make sure they're honest, and if they're not, I'll go somewhere else.
As for the Omega Point (also known as the Singularity), that's just a model, which may very well not be valid at that point (most models aren't valid when they predict a spike to infinity of some real quantity). Even if it is, why are we afraid of it? It could be a wonderful next step in the evolution of intelligence on this planet.
Looks like wildlife activists are getting just a bit too carried away... What could be better for a penguin than to be well-fed and cared for and near hundreds of Linux boxes?
Re:Was is meant to be a joke?->Canada less clueles
on
New Cyberlaws
·
· Score: 1
>HA!HA! >GST and the tape tax to name a couple.
I didn't say NO stupid laws--besides, those are taxes, not restrictions on freedom in the more general sense (and I already admitted our tax problem)... The Canadian government's biggest problem is that they tax us to death.
The current trend in the States seems to be to leave the economy alone (aside from breaking the occasional monopoly that doesn't play nice with the girls and boys in Washington). OTOH, everyone in Washington is just itching to start legislating and restricting this new-fangled internet thing. Yes, the government in Canada is busy screwing over the economy, but they're also promoting strong encryption, making sure the CRTC can't muck up the internet, etc.
> >your President just has people > >rubbed out if they piss him off (Vincent Foster, > >Ron Brown, Gary Parks...):-)
>Moronic and unfounded accusations.
Did you miss the smiley? I can understand how you missed the sarcasm in part of my original message, but not in this one. Please get a sense of humour... If I was making a serious accusation, I would have substantiated it with links to a copy of Vincent Foster's suicide note, expert testimony about the validity of the note, reports of the circumstances surrounding Ron Brown's death, etc. If you are interested, I can email you that stuff, but we are really starting to get off-topic here.
>If you link to a drug site this is because you >approve of it but are too chicken to put the >stuff on your own site.
You're missing the point here. It doesn't matter what I'm linking to or why. It could be a neo-Nazi page advising kids to make pipe bombs while stoned. It's not for you or anyone else to tell me what I can say or print (PLEASE read the First Amendment).
Maybe, to you, this is a clear-cut case of right and wrong. What about the next time the government restricts your freedom of speech? Strong encryption is *obviously* a tool of terrorists, drug traffickers, and pornographers only [note dripping sarcasm]. Who else would have something to hide from Uncle Sam? The US government has repeatedly demonstrated their hatred of strong encryption. Is it a stretch to think they'd make linking to encryption sites illegal?
And maybe they won't stop with making linking to illegal sites illegal. Maybe if you link to a site that links to a site that links to a site that discusses the factoring of large primes, you'll get busted... Do you see now why this is a really scary precedent? Fortunately, this law is clearly unconstitutional, and will be shot down by the judicial branch (I do admire the US Constitution).
I'm sorry for getting off-topic earlier. If you want to discuss Canada's weather, your sense of humour (or possible lack thereof:-), casualties of American politics, or anything else like that, email me.
Re:Was is meant to be a joke?->Canada less clueles
on
New Cyberlaws
·
· Score: 1
Part of my original message was sarcastic (especially the part about it being impossible for Canada's parties to co-operate). Still, your response shows your ignorance of the Canadian political system and of the US Constitution.
>Your multiparty system is a joke. It means that >a political party can technically get elected >with a majority governement with 25% of the vote
It is possible for a President to be elected in the US with less than 50% of the popular vote (his opponent can even get more votes and lose)--ever heard of the electoral college? If a Canadian party wins less than 50% of the seats, they must form a minority (coalition) government with another party. This usually results in a government that actually does what the people want, and doesn't make too many stupid laws. True, Canada does have more severe party discipline than the US. Of course, your President just has people rubbed out if they piss him off (Vincent Foster, Ron Brown, Gary Parks...):-)
>This is to protect companies from assholes >stealing the names for profit. I would like >them to broaden it to include family names >as well.
So what happens if I change my last name to Microsoft? Seriously, though, domain names are a commodity. Let the free market decide what they're worth.
>Promoting and selling drugs does in no way fall >into the category of free speech.
Linking to the site is an entirely different thing. I look at links as giving someone directions. If you ask me for drugs and I sell them to you, I've broken the law. If you ask me for drugs and I tell you that a penguin named Tux who lives in Finland sells heroin-doped herring, I haven't committed a crime. Just imagine the next step for this law... Linking to strong encryption sites could become high treason... This is not a good precedent.
About the high taxes here--yes, they suck. Paying over half your income to the government is akin to slavery. True, we get medicare for some of that money, but I'd rather decide for myself what I'm going to spend my cash on. There is some hope--Alberta and Ontario have taken big steps towards reducing the tax load.
Finally, it's not that cold here! Sometimes I think Americans get confused because Canada's weather is always reported in Celsius, which sounds a lot colder... Where I live in Canada, the temperature almost never drops below 20 F (-7 C) in the winter, and usually stays around a comfortable 70 to 85 F (21 to 30 C) in the summer. Yes, the Yukon and North West Territories are cold (but then Hillary Clinton thinks the Yukon is part of the US, and Alaska is just as cold).
These articles come on the heels of the article about Ontario (Canadian province) promoting public use of encryption. Could it be that Canada's government (well, OK, Ontario's) has finally gotten a clue (while the US is still looking)?
It looks like these US laws took the combined stupidity of both parties to create. Maybe getting the GOP and 'crats to co-operate isn't a good idea... With Canada's multi-party system, we're virtually assured that there will never be co-operation among the politicians...
If only we could get the Canadian government to stop taking your first-born as income tax, and get tech wages here up to more than Silicon Valley janitors make...
Seriously, though, linking a crime? Hello, FIRST AMENDMENT! When will people get it that freedom of speech means you can say, write, or type whatever you want, as long as you're not directly violating someone else's rights (i.e. libel). The cybersquatting thing doesn't scare me quite as much.
Slashdot Mirror
Spam sucks big-time (especially forged spam), but do we really want to bring the government into this? The more the 'net community asks the government to get involved in regulating the net, the more they will... The problem is they won't ever stop. This is exactly the kind of ammo that anti-anonymity supporters want.
:-)
Are there any technological solutions to this, especially forged spam? What about tighter permissions on mail servers, the Real-time Blackhole List, etc?
Given a choice between dealing with spam (i.e., adding the sender to my spam filter), and dealing with an overzealous government, which would you pick?
I'm all for vigilante anti-spam lynch mobs, though
My apologies to Stephen Hawking for stealing the title (as best I remember it) of a chapter of "A Brief History of Time".
;-)
:-)
/. who appreciate the occasional change of pace from computer topics.
IAAPS (I Am A Physics Student, though somewhat rusty at the moment
Black holes can shrink (this is not to say they must shrink). While it may seem impossible, since matter and energy can not escape the event horizon of a black hole, black holes do radiate energy. Some other law of physics (pertaining to black body radiation, IIRC) requires that black holes radiate a certain minimum amount of energy, causing Hawking (and others) to ponder how this could be. Quantum mechanics provides a solution.
Space, even a perfect vacuum, is not devoid of matter. Although a perfect vacuum has an average energy of zero, this is only an average. Quantum mechanics allows for the spontaneous creation of "virtual" particle-antiparticle pairs, which quickly annihilate each other (virtual because they are annihilated before they ever interact with other matter). I forget the details, but the more energy such a pair has, the shorter the amount of time it can exist for--there's a Planck constant in there somewhere
The trick is that near a black hole, sometimes these particle pairs sap energy from the black hole, and at least one of the particles becomes "real". You could imagine the other particle falls into the hole or something...
As for the article about Yilmaz's version of General Relativity (which predicts the non-existance of black holes), I don't yet know enough to criticize his General Relativity on the basis of the mathematics or theoretical physics. AFAIK, most of the "observations" of black holes have simply been of the motion of stars perturbed by massive, relatively dark objects, or of radiation thrown from the disk of material spiraling into a massive black hole candidate. I don't see why a small, massive (non-black hole) object as predicted by Yilmaz couldn't have been responsible for all these effects.
Do I think Yilmaz is right? Probably not, but it would be pretty damn cool if he is. I admire the guts of physicists who do "monkey wrench physics", and dare to challenge the established theories.
Please don't flame me if I've blown some of the details; I haven't done a physics course for over a year (I've been working on the comp sci half of my degree). I would appreciate any corrections or additions, though. I hope there are lots of other physics geeks on
In the article, it is mentioned that Excite@home is losing tons of cash ($1.5 Billion, or something like that). Put yourself in the place of their execs:
PHB#1: "We have this huge, rapidly-growing userbase, and a kick-ass network, but we're losing money (damn ADSL bastards). We need another source of revenue... But we can't charge the customers more and stay competitve."
PHB#2: "We'll charge content providers for direct access to our networks (and thus our huge customer base). We make more money (or lose less -cough-), some content providers have better access to our customers, customers get faster access to some sites, other content providers notice no difference (except that their competitors have gained a speed advantage). We offer better service, and our price stays the same."
PHB#1: "Where's the downside?"
The downside is they get flamed on Slashdot.
DeCSS has two uses: ripping DVDs for distribution over the net, and integration into an open source linux player.
I've heard the argument that DeCSS isn't useful for piracy--this is mostly crap. Sure, professional pirates could already copy DVDs bit-for-bit, but home users can't since there's a small section that's pre-burned on most DVD-RAMS that prevents that. DeCSS is useful for ripping DVDs so they can be encoded in MPEG-(pick a number) format, and then distributed through your local warez d00d.
The legit use of DeCSS is to build an Open Source linux player. With the advent of one or two closed source Linux DVD player projects (with the blessing of the DVD consortium), why do we still need this? For all the reasons Open Source is superior to closed source. The commercial LinuxDVD player will probably be x86, at least at first, which means my iMac running Linux PPC is SOL. In short, for the freedom Open Source gives us (insert RMS or ESR rant here).
Is it right to ban something because one of its uses is for piracy? IMHO, no. What if it's primary use is piracy? That's much more difficult to decide...
Of course, piracy is not the only claim the DeCSS opponents are making. They also claim DeCSS was created illegally. This is, to my knowledge, bull, as it was created outside the jurisdiction of DMCA, and CSS was cracked through reverse engineering, not industrial espionage, so there was no illegal theft of trade secrets.
As I understand things, there are two ways to protect proprietary technology: patent it and make it public (but nobody else can use it for 25 years), or keep it a trade secret (anyone is free to do it as long as they come by the knowledge legally). CSS was a trade secret, not a patent, so, now that the cat is out of the bag, there's not much the powers that be can do from that legal angle.
Yes, I am ignoring DMCA. Why? The US isn't everything--I personally don't live there. Most countries don't have DMCA-like laws, but they do have trade secret and patent laws.
If someone can convince me that the primary use of DeCSS is a Linux DVD player, I'll firmly support the effort to fight the restraining order. Otherwise, I'm not so sure what's right...
#include "ianal.h"
Under fair use provisions, aren't I allowed to use trademarks for educational or journalistic purposes without the permission of the trademark holder? In other words, I don't have to agree to their annoying license to mention their name in a negative review.
If I'm right about this, their license is just smoke to make it look like they're actively protecting their trademark, as they're required to do. UCITA applies to software shrinkwrap licenses, which is somewhat different.
BTW, if you were a reviewer, you could always circumvent UCITA by having a colleague install and use the program while you watched and reviewed it.
With the "power of the people" already so diminished (only 5 seats out of 19), I think we need to play a little dirty to even the odds.
What if Slashdot holds a mock election for those 5 board members, with all Slashdot/ICANN members who participate agreeing to abide by the results and vote that way in the real elections?
That way, our vote will count for much more, since we won't be voting against each other.
This would be especially useful if we can get people helping from Latin America and Africa... Any Slashdot readers from there? We have a shot at influencing the selection of 9 board members, then.
I taught myself BASIC from a book called "Kids to Kids: BASIC on the C64" when I was about 8 or 9.
;-)
I think any simple language would work. Scripting languages are a good start for a GUI-based OS. You could even try them with Java. The simplicity of creating UI would probably appeal to them. Of course, then they might be making more than you by the time they're 16
Check out Infowave's products. Their wireless division makes several software products that enable wireless email, scheduling, etc. They just announced a deal with Clearnet today (a big Canadian PCS/digital cell company), and have agreements with Nokia, AT&T, and other big names.
I also interviewed with Human Resources Canada for a co-op job. They are the most clueless people I have ever met or spoken to when it comes to computers (and I used to work in tech support!). I took a different job, needless to say.
And just when I thought the Canadian government was being smart about privacy, cryptography, and other geek issues (i.e., Ontario's pamplet encouraging citizens to use crypto, CSE's public key infrastructure, the law preventing the CRTC (think FCC) from regulating the net.)...
Well, that just cinches it. Unless the US makes some particularly bonehead moves about net taxes or patents or something, I'm heading south as soon as I graduate...
Braindrain? Count me in... I can make twice as much in the States, and get a better job and have my rights respected (sort of).
Here's a (not so brief) history of Apple's attempts at a modern operating system:
A Brief History of Apple
Pink, announced in 1989, was Apple's first public attempt at producing a modern operating system. After IBM joined the Pink project, it was renamed Taligent and spun off as a separate company. Taligent meandered aimlessly, and was killed in 1995. In 1993, before the final death of Taligent, word began to leak out of Apple that a new OS project, codenamed Copland, was underway.
In 1995, with the death of Taligent and the imminent arrival of Windows 95, Apple began hyping Copland and its successor, Gershwin. Apple demonstrated Copland at WWDC, and promised full preemptive multitasking and protected memory support in Gershwin, with partial support in Copland. As the estimated release date for Copland slipped from 1995 to 1996 to 1998, it became apparent that Copland had gone very wrong. Copland was killed in 1996, and replaced by a plan to gradually add many of its promised features to the Mac OS. Many of the UI changes and some of the other, more minor changes were indeed added with Mac OS 8. Unfortunately, the much-needed preemptive multitasking and protected memory features never made it into the Mac OS (even Mac OS 9 lacks these features). The Copland strategy underwent a few more twists, but none had a major impact besides generating rumors and wasting Apple's resources. There were also rumors that Apple would acquire Be and use its BeOS as the basis of the new Mac OS, but this possibility was soon discounted.
Apple acquired NeXT in December of 1996. NeXT, founded by Steve Jobs after his ousting from Apple in 1985, had a modern OS called NeXTSTEP with many of the technologies Apple needed. With NeXT came Steve Jobs, who soon regained control of Apple and his former position as CEO. Apple announced Rhapsody, which was to be a port of NeXTSTEP to the PowerPC, with a Mac-ified UI and the Blue Box for running classic Mac applications. Rhapsody was renamed Mac OS X Server (to distinguish it from Mac OS X), and was Apple's first attempt at a modern OS that actually shipped. Mac OS X Server targeted the small to medium server market, and did reasonably well. Although easy to set up and use by server standards (a few Linux distributions are getting very good, too), Mac OS X Server is not suitable for use as a consumer OS. Interestingly, some of the development releases of Mac OS X Server would run on Intel-based systems in addition to PowerPC-based machines.
When it became apparent that Adobe and other key software companies were not willing to spend years porting their software to Rhapsody, Apple was forced to make yet another attempt at producing a modern OS suitable for consumers. Called Mac OS X, it combines the modern features and architecture of Rhapsody/OS X Server with a new UI (Aqua) and an application environment called Carbon that simplifies porting current Mac applications to Mac OS X.
Mac OS X combines elements of the current Mac operating system (Carbon, QuickTime), components of NeXTSTEP which are themselves drawn from other operating systems (Mach, portions of BSD), and entirely new components, such as Aqua and Quartz.
Apple has been trying to develop a modern OS (i.e., pre-emptive multitasking, buzzword-compliant, doesn't crash almost as much as Windows) since 1989, and has suffered delay after delay. I personally have been waiting since 1995, when I read about Copland in MacUser.
For the record, I use both MacOS and Linux, and am a Mac software developer and a comp sci student.
Having used Mac OS DP3, I can see significant promise, but that was the case with Copland, too... I'm sick of waiting... I guess I'll just spend more time in Linux (I have a dual boot iMac). As good as Gnome and KDE are (no religious wars/flames about those, please), IMHO, Apple has always had the best GUI. It's cleaner and more consistent than the alternatives. How many other GUIs have published Human Interface Guidelines? Unfortunately, the underlying technology has serious problems. Mac OS X will fix that, if it ever ships.
Apple is really losing credibility by doing this, even though it may be the Right Thing to do. I guess I'm just sick of waiting...
Anyone interested in doing a port to MacOS or Mac OS X? I would, but I don't have the experience yet.
If someone could point me in the right direction to learn about MP3 encoding, or offer advice, I would be grateful. Thanks!
Doesn't this reek of a Ponzi scheme? RHAT IPOs, goes up insanely. RHAT reinvests money in more tech startups, which in turn IPO and go up insanely, all without turning a profit... Lather, rinse, repeat...
:-)
Count me in
It all really comes down to two possibilties:
Intellectual Property is a Good Thing (tm):
What NetPD is doing is necessary to enforce the copyrights of Metallica and other artists. This is NOT a privacy violation since they only find people who are SERVING (not downloading) copyrighted mp3s. You can't really demand privacy for a public server. Yeah, free music would be nice, but that's up to Metallica.
Intellectual Property is a Bad Thing(tm)
Then this is wrong, since information (including mp3s) should be free, and NetPD is just aiding and abetting a corrupt legal system.
Make up your minds about whether IP is right or wrong, so you don't end up being hypocritical and asking for copyright protection only when it suits you.
I personally haven't yet made up my mind--it's a very complex issue.
Maybe we can't target the spam companies, but we can target their customers. They have to mention the product somewhere in the spam (otherwise, what's the point?), and we can use that to track down the company who commissioned the spam. There will always be more spammers, but if we get the message to execs that spam doesn't pay, maybe it will stop.
Spam and DDoS are two fundamentally different activities. DDoS is malicious in intent, and has no constructive purpose. Spam is a form of (very obnoxious) advertising, and does have a legitimate purpose (I'm not saying the ends justify the means, though).
;-) already illegal. Spam is kinda illegal in some places, but different laws should apply to each.
DDoS is AFAIK (IANAL
I personally think that we should just maintain a database of the home phone numbers and addresses of the execs of all companies responsible for spam, and politely call them (once) for each piece of spam they send, asking them to stop. Nothing illegal about that, and they get a taste of their own medicine... Anyone volunteer to collect the data and maintain the database?
Why don't some enterprising hackers trace spam back to its source, find out the names of the executives of the spam company, and publicly post their names, phone numbers, mailing and email addresses? Everyone who recieves spam can politely call them once (at 3am or whenever is convenient) and ask them to stop spamming. There's nothing illegal about that, and spammers will quickly get the message (or go nuts). We could register spam-the-spammers.org, and use it to co-ordinate our efforts. Simple, quick (except for a few volunteers who do the actual tracing), legal, and very satisfying.
Nobody has been able to prove that NP != P. If someone were to discover proof that NP = P (which would most likely be done simply by finding an efficient solution for any NP-complete problem, such as TSP), then most of Harel's objections would be shot down. In short, he's basing this on a guess that NP!=P.
You sound like you hold the same viewpoint as Roger Penrose, famed mathematician and author of The Emperor's New Mind (which is probably a lot better than this book). Nonetheless, quantum computing offers an answer to all your criticisms of computers as conscious machines.
Quantum computing introduces true randomness, non-determinacy, and other strange things into computing. It's hard to imagine how it it would not be possible to build a conscious quantum computer (theoretically, that is).
Your post is bang on--nice work.
Some people aren't satisfied with solving their own problems, and letting other people control their own lives. They believe themselves to be 1337 in some sort of politcial/philosophical sense, and appoint themselves guardians of the common good. They then seek to impose controls on what others can say, do, hear, and see. They often are incapable of solving even their own problems, so they imagine that others must be similarly incapable, and in need of "protection". Jon Katz is such a person.
What is this? This is the second article in the past few days that's basically saying too much information is bad, and that we need some sort of regulation (or [snicker] Regulon). I'll judge information for myself, thank you. Anyone who tries to control the information I can access may be learning about the downside of Darwinian evolution in a hurry.
Is there too much information? Maybe, so what? I'll just find people/organizations I trust, and use them as filters. I'll periodically check up on them to make sure they're honest, and if they're not, I'll go somewhere else.
As for the Omega Point (also known as the Singularity), that's just a model, which may very well not be valid at that point (most models aren't valid when they predict a spike to infinity of some real quantity). Even if it is, why are we afraid of it? It could be a wonderful next step in the evolution of intelligence on this planet.
Looks like wildlife activists are getting just a bit too carried away... What could be better for a penguin than to be well-fed and cared for and near hundreds of Linux boxes?
>HA!HA!
:-)
:-), casualties of American politics, or anything else like that, email me.
>GST and the tape tax to name a couple.
I didn't say NO stupid laws--besides, those are taxes, not restrictions on freedom in the more general sense (and I already admitted our tax problem)... The Canadian government's biggest problem is that they tax us to death.
The current trend in the States seems to be to leave the economy alone (aside from breaking the occasional monopoly that doesn't play nice with
the girls and boys in Washington). OTOH, everyone in Washington is just itching to start legislating and restricting this new-fangled internet thing. Yes, the government in Canada is busy screwing over the economy, but they're also promoting strong encryption, making sure the CRTC can't muck up the internet, etc.
> >your President just has people
> >rubbed out if they piss him off (Vincent Foster,
> >Ron Brown, Gary Parks...)
>Moronic and unfounded accusations.
Did you miss the smiley? I can understand how you missed the sarcasm in part of my original message, but not in this one. Please get a sense of humour... If I was making a serious accusation, I would have substantiated it with links to a copy of Vincent Foster's suicide note, expert testimony about the validity of the note, reports of the circumstances surrounding Ron Brown's death, etc. If you are interested, I can email you that stuff, but we are really starting to get off-topic here.
>If you link to a drug site this is because you
>approve of it but are too chicken to put the
>stuff on your own site.
You're missing the point here. It doesn't matter what I'm linking to or why. It could be a neo-Nazi page advising kids to make pipe bombs while stoned. It's not for you or anyone else to tell me what I can say or print (PLEASE read the First Amendment).
Maybe, to you, this is a clear-cut case of right and wrong. What about the next time the government restricts your freedom of speech? Strong encryption is *obviously* a tool of terrorists, drug traffickers, and pornographers only [note dripping sarcasm]. Who else would have something to hide from Uncle Sam? The US government has repeatedly demonstrated their hatred of strong encryption. Is it a stretch to think they'd make linking to encryption sites illegal?
And maybe they won't stop with making linking to illegal sites illegal. Maybe if you link to a site that links to a site that links to a site that discusses the factoring of large primes, you'll get busted... Do you see now why this is a really scary precedent? Fortunately, this law is clearly unconstitutional, and will be shot down by the judicial branch (I do admire the US Constitution).
I'm sorry for getting off-topic earlier. If you want to discuss Canada's weather, your sense of humour (or possible lack thereof
Part of my original message was sarcastic (especially the part about it being impossible for Canada's parties to co-operate). Still, your response shows your ignorance of the Canadian political system and of the US Constitution.
:-)
>Your multiparty system is a joke. It means that
>a political party can technically get elected
>with a majority governement with 25% of the vote
It is possible for a President to be elected in the US with less than 50% of the popular vote (his opponent can even get more votes and lose)--ever heard of the electoral college? If a Canadian party wins less than 50% of the seats, they must form a minority (coalition) government with another party. This usually results in a government that actually does what the people want, and doesn't make too many stupid laws. True, Canada does have more severe party discipline than the US. Of course, your President just has people rubbed out if they piss him off (Vincent Foster, Ron Brown, Gary Parks...)
>This is to protect companies from assholes
>stealing the names for profit. I would like
>them to broaden it to include family names
>as well.
So what happens if I change my last name to Microsoft? Seriously, though, domain names are a commodity. Let the free market decide what they're worth.
>Promoting and selling drugs does in no way fall
>into the category of free speech.
Linking to the site is an entirely different thing. I look at links as giving someone directions. If you ask me for drugs and I sell them to you, I've broken the law. If you ask me for drugs and I tell you that a penguin named Tux who lives in Finland sells heroin-doped herring, I haven't committed a crime. Just imagine the next step for this law... Linking to strong encryption sites could become high treason... This is not a good precedent.
About the high taxes here--yes, they suck. Paying over half your income to the government is akin to slavery. True, we get medicare for some of that money, but I'd rather decide for myself what I'm going to spend my cash on. There is some hope--Alberta and Ontario have taken big steps towards reducing the tax load.
Finally, it's not that cold here! Sometimes I think Americans get confused because Canada's weather is always reported in Celsius, which sounds a lot colder... Where I live in Canada, the temperature almost never drops below 20 F (-7 C) in the winter, and usually stays around a comfortable 70 to 85 F (21 to 30 C) in the summer. Yes, the Yukon and North West Territories are cold (but then Hillary Clinton thinks the Yukon is part of the US, and Alaska is just as cold).
These articles come on the heels of the article about Ontario (Canadian province) promoting public use of encryption. Could it be that Canada's government (well, OK, Ontario's) has finally gotten a clue (while the US is still looking)?
It looks like these US laws took the combined stupidity of both parties to create. Maybe getting the GOP and 'crats to co-operate isn't a good idea... With Canada's multi-party system, we're virtually assured that there will never be co-operation among the politicians...
If only we could get the Canadian government to stop taking your first-born as income tax, and get tech wages here up to more than Silicon Valley janitors make...
Seriously, though, linking a crime? Hello, FIRST AMENDMENT! When will people get it that freedom of speech means you can say, write, or type whatever you want, as long as you're not directly violating someone else's rights (i.e. libel). The cybersquatting thing doesn't scare me quite as much.
Score two for us Canucks...