Isn't that kind of a bad strategy? I mean, won't they take away the attention from each other?
Like the way there are only a few companies making most of the brands of laundry detergent, and they each sell basically the same product under a bunch of brand names in order to compete for shelf space at Walmart?
Seems like a viable strategy for laundry detergent; I don't know why it wouldn't apply to microprocessors as well.
The parent wasn't intended to be funny. I really did get an error from Blogspot the first two times I clicked on the link. Maybe it was the Slashdot effect.
If it was just corporate policy, John Gilmore wouldn't be as upset about it, nor would I. But it is a Federal regulation, which the government has now admitted exists, but which they claim is secret.
How can we really have "rule of law" if the citizens are not allowed to know the laws and regulations they are required to comply with?
I haven't taken an Amtrak train in a long while, but Amtrak stated at one time that ID was required. I have been asked for ID on several occasions when boarding busses.
The government has no constitutional power to require identification for travel within states *regardless* of the mode of travel.
And it actually *isn't* about mode of travel. If a person owns a plane, even a large jet, a bus, or a train, the government does not require identifiation of passengers when he or she flies. They're only requiring it on commercial airlines, commercial busses, and Amtrak. What am amazing coincidence, that those are the main means of interstate travel for anyone that doesn't own (or doesn't want to use) their own vehicle(s).
To verify that the person coming on-board is who they claim to be.
Checking the ID won't verify that. But even if it did, how would that provide a measurable improvement in security?
He certainly does not, however, have an inherent right to fly.
Since when? Do you really believe that rights are something granted to you by the U.S. government, at its pleasure? I would remind you of the Ninth Amendment:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Rights reside with the people, and the government has limited powers to restrict those rights. There is *NOTHING* in the Constitution that would grant the U.S. Government the power to restrict the rights of U.S. citizens to travel between states without showing identity.
His criticism of Google digitizing books is based on the idea that it's better to read entre books, preferrably on paper, rather than snippets served up as Google search results. I can agree with that part. But he fails to see that the value that Google aims to provide is the means to readily find what book you need.
I have on several occasions tried to find a book that covers some particular detail of something, and failed, only to later find it by accident in a different book that I wouldn't have expected to cover it. Mr. Gorman must never have had this experience, or he would welcome new tools to help him find relevant books.
I suspect that this is what the bloggers understand and have not been successful in conveying to him. But since I don't know specifically which blogs and bloggers he's referring to, it's hard to say.
"All" personal data being copyrighted is absurd, since this data is vitally important to criminal trials
Having personal data be copyrighted (or otherwise owned by the subject and not normally distributable without his or her consent) would do NOTHING to criminal trials. A court order or subpoena would still get the data, though possibly under seal.
and investigative journalism,
Why should a journalist (of any sort) have any right to collect private data on me? Even today, I don't think they have any right to get a credit report on me without my consent, though it probably happens since there's such lax checking for authorized use (which is of course the whole point of this thread).
Say goodbye to phonebooks and directory assistance.
Phone books and directory assistance already only list people who are willing to be listed, so how is this a problem?
Will it be illegal for me to know if the guy down the street is a sex offender?
No, because the conviction is a matter of public record, so the government would still be able to include it in a publicly-accessible database
what if I want to post a list of congressmen's addresses, in an effort to encourage letter writting campaigns
You'll still be able to post a list of their public mailing addresses. You won't be able to post a list of their home addresses, unless that information isn't private, but there are already legal problems today with publishing government employee's home addresses so that wouldn't really change much.
If I can say someone's phone number or address, can't I also print it?
The proposal wouldn't have any different effect on audible speech vs. written.
If you're going to object to the proposal on the basis of examples, at least please try to make them more than just strawmen.
Yes, and that is a good thing. But one free credit report from each agency is an inadequate remedy for a lapse like this, which is why I would demand that ChoicePoint buy me a subscription.
As of Saturday afternoon, I had not received any notification from ChoicePoint. I'll watch my mailbox.
Yes, but my point isn't just about "whiny". If it's data that can be gathered about you in public, not due to any unintentional lapse of privacy, then it isn't private data, and wouldn't be subject to my proposed ownership arrangement.
For instance, a random entity shouldn't be able to find out what insurance carrier and plan I use. But if I post to Usenet that I subscribe to the Blue Cross HMO plan, then I would no longer be able to assert that as being private data that I exclusively own.
You're right that legislation would probably be needed to grant ownership of the data to the subject.
And if personal info were copyrighted we would have all sorts of BS like England does where celebrities can sue for being called whiny in print.
I don't think so. "Whiny" is a subjective description, not factual information about a person, and even if there was an objective standard for it, as soon as the person said one whiny thing in a public place, it would no longer be private data.
Then let them publicly deny that any data has been stolen relating to residents of other states.
I very much doubt that they're willing to do this. They're only providing any notification becuase they're required by law to do so; left to their own devices they would ignore it entirely.
The MSNBC article quotes the consumer notification:
You should continue to check your credit reports frequently for the next year.
If I get the notification, I'm going to request that ChoicePoint pay the costs for me to subscribe to unlimited credit report access from all three credit bureaus. IIRC, that costs about $100/year for each bureau. Since it's ChoicePoint's screwup, I shouldn't have to pay the costs necessary for early detection of fraud in my credit report.
The article further quotes ChoicePoint spokesman Chuck Jones:
But ChoicePoint has no way of knowing whether anyone's personal information actually has been accessed
Why the hell are they allowed to keep a dossier on me if they
don't have any mechanism in place to allow them to track how
it is used and by whom? This is insane!
The correct solution to this problem, IMNSHO, is for the courts
to determine that personal, financial, and credit records relating
to an individual are the COPYRIGHTED PROPERTY OF THAT INDIVIDUAL,
and may not be provided to any other party without the owner's
explicit consent. Not a blanket consent to provide the data to anyone inquiring, but specific consent to provide it to XYZ Corporation.
SBC, Qwest, Verizon, and Bellsouth will merge into a single company, "TPC". And they will start an insidious plan to take control of the government, despite the efforts of the Federal Bureau of Regulations (FBR) and the Central Enquiries Agency (CEA).
And they'll steal all of our left shoes, then return them to us converted into phones. "I limped home in my two-tone touch-tones. Every seven steps you make a call. And then, once in a while, you get one. [ring, ring] Hello? 'I'd like an anchovy to go, and hold the pizza.'"
The cost of Hubble is almost all in the design. Making a duplicate should be much, much cheaper.
Not bloody likely, even assuming that your premise is correct, which it might not be.
First you're assuming that they actually have the correct engineering drawings. A GAO investigation of ISS revealed that although NASA had a system that was supposed to track the ISS engineering drawings, they didn't actually have the correct drawings.
Secondly, the cost of making a one-off of just about anything goes UP over time, unlike the cost of mass manufacturing items which goes down.
And third, I doubt that they would build another Hubble even if they could. They wouldn't be able to resist making a lot of changes to take advantage of advances in technology, so the design work would all get redone anyhow, resulting in no net savings.
Slashdot Mirror
Seems like a viable strategy for laundry detergent; I don't know why it wouldn't apply to microprocessors as well.
There are much different tradeoffs that have to be made in chip design for low power vs. high performance.
The parent wasn't intended to be funny. I really did get an error from Blogspot the first two times I clicked on the link. Maybe it was the Slashdot effect.
Nevermind, now it works again. I wonder why Blogspot was previously telling me the page wasn't found.
Anybody save a copy?
How can we really have "rule of law" if the citizens are not allowed to know the laws and regulations they are required to comply with?
I haven't taken an Amtrak train in a long while, but Amtrak stated at one time that ID was required. I have been asked for ID on several occasions when boarding busses.
And it actually *isn't* about mode of travel. If a person owns a plane, even a large jet, a bus, or a train, the government does not require identifiation of passengers when he or she flies. They're only requiring it on commercial airlines, commercial busses, and Amtrak. What am amazing coincidence, that those are the main means of interstate travel for anyone that doesn't own (or doesn't want to use) their own vehicle(s).
Does the theorem also prove that every integer of the form (2^n-1)*2^n is a perfect number?
It is easily proven that there ISN'T a 42nd largest prime, because there isn't a largest prime.
My web site has the full expansion in binary. It's over 25 megabytes, so please don't download it unless you really need it.
Now we can use the 41st and 42nd for a 50 megabit RSA key.
I have on several occasions tried to find a book that covers some particular detail of something, and failed, only to later find it by accident in a different book that I wouldn't have expected to cover it. Mr. Gorman must never have had this experience, or he would welcome new tools to help him find relevant books.
I suspect that this is what the bloggers understand and have not been successful in conveying to him. But since I don't know specifically which blogs and bloggers he's referring to, it's hard to say.
If you're going to object to the proposal on the basis of examples, at least please try to make them more than just strawmen.
As of Saturday afternoon, I had not received any notification from ChoicePoint. I'll watch my mailbox.
For instance, a random entity shouldn't be able to find out what insurance carrier and plan I use. But if I post to Usenet that I subscribe to the Blue Cross HMO plan, then I would no longer be able to assert that as being private data that I exclusively own.
I very much doubt that they're willing to do this. They're only providing any notification becuase they're required by law to do so; left to their own devices they would ignore it entirely.
The article further quotes ChoicePoint spokesman Chuck Jones:
Why the hell are they allowed to keep a dossier on me if they don't have any mechanism in place to allow them to track how it is used and by whom? This is insane!The correct solution to this problem, IMNSHO, is for the courts to determine that personal, financial, and credit records relating to an individual are the COPYRIGHTED PROPERTY OF THAT INDIVIDUAL, and may not be provided to any other party without the owner's explicit consent. Not a blanket consent to provide the data to anyone inquiring, but specific consent to provide it to XYZ Corporation.
And they'll steal all of our left shoes, then return them to us converted into phones. "I limped home in my two-tone touch-tones. Every seven steps you make a call. And then, once in a while, you get one. [ring, ring] Hello? 'I'd like an anchovy to go, and hold the pizza.'"
Poor old woman, I think she'll die.
First you're assuming that they actually have the correct engineering drawings. A GAO investigation of ISS revealed that although NASA had a system that was supposed to track the ISS engineering drawings, they didn't actually have the correct drawings.
Secondly, the cost of making a one-off of just about anything goes UP over time, unlike the cost of mass manufacturing items which goes down.
And third, I doubt that they would build another Hubble even if they could. They wouldn't be able to resist making a lot of changes to take advantage of advances in technology, so the design work would all get redone anyhow, resulting in no net savings.