Thus, even if someone steals your username and password, they won't be able to get into your account unless they also use your computer and log in with your fingerprint.
And we all know how much harder it is to take control of a box than to steal login information...
I'm fully convinced that Trusted Computing architectures can be used to protect the little guys as well as the large corproate interests. It's just another tech that can be used for good or ill.
For example, we might be able to use TC to close the web serivces loophole in the GPL. Others have also suggested that TC could be used to insure the purity of participants in a p2p network, to prevent cheating, data gathering (ironic, considering this story), pollution (despite Overpeer's recent shutdown), or even - get this - the installation of DRM rootkits!
"Attention Deficit" is classified as a disorder by some. Not having it myself, I often think I a have trouble with the modern world - I like to focus on single tasks instead of being distracted and interrupted all the time.
I sense that this is one of those researchers that wants to classify ADD as a functional adaptation to post-modern life, rather than a disorder. Those with an *in*ability to "multitask" (ie, manage distractions) are the ones with the disorder.
You know, how hard is it to promote your domain name in the stream? Every streaming station I've ever heard may have lost the commercials, but they still plug the website every chance they get. "Podjackers" can jack the feed, sure - but the audio and video content are considerably more difficult to "jack".
If users have it drilled into their head merciless that the feed can be had from a big bold link on the front page of that domain that guy's incessantly blathering, then when they lose the stream, they'll know exactly where to go - the source.
Then again, I notice when my radio stream goes offline. I don't notice when a careless feed moves without telling me. It just disappears into the sea of other feed content. Guess you better make content good enough to be missed, huh?
Let me get this straight. On commercial radio, I have to listen to:
* Recorded commercials that hawk stuff. * "radio edit" previews of songs that hawk the cds they appear on full length. * DJs that hawk promotional events where I can buy stuff. * Weather and news, so long as it doesn't disagree with the station's business model.
Strange to think that people still think commercials pay for the music. It's the same with TV - can you buy the DVD for the show you're watching?
Beta doesn't mean releasing sooner; it means being buggy longer, but with liability protection.
Saying "It's just a beta" generally means that it's still got bugs to work out. This is another way of saying "it might eat your lunch, and we're not liable for that". Though the legalese might say that too, it looks better in court if it's trumpeted with a term like "beta" which most users understand, instead of in fine print which they don't.
I left Arizona for Vancouver BC in Jan 2003. I've been telecommuting with the little web services outfit (still in AZ) ever since. I married a local last June, and she's sponsoring me for Perm Residency soon.
It was a great relief. My first coherent thought after 9/11 was "This is how tyrants are made". I seem to have been right.
I have absolutely no regrets. Answer your question?
sig comment. If you don't know they're there, why do you feel the need to filter them? I mean, you could say the same thing about garden gnomes, or something.;p
After resisting a close-dsource proprietary app, I tried Skype last night.
After much frustration with firewalls with other apps (notably Wengophone), I was impressed by Skype's NAT traversal. It WAS configurationless.
Unfortunately, Skype's ALSA sound support on Linux is in the stone age. Who codes for OSS anymore? Using ALSA's OSS emulation, anywhere between 5 and ten minutes into a call, Skype would hang my entire sound system, requiring the ALSA modules be unloaded and reloaded.
And we are now left to the tender mercies of Skype's programmers to code ALSA support. *looks at his watch*.
Are there any Share-Alike SIP voip apps that do NAT traversal? I've been looking.
The best reason to get people together in the same room is if they're going to interact. Otherwise, it's television, reading, or writing, which technology can provide anywhere. Even real-time interaction is technology-provided, but not to the level a serious education requires for most students.
If your classtime is so non-interactive that students can drift so far off topic on the web that they're not listening to the class, then why are you having a class meeting at all?
If the only reason turning Windows into adware makes sense is the amount of data it can GATHER, rather than transmit, then it's not adware - that's *spyware*.
Do you really want to trade away your privacy to Microsoft for a free-as-in-beer OS?
At first blush, it was pretty obvious: no, I wouldn't use an ad supported Windows.
The issue isn't so much the licensing FEE as the LICENSE. I use GNU/Linux because I get to hack it without being a criminal. Pretty simple. Hell - I might even pay for the freedom OSS gives me. Windows never does.
Then again, I thought about it.
The only place I still use Windows is a (pirated) Windows XP install in a (pirated) VMware box. I only need it to do cross-plat compatibility testing for web sites, and to whip up NSIS install packages for Windows builds of various Free software packages - mostly so I or others can access GNU/Linux systems and software.
It used to be easy to keep Windows running, but now that piracy has turned Windows into the monopoly OS, they're clamping down. Given how little time I have to spend updating Windows, updating the latest and greatest Windows cracks, it would be nice to spend what little time in Windows I do spend closing ads instead of dodging Product Activation.
Ok, so if they want control, why don't they just make up some TLDs that don't collide, and go at it? If non-US users want to resolve.com, just have the UN root pass it on to the US root. If there's enough consensus, they'll start laughing at poor Americans who can't resolve.un domains. The ridicule alone would be so acute that customers would start clamoring, and ISPs would start adding the UN root to their configs regardless of what ICANN did.
If the US root/ICANN REALLY wanted to be evile, then they'd just declare their own colliding TLDS - but of course, ISPs can still decide which root gets queried. So, ultimately, it's not the US' decision to "control the Internet"
This is the same free, end-to-end Internet that Doc Searls was just tlaking about keeping, isn't it? It's still free - so far.
spammers don't host servers because no one would use them. servers don't spam because they don't want to catch spammer syndrome, which is characterized by a sudden lack of users.
It's one thing to be an honest spammer, it's another to abuse hard-earned trust of your userbase, especially when some of them have become dependent on the spam-free experience YOU have lulled them into coming to expect.
I wonder if Havenco could figure out a way to operate on one (or more) of these, at least until the US Star Wars program deploys a working orbital laser weapon to knock it out (and at least then, we'd know!).
There may well be a bubble forming. That's business.
The difference is this: At the end of the dotcom bubble burst, there was a lot of proprietary code floating around, locked up in asset portfolios that would never see the light of day. At the end of an alleged OSS bubble, there will be a lot of open source code floating around *in the open*, where people can actually make use of it and build upon it, regardless of the solvency of the company that originally authored or contributed to it.
This may well actually give the supposed "bubble" more floating power, since one company that might not be able to properly handle an open source project might have their fumbles recovered by another company that can. This could happen immediately, rather than waiting for the former company's death march to complete, drying up the VC and selling off the company's copyrights to the code.
A Trusted Computing TPM can allow a hardware owner to control what software/runs on it/, but there's still no way a software "owner" can control what hardware/it runs on/.
There's already a considerable freedom in choosing between versions of the license. When the FSF could publish multiple licenses to suit different tastes (stay with 2? use 3? your choice), I don't really see the need for "democracy". It's your software; you can write any license terms you want. GEE! developers often do! amazing!
Slashdot Mirror
Thus, even if someone steals your username and password, they won't be able to get into your account unless they also use your computer and log in with your fingerprint.
And we all know how much harder it is to take control of a box than to steal login information...
I'm fully convinced that Trusted Computing architectures can be used to protect the little guys as well as the large corproate interests. It's just another tech that can be used for good or ill.
....
For example, we might be able to use TC to close the web serivces loophole in the GPL. Others have also suggested that TC could be used to insure the purity of participants in a p2p network, to prevent cheating, data gathering (ironic, considering this story), pollution (despite Overpeer's recent shutdown), or even - get this - the installation of DRM rootkits!
wait - isn't that backwards?
"Attention Deficit" is classified as a disorder by some. Not having it myself, I often think I a have trouble with the modern world - I like to focus on single tasks instead of being distracted and interrupted all the time.
I sense that this is one of those researchers that wants to classify ADD as a functional adaptation to post-modern life, rather than a disorder. Those with an *in*ability to "multitask" (ie, manage distractions) are the ones with the disorder.
You know, how hard is it to promote your domain name in the stream? Every streaming station I've ever heard may have lost the commercials, but they still plug the website every chance they get. "Podjackers" can jack the feed, sure - but the audio and video content are considerably more difficult to "jack".
If users have it drilled into their head merciless that the feed can be had from a big bold link on the front page of that domain that guy's incessantly blathering, then when they lose the stream, they'll know exactly where to go - the source.
Then again, I notice when my radio stream goes offline. I don't notice when a careless feed moves without telling me. It just disappears into the sea of other feed content. Guess you better make content good enough to be missed, huh?
Of course, the irony of this is the tacit admission that music is NOT a free/stock market *now*.
Let me get this straight. On commercial radio, I have to listen to:
* Recorded commercials that hawk stuff.
* "radio edit" previews of songs that hawk the cds they appear on full length.
* DJs that hawk promotional events where I can buy stuff.
* Weather and news, so long as it doesn't disagree with the station's business model.
Strange to think that people still think commercials pay for the music. It's the same with TV - can you buy the DVD for the show you're watching?
Considering that music downloads cost less to provide the more they're sold, shouldn't prices be coming *down* as each track becomes more popular?
Beta doesn't mean releasing sooner; it means being buggy longer, but with liability protection.
Saying "It's just a beta" generally means that it's still got bugs to work out. This is another way of saying "it might eat your lunch, and we're not liable for that". Though the legalese might say that too, it looks better in court if it's trumpeted with a term like "beta" which most users understand, instead of in fine print which they don't.
The job market in BC is quite good. Why do you think there are so many immigrants here in the first place?
When I get a work Visa, I might even pick one up.
The Canadian dollar has risen from 67 to 85 US cents in the last 3 years. I wouldn't exactly call that "taking advantage".
I left Arizona for Vancouver BC in Jan 2003. I've been telecommuting with the little web services outfit (still in AZ) ever since. I married a local last June, and she's sponsoring me for Perm Residency soon.
It was a great relief. My first coherent thought after 9/11 was "This is how tyrants are made". I seem to have been right.
I have absolutely no regrets. Answer your question?
What this means is that being a musician will no longer be a multi-million dollar a year job.
You don't know many musicians, do you?
sig comment. ;p
If you don't know they're there, why do you feel the need to filter them? I mean, you could say the same thing about garden gnomes, or something.
After resisting a close-dsource proprietary app, I tried Skype last night.
After much frustration with firewalls with other apps (notably Wengophone), I was impressed by Skype's NAT traversal. It WAS configurationless.
Unfortunately, Skype's ALSA sound support on Linux is in the stone age. Who codes for OSS anymore? Using ALSA's OSS emulation, anywhere between 5 and ten minutes into a call, Skype would hang my entire sound system, requiring the ALSA modules be unloaded and reloaded.
And we are now left to the tender mercies of Skype's programmers to code ALSA support. *looks at his watch*.
Are there any Share-Alike SIP voip apps that do NAT traversal? I've been looking.
The best reason to get people together in the same room is if they're going to interact. Otherwise, it's television, reading, or writing, which technology can provide anywhere. Even real-time interaction is technology-provided, but not to the level a serious education requires for most students.
If your classtime is so non-interactive that students can drift so far off topic on the web that they're not listening to the class, then why are you having a class meeting at all?
If the only reason turning Windows into adware makes sense is the amount of data it can GATHER, rather than transmit, then it's not adware - that's *spyware*.
Do you really want to trade away your privacy to Microsoft for a free-as-in-beer OS?
At first blush, it was pretty obvious: no, I wouldn't use an ad supported Windows.
The issue isn't so much the licensing FEE as the LICENSE. I use GNU/Linux because I get to hack it without being a criminal. Pretty simple. Hell - I might even pay for the freedom OSS gives me. Windows never does.
Then again, I thought about it.
The only place I still use Windows is a (pirated) Windows XP install in a (pirated) VMware box. I only need it to do cross-plat compatibility testing for web sites, and to whip up NSIS install packages for Windows builds of various Free software packages - mostly so I or others can access GNU/Linux systems and software.
It used to be easy to keep Windows running, but now that piracy has turned Windows into the monopoly OS, they're clamping down. Given how little time I have to spend updating Windows, updating the latest and greatest Windows cracks, it would be nice to spend what little time in Windows I do spend closing ads instead of dodging Product Activation.
Ok, so if they want control, why don't they just make up some TLDs that don't collide, and go at it? If non-US users want to resolve .com, just have the UN root pass it on to the US root. If there's enough consensus, they'll start laughing at poor Americans who can't resolve .un domains. The ridicule alone would be so acute that customers would start clamoring, and ISPs would start adding the UN root to their configs regardless of what ICANN did.
If the US root/ICANN REALLY wanted to be evile, then they'd just declare their own colliding TLDS - but of course, ISPs can still decide which root gets queried. So, ultimately, it's not the US' decision to "control the Internet"
This is the same free, end-to-end Internet that Doc Searls was just tlaking about keeping, isn't it? It's still free - so far.
Ah. I use Gaim, and they don't kick me off for it, so that's the "spam-free" experience I've had.
spammers don't host servers because no one would use them. servers don't spam because they don't want to catch spammer syndrome, which is characterized by a sudden lack of users.
It's one thing to be an honest spammer, it's another to abuse hard-earned trust of your userbase, especially when some of them have become dependent on the spam-free experience YOU have lulled them into coming to expect.
I wonder if Havenco could figure out a way to operate on one (or more) of these, at least until the US Star Wars program deploys a working orbital laser weapon to knock it out (and at least then, we'd know!).
There may well be a bubble forming. That's business.
The difference is this: At the end of the dotcom bubble burst, there was a lot of proprietary code floating around, locked up in asset portfolios that would never see the light of day. At the end of an alleged OSS bubble, there will be a lot of open source code floating around *in the open*, where people can actually make use of it and build upon it, regardless of the solvency of the company that originally authored or contributed to it.
This may well actually give the supposed "bubble" more floating power, since one company that might not be able to properly handle an open source project might have their fumbles recovered by another company that can. This could happen immediately, rather than waiting for the former company's death march to complete, drying up the VC and selling off the company's copyrights to the code.
Wait, wait. I bought this Mac. I thought *I* was the owner.
A Trusted Computing TPM can allow a hardware owner to control what software /runs on it/, but there's still no way a software "owner" can control what hardware /it runs on/.
There's already a considerable freedom in choosing between versions of the license. When the FSF could publish multiple licenses to suit different tastes (stay with 2? use 3? your choice), I don't really see the need for "democracy". It's your software; you can write any license terms you want. GEE! developers often do! amazing!