Several of the people submitting this story have come up with elaborate theories about why: killing competition, etc. etc. I think the truth is just that Microsoft intends to integrate DRM very tightly with their OS and browser...
Integrating DRM is a strategy for killing competition, if not the strategy.
These are public officials. As long as you've got their activites on video, why not broadcast them in the same way their radio signals are?
The same reason cops are using encrypted channels: "Safety". Supposedly being able to monitor the activities of a public official puts their life at risk. The alternative, however, is an unaccountable public official. Which is worse?
If my tax dollars are paying for these cameras, then they're paying for their output, too. At the very least, I want equalized access to the archives - whether available only through a warrant (for both cops and defenders), or, ideally, completely unconditional access. There are lots of possibilities...
Humans are well adapted to life on the surface of the earth. any proposed adaptations to life elsewhere are pretty likely to create a different species, even in purely biological terms.
That doesn't even take into account the likelihood that human minds will be "uploaded" into machine substrates that are far better adapted to life in space.
If the same money wasted on adapting meat to an environment different from the one it took MILLIONS of years to perfect itself to interact with were spent building things that take far less effort to adapt, you'd see a lot more progress in space exploration.
This doesn't account for the fact that the story says the current worms were 4-5 generations removed from worms placed in the can "in January", or the possibility that reproducing a generation may take less time than the life cycle.
"genetic engineering and other technologies are going to divide human beings into classes that may one day try to destroy one another"
This demonstrates a misunderstanding of the concept of species and of what advanced genetic engineering technologies allow.
I agree with your point, but there's a point the original poster makes that isn't addressed.
By "class", he may not mean "species" in the biological sense. I definitely see a division of classes in the political sense, even in today's world.
Those who are pro-tech certainly respect the rights of those who aren't to not participate in the development of technology, but can't really protect them from the impacts of such development that are inevitably unpredictable.
Those who are anti-tech (pro-relinquishment?) can't simply be satisfied with not participating for just this reason - these technologies have far-reaching effects on all of our natural and social ecosystems. Thus, it's in their interest to control the capabilities of ALL others.
I don't see how violent conflict can be avoided as technical development continues to accelerate. The only hope is that a responsible consensus can be reached to reduce the impact of such conflicts.
What truly scares me, is the possibility of only the rich being able to afford genetic "enhancements".
This really isn't going to be an issue - at least, not on grounds of expense.
Technologies like this accelerate quite quickly. I'd cite an earlier poster, who said that beaver damns differ from human dams because ecosystems have more time to adapt to beaver dams because they've been built roughly the same way for thousands, if not millions, of years.
Human technologies, on the other hand, accelerate on a cost basis in cultural time. Given that we're seeing genetic technologies become cheaper to develop (ie, POSSIBLE) within our liftimes, is it not reasonable to believe that the costs of genetic engineering procedures will drop to an affordable level in an equally reasonable period?
Sure, TODAY you can buy human-equivalent computer hardware for around $33 million, but we all know about Moore's law.
So if you can't afford a genetic enhancements today, well, it'll probably come around; just sit tight for a few more years.
Aside from that, I too believe the potential of GE is nothing compared to brain-computer interfaces, nano, robotics, AI, and uploading.
I signed up for phone service in December With Telus, in British Columbia, Canada. In order to not be listed, on Caller ID and the telephone book, they charged a few bucks a month.
So I listed myself as "Heinrich Holiday". They took it, even though The name on the credit card I use to pay the bill and actually listed on the account is totally different.
I wonder how effective it would be to implement spam filters that rank messages instead of filtering them?
Generally, I'd be satisfied with having the most important emails simply appear before the spam, rather than have the filters delete it entirely, risking some false positives.
Usually, mail is sorted in order of arrival (at least in my box). Perhaps it's getting to the point where the content is more important than the timing?
I tend to think freedom of speech is best understood as the right of the audience, rather than the speaker. The point is to allow folks the best access to the widest possible variety speech, literature, art, etc., that they want to hear or experience.
That last phrase carries the key. If you make the very reasonable presumption that audiences aren't interested in deceptions - fraud, defamation, libel, slander... and, of course, unsolicited solicitations, then I think this slant cleans up a lot of difficulties many have with untidy "exceptions" to Freedom of Speech(tm).
The Artist-once-again-known-as-Prince had a well-enough publicized success in this area.
Perhaps he's not "major" enough to have made it onto your particular musical radar (no accounting for taste, etc), but that's to be expected; the POINT is that there wasn't a big media todo about it - the media people are the ones the whole Interenet distribution process cuts out.
Once you get distributed on the net, you begin cultivating particular fans, instead of just spamming the radio for massive, generic fame. There are plenty of case studies, it's simply not in mainstream media's interest to trumpet them. Thus, you don't tend to hear about them in blanket fashion.
Is it just me, or does the idea of having removeable discs just not make sense?
If I want to store stuff, I want it network accessible. "Oh yeah! I have that! - but it's in my drawer, at home. doh."
I want the thing from anywhere on the net, or I don't see the point. give me a hard drive over a cdrom or dvd drive any day.
I waited forever to shell out $200 for a cdrom, burned 3-4 discs, and that was about it. Now the drive isn't even plugged in, because I have four hdds in my machine.
Of course, there are obviously times when "sneakernet" beats the pants off of even broadband. For me personally, those instances just don't happen.
If you're using this to restrict content to your site... well, forget it. If you have something I really want, I'll open up a terminal and telnet to port 80.
You're right, it's not security. It's not a matter of security - it's a matter of convenience. How many people even know how to point a telnet seesion - and are they even in your web site's intended audience?
There are only two people I know of who actually do this. You don't strike me as someone who would EVER have a reason to visit any of my web sites, and the other person... well, the other one is me.:)
Now, that said, why should I design my sites for you instead for my users? They get some real usefulness out these techniques.
Websites are more than just file farms, and on many occasions referers are extremely useful in delivering the services many of them provide. If you can't imagine what possible use any services like that might offer, I have plenty of neat ideas. Just don't pretend your tastes are good enough for everyone - after all, you've already proven yourself technically exceptional by your use of telnet (believe it or not). I'm not trying to stop one person from doing certain things. I'm trying to stop a LOT of people. and, well, that works.
I agree about Google's cache, though. Gcache has proven invaluable to me on numerous occasions. I've even thought about POINTING people there FROM my website on occasion. great. go hard. That's what it's there for. It's not, however, what MY site is for.
If everyone only used technology the way it was intended, nothing would get invented at all.
DRM: the equivalent of Big Media screaming "No fair!", throwing a temper tantrum, and threatening to take their marbles and go home.
Let me get this straight:
So your Disney smarm and your boy bands won't clog up my Internet as much, because sharers can't share it?
cool.
You can't control what I do with software we wrote, so you're going to limit your releases to only those outlets that listen to you, rather than the whole world you had listening to your stuff before?
I thought the idea behind promotion was to get it as WIDELY distributed as possible.
You don't like fair use, so you offer music in fewer outlets than ever before?
Consumers don't like copy restriction, so they stop buying CDs for higher prices?
Sounds like a plan to me.
oh, and we can circumvent all of this just by hooking analog out to analog in?
bwah!
So please go ahead, take your marbles & go home... I didn't want to play with you anyway.
Worst case, we all get one more good reason not to use non-free software.
Best case, we get to certify that free software really is free. I could imagine having to set up my system to the point where anything signed by the big boys is "UNtrusted" by default, and wouldn't be permitted to run.
Having picked up the exploded pieces of grey matter that result from trying to read what little technical information exists on Palladium (and it's relation, the TCPA), the one thing that concerns me about the new DRM initiatives more than any other remains unanswered.
My current understanding is that DRM allows signed software or sealed content to specify what software environment it is running in or being played back on. It's based on the ability of the software to trace back and verify the cryptographic digital signatures issued by "certification authorities".
From a technical standpoint, the certification "authorities" could be anybody. My question then becomes what level of control users will be allowed to have over who will certifiy their software. Who will be the ultimate authority? Microsoft? Other software vendors? Any software vendor? Artist representatives? Joe blow down the street? Or, hopefully, whosoever the owner selects?
I can think of a number of interesting applications for the technology that could work just as easily for cunsumers as against them:
1) A consumer rights group certifies Customer Relations Management software that is built for the express purpose of preventing the copying & dissemination of consumer information. If music publishers can effectively copy-prevent music, the same technology can be used to copy-prevent consumer data.
2) A problem in a number of P2P applications is in insuring the behaviour of various actors on the network, to prevent malicious logging, flooding, misrepresentation, etc. Certifying running software would be a step toward minimizing problems like these.
The technology is promising, in theory. The problem isn't technological, but political, so my question is - who is going to be permitted to create and select their own trusted roots, and what hoops are going to be erected in order to activate or become one?
Slashdot Mirror
What's worse: people who simply imply "pirate" when they say "peer to peer", or those who must say it explicitly because they don't?
Several of the people submitting this story have come up with elaborate theories about why: killing competition, etc. etc. I think the truth is just that Microsoft intends to integrate DRM very tightly with their OS and browser...
Integrating DRM is a strategy for killing competition, if not the strategy.
How about yu and your wife go to Niagara Falls for your honeymoon, and stay there while you send your bot to work.
That's more like it...
Where do you see this whole "I'm going to force you to downgrade your experience of life" bit?
some possibilities to be thought about:
1) broadcasting the video.
These are public officials. As long as you've got their activites on video, why not broadcast them in the same way their radio signals are?
The same reason cops are using encrypted channels: "Safety". Supposedly being able to monitor the activities of a public official puts their life at risk. The alternative, however, is an unaccountable public official. Which is worse?
If my tax dollars are paying for these cameras, then they're paying for their output, too. At the very least, I want equalized access to the archives - whether available only through a warrant (for both cops and defenders), or, ideally, completely unconditional access. There are lots of possibilities...
The species isn't sacred - it's the mind.
Humans are well adapted to life on the surface of the earth. any proposed adaptations to life elsewhere are pretty likely to create a different species, even in purely biological terms.
That doesn't even take into account the likelihood that human minds will be "uploaded" into machine substrates that are far better adapted to life in space.
If the same money wasted on adapting meat to an environment different from the one it took MILLIONS of years to perfect itself to interact with were spent building things that take far less effort to adapt, you'd see a lot more progress in space exploration.
5 generations removed x 10 day lifecycle = 50 days, maximum.
Discovery "this week" (say, Apr 25) - Shuttle Explosion Feb 1 = 89 days.
This doesn't account for the fact that the story says the current worms were 4-5 generations removed from worms placed in the can "in January", or the possibility that reproducing a generation may take less time than the life cycle.
Am I missing something, or are they?
now, class gaps created by patents, draconian intellectual property laws, licensing agreements, vendor lock-in....
THAT is fucking scary.
Think about Microsoft tactics in the Health Care industry.
"genetic engineering and other technologies are going to divide human beings into classes that may one day try to destroy one another"
This demonstrates a misunderstanding of the concept of species and of what advanced genetic engineering technologies allow.
I agree with your point, but there's a point the original poster makes that isn't addressed.
By "class", he may not mean "species" in the biological sense. I definitely see a division of classes in the political sense, even in today's world.
Those who are pro-tech certainly respect the rights of those who aren't to not participate in the development of technology, but can't really protect them from the impacts of such development that are inevitably unpredictable.
Those who are anti-tech (pro-relinquishment?) can't simply be satisfied with not participating for just this reason - these technologies have far-reaching effects on all of our natural and social ecosystems. Thus, it's in their interest to control the capabilities of ALL others.
I don't see how violent conflict can be avoided as technical development continues to accelerate. The only hope is that a responsible consensus can be reached to reduce the impact of such conflicts.
What truly scares me, is the possibility of only the rich being able to afford genetic "enhancements".
This really isn't going to be an issue - at least, not on grounds of expense.
Technologies like this accelerate quite quickly. I'd cite an earlier poster, who said that beaver damns differ from human dams because ecosystems have more time to adapt to beaver dams because they've been built roughly the same way for thousands, if not millions, of years.
Human technologies, on the other hand, accelerate on a cost basis in cultural time. Given that we're seeing genetic technologies become cheaper to develop (ie, POSSIBLE) within our liftimes, is it not reasonable to believe that the costs of genetic engineering procedures will drop to an affordable level in an equally reasonable period?
Sure, TODAY you can buy human-equivalent computer hardware for around $33 million, but we all know about Moore's law.
So if you can't afford a genetic enhancements today, well, it'll probably come around; just sit tight for a few more years.
Aside from that, I too believe the potential of GE is nothing compared to brain-computer interfaces, nano, robotics, AI, and uploading.
Isn't only M$ supposed to do that?
Pretty damn sloppy when you have to rely on game developers to patch bugs in the OS.
Hey, if you can convince me there really is a Nobel Prize for fiction, then I'd have to say you deserve the first one...
Business learned it's lesson, by and large, sure.
Government still wants to "promote the net" with bills entitled the "Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act".
Yes, to these people, the net is Slow TV.
I signed up for phone service in December With Telus, in British Columbia, Canada. In order to not be listed, on Caller ID and the telephone book, they charged a few bucks a month.
So I listed myself as "Heinrich Holiday". They took it, even though The name on the credit card I use to pay the bill and actually listed on the account is totally different.
Hey, saves a couple bucks a month.
I wonder how effective it would be to implement spam filters that rank messages instead of filtering them?
Generally, I'd be satisfied with having the most important emails simply appear before the spam, rather than have the filters delete it entirely, risking some false positives.
Usually, mail is sorted in order of arrival (at least in my box). Perhaps it's getting to the point where the content is more important than the timing?
Slashdot summary:
:)
essentially claiming that Opt Out is not a viable model for telemarketers.
uh... since when does the viability of a business model constitute grounds for a lawsuit?
*aide whispers in my ear*
Oh! Since the Content Cartels passed the DMCA! of course! Sorry, my mistake.
The Article, on the other hand, says the DMA is actually "essentially" claiming something else entirely:
the FTC's effort would violate free-speech laws
OK, that I can see as the basis for a lawsuit. Sure, it's BUNK, but could it have hurt to put facts in the summary?
I tend to think freedom of speech is best understood as the right of the audience, rather than the speaker. The point is to allow folks the best access to the widest possible variety speech, literature, art, etc., that they want to hear or experience.
That last phrase carries the key. If you make the very reasonable presumption that audiences aren't interested in deceptions - fraud, defamation, libel, slander... and, of course, unsolicited solicitations, then I think this slant cleans up a lot of difficulties many have with untidy "exceptions" to Freedom of Speech(tm).
Is it a boycott if you don't spend money because you don't like the product?
If media conglomerates were charging half as much for their wares, would any of us even be having this debate?
The law should apply to all of us or it applies to none of us
The law should apply to all of us or it applies to none of us
...*cough* Russian programmers *cough, cough*...
You're right. US laws really ought to cover eveyone. P2P pirates, FBI Agents hacking into computers abroad...
I mean, who knows what's right better than the Yanks?
--
Don't Blame me; I'm moving to Canada.
The Artist-once-again-known-as-Prince had a well-enough publicized success in this area.
Perhaps he's not "major" enough to have made it onto your particular musical radar (no accounting for taste, etc), but that's to be expected; the POINT is that there wasn't a big media todo about it - the media people are the ones the whole Interenet distribution process cuts out.
Once you get distributed on the net, you begin cultivating particular fans, instead of just spamming the radio for massive, generic fame. There are plenty of case studies, it's simply not in mainstream media's interest to trumpet them. Thus, you don't tend to hear about them in blanket fashion.
Is it just me, or does the idea of having removeable discs just not make sense?
If I want to store stuff, I want it network accessible. "Oh yeah! I have that! - but it's in my drawer, at home. doh."
I want the thing from anywhere on the net, or I don't see the point. give me a hard drive over a cdrom or dvd drive any day.
I waited forever to shell out $200 for a cdrom, burned 3-4 discs, and that was about it. Now the drive isn't even plugged in, because I have four hdds in my machine.
Of course, there are obviously times when "sneakernet" beats the pants off of even broadband. For me personally, those instances just don't happen.
If you're using this to restrict content to your site ... well, forget it. If you have something I really want, I'll open up a terminal and telnet to port 80.
:)
You're right, it's not security. It's not a matter of security - it's a matter of convenience. How many people even know how to point a telnet seesion - and are they even in your web site's intended audience?
There are only two people I know of who actually do this. You don't strike me as someone who would EVER have a reason to visit any of my web sites, and the other person... well, the other one is me.
Now, that said, why should I design my sites for you instead for my users? They get some real usefulness out these techniques.
Websites are more than just file farms, and on many occasions referers are extremely useful in delivering the services many of them provide. If you can't imagine what possible use any services like that might offer, I have plenty of neat ideas. Just don't pretend your tastes are good enough for everyone - after all, you've already proven yourself technically exceptional by your use of telnet (believe it or not). I'm not trying to stop one person from doing certain things. I'm trying to stop a LOT of people. and, well, that works.
I agree about Google's cache, though. Gcache has proven invaluable to me on numerous occasions. I've even thought about POINTING people there FROM my website on occasion. great. go hard. That's what it's there for. It's not, however, what MY site is for.
If everyone only used technology the way it was intended, nothing would get invented at all.
DRM: the equivalent of Big Media screaming "No fair!", throwing a temper tantrum, and threatening to take their marbles and go home.
Let me get this straight:
So your Disney smarm and your boy bands won't clog up my Internet as much, because sharers can't share it?
cool.
You can't control what I do with software we wrote, so you're going to limit your releases to only those outlets that listen to you, rather than the whole world you had listening to your stuff before?
I thought the idea behind promotion was to get it as WIDELY distributed as possible.
You don't like fair use, so you offer music in fewer outlets than ever before?
Consumers don't like copy restriction, so they stop buying CDs for higher prices?
Sounds like a plan to me.
oh, and we can circumvent all of this just by hooking analog out to analog in?
bwah!
So please go ahead, take your marbles & go home... I didn't want to play with you anyway.
Worst case, we all get one more good reason not to use non-free software.
Best case, we get to certify that free software really is free. I could imagine having to set up my system to the point where anything signed by the big boys is "UNtrusted" by default, and wouldn't be permitted to run.
Wouldn't you?
Having picked up the exploded pieces of grey matter that result from trying to read what little technical information exists on Palladium (and it's relation, the TCPA), the one thing that concerns me about the new DRM initiatives more than any other remains unanswered.
My current understanding is that DRM allows signed software or sealed content to specify what software environment it is running in or being played back on. It's based on the ability of the software to trace back and verify the cryptographic digital signatures issued by "certification authorities".
From a technical standpoint, the certification "authorities" could be anybody. My question then becomes what level of control users will be allowed to have over who will certifiy their software. Who will be the ultimate authority? Microsoft? Other software vendors? Any software vendor? Artist representatives? Joe blow down the street? Or, hopefully, whosoever the owner selects?
I can think of a number of interesting applications for the technology that could work just as easily for cunsumers as against them:
1) A consumer rights group certifies Customer Relations Management software that is built for the express purpose of preventing the copying & dissemination of consumer information. If music publishers can effectively copy-prevent music, the same technology can be used to copy-prevent consumer data.
2) A problem in a number of P2P applications is in insuring the behaviour of various actors on the network, to prevent malicious logging, flooding, misrepresentation, etc. Certifying running software would be a step toward minimizing problems like these.
The technology is promising, in theory. The problem isn't technological, but political, so my question is - who is going to be permitted to create and select their own trusted roots, and what hoops are going to be erected in order to activate or become one?
When a car breaks, you coast to a stop.
When an aircaft breaks, you drop to one.