I can't help but think that the screener ban is a good thing, as long as it applies only to movies produced by or distributed by the members of the MPAA.
The group of producers who are protesting the ban may believe that they are helping independant artists, but the truth is the opposite. How independant can you really be if your work is being sponsored or distribution is dependant on the powers within the MPAA. If MPAA members are not supplying the screeners then there is a greater chance that films not accompanied by a note from a Redford or Scorsese might just be reviewed by the Acadamy members, instead of sitting at the bottom of the pile of submittals that includes all of the MPAA high budget crap, the "independant" work of the children and relatives of Hollywood executives and other MPAA insiders, as well as the truly independant screeners that are submitted by talented artist but will never be watched for lack of time.
If these 142 directors and producers really want to promote somebody's independant work, maybe they should shell out the bucks for a theatre screening instead of attempting to drown out the work of truly independant artists that they don't happen to know (instead of flooding the screener market with films of "independants" that they happen to be sponsoring).
The author of the article referred to was obviously a Linux fanboy/zealot. And, I wonder if he has problems using a computer under ANY operating system.
I'm sure that Roblimo is a Linux devotee, but I think "fanboy" or "zealot" is a bit out of line given the evidence of the article, at most you could accuse him of being a bit disingenuous in order to parody the ignorance shown by most Windows fanboys and zealots when criticising Linux in comparisonto Windows.
1- He complains that Windows Update doesn't tell him what it is doing. This is absolute crap- a lie.
Windows Update, when run from IE, does give you a little info, but not much, it doesn't tell you what packages are affected. It does provide a link to an article about the problem, but the articles seem intentionally vague, don't really tell you much about what is vulnerable, why, or if it is likely to affect other packages. Linux users are accostomed to knowing which packages are being changed, and therefore having easy access to descriptions of the vulnerability and changelogs for each affected package. If there is more information available elsewhere, you often find a link pointing too it. I read every stupid, opaque "Security Bulletin" for each and every update that I install on the Windows machines at work. Seldom do I find them very enlightening, and they never actually tell you what the update actually does beyond "provides security fix for arbitrary code execution", which seems to be the universal security flaw in every windows. Which leads me to believe that there could be actually fewer problems than are evidenced, but they are core system level defects that Microsoft is either unable or, for some mysterious reason, unwilling to fix. Perhaps a irreversible design flaw in the core functions of the OS that they have decided to patch peicemeal whenever it shows itself in user applications.
2- He couldn't figure out how to add icons in the 'bottom panel' (Taskbar) in Windows.
It's called satire. (dict -d wn satire:
From WordNet (r) 2.0 [wn]:
satire
n : witty language used to convey insults or scorn; "he used
sarcasm to upset his opponent"; "irony is wasted on the
stupid"; "Satire is a sort of glass, wherein beholders do
generally discover everybody's face but their
own"--Johathan Swift [syn: {sarcasm}, {irony}, {caustic
remark}]
IIRC, KDE works much the same way.
3- Once again, feigning (or proving) total ignorance, he didn't understand what these 'pop-up' ads are all about- and why can't IE get rid of them?
See answer to your comment number two.
but when you add the Google Toolbar (free) not only will it block pop-ups, but it will give you some awesome IE/Windows only tools right in your browser.
You mean like buttons for searching highighted text, using google to find pages similar to the one you are viewing, or perhaps search entry boxes for web, image, groups, or news searches. Sorry, but I've got them all right in front of me in Galeon. I'll give you the pagerank display (nice toy, but not very useful) and the highlighted search terms (for now, I'll just keep using the cache for that one).
There were a lot of other problems I saw with his article. But because he was already preaching to the choir, most of it will just be greeted with silly smiles, and lots of head shaking. It must make him feel good to be surrounded by people who think the same way he does, and only make his half-hearted attempts at looking at other options.
It's funny that you bring out the old saw about "preaching to the chior" when slashdot has not been an Open Source oasis for quite some time now. There are far more posts deriding any positive comment about Linux or criticism of Windows as being the rantings of an Open Source lunatic than there are comments that advocate the use of Open Source. The
Agreed, that is why it is important for admins to automate thier tasks by writing scripts themselves. The task of writing many of these administration scripts helps one to understand more fully the ins and outs of the programs they are using and the tools they need in order to do thier daily monitoring of processes, performance, and logs.
Books such as this one (and others, both about administration and tools, such as "Perl for System Administration", and about the unix tools themselves, such as "Mastering Regular Expressions" and "Sed and Awk") help fledgling admins (such as myself) by presenting insights of an author with expirience in administration without the hand-holding that is present in many other types of "computer education" publications (Idiot's, Sam's, 24-hour anything) that try to simplify the problems faced in administration by ignoring much of the range of solutions and needs that you will encounter.
Only if Linux, BSD, and whatever is coming next (XO-K?) become so pedantic about "standards" that it is no longer acceptable to use something other than what the conformist are insisting on will we see the problem that you describe. For now, TIMTOWTDI, and there always should be.
People are complaining about ISPs not doing enough about the spam problem, and yet people also complain about how on-line privacy is being erroded..
Online privacy and spam are only relatyed in that when your online privacy is not protected, you will recieve more spam.
Now, someone please explain to me how these two "goals" (less spam and more privacy) can co-exist with each other. I just really don't get it.
Most of the practical methods of reducing spam are not going to effect privacy negatively at all. Dropping mails from misconfigured mailhosts, open proxies/relays, and from confirmed spam sending ipaddresses will greatly reduce the flow, and not effect your privacy one bit. Add to those checking both the "Reply to:" and the "From:" addresses for validity and you've just cut out a (small) additional portion of canned, spiced meat product. Next apply a beyesian filter (allowing users to submit examples) to the rest, and you've just reduced the amount of spam sent to an amount that most users can handle on thier own.
Basic privacy policy adherance will reduce spam by not allowing the companies to distribute your personal info (including email addresses) outside thier own corporate "walls" and into the hands of the mass marketers.
Large (and small) companies are notorious for selling your info. I have always felt that it is somewhat unfair to us citizens that we do not enjoy the protection of the 1974 Privacy Act when dealing with the credit bureaus, banks, phone companies, supermarkets and othe corporations that track our purchases, reading habits, medical needs, movie preferences, travel/hotel reservations, and internet habits, link them to our name, age, account number and social security number, then sell this info to the highest bidder. Perhaps the Privacy Act should apply to private transactions as well.
the problem with using your ISP's SMTP is that you generally have to be joeuser@isp.com instead of joeuser@joeuser.net.
Many ISPs will allow you to use any "From:" or "Reply To:" address that you like as long as your client (or your server) uses "smtp auth" to connect to the forwarding server. It is a relatively secure way for them to know who is using thier server without them needlessly interfering with thier customers business.
I am a bit wary of that patent mentioned in the ToDo.
and
I would be happier if he GPL'ed it.
There is no reason that he couldn't distribute this under the GPL even if he patented it.
The patent could be used as a method to could prevent a company from implementing an incompatible "one-off" that it distributed with it's own propietary, market dominating OS in order to prevent other systems from interoperating with it's email software when the feature is activated.
On the other hand there is the issue of software patents in general. Even if you intend no harm, or are actually using the patent system to protect the freedom of your implementation, you are also endorsing software patents that are being used in far less benign ways.
If that patent idea gets taken up, I can't see Debian including SPF; it'll be poison.
Once again, the existance of the patent does not dictate how the patent holder distributes or licenses the patented invention. If this developer is concerned that this be widely implemented and thus chooses the GPL or similar to license the invention, the patent could ensure that any subsequent inventions that are dependant on or derived from this one be distributed under a similar or compatible license.
do NOT fool yourself into thinking DRM was purely some kind of evil scheme to Get Your Money.
I agree that it did not start there, but it has rapidly become obvious that it now is more about getting all of the money (yours, mine, everyone elses).
Regional encoding does not stop piracy, neither does encrypting DVDs. People just copy them with the encryption entact and they play on your regular DVD player. The "regional" thing is about wanting to control who sells DVD decryption tech along with the players, and about controlling who was allowed to sell players where.
I expect the RIAA wishes they had thought of that one, imagine a studio owned software company recieving fat royalty checks for every CD player sold. As DRM becomes more ubiquitous, expect to see that and other ncorporate market controls coming down the pike.
And you can also expect the studio owned (AOL) and software vendor owned (MSN) attempt dropping non-DRM content from thier networks as well. Corporate censorship for the web, in the name of protecting the artists, writers and musicians. If it's not DRM, it must be copyright infringing!
So Well use encryption accross the network to avoid this.
BUT NO! You must be a terrorist! If you don't have anything to hide, why are you hiding it? Only drug dealers and terrorist need to use encryption if they're not law enforcement, corpoations, and intelligence agents, but that's OK, because they are the GOOD GUYS looking out for your saftey, the ecconomy, and the "American Way of Life". "Patriot Act III", DMCA-II, all brought to you by the Department of Justice, Homeland Security, and Microsoft. Keeping America safe for Americans. (I hope you fit their definition.)
[/RANT]
In all seriousness, if a large company can profit from DRM, or a government can control or monitor a population by use of DRM, by manipulating the markets (and content) in the software, communications, media, film, music, and publishing industries with this, then they will eventually attempt it.
At least in America (and many other countries), the outcome is somewhat dependant on the public's acceptance of this and the perception of a need for it.
The argument is for creating the tools that will allow more businesses to make thier existing workforces more efficient so thier businesses can grow.
Small businesses tend to not fire people when they become more efficient but rather to hire more people so as to expand thier business.
It is the larger corporations that generally profit from layoffs, as in small businesses more efficient processes mean greater output/worker and tend to not hit the cap for demand that a multi billion/year corp will.
Why is it that when looking for a model for nationalized health care, people always gravitate to the worst run systems around. Try Sweden, Norway, Israel, Canada,...
There is no suggestion in the article that suggests that the decision is between jobs and efficiencey. The article is suggesting that the tools necessary for efficiency be made available to those who have the ideas and abilities to create wealth but do not currently have access to the neccessary wealth to access the tools neccessary for thier business to efficiently compete in the market place.
The current mode of our capitolism (in the US and most likely elsewhere) does not place the advantage in the hands of those who possess the intelligence, skills, and ideas, but rather favors those who either have inhirited the capitol from previous generations (Gates, Perot, Walton, Bush, Allen, etc) or those who were lucky enough to befriend those who already posessed that wealth (Can't think of any off hand). Even then you have situations where the cost for these "deals" is rather high in terms of personal integrity, as demonstrated by Mr Dan Greer's co-founders at @stake who have been mysteriously silent about his firing despite being well aware of the correctness of the research that got him fired.
The truth of the matter about wealth production is that efficiency does not crate wealth, it retains it. One of our famous Republican presidents summed it up very well when he was asked to outlaw strikes in industries that were supportin the ciountry at war by answering that "All capital is the product of labor." (If you know who that was you get biscuit).
"If we don't make this, the customers might buy from AMD."
or...
"If we keep promising more speed than our copmpetitor, then they'll decide to wait until the next upgrade cycle before considering the other guy's product."
Hell, I still cant figure out why I would need 2.4GHz on my desktop, but I guess I'm just not a "savy consumer".
No it is not bullshit. Like it or not, reprinting other people's copyrighted works for distribution without thier permission is both wrong and against the law. There may be an argument for fair use here because this is a discussion forum that is discussing said argument, but for fair use to apply it would probably require that only those parts of the article that are being specifically commented on in that post be reprinted (quoting the article to make a point or to elaborate/illustrate an idea is acceptable fair use, karma whoring by bypassing accepted chanels to that article is not).
The New York Times is the newspaper of record for the American empire.
There is no "newspaper of record" for the "American empire". The masters of this hegemony would never allow any media source to become "authoritative" as that would mean they could not later dispute the lies they spread there when they no longer serve the hegemony.
They published it
Yes the did publish it, and as the publisher of this article they control the copyright and thus can decide how to distribute it. And don't give me any of that poorly thought out "copyright is bad" crap, as the GPL depends on copyright law to ensure that the source code remains availabe. The way copyright is implemented may be flawed (and yes it sucks big time) but the concept is not inherently bad and it could serve individuals and communities as well as companies if we attempted to be a little less strident and a little more convincing when making our arguments.
The New York Times has never explained WHY they require a registration for reading from the net
They have no obligation to do so. My guess is that because the same articles are available at newstands, in libraries and through delivered subscriptions, the advertisers balked at paying to advertise separately for the web edition. Advertising is the main income for news publishers, and the rates are set by the number of expected viewers of the advertisement. If the NYT wanted to charge premium rate for the adspace on thier web edition, they probably would need good statistics about who it is that reads the web edition. Hence registration. Whether this is a good business model for web editions of also printed media, or if there are better ways to accomplish the same thing for this particular edition of this particular newspaper, is thier problem. Personally I think they are making a mistake by limiting thier readers (and thus ad viewers) by requiring registration, but theyu are not required to listen to or follow my, or your, advice.
Every demand from a corporate entity for personal information deserves an explanation of why this information is being collected and for what purposes it will be used.
Agreed, if the corporate entity is not forthcoming with this information to the satisfaction of the potential subscriber (through a subcriber agreement and a privacy policy, then that potential subscriber should decline the offer for a subscription and perhaps go down to the newstand or library to read the content in relative anonymity.
I like to dream that some day some people, perhaps you and I, might create a publication that lives up to journalistic and business ideals that I can consider admirable. Until that day that the right combination of opportunity, skills and like minded individuals come together in such a task, I will treasure the right to criticize those who do not, but I will not allow myself to be so egotistical as to demand that these others change thier business practices to my whim, nor will I believe that they are entirely without worth because of thier failure to live up to an ideal that I have yet to witness in this world.
We will always need new OS models as the needs of business and the technology of networks are always changing. A monoculture of either OS design or business model will always be inherently inferior than a wide playing feild that allows multiple approaches to solving the problems that business, information technology, media, and personal comunication pose to developers. The weakness that is discussed in this (now famous) report, are not unique to a Microsoft dominated network, but to any large network that is overly reliant on a single OS architecture.
Including one that is based on Linux, BSD or any other notoriously secure operating system. The problem lies in the replication of the same flaw from host to host (or router to router, server to server, server to host, etc). If a single point of weakness can be counted on occuring on every host in a network, then the network belongs to any script kiddie who knows of that weakness.
It is also important that development of a variety of designs is available in non-security areas of OS design as well, because performance will vary based on kernel design depending upon the task(s) that the host is required for. The mostly monolithic design of the Linux kernel provides superior service for most computing tasks than does a microkernel implementation, such as the HURD, but when the host is pperforming tasks that do not require a great number of context swaps a microkernel design will usually outperform a monolithic kernel design. There are also some newer models that further remove kernel function from services and program/hardware interfaces than the current microkernel designs that may well make context swapping irrelevant.
What I'm getting at in my rambling diatribe is this: You may not need the HURD, I may not need the HURD (I won't know until I play with it a bit), but it is impossible for either you or I to know that there is no reason to continue development of the HURD, or that there is no-one for whom the HURD is a superior choice.
it strikes me as funny that someone who really seems to be limited, by choice, to the technology, would be looked to as a ideological leader
"Ideological" is probably the wrong term, but his pragmatism definately can be considered an ethical guidline for how to conduct oneself in business.
Too many people are vested in the "old ways" of company loyalty, destroy all competition, and take your customers for every penny they have to realize the value that Open Source and Free Software are offering business at the cost of a little cooperation (or at least a lack of interference).
Spam laws do not have to stop all spam. If they can simply stop all local spam, they have still won a mighty battle.
It's still the wrong way to handle the spam problem. If more users were to use effective filters, and if all ISPs were to implement reasonable filters that were able to determine most forged headers and dropped mail from all open proxies and unsecured relays, the spam business would not be nearly so lucrative as it would be more difficult for the spammers to find addresses that actually viewed the spam, much less responded to it.
I am very wary of inviting government to regulate email, partially because of the likelyhood of exceptions (ala Do Not Call list), but more because it might be inviting more intrusive regulation later by legitimizing a "right" for the government to monitor and ban forms of electronic communication. If we allow the government to ban a class of email based on advertising, how long would it be before there is a proposal to ban a class of email based on encryption.
Agreed, but the judge is correct on this one, the government is not permitted to regulate one class of speech while permitting another (short of the shouting of "FIRE" in a crowded theater).
If the regulation were to forbid all unrequested solicitations and other forms of marketing for those on the list, then it would likely fair much better in the courts. It is the granting of exceptions to powerful lobbies that has caused the problem, not the judge's interpetation of the First Amendment.
The Greek Democracy didn't last 30 years. The Republic didn't last 100 years. Look up the rule of the 30 tyrants in Greece and Caeser for Rome.
You were correct in that I was wrong about the history of the Greek Democracy and the Roman Republic.
But I was still not nearly as wrong as you.
In fact I had it backwards it was the Roman Republic that lasted a few hundred years, From 510bc (The expulsion of the kings and the Republic established) until 31bc (when the last vestige of the Republican forces, under the command of Mark Anthony are defeated). The Athenian Democracy lasted for 135 years, from 594bc to 431bc (when Athens lost the Pelopenisian War and the "Thirty Tyrants" were appointed by the Spartans to rule Athens)
Qtp, F (get your facts straight.)
Baldass_Newbie, F- (read the damn material, talk radio is no place to learn history.)
As for your other assertions, the Constitutional Convention in 1789 did not have the power to pass laws by it self, but the States were empowered to ratify the work of that comittee into law, which they did. The United States did have a federal government at the time, but with extremely limited powers, no right to issue a national currency, and none of the authority necessary to see that the principles set forth in the Declaration of Independence are protected.
Your assertion that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights garauntees "NOTHING" hinges on a different meaning of the word "garauntee" than I know of. A garauntee is a contract, much as the Constitution (and the Bill of Rights) is a contract between the citizens of this country and the government. I am fully aware that it is possible for the government or the citizen to break thier part of this agreement. But the citizen is not required by the Constitution to adhere to laws that are passed outside the guidlines of the Constitution, as long as he is willing to accept the consequenses and fight the necessary battle tghrough the courts (not a good bet) which are empowered to strike down law if they find that law to be unConstitutional. It's part of the ballance of powers that is laid out in the Constitution.
It's an agreement, along the lines of and styled after the Mayflower Compact.
It was styled after the Magna Carta, not the Mayflower compact.
It is a promise only as long as all citizens promise to abide by it. (Which you are effectively saying you're not doing.)
At what point did I say anything that would imply that I am not law abiding. I believe that marijuana should be legal. There is nothing illegal about holding such a belief. Being knowledgable about a controlled substance is not illegal. Supporting a change to the law is not illegal.
The greed is not coming from corporations. They're just people working to make money. The greed is from government who takes but doesn't make. Government doesn't produce anything but more government.
The political party that usually makes such assertions just took us from having a surplus in the budget to having a national debt that is growing at a rate of $1.6 billion per day. The people who are proffiting most from this deficit are the large corporations, who by selling you a bill of goods about "smaller government" and "lower taxes", thier media got you to vote for the people who will take more of our money away from us and give it to the people who need it the least. Where do you think that money goes, to welfare recipients? It goes to buying Halliburton control over another country's oil industry, it goes to purchasing $475 million dollars in Windows installs at $970.00 a pop, it goes to the defense contractors, the airline companies, intelligence operations designed to ensure American oil companies can control the oil industry in Venazuela.
I'm not saying there aren't bad companies or immoral practicies in business, but government is hardly the best solution to the problem.
What I'm saying is that bad companies and bad government go hand in hand.I would never be so foolish as to think that I could count on the one to save me from the other.
The poster supplies two good links with valid research and information, does not take a judgemental stand on the issue and leaves the opinion up to the reader. A simple and informative post that in no way seems intended to incite or mislead.
Moderators, get a clue. Just because a post doesn't line up with your worldview doesn't mean it's a troll.
Slashdot Mirror
I can't help but think that the screener ban is a good thing, as long as it applies only to movies produced by or distributed by the members of the MPAA.
The group of producers who are protesting the ban may believe that they are helping independant artists, but the truth is the opposite. How independant can you really be if your work is being sponsored or distribution is dependant on the powers within the MPAA. If MPAA members are not supplying the screeners then there is a greater chance that films not accompanied by a note from a Redford or Scorsese might just be reviewed by the Acadamy members, instead of sitting at the bottom of the pile of submittals that includes all of the MPAA high budget crap, the "independant" work of the children and relatives of Hollywood executives and other MPAA insiders, as well as the truly independant screeners that are submitted by talented artist but will never be watched for lack of time.
If these 142 directors and producers really want to promote somebody's independant work, maybe they should shell out the bucks for a theatre screening instead of attempting to drown out the work of truly independant artists that they don't happen to know (instead of flooding the screener market with films of "independants" that they happen to be sponsoring).
Something VERY fishy there.
Microsoft is copying from KDE?
I thought everyone already knew this.
I also ctrl+alt+arrow in order to switch workspace.
What windowmanager are you using and do you know how to make BlackBox do this?
I'm sure that Roblimo is a Linux devotee, but I think "fanboy" or "zealot" is a bit out of line given the evidence of the article, at most you could accuse him of being a bit disingenuous in order to parody the ignorance shown by most Windows fanboys and zealots when criticising Linux in comparisonto Windows.
1- He complains that Windows Update doesn't tell him what it is doing. This is absolute crap- a lie.
Windows Update, when run from IE, does give you a little info, but not much, it doesn't tell you what packages are affected. It does provide a link to an article about the problem, but the articles seem intentionally vague, don't really tell you much about what is vulnerable, why, or if it is likely to affect other packages. Linux users are accostomed to knowing which packages are being changed, and therefore having easy access to descriptions of the vulnerability and changelogs for each affected package. If there is more information available elsewhere, you often find a link pointing too it. I read every stupid, opaque "Security Bulletin" for each and every update that I install on the Windows machines at work. Seldom do I find them very enlightening, and they never actually tell you what the update actually does beyond "provides security fix for arbitrary code execution", which seems to be the universal security flaw in every windows. Which leads me to believe that there could be actually fewer problems than are evidenced, but they are core system level defects that Microsoft is either unable or, for some mysterious reason, unwilling to fix. Perhaps a irreversible design flaw in the core functions of the OS that they have decided to patch peicemeal whenever it shows itself in user applications.
2- He couldn't figure out how to add icons in the 'bottom panel' (Taskbar) in Windows.
It's called satire. (dict -d wn satire:
IIRC, KDE works much the same way.
3- Once again, feigning (or proving) total ignorance, he didn't understand what these 'pop-up' ads are all about- and why can't IE get rid of them?
See answer to your comment number two.
but when you add the Google Toolbar (free) not only will it block pop-ups, but it will give you some awesome IE/Windows only tools right in your browser.
You mean like buttons for searching highighted text, using google to find pages similar to the one you are viewing, or perhaps search entry boxes for web, image, groups, or news searches. Sorry, but I've got them all right in front of me in Galeon. I'll give you the pagerank display (nice toy, but not very useful) and the highlighted search terms (for now, I'll just keep using the cache for that one).
There were a lot of other problems I saw with his article. But because he was already preaching to the choir, most of it will just be greeted with silly smiles, and lots of head shaking. It must make him feel good to be surrounded by people who think the same way he does, and only make his half-hearted attempts at looking at other options.
It's funny that you bring out the old saw about "preaching to the chior" when slashdot has not been an Open Source oasis for quite some time now. There are far more posts deriding any positive comment about Linux or criticism of Windows as being the rantings of an Open Source lunatic than there are comments that advocate the use of Open Source. The
Agreed, that is why it is important for admins to automate thier tasks by writing scripts themselves. The task of writing many of these administration scripts helps one to understand more fully the ins and outs of the programs they are using and the tools they need in order to do thier daily monitoring of processes, performance, and logs.
Books such as this one (and others, both about administration and tools, such as "Perl for System Administration", and about the unix tools themselves, such as "Mastering Regular Expressions" and "Sed and Awk") help fledgling admins (such as myself) by presenting insights of an author with expirience in administration without the hand-holding that is present in many other types of "computer education" publications (Idiot's, Sam's, 24-hour anything) that try to simplify the problems faced in administration by ignoring much of the range of solutions and needs that you will encounter.
Only if Linux, BSD, and whatever is coming next (XO-K?) become so pedantic about "standards" that it is no longer acceptable to use something other than what the conformist are insisting on will we see the problem that you describe. For now, TIMTOWTDI, and there always should be.
The 'noid forgot to use his quotation marks.
People are complaining about ISPs not doing enough about the spam problem, and yet people also complain about how on-line privacy is being erroded..
Online privacy and spam are only relatyed in that when your online privacy is not protected, you will recieve more spam.
Now, someone please explain to me how these two "goals" (less spam and more privacy) can co-exist with each other. I just really don't get it.
Most of the practical methods of reducing spam are not going to effect privacy negatively at all. Dropping mails from misconfigured mailhosts, open proxies/relays, and from confirmed spam sending ipaddresses will greatly reduce the flow, and not effect your privacy one bit. Add to those checking both the "Reply to:" and the "From:" addresses for validity and you've just cut out a (small) additional portion of canned, spiced meat product. Next apply a beyesian filter (allowing users to submit examples) to the rest, and you've just reduced the amount of spam sent to an amount that most users can handle on thier own.
Basic privacy policy adherance will reduce spam by not allowing the companies to distribute your personal info (including email addresses) outside thier own corporate "walls" and into the hands of the mass marketers.
Large (and small) companies are notorious for selling your info. I have always felt that it is somewhat unfair to us citizens that we do not enjoy the protection of the 1974 Privacy Act when dealing with the credit bureaus, banks, phone companies, supermarkets and othe corporations that track our purchases, reading habits, medical needs, movie preferences, travel/hotel reservations, and internet habits, link them to our name, age, account number and social security number, then sell this info to the highest bidder. Perhaps the Privacy Act should apply to private transactions as well.
the problem with using your ISP's SMTP is that you generally have to be joeuser@isp.com instead of joeuser@joeuser.net.
Many ISPs will allow you to use any "From:" or "Reply To:" address that you like as long as your client (or your server) uses "smtp auth" to connect to the forwarding server. It is a relatively secure way for them to know who is using thier server without them needlessly interfering with thier customers business.
I am a bit wary of that patent mentioned in the ToDo.
and
I would be happier if he GPL'ed it.
There is no reason that he couldn't distribute this under the GPL even if he patented it.
The patent could be used as a method to could prevent a company from implementing an incompatible "one-off" that it distributed with it's own propietary, market dominating OS in order to prevent other systems from interoperating with it's email software when the feature is activated.
On the other hand there is the issue of software patents in general. Even if you intend no harm, or are actually using the patent system to protect the freedom of your implementation, you are also endorsing software patents that are being used in far less benign ways.
If that patent idea gets taken up, I can't see Debian including SPF; it'll be poison.
Once again, the existance of the patent does not dictate how the patent holder distributes or licenses the patented invention. If this developer is concerned that this be widely implemented and thus chooses the GPL or similar to license the invention, the patent could ensure that any subsequent inventions that are dependant on or derived from this one be distributed under a similar or compatible license.
do NOT fool yourself into thinking DRM was purely some kind of evil scheme to Get Your Money.
I agree that it did not start there, but it has rapidly become obvious that it now is more about getting all of the money (yours, mine, everyone elses).
Regional encoding does not stop piracy, neither does encrypting DVDs. People just copy them with the encryption entact and they play on your regular DVD player. The "regional" thing is about wanting to control who sells DVD decryption tech along with the players, and about controlling who was allowed to sell players where.
I expect the RIAA wishes they had thought of that one, imagine a studio owned software company recieving fat royalty checks for every CD player sold. As DRM becomes more ubiquitous, expect to see that and other ncorporate market controls coming down the pike.
And you can also expect the studio owned (AOL) and software vendor owned (MSN) attempt dropping non-DRM content from thier networks as well. Corporate censorship for the web, in the name of protecting the artists, writers and musicians. If it's not DRM, it must be copyright infringing!
So Well use encryption accross the network to avoid this.
BUT NO! You must be a terrorist! If you don't have anything to hide, why are you hiding it? Only drug dealers and terrorist need to use encryption if they're not law enforcement, corpoations, and intelligence agents, but that's OK, because they are the GOOD GUYS looking out for your saftey, the ecconomy, and the "American Way of Life". "Patriot Act III", DMCA-II, all brought to you by the Department of Justice, Homeland Security, and Microsoft. Keeping America safe for Americans. (I hope you fit their definition.)
[/RANT]
In all seriousness, if a large company can profit from DRM, or a government can control or monitor a population by use of DRM, by manipulating the markets (and content) in the software, communications, media, film, music, and publishing industries with this, then they will eventually attempt it.
At least in America (and many other countries), the outcome is somewhat dependant on the public's acceptance of this and the perception of a need for it.
We can always hope.
The argument is for creating the tools that will allow more businesses to make thier existing workforces more efficient so thier businesses can grow.
Small businesses tend to not fire people when they become more efficient but rather to hire more people so as to expand thier business.
It is the larger corporations that generally profit from layoffs, as in small businesses more efficient processes mean greater output/worker and tend to not hit the cap for demand that a multi billion/year corp will.
Why is it that when looking for a model for nationalized health care, people always gravitate to the worst run systems around. Try Sweden, Norway, Israel, Canada, ...
There is no suggestion in the article that suggests that the decision is between jobs and efficiencey. The article is suggesting that the tools necessary for efficiency be made available to those who have the ideas and abilities to create wealth but do not currently have access to the neccessary wealth to access the tools neccessary for thier business to efficiently compete in the market place.
The current mode of our capitolism (in the US and most likely elsewhere) does not place the advantage in the hands of those who possess the intelligence, skills, and ideas, but rather favors those who either have inhirited the capitol from previous generations (Gates, Perot, Walton, Bush, Allen, etc) or those who were lucky enough to befriend those who already posessed that wealth (Can't think of any off hand). Even then you have situations where the cost for these "deals" is rather high in terms of personal integrity, as demonstrated by Mr Dan Greer's co-founders at @stake who have been mysteriously silent about his firing despite being well aware of the correctness of the research that got him fired.
The truth of the matter about wealth production is that efficiency does not crate wealth, it retains it. One of our famous Republican presidents summed it up very well when he was asked to outlaw strikes in industries that were supportin the ciountry at war by answering that "All capital is the product of labor." (If you know who that was you get biscuit).
Yes, but it's...
"what the kids want."
or...
"If we don't make this, the customers might buy from AMD."
or...
"If we keep promising more speed than our copmpetitor, then they'll decide to wait until the next upgrade cycle before considering the other guy's product."
Hell, I still cant figure out why I would need 2.4GHz on my desktop, but I guess I'm just not a "savy consumer".
Here's a link.
and
obviously, it's so when linux does support it, legions of slashbots can complain about the duplicate stories!
From the article:
With all respect, this is bullshit!
No it is not bullshit. Like it or not, reprinting other people's copyrighted works for distribution without thier permission is both wrong and against the law. There may be an argument for fair use here because this is a discussion forum that is discussing said argument, but for fair use to apply it would probably require that only those parts of the article that are being specifically commented on in that post be reprinted (quoting the article to make a point or to elaborate/illustrate an idea is acceptable fair use, karma whoring by bypassing accepted chanels to that article is not).
The New York Times is the newspaper of record for the American empire.
There is no "newspaper of record" for the "American empire". The masters of this hegemony would never allow any media source to become "authoritative" as that would mean they could not later dispute the lies they spread there when they no longer serve the hegemony.
They published it
Yes the did publish it, and as the publisher of this article they control the copyright and thus can decide how to distribute it. And don't give me any of that poorly thought out "copyright is bad" crap, as the GPL depends on copyright law to ensure that the source code remains availabe. The way copyright is implemented may be flawed (and yes it sucks big time) but the concept is not inherently bad and it could serve individuals and communities as well as companies if we attempted to be a little less strident and a little more convincing when making our arguments.
The New York Times has never explained WHY they require a registration for reading from the net
They have no obligation to do so. My guess is that because the same articles are available at newstands, in libraries and through delivered subscriptions, the advertisers balked at paying to advertise separately for the web edition. Advertising is the main income for news publishers, and the rates are set by the number of expected viewers of the advertisement. If the NYT wanted to charge premium rate for the adspace on thier web edition, they probably would need good statistics about who it is that reads the web edition. Hence registration. Whether this is a good business model for web editions of also printed media, or if there are better ways to accomplish the same thing for this particular edition of this particular newspaper, is thier problem. Personally I think they are making a mistake by limiting thier readers (and thus ad viewers) by requiring registration, but theyu are not required to listen to or follow my, or your, advice.
Every demand from a corporate entity for personal information deserves an explanation of why this information is being collected and for what purposes it will be used.
Agreed, if the corporate entity is not forthcoming with this information to the satisfaction of the potential subscriber (through a subcriber agreement and a privacy policy, then that potential subscriber should decline the offer for a subscription and perhaps go down to the newstand or library to read the content in relative anonymity.
I like to dream that some day some people, perhaps you and I, might create a publication that lives up to journalistic and business ideals that I can consider admirable. Until that day that the right combination of opportunity, skills and like minded individuals come together in such a task, I will treasure the right to criticize those who do not, but I will not allow myself to be so egotistical as to demand that these others change thier business practices to my whim, nor will I believe that they are entirely without worth because of thier failure to live up to an ideal that I have yet to witness in this world.
We will always need new OS models as the needs of business and the technology of networks are always changing. A monoculture of either OS design or business model will always be inherently inferior than a wide playing feild that allows multiple approaches to solving the problems that business, information technology, media, and personal comunication pose to developers. The weakness that is discussed in this (now famous) report, are not unique to a Microsoft dominated network, but to any large network that is overly reliant on a single OS architecture.
Including one that is based on Linux, BSD or any other notoriously secure operating system. The problem lies in the replication of the same flaw from host to host (or router to router, server to server, server to host, etc). If a single point of weakness can be counted on occuring on every host in a network, then the network belongs to any script kiddie who knows of that weakness.
It is also important that development of a variety of designs is available in non-security areas of OS design as well, because performance will vary based on kernel design depending upon the task(s) that the host is required for. The mostly monolithic design of the Linux kernel provides superior service for most computing tasks than does a microkernel implementation, such as the HURD, but when the host is pperforming tasks that do not require a great number of context swaps a microkernel design will usually outperform a monolithic kernel design. There are also some newer models that further remove kernel function from services and program/hardware interfaces than the current microkernel designs that may well make context swapping irrelevant.
What I'm getting at in my rambling diatribe is this: You may not need the HURD, I may not need the HURD (I won't know until I play with it a bit), but it is impossible for either you or I to know that there is no reason to continue development of the HURD, or that there is no-one for whom the HURD is a superior choice.
So, where's GNU/Hurd?
Here.
it strikes me as funny that someone who really seems to be limited, by choice, to the technology, would be looked to as a ideological leader
"Ideological" is probably the wrong term, but his pragmatism definately can be considered an ethical guidline for how to conduct oneself in business.
Too many people are vested in the "old ways" of company loyalty, destroy all competition, and take your customers for every penny they have to realize the value that Open Source and Free Software are offering business at the cost of a little cooperation (or at least a lack of interference).
What, you wanted to grant permission for canidates, political parties, charities, and missionaries to call you at home?
Spam laws do not have to stop all spam. If they can simply stop all local spam, they have still won a mighty battle.
It's still the wrong way to handle the spam problem. If more users were to use effective filters, and if all ISPs were to implement reasonable filters that were able to determine most forged headers and dropped mail from all open proxies and unsecured relays, the spam business would not be nearly so lucrative as it would be more difficult for the spammers to find addresses that actually viewed the spam, much less responded to it.
I am very wary of inviting government to regulate email, partially because of the likelyhood of exceptions (ala Do Not Call list), but more because it might be inviting more intrusive regulation later by legitimizing a "right" for the government to monitor and ban forms of electronic communication. If we allow the government to ban a class of email based on advertising, how long would it be before there is a proposal to ban a class of email based on encryption.
Agreed, but the judge is correct on this one, the government is not permitted to regulate one class of speech while permitting another (short of the shouting of "FIRE" in a crowded theater).
If the regulation were to forbid all unrequested solicitations and other forms of marketing for those on the list, then it would likely fair much better in the courts. It is the granting of exceptions to powerful lobbies that has caused the problem, not the judge's interpetation of the First Amendment.
At least get your facts straight.
The Greek Democracy didn't last 30 years. The Republic didn't last 100 years. Look up the rule of the 30 tyrants in Greece and Caeser for Rome.
You were correct in that I was wrong about the history of the Greek Democracy and the Roman Republic.
But I was still not nearly as wrong as you.
In fact I had it backwards it was the Roman Republic that lasted a few hundred years, From 510bc (The expulsion of the kings and the Republic established) until 31bc (when the last vestige of the Republican forces, under the command of Mark Anthony are defeated). The Athenian Democracy lasted for 135 years, from 594bc to 431bc (when Athens lost the Pelopenisian War and the "Thirty Tyrants" were appointed by the Spartans to rule Athens)
Qtp, F (get your facts straight.)
Baldass_Newbie, F- (read the damn material, talk radio is no place to learn history.)
As for your other assertions, the Constitutional Convention in 1789 did not have the power to pass laws by it self, but the States were empowered to ratify the work of that comittee into law, which they did. The United States did have a federal government at the time, but with extremely limited powers, no right to issue a national currency, and none of the authority necessary to see that the principles set forth in the Declaration of Independence are protected.
Your assertion that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights garauntees "NOTHING" hinges on a different meaning of the word "garauntee" than I know of. A garauntee is a contract, much as the Constitution (and the Bill of Rights) is a contract between the citizens of this country and the government. I am fully aware that it is possible for the government or the citizen to break thier part of this agreement. But the citizen is not required by the Constitution to adhere to laws that are passed outside the guidlines of the Constitution, as long as he is willing to accept the consequenses and fight the necessary battle tghrough the courts (not a good bet) which are empowered to strike down law if they find that law to be unConstitutional. It's part of the ballance of powers that is laid out in the Constitution.
It's an agreement, along the lines of and styled after the Mayflower Compact.
It was styled after the Magna Carta, not the Mayflower compact.
It is a promise only as long as all citizens promise to abide by it. (Which you are effectively saying you're not doing.)
At what point did I say anything that would imply that I am not law abiding. I believe that marijuana should be legal. There is nothing illegal about holding such a belief. Being knowledgable about a controlled substance is not illegal. Supporting a change to the law is not illegal.
The greed is not coming from corporations. They're just people working to make money. The greed is from government who takes but doesn't make. Government doesn't produce anything but more government.
The political party that usually makes such assertions just took us from having a surplus in the budget to having a national debt that is growing at a rate of $1.6 billion per day. The people who are proffiting most from this deficit are the large corporations, who by selling you a bill of goods about "smaller government" and "lower taxes", thier media got you to vote for the people who will take more of our money away from us and give it to the people who need it the least. Where do you think that money goes, to welfare recipients? It goes to buying Halliburton control over another country's oil industry, it goes to purchasing $475 million dollars in Windows installs at $970.00 a pop, it goes to the defense contractors, the airline companies, intelligence operations designed to ensure American oil companies can control the oil industry in Venazuela.
I'm not saying there aren't bad companies or immoral practicies in business, but government is hardly the best solution to the problem.
What I'm saying is that bad companies and bad government go hand in hand.I would never be so foolish as to think that I could count on the one to save me from the other.
The poster supplies two good links with valid research and information, does not take a judgemental stand on the issue and leaves the opinion up to the reader. A simple and informative post that in no way seems intended to incite or mislead.
Moderators, get a clue. Just because a post doesn't line up with your worldview doesn't mean it's a troll.
OT thread, maybe. But not a troll.