I read about this man several years ago and his claims to have accessed some incredible information about exotic anti gravity, free energy and aliens. What really didn't make a whole lot of sense to me, is if he had in fact done this, and accessed information on fantastic technology that is being withheld that could help us solve our energy crises for instance, he did not keep any record of his finding or any proof at all. That it seems would be the first logical thing a person would do, especially regarding something of such importance to humanity that people really ought to know about. Here we are driving our cars burning up oil that will be gone in a few decades, destroying the environment, and meanwhile we have children starving and living in poverty all over the planet, withholding a technology that could improve quality of life drastically and end poverty would truly be a crime against humanity.
Re:All bank vaults and locks have also been cracke
on
The DRM Scorecard
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
I dont like the analogy of a bank vault at all. Its not like people are breaking into a video store and stealing videos. These are usually people who have lawfully purchased a video and want to use it for their own private purposes but this has been restricted by DRM. DRM circumvention is often an attempt for a consumer to simply use something they legally purchased for their own private use, such as making back up copies or playing it on their computer, or copying to their ipod. I dont see any problem with that unless they are distributing it to others, Once a person has legally obtained some work, it should be theirs to do as they please with it for their own private use.
We already have copyrights to protect the producers of works. DRM is going too far as it restricts the users rights to use something for their own private use, for which they have legally purchased.
These sorts of schemes to restructure the internet make me uncomfortable, because it is fine as it is. From some of the comments I hear from these people it also shows they often know very little about how the internet works, such as "instead of having parallel connections it might be better to have a mesh connection with computers sharing an internet connection". These people sound like they have no idea about network design, for instance, in many cases, networks do multiplex data from many different computers onto a single cable.
I also am concerned they want to turn the internet into a corporate controlled broadcast medium where the only people who can do things with it are big corporations, basically turning it into a computerised television, compared with how worthless television and shallow it is compared to the diversity and spectrum of the open access internet, where it seems small individual average users can put together better contne than huge media corporations, this is not appealing to me.
I believe this article indeed is nonsense. The same safety and performance features which are good for server systems also work well with desktop systems. Do I want my desktop to crash right in the middle of editing an important document? NO. And what if i want to SSH into my desktop system or use a remote X server to access it? I think I should be allowed to do that. That is one of Linuxs great strengths over Windows is its versatility and the main reason i use Linux.
Random numbers can be quite useful for a variety of applications, for instance online games and encryption. I think it would be a great idea for a true RNG to be standard equipment on every computer. This would also improve encryption quality. Probably the most secure type of encryption is one time pads, and in order for that to be reliable you need a lot of random data. Since the algorithms used to create random data from keyboard input and other activity may create certain predictable patterns, this weakens the reliability of the encryption. WIth a lot of random data, you could give your friends CDs with random data on them, to use as the pad and never have to worry about the encryption being broken.
Actually fiber optics are a good idea. The bandwidth potential is actually significantly greater than wireless. People act as though wireless is infinite, this is just ignorant. Wireless real estate is actually very limited, you only have a certain number of frequencies between 300 khz and a few gigahertz and all of these different services that want to use it and are fighting over it. Ham radio services for instance are always in jeopardy due to the increasing commercial demands for bandwidth. Being a ham radio operator i know this. Furthermore, your wireless signal and usage consumes its frequency segment within a 200 foot or so sphere, while the signal on a cable stays in the cable, and only occupies the space inside of it, so it is much more efficient as many cables can be run to increase bandwidth to levels far exceeding anything imaginable with wireless. Wireless is a joke and will never bring the high bandwidth high reliability connections you want. As well, I do think there are health issues regarding the high frequency wifi signals. I am not kidding about this, I feel nauseated when I am too near a wifi hub, I have to stay at least 20 feet away from them. So fiber gives us far greater capacity, hundreds or thousands times greater, more safely and reliably. I want a 40 gbps fiber connection into my house a thousand channels.
I do not have any problem at all with the copyright laws which prohibit the redistribution of copyrighted works. This is well within reason, that an author in order to support themselves has a right to make some money off their work. I do think the penalties have been much to harsh however, for copyright infringement. Fining persons tens of thousands of dollars who live paycheck by paycheck, something they could not do without driving themselves into bankruptcy or poverty, especially for what is a fairly non-violent and minor crime, really is going overboard. I would much rather see a few hours of community service used instead.
I also against however DRM, and DMCA, and think the DRM anti-circumvention laws are deeply unethical and go against many of the principles of a free society, by banning the distribution of intellectual works (software) oneself has produced and owns the copyright on. Media companies have demanded hardware and software to include restrictions whereby a consumer cannot even make a copy for personal archival purposes of a work that they legally purchased, including perhaps transferring it to a different device that they own. All of this should be completely legal, a person should be able to make as many copies of something they purchase for their own personal use as they wish, including transferring a video from their DVD to a VCR, or from their computer to ipod for instance. Obviously these were overintrusive restrictions which took away some very natural rights people should have to be able to personally use things they have purchased. It is understandable that there has been work to work around this technology, if only so people could truly legitimately use the videos and other material that THEY bought on their own equipment in their own homes, such as playing a DVD on their Linux machine or making some extra copies of the DVD in case one got scratched. It was a further outrage that this very understandable workarounds which really wasnt stealing anything from anyone, just allowed people to use what they bought for their own personal uses, was made illegal by DMCA. The DMCA was a further outrage since, I believe it contradicts the first amendment by making it illegal to distribute software works oneself has produced. It is a lot like saying, you are not allowed to distribute you wrote books which have certain plot lines. In case, what should be the completely legal distribution of software, which truly violates no ones copyright, and simply allows consumers to use the DVD and other items for their own personal use on their own software and hardware, illegal. DeCSS and other such software have completely legitimate and legal uses, and for most that is the only use they have, so they can easily archive and store, and view DVDs on their system, for their own person al use and convenience. they are not distributing them with anyone else.
We already have laws to protect copyright holders, if a copyrighted work is being resold in an illegal manner. The DRM nonsense and the DMCA goes quite a bit too far and is rather unneeded given copyright law already provides the tools necessary to prevent illegal redistribution among different parties of copyrighted material.
I have heard the point made that the recording companies due to take an awfully large cut off the music sales from artists, to the point where artists make very little off the sale. if this is true then perhaps there should be more independant labels, and the internet has made setting up such a company and distributing and advertising music even eisier to do than it was previously. Indeed, we need to support Net Netreuality so ISPs could not basically turn the internet into an online-version of MTV, or a modern reincarnation of AOL, where content from major corporations would be given preferential treatment, those who can pay not only for interconnectivity into their own office, but also for that of all of the hundreds of end user ISPs. This is very dangerous and threatens to destroy the internet as a medium where anyone
What I have heard about iphone has not impressed me. First Apple does not distribute an SDK so one can write applications for the Iphone. Here you have the ridiculously expensive black box which has been made useless except for whatever brain dead applications apple decides you want to use it for. I am also sure that apple probably does not distribute whatever protocols it uses to communicate with your OS, so that Linux cannot support it either. Its a prime example of closed systems which take peoples money and then control and limit how people can use the device that they paid for. I am sure getting access to the phone so if you wanted to install or tweak its OS or install another OS is likely near impossible as well. Its a rip off. Dont buy it.
Seriously, just because we can send data, with a lowecase d, does not mean we can send a human. They might just come out the other end, thier body, but no life in it, especially since we are not sending the body itself, just data representing it I suppose, sort of replicating it?
This might have better uses with sending data, computer data. Does this technique since it uses quantum entanglement, allow data to be sent faster than the speed of light, the way quantum nonlocality allows?
I certainly think this was a shameful move by XM. I am definitely opposed to such censorship. What they did is not illegal, but it is wrong. Part of the issue is XM does control the market for satellite radio, and there is little alternative for broadcast over the medium, free of censorship restrictions. Since XM controls the satellites and there is no law that says they must not censor information on leased space on those satellites, there is little alternative for people to broadcast censorship free over the medium. In fact similar laws do exist for terrestrial common carriers such as telephone companies, and as well they should apply to ISPs, that require them to carry customer data free of censorship and modification. This is essential, given the monopoly position of the telephone company, and their position in society in providing a telecommunications link which needs to be used by customers, information providers and users, to distribute content. Content distribution should not be centralised but decentralised, this assures freedom of speech, and this requires that one should not need to own a communications grid to do it, but rather should be able to rent space on another communications grid which is shared with others. The communications network can be more easily be funded as such with many users who alone couldnt afford to build their own network using it, and it encourages intellectual diversity in society, keeping access to these networks open and affordable for all.
I find it particularly astounding that a nuclear power plant control network would have any connectivity to an external network. The article mentions the traffic flow may have come externally. That a nuclear power control system is anywhere near the internet really is quite disturbing. The article also mentions infected Windows computers contributing to the outages in 2003. I find it interesting that computers involved in electrical grid would be connected to the internet or have such lax security, and even run Windows of all operating systems at all. It really is inexcusable for security to be so poor. Simply keeping network programs running as non priveleged users in a jail one would think would be basic, to protect against exploits and systems becoming corrupted.
I am always a bit skeptical when someone says the code is bad because it is old. Its not a question of age but whether or not the code is maintainable and works well or not.
Yes, that is a real problem. The solution i presented in the above message, would allow older ipv4 apps to access ipv6 servers. the old applications are a major problem, one of the worst ones. the solution does require support on the ISP end, but that is easy enough to coordinate. But even with a ipv6 only ISP, the users OS (by providing a local DNS server and doing the routing and address translation as described) could utilise the scheme to allow local ipv4 applications to access the ipv6 network.
I certainly agree with this. I have heard of plans similar to this to force people to upgrade, and at the same time accept DRM loaded software. When we look at this, the current network protocols work just fine. TCP actually works pretty well, its not really something that is TCP does have a few limits built in I believe (i believe it is the window sizes), that might make it a bit limited with extremely high bandwidth connections, but those limits are far from being reached and it is more than adequate for video, audio and other things. New versions of TCP can be developed if needed, and those can be made to work side by side with the older protocols. To say that everything has to be scrapped is just beyond ridiculous, since what upgrades which are needed can be made incrementally and with backwards and forwards compatability. It would be completely wasteful of resources, since most router and equipment actually works pretty well. If needed it can be upgraded, but to say everything has to be thrown own, when it is functioning just fine, is beyond ridiculous. The current internet is working well, and with proper management it will continue to do so.
One of the major problems with IP6 is the lack of really much of an expectation that it will need to interoperate with IPV4 for a very long time. One problem is, no one will upgrade to IPv6 since there are few websites that use it, and since no one is upgrading to IPv6, few websites are inclined to provide it. ISPs, with newer OSs if IPv6 is autoconfiguring, the users computer will automatically configure itself for IPv6. But to expect all ISPs to adopt IPv6, especially before IPv4 address space runs out, is just beyond arrogant. There has to be expected that IPv4 ISPs will be online long after IPv4 address space is maxed out, and IPv4 systems will need to be able to access IPv6 systems coming online then. Ipv6 accessing ipv4 hosts is simple, make ipv4 a subset of ipv6. One of the major problems is IPv4 being able to access IPv6 hosts, new hosts can be given v6 and v4 addresses, but this means that the address space problem has not been solved. But ISPs can be expected to continue using only v4 with some existing users, for some time after v4 address space is exhausted. There are ways for v4 to access v6, through a concerted effort of DNS servers and routers. When a v4 peer askes the local DNS server for a the IP address of a server which is v6 only server, the DNS server will return a fake v4 IP address to the v4 peer, and tell the router (which would have connections to the Ipv6 net) to to route all packets going to that fake IP coming from that v4 peer, to the IPv6 destination, converting the packets to Ipv6 as well. If a IPv4 peer wishes to access a Ipv6 peer by Ipv6 address, a neat trick also using DNS would be used, a special ip6 top level domain would be created, and ipv4 clients could request Ipv6 addresses by specifying ipv6 addresses as subdomains as of this ip6 tld. such as: 2222.2222.2222.2222.2222.2222.ip6 A portion of v4 address space needs to be set aside for this scheme for use for the fake IP addresses. Proxy servers could be provided by ISPs to convert Ipv6 hyperlinks to hyperlinks using the ipv6 tld notation. Newer web browsers could automatically do this for the user if they are on an ipv4 only network. Problem solved! This would require no changes on the user end, and the ISP could even use 6-over-4 to connect their routers to ipv6 networks even if they are not directly connected to an upstream ipv6 provider.
GMO organisms are artificial. These are DNA sequences and protiens that have been created in a way they never would have been in nature. Perhaps nature has a way of coding DNA in certain manners, and perhaps there are complex interdependancies between genes we dont know about, where if one gene is altered, it may have implications throughout the organism. Scientists claim to know what genes do, but they only know the tip of the iceberg, a gene may have numerous additional functions that they have no idea about.
It could be that GMOs are fundamentally different in someway from natural food that makes them difficult to digest. Perhaps it causes a weakening of bee colonies.
bees, humans, and so on have evolved for millions of years eating natural foods with DNA produces through natural processes. The further we get from those natural nutrition sources that are body is equipped to handle, the less efficiently your body may be able to use those foods. GMO food is unnatural food that has an unacceptably high risk. Usually i say it should be the choice of the consumer. This is so with food colours and additives. However, GMOs by their nature can contaminate non GMO crops where they are not wanted, endangering consumer choice and our right to whole, natural, and healthy foods. I do think GMOs should be banned for this reason, and the fact that non-GMO foods are natural and what we have been eating for millions of years.
I think, while in many cases I think technology is of a benefit to us, I also think that there are cases where it is harmful. We want to be selective about how we apply technology. For instance, there are drugs which have doubtless saved lives. With these drugs however, and with most technology, a person should be able to choose not to be exposed to them. No one tries for force a drug on a person, and a drug is usually used to treat a problem that exists, rather than given to everyone. Vaccines are provided to prevent diseases not currently present, however, even vaccines should be a matter of personal choice and no one should be forced to take them. The problem with GMOs is they are being forced on people who do not want them, and they are an artificial food which are being shown to have a good potential of being toxic. Furthermore, the issue of genetic pollution and the fact that crops tend to cross pollinate, endangers non-GMO fields where GMOs are not wanted, growing foods for people who do not want to eat GMOs. So the mere nature of GMO and its self replicating and transmissive quality makes it a danger to consumer freedom of choice to choose to not consume natural foods.
In regards to rat toxicity, As far as rats being intolerant of all potatoes, i am not sure about this. Rats being a scavenger species, might be equipped to handle, as such species often do, a large range of food items. I have been reading on the internet and I do see warnings to not give rats raw potatos, or green potatoes. Green potatoes are toxic to humans as well. Raw potatoes probably also would not be good for humans. Humans mainly eat cooked, ripe potatoes.
I do think that there is something odd going on here, and that the intolerance was likely not caused by a general intolerance to potatoes, but rather to the GMO ones. Studies which use a control group of a rats being fed non-GMO items can prove that. I think when it comes to something like GMO, which is an artificial food, I would rather play it safe and go with the same foods humans have been eating for thousands of years, that is, non-GMO natural foods. For me, the risk in life and health is not worth it, to allow for agribusiness to make a little more profit. I do not like playing games with health and placing myself in unneeded danger, and especially with this technology, my gut instinct tells me the danger is significant and real.
I am one who would say we should not mess with the foods that we are eating, or at least, force them on people who dont want them. I am one who does support choice about what goes into our bodies, and the right of every person to refuse to put artificial substances into them if they refuse.
I do think, humans have evolved for thousands of years eating a certain range of foods and suite of nutritional components that comes from natural foods. The further we get away from the foods we have evolved to utilise and which our bodies are best equiped to handle, the less our bodi
With all of the problems we have here on earth, I wonder if spending the billions needed to do this is the best use of money, especially when we have children starving in Africa and a serious energy and environmental problem that needs to be solved. I would much rather see the money go into physics and alternative energy research to develop clean new sources of energy that are: 1) High yield 2) Cheap and affordable 3) Clean, do not cause pollution or harm the environment 3) Renewable, comes from a source that it is not depleatable 4) Preferably non earth resources based, or that the energy yeild is so great that a massive amount of energy can be extracted from a very small amount of matter, for instance, the amount needed to power New York City for a few years should be extractable from a glass of water for instance. This would solve an immense number of problems we have on earth at this time, including the global warming situation, and the problem we have with the current fuels which are toxic and polluting, quickly being depleated and which will not renewable. We are taking, when it comes to these a much too short term view of the situation, using fuels that will be depleated in hundreds of dozens of years. We need to find energy sources which are basically infinite and undepleatable to assure the survival of this civilisation for millions of years, and furthermore, at the same time protecting and preserving the planets natural environments. One technology that could fulfill this need is free energy. If you ask me, the attitude of many scientists to this possibility is a bit arrogant and religious. Many believe that the current laws of physics are totally complete and accurate, yet to me, it looks like we really only have a tip of the iceberg in seeing and understanding the universe. No one really knows what magnetism is, they know how it acts and what it does. Neither are there any particularly elegant models which inteconnect the various forces of the universes or explain their origin. Furthermore, denials that there may be exceptions to such things as Conservation of Energy is based on an attempt at negative proof. Trying to prove that something is not possible is much more difficult than saying something is possible. This is due to the fact that there may be some circumstances where something may be possible and others where it may not be. We make the arrogant assumption that CoE applies universally in all cases, that there may not be cases where, under certain conditions it can be circumvented, without truly any knowledge that this is true or testing each one of the infinite number of possible conditions. Scientists, essentially, believe they know everything, and that their theories are perfect and complete, and how dare anyone suggest that perhaps we should look under unturned stones and that there may be undiscovered mysteries and effects in the universe that we have no identified. It is very easy to see how, if there was an effect that would allow an infinite energy supply to be produced, which only occured under a one in million arrangement of magnets, that this could have been completely overlooked till now, especially with our culture where what is taught in textbooks is never questioned and people assume it is all correct and applies under every context. Such arrogance can be quite dangerous, since it can cause us to overlook possible effects in the universe, which might free us from much of our energy crisis and limit the progress of our civilisation, and unnecessarily limit our expectations of what is possible. Physical theories, if adhered to dogmatically, can in essence control and limit peoples expectations of what is possible in reality, if the theories are incomplete, it can cause a range of effects and applications which could be of great importance to the protection of this planet and the prosperity and longevity of civilisation to be overlooked. The feeling I have from looking at our present understanding of the universe, is that while current theories have brought us closer to understanding, ther
While I suppose they may be concerned about people using this instead of subscribing to pay networks, I am skeptical about viacom losing money over having material on youtube that is avialable over its networks. Are they trying to censor this materual from the internet instead? Perhaps Viacom was really concerned about money, they would, it seems instead demand that the videos remained avialable on youtube, but instead the advertising remain intact. Although, I can see why they would want to keep the material from pay networks off Google, for fear it may keep people from subscribing to the pay networks, but I am skeptical this is happening, perhaps them calling so much attention to it perhaps is making it worse by putting the idea into peoples minds that they can use youtube for this purpose. Part of the problem, I think is the reluctance for them to provide their materials available online from viacom services legitimately through a pay download service (perhaps included at no additional cost with a subscription to the cable networks). Obviously the demand is there, and if viacom isnt going to fill the need, people will find other ways to do it. I think one solution for Viacom on this would be to provide a subscription service including with the cable network subscription, or as an option seperately, whereby all of its videos are avialable online for download.
I was just thinking about this, I was going to start a thread about this, then I saw yours. Yes, this is a serious problem. There is probably even less of an effort in the US to get people to properly dispose of the lightbulbs. Yes, the indacescent bulbs are inefficient, but I do believe that the environmental toll of millions of flourescents ending up in landfills could offset any environmental benefit we would receive from the energy savings. If I am not mistaken, the CFs also include a transformer which uses quite a bit of rare metals such as copper and so forth, mining copper isnt exactly an environmentally friendly operation. I think the US should have laws passed which would require recycling of CFs, and while we are at it, car batteries, computers, electronics, motor oil, and so on, and penalties on violations. I think if we are really serious, we would make the disposal of these items free so that there is no excuse for people to do it, and even offer roadside pickup of these items. I would like to see people who put computers and CFs into the trash given warnings and then tickets and required to properly dispose of these items.
I am planning on staying with XP too. The only thing I am concerned about is the possibility that software released for Vista will not run on XP. This is often how users are forced to upgrade.
First DRM, now this. I would not use Vista if you paid me. It sounds like its a load of rubbush to me. I hope people would get fed up with Micro$oft and decide to stop using it. But I think microsoft knows just how far to push its intrusiveness onto the user and how much rights they can take away without causing enough of an inconvience to cause the average consumer to become totally fed up with it. I think Microsoft, as well, maintains its monopoly primarily through its proprietary APIs and the fact software and drivers for commercial products usually only run on Windows. This is the major useability problem for Linux is hardware and software support. Linux is trying to make its user interfaces more "user friendly", since this is believed what turns users away. But from what I have seen, the more user friendly they try to make it with fischer price interfaces, the more useless and unuseable it becomes. They need to realise its not lack of features and configurability that makes software useable, but rather extensive features, but smart layout and design of the UI and placing more commonly features upfront and where they are easiest to get to and lesser used features deeper in the UI.
I believe the.XXX domain is a great idea. It would allow easy filtering of the entire domain, and would also allow those who wish to access these services to still do so. I do not think pornography is bad, but there should be a mechanism to prevent children from seeing them. I think this is one very simple way to do this. The other of course is mandatory PICS self labelling of websites which would allow a web browser to be configured to reliably filter such sites out. At the same time, those who want to access the content, could choose to allow it through. this is much more preferable to more intrusive means which are more difficult to implement, such as requiring age verification. Ratings would be as easy to enforce, but would be very simple to implement for all websites, without being intrusive, without making it difficult for websites to comply, and allowing the end user to do nothing more than configure a few settings on their webbrowser, not have to hand over credit card information to websites to gain access. It protects the right of all parties involved.
Slashdot Mirror
I read about this man several years ago and his claims to have accessed some incredible information about exotic anti gravity, free energy and aliens. What really didn't make a whole lot of sense to me, is if he had in fact done this, and accessed information on fantastic technology that is being withheld that could help us solve our energy crises for instance, he did not keep any record of his finding or any proof at all. That it seems would be the first logical thing a person would do, especially regarding something of such importance to humanity that people really ought to know about. Here we are driving our cars burning up oil that will be gone in a few decades, destroying the environment, and meanwhile we have children starving and living in poverty all over the planet, withholding a technology that could improve quality of life drastically and end poverty would truly be a crime against humanity.
I dont like the analogy of a bank vault at all. Its not like people are breaking into a video store and stealing videos. These are usually people who have lawfully purchased a video and want to use it for their own private purposes but this has been restricted by DRM. DRM circumvention is often an attempt for a consumer to simply use something they legally purchased for their own private use, such as making back up copies or playing it on their computer, or copying to their ipod. I dont see any problem with that unless they are distributing it to others, Once a person has legally obtained some work, it should be theirs to do as they please with it for their own private use.
We already have copyrights to protect the producers of works. DRM is going too far as it restricts the users rights to use something for their own private use, for which they have legally purchased.
These sorts of schemes to restructure the internet make me uncomfortable, because it is fine as it is. From some of the comments I hear from these people it also shows they often know very little about how the internet works, such as "instead of having parallel connections it might be better to have a mesh connection with computers sharing an internet connection". These people sound like they have no idea about network design, for instance, in many cases, networks do multiplex data from many different computers onto a single cable.
I also am concerned they want to turn the internet into a corporate controlled broadcast medium where the only people who can do things with it are big corporations, basically turning it into a computerised television, compared with how worthless television and shallow it is compared to the diversity and spectrum of the open access internet, where it seems small individual average users can put together better contne than huge media corporations, this is not appealing to me.
I believe this article indeed is nonsense. The same safety and performance features which are good for server systems also work well with desktop systems. Do I want my desktop to crash right in the middle of editing an important document? NO. And what if i want to SSH into my desktop system or use a remote X server to access it? I think I should be allowed to do that. That is one of Linuxs great strengths over Windows is its versatility and the main reason i use Linux.
Are there any practical applications of this research in technology? And what will this research tell us about the universe?
Random numbers can be quite useful for a variety of applications, for instance online games and encryption. I think it would be a great idea for a true RNG to be standard equipment on every computer. This would also improve encryption quality. Probably the most secure type of encryption is one time pads, and in order for that to be reliable you need a lot of random data. Since the algorithms used to create random data from keyboard input and other activity may create certain predictable patterns, this weakens the reliability of the encryption. WIth a lot of random data, you could give your friends CDs with random data on them, to use as the pad and never have to worry about the encryption being broken.
Actually fiber optics are a good idea. The bandwidth potential is actually significantly greater than wireless. People act as though wireless is infinite, this is just ignorant. Wireless real estate is actually very limited, you only have a certain number of frequencies between 300 khz and a few gigahertz and all of these different services that want to use it and are fighting over it. Ham radio services for instance are always in jeopardy due to the increasing commercial demands for bandwidth. Being a ham radio operator i know this. Furthermore, your wireless signal and usage consumes its frequency segment within a 200 foot or so sphere, while the signal on a cable stays in the cable, and only occupies the space inside of it, so it is much more efficient as many cables can be run to increase bandwidth to levels far exceeding anything imaginable with wireless. Wireless is a joke and will never bring the high bandwidth high reliability connections you want. As well, I do think there are health issues regarding the high frequency wifi signals. I am not kidding about this, I feel nauseated when I am too near a wifi hub, I have to stay at least 20 feet away from them. So fiber gives us far greater capacity, hundreds or thousands times greater, more safely and reliably. I want a 40 gbps fiber connection into my house a thousand channels.
I do not have any problem at all with the copyright laws which prohibit the redistribution of copyrighted works. This is well within reason, that an author in order to support themselves has a right to make some money off their work. I do think the penalties have been much to harsh however, for copyright infringement. Fining persons tens of thousands of dollars who live paycheck by paycheck, something they could not do without driving themselves into bankruptcy or poverty, especially for what is a fairly non-violent and minor crime, really is going overboard. I would much rather see a few hours of community service used instead.
I also against however DRM, and DMCA, and think the DRM anti-circumvention laws are deeply unethical and go against many of the principles of a free society, by banning the distribution of intellectual works (software) oneself has produced and owns the copyright on. Media companies have demanded hardware and software to include restrictions whereby a consumer cannot even make a copy for personal archival purposes of a work that they legally purchased, including perhaps transferring it to a different device that they own. All of this should be completely legal, a person should be able to make as many copies of something they purchase for their own personal use as they wish, including transferring a video from their DVD to a VCR, or from their computer to ipod for instance. Obviously these were overintrusive restrictions which took away some very natural rights people should have to be able to personally use things they have purchased. It is understandable that there has been work to work around this technology, if only so people could truly legitimately use the videos and other material that THEY bought on their own equipment in their own homes, such as playing a DVD on their Linux machine or making some extra copies of the DVD in case one got scratched. It was a further outrage that this very understandable workarounds which really wasnt stealing anything from anyone, just allowed people to use what they bought for their own personal uses, was made illegal by DMCA. The DMCA was a further outrage since, I believe it contradicts the first amendment by making it illegal to distribute software works oneself has produced. It is a lot like saying, you are not allowed to distribute you wrote books which have certain plot lines. In case, what should be the completely legal distribution of software, which truly violates no ones copyright, and simply allows consumers to use the DVD and other items for their own personal use on their own software and hardware, illegal. DeCSS and other such software have completely legitimate and legal uses, and for most that is the only use they have, so they can easily archive and store, and view DVDs on their system, for their own person al use and convenience. they are not distributing them with anyone else.
We already have laws to protect copyright holders, if a copyrighted work is being resold in an illegal manner. The DRM nonsense and the DMCA goes quite a bit too far and is rather unneeded given copyright law already provides the tools necessary to prevent illegal redistribution among different parties of copyrighted material.
I have heard the point made that the recording companies due to take an awfully large cut off the music sales from artists, to the point where artists make very little off the sale. if this is true then perhaps there should be more independant labels, and the internet has made setting up such a company and distributing and advertising music even eisier to do than it was previously. Indeed, we need to support Net Netreuality so ISPs could not basically turn the internet into an online-version of MTV, or a modern reincarnation of AOL, where content from major corporations would be given preferential treatment, those who can pay not only for interconnectivity into their own office, but also for that of all of the hundreds of end user ISPs. This is very dangerous and threatens to destroy the internet as a medium where anyone
What I have heard about iphone has not impressed me. First Apple does not distribute an SDK so one can write applications for the Iphone. Here you have the ridiculously expensive black box which has been made useless except for whatever brain dead applications apple decides you want to use it for. I am also sure that apple probably does not distribute whatever protocols it uses to communicate with your OS, so that Linux cannot support it either. Its a prime example of closed systems which take peoples money and then control and limit how people can use the device that they paid for. I am sure getting access to the phone so if you wanted to install or tweak its OS or install another OS is likely near impossible as well. Its a rip off. Dont buy it.
Seriously, just because we can send data, with a lowecase d, does not mean we can send a human. They might just come out the other end, thier body, but no life in it, especially since we are not sending the body itself, just data representing it I suppose, sort of replicating it?
This might have better uses with sending data, computer data. Does this technique since it uses quantum entanglement, allow data to be sent faster than the speed of light, the way quantum nonlocality allows?
I certainly think this was a shameful move by XM. I am definitely opposed to such censorship. What they did is not illegal, but it is wrong. Part of the issue is XM does control the market for satellite radio, and there is little alternative for broadcast over the medium, free of censorship restrictions. Since XM controls the satellites and there is no law that says they must not censor information on leased space on those satellites, there is little alternative for people to broadcast censorship free over the medium. In fact similar laws do exist for terrestrial common carriers such as telephone companies, and as well they should apply to ISPs, that require them to carry customer data free of censorship and modification. This is essential, given the monopoly position of the telephone company, and their position in society in providing a telecommunications link which needs to be used by customers, information providers and users, to distribute content. Content distribution should not be centralised but decentralised, this assures freedom of speech, and this requires that one should not need to own a communications grid to do it, but rather should be able to rent space on another communications grid which is shared with others. The communications network can be more easily be funded as such with many users who alone couldnt afford to build their own network using it, and it encourages intellectual diversity in society, keeping access to these networks open and affordable for all.
I find it particularly astounding that a nuclear power plant control network would have any connectivity to an external network. The article mentions the traffic flow may have come externally. That a nuclear power control system is anywhere near the internet really is quite disturbing. The article also mentions infected Windows computers contributing to the outages in 2003. I find it interesting that computers involved in electrical grid would be connected to the internet or have such lax security, and even run Windows of all operating systems at all. It really is inexcusable for security to be so poor. Simply keeping network programs running as non priveleged users in a jail one would think would be basic, to protect against exploits and systems becoming corrupted.
I am always a bit skeptical when someone says the code is bad because it is old. Its not a question of age but whether or not the code is maintainable and works well or not.
Yes, that is a real problem. The solution i presented in the above message, would allow older ipv4 apps to access ipv6 servers. the old applications are a major problem, one of the worst ones. the solution does require support on the ISP end, but that is easy enough to coordinate. But even with a ipv6 only ISP, the users OS (by providing a local DNS server and doing the routing and address translation as described) could utilise the scheme to allow local ipv4 applications to access the ipv6 network.
I certainly agree with this. I have heard of plans similar to this to force people to upgrade, and at the same time accept DRM loaded software. When we look at this, the current network protocols work just fine. TCP actually works pretty well, its not really something that is TCP does have a few limits built in I believe (i believe it is the window sizes), that might make it a bit limited with extremely high bandwidth connections, but those limits are far from being reached and it is more than adequate for video, audio and other things. New versions of TCP can be developed if needed, and those can be made to work side by side with the older protocols. To say that everything has to be scrapped is just beyond ridiculous, since what upgrades which are needed can be made incrementally and with backwards and forwards compatability. It would be completely wasteful of resources, since most router and equipment actually works pretty well. If needed it can be upgraded, but to say everything has to be thrown own, when it is functioning just fine, is beyond ridiculous. The current internet is working well, and with proper management it will continue to do so.
One of the major problems with IP6 is the lack of really much of an expectation that it will need to interoperate with IPV4 for a very long time. One problem is, no one will upgrade to IPv6 since there are few websites that use it, and since no one is upgrading to IPv6, few websites are inclined to provide it. ISPs, with newer OSs if IPv6 is autoconfiguring, the users computer will automatically configure itself for IPv6. But to expect all ISPs to adopt IPv6, especially before IPv4 address space runs out, is just beyond arrogant. There has to be expected that IPv4 ISPs will be online long after IPv4 address space is maxed out, and IPv4 systems will need to be able to access IPv6 systems coming online then. Ipv6 accessing ipv4 hosts is simple, make ipv4 a subset of ipv6. One of the major problems is IPv4 being able to access IPv6 hosts, new hosts can be given v6 and v4 addresses, but this means that the address space problem has not been solved. But ISPs can be expected to continue using only v4 with some existing users, for some time after v4 address space is exhausted. There are ways for v4 to access v6, through a concerted effort of DNS servers and routers. When a v4 peer askes the local DNS server for a the IP address of a server which is v6 only server, the DNS server will return a fake v4 IP address to the v4 peer, and tell the router (which would have connections to the Ipv6 net) to to route all packets going to that fake IP coming from that v4 peer, to the IPv6 destination, converting the packets to Ipv6 as well. If a IPv4 peer wishes to access a Ipv6 peer by Ipv6 address, a neat trick also using DNS would be used, a special ip6 top level domain would be created, and ipv4 clients could request Ipv6 addresses by specifying ipv6 addresses as subdomains as of this ip6 tld. such as: 2222.2222.2222.2222.2222.2222.ip6 A portion of v4 address space needs to be set aside for this scheme for use for the fake IP addresses. Proxy servers could be provided by ISPs to convert Ipv6 hyperlinks to hyperlinks using the ipv6 tld notation. Newer web browsers could automatically do this for the user if they are on an ipv4 only network. Problem solved! This would require no changes on the user end, and the ISP could even use 6-over-4 to connect their routers to ipv6 networks even if they are not directly connected to an upstream ipv6 provider.
I do think the GMO theory deserves a very serious look. GMO have been known to cause problems for butterflys: http://www.netlink.de/gen/Zeitung/2000/000919.html .
GMO organisms are artificial. These are DNA sequences and protiens that have been created in a way they never would have been in nature. Perhaps nature has a way of coding DNA in certain manners, and perhaps there are complex interdependancies between genes we dont know about, where if one gene is altered, it may have implications throughout the organism. Scientists claim to know what genes do, but they only know the tip of the iceberg, a gene may have numerous additional functions that they have no idea about.
It could be that GMOs are fundamentally different in someway from natural food that makes them difficult to digest. Perhaps it causes a weakening of bee colonies.
bees, humans, and so on have evolved for millions of years eating natural foods with DNA produces through natural processes. The further we get from those natural nutrition sources that are body is equipped to handle, the less efficiently your body may be able to use those foods. GMO food is unnatural food that has an unacceptably high risk. Usually i say it should be the choice of the consumer. This is so with food colours and additives. However, GMOs by their nature can contaminate non GMO crops where they are not wanted, endangering consumer choice and our right to whole, natural, and healthy foods. I do think GMOs should be banned for this reason, and the fact that non-GMO foods are natural and what we have been eating for millions of years.
I think, while in many cases I think technology is of a benefit to us, I also think that there are cases where it is harmful. We want to be selective about how we apply technology. For instance, there are drugs which have doubtless saved lives. With these drugs however, and with most technology, a person should be able to choose not to be exposed to them. No one tries for force a drug on a person, and a drug is usually used to treat a problem that exists, rather than given to everyone. Vaccines are provided to prevent diseases not currently present, however, even vaccines should be a matter of personal choice and no one should be forced to take them. The problem with GMOs is they are being forced on people who do not want them, and they are an artificial food which are being shown to have a good potential of being toxic. Furthermore, the issue of genetic pollution and the fact that crops tend to cross pollinate, endangers non-GMO fields where GMOs are not wanted, growing foods for people who do not want to eat GMOs. So the mere nature of GMO and its self replicating and transmissive quality makes it a danger to consumer freedom of choice to choose to not consume natural foods.
In regards to rat toxicity, As far as rats being intolerant of all potatoes, i am not sure about this. Rats being a scavenger species, might be equipped to handle, as such species often do, a large range of food items. I have been reading on the internet and I do see warnings to not give rats raw potatos, or green potatoes. Green potatoes are toxic to humans as well. Raw potatoes probably also would not be good for humans. Humans mainly eat cooked, ripe potatoes.
Problems have also been reported with corn and soy in rats.
http://uniorb.com/RCHECK/animalgm.htm
Also cows have been reported to die after eating GMO:
http://www.earthisland.org/project/newsPage2.cfm?n ewsID=576&pageID=177&subSiteID=44
Besides the potatos, we also have other reports of rats dying from eating GMO ingredients.
http://www.biotech-info.net/pusztai_article.html
http://www.soilassociation.org/web/sa/saweb.nsf/84 8d689047cb466780256a6b00298980/9f8d26bd0d23b83c802 5704600419579!OpenDocument
http://www.newswithviews.com/Smith/jeffrey8.htm
I do think that there is something odd going on here, and that the intolerance was likely not caused by a general intolerance to potatoes, but rather to the GMO ones. Studies which use a control group of a rats being fed non-GMO items can prove that.
I think when it comes to something like GMO, which is an artificial food, I would rather play it safe and go with the same foods humans have been eating for thousands of years, that is, non-GMO natural foods. For me, the risk in life and health is not worth it, to allow for agribusiness to make a little more profit. I do not like playing games with health and placing myself in unneeded danger, and especially with this technology, my gut instinct tells me the danger is significant and real.
I am one who would say we should not mess with the foods that we are eating, or at least, force them on people who dont want them. I am one who does support choice about what goes into our bodies, and the right of every person to refuse to put artificial substances into them if they refuse.
I do think, humans have evolved for thousands of years eating a certain range of foods and suite of nutritional components that comes from natural foods. The further we get away from the foods we have evolved to utilise and which our bodies are best equiped to handle, the less our bodi
With all of the problems we have here on earth, I wonder if spending the billions needed to do this is the best use of money, especially when we have children starving in Africa and a serious energy and environmental problem that needs to be solved. I would much rather see the money go into physics and alternative energy research to develop clean new sources of energy that are: 1) High yield 2) Cheap and affordable 3) Clean, do not cause pollution or harm the environment 3) Renewable, comes from a source that it is not depleatable 4) Preferably non earth resources based, or that the energy yeild is so great that a massive amount of energy can be extracted from a very small amount of matter, for instance, the amount needed to power New York City for a few years should be extractable from a glass of water for instance. This would solve an immense number of problems we have on earth at this time, including the global warming situation, and the problem we have with the current fuels which are toxic and polluting, quickly being depleated and which will not renewable. We are taking, when it comes to these a much too short term view of the situation, using fuels that will be depleated in hundreds of dozens of years. We need to find energy sources which are basically infinite and undepleatable to assure the survival of this civilisation for millions of years, and furthermore, at the same time protecting and preserving the planets natural environments. One technology that could fulfill this need is free energy. If you ask me, the attitude of many scientists to this possibility is a bit arrogant and religious. Many believe that the current laws of physics are totally complete and accurate, yet to me, it looks like we really only have a tip of the iceberg in seeing and understanding the universe. No one really knows what magnetism is, they know how it acts and what it does. Neither are there any particularly elegant models which inteconnect the various forces of the universes or explain their origin. Furthermore, denials that there may be exceptions to such things as Conservation of Energy is based on an attempt at negative proof. Trying to prove that something is not possible is much more difficult than saying something is possible. This is due to the fact that there may be some circumstances where something may be possible and others where it may not be. We make the arrogant assumption that CoE applies universally in all cases, that there may not be cases where, under certain conditions it can be circumvented, without truly any knowledge that this is true or testing each one of the infinite number of possible conditions. Scientists, essentially, believe they know everything, and that their theories are perfect and complete, and how dare anyone suggest that perhaps we should look under unturned stones and that there may be undiscovered mysteries and effects in the universe that we have no identified. It is very easy to see how, if there was an effect that would allow an infinite energy supply to be produced, which only occured under a one in million arrangement of magnets, that this could have been completely overlooked till now, especially with our culture where what is taught in textbooks is never questioned and people assume it is all correct and applies under every context. Such arrogance can be quite dangerous, since it can cause us to overlook possible effects in the universe, which might free us from much of our energy crisis and limit the progress of our civilisation, and unnecessarily limit our expectations of what is possible. Physical theories, if adhered to dogmatically, can in essence control and limit peoples expectations of what is possible in reality, if the theories are incomplete, it can cause a range of effects and applications which could be of great importance to the protection of this planet and the prosperity and longevity of civilisation to be overlooked. The feeling I have from looking at our present understanding of the universe, is that while current theories have brought us closer to understanding, ther
While I suppose they may be concerned about people using this instead of subscribing to pay networks, I am skeptical about viacom losing money over having material on youtube that is avialable over its networks. Are they trying to censor this materual from the internet instead? Perhaps Viacom was really concerned about money, they would, it seems instead demand that the videos remained avialable on youtube, but instead the advertising remain intact. Although, I can see why they would want to keep the material from pay networks off Google, for fear it may keep people from subscribing to the pay networks, but I am skeptical this is happening, perhaps them calling so much attention to it perhaps is making it worse by putting the idea into peoples minds that they can use youtube for this purpose. Part of the problem, I think is the reluctance for them to provide their materials available online from viacom services legitimately through a pay download service (perhaps included at no additional cost with a subscription to the cable networks). Obviously the demand is there, and if viacom isnt going to fill the need, people will find other ways to do it. I think one solution for Viacom on this would be to provide a subscription service including with the cable network subscription, or as an option seperately, whereby all of its videos are avialable online for download.
One word: gmail. If she needs an account I will be more than happy to send her an invitation. You never have to worry about losing e-mails again.
I was just thinking about this, I was going to start a thread about this, then I saw yours. Yes, this is a serious problem. There is probably even less of an effort in the US to get people to properly dispose of the lightbulbs. Yes, the indacescent bulbs are inefficient, but I do believe that the environmental toll of millions of flourescents ending up in landfills could offset any environmental benefit we would receive from the energy savings. If I am not mistaken, the CFs also include a transformer which uses quite a bit of rare metals such as copper and so forth, mining copper isnt exactly an environmentally friendly operation. I think the US should have laws passed which would require recycling of CFs, and while we are at it, car batteries, computers, electronics, motor oil, and so on, and penalties on violations. I think if we are really serious, we would make the disposal of these items free so that there is no excuse for people to do it, and even offer roadside pickup of these items. I would like to see people who put computers and CFs into the trash given warnings and then tickets and required to properly dispose of these items.
I am planning on staying with XP too. The only thing I am concerned about is the possibility that software released for Vista will not run on XP. This is often how users are forced to upgrade.
First DRM, now this. I would not use Vista if you paid me. It sounds like its a load of rubbush to me. I hope people would get fed up with Micro$oft and decide to stop using it. But I think microsoft knows just how far to push its intrusiveness onto the user and how much rights they can take away without causing enough of an inconvience to cause the average consumer to become totally fed up with it. I think Microsoft, as well, maintains its monopoly primarily through its proprietary APIs and the fact software and drivers for commercial products usually only run on Windows. This is the major useability problem for Linux is hardware and software support. Linux is trying to make its user interfaces more "user friendly", since this is believed what turns users away. But from what I have seen, the more user friendly they try to make it with fischer price interfaces, the more useless and unuseable it becomes. They need to realise its not lack of features and configurability that makes software useable, but rather extensive features, but smart layout and design of the UI and placing more commonly features upfront and where they are easiest to get to and lesser used features deeper in the UI.
I dont think anyone can really know exactly what is in the Windows Kernel when it is closed source.
I believe the .XXX domain is a great idea. It would allow easy filtering of the entire domain, and would also allow those who wish to access these services to still do so. I do not think pornography is bad, but there should be a mechanism to prevent children from seeing them. I think this is one very simple way to do this. The other of course is mandatory PICS self labelling of websites which would allow a web browser to be configured to reliably filter such sites out. At the same time, those who want to access the content, could choose to allow it through. this is much more preferable to more intrusive means which are more difficult to implement, such as requiring age verification. Ratings would be as easy to enforce, but would be very simple to implement for all websites, without being intrusive, without making it difficult for websites to comply, and allowing the end user to do nothing more than configure a few settings on their webbrowser, not have to hand over credit card information to websites to gain access. It protects the right of all parties involved.