The technical workaround is good, but I think this is one rare case where legal action might be reasonable.
In the sense that Verisign operates under a.gov mandate, I couldn't agree more. I'd just like to see them blocked from this kind of behavior by a one-time governmental action as opposed to a bunch of individual and class actions to recoup damages for the suffering of being subjected to advertising on misstyped URLs.:-)
As UU7 just pointed out, the idea is to redirect requests with foreign headers to the front door. The vast majority of modern clients will send the header, and if it is blank, you can either elect to let them have the page, or force them to the front door and set a cookie.
If someone is so gung ho about privacy that they disable the referer header and refuse cookies, then they must accept that sites with policies that require them to come through the front door and accept a token will be unavailable to them. Publishers are under no obligation to provide their material without at least a nominal quid pro quo from the user.
And the BIND solution is an excellent response in the spirit of the network's self-healing nature. I'd rather see it solved this way than through a bunch of law suits that benefit none but the attorneys.
I can't help but think of the contraversy over deep linking and how all those stupid suits could have been avoided if server operators would have just detected the referer header and bounced deep links back to the home page...
Soundex is a turd. I'd rather see error messages than a litany of near matches that is poor in both precision and recall.
Algorithms based on phonology (and the word splitting you mention, possibly, though I'd expect that to increase recall with no precision boost in the kind of noisy example you cite) would do better, but building that kind of processing into something with the performance requirements of BIND would bring the network to a crawl. Maybe once we get those quantum computers in place.:-)
Would you rather have the taxes in the US rise to absorb the problem, which the RIAA still gets paid? That's extremely "out of sight, out of mind".
That's exactly what the US did in 1992 with the Audio Home Recording Act. The music cartels were inflamed about digital audio tape (DAT) and successfully levied a tax against that medium and serial copy protection into DAT recorders. Being "out of sight, out of mind" only a handful of technologists and audiophiles were affected, and the issue remained largely invisible. It basically killed DAT as a populist format, which suited the recording industry fine. Of course, independents were screwed because they had to buy crippled equipment and pay a levy to RIAA et al for the privilege of mastering their own music!
I'd rather have the lawsuits and RIAA absurdity kept in plain sight, thanks.
Hear hear. I am also glad that the current contraversy is playing out so boldly. It's time that the public at large realizes who's turning the screws on their culture and technology...
Quick show of hands: Who else read this as the first element of the Allah array?
That was my first thought. My second was that it was like JHVH1 of the Subgenius mythos.
Re:I have always wondered...
on
Blind Lake
·
· Score: 1
Sooo... What we've got is light that travels faster than light?
Exactly! And that's not the weirdest part. The experiment involved shooting a pulse of light through a gas that accelerated it. The result was that the pulse appeared to exit the gas chamber before it entered it!
Re:I have always wondered...
on
Blind Lake
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
You'd need a telescope with a mirror several light-years across the see the Kennedy assassination now.
Given that the poster already is postulating travel at v > c, is it not unreasonable to also assume a telescope based on a design other than our lens- or mirror-based technology? For example, he/she might use some sort of gravitational lensing technology to focus the collected light.
Also, c as a cosmological speed limit has come into a share of contraversy from what I've been reading lately. Granted, we're a long way from "travelling" at v > c, but there have been experiments that appear to accelerate light past c. (I don't know what their review status is, but such work has been published.)
The sex.com case is blazing the trail in this area, and I think it's relevant to point out that (1) the original registrar has now received his domain back and a major judgement against the hijacker and (2) Network Solutions may yet suffer consequences for their negligence in the transfer.
Nonetheless, I like your example. Think I'll go register whothehellwouldwantthisdomain.com!:-)
However, how many Heywood Jablowmie's are there in the WHOIS database?
Heywood must not care much to keep his domain. I recently received a letter from NetSol asking me to verify the information in my registration and reminding that incomplete or bogus records could result in the registration being invalidated.
Also, I think someone else mentioned this, but it might be hard to defend yourself against a hijack case if you don't have accurate records in your registration "paper" trail.
Go to the Project Censored site and try to find one (just one) 'censored' topic that is not what we in the US would consider a liberal viewpoint (they have the their top 25 going back to 1999).
Quid pro quo. Find me a 25 list of conservative-viewpoint stories censored by the "liberal media".
No, but when EVERY one of those "censored" stories clearly have the same agenda (ie, being miles left of center), it is fair to assume that the site's reporting is pretty highly slanted.
I have no problem with the assessment that this piece is slanted. I have yet to find a news source that is not slanted in one direction or another. What is interesting to me is how the middle-of-the-road media so effectively avoids stirring the intellects of their readers/listeners/viewers by shying away from stories with a hint of slant (unless of course it's to get on their high and mighty about "partisan politics"). I would argue it is the most slanted stories that most deserve reporting, because they challenge us to really examine both the facts and the motivations of the parties making the news. The bullshit can easily be dried out when its in the sunshine, but the media's shying from contraversial subjects does the public a disservice.
Out of curiosity, can you point me to 25 similarly underreported stories that would compose an Ultra-Conservatism 101?
I didn't realize that being liberal was equivalent with being interested in the what actually happens in the world, instead of what gets filtered through the short attention span, J-Lo and Ben sieve.
Would you care to respond with substantive argument instead of name calling?
The distinction is critical because this discussion, if it is to have any value and not just be another/. moronathon, has to be precise to avoid descending into flame wars and more "+5 Insightful" moderated posts of "copyright infringement != theft". Let's examine your quote again:
The RIAA are NOT the creators of this music, they are the marketers.
The direct object implied for the second assertion of the sentence is "the music" as stated in the first half, i.e. they are the marketers of the music. The are not marketers of music any more than IEEE is a marketer of stereos. Saying that trade groups are product marketers is exactly the same kind of slanted abuse of language that RIAA uses when it says that copyright infringement is theft. Had you said they were the marketers of the music industry, I wouldn't have contested it.
Actually, since you called me out I had to go back and look again and I found another misstatement in your post:
The RIAA, who have been convicted of price-fixing...
RIAA was not convicted of anything. Some of the major labels and retail chains entered into a settlement with a number of states to pay damages for alleged price fixing. I haven't read the settlement word-for-word, but these things usually include language that can be roughly paraphrased "while admitting no wrongdoing, I pay you off to shut you up".
I thought your post showed real insight and deserved to be heard above the babble of nonsense that usually pervades threads on this topic. I just thought I'd step in and try to clarify a point to strengthen your argument.
The RIAA are NOT the creators of this music, they are the marketers.
RIAA are not marketers. The labels do their own marketing. RIAA is a trade group that exists to protect and promote the interests of their member labels, but they do not engage in marketing per se (except, of course, for their recent "marketing" of the concept of copyright infringement == theft in service of their primary mission).
Furthemore, it strikes me, that just 22% of the people involved felt the differnce according to the article. This is not that much, meaning that majority of people don't seem to react to infrasound at all.
And how does that stack against the percentage experiencing paranormal phenomena?
Or a Minimoog or other synth capable of producing subsonic oscillations and a PA with decent bass response. Certainly a more expensive option than a hunk of pipe, but it takes up considerably less space...
The only way for there to be a "changing tide" is if they are seriously affected monetarily, as in a major drop in sales, or if they are legally bound by a
class action suite or something similar.
Given that it is not realistic that most people will go to the trouble (i.e. hundreds of $ worth of wasted time and/or cash) necessary to collect $10-$20 on a "defective" CD, I see a class action as the only viable legal option. IAAL's chime in: Is there any realistic hope of getting one started? I have been burned by at least one CD (Warning: Soviet Russia joke suppressed) that I couldn't play or return for a refund, so I would be happy to sign on...
Correct me, If I am indeed wrong, however a One in 909,000 chance is for the most part, hardly worth consideration.
In our normal day-to-day life these seem like fairly long odds, but considering them in the context of the space and time scale of the solar system 1:909000 is a virtual certainty.
At least Insightful mods are still +1...Funny mods do bugger-all for your karma.
I don't really care about the karma. It's the cascading slant the moderations' labels tend to give the posts that gets on me. One person mods it insightful, and the next thinks it was intended as such and replies with real insight all out of proportion to what the wiseacre warrants.
I'd just as soon see the number and the heck with "Insightful", "Funny" etc unless we can actually filter posts by types of moderation rather than just total.
And, of course, there is nothing wrong with being a smart-ass in my book!
Slashdot Mirror
I was thinking we should make a videogame where the mission objective is to kill ambulance-chasing lawyers.
What a recursion that would set off...
In the sense that Verisign operates under a
As UU7 just pointed out, the idea is to redirect requests with foreign headers to the front door. The vast majority of modern clients will send the header, and if it is blank, you can either elect to let them have the page, or force them to the front door and set a cookie.
If someone is so gung ho about privacy that they disable the referer header and refuse cookies, then they must accept that sites with policies that require them to come through the front door and accept a token will be unavailable to them. Publishers are under no obligation to provide their material without at least a nominal quid pro quo from the user.
And the BIND solution is an excellent response in the spirit of the network's self-healing nature. I'd rather see it solved this way than through a bunch of law suits that benefit none but the attorneys.
I can't help but think of the contraversy over deep linking and how all those stupid suits could have been avoided if server operators would have just detected the referer header and bounced deep links back to the home page...
Soundex is a turd. I'd rather see error messages than a litany of near matches that is poor in both precision and recall.
:-)
Algorithms based on phonology (and the word splitting you mention, possibly, though I'd expect that to increase recall with no precision boost in the kind of noisy example you cite) would do better, but building that kind of processing into something with the performance requirements of BIND would bring the network to a crawl. Maybe once we get those quantum computers in place.
Could very well be, since the law does refer generally to digital audio recording media, and not specifically to DAT. Here is the text, btw.
That's exactly what the US did in 1992 with the Audio Home Recording Act. The music cartels were inflamed about digital audio tape (DAT) and successfully levied a tax against that medium and serial copy protection into DAT recorders. Being "out of sight, out of mind" only a handful of technologists and audiophiles were affected, and the issue remained largely invisible. It basically killed DAT as a populist format, which suited the recording industry fine. Of course, independents were screwed because they had to buy crippled equipment and pay a levy to RIAA et al for the privilege of mastering their own music!
Hear hear. I am also glad that the current contraversy is playing out so boldly. It's time that the public at large realizes who's turning the screws on their culture and technology...
That was my first thought. My second was that it was like JHVH1 of the Subgenius mythos.
Exactly! And that's not the weirdest part. The experiment involved shooting a pulse of light through a gas that accelerated it. The result was that the pulse appeared to exit the gas chamber before it entered it!
Given that the poster already is postulating travel at v > c, is it not unreasonable to also assume a telescope based on a design other than our lens- or mirror-based technology? For example, he/she might use some sort of gravitational lensing technology to focus the collected light.
Also, c as a cosmological speed limit has come into a share of contraversy from what I've been reading lately. Granted, we're a long way from "travelling" at v > c, but there have been experiments that appear to accelerate light past c. (I don't know what their review status is, but such work has been published.)
The sex.com case is blazing the trail in this area, and I think it's relevant to point out that (1) the original registrar has now received his domain back and a major judgement against the hijacker and (2) Network Solutions may yet suffer consequences for their negligence in the transfer.
:-)
Nonetheless, I like your example. Think I'll go register whothehellwouldwantthisdomain.com!
Heywood must not care much to keep his domain. I recently received a letter from NetSol asking me to verify the information in my registration and reminding that incomplete or bogus records could result in the registration being invalidated.
Also, I think someone else mentioned this, but it might be hard to defend yourself against a hijack case if you don't have accurate records in your registration "paper" trail.
Quid pro quo. Find me a 25 list of conservative-viewpoint stories censored by the "liberal media".
I have no problem with the assessment that this piece is slanted. I have yet to find a news source that is not slanted in one direction or another. What is interesting to me is how the middle-of-the-road media so effectively avoids stirring the intellects of their readers/listeners/viewers by shying away from stories with a hint of slant (unless of course it's to get on their high and mighty about "partisan politics"). I would argue it is the most slanted stories that most deserve reporting, because they challenge us to really examine both the facts and the motivations of the parties making the news. The bullshit can easily be dried out when its in the sunshine, but the media's shying from contraversial subjects does the public a disservice.
Out of curiosity, can you point me to 25 similarly underreported stories that would compose an Ultra-Conservatism 101?
I didn't realize that being liberal was equivalent with being interested in the what actually happens in the world, instead of what gets filtered through the short attention span, J-Lo and Ben sieve.
Would you care to respond with substantive argument instead of name calling?
The direct object implied for the second assertion of the sentence is "the music" as stated in the first half, i.e. they are the marketers of the music. The are not marketers of music any more than IEEE is a marketer of stereos. Saying that trade groups are product marketers is exactly the same kind of slanted abuse of language that RIAA uses when it says that copyright infringement is theft. Had you said they were the marketers of the music industry, I wouldn't have contested it.
Actually, since you called me out I had to go back and look again and I found another misstatement in your post:
RIAA was not convicted of anything. Some of the major labels and retail chains entered into a settlement with a number of states to pay damages for alleged price fixing. I haven't read the settlement word-for-word, but these things usually include language that can be roughly paraphrased "while admitting no wrongdoing, I pay you off to shut you up".
I thought your post showed real insight and deserved to be heard above the babble of nonsense that usually pervades threads on this topic. I just thought I'd step in and try to clarify a point to strengthen your argument.
RIAA are not marketers. The labels do their own marketing. RIAA is a trade group that exists to protect and promote the interests of their member labels, but they do not engage in marketing per se (except, of course, for their recent "marketing" of the concept of copyright infringement == theft in service of their primary mission).
Pedant mode off...
My God! Could this mean people are actually taking the time to read the article?
And how does that stack against the percentage experiencing paranormal phenomena?
Or a Minimoog or other synth capable of producing subsonic oscillations and a PA with decent bass response. Certainly a more expensive option than a hunk of pipe, but it takes up considerably less space...
Given that it is not realistic that most people will go to the trouble (i.e. hundreds of $ worth of wasted time and/or cash) necessary to collect $10-$20 on a "defective" CD, I see a class action as the only viable legal option. IAAL's chime in: Is there any realistic hope of getting one started? I have been burned by at least one CD (Warning: Soviet Russia joke suppressed) that I couldn't play or return for a refund, so I would be happy to sign on...
SCO and Scientology. What a scary thought...
In our normal day-to-day life these seem like fairly long odds, but considering them in the context of the space and time scale of the solar system 1:909000 is a virtual certainty.
Er, except that it requires you to legally commit to documents you have not been given...
If you find that acceptable, how about I cover up my mortgage contract except for the signature line and let you sign it...
I don't really care about the karma. It's the cascading slant the moderations' labels tend to give the posts that gets on me. One person mods it insightful, and the next thinks it was intended as such and replies with real insight all out of proportion to what the wiseacre warrants.
I'd just as soon see the number and the heck with "Insightful", "Funny" etc unless we can actually filter posts by types of moderation rather than just total.
And, of course, there is nothing wrong with being a smart-ass in my book!
OK. -1 Offtopic for me.