Re:Hackers, tell us when it will get here
on
Good Bad Attitude
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I agree that the article has a little bit of a paranoid tone, but also I think it makes a valid point, and that the governments' willingness to bow to corporate interests because they have conslidated power in the form of money, whereas the consumers do not, is a good indications of the destabilizing of the integrity of the government.
The threat to governments always lives in the gray, not the black or the white. Any destabilization of government takes the form of choices in the gray area, choices which are made for reasons which are in a perceived auxilliary environment to morality, and then leads to the polarization which destroys said government.
Re:I'd put more money on the animals...
on
Good Bad Attitude
·
· Score: 1
So your point is... animal are more keen and aware than hackers.. because they respect copyright law?
I've been playing around with my X10 wireless cam and Motion.
Motion has motion detection and whatnot, and it's a pretty nice program, extremely configurable and extensible. Makes a nice webcam with java streaming .
I think the problem the courts will have to face is the fact that not only do companies create P2P software, individual developers create P2P software for free. They do not profit on it. This makes the *AA's case significantly shakier, because they can't prattle on about how the 'business model' attempts to skirt copyright law; there will be no business model. There will be no profit, IE no sinister motive.
Will I be sued because I release a program that makes distributing copyrighted media possible for free? What programs *don't* have the potential to facilitate this in some manner, anyway?
I think this slippery slope is the kind of things courts know can not stand up, and I'm hoping they will have the wisdom not to hang the law on this one.
The MPAA and RIAA just want the courts to believe that they just need to stop a few *evil* companies from doing business, and the copyright holders' troubles will be over. I'm hoping that the courts can't be so stupid as to believe them.
The problem is that RFID can be read without you giving permission for it to be read, unlike a bar code.
Personally, I do not give permissions for anybody to monitor my behavoir in this fashion, be them the government, or the private companies who will find this a convenient way of monitoring purchasing habits. If in your ideal world, everyone is conveniently trackable by law, that's fine, but I'll be fighting it every step of the way. If you feel it's your right to force this on me, then I'll see you at my mountain stronghold in a couple years.
I couldn't agree more. This seems to me to be an awfully touchy move for google. Depending on how "good" their google print service is at serving me up convenient advertisements for books, I might just go find me another less spammy search engine.
My brand loyalty for google dies the second they waste as much of my time as it takes me to change my bookmarks and firefox search engines to point to a less spammy search engine.
That's odd, how do they expect to maintain state among the users? Everyone knows you can't truly keep a specific person from viewing a specific web page over and over, while still making that web page available to others.
If the have to resort to attempting to maintain state with users in order to restrict the number of pages a certain person can load per book, they will find all their books being ripped off very quickly.
I'm not sure this is a good thing. When I search google I'm not looking for information which I could have in a week or two if I shell out $30. I'm looking for information that is free that I can have right now. It'd be one thing if these results would appear in the advertisements bar, or if you could disable them (actually it should be that you have to *en*able them), but all in all I get the feeling this will end up watering down the usefulness of google search results I receive by interspersing what I'm really not interested in.
If google were interested in following "Don't be evil", wouldn't they make this feature a seperate search form, rather than placing their advertisements right in the middle of my search results?
Maybe I just misunderstand.. Correct me if I'm wrong
I'm one cats crazy. But I think I get bonus points since every cat I've ever owned has been named after a unix text editor. What's strange, is the cats outcomes has been reflective of the state of their namesakes.
Jed - Ran away. Came back miraculously a few months later, but could not be domesticated.
Pico - Healthy cat, raised from a kitten, found dead inexplicably one day in the backyard.
Lynx (OK, not a text editor) - Great cat, lots of fun, worked for years, then disappeared, presumably coyote food.
Emacs - The only cat I still use now. Extremely independent and reliable, can be trained to strange behavoir, but only if he wants to be trained.
While you make a good point that the antitrust case gave mozilla a chance to rise, I don't think you should attribute the rise of Linux to the antitrust case. To me, Linux, the free software movement as it stands today in general is completely attributable to the internet. If nothing else, Linux helped Microsoft's case with their "Oh yes there is competition! See?!?! *point at Linux*" argument.
To me, the antitrust case just kind of fizzled out, without answering a truly important question in the software world:
In software, it is logical that since software integration of applications is very important to users, that the company that controls the integration API, if large enough, could stifle *all* competition in the software market. In my opinion, it's not even necessarily the product of purposeful anti-competitive behavoir, it's the logical result of software development. Therefore, where will the government draw it's lines in anti trust cases like this one?
It makes a good case for free software, which is why I had hoped that the case would get real messy, and make a lot of people scratch their heads, thinking "Well if software is anti-competitive by nature, what is the answer?"
Google lawyers never told "Don't be evil"
on
The Google News Dilemma
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
It's hard to feel sorry for Google, though. In April, lawyers for the billion-dollar search engine company that Sergey Brin and Larry Page founded sent their own cease-and-desist letter to Julian Bond, a British programmer who had created customized RSS feeds from Google News.
Ironically, the letter informed Bond that Google does not permit "webmasters to display Google News headlines on their sites."
Apparently someone forgot to tell Google's lawyers about the whole "Don't be evil" thing.
How can they think that people accessing google news via RSS is bad for them, especiallysince google is not making money from google news via advertising?
Given that, we have a choice of condemning the Dems for not standing up for what is right at a time when the whole country was screaming at them to DO SOMETHING. Not good, but understandle human nature.
If the Democrats had held the power the Republicans did, they would have rolled out a similar bill. Can you show me some evidence that the Bush team had the details of the Patriot Act ready to roll? Why would Bush be so interested in restricting the freedom of Americans in a the pre 9/11 world?
Anyway I agree with you, but I don't really find either side less scary than the other. Nobody has really shown me any good evidence that the Dems were just *forced* to go along with Bush on his crusade to eliminate American freedom.
Pharmaceutical industry vs insurance industry.
Accountants vs investors.
Polluters vs growers.
What are these people running from? They're not! They're running to the world's toughest gameshow in town.
I'm not arguing with your point that this device is indeed useful, but as for your question of how else could you listen to John and Ken, you can record radio off of internet streams very easily, and if you know how to use schedulers or shell script you can time shift just as easily.
Now Howard Stern, with his no-internet-streaming BS, is another matter.
I think he was implying that they will be upset about the rift between the historical accounts given by science and religion.
Your response makes it sound as if he implied that people who believed in evolution could not be religious, when he wasn't even anywhere near the neighborhood of saying that.
My problem is that we have something that is supposedly illegal being completely ignored. Personally, I feel that since the economy already supports illegal immigrants, that it could only do better by making them legal taxpaying citizens. I find it backwards that we pass laws to give illegal immigrants benefits normally enjoyed by taxpayers before addressing the real problems of their failure to pay taxes.
Instead of dealing with the problem, the actual illegal immigration, we deal with the symptom, the illegal immigrants. Politicians won't touch the situation because of the Mexican lobby. Would they be able to convince their Mexican constituency that they could increase the ease and volume of legal immigration, and use the saved money to fund better border patrols, for the benefit of all?
If the Mexican people like our government so much, why don't we just open the border, then when Mexico has all of 10,000 citizens left, we'll annex it into the U.S. I know I know, impossible, ignorant, etc, but it would be neat.
Personally, though I'm no fan of aerial surveillance, I think that the Supreme Court made the logical call here; I believe that the rights of a law agency to surveillance without a warrant are more of less the same as the common citizenry.
If looking into a private residence with thermal imaging devices were legal, every pervert in the world would be spending their evenings legally looking in to all the 13 year old girls' bedrooms.
On the other hand, aerial surveillance can't really be illegal, because (civilian) pilots can't help but see down on to private property, so they can't simply make it illegal.
In this case, the courts worked along the line of thought that government agencies have no more right to violate privacy than the common citizens unless they can provide probable cause, and as long as they support that precept I support them.
I think the parent's point wasn't partisan at all, but that he believes in the fact that you should vote for who you want to win, not for who you think you can make win by voting. That's the only reason the same 2 big corrupt parties that exist today still exist; people vote for who they think they can make win by voting, not who they want to win. It seems to me that most people vote because theres a slim chance their vote will influence the election, and I think that this runs counter to the best features of democracy.
Slashdot Mirror
The threat to governments always lives in the gray, not the black or the white. Any destabilization of government takes the form of choices in the gray area, choices which are made for reasons which are in a perceived auxilliary environment to morality, and then leads to the polarization which destroys said government.
So your point is... animal are more keen and aware than hackers.. because they respect copyright law?
Motion has motion detection and whatnot, and it's a pretty nice program, extremely configurable and extensible. Makes a nice webcam with java streaming .
Mother, should I trust the government?
Will I be sued because I release a program that makes distributing copyrighted media possible for free? What programs *don't* have the potential to facilitate this in some manner, anyway?
I think this slippery slope is the kind of things courts know can not stand up, and I'm hoping they will have the wisdom not to hang the law on this one.
The MPAA and RIAA just want the courts to believe that they just need to stop a few *evil* companies from doing business, and the copyright holders' troubles will be over. I'm hoping that the courts can't be so stupid as to believe them.
Personally, I do not give permissions for anybody to monitor my behavoir in this fashion, be them the government, or the private companies who will find this a convenient way of monitoring purchasing habits. If in your ideal world, everyone is conveniently trackable by law, that's fine, but I'll be fighting it every step of the way. If you feel it's your right to force this on me, then I'll see you at my mountain stronghold in a couple years.
The fact that it is useful is why I think that it should be put on a seperate search form, or be disablable.
My brand loyalty for google dies the second they waste as much of my time as it takes me to change my bookmarks and firefox search engines to point to a less spammy search engine.
If the have to resort to attempting to maintain state with users in order to restrict the number of pages a certain person can load per book, they will find all their books being ripped off very quickly.
If google were interested in following "Don't be evil", wouldn't they make this feature a seperate search form, rather than placing their advertisements right in the middle of my search results?
Maybe I just misunderstand.. Correct me if I'm wrong
And here's proof that life-imitates-sarcastic-slashdot-posts:
There's enough out there to warrant purchasing a GPU... Now I must go punish myself for responding to a troll.
Jed - Ran away. Came back miraculously a few months later, but could not be domesticated.
Pico - Healthy cat, raised from a kitten, found dead inexplicably one day in the backyard.
Lynx (OK, not a text editor) - Great cat, lots of fun, worked for years, then disappeared, presumably coyote food.
Emacs - The only cat I still use now. Extremely independent and reliable, can be trained to strange behavoir, but only if he wants to be trained.
Name your pets wisely!
To me, the antitrust case just kind of fizzled out, without answering a truly important question in the software world:
In software, it is logical that since software integration of applications is very important to users, that the company that controls the integration API, if large enough, could stifle *all* competition in the software market. In my opinion, it's not even necessarily the product of purposeful anti-competitive behavoir, it's the logical result of software development. Therefore, where will the government draw it's lines in anti trust cases like this one?
It makes a good case for free software, which is why I had hoped that the case would get real messy, and make a lot of people scratch their heads, thinking "Well if software is anti-competitive by nature, what is the answer?"
Anyway I agree with you, but I don't really find either side less scary than the other. Nobody has really shown me any good evidence that the Dems were just *forced* to go along with Bush on his crusade to eliminate American freedom.
I'm voting for Cobb anyway.
Most Extreme Elimination Challenge!
Now Howard Stern, with his no-internet-streaming BS, is another matter.
Exactly!!
Oh wait, you are saying that's a bad thing?
*plonk* opinion rejected.
Your response makes it sound as if he implied that people who believed in evolution could not be religious, when he wasn't even anywhere near the neighborhood of saying that.
What you and the previous responses seem to ignore about the parent is the fact that he did not say anything about evolution at all.
Instead of dealing with the problem, the actual illegal immigration, we deal with the symptom, the illegal immigrants. Politicians won't touch the situation because of the Mexican lobby. Would they be able to convince their Mexican constituency that they could increase the ease and volume of legal immigration, and use the saved money to fund better border patrols, for the benefit of all?
If the Mexican people like our government so much, why don't we just open the border, then when Mexico has all of 10,000 citizens left, we'll annex it into the U.S. I know I know, impossible, ignorant, etc, but it would be neat.
If looking into a private residence with thermal imaging devices were legal, every pervert in the world would be spending their evenings legally looking in to all the 13 year old girls' bedrooms.
On the other hand, aerial surveillance can't really be illegal, because (civilian) pilots can't help but see down on to private property, so they can't simply make it illegal.
In this case, the courts worked along the line of thought that government agencies have no more right to violate privacy than the common citizens unless they can provide probable cause, and as long as they support that precept I support them.
I think the parent's point wasn't partisan at all, but that he believes in the fact that you should vote for who you want to win, not for who you think you can make win by voting. That's the only reason the same 2 big corrupt parties that exist today still exist; people vote for who they think they can make win by voting, not who they want to win. It seems to me that most people vote because theres a slim chance their vote will influence the election, and I think that this runs counter to the best features of democracy.
You must be new around here.