Does anyone know how passports originated? My understanding is that they provided a way for countries in good relation to allow their citizens access across borders. This addition to the passport seems to be adding an additional layer (as the addition of a photograph did)--it's making a passport an personally identifiable certificate and not just a mark of a given nationality.
My issue is this. A passport should allow me to travel to countries that are on good terms with the United States. It should also have some personal identification because the U.S. has to issue it to me and not just any American.
But, is the addition of further features of personal identification the needless expansion of government knowledge of personal and private affairs (travel)? Or, is it a needful response to the the increasingly international and individual nature of crime and warfare (from international corporate criminals to terrorists)?
Seriously, I have a lot of respect for Google (it's my IE home), but it's pretty obvious that it only can access certain types of information. I think the MSN folks were just looking to poke holes in their rival with that comment about it skewing research. If you are doing a serious research project, you go where researchers from time immemorial have gone--the library.
At the urging of my Apple-owning friends, I recently acquired an older iBook to mark my entry into the Apple and laptop markets. Software compatibility was not really an issue, as the purpose of my Windows desktop (games, P2P) is completely different from my laptop (office, email, chat, sit on my fat ass on the futon and surf the web). Networking to share files is really easy, so I can transfer documents, address books, etc, without a problem.
Point being, don't worry about running the same OS on both. A laptop's function is being portable, not replacing a desktop.
I'm from 'western' civilization and have no idea how these things work in less privileged places. describes 95% of the American population. I'm not sure why you should be surprised that I didn't understand the need for low bandwidth services.
To "redeem myself," I'd like to make two points:
1. I was aiming for amusing with the Google thing. I decided to tack on the "real question" because I'm honest about my ignorance of the topic.
2. In what way will this search function highlight the control of relevance algorithms over the kind of knowledge folks using this search process will get? In a higher bandwidth society, I have the freedom to check out numerous searches and continually refine my search strings to find the best information. Folks using this service, however, will not be able to do so as readily.
3. I lied, third point. Ultimately, this just continues to reinforce the hierarchy of post-industrial nations over developing ones by giving them a quick fix for a dearth of wealth in the Information Age. For anyone to compete globally in knowledge or business, they have to have substantial information in a timely fashion. This provides neither, and while an admirable stopgap measure, fails to address the root problem.
I don't think he really proved anything. While the end of his article addresses the larger issue, does increasing the length or protective powers of copyright has any effect on innovation as measured through the number of registrations?, his premises miss the main point.
First of all, I don't know that the number of registrations has much to do with innovation. As we see in the music industry, more CDs does not necessarily mean better. It only takes one boy band to change the industry, and 15 boy band clones to boost the registration numbers.
Second, the relationship between innovation and copyright has to do with the larger question of public domain. I think we need a measure of the intellectual value of material in the public domain and, more particularly, the intellectual material that is copyrighted. Innovation is based on prior art, so its critical that as much old stuff is available for people to create new stuff. For example, being able to understand the Trinitron display could be key to an innovation in CRT displays.
While I think this was an admirable effort to understand the effects of copyright extension, I don't think his premise connecting registrations to innovation has much merit.
To avoid being a total troll, I think it admirable that he would spend so much time trying to shed some light on an ambiguous and crucial topic. May I suggest a sophomore study into the proportion of valuable intellectual property that is increasingly locked away by the private sector.
To some extent, I wonder if an article like this is long overdue to point out to some players that online games are not, in fact, real life. On the other hand, think about this:
For many players of games (my roommate included), online gaming is pretty much their entire life. I recently calculated that my roommate has played Everquest for 5 hours a day (on average) for the past two years.
Since he has virtually no social life, never has people over, and doesn't belong to any organization outside of work, one could assume that he is incredibly lonely, yet he doesn't seem so.
To what extent can an online game substitute for real human interaction? To borrow an idea from the Sims, can an almost entirely online social experience fill up the Social Meter?
While I doubt the implementation will be quite as open as the WWW, I have to admit that this sounds really cool. The advantage of the internet (particularly, Google) is the ability to instantly gather more information or context about a given thing.
I can think of plenty of times while shopping for things like stereo equipment or household cleaners where I wanted more context and had to make a return trip to the store after I learned more (i.e. what's the best quality receiver for the price point or does this toilet bowl cleaner have the bonus of deforming frogs and small children once it gets flushed into the watershed.)
If could have Googled the item while at the store by just pointing my cell phone, I could have saved a lot of time and made a more informed purchase.
It's much like guns. Are guns in themselves evil? No, they are tools. But when put into the hands of an evil person, the give the evil person a much increased capacity to harm others.
I appreciate that Aardvark pointed to the potential impact of learning killing strategy from video games, but I think he/she is a little too quick with the "It's much like a gun."
Playing a video game is an activity that can simulate killing. It might be like actual skeet shooting, but it is not like a gun. One is an adaptable lesson for violent crime, the other a tool that provides killing power. It's unlikely that my UT 2003 CD could accomplish that (unless I also had the ripper from the original UT--then all my games could become tools of violence...
On the issue of electronic security, I have to concede that I have little experience. Given these tests, I am concerned that a dishonest person could edit returns and cause problems with an election. This could be particularly problemmatic in counties that use 100% electronic voting, with no paper trail. It's bad enough that the log is so easily hacked without a trace. It would be even worse to have no real recourse.
Fortunately, as someone who has served as an election judge (working the polls) in Minnesota, I can tell you that these concerns are a little overblown. We use the optical scan machines here, and we submit the precinct detail report (list 1 for those who read the article) to the county electronically and in paper format (3 copies). Additionally, we have all the paper ballots that were filled out by the voters carefully stored in the machines during the voting period, and then mailed to the county in sealed envelopes and signed by all the election judges.
Not only is the written process pretty fail-safe, but I worked an election where there was a discrepancy between our ballot count (kept as people vote) and the machine count at the end of the day. We hand-counted all the ballots (they were bubble test style, so no hanging chads or dimples) to make sure the count was accurate. Even if someone had hacked the voting machine, there was little chance for them to bust into the voting machine to steal or alter the ballots.
Additionally, although some nefarious person could hack the machine, I have no idea when they would. Most polling places have a team of election judges present from the time the machine is unlocked until after the results have been transmitted. Judges are not supposed to linger near the voting machine for any length of time. Certainly it's important to implement appropriate safeguards in the software (such as the automatic numbering system that was disabled for the log file), but chances of election fraud due to machine tampering are pretty darn low.
...TrafficGaugeWeb, used to measure internet traffic, imploded today at approximately 11:21pm Slashdot time, while taking its evening reading of the TrafficGauge homepage. Mary Merger, TrafficGauge spokeswoman, said that the site, usually receiving less than 100 hits daily, was struck by a vertiable avalanche of requests. "Fortunately no one was standing near the [TrafficGaugeWeb] at the time," Merger said, "the needle not only slammed to maximum, but the pressure blew the cover off the device, richocheted off my classic '52 Yield sign and nearly took the head off Jim ["Ramp" Meter, TrafficGauge field tester]. I guess word must be getting around about the new product...maybe there was a big car convention or something where they had free internet access." Authorities in the Seattle area could not be reached for comment.
I can't really answer the first one, though I'd assume that there will be some sort of "cyber expert" who will be responsible for finding guilty parties and levying the punishment.
As for #2, it's longstanding legal tradition/law/constitutional (too lazy to recall which) that states shall respect each other's laws across boundaries. e.g. marriage licenses from a given state are good in any other state (for heterosexuals, anyway). So, I'd imagine that other states will not interfere and may even assist in the prosecution of violators housed there.
As far as offshore spammers, the law would apply, since it covers Michigan residents. However, trying to enforce it is likely beyond the scope of the Mighigan authorities. It'll be interesting to see how they deal with it.
I did want to offer a comment on your post regarding the RIAA. I think you are right that the social disregard for copyright on filesharing programs indicates a sea change in the way copyright and the internet will have to be handled. The RIAA needs to find a better way to respond to filesharing to respect popular demand and the constraints of copyright. However bad their current legal actions are, though, I believe they still have the moral high ground on music sharing.
Regardless of the injustice in overpriced CDs, the restrictive album format, and the challenge of actually hearing a song BEFORE you buy it, copyright law is still fairly clear. You may be able to make a backup copy, you can give your hardcopy to a friend as a loan. You can't however, take what isn't yours, even if there doesn't appear to be any deprivation on the part of the artist or RIAA for doing so.
I say this as a person who willfully participates in the moral morass of filesharing and has acted immorally. I think it's an important distinction to make, though, since trying to claim the high ground of civil disobedience risks cheapening things like the civil rights movement by making the "theft" of some Smashmouth akin to Rosa Parks and the Montgomery bus boycott. I may agree with everything said about the RIAA and the disgrace they bring to the music industry, but it doesn't make my pirated copy of "Allstar" any more morally legit.
The parent article makes a great point: regardless of the imprecision in language (theft v. piracy v. copying/sharing), the fact of the matter is that people are taking advantage of a P2P system with little legal oversight to acquire music, movies, and software. Morally speaking, P2P sharing of copyrighted works is wrong.
Legally speaking, it becomes complicated.
As Clarke points out, it is ridiculous to try and make P2P companies like Kazaa liable for filesharing (because even generally benign tools like knives can be used for ill).* The RIAA isn't helped by their imprecision in comparing filesharing to theft, because as many Slashdotters have said, filesharing doesn't deprive anyone of property (depending on your interpretation of due compensation and property). Also, as is noted in the parent, most bookstores and other merchants account for "shrink" from theft, so why doesn't the RIAA?
I agree that the RIAA is clearly clinging to an outdated model for music distribution. However, despite their bungling to contain P2P and maintain their hegemony over music sales, P2P has yet to prove that it can operate within accepted moral and legal norms for "sharing" music, software, and video content.
iTunes and other pay-for-product services, ideally providing a lower-quality preview feature, are the obvious solution to wired customers' desire for customizability and convenience as well as the artist's need for compensation.
*Note: despite my agreement with Clarke over legal liability, P2P providers are obviously aware of the nature of filesharing and as such, morally repugnant for failing to implement any protections for copyrighted work.
...looking for."
*waves TRIMprob*
It's about time that the medical community looks for less invasive ways to detect and treat disease. If there is one disadvantage of modern medicine, it's that it requires more probes, pokes, and pat downs to diagnose illness. Sometimes I'd rather be sick...
That being said, this wand is great for being able to let you know NOW whether or not you have a tumor. That in itself is worth the advance.
Honestly, you would think that with so many examples of corporate misbehavior and outright illegal activity that we'd have a Justice Department with some teeth. Instead, they waste their time covering up nude statues and hounding thousands of immigrants, most of whom have done no worse than stay past their green card expiration date.
John Ashcroft, do your fscking job!
I'm not so sure Canon is innocent. My i550 printer tells me in no uncertain terms that I have to replace the ink cartridge before it will print again, despite having shown no drop in print quality. Like a simp, I do replace the cartridge--the printer rules me.
Does this mean that in Soviet Russia I rule the printer? Damn capitalism.
Just have an audio clip that asks a simple question. For example, what is 1+1?
The user can then just type in "two" and get access. Even if a bot could successfully translate the audio into text, it won't be answering the question (unless it defaults to "calc" when it translates).
P.S. I know...this would discriminate against the stupid, but so does everything else in our society. That's why I'm s-m-r-t!
Given how file sharing has potentially cut into profits of software and music companies, you would think that many businesses would simply be glad to have a paying customer.
Seriously, though, I don't think we should have to resign ourselves to the obligatory "guess who's not surprised" comment every time we hear about this. The free market is based upon the theory that people make rational decisions based on a full knowledge of the exchange. When an online company deliberately conceals their ability to profit from my transaction without my knowledge, that's kind of like me giving you $10 for that old coffee table and then taking your daughter's virginity to boot. It's doubtful that the $10 I originally offered would have sufficed as payment for the coffee table and the additional service taken.
The point: I should be informed how my information will profit the company and be given full value for the exchange. If my information can be sold or rented for $10, then I should receive an in-kind discount on the product or service I am getting. Or alternatively, if I find the practice repugnant, I can take my business to someone who offers a comprehensive privacy policy that is worth paying the extra $10 for.
As someone who loves participating in buying and selling on eBay and its associated sites, I'm always disturbed by these kinds of stories. My gut reaction is: this is wrong, they should be trying to protect my information excepting extraordinary circumstances (court order).
On the other hand, how likely is it that my information will be released? It's the kind of thing that can be easy to get up in arms about over the principle even if it doesn't mean much for most people.
I know that in the realm of rights, it's the exceptions that matter (such as free speech for Neo Nazis or permitting polygamy for Mormons). But I can't help but wonder what Constitutional or natural law protects my banking data. Granted, I don't want to suffer from identity theft any more than the next person. However, I wonder what recourse the average person has to preventative measures when the law around information security hasn't kept pace with the technology allowing its ease of use and distribution.
So, if you just want to get access to a whole bunch of free channels, set this sucker up on the DirecTV display at your local Best Buy store and beam it to your home computer!
Duke Nukem Forever is a common error of English usage. According to Dictionary.com, the correct nomeclature answers the question: what game, how long until release?
Slashdot Mirror
My issue is this. A passport should allow me to travel to countries that are on good terms with the United States. It should also have some personal identification because the U.S. has to issue it to me and not just any American.
But, is the addition of further features of personal identification the needless expansion of government knowledge of personal and private affairs (travel)? Or, is it a needful response to the the increasingly international and individual nature of crime and warfare (from international corporate criminals to terrorists)?
Seriously, I have a lot of respect for Google (it's my IE home), but it's pretty obvious that it only can access certain types of information. I think the MSN folks were just looking to poke holes in their rival with that comment about it skewing research. If you are doing a serious research project, you go where researchers from time immemorial have gone--the library.
(-1, Pythonic)
Point being, don't worry about running the same OS on both. A laptop's function is being portable, not replacing a desktop.
To "redeem myself," I'd like to make two points:
1. I was aiming for amusing with the Google thing. I decided to tack on the "real question" because I'm honest about my ignorance of the topic.
2. In what way will this search function highlight the control of relevance algorithms over the kind of knowledge folks using this search process will get? In a higher bandwidth society, I have the freedom to check out numerous searches and continually refine my search strings to find the best information. Folks using this service, however, will not be able to do so as readily.
3. I lied, third point. Ultimately, this just continues to reinforce the hierarchy of post-industrial nations over developing ones by giving them a quick fix for a dearth of wealth in the Information Age. For anyone to compete globally in knowledge or business, they have to have substantial information in a timely fashion. This provides neither, and while an admirable stopgap measure, fails to address the root problem.
Honestly, folks, someone please explain how this could substantially save someone time surfing the web?
First of all, I don't know that the number of registrations has much to do with innovation. As we see in the music industry, more CDs does not necessarily mean better. It only takes one boy band to change the industry, and 15 boy band clones to boost the registration numbers.
Second, the relationship between innovation and copyright has to do with the larger question of public domain. I think we need a measure of the intellectual value of material in the public domain and, more particularly, the intellectual material that is copyrighted. Innovation is based on prior art, so its critical that as much old stuff is available for people to create new stuff. For example, being able to understand the Trinitron display could be key to an innovation in CRT displays.
While I think this was an admirable effort to understand the effects of copyright extension, I don't think his premise connecting registrations to innovation has much merit.
To avoid being a total troll, I think it admirable that he would spend so much time trying to shed some light on an ambiguous and crucial topic. May I suggest a sophomore study into the proportion of valuable intellectual property that is increasingly locked away by the private sector.
For many players of games (my roommate included), online gaming is pretty much their entire life. I recently calculated that my roommate has played Everquest for 5 hours a day (on average) for the past two years.
Since he has virtually no social life, never has people over, and doesn't belong to any organization outside of work, one could assume that he is incredibly lonely, yet he doesn't seem so.
To what extent can an online game substitute for real human interaction? To borrow an idea from the Sims, can an almost entirely online social experience fill up the Social Meter?
I can think of plenty of times while shopping for things like stereo equipment or household cleaners where I wanted more context and had to make a return trip to the store after I learned more (i.e. what's the best quality receiver for the price point or does this toilet bowl cleaner have the bonus of deforming frogs and small children once it gets flushed into the watershed.)
If could have Googled the item while at the store by just pointing my cell phone, I could have saved a lot of time and made a more informed purchase.
I appreciate that Aardvark pointed to the potential impact of learning killing strategy from video games, but I think he/she is a little too quick with the "It's much like a gun."
Playing a video game is an activity that can simulate killing. It might be like actual skeet shooting, but it is not like a gun. One is an adaptable lesson for violent crime, the other a tool that provides killing power. It's unlikely that my UT 2003 CD could accomplish that (unless I also had the ripper from the original UT--then all my games could become tools of violence...
*head shot*
God, that was fun...
Fortunately, as someone who has served as an election judge (working the polls) in Minnesota, I can tell you that these concerns are a little overblown. We use the optical scan machines here, and we submit the precinct detail report (list 1 for those who read the article) to the county electronically and in paper format (3 copies). Additionally, we have all the paper ballots that were filled out by the voters carefully stored in the machines during the voting period, and then mailed to the county in sealed envelopes and signed by all the election judges.
Not only is the written process pretty fail-safe, but I worked an election where there was a discrepancy between our ballot count (kept as people vote) and the machine count at the end of the day. We hand-counted all the ballots (they were bubble test style, so no hanging chads or dimples) to make sure the count was accurate. Even if someone had hacked the voting machine, there was little chance for them to bust into the voting machine to steal or alter the ballots.
Additionally, although some nefarious person could hack the machine, I have no idea when they would. Most polling places have a team of election judges present from the time the machine is unlocked until after the results have been transmitted. Judges are not supposed to linger near the voting machine for any length of time. Certainly it's important to implement appropriate safeguards in the software (such as the automatic numbering system that was disabled for the log file), but chances of election fraud due to machine tampering are pretty darn low.
As for #2, it's longstanding legal tradition/law/constitutional (too lazy to recall which) that states shall respect each other's laws across boundaries. e.g. marriage licenses from a given state are good in any other state (for heterosexuals, anyway). So, I'd imagine that other states will not interfere and may even assist in the prosecution of violators housed there.
As far as offshore spammers, the law would apply, since it covers Michigan residents. However, trying to enforce it is likely beyond the scope of the Mighigan authorities. It'll be interesting to see how they deal with it.
This is NOT an ADV:!
Regardless of the injustice in overpriced CDs, the restrictive album format, and the challenge of actually hearing a song BEFORE you buy it, copyright law is still fairly clear. You may be able to make a backup copy, you can give your hardcopy to a friend as a loan. You can't however, take what isn't yours, even if there doesn't appear to be any deprivation on the part of the artist or RIAA for doing so.
I say this as a person who willfully participates in the moral morass of filesharing and has acted immorally. I think it's an important distinction to make, though, since trying to claim the high ground of civil disobedience risks cheapening things like the civil rights movement by making the "theft" of some Smashmouth akin to Rosa Parks and the Montgomery bus boycott. I may agree with everything said about the RIAA and the disgrace they bring to the music industry, but it doesn't make my pirated copy of "Allstar" any more morally legit.
Legally speaking, it becomes complicated.
As Clarke points out, it is ridiculous to try and make P2P companies like Kazaa liable for filesharing (because even generally benign tools like knives can be used for ill).* The RIAA isn't helped by their imprecision in comparing filesharing to theft, because as many Slashdotters have said, filesharing doesn't deprive anyone of property (depending on your interpretation of due compensation and property). Also, as is noted in the parent, most bookstores and other merchants account for "shrink" from theft, so why doesn't the RIAA?
I agree that the RIAA is clearly clinging to an outdated model for music distribution. However, despite their bungling to contain P2P and maintain their hegemony over music sales, P2P has yet to prove that it can operate within accepted moral and legal norms for "sharing" music, software, and video content.
iTunes and other pay-for-product services, ideally providing a lower-quality preview feature, are the obvious solution to wired customers' desire for customizability and convenience as well as the artist's need for compensation.
*Note: despite my agreement with Clarke over legal liability, P2P providers are obviously aware of the nature of filesharing and as such, morally repugnant for failing to implement any protections for copyrighted work.
...looking for."
*waves TRIMprob*
It's about time that the medical community looks for less invasive ways to detect and treat disease. If there is one disadvantage of modern medicine, it's that it requires more probes, pokes, and pat downs to diagnose illness. Sometimes I'd rather be sick...
That being said, this wand is great for being able to let you know NOW whether or not you have a tumor. That in itself is worth the advance.
John Ashcroft, do your fscking job!
No one else stands a chance :-)
I'm not so sure Canon is innocent. My i550 printer tells me in no uncertain terms that I have to replace the ink cartridge before it will print again, despite having shown no drop in print quality. Like a simp, I do replace the cartridge--the printer rules me.
Does this mean that in Soviet Russia I rule the printer? Damn capitalism.
Just have an audio clip that asks a simple question. For example, what is 1+1?
The user can then just type in "two" and get access. Even if a bot could successfully translate the audio into text, it won't be answering the question (unless it defaults to "calc" when it translates).
P.S. I know...this would discriminate against the stupid, but so does everything else in our society. That's why I'm s-m-r-t!
Seriously, though, I don't think we should have to resign ourselves to the obligatory "guess who's not surprised" comment every time we hear about this. The free market is based upon the theory that people make rational decisions based on a full knowledge of the exchange. When an online company deliberately conceals their ability to profit from my transaction without my knowledge, that's kind of like me giving you $10 for that old coffee table and then taking your daughter's virginity to boot. It's doubtful that the $10 I originally offered would have sufficed as payment for the coffee table and the additional service taken.
The point: I should be informed how my information will profit the company and be given full value for the exchange. If my information can be sold or rented for $10, then I should receive an in-kind discount on the product or service I am getting. Or alternatively, if I find the practice repugnant, I can take my business to someone who offers a comprehensive privacy policy that is worth paying the extra $10 for.
On the other hand, how likely is it that my information will be released? It's the kind of thing that can be easy to get up in arms about over the principle even if it doesn't mean much for most people.
I know that in the realm of rights, it's the exceptions that matter (such as free speech for Neo Nazis or permitting polygamy for Mormons). But I can't help but wonder what Constitutional or natural law protects my banking data. Granted, I don't want to suffer from identity theft any more than the next person. However, I wonder what recourse the average person has to preventative measures when the law around information security hasn't kept pace with the technology allowing its ease of use and distribution.
So punny it hurts :-)
"Turn on the Fun!"
Duke Nukem Forever is a common error of English usage. According to Dictionary.com, the correct nomeclature answers the question: what game, how long until release?
Thus, Duke Nukem, Forever