It's entirely possible that he intends to release his specification publicly, even though he's already missed several self-imposed deadlines for doing so. Until it is released, you'd really have to trust the guy as a friend to trust his client.
Sure, I'll run his app. I'd loan him my car keys too, if he wanted. I also like to let people hit me with a baseball bat, repetititively. I'm just that type of guy.
The $90,000 per head figure is really tough to buy. The only monetary figure they name is a £7,000 loss for a recent victim. That seems about right to me. I'd be really interested in knowing what the median loss was.
This is a general problem for all copyrighted material. Software "spoils" faster than most other copyrighted stuff, since the hardware it runs on becomes obsolete so quickly. So, we're seeing the problems with preserving 20 year old software. However, the same problem applies to old radio programs, old movies, old books...
We need general copyright law reform. Copyrights should require explicit renewal once the material enters the commercial market and after a suitable initial period of protection.
Something on the order of - lifetime of the author until a copy of the copyrighted material is made available to the public. From that point, the material is protected for 20 years without renewal. At the 20 year mark, and every 20 years thereafter, the copyright must be explicitly renewed by the copyright holder to remain in force.
That'd protect authors with unpublished work. But, once the work gets published, it would make it far more likely that the work would pass into the public domain before being lost.
Too bad the Berne Convention essential makes copyright reform in this direction impossible.
The original Washington state anti-spam legislation was passed years ago. It says 'you can't spam in Washington state', to put it simply.
Nice of you to say it simply. However, you're wrong. Here's the text of the
current LAW. Here's a summary of a successfully prosecuted case. If you read either, you'll see that it only deals with mail that contains fraudulent information about the sender. Unless your definition of spam is "mail that has forged headers", companies are still allowed to spam Washington residents as much as they like. They just have to be honest about who they are.
Of course, my post referred to the original BILL, meaning the original BILL that Microsoft is lobbying to change. I wasn't talking about the original 1998 LAW that was passed. I'm just a bill, I'm just a bill, I live on capital hill...
[The Law] Requires all unsolicited commercial e-mail to include "ADV:" as the first four letters of the Subject. Of course, this is on TOP of the fact that it is illegal, so it does seem a little silly.
Now you know why it's not silly - it's not illegal.
So MS is lobbying to eliminate an older law which prohibits it from spamming.
Again, MS is lobbying to make revisions to the senate BILL passed last year, which is not LAW because it didn't pass the House.
Last year the senate passed amendment 6568 to try to address unsolicited commercial e-mail. It was a pretty cool amendment. You can find it here. Sorry, I can't give a direct link. Just type 6568 and select the 2001/2002 bills. Anyhow, according to this article, the bill perished in the House Technology, Telecommunications and Energy Committee.
The replacement amendment, with changes from the House, 5734 can be found here.
My opinion is that you should do a little research, and perhaps even reread the article, before stating your opinion.
Alright, research done. Of course, you didn't do yours...
I think it's hilarious that people think that the computerized answer is more likely to be right just because it's computerized. This is a touchy-feely area, humans will be better at it.
The computer version will have two big advantages over humans:
a) it'll be fast
b) it'll be consistent over long periods of listening
I can see those traits being helpful when sorting through huge piles of unsolicited junk submissions, but not when doing the final litmus test to see what people will enjoy.
I wouldn't mind working on the project though. It'll be equivalent to finding "pretty" pictures, or "good" web sites based on content alone. Fun stuff.
No, but it's unsolicited communication. The bill addresses unsolicited communication, not advertisements. The same applies to the second point as well.
The original wording of the bill required all companies to put a ADV: tag on unsolicited e-mail. Microsoft is lobbying to exempt ISPs and companies with which the person has done business. It'd be pretty cool to discuss the reasonableness of the changes, instead of jumping up and down going "ook, Microsoft sucks".
Here's my take:
The "done business" change is iffy. The justification is probably that it allows a company who sold a defective product to contact their customers with information on a security patch, or whatever. I can see how Microsoft would feel that such communications would be absolutely necessary for their business.
However, it also allows every FlyByNight company I ever ordered RAM from to send me spam without repercussions.
I don't like the broad opening, but I think some exemption should be allowed for messages that concern failings in a product that I've already purchased.
The ISP change is less iffy. I don't get much spam directly from ISPs. All it needs is a clause that specifies that the ISP can only send messages that directly concern the details of their customer's current account. So, sending a warning about a violation of the terms of use should be fine. Advertisements about additional services such as domain name registration should contain the ADV: tag.
So, that's my opinion. The changes Microsoft is lobbying for are bad, but they could be motivated by reasonable goals. I hope Washington State lawmakers can find a way to address the goals without providing such gaping holes in the spam laws.
He ran the sort multiple times so the sort cost would dominate startup costs. Iterate your randomization 10-20 thousand times and time it. Then add the sort back in so that each random array gets sorted and time that. That way you can see what the sort really cost by subtracting the two times, if you're interested. Running a single sort won't tell you anything.
Really? This summary explicitly says that the filtering can be disabled to allow access to bonafide research material.
Quote:
The technology protection measure may be disabled "to enable access to bona fide research or other lawful purposes".
Either you're wrong, or the American Library Association is.
The law doesn't specify exactly how libraries have to implement their procedure for disabling the censorware. I think that flexibility is good and makes the law workable.
Here's another side to the problem. Displaying lewd material in public is illegal in most localities. If you access lewd material on a terminal that is easily seen by other people using the library, then you are probably breaking public lewdness laws.
Wouldn't it be nice to get a little hint from the machine that accessing www.whitehouse.com while the local sheriff is standing beside you is probably not the brightest thing to do? A warning like this would do the job:
"The site your are about to view is likely to contain lewd material. Our prediction is correct about 80% of the time. If you expose others in a public place to lewd material without their consent, you could be in violation of public lewdness laws. In addition, it is illegal to expose children under 18 to this material. Do you wish to continue?"
Not only would this approach help everyone obey public lewdness laws, it would help those who don't want to see porn avoid it, and it would still allow those doing valid research to override the censorware.
CIPA doesn't look like a monster to me. I'd rather fight DMCA.
I don't believe this will work. Any calculation that can be done on a general purpose PC in a reasonable amount of time can be done in a fraction of the time on specialized hardware. If there is sufficient demand, then some company will make a postage crunching chip and sell it to spammers for $400.00. Well, maybe $423.00. You get the idea.
Anyhow, the net result will be useless overhead for sending e-mail, and the creation of a new industry in postage minting hardware.
The only solution to this problem is legal. Spammers must make money to support their spam. Track the money, and you find the perpetrator. If what he has done is illegal, fine him into bankruptcy, confiscate the homestead under the RICO act, and send the guy who sent the mail to jail for a couple years. If it's a corporation covering for someone living overseas, fine the company into bankruptcy. That will remove the profit motive.
Spam isn't like drug dealing. The victim isn't complicit with the crime. It won't be a hard crime to prosecute. According to this FAQ about the ROKSO, it's likely that fewer than 150 people and organizations account for 90% of the spam we get, and we know who they are. Let's get some laws in place so we can do something about them.
(forgive the dup and mod the other down - this infrequent poster forgot to preview)
To start off with, I need a PC anyway because I'm a geek. I program for a living, out of my house. I bank, find restaurants, and find directions to those restaurants online. I even look for hikes online. So, given that I already have a $600.00 monitor and over $1000.00 worth of CPU, RAM, motherboard, and Hard Drive, all I have to do is buy a graphics card that's good for games. If there's money left over, I might even splurge and get a good sound card.
Pricewatch says I can get a GeForce4 TI 4200 128MB DDR card for $130 bucks. My rule of thumb is to buy the card that costs half as much as the most recent card's price. The cut rate card will work fine for two years. Buying the most expensive card might gain you another 6-12 months before obsolescence, but it's not worth the cost.
That's a better deal than a $200.00 console.
Of course, I'd also need a high definition television to go with the console if I wanted the same picture quality, but I'll ignore that since some people have the TV, just like I have the core of the computer.
An added plus on the PC side is that the PC is more likely to have all the games I want. I like RPGs, and many RPGs don't hit console. Also, every console has its own killer games that run only on that box, and I can't play those. But, if the game is implemented for just two platforms, it's usually a console and the PC. So, PC gamers get a better selection.
As an added perk, the emulator crowd is always at work. When you can buy a console cheap on ebay, you can usually pick up a PC emulator for it as well. So, you can eventually play most console games on a PC. You'll never play an X-box only game on a PS2 though.
So, my conclusion is that I can play a wider variety of games for less money on my PC than I could if I went the console route. However, if you don't need a fairly serious computer for other reasons and you're into TV, the consoles make sense.
To start off with, I need a PC anyway because I'm a geek. I program for a living, out of my house. I bank, find restaurants, and find directions to those restaurants online. I even look for hikes online. So, given that I already have a $600.00 monitor and over $1000.00 worth of CPU, RAM, motherboard, and Hard Drive, all I have to do is buy a graphics card that's good for games. If there's money left over, I might even splurge and get a good sound card.
Pricewatch says I can get a GeForce4 TI 4200 128MB DDR card for $130 bucks. My rule of thumb is to buy the card that costs half as much as the most recent card's price. The cut rate card will work fine for two years. Buying the most expensive card might gain you another 6-12 months before obsolescence, but it's not worth the cost.
That's a better deal than a $200.00 console.
Of course, I'd also need a high definition television to go with the console if I wanted the same picture quality, but I'll ignore that since some people have the TV, just like I have the core of the computer.
An added plus on the PC side is that the PC is more likely to have all the games I want. I like RPGs, and many RPGs don't hit console. Also, every console has its own killer games that run only on that box, and I can't play those. But, if the game is implemented for just two platforms, it's usually a console and the PC. So, PC gamers get a better selection.
As an added perk, the emulator crowd is always at work. When you can buy a console cheap on ebay, you can usually pick up a PC emulator for it as well. So, you can eventually play most console games on a PC. You'll never play an X-box only game on a PS2 though.
So, my conclusion is that I can play a wider variety of games for less money on my PC than I could if I went the console route. However, if you don't need a fairly serious computer for other reasons and you're into TV, the consoles make sense.
Slashdot Mirror
It's entirely possible that he intends to release his specification publicly, even though he's already missed several self-imposed deadlines for doing so. Until it is released, you'd really have to trust the guy as a friend to trust his client.
Morpheus
...
LimeWire
KaZaa
Blipster
NeoNapster
IMesh
Grokster
Sure, I'll run his app. I'd loan him my car keys too, if he wanted. I also like to let people hit me with a baseball bat, repetititively. I'm just that type of guy.
1) Lock 'em in
2) Spyware
3) ???
4) Profit
The $90,000 per head figure is really tough to buy. The only monetary figure they name is a £7,000 loss for a recent victim. That seems about right to me. I'd be really interested in knowing what the median loss was.
We need general copyright law reform. Copyrights should require explicit renewal once the material enters the commercial market and after a suitable initial period of protection.
Something on the order of - lifetime of the author until a copy of the copyrighted material is made available to the public. From that point, the material is protected for 20 years without renewal. At the 20 year mark, and every 20 years thereafter, the copyright must be explicitly renewed by the copyright holder to remain in force.
That'd protect authors with unpublished work. But, once the work gets published, it would make it far more likely that the work would pass into the public domain before being lost.
Too bad the Berne Convention essential makes copyright reform in this direction impossible.
Nice of you to say it simply. However, you're wrong. Here's the text of the current LAW. Here's a summary of a successfully prosecuted case. If you read either, you'll see that it only deals with mail that contains fraudulent information about the sender. Unless your definition of spam is "mail that has forged headers", companies are still allowed to spam Washington residents as much as they like. They just have to be honest about who they are.
Of course, my post referred to the original BILL, meaning the original BILL that Microsoft is lobbying to change. I wasn't talking about the original 1998 LAW that was passed. I'm just a bill, I'm just a bill, I live on capital hill...
[The Law] Requires all unsolicited commercial e-mail to include "ADV:" as the first four letters of the Subject. Of course, this is on TOP of the fact that it is illegal, so it does seem a little silly. Now you know why it's not silly - it's not illegal.
So MS is lobbying to eliminate an older law which prohibits it from spamming.
Again, MS is lobbying to make revisions to the senate BILL passed last year, which is not LAW because it didn't pass the House.
Last year the senate passed amendment 6568 to try to address unsolicited commercial e-mail. It was a pretty cool amendment. You can find it here. Sorry, I can't give a direct link. Just type 6568 and select the 2001/2002 bills. Anyhow, according to this article, the bill perished in the House Technology, Telecommunications and Energy Committee.
The replacement amendment, with changes from the House, 5734 can be found here.
My opinion is that you should do a little research, and perhaps even reread the article, before stating your opinion.
Alright, research done. Of course, you didn't do yours...
The computer version will have two big advantages over humans:
a) it'll be fast
b) it'll be consistent over long periods of listening
I can see those traits being helpful when sorting through huge piles of unsolicited junk submissions, but not when doing the final litmus test to see what people will enjoy.
I wouldn't mind working on the project though. It'll be equivalent to finding "pretty" pictures, or "good" web sites based on content alone. Fun stuff.
No, but it's unsolicited communication. The bill addresses unsolicited communication, not advertisements. The same applies to the second point as well.
Here's my take:
The "done business" change is iffy. The justification is probably that it allows a company who sold a defective product to contact their customers with information on a security patch, or whatever. I can see how Microsoft would feel that such communications would be absolutely necessary for their business.
However, it also allows every FlyByNight company I ever ordered RAM from to send me spam without repercussions.
I don't like the broad opening, but I think some exemption should be allowed for messages that concern failings in a product that I've already purchased.
The ISP change is less iffy. I don't get much spam directly from ISPs. All it needs is a clause that specifies that the ISP can only send messages that directly concern the details of their customer's current account. So, sending a warning about a violation of the terms of use should be fine. Advertisements about additional services such as domain name registration should contain the ADV: tag.
So, that's my opinion. The changes Microsoft is lobbying for are bad, but they could be motivated by reasonable goals. I hope Washington State lawmakers can find a way to address the goals without providing such gaping holes in the spam laws.
I think this article gives a better description of what the data retention policy is. It's more concise anyhow.
He ran the sort multiple times so the sort cost would dominate startup costs. Iterate your randomization 10-20 thousand times and time it. Then add the sort back in so that each random array gets sorted and time that. That way you can see what the sort really cost by subtracting the two times, if you're interested. Running a single sort won't tell you anything.
Quote:
The technology protection measure may be disabled "to enable access to bona fide research or other lawful purposes".
Either you're wrong, or the American Library Association is.
The law doesn't specify exactly how libraries have to implement their procedure for disabling the censorware. I think that flexibility is good and makes the law workable.
Here's another side to the problem. Displaying lewd material in public is illegal in most localities. If you access lewd material on a terminal that is easily seen by other people using the library, then you are probably breaking public lewdness laws.
Wouldn't it be nice to get a little hint from the machine that accessing www.whitehouse.com while the local sheriff is standing beside you is probably not the brightest thing to do? A warning like this would do the job:
"The site your are about to view is likely to contain lewd material. Our prediction is correct about 80% of the time. If you expose others in a public place to lewd material without their consent, you could be in violation of public lewdness laws. In addition, it is illegal to expose children under 18 to this material. Do you wish to continue?"
Not only would this approach help everyone obey public lewdness laws, it would help those who don't want to see porn avoid it, and it would still allow those doing valid research to override the censorware.
CIPA doesn't look like a monster to me. I'd rather fight DMCA.
Anyhow, the net result will be useless overhead for sending e-mail, and the creation of a new industry in postage minting hardware.
The only solution to this problem is legal. Spammers must make money to support their spam. Track the money, and you find the perpetrator. If what he has done is illegal, fine him into bankruptcy, confiscate the homestead under the RICO act, and send the guy who sent the mail to jail for a couple years. If it's a corporation covering for someone living overseas, fine the company into bankruptcy. That will remove the profit motive.
Spam isn't like drug dealing. The victim isn't complicit with the crime. It won't be a hard crime to prosecute. According to this FAQ about the ROKSO, it's likely that fewer than 150 people and organizations account for 90% of the spam we get, and we know who they are. Let's get some laws in place so we can do something about them.
My mother-in-law sent me an online greeting card. That was the end of my spam-free days.
To start off with, I need a PC anyway because I'm a geek. I program for a living, out of my house. I bank, find restaurants, and find directions to those restaurants online. I even look for hikes online. So, given that I already have a $600.00 monitor and over $1000.00 worth of CPU, RAM, motherboard, and Hard Drive, all I have to do is buy a graphics card that's good for games. If there's money left over, I might even splurge and get a good sound card.
Pricewatch says I can get a GeForce4 TI 4200 128MB DDR card for $130 bucks. My rule of thumb is to buy the card that costs half as much as the most recent card's price. The cut rate card will work fine for two years. Buying the most expensive card might gain you another 6-12 months before obsolescence, but it's not worth the cost.
That's a better deal than a $200.00 console.
Of course, I'd also need a high definition television to go with the console if I wanted the same picture quality, but I'll ignore that since some people have the TV, just like I have the core of the computer.
An added plus on the PC side is that the PC is more likely to have all the games I want. I like RPGs, and many RPGs don't hit console. Also, every console has its own killer games that run only on that box, and I can't play those. But, if the game is implemented for just two platforms, it's usually a console and the PC. So, PC gamers get a better selection.
As an added perk, the emulator crowd is always at work. When you can buy a console cheap on ebay, you can usually pick up a PC emulator for it as well. So, you can eventually play most console games on a PC. You'll never play an X-box only game on a PS2 though.
So, my conclusion is that I can play a wider variety of games for less money on my PC than I could if I went the console route. However, if you don't need a fairly serious computer for other reasons and you're into TV, the consoles make sense.
To start off with, I need a PC anyway because I'm a geek. I program for a living, out of my house. I bank, find restaurants, and find directions to those restaurants online. I even look for hikes online. So, given that I already have a $600.00 monitor and over $1000.00 worth of CPU, RAM, motherboard, and Hard Drive, all I have to do is buy a graphics card that's good for games. If there's money left over, I might even splurge and get a good sound card. Pricewatch says I can get a GeForce4 TI 4200 128MB DDR card for $130 bucks. My rule of thumb is to buy the card that costs half as much as the most recent card's price. The cut rate card will work fine for two years. Buying the most expensive card might gain you another 6-12 months before obsolescence, but it's not worth the cost. That's a better deal than a $200.00 console. Of course, I'd also need a high definition television to go with the console if I wanted the same picture quality, but I'll ignore that since some people have the TV, just like I have the core of the computer. An added plus on the PC side is that the PC is more likely to have all the games I want. I like RPGs, and many RPGs don't hit console. Also, every console has its own killer games that run only on that box, and I can't play those. But, if the game is implemented for just two platforms, it's usually a console and the PC. So, PC gamers get a better selection. As an added perk, the emulator crowd is always at work. When you can buy a console cheap on ebay, you can usually pick up a PC emulator for it as well. So, you can eventually play most console games on a PC. You'll never play an X-box only game on a PS2 though. So, my conclusion is that I can play a wider variety of games for less money on my PC than I could if I went the console route. However, if you don't need a fairly serious computer for other reasons and you're into TV, the consoles make sense.