You can't go after the children directly -- go after the enablers.
I say we prosecute Baby Gap for selling encryption technology specifically designed to hide a child's nakedness from authorities.
Or at the very least I'd like to see a week where people walk around public areas saying things like:
"I just got this new 400mm lens and I'm going to take some pictures of Big Ben, and then a few close-ups of parliament, and then this afternoon I'm going to shoot the Queen." or "I'm glad Parliament has a visitor's gallery, I'm going to plant my bum there at 10:00, and then go off in time for lunch."
Okay, so if our universe is infinite and has consistent laws of physics throughout, and assuming whatever universe we were spit into has the same laws of physics as our own, how would we know we were in a new universe rather than just some (nearly) infinitely remote corner of our current one?
And yes, I considered GPS, and after a lot of thought and some math decided it wouldn't work.
As a very competent independent consultant who has to market my services to companies all the time, I can understand this. I'm also frequently astounded and confused when potential clients choose to use someone else. I therefore support Diebold in their efforts to set a precedent I can use to then sue them into using me.
I would also encourage any other large company who so chooses to sue someone for not taking their calls, and sue vendors for not giving them services for free. If we get those two squared away I think we could all be much more successful.
Sorry, this by all rights should be moderated "off topic" but I'd like to toss in what I hope is a thoughtful reply to your sig. I'd like to suggest that it's actually better to moderate *and* post thoughtful replies when you have them, because they serve two separate purposes.
Thoughtful replies add to the debate, but the moderation system helps other readers priorities what is an overwhelming amount of information. I don't equate the moderation system as a lazy-person's reply system, just a way (if you choose to run with the crowd) of getting to the comments that have already intrigued other people.
Although they are frequently confused, this conjecture has no bearing on so-called "Wonder Twin" primes, in which the p is in the shape of a polar bear and p+2 is in the form of an ice ladder.
Isn't this scheme the perfect use for the wide-ranging social network information being collected by Plaxo?
It makes sense - they certainly haven't annouced a revenue stream yet, and "keeping your address book up-to-date," even in a wireless and multiplatform world just doesn't seem like a big enough idea to justify the huge amounts of data collected.
So is that the annoucement that's coming from Plaxo, the unveiling of a broad Spam solution that used 'degrees of separation' data from your address book and the address books of your friends to implement a spam filtering solution?
If I may say, it does seem like the killer app for their unique data set.
The company responsible (namely Software Improvements) is clearly pushing to pick up a contract for machine development in the U.S., and saying All The Right Things (tm) to get it.
Don't blame them really, Diebold left themselves wide open - should be easy pickins.
. ..would mentions of an interface development tool be described as "tantalizing." Some other suggestions:
-- "Naughty little whispers of Gideon."
-- "A playful spank of KwikDisk."
-- "A lingering yet mournful longing for the world that DCOP would bring, yet knowing it shall never be. .."
Remember that this is corporate America and the U.S. government with which we are dealing. The chance of their gathering data correctly, let alone devising a way to use it to their advantage, is remote. "
I agree with this statement, but. ..
The more more important point is how much the government and corporations *think* they are gathering data correctly, and *think* they can use it to their advantage.
We are entering an age of false assumptions and spurious conclusions drawn on anecdotal data that supposedly has "validity" because it was retreived using a SQL query.
I think there is going to be a need for another edition of Carl Sagan's a "The Demon-Haunted World," that deals directly with peoples' (governments', corporations') willingness to add ill-conceived "reading tea leaves" type conclusions to otherwise opinion-less data sets.
Congratulations, we've graduated. It used to be that you had to know a little science to keep from being ripped off. Now we're moving into an age where you'll need to know computer science and statistics to keep from being arrested or discriminated against.
Interesting how this seems to have topped out at very nearly the same penetration rates as cable television.
In cable, everyone thought that penetration was highly dependent on homes passed, that it would be a fixed percentage of how many homes could actually get wired. But although the homes passed numbers are quite high now, ultimately cable's speediest growth seems to have topped out at about 60 percent.
Same with Internet - some form of access is fairly ubiqitous now, but actual usage is topping out.
I wonder if this points to a class of telecommunications non-consumers - a certain group that simply doesn't consume or appreciate communications media enough to spend additional disposable income beyond what is freely available.
Of course I'm concerned that they will be hacked. ..Which is why I advocate that the design of these intercepts be standardized and subject to a public RFC process.
*Of course* we need a mechanism for *lawful* intercepts in this society. Some capability to (shall I say it again) *lawfully* monitor bad guys on the Internet is necessary to protect the rest of us, just as it exists in every other medium including human conversation. What I'm much more concerned about is half-wit J. Edgar Hoover wanna-bes who take an ad-hoc approach to collecting information, not giving a dump about collateral damage, and coyly taking an unregulated look at any other network traffic that "just happens" to get caught in their filters.
I suggest that this RFC is just the right way to go about it:
1. Publicly design a logical box that does what we need it to do and no more. 2. Force the authorities to stay inside that box. 3. Hand them their ass if they're caught outside the box.
As for the/. write-up, it's just (increasingly common around here) ill-informed, let's-go-occupy-the-provost's-office hyperbole.
What the privacy movement needs are intellectuals who can process enough complex facts to actually aid in the effort to balance a society that needs to be both free and safe. Automatically shouting "free!" when someone shouts "safe!" or "safe!" when someone shouts "free!" is not a useful debate. It's not even a good start.
Slashdot Mirror
You can't go after the children directly -- go after the enablers. I say we prosecute Baby Gap for selling encryption technology specifically designed to hide a child's nakedness from authorities.
Why does the video sound like it was narrated by Angela Anaconda? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqQVQwRlthQ
How do I *get* this hormone imbalance?
Hey Kirk, why the long face?
I don't care how warm it is, I could never get my junk around Greenland.
By replacing sections of solid concrete with Darius turbines, they might be able to harvest enough energy to power a light-rail line
Thereby reducing traffic, thereby reducing power, thereby bringing the light rail line to a stop...
Or at the very least I'd like to see a week where people walk around public areas saying things like:
"I just got this new 400mm lens and I'm going to take some pictures of Big Ben, and then a few close-ups of parliament, and then this afternoon I'm going to shoot the Queen."
or
"I'm glad Parliament has a visitor's gallery, I'm going to plant my bum there at 10:00, and then go off in time for lunch."
Okay, so if our universe is infinite and has consistent laws of physics throughout, and assuming whatever universe we were spit into has the same laws of physics as our own, how would we know we were in a new universe rather than just some (nearly) infinitely remote corner of our current one?
And yes, I considered GPS, and after a lot of thought and some math decided it wouldn't work.
I'm just happy to see that the Free Software Foundation doesn't seem to be implicated.
As a very competent independent consultant who has to market my services to companies all the time, I can understand this. I'm also frequently astounded and confused when potential clients choose to use someone else. I therefore support Diebold in their efforts to set a precedent I can use to then sue them into using me.
I would also encourage any other large company who so chooses to sue someone for not taking their calls, and sue vendors for not giving them services for free. If we get those two squared away I think we could all be much more successful.
I hereby declare it fair game to shoot someone simply for owning the car, no need to wait until they do something *else* offensive.
See, it's more efficient already.
-----
Sorry, this by all rights should be moderated "off topic" but I'd like to toss in what I hope is a thoughtful reply to your sig. I'd like to suggest that it's actually better to moderate *and* post thoughtful replies when you have them, because they serve two separate purposes.
Thoughtful replies add to the debate, but the moderation system helps other readers priorities what is an overwhelming amount of information. I don't equate the moderation system as a lazy-person's reply system, just a way (if you choose to run with the crowd) of getting to the comments that have already intrigued other people.
Cya!
Shouldn't that really be Oxidation?
Don't have mod points, so I'll just weigh in with an "I agree."
Hi everybody --
I'll be attending the launch on my own dime as an unaffiliated photographer, and I'd like very much to get into the post-flight press photo sessions.
If anyone can arrange a press pass for me I'd be happy to provide some exclusive pictures in exchange.
If this makes sense to anybody feel free to e-mail me at dave@dma.net.
Thanks!
Although they are frequently confused, this conjecture has no bearing on so-called "Wonder Twin" primes, in which the p is in the shape of a polar bear and p+2 is in the form of an ice ladder.
Isn't this scheme the perfect use for the wide-ranging social network information being collected by Plaxo?
It makes sense - they certainly haven't annouced a revenue stream yet, and "keeping your address book up-to-date," even in a wireless and multiplatform world just doesn't seem like a big enough idea to justify the huge amounts of data collected.
So is that the annoucement that's coming from Plaxo, the unveiling of a broad Spam solution that used 'degrees of separation' data from your address book and the address books of your friends to implement a spam filtering solution?
If I may say, it does seem like the killer app for their unique data set.
-------
The company responsible (namely Software Improvements) is clearly pushing to pick up a contract for machine development in the U.S., and saying All The Right Things (tm) to get it.
Don't blame them really, Diebold left themselves wide open - should be easy pickins.
---
Of course they'll make more money with a Google-run auction:
"I bid twenty dollars per share"
Did you mean: thirty dollars per share?
Hmmm. .
Yup, sounds like Netscape.
------
AOL is to computer culture what Little Boy was to Hiroshima.
Actually, AOL was to the Internet what Fat Man was to Little Boy:
1. Second.
2. Slightly more powerful.
3. Unnecessary.
-----
. .
-- "Naughty little whispers of Gideon." ."
-- "A playful spank of KwikDisk."
-- "A lingering yet mournful longing for the world that DCOP would bring, yet knowing it shall never be. .
---
Remember that this is corporate America and the U.S. government with which we are dealing. The chance of their gathering data correctly, let alone devising a way to use it to their advantage, is remote. "
I agree with this statement, but. . .
The more more important point is how much the government and corporations *think* they are gathering data correctly, and *think* they can use it to their advantage.
We are entering an age of false assumptions and spurious conclusions drawn on anecdotal data that supposedly has "validity" because it was retreived using a SQL query.
I think there is going to be a need for another edition of Carl Sagan's a "The Demon-Haunted World," that deals directly with peoples' (governments', corporations') willingness to add ill-conceived "reading tea leaves" type conclusions to otherwise opinion-less data sets.
Congratulations, we've graduated. It used to be that you had to know a little science to keep from being ripped off. Now we're moving into an age where you'll need to know computer science and statistics to keep from being arrested or discriminated against.
-----
Interesting how this seems to have topped out at very nearly the same penetration rates as cable television.
In cable, everyone thought that penetration was highly dependent on homes passed, that it would be a fixed percentage of how many homes could actually get wired. But although the homes passed numbers are quite high now, ultimately cable's speediest growth seems to have topped out at about 60 percent.
Same with Internet - some form of access is fairly ubiqitous now, but actual usage is topping out.
I wonder if this points to a class of telecommunications non-consumers - a certain group that simply doesn't consume or appreciate communications media enough to spend additional disposable income beyond what is freely available.
---
Of course I'm concerned that they will be hacked. .
*Of course* we need a mechanism for *lawful* intercepts in this society. Some capability to (shall I say it again) *lawfully* monitor bad guys on the Internet is necessary to protect the rest of us, just as it exists in every other medium including human conversation. What I'm much more concerned about is half-wit J. Edgar Hoover wanna-bes who take an ad-hoc approach to collecting information, not giving a dump about collateral damage, and coyly taking an unregulated look at any other network traffic that "just happens" to get caught in their filters.
I suggest that this RFC is just the right way to go about it:
1. Publicly design a logical box that does what we need it to do and no more.
2. Force the authorities to stay inside that box.
3. Hand them their ass if they're caught outside the box.
As for the /. write-up, it's just (increasingly common around here) ill-informed, let's-go-occupy-the-provost's-office hyperbole.
What the privacy movement needs are intellectuals who can process enough complex facts to actually aid in the effort to balance a society that needs to be both free and safe. Automatically shouting "free!" when someone shouts "safe!" or "safe!" when someone shouts "free!" is not a useful debate. It's not even a good start.
-----