I have a right to privacy as long as I don't want to travel anywhere?
It's a good argument, but it has nothing to do with this retinal scan system. That is just an optional replacement to checking IDs.
WHO I AM is not important when I travel on an airplane. Whether or not I'm carrying weapons, bombs, that is important.
Each has its own usefulness. On Sept. 11th, the terrorists weren't carrying weapons or bombs, as defined at the time. Many of them were, however, on FBI watch lists. I doubt any of them were trusted frequent flyers. When you fly you put innocent people who aren't even on the flight at risk. As such there needs to be some government regulation. Random checks are much less effective than targetted checks.
Really, I don't understand why people keep tearing down the strawman of stopping terrorists. Has Northwest ever even claimed that this has anything to do with terrorism? Or is it just that the stupid dept. line mentioned it?
For a bunch of technophiles we sure are afraid of new technologies... Timothy's link to the limitations didn't even mention eye-scans. In fact, it specifically said that "[biometrics] are useful in situations where there is a trusted path from the reader to the verifier." Guess what, that's what we have here.
You make a company policy that says "don't do this bad thing", and then your managers enforce the policy using exactly the same methods they use to enforce all the other policies.
Definately, but then on top of policies you log access to those ports. If you block access to ICQ ports, people will just use HTTP proxying. But if you log access to ICQ ports, people likely won't think to use the HTTP proxy, and they'll be easily caught.
which says "don't use instant messengers". The rest of the equation depends on why you want to block IM. If you're worried about information leakage, then you need to shut down everything and just allow logged proxy access.
You shouldn't argue a point when you have no idea what you're talking about. I don't care if it's the Bible, or the Constitution, or the DMCA. Read it first, understand what the hell you're talking about, then ask questions.
I found the quotes using a simple search. You could have easily done the same.
Wow, still simple then, just check against a list of "authorized" referer's that you update when someone fills out the necessary form =)
Yeah, right, that'll work as well as checking against a list of "authorized" email addresses that are allowed to send you email. In other words, it won't work at all. See my other post in this thread.
But what if they don't know the list of referrers beforehand? Just because I give permission to CBS to link to me doesn't mean I know every URL they are going to link from, and then what about browsers which send false referrers, and what about bookmarks? It's not a complete solution.
Which is directly in reply to the poster who said "So, when does NPR start suing Google, Alltheweb, and others for indexing, and even worse, CACHE-ING their site." [emphasis NOT mine]
and the second talks about hosting or linking to information that is in violation of copyright laws
Imagine my saying the U.S. Constitution says people taller than 6'2" should be required to run for Congress, but refuse to tell you where exactly that statement is made.
I wouldn't believe you, because I've read the U.S. Constitution, so I know you're not telling the truth. If you're interested in the DMCA, you should read it, not let others give you little snippets.
The Slashdot End User License Agreement
on
Blogspace vs. NPR
·
· Score: 2
"A person's use of OSDN and any of its Services (as defined below) at any time is subject to OSDN's then-current Terms of Service ("TOS"), which may be updated from time to time as set forth below."
''(b) SYSTEM CACHING.--
''(1) LIMITATION ON LIABILITY.--A service provider shall
not be liable for monetary relief, or, except as provided in
subsection ( j), for injunctive or other equitable relief, for
infringement of copyright by reason of the intermediate and
temporary storage of material on a system or network controlled
or operated by or for the service provider in a case in which--
''(A) the material is made available online by a person
other than the service provider;
''(B) the material is transmitted from the person
described in subparagraph (A) through the system or network
to a person other than the person described in
subparagraph (A) at the direction of that other person;
and
''(C) the storage is carried out through an automatic
technical process for the purpose of making the material
available to users of the system or network who, after
the material is transmitted as described in subparagraph
(B), request access to the material from the person
described in subparagraph (A),
if the conditions set forth in paragraph (2) are met.
''(d) INFORMATION LOCATION TOOLS.--A service provider shall
not be liable for monetary relief, or, except as provided in subsection
( j), for injunctive or other equitable relief, for infringement of copyright
by reason of the provider referring or linking users to an
online location containing infringing material or infringing activity,
by using information location tools, including a directory, index,
reference, pointer, or hypertext link, if the service provider--
''(1)(A) does not have actual knowledge that the material
or activity is infringing;
''(B) in the absence of such actual knowledge, is not aware
of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is
apparent; or
''(C) upon obtaining such knowledge or awareness, acts
expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material;
''(2) does not receive a financial benefit directly attributable
to the infringing activity, in a case in which the service provider
has the right and ability to control such activity; and
''(3) upon notification of claimed infringement as described
in subsection (c)(3), responds expeditiously to remove, or disable
access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing or
to be the subject of infringing activity, except that, for purposes
of this paragraph, the information described in subsection
(c)(3)(A)(iii) shall be identification of the reference or link, to
material or activity claimed to be infringing, that is to be
removed or access to which is to be disabled, and information
reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to locate
that reference or link.
If you're writing the software yourself, just say that the GPL does not apply to the artwork. OTOH, if you're using someone else's code, then you should get permission to create a derivitive work of the program with the proprietary images included. Not doing so violates the GPL, or at the least is a contributory violation of the end-users' violations.
Yes another technology that, although useful to people in rural areas, will be restricted to towns and cities.
Actually that's quite doubtful. These frequencies require line of sight, so unless you have access to a rooftop and a mountaintop, you're probably not going to be able to use it in towns and cities.
The article doesn't make it clear if this is possible, but it would certainly be useful to be able to set up a network to transfer the quantum state, and then later transfer the actual information, after the network is torn down. What if I could transfer the quantum state in my car, take it to my friend, and then when I go home I can communicate with that friend. Even if it's "only" at the speed, this would revolutionize communications (and bankrupt the entire current telecommunications industry). No more need for T1s.
I guess I'm not sure what you mean by A) then. My tongue is contained within my body, and if it is my consciousness, then it could presumably be destroyed and recreated somewhere else.
Either my consciousness is made up of atoms (and photons and muons, etc.), or it is made of something which we have not yet discovered (possibly undiscoverable, and possibly involving supreme being(s)).
Maybe our consciousness is made up of something which is observable, but not replicable. But again that would imply that a test run of the teleportation machine would fail.
I'm definately not trying to say you're wrong, I just am having trouble understanding.
Slashdot Mirror
I have a right to privacy as long as I don't want to travel anywhere?
It's a good argument, but it has nothing to do with this retinal scan system. That is just an optional replacement to checking IDs.
WHO I AM is not important when I travel on an airplane. Whether or not I'm carrying weapons, bombs, that is important.
Each has its own usefulness. On Sept. 11th, the terrorists weren't carrying weapons or bombs, as defined at the time. Many of them were, however, on FBI watch lists. I doubt any of them were trusted frequent flyers. When you fly you put innocent people who aren't even on the flight at risk. As such there needs to be some government regulation. Random checks are much less effective than targetted checks.
With all due respect to the blind people out there, I seriously doubt that a person without one good eye would be much of a threat.
You don't need eyes to put a bomb in your shoe.
Really, I don't understand why people keep tearing down the strawman of stopping terrorists. Has Northwest ever even claimed that this has anything to do with terrorism? Or is it just that the stupid dept. line mentioned it?
For a bunch of technophiles we sure are afraid of new technologies... Timothy's link to the limitations didn't even mention eye-scans. In fact, it specifically said that "[biometrics] are useful in situations where there is a trusted path from the reader to the verifier." Guess what, that's what we have here.
You make a company policy that says "don't do this bad thing", and then your managers enforce the policy using exactly the same methods they use to enforce all the other policies.
Definately, but then on top of policies you log access to those ports. If you block access to ICQ ports, people will just use HTTP proxying. But if you log access to ICQ ports, people likely won't think to use the HTTP proxy, and they'll be easily caught.
which says "don't use instant messengers". The rest of the equation depends on why you want to block IM. If you're worried about information leakage, then you need to shut down everything and just allow logged proxy access.
You shouldn't argue a point when you have no idea what you're talking about. I don't care if it's the Bible, or the Constitution, or the DMCA. Read it first, understand what the hell you're talking about, then ask questions.
I found the quotes using a simple search. You could have easily done the same.
Wow, still simple then, just check against a list of "authorized" referer's that you update when someone fills out the necessary form =)
Yeah, right, that'll work as well as checking against a list of "authorized" email addresses that are allowed to send you email. In other words, it won't work at all. See my other post in this thread.
But what if they don't know the list of referrers beforehand? Just because I give permission to CBS to link to me doesn't mean I know every URL they are going to link from, and then what about browsers which send false referrers, and what about bookmarks? It's not a complete solution.
It talks about limitation of liabilty for ISP's.
Google and Alltheweb are ISPs
The first is about caching
Which is directly in reply to the poster who said "So, when does NPR start suing Google, Alltheweb, and others for indexing, and even worse, CACHE-ING their site." [emphasis NOT mine]
and the second talks about hosting or linking to information that is in violation of copyright laws
No, the second talks about indexing.
Imagine my saying the U.S. Constitution says people taller than 6'2" should be required to run for Congress, but refuse to tell you where exactly that statement is made.
I wouldn't believe you, because I've read the U.S. Constitution, so I know you're not telling the truth. If you're interested in the DMCA, you should read it, not let others give you little snippets.
"A person's use of OSDN and any of its Services (as defined below) at any time is subject to OSDN's then-current Terms of Service ("TOS"), which may be updated from time to time as set forth below."
Please show me which part of the DMCA talks about this subject.
You should do your own research, but here
So, when does NPR start suing Google, Alltheweb, and others for indexing, and even worse, CACHE-ING their site.
As soon as some idiot repeals the DMCA, which grants these sites permission to do these things.
It's a matter of free speech.
Is copyright law "categorically immune from challenge under the First Amendment?" That's yet to be decided.
It's trivial to block linking by looking at the referrer field and only allowing access if it's empty or from npr.org.
But npr.org doesn't want to block linking. They just want to be able to opt-in first.
This is clearly a case of freedom of speech.
Yep, NPR can put anything they want in their policies. Enforcing it, on the other hand...
don't buy it.
If you're writing the software yourself, just say that the GPL does not apply to the artwork. OTOH, if you're using someone else's code, then you should get permission to create a derivitive work of the program with the proprietary images included. Not doing so violates the GPL, or at the least is a contributory violation of the end-users' violations.
Yes another technology that, although useful to people in rural areas, will be restricted to towns and cities.
Actually that's quite doubtful. These frequencies require line of sight, so unless you have access to a rooftop and a mountaintop, you're probably not going to be able to use it in towns and cities.
Seems to me that 71-95Ghz wouldn't work through walls or trees. Maybe satellite? Anyone with enough knowledge of radio waves willing to comment?
It just doesn't sit right beyond the gee-whiz factor for me.
Sounds like a perfect candidate for a front page article, then.
do you mean that you can capture the movement of every air molicule and suspended particles that are caused to vibrate?
Sure, it's all just E-M waves anyway.
The article doesn't make it clear if this is possible, but it would certainly be useful to be able to set up a network to transfer the quantum state, and then later transfer the actual information, after the network is torn down. What if I could transfer the quantum state in my car, take it to my friend, and then when I go home I can communicate with that friend. Even if it's "only" at the speed, this would revolutionize communications (and bankrupt the entire current telecommunications industry). No more need for T1s.
Well, I was assuming that the sound wave was recreated perfectly. So that covers 1, 2, and 5. As for 3, well, I think you're oversimplifying things.
I guess I'm not sure what you mean by A) then. My tongue is contained within my body, and if it is my consciousness, then it could presumably be destroyed and recreated somewhere else.
Either my consciousness is made up of atoms (and photons and muons, etc.), or it is made of something which we have not yet discovered (possibly undiscoverable, and possibly involving supreme being(s)).
Maybe our consciousness is made up of something which is observable, but not replicable. But again that would imply that a test run of the teleportation machine would fail.
I'm definately not trying to say you're wrong, I just am having trouble understanding.