"this project is funded by a gift from Microsoft Corporation to develop a transformation toolkit for the intermediate language of their new.NET intermediate language...Obfuscation is of interest to many software vendors, who wish to prevent people from stealing their ideas....we hope to develop new methods that are provably hard to undo....."
They can't really mean the deliberate construction of a language where they could "turn the key" and all intermediate code would stop working.....that would be a great act of hubris....and not at all in the usual keeping of Microsoft....
...I mean, who needs the government when individual citizens are encouraged to spy on each other. Everyone should be concerned with your business...."why would you possibly need 250 gallons of specially formulated peroxide? What could you possibly be doing with that? Are you a terrorist?"
I guess I can kinda see where you wouldn't want any Joe to walk into your shop with an empty 5-gal. jerry can asking for explosive oxidizers, but If you are a legit. operation and you've got your papers in order, then "these arn't the droids you're looking for.." should be an acceptable answer.
I've read some of the follow up replies too, and it sounds like the economy of the failed drug war will be opened to the custom chemical makers too...by that I mean decentralization of production by creating lots of little specialty shops instead of one easy to monitor monster shop (FMC). In the past, closing of the border only created lots of small producers state-side. Looks like this may happen with chemicals too.
Good luck to our rocket boys....and remember the warning on CNN..."these chemicals can be dangerous...do not touch anything and call the authorities immediatly".......
good job on that worthless post!....It's through the tireless dedication of people like you that nothing gets done.
Re:Big legal mistake...
on
Kazaa Fights Back
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Not exactly right...if it is determined that the RIAA has colluded and attempted to illegally control the distribution end of digital music (termed 'overreaching' in the article), their copyrights are not valid. Therefore, Kazaa is conducting "legal business" in files which have no copyright!
Also consider that previous attempts were made to secure authorization "in good faith" by others who were later sued into the ground....the RIAA has really set themselves up for this....read this month's wired too...their collusion to control this distribution is well known.
The best possible defense is a strong offense, and if the people at Sharman have even ONE smoking gun from the RIAA, they're toast.
The US Senate has already looked into this collusion angle too, it's well known...all they gotta do is prove that they "were not allowed to conduct lawfull business" by the RIAA and it's over.
This could potentially be the biggest damage to the RIAA of all....think what would happen if they lost copyright on their entire catalogs?....
This is VERY much down with the Khan quote above "from hell's heart I stab at thee".....go Kazaa
Yeah, I agree with this solution too....while perhaps, it might not be as quick as having hardware acceleration for crypto functions, this option allows you to "take your key with you"...wherever you go....that way, I have the OPTION of proving who I am for e-commerce reasons, or keeping annonymous if I choose....This solution would allow "root" users to really work on the system and also prevent trojans at the same time. If my keys are always on and accessable, I'm always individually identifiable...Think "no-key" for porno sites and "key-in" for purchases...I have the ultimate control over who gets to see my keys, as I can physically remove the key when I choose.
That seems like a more secure and flexible option to me.
I'd like to know more about both of these, but my brain is off for the night too...
I'm not sure where the problem is either...I'm alright with "open" all the way to the graphic card mfg's format.
If that means the card makers will produce something that levels the playing field on drivers for all OS's, count me in. I would also be suspicious of "special tools"....but that could only happen if the spec. for the drivers is not really "open."
Perhaps I don't really understand the problem though...how is getting the OS community to write/enhance/extend/propagate a format that would be great for all of us a problem?
I think the best thing we can do is to try to make other people aware of this. My life is really busy, and I only found this link (on the sidebar) because I really care about this....most people wouldn't think twice.......That's the problem.....
If you care about this issue, take the time to educate ONE other person that you know....somebody that wouldn't have this cross their minds......I couldn't say it any better than the first page of the introduction...I'll just tell people to read until they are no longer interested...
I don't know exactly what the "IP" restrictions on this document are, but I intend to print off a few copies and leave them at the coffee shop...I hope the ACLU will not mind.
I also intend to send everyone I know this link....perhaps a good use of "spam," perhaps not....
As more people know the ramifications of this, there will be some balance, I hope.
I'm really saddened though, when I see that more people would take "security" than liberty in old Ben Franklin's gambit....than perhaps they really do deserve neither.
I agree with the premise of the article, that the phone companies are viewing IP as a service rather than a medium....take the following quote from the article though:
In classic ZapMail fashion, the telephone companies misunderstand the WiFi business. WiFi is a product, not a service, and they assume their competition is limited to other service companies. There are now half a dozen companies selling wireless access points; at the low end, Linksys sells a hundred dollar device for the home that connects to DSL or cable modems, provides wireless access, and has a built-in ethernet hub to boot. The industry has visions of the "2nd phone line" effect coming to data networking, where multi-computer households will have multiple accounts, but if customers can share a high-speed connection among several devices with a single product, the service business will never materialize.
The problem here is how the companies have their service plans written. In most cases (except Speakeasy I believe), it's expressly forbidden to share your connection with anyone!...Call this an "anti-terrorism" move or just simple protection of their markets. Either way, they have legislated their own protection.
If you have broadband, please examine your "acceptable use policy" for this type of language. With the pending handout to the phone companies (so that they can keep up with the Jones' over in the cable camp), I expect even further clamping of total bandwidth, types of bandwidth (i.e. peer-2-peer) and how you may use what's left.
That's where FedEx didn't have control...If they could have gone to Washington with the idea that "FAX owners are possible terrorists," they could have blocked the individual ownership of FAX machines through legislation...and ZapMail might be all we know now! FedEx also didn't have control of what the public can attach to their phone circuits....the phone company does have some level of control over that.
Simply put, the phone companies are in a much stronger position to protect their markets with anti-competitive language and policies. I don't expect them to "go easily into that good night." I expect that there will be quite a struggle coming up....expect all the legal manuvers, engineered incompatabilities and FUD that we've seen from the RIAA/MPAA and more.....They didn't get to be monopolies by being nice, they'll do whatever it takes to maintain that position.
Most states already record your vehicle milage at each pass through the emissions check! This happens either every year or every other year when tabs are due...they could just use that figure to calculate the tax without the implications of "where were you on the night of Friday December 13th" type measures.
Or even simpler, just apply the tax to gas with the dual effect of driving (pun intended) people towards more fuel efficient cars.
Having this type of tracking information will only lead to more invasive government...and records which could be abused. I grew up in Oregon, and I don't think the people there would go for "manditory GPS tracking" of their vehicles...you might start to see a lot of tin cans mounted above the GPS receivers if the state forces this stupid/invasive measure through.
As you correctly guessed, my case was one of "un-intended personal injury"...I was pushed by another student and bumped the woman. No, she didn't fall down the stairs, she didn't even fall down! She sued myself, the student that pushed me and the school district.
She dropped the case against the school district when her lawyer learned that "it is school district policy to pursue every case" because they have an army of lawyers on staff. As directed by her lawyer, the case was filed against my parents home-owners insurance even though it did not happen at our home and I was "under the direction of the Portland Public Schools" at the time.
On the other points, you are simply wrong....the police are entitled to collect evidence against you. This is why they often search peoples homes/cars/person for incriminating evidence. The black box in you car could be considered such evidence....and because it (the box) is not the accused, could therefore can be compelled to respond (again with the subpoena power or sit in jail). Lawyers are also entitled to subpoena information which they think will be usefull to them in a case where they have legal standing (i.e. some legit reason to be looking, and any personal injury would be a good one). They are granted this power during the "Discovery" phase of their case, where they get to investigate and see everything that you have, all of your evidence pro and con. Your black box would be an exellent place to start.
Wrong on the corporation law too....Corps assume the legal liability and responsabilities of their board/president/ceo/etc. as long as those boardmembers/directors/shareholders act within the law. Corps can be held responsible for actions that the board members cannot (i.e. bankrupcy, legal liability, etc.)....that's the advantage of a corporation, it shields the directors/board/officers. But this exemption comes at a price. Like a person, corps have legal standing and can sue/be-sued, have seperate tax-id numbers, and bear legal responsibility for it's actions. In many ways, corps have the legal standing of a person without the actual body. Here too, in a legal case, it's not the corporation testifying against itself, it's the individual documents testifying against the corporation...Andrew Fastow and the Enron boys can be compelled to testify against the corp.too. This happens except where such testimony would incriminate them.
One last fun note....courts have the power to compell testimony from witnesses also...but because of the fact you cited above, they must first grant immunity against self incrimination before they can compell testimony. Once done though (you've been given immunity) you must speak, otherwise you are in contempt and get to go to jail too.....in the case of an "onboard computer" observing an accident, it has no jeoperdy and should testify. It's also property, therefore not legaly entitled to any protection or identity (unlike a person or a corp.)
....First it was the RFID chips in my tires monitoring my position in front of Taco-Bell for the government and now it Nuclear blasts in a densely packed city!......
I can't think of a single situation where this type of "on-board computer" would have helped me! I can only think of situations where my insurance company or somebody else's insurance company would have screwed me over with information like this. I don't drive crazy, but insurance companies are in the business of NOT paying claims!..The more they can avoid paying, the better for their bottom line. And I think we all know where lawyers rank on the humanity scale..I once got sued for bumping into a woman at my highschool...I was on foot when this happened and I still had to pay $9000 to her quack lawyer
As soon as this data gets recorded, it's "subpoena-able" by lawyers representing anyone else on the road. Remember that old woman that bumped into your car at the supermarket?...Her lawyer could subpoena your "black box" for any fishing expedition that he thinks might be profitable. The best answer is simply NOT to keep records which might implicate you in the future....even if you have nothing to hide, go the speed-limit, drive carefully. Big companies do this already with their e-mail policies and document retention policies....if it's around, it could be subpoenaed for use against you....get rid of it now before it gets called into court
Your "black box" could be called into court to show virtually anything a lawyer wants to show. If it doesn't show anything at all, do you think for one second that the other side will use that "inconclusive" evidence to help vindicate your side?.....bullshit..this whole "data computer" thing is simply the insurance industry attempting to get out of paying claims, coupled with the trial lawyers guild smelling a new source of contingency fees......
Only way to avoid it is to drive an old car that you own outright!
I have absolutely no problem with individual users or agencies making choices (i.e. wireless vs. wired) like these for themselves...the problem comes when somebody, usually a government type, decides for EVERYONE what's acceptable and not acceptable. As posted here before, our "government types" are starting to get itchy fingers over this wireless thing...."must stop anyone from having open AP"...in the name of National Security.
If you don't want your data open for everyone to look at, don't use wireless or spend the time to create a really secure VPN/SSH connection that you trust. You shouldn't ever consider wireless any more secure/private than shouting across a couple of rows at the ball game.....that said, there are some situations where you do WANT everyone within a limited range to hear what you are saying, or simply don't care if they evesdrop...wireless is perfect for that....
We tech types have a responsibility to help educate the folks who are still trying to hook up their X-mas gifts. If people understand what's going on with wireless, they will be less likely to gripe about the problems with it and we all will be less likely to have a government solution imposed upon us...
Re:Okay ... a few things that really bug me here .
on
The End of Solotrek
·
· Score: 2
I'll take you up on that....I LOVE jumpjets....they could be the uber-weapon if used correctly.
Yes, there isn't much protection for the operator, but imagine 75-100 of these things swarming around some "target of interest"...
Not quite as "remote control" as the Preditor or Global Hawk...but more lethal because the guys could jump out of their suits once they arrive on the scene.
This is something that DARPA should be funding, not John Poindexter looking at your credit card purchases!
It's too bad too, I've seen other cool projects get killed by the Dept. of Defense too.
I imagine that this technology will be scooped up for pennies by one of the big defense contractors. This is really too cool and too adaptable to pass up for the soldier in the field.
Look at the Acceptable Use Policy first.......
on
DSL Rising
·
· Score: 2
The most important thing to me is the policy as to what you can have installed at the customer end and what you can do with your line......
Would you get a phone if you could ONLY call outbound?....That's what's happening with my cable modem policy now....No servers...NO....of course, you can get around that by using off ports, but it's the principle that counts....besides, the cable speed is capped both directions, so even if my home server gets hit with the "slashdot effect," there's only going to be so much effect on my neighbors.
I think that it's different for DSL because it rides on the "Public Utility" that is your city/country wide phone network. I believe that it's covered by telecom regulation. No such situation for the cable guys...cable is a non-essential service, they can do whatever they want and you can either take it or leave it.
I think you would see more DSL if the telecoms could impose more restrictive Acceptable Use policies on their customers. As it is, it seems that they are holding back....it also seems like it's more about content production/distribution than it is about the DSL competition dis-incentive (you know their latest story..."let us eliminate the smaller DSL providers and we'll put more DSL in.."). If the telecoms could ream your ass harder, they would....
Next, I'll prob. have to insert my "smart card" into the network modem so that I can shop online...I tell ya, between ATT cable, the Dept. of Homeland Security and the RIAA/MPAA mafia, you won't be able to write bad poetry on a bar napkin without going to jail, owing somebody a royalty or getting your legs broken. Perhaps all three.
It's about time compression of plot......
on
Taken?
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Let me start out by saying that "yes, it plot seemed to be less interesting as the episodes went by"...but I think this has more to do with the time compression element of the story than it does with Steven Spielberg.
I really like the first 5 episodes, I also thought Jesse K. was the best character of the show. The early episodes with Owen Crawford held me spellbound (that character was my manager at Terabeam). The episode directed by the former "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" was easily the spookiest. As the story came out of the "time compression" that they were holding to in the early episodes, the plot started to wander. There just wasn't enough depth of character to fill up the final hours.
Remember also that Steven S. was the overseer of all the other directors. The individual episodes had seperate directors and I could feel the difference from show to show.
In the end, it's all just entertainment....and most people here posting watched it...enjoy it, it was free and you also got to see those halfway funny IBM ads.
Our department of "Homeland Security" is creating the situation where all users of the net must be tracable....for the purpose of spying on them and controlling our ability to peacefully associate on the net. Our right to assemble for the purpose of communication is gauranteed in the bill of rights, but is under assult.
As with the "Great Firewall of China" articles that I've been seeing here lately, governments are fearfull of any tool that would allow people to communicate freely. Annonymous communication over the net allows disent to grow without the heavy hand of big brother picking out the "ringleaders."
I notice in this article that there is no discussion at all about why this is necessary for security. I don't believe at all that one guy with a laptop on an open AP could "bring the net down"...
We must force our government to explain WHY this and all of the other USA Patriot act bullshit is necessary....making Bush, Poindexter, Ashcroft and the others explain their position to everyone is the act of a real patriot.....don't believe the hype.....
That's still not enough to really hang him on. As with the other public comments about the MS case, anyone could write the fcc claiming to be "Phil Lelyveld."
It's not quite the same as the original link implied it to be either, but still pretty bad.
I think the best thing to do is continue to vote with your wallets. Like the whole Paladium thing, no technology like this will be approved if EVERY congress-critter knows that ALL the people in their districts will not be buying it.
They'll get this information from the lobbyists from Good-guys and Comp-USA.....business get's the picture pretty fast. There's also no way that all the players necessary to make this happen are gonna hold together against determined consumer resistance, somebody is gonna crack in the face of "lackluster sales."
Just don't buy it....ever!...under any circumstances......
...all the stuff is easily available. In fact, that was my first home Linux project.
Parts list:
Linux box running Apache
X-10 master control module
"Firecracker" module from X-10 (serial->RF master)
"Firecracker" for Linux program.
That's it, perhaps $75 if you spend too much....
Here's the real problem though.....running such a server (either purchased or built) is against your user service agreement for most broadband people.
I can understand why the cable internet people wouldn't want some poor slob getting the slashdot effect. It would destroy service for all the others allong the cable modem route. But facts are facts and any server on your equipment is illegal, even if it's just to turn on/off your hot-tub before you get home from work.
Of course, there are ways around that.....but that's another story.....
I'm not talking about the people at SF or GotDotNet "pulling" any of the code for use on inside projects without distribution. That's fair. I'm refering to "yanking it off the servers because we don't want ANYONE to see it" type of pulled. That's more what I'd be afraid of on the MS site. Even if everything else was clean (no porno, no theft, no IP problems, etc.).
You understand how much temptation there would be to pull a project if it were something like a "free" as in beer Office clone? How long would they allow that to compete with their commercial offerings, especially if it was better.
They could incorporate it...sure, but blocking it's distribution to save the empire, that's another thing completely.
To the best of my knowledge, that's how SF works. All them buzzwords that MS throws around like "best of breed" and "competition" are actually playing out on SF!....that's the arena where the action is.
Oh, and one more jab.....the "Community links" area doesn't even have a link back to Slashdot... How ungratefull, since we've prob. been 95% of their hits today.........
I'm not quite sure that argument would hold up, since publishing on the web is distributing (at least from the author to the ftp upload site) although I am willing to listen if you know more.
I also suspect that the SF liscense is more like "we got this off the servers, so can you..." and I suspect the Microsoft liscense is more like "..all your base are belong to us.."
Seriously though, I wouldn't mind MS using something I wrote, as long as the obey all the other rules that go along with GPL. I really have a hard time believing that that would happen though, at least MS following the GPL for stuff that's posted on their "Forge." Do they even allow authors to publish GPL on their servers?....now THAT would be viral if we could free the contents of the entire server by storage there.
I'd also be looking for some type of protection that doesn't allow them to silence alternative code if it does get published on their site. I could easily imagine some situation where a "TiVO" app all in.NET on their servers gets "pulled" if it starts to take away from one of their commercial offerings. To my knowledge, this has not happened on SF yet.
I'm still skeptical, but I'm willing to listen if you show me where in the SourceForge liscense it grants such terms too.
It sure prob. is copyrighted!....and NO THERE ISN'T PLENTY OF PUBLIC DOMAIN STUFF....
Even if you are getting that music off a defunct "K-Tell" record from "Disco-77" you bet it's copyrighted....and Jack still says you gotta pay "K-Tell" for the right to use it....even if K-Tell isn't around anymore, you gotta pay him and his cousin Vinny.
Think it's hard now....think down the DRM road where the access is controlled "per-play" rather than "I have the album"....as soon as the consumer looses the right to "hold the album/rights to listen".....it's all over....
Think about it, that's where EULA's have been going with "revokable liscense agreements" and the rest of it. You no longer have the ability to keep using something that you bought, even if you still have the media.....time expired!
As I was waiting for the link to load, I was guessing how this might be accomplished.....Pretty cool solution to this problem. The non-contact electrical connection was the most innovative thing about this. Looks like it uses an inductive ring at either end of the pipe to pass the signal.
With a little rework, existing pipes could be make to be "intelligent" like this too. You could, for instance, drop a small inductive "washer" at each of the joints and drop the cable in through the pipe. You'd only need to drill a small hole at each end of the pipe to make the connection between the washer and cable inside. I know that this is over-simplifying the situation, but my guess is that existing pipes could be reworked for perhaps $200 per segment in quantity.
This is not a troll against the original post, just an observation that too many people are acting like "broadband" is the cure-all for poor television, lack of web content, and if you believe Congress, our weak economy.....this is hogwash!
I also keep seeing this statement about the "chicken and egg" problem of broadband, but nobody has explained precisely WHY it's a problem. What new content is going to magicly be available? What compelling reason could our Congress or even your city council have for getting you on the net faster. They work for you and should be FOLLOWING your wishes, not trying to ram broadband down the public's throat.
Perhaps people are happy enough with what they've got! The option of moving up to broadband is always out there, there's simply no reason for most.....why is that a problem?
The industry wants to get everyone hooked up and locked into big monthly bills....remember the AT&T comment (here previously on slashdot)about the targeted $300/month bill. This "get everyone on broadband" thing is ASTROTURF by the media players....
If you buy into the current "broadband" push, it will only be a one-way stream. Starting at RIAA/MPAA headquarters and ending at your wallet! This push for "broadband" by Congress is NOT about getting more choice, it's about building Hollywood's pipes at taxpayer expense.
I'm really not too interested in seeing "digital convergance" either if it means that I've got to live with Paladium and turn my computer into a worthless "set-top box"....that I'm going to have to keep replacing every time MS comes out with a new version of "Windows Set-Top-Box edition"...
We should stop worrying about how many people adopt broadband...it's their own business. It certainly doesn't warrent the government or anyone else getting involved. Perhaps we should just let the marketplace figure this one out on it's own....
It's not that the two companies COULDN'T do that, it's that neither company WANTS to do that!
The hardware makers are in a cage too, if either one of them DOESN'T support it, they could hand the market share to the one that does. They're both FORCED by the margins to go along!...
The only answer lays with the consumer....DON'T BUY THIS PRODUCT....EVER!...
DONT EVEN LET IT GET A FOOTHOLD!.....
YOU!...the person reading this...use your influence as a tech person reading this list....tell everyone you know that that "this Paladium thing sucks!"....everyone you can!...tell "PC Magazine", the marketing droids at your company, technical manager in your department....tell your aunt that's calling about "getting a Dell"...tell everyone that talks with you about comptuters that this sucks....it's crippled....."it's really bad, I wouldn't spend my money on it..."
tell anyone asking you for tech advice..."...this Paladium thing sucks..."...
Work it into casual conversation..."..yeah, you know that this new Paladium thing REALLY sucks...."..
Need to kill this thing now...and we shouldn't take our collective power for granted on this one....you can bet that MS and RIAA are working up the "positive" buzz for this right now. I imagine that there will be a media campaign for this after Christmas season....
Nothing kills a new product faster than "consumer apathy," and for good measure, a heaping helping of distrust/dislike.
We need to start buzzing about this thing rather than quietly accepting defeat/takaway of our rights.
Slashdot Mirror
"this project is funded by a gift from Microsoft Corporation to develop a transformation toolkit for the intermediate language of their new .NET intermediate language...Obfuscation is of interest to many software vendors, who wish to prevent people from stealing their ideas....we hope to develop new methods that are provably hard to undo. ...."
They can't really mean the deliberate construction of a language where they could "turn the key" and all intermediate code would stop working.....that would be a great act of hubris....and not at all in the usual keeping of Microsoft....
...I mean, who needs the government when individual citizens are encouraged to spy on each other. Everyone should be concerned with your business...."why would you possibly need 250 gallons of specially formulated peroxide? What could you possibly be doing with that? Are you a terrorist?"
I guess I can kinda see where you wouldn't want any Joe to walk into your shop with an empty 5-gal. jerry can asking for explosive oxidizers, but If you are a legit. operation and you've got your papers in order, then "these arn't the droids you're looking for.." should be an acceptable answer.
I've read some of the follow up replies too, and it sounds like the economy of the failed drug war will be opened to the custom chemical makers too...by that I mean decentralization of production by creating lots of little specialty shops instead of one easy to monitor monster shop (FMC). In the past, closing of the border only created lots of small producers state-side. Looks like this may happen with chemicals too.
Good luck to our rocket boys....and remember the warning on CNN..."these chemicals can be dangerous...do not touch anything and call the authorities immediatly".......
good job on that worthless post!....It's through the tireless dedication of people like you that nothing gets done.
Not exactly right...if it is determined that the RIAA has colluded and attempted to illegally control the distribution end of digital music (termed 'overreaching' in the article), their copyrights are not valid. Therefore, Kazaa is conducting "legal business" in files which have no copyright!
Also consider that previous attempts were made to secure authorization "in good faith" by others who were later sued into the ground....the RIAA has really set themselves up for this....read this month's wired too...their collusion to control this distribution is well known.
The best possible defense is a strong offense, and if the people at Sharman have even ONE smoking gun from the RIAA, they're toast.
The US Senate has already looked into this collusion angle too, it's well known...all they gotta do is prove that they "were not allowed to conduct lawfull business" by the RIAA and it's over.
This could potentially be the biggest damage to the RIAA of all....think what would happen if they lost copyright on their entire catalogs?....
This is VERY much down with the Khan quote above "from hell's heart I stab at thee".....go Kazaa
Yeah, I agree with this solution too....while perhaps, it might not be as quick as having hardware acceleration for crypto functions, this option allows you to "take your key with you"...wherever you go....that way, I have the OPTION of proving who I am for e-commerce reasons, or keeping annonymous if I choose....This solution would allow "root" users to really work on the system and also prevent trojans at the same time. If my keys are always on and accessable, I'm always individually identifiable...Think "no-key" for porno sites and "key-in" for purchases...I have the ultimate control over who gets to see my keys, as I can physically remove the key when I choose.
That seems like a more secure and flexible option to me.
I'd like to know more about both of these, but my brain is off for the night too...
Yeah,
I'm not sure where the problem is either...I'm alright with "open" all the way to the graphic card mfg's format.
If that means the card makers will produce something that levels the playing field on drivers for all OS's, count me in. I would also be suspicious of "special tools"....but that could only happen if the spec. for the drivers is not really "open."
Perhaps I don't really understand the problem though...how is getting the OS community to write/enhance/extend/propagate a format that would be great for all of us a problem?
I think the best thing we can do is to try to make other people aware of this. My life is really busy, and I only found this link (on the sidebar) because I really care about this....most people wouldn't think twice....
If you care about this issue, take the time to educate ONE other person that you know....somebody that wouldn't have this cross their minds....
I don't know exactly what the "IP" restrictions on this document are, but I intend to print off a few copies and leave them at the coffee shop...I hope the ACLU will not mind.
I also intend to send everyone I know this link....perhaps a good use of "spam," perhaps not....
As more people know the ramifications of this, there will be some balance, I hope.
I'm really saddened though, when I see that more people would take "security" than liberty in old Ben Franklin's gambit....than perhaps they really do deserve neither.
The problem here is how the companies have their service plans written. In most cases (except Speakeasy I believe), it's expressly forbidden to share your connection with anyone!...Call this an "anti-terrorism" move or just simple protection of their markets. Either way, they have legislated their own protection.
If you have broadband, please examine your "acceptable use policy" for this type of language. With the pending handout to the phone companies (so that they can keep up with the Jones' over in the cable camp), I expect even further clamping of total bandwidth, types of bandwidth (i.e. peer-2-peer) and how you may use what's left.
That's where FedEx didn't have control...If they could have gone to Washington with the idea that "FAX owners are possible terrorists," they could have blocked the individual ownership of FAX machines through legislation...and ZapMail might be all we know now! FedEx also didn't have control of what the public can attach to their phone circuits....the phone company does have some level of control over that.
Simply put, the phone companies are in a much stronger position to protect their markets with anti-competitive language and policies. I don't expect them to "go easily into that good night." I expect that there will be quite a struggle coming up....expect all the legal manuvers, engineered incompatabilities and FUD that we've seen from the RIAA/MPAA and more.....They didn't get to be monopolies by being nice, they'll do whatever it takes to maintain that position.
Most states already record your vehicle milage at each pass through the emissions check! This happens either every year or every other year when tabs are due...they could just use that figure to calculate the tax without the implications of "where were you on the night of Friday December 13th" type measures.
Or even simpler, just apply the tax to gas with the dual effect of driving (pun intended) people towards more fuel efficient cars.
Having this type of tracking information will only lead to more invasive government...and records which could be abused. I grew up in Oregon, and I don't think the people there would go for "manditory GPS tracking" of their vehicles...you might start to see a lot of tin cans mounted above the GPS receivers if the state forces this stupid/invasive measure through.
As you correctly guessed, my case was one of "un-intended personal injury"...I was pushed by another student and bumped the woman. No, she didn't fall down the stairs, she didn't even fall down! She sued myself, the student that pushed me and the school district.
She dropped the case against the school district when her lawyer learned that "it is school district policy to pursue every case" because they have an army of lawyers on staff. As directed by her lawyer, the case was filed against my parents home-owners insurance even though it did not happen at our home and I was "under the direction of the Portland Public Schools" at the time.
On the other points, you are simply wrong....the police are entitled to collect evidence against you. This is why they often search peoples homes/cars/person for incriminating evidence. The black box in you car could be considered such evidence....and because it (the box) is not the accused, could therefore can be compelled to respond (again with the subpoena power or sit in jail). Lawyers are also entitled to subpoena information which they think will be usefull to them in a case where they have legal standing (i.e. some legit reason to be looking, and any personal injury would be a good one). They are granted this power during the "Discovery" phase of their case, where they get to investigate and see everything that you have, all of your evidence pro and con. Your black box would be an exellent place to start.
Wrong on the corporation law too....Corps assume the legal liability and responsabilities of their board/president/ceo/etc. as long as those boardmembers/directors/shareholders act within the law. Corps can be held responsible for actions that the board members cannot (i.e. bankrupcy, legal liability, etc.)....that's the advantage of a corporation, it shields the directors/board/officers. But this exemption comes at a price. Like a person, corps have legal standing and can sue/be-sued, have seperate tax-id numbers, and bear legal responsibility for it's actions. In many ways, corps have the legal standing of a person without the actual body. Here too, in a legal case, it's not the corporation testifying against itself, it's the individual documents testifying against the corporation...Andrew Fastow and the Enron boys can be compelled to testify against the corp.too. This happens except where such testimony would incriminate them.
One last fun note....courts have the power to compell testimony from witnesses also...but because of the fact you cited above, they must first grant immunity against self incrimination before they can compell testimony. Once done though (you've been given immunity) you must speak, otherwise you are in contempt and get to go to jail too.....in the case of an "onboard computer" observing an accident, it has no jeoperdy and should testify. It's also property, therefore not legaly entitled to any protection or identity (unlike a person or a corp.)
Didn't you every watch Perry Mason?
....First it was the RFID chips in my tires monitoring my position in front of Taco-Bell for the government and now it Nuclear blasts in a densely packed city!......
Does Oliver Stone know about this?.....
I can't think of a single situation where this type of "on-board computer" would have helped me! I can only think of situations where my insurance company or somebody else's insurance company would have screwed me over with information like this. I don't drive crazy, but insurance companies are in the business of NOT paying claims!..The more they can avoid paying, the better for their bottom line. And I think we all know where lawyers rank on the humanity scale..I once got sued for bumping into a woman at my highschool...I was on foot when this happened and I still had to pay $9000 to her quack lawyer
As soon as this data gets recorded, it's "subpoena-able" by lawyers representing anyone else on the road. Remember that old woman that bumped into your car at the supermarket?...Her lawyer could subpoena your "black box" for any fishing expedition that he thinks might be profitable. The best answer is simply NOT to keep records which might implicate you in the future....even if you have nothing to hide, go the speed-limit, drive carefully. Big companies do this already with their e-mail policies and document retention policies....if it's around, it could be subpoenaed for use against you....get rid of it now before it gets called into court
Your "black box" could be called into court to show virtually anything a lawyer wants to show. If it doesn't show anything at all, do you think for one second that the other side will use that "inconclusive" evidence to help vindicate your side?.....bullshit..this whole "data computer" thing is simply the insurance industry attempting to get out of paying claims, coupled with the trial lawyers guild smelling a new source of contingency fees......
Only way to avoid it is to drive an old car that you own outright!
I have absolutely no problem with individual users or agencies making choices (i.e. wireless vs. wired) like these for themselves...the problem comes when somebody, usually a government type, decides for EVERYONE what's acceptable and not acceptable. As posted here before, our "government types" are starting to get itchy fingers over this wireless thing...."must stop anyone from having open AP"...in the name of National Security.
If you don't want your data open for everyone to look at, don't use wireless or spend the time to create a really secure VPN/SSH connection that you trust. You shouldn't ever consider wireless any more secure/private than shouting across a couple of rows at the ball game.....that said, there are some situations where you do WANT everyone within a limited range to hear what you are saying, or simply don't care if they evesdrop...wireless is perfect for that....
We tech types have a responsibility to help educate the folks who are still trying to hook up their X-mas gifts. If people understand what's going on with wireless, they will be less likely to gripe about the problems with it and we all will be less likely to have a government solution imposed upon us...
I'll take you up on that....I LOVE jumpjets....they could be the uber-weapon if used correctly.
Yes, there isn't much protection for the operator, but imagine 75-100 of these things swarming around some "target of interest"...
Not quite as "remote control" as the Preditor or Global Hawk...but more lethal because the guys could jump out of their suits once they arrive on the scene.
This is something that DARPA should be funding, not John Poindexter looking at your credit card purchases!
It's too bad too, I've seen other cool projects get killed by the Dept. of Defense too.
I imagine that this technology will be scooped up for pennies by one of the big defense contractors. This is really too cool and too adaptable to pass up for the soldier in the field.
The most important thing to me is the policy as to what you can have installed at the customer end and what you can do with your line......
Would you get a phone if you could ONLY call outbound?....That's what's happening with my cable modem policy now....No servers...NO....of course, you can get around that by using off ports, but it's the principle that counts....besides, the cable speed is capped both directions, so even if my home server gets hit with the "slashdot effect," there's only going to be so much effect on my neighbors.
I think that it's different for DSL because it rides on the "Public Utility" that is your city/country wide phone network. I believe that it's covered by telecom regulation. No such situation for the cable guys...cable is a non-essential service, they can do whatever they want and you can either take it or leave it.
I think you would see more DSL if the telecoms could impose more restrictive Acceptable Use policies on their customers. As it is, it seems that they are holding back....it also seems like it's more about content production/distribution than it is about the DSL competition dis-incentive (you know their latest story..."let us eliminate the smaller DSL providers and we'll put more DSL in.."). If the telecoms could ream your ass harder, they would....
Next, I'll prob. have to insert my "smart card" into the network modem so that I can shop online...I tell ya, between ATT cable, the Dept. of Homeland Security and the RIAA/MPAA mafia, you won't be able to write bad poetry on a bar napkin without going to jail, owing somebody a royalty or getting your legs broken. Perhaps all three.
Let me start out by saying that "yes, it plot seemed to be less interesting as the episodes went by"...but I think this has more to do with the time compression element of the story than it does with Steven Spielberg.
I really like the first 5 episodes, I also thought Jesse K. was the best character of the show. The early episodes with Owen Crawford held me spellbound (that character was my manager at Terabeam). The episode directed by the former "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" was easily the spookiest. As the story came out of the "time compression" that they were holding to in the early episodes, the plot started to wander. There just wasn't enough depth of character to fill up the final hours.
Remember also that Steven S. was the overseer of all the other directors. The individual episodes had seperate directors and I could feel the difference from show to show.
In the end, it's all just entertainment....and most people here posting watched it...enjoy it, it was free and you also got to see those halfway funny IBM ads.
Our department of "Homeland Security" is creating the situation where all users of the net must be tracable....for the purpose of spying on them and controlling our ability to peacefully associate on the net. Our right to assemble for the purpose of communication is gauranteed in the bill of rights, but is under assult.
As with the "Great Firewall of China" articles that I've been seeing here lately, governments are fearfull of any tool that would allow people to communicate freely. Annonymous communication over the net allows disent to grow without the heavy hand of big brother picking out the "ringleaders."
I notice in this article that there is no discussion at all about why this is necessary for security. I don't believe at all that one guy with a laptop on an open AP could "bring the net down"...
We must force our government to explain WHY this and all of the other USA Patriot act bullshit is necessary....making Bush, Poindexter, Ashcroft and the others explain their position to everyone is the act of a real patriot.....don't believe the hype.....
That's still not enough to really hang him on. As with the other public comments about the MS case, anyone could write the fcc claiming to be "Phil Lelyveld."
It's not quite the same as the original link implied it to be either, but still pretty bad.
I think the best thing to do is continue to vote with your wallets. Like the whole Paladium thing, no technology like this will be approved if EVERY congress-critter knows that ALL the people in their districts will not be buying it.
They'll get this information from the lobbyists from Good-guys and Comp-USA.....business get's the picture pretty fast. There's also no way that all the players necessary to make this happen are gonna hold together against determined consumer resistance, somebody is gonna crack in the face of "lackluster sales."
Just don't buy it....ever!...under any circumstances......
...all the stuff is easily available. In fact, that was my first home Linux project. Parts list: Linux box running Apache X-10 master control module "Firecracker" module from X-10 (serial->RF master) "Firecracker" for Linux program. That's it, perhaps $75 if you spend too much.... Here's the real problem though.....running such a server (either purchased or built) is against your user service agreement for most broadband people. I can understand why the cable internet people wouldn't want some poor slob getting the slashdot effect. It would destroy service for all the others allong the cable modem route. But facts are facts and any server on your equipment is illegal, even if it's just to turn on/off your hot-tub before you get home from work. Of course, there are ways around that.....but that's another story.....
I think that you missed my distinction.
I'm not talking about the people at SF or GotDotNet "pulling" any of the code for use on inside projects without distribution. That's fair. I'm refering to "yanking it off the servers because we don't want ANYONE to see it" type of pulled. That's more what I'd be afraid of on the MS site. Even if everything else was clean (no porno, no theft, no IP problems, etc.).
You understand how much temptation there would be to pull a project if it were something like a "free" as in beer Office clone? How long would they allow that to compete with their commercial offerings, especially if it was better.
They could incorporate it...sure, but blocking it's distribution to save the empire, that's another thing completely.
To the best of my knowledge, that's how SF works. All them buzzwords that MS throws around like "best of breed" and "competition" are actually playing out on SF!....that's the arena where the action is.
Oh, and one more jab.....the "Community links" area doesn't even have a link back to Slashdot... How ungratefull, since we've prob. been 95% of their hits today.........
I'm not quite sure that argument would hold up, since publishing on the web is distributing (at least from the author to the ftp upload site) although I am willing to listen if you know more.
.NET on their servers gets "pulled" if it starts to take away from one of their commercial offerings. To my knowledge, this has not happened on SF yet.
I also suspect that the SF liscense is more like "we got this off the servers, so can you..." and I suspect the Microsoft liscense is more like "..all your base are belong to us.."
Seriously though, I wouldn't mind MS using something I wrote, as long as the obey all the other rules that go along with GPL. I really have a hard time believing that that would happen though, at least MS following the GPL for stuff that's posted on their "Forge." Do they even allow authors to publish GPL on their servers?....now THAT would be viral if we could free the contents of the entire server by storage there.
I'd also be looking for some type of protection that doesn't allow them to silence alternative code if it does get published on their site. I could easily imagine some situation where a "TiVO" app all in
I'm still skeptical, but I'm willing to listen if you show me where in the SourceForge liscense it grants such terms too.
It sure prob. is copyrighted!....and NO THERE ISN'T PLENTY OF PUBLIC DOMAIN STUFF....
Even if you are getting that music off a defunct "K-Tell" record from "Disco-77" you bet it's copyrighted....and Jack still says you gotta pay "K-Tell" for the right to use it....even if K-Tell isn't around anymore, you gotta pay him and his cousin Vinny.
Think it's hard now....think down the DRM road where the access is controlled "per-play" rather than "I have the album"....as soon as the consumer looses the right to "hold the album/rights to listen".....it's all over....
Think about it, that's where EULA's have been going with "revokable liscense agreements" and the rest of it. You no longer have the ability to keep using something that you bought, even if you still have the media.....time expired!
As I was waiting for the link to load, I was guessing how this might be accomplished.....Pretty cool solution to this problem. The non-contact electrical connection was the most innovative thing about this. Looks like it uses an inductive ring at either end of the pipe to pass the signal.
With a little rework, existing pipes could be make to be "intelligent" like this too. You could, for instance, drop a small inductive "washer" at each of the joints and drop the cable in through the pipe. You'd only need to drill a small hole at each end of the pipe to make the connection between the washer and cable inside. I know that this is over-simplifying the situation, but my guess is that existing pipes could be reworked for perhaps $200 per segment in quantity.
This is not a troll against the original post, just an observation that too many people are acting like "broadband" is the cure-all for poor television, lack of web content, and if you believe Congress, our weak economy.....this is hogwash!
I also keep seeing this statement about the "chicken and egg" problem of broadband, but nobody has explained precisely WHY it's a problem. What new content is going to magicly be available? What compelling reason could our Congress or even your city council have for getting you on the net faster. They work for you and should be FOLLOWING your wishes, not trying to ram broadband down the public's throat.
Perhaps people are happy enough with what they've got! The option of moving up to broadband is always out there, there's simply no reason for most.....why is that a problem?
The industry wants to get everyone hooked up and locked into big monthly bills....remember the AT&T comment (here previously on slashdot)about the targeted $300/month bill. This "get everyone on broadband" thing is ASTROTURF by the media players....
If you buy into the current "broadband" push, it will only be a one-way stream. Starting at RIAA/MPAA headquarters and ending at your wallet! This push for "broadband" by Congress is NOT about getting more choice, it's about building Hollywood's pipes at taxpayer expense.
I'm really not too interested in seeing "digital convergance" either if it means that I've got to live with Paladium and turn my computer into a worthless "set-top box"....that I'm going to have to keep replacing every time MS comes out with a new version of "Windows Set-Top-Box edition"...
We should stop worrying about how many people adopt broadband...it's their own business. It certainly doesn't warrent the government or anyone else getting involved. Perhaps we should just let the marketplace figure this one out on it's own....
It's not that the two companies COULDN'T do that, it's that neither company WANTS to do that!
....everyone you can!...tell "PC Magazine", the marketing droids at your company, technical manager in your department....tell your aunt that's calling about "getting a Dell"...tell everyone that talks with you about comptuters that this sucks....it's crippled....."it's really bad, I wouldn't spend my money on it..."
The hardware makers are in a cage too, if either one of them DOESN'T support it, they could hand the market share to the one that does. They're both FORCED by the margins to go along!...
The only answer lays with the consumer....DON'T BUY THIS PRODUCT....EVER!...
DONT EVEN LET IT GET A FOOTHOLD!.....
YOU!...the person reading this...use your influence as a tech person reading this list....tell everyone you know that
that "this Paladium thing sucks!"
tell anyone asking you for tech advice..."...this Paladium thing sucks..."...
Work it into casual conversation..."..yeah, you know that this new Paladium thing REALLY sucks...."..
Need to kill this thing now...and we shouldn't take our collective power for granted on this one....you can bet that MS and RIAA are working up the "positive" buzz for this right now. I imagine that there will be a media campaign for this after Christmas season....
Nothing kills a new product faster than "consumer apathy," and for good measure, a heaping helping of distrust/dislike.
We need to start buzzing about this thing rather than quietly accepting defeat/takaway of our rights.