Guiness tastes like burnt mud. I tried it; it's the most godawful tasting crap ever foisted on the world by Gaels (except maybe Haggis).
Since moving to the US, I've learnt to be very careful where I order Guinness, as it is usually mistreated in some way. For example, if they can pour it in under a minute, it will definitely taste like crap. Of course, nothing tastes as good as Guinness in Dublin; good stout doesn't seem to travel well.
By the way, when you tried Haggis (as I assume you did in order to form your opinion), what did you find objectionable about the taste? How would you describe it?
And in the balance: security vs control. Either the villanous attackers are in control/capable of control
OR
Microsoft is in control.
So you're saying that either you can leave your computer wide open to unscrupulous criminals who will damage your files and try to steal all your money and personal information, or you can refuse the EULA and put up with having major security holes.
I'll become physically ill if Apple announces they're going to soil their OS X and Powerbooks with [Palladium].
I don't know about Palladium, but Apple are already touting DRM technology. See, for example, the SealedMedia feature of Quicktime, and that's from 2000.
Re:how to avoid getting on The Map
on
Mapping the Spam
·
· Score: 3, Informative
[M]y email address has been co-opted by a spammer. That is, I've received spam from my own email address.
Many spammers now seem to put the recipient as the From address. Presumably this helps the mail to avoid certain filters. So in all probability, you're the only one being spammed from your address.
Palladium is being offered to the studios and record labels as a way to distribute music and film with "digital rights management" (DRM). This could allow users to exercise "fair use" (like making personal copies of a CD) and publishers could at least start releasing works that cut a compromise between free and locked-down.
This section leapt out at me, because it implies that DRM could be used to enhance fair use ability. Whilst that may be technically true, in the sense that configurable DRM can be set to grant broad usage rights, we have seen time and time again that the Entertainment Oligopoly will restrict usage rights as far as they technically can with no regard for either fair use rights or the end user's convenience.
DRM stands for Digital Rights Management. Both the content providers and the end users have rights, but DRM technology is usually aimed at tipping the rights balance in favour of the former. Of course, it is always going to be technically hard to distribute data widely in a way that mechanically prevents IP infringement. Most attempts to date do far more to impede non-infringing usage that they do to prevent "piracy".
It's easy to say that the Entertainment Oligopoly are looking to legal ruses and constraining technology to support their failing traditional business models. I agree that businesses have no right to change the law merely to preserve their revenue flow. But it must be said that the preparation of complex content, such as a Hollywood movie, does take substantial financial resources, which must be recouped somehow for the enterprise to be sustainable. Maybe Hollywood actors are paid too much, and maybe many Hollywood movies are populist and shallow, but the key point is that the preparation of this content is the livelihood of many people. Would the world be a better place if we only had skunkworks movies? Is there an alternative business model that could offer quality movies? It does no good to yearn for a politically ideal world without any plan to get there.
Read that second clause again... [it] makes a joke out of any "free speech" guarantee you think you have--it says that speech is free-- EXCEPT when the government says it is not.
I leave it as an exercise for the student to demonstrate that ANY restriction on ANY speech can be legally justified by sufficiently bending the letter of [that clause]..
Most European countries have a similiar clause. Canada has a similar clause, Great Britain has one. The United States does not. Instead, we have "Congress shall make no law abridging...." Notice, no "except for such restrictions as are deemed necessary..." clause, either. Even so, throughout our 225 year history, federal, state and local governments have tried to restrict speech, peaceable assembly, redress of grievances and the press, but have been beaten back by those willing to fight in the courts for their rights. It's still happening, and will continue to happen, but I think things will eventually shake out into sanity again.
You are right that the US First Amendment lists no specific exceptions. But as you concede, the absolute position of the First Amendment has been eroded over time in the US courts. The exceptions listed in that second clause correspond closely to the free speech exceptions sanctified by US legal precedent, and I strongly suspect that the drafters of this legislation used that as a source. One more time:
national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary
This seems close to the US principles of national security classification, shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, the threat of violence, libel and slander, trade secrets, etc.
To my mind, it's better legislative practice to give an exhaustive list of valid exceptions to an absolute principle, than to allow courts to invent new exceptions over time. I would consider the latter to be far more susceptible to abuse and inconsistent application. Now you could argue that this list is wrong, either in what it includes or excludes, or in being unclearly expressed, but again you would probably have similar opinions about the body of US free speech precedent.
You could argue that the existence of any exceptions whatsoever deny absolute freedom of speech, and I would have to agree with you, but by that measure no-one (the US included) has free speech, so it would not be a useful relative measure.
BTW, Great Britain is not a country (or a state, or any sort of political entity). It's an island.
Is he a CS major or MS major? (Martketing Science)
British universities don't have majors as such, but Ross Anderson is a well-published and widely-respected computer scientist, specialising in security. In fact he heads the Security Team at the Computer Laboratory of the University of Cambridge. Examination of the publications on his home page will give some clue as to where he normally stands on the politics of computer security issues.
This paper argues that open and closed systems are broadly similar in the fall-off of defect rates, and then identifies some secondary issues (such as transaction cost, vendor behaviour, test focus, and defender behaviour) that can break this symmetry.
A large part of the paper is concerned with identifying negative consequences that digital rights management technology (such as the TCPA) can have on the future of open systems. In particular, he envisions a future where software vendors can readily lock their file formats, and block not only substitute products, but also selected complement products.
He gives some interesting examples: Apparently vendors are already using cryptography to detect third party batteries and memory cards in order to make them appear of lower quality; also he claims the US government encourages secrecy concerning security flaws so that law enforcement has a window of opportunity to exploit them.
The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which could be considered the European equivalent of the US Bill of Rights says in Article 10:
Article 10 - Freedom of expression
1.
Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2.
The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
Both Germany and the Netherlands ratified this convention in the 'fifties.
Talking of saving as HTML, has anyone managed to generate legal (as in passing validation) HTML in any version of MicroSoft Word on any OS from any DOC-format document (including the empty document)? Maybe W3C should sue them for trademark infringement. 8-) H++ anyone?
Employers are often willing to accept HTML format instead of Word format for resumes.
I email my resume as plain text (unless specifically requested otherwise), with a link to my resume website, which has text, HTML, AppleWorks, PDF, and DOC versions of my "one-page" resume plus other information.
Microsoft doesn't take Word format resumes on their website.. they insist on ASCII only. Now isn't that interesting?
It's true. I know of at least one employer that requests plain text resumes only, and disregards anyone who cannot obey that instruction. I wonder if Microsoft does that.
Re:Maybe we should lobby the search engines
on
Blogspace vs. NPR
·
· Score: 1
Or perhaps Google should generate a link request for every page on their site, every time they crawl it.
Slashdot Mirror
Since moving to the US, I've learnt to be very careful where I order Guinness, as it is usually mistreated in some way. For example, if they can pour it in under a minute, it will definitely taste like crap. Of course, nothing tastes as good as Guinness in Dublin; good stout doesn't seem to travel well.
By the way, when you tried Haggis (as I assume you did in order to form your opinion), what did you find objectionable about the taste? How would you describe it?
So you're saying that either you can leave your computer wide open to unscrupulous criminals who will damage your files and try to steal all your money and personal information, or you can refuse the EULA and put up with having major security holes.
Are you referring to this?
I don't know about Palladium, but Apple are already touting DRM technology. See, for example, the SealedMedia feature of Quicktime, and that's from 2000.
Many spammers now seem to put the recipient as the From address. Presumably this helps the mail to avoid certain filters. So in all probability, you're the only one being spammed from your address.
"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." Animal Farm, George Orwell
Oh hold on, that was a metaphor for Russia. Never mind!
This section leapt out at me, because it implies that DRM could be used to enhance fair use ability. Whilst that may be technically true, in the sense that configurable DRM can be set to grant broad usage rights, we have seen time and time again that the Entertainment Oligopoly will restrict usage rights as far as they technically can with no regard for either fair use rights or the end user's convenience.
DRM stands for Digital Rights Management. Both the content providers and the end users have rights, but DRM technology is usually aimed at tipping the rights balance in favour of the former. Of course, it is always going to be technically hard to distribute data widely in a way that mechanically prevents IP infringement. Most attempts to date do far more to impede non-infringing usage that they do to prevent "piracy".
It's easy to say that the Entertainment Oligopoly are looking to legal ruses and constraining technology to support their failing traditional business models. I agree that businesses have no right to change the law merely to preserve their revenue flow. But it must be said that the preparation of complex content, such as a Hollywood movie, does take substantial financial resources, which must be recouped somehow for the enterprise to be sustainable. Maybe Hollywood actors are paid too much, and maybe many Hollywood movies are populist and shallow, but the key point is that the preparation of this content is the livelihood of many people. Would the world be a better place if we only had skunkworks movies? Is there an alternative business model that could offer quality movies? It does no good to yearn for a politically ideal world without any plan to get there.
Perhaps you should tell that to the Echelon people.
You are right that the US First Amendment lists no specific exceptions. But as you concede, the absolute position of the First Amendment has been eroded over time in the US courts. The exceptions listed in that second clause correspond closely to the free speech exceptions sanctified by US legal precedent, and I strongly suspect that the drafters of this legislation used that as a source. One more time:
This seems close to the US principles of national security classification, shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, the threat of violence, libel and slander, trade secrets, etc.
To my mind, it's better legislative practice to give an exhaustive list of valid exceptions to an absolute principle, than to allow courts to invent new exceptions over time. I would consider the latter to be far more susceptible to abuse and inconsistent application. Now you could argue that this list is wrong, either in what it includes or excludes, or in being unclearly expressed, but again you would probably have similar opinions about the body of US free speech precedent.
You could argue that the existence of any exceptions whatsoever deny absolute freedom of speech, and I would have to agree with you, but by that measure no-one (the US included) has free speech, so it would not be a useful relative measure.
BTW, Great Britain is not a country (or a state, or any sort of political entity). It's an island.
British universities don't have majors as such, but Ross Anderson is a well-published and widely-respected computer scientist, specialising in security. In fact he heads the Security Team at the Computer Laboratory of the University of Cambridge. Examination of the publications on his home page will give some clue as to where he normally stands on the politics of computer security issues.
This paper argues that open and closed systems are broadly similar in the fall-off of defect rates, and then identifies some secondary issues (such as transaction cost, vendor behaviour, test focus, and defender behaviour) that can break this symmetry.
A large part of the paper is concerned with identifying negative consequences that digital rights management technology (such as the TCPA) can have on the future of open systems. In particular, he envisions a future where software vendors can readily lock their file formats, and block not only substitute products, but also selected complement products.
He gives some interesting examples: Apparently vendors are already using cryptography to detect third party batteries and memory cards in order to make them appear of lower quality; also he claims the US government encourages secrecy concerning security flaws so that law enforcement has a window of opportunity to exploit them.
The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which could be considered the European equivalent of the US Bill of Rights says in Article 10:
Both Germany and the Netherlands ratified this convention in the 'fifties.
Talking of saving as HTML, has anyone managed to generate legal (as in passing validation) HTML in any version of MicroSoft Word on any OS from any DOC-format document (including the empty document)? Maybe W3C should sue them for trademark infringement. 8-) H++ anyone?
I email my resume as plain text (unless specifically requested otherwise), with a link to my resume website, which has text, HTML, AppleWorks, PDF, and DOC versions of my "one-page" resume plus other information.
It's true. I know of at least one employer that requests plain text resumes only, and disregards anyone who cannot obey that instruction. I wonder if Microsoft does that.
Or perhaps Google should generate a link request for every page on their site, every time they crawl it.