I actually tried to convert an old Mac SE into a lava lamp. I wanted to do something cooler/more creative than the fish tank. The problem was that I couldn't find a sealant that would withstand a solution containing alcohol. I made two attempts (different solutions/sealants) before giving up. There's still some blue spots in my garage from the second attempt.
By this reasoning, the FBI can listen in on all your cell phone calls. After all, you're broadcasting your conversation on public airwaves.
I'm willing to give up the "right" to intercept other people's encrypted broadcast communications if it means that my own encrypted communications won't be intercepted either.
And I'm not asking for the technology to be banned (it has legal uses), I'm just asking for laws against abusing that technology.
OK, here's my plan. I get a handheld scanner/PDA thingy. Go to Fredericks or Victoria's Secret and scan codes for anything that turns me on. Have a little database on my PDA.
Then when I go out to a bar or other social event, I've got a scanner that sits in my pocket and tips me off whenever I'm walking up to a woman in a thong. Nice huh? Can also double as a party trick, in a disturbing kind of way.
By the way, if you don't want me know about the antidepressants you're taking, better make sure they don't have RFIDs or else don't keep them with you.
You're looking at this from the wrong perspective. What you should be asking is: Is there an imminent need for the law to prevent copying?
Right now, copyright law is an articifial, legally created monopoly on intellectual/artistic works. The law explicitly grants special permission to one person restrict the supply of that work. We're talking about restricting the scope of an existing figment of legislation, not creating an entirely new one. In effect, we're restoring a freedom to the market rather than taking one away.
Let me say this one more time. I want my freedoms, not a warning label reminding me that they've been revoked.
For an older programmer to move into management is not THE natural process, simply A natural process.
I'm 25 and a programmer. When I was in college and writing webapps for the university, I was asked to run their student computer support store on an interim basis for a few months. I was supervising a half dozen part-time techs. I hated it, but recognized that I couldn't have asked for a better opportunity to try my hand at management without making a long term committment. I know keeping a few techs in line isn't the same as running a development shop, but to some extent managing coworkers will be the same in any management position.
Ever since then, I've been able to confidently answer the standard "Where do you see yourself in 5 years?" interview question by saying I see myself as a senior/lead developer. One of the things I look for in a potential employer is a recognition that a development team can benefit from having two promotion tracks - technical and business.
Many companies don't have the technical track. If programming is what you want to do with your life, find one that does.
Re:Why you gottat go and do a stupid thing like th
on
SCO DOS'ed
·
· Score: 1
Sure SCO is being a prick about this law suit but to have a bunch of vengefull open source/Linux Crusaders attack thier systems just gives the whole opensource community a bad name. Just suck it up and let them sue, cause either we the open source community screwed up and used code we shouldn't have or SCO is blowing smoke and IBM will win the suit.
Thank you for being a voice of reason here. Now let's play a game of role reversal to illustrate why your point is so important:
What would your reaction be if Linus claimed to have proof that Mac OSX (not the Darwin part) had illegally incorporated some code he wrote and a horde of vengeful mac users DDOS'd kernel.org and the LKML?. I'm using Apple as an example because everyone would just laugh if I presumed a technically savvy microsoft cult following.
We'd be outraged, and rightfully so. It's probably illegal and definitely a breach of even the most basic etiquette guidelines that the internet relies on to function. So please stop cheering for script kiddies and criminals just because you find their antics amusing.
Re:Forward your spam to the FTC
on
FTC vs Spammers
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
I read about this a while ago and uce@ftc.gov became my "public" email address. Whenever a website demands an email address and I know it's gonna end up on a spam list, I just let them send it directly to the ftc. At least they'll (maybe) give it the attention it deserves instead of just getting annoyed.
Side note - I had to install Real Player on my work machine the other day (don't ask), and that address was already on their mailing list. So were all my backup addresses: abuse@site, webmaster@site, postmaster@site, root@site, abuse@aol.com, abuse@hotmail.com. Site is whatever site I'm visiting.
A machine that could convert just about anything on the planet into useful materials, and duplicate itself endlessly, would probably be difficult to make INTENTIONALLY, let alone accidentally. It would also be extremely easy to insert safeguards to prevent anything like that from happening. Either require the presence of a particular molecule for the machines to duplicate themselves. Add replication limits to the nanomachines. Never include self-replication in the same nanomachine as one that can break down most/all things into raw materials.
I have to disagree with this. It's hard to come up with a remotely plausible reason how/why someone would create something like this intentionally. (Vonnegut fans please put down your copies of Cat's Cradle. Ice-9 was part of a satire. And the distribution occurred despite safeguards.) It's the accidental creation we have to worry about. A scientist isn't going to sit down and say: "I'm going to make gray goo". He/She will say "I'm going to make a self-replicating nano-machine with safeguards." Kinda like the safeguards in the Morris worm. It had safeguards, but they didn't work as intended and it spread uncontrollably. I use that example because Morris was a pioneer in the world of network-propagated computer viruses. Many other computer virus authors (think Melissa) have also been quoted as saying they had no idea how quickly their creations would spread.
I'm agree with your conclusion that research should always be encouraged in order to understand the threats and build effective countermeasures. I just disagree with how you're ranking the threats.
Slashdot Mirror
I actually tried to convert an old Mac SE into a lava lamp. I wanted to do something cooler/more creative than the fish tank. The problem was that I couldn't find a sealant that would withstand a solution containing alcohol. I made two attempts (different solutions/sealants) before giving up. There's still some blue spots in my garage from the second attempt.
By this reasoning, the FBI can listen in on all your cell phone calls. After all, you're broadcasting your conversation on public airwaves.
I'm willing to give up the "right" to intercept other people's encrypted broadcast communications if it means that my own encrypted communications won't be intercepted either.
And I'm not asking for the technology to be banned (it has legal uses), I'm just asking for laws against abusing that technology.
OK, here's my plan. I get a handheld scanner/PDA thingy. Go to Fredericks or Victoria's Secret and scan codes for anything that turns me on. Have a little database on my PDA.
Then when I go out to a bar or other social event, I've got a scanner that sits in my pocket and tips me off whenever I'm walking up to a woman in a thong. Nice huh? Can also double as a party trick, in a disturbing kind of way.
By the way, if you don't want me know about the antidepressants you're taking, better make sure they don't have RFIDs or else don't keep them with you.
Bet you can't do that with barcodes.
Right now, copyright law is an articifial, legally created monopoly on intellectual/artistic works. The law explicitly grants special permission to one person restrict the supply of that work. We're talking about restricting the scope of an existing figment of legislation, not creating an entirely new one. In effect, we're restoring a freedom to the market rather than taking one away.
Let me say this one more time. I want my freedoms, not a warning label reminding me that they've been revoked.
For an older programmer to move into management is not THE natural process, simply A natural process.
I'm 25 and a programmer. When I was in college and writing webapps for the university, I was asked to run their student computer support store on an interim basis for a few months. I was supervising a half dozen part-time techs. I hated it, but recognized that I couldn't have asked for a better opportunity to try my hand at management without making a long term committment. I know keeping a few techs in line isn't the same as running a development shop, but to some extent managing coworkers will be the same in any management position.
Ever since then, I've been able to confidently answer the standard "Where do you see yourself in 5 years?" interview question by saying I see myself as a senior/lead developer. One of the things I look for in a potential employer is a recognition that a development team can benefit from having two promotion tracks - technical and business.
Many companies don't have the technical track. If programming is what you want to do with your life, find one that does.
Sure SCO is being a prick about this law suit but to have a bunch of vengefull open source/Linux Crusaders attack thier systems just gives the whole opensource community a bad name. Just suck it up and let them sue, cause either we the open source community screwed up and used code we shouldn't have or SCO is blowing smoke and IBM will win the suit.
Thank you for being a voice of reason here. Now let's play a game of role reversal to illustrate why your point is so important:
What would your reaction be if Linus claimed to have proof that Mac OSX (not the Darwin part) had illegally incorporated some code he wrote and a horde of vengeful mac users DDOS'd kernel.org and the LKML?. I'm using Apple as an example because everyone would just laugh if I presumed a technically savvy microsoft cult following.
We'd be outraged, and rightfully so. It's probably illegal and definitely a breach of even the most basic etiquette guidelines that the internet relies on to function. So please stop cheering for script kiddies and criminals just because you find their antics amusing.
I read about this a while ago and uce@ftc.gov became my "public" email address. Whenever a website demands an email address and I know it's gonna end up on a spam list, I just let them send it directly to the ftc. At least they'll (maybe) give it the attention it deserves instead of just getting annoyed.
Side note - I had to install Real Player on my work machine the other day (don't ask), and that address was already on their mailing list. So were all my backup addresses: abuse@site, webmaster@site, postmaster@site, root@site, abuse@aol.com, abuse@hotmail.com. Site is whatever site I'm visiting.
A machine that could convert just about anything on the planet into useful materials, and duplicate itself endlessly, would probably be difficult to make INTENTIONALLY, let alone accidentally. It would also be extremely easy to insert safeguards to prevent anything like that from happening. Either require the presence of a particular molecule for the machines to duplicate themselves. Add replication limits to the nanomachines. Never include self-replication in the same nanomachine as one that can break down most/all things into raw materials.
I have to disagree with this. It's hard to come up with a remotely plausible reason how/why someone would create something like this intentionally. (Vonnegut fans please put down your copies of Cat's Cradle. Ice-9 was part of a satire. And the distribution occurred despite safeguards.) It's the accidental creation we have to worry about. A scientist isn't going to sit down and say: "I'm going to make gray goo". He/She will say "I'm going to make a self-replicating nano-machine with safeguards." Kinda like the safeguards in the Morris worm. It had safeguards, but they didn't work as intended and it spread uncontrollably. I use that example because Morris was a pioneer in the world of network-propagated computer viruses. Many other computer virus authors (think Melissa) have also been quoted as saying they had no idea how quickly their creations would spread.
I'm agree with your conclusion that research should always be encouraged in order to understand the threats and build effective countermeasures. I just disagree with how you're ranking the threats.