Papers are written, reviewed, and edited by academic volunteers for free.
I guess that is a point worth making again and again. Before I worked in a lab I thought that was what subscription was paying for. Researchers putting papers under a pay-wall are making their readers pay 40$ per view for a hosting service that most provider would give for free. You are a researcher and want readers/citations and don't want to look dumb ? Host it on your university webpage, that's what it is made for !
But I think that none of the patents for "compouter implemented inventions" were ever challenged to court. They just are items of imaginary value that EU companies use to trade other such items with US companies.
My ISP gave me the option to switch to IPv6. I did that. On my home network I am still using IPv4 and go through a NAT because I am a lazy person, but I can access IPv6 websites easily.
It happened once that someone sent a link to an IPv6 website on a mailing list I use, some people complained they could not access it but he said he had no way of having a fixed IPv4 address. I expect that as more people do that the pressure on ISPs will increase.
Offering the possibility of zero privacy is not the same as making it mandatory. I am very vocal when the use of cryptography is limited but I am pleased when improved authentication is offered. Right now I have no possibility to check that a person is really who s/he claims to be. Really, if I receive a mail saying "I am John D. and I want to make a contract with you", I have no way to authenticate the person and judge the scaminess of the proposal. Knowing that the email is linked to a real ID allows me to be more confident.
Having a way to authenticate a person as unique is a missing brick in many web applications, especially all the voting applications. I see it as a good thing and I have a hard time seeing how such a tech makes bad scenarios more likely.
The ICCC has published scientific results and is updating them when they find something wrong in them. That is not supposed to be shocking. There has been some errors in the evaluation of sea rise levels in older ICCC reports. Now they are a lot less catastrophic.
You know, as conservative that these talks are, I still believe they have a point. A few years ago I once was looking at (overpriced) encyclopedias in a book store. I felt really sorry for the people who were in the encyclopedia-making business.
I mean, they lost their job and what was their fault ? They did not imagine that wikipedia would become a reliable source of information, that encyclopedia-level articles would be served for free. Is that really such an error that you can lose your job ? Just like there are aids for people losing their job after a natural disaster, there should be help for people whose job become obsolete. Preferably through education in a new field.
He is talking about the same thing as code reuse : information should be referenced instead of being copied.
In his idea (and I like that) when you answer to an email, the information effectively transmitted should be something like "[quote char=1438:5661 msg=rms@gnu.org:id0182700927811] lol" instead of a verbatim copy of the original text without any mean to find the whole email.
This conceptually more satisfying approach require a different architecture and also (IMHO) a completely different legal framework, and I think this later point makes it impossible to see it happen in my lifetime.
I, for one, would welcome a focus on increasing the average mobility of human beings rather than the maximum velocity of the species.
Giving the possibility to have a motorized vehicle to every Indian and every Chinese without increasing CO2 emissions is a greater challenge than going back on the moon. Let's rather focus on that.
I don't say we need to stop the space program, I am just saying that if the maximum velocity of people movers is how someone measure the progress of humanity, this someone has a pretty fucked up metric.
The Australian Government has a list of software holes that are so sensitive they're kept hidden from the public. These weaknesses are being used by criminals to steal our money and our data.
So... Criminals know about these but the general public that needs to protect itself is not informed. That is great work the governement is doing.
Slashdot Mirror
It was also possible to put a few kilograms of plutonium inside without sparking protests all over the country.
Just sayin...
That is still better than Amazon's plan actually.
Papers are written, reviewed, and edited by academic volunteers for free.
I guess that is a point worth making again and again. Before I worked in a lab I thought that was what subscription was paying for. Researchers putting papers under a pay-wall are making their readers pay 40$ per view for a hosting service that most provider would give for free. You are a researcher and want readers/citations and don't want to look dumb ? Host it on your university webpage, that's what it is made for !
The technological singularity is really a problem for SF writers. You have to imagine what happens when AIs are created and this is game changing.
But I think that none of the patents for "compouter implemented inventions" were ever challenged to court. They just are items of imaginary value that EU companies use to trade other such items with US companies.
My ISP gave me the option to switch to IPv6. I did that. On my home network I am still using IPv4 and go through a NAT because I am a lazy person, but I can access IPv6 websites easily.
It happened once that someone sent a link to an IPv6 website on a mailing list I use, some people complained they could not access it but he said he had no way of having a fixed IPv4 address. I expect that as more people do that the pressure on ISPs will increase.
Open Source Weaponry anyone ?
Offering the possibility of zero privacy is not the same as making it mandatory. I am very vocal when the use of cryptography is limited but I am pleased when improved authentication is offered. Right now I have no possibility to check that a person is really who s/he claims to be. Really, if I receive a mail saying "I am John D. and I want to make a contract with you", I have no way to authenticate the person and judge the scaminess of the proposal. Knowing that the email is linked to a real ID allows me to be more confident.
Most people take organized religions more seriously than the claim that filesharing is essential to culture. How is that counter productive ?
Probably not. Then you have what you deserve by not voting for scientists.
That's not how the theory goes !
I defy anyone to prove that any negative feeling is caused by anything else than our brain comparing an outcome to an hypothesized outcome.
...it is a good thing even when US is not winning.
Having a way to authenticate a person as unique is a missing brick in many web applications, especially all the voting applications. I see it as a good thing and I have a hard time seeing how such a tech makes bad scenarios more likely.
The ICCC has published scientific results and is updating them when they find something wrong in them. That is not supposed to be shocking. There has been some errors in the evaluation of sea rise levels in older ICCC reports. Now they are a lot less catastrophic.
You know, as conservative that these talks are, I still believe they have a point. A few years ago I once was looking at (overpriced) encyclopedias in a book store. I felt really sorry for the people who were in the encyclopedia-making business.
I mean, they lost their job and what was their fault ? They did not imagine that wikipedia would become a reliable source of information, that encyclopedia-level articles would be served for free. Is that really such an error that you can lose your job ? Just like there are aids for people losing their job after a natural disaster, there should be help for people whose job become obsolete. Preferably through education in a new field.
Google it.
He is talking about the same thing as code reuse : information should be referenced instead of being copied.
In his idea (and I like that) when you answer to an email, the information effectively transmitted should be something like "[quote char=1438:5661 msg=rms@gnu.org:id0182700927811] lol" instead of a verbatim copy of the original text without any mean to find the whole email.
This conceptually more satisfying approach require a different architecture and also (IMHO) a completely different legal framework, and I think this later point makes it impossible to see it happen in my lifetime.
People voting with their wallets. I am happy that it finally happens.
I, for one, would welcome a focus on increasing the average mobility of human beings rather than the maximum velocity of the species.
Giving the possibility to have a motorized vehicle to every Indian and every Chinese without increasing CO2 emissions is a greater challenge than going back on the moon. Let's rather focus on that.
I don't say we need to stop the space program, I am just saying that if the maximum velocity of people movers is how someone measure the progress of humanity, this someone has a pretty fucked up metric.
google analytics is the first thing I asked noScript to block systematically.
I'll trade bandwidth in exchange for sane stance on content ownership any day.
You haven't really been following the changes in the legal landscape during the Bush era, have you ?
The Australian Government has a list of software holes that are so sensitive they're kept hidden from the public. These weaknesses are being used by criminals to steal our money and our data.
So... Criminals know about these but the general public that needs to protect itself is not informed. That is great work the governement is doing.
Please ?