Is this really about copyright? Or is it an excuse for the Chinese Government to have greater control over books written in Chinese (some of which may be potentially critical of the government)?
To be perfectly honest, why use LuLu in the first place? There are plenty of cheaper "Print on Demand" (POD) publishers, including Amazon's Booksurge, which lists books on Amazon. I can't see why authors would accept traditional publisher & distributor markups (typically >40% of the retail price) and then add a retailer markup, all for the privilege of selling a book electronically or via POD on LuLu! Find a cheaper POD publisher and sell it yourself, or if a sales page and distributor access are vital, then use Booksurge or an equivalent, not Lulu.
What about "Print on Demand" (POD) books? Just offer a PDF on your website and have a link for a POD book for those students that prefer a physical book. There are many, many POD publishers out there. and most are pretty good/indistinguishable from "regular" printing. And if you use Amazon's POD publisher, Booksurge, you automatically get listed with them. To me this seems like a "no fail" system that provides both free (ebook) and physical (POD) versions of your book while side-stepping an outdated publishing industry.
Besides transmission issues, what about land use? I mean, what will we eat if all our agricultural land is covered by wind turbines? It is a nice mental exercise to cover all the world's non-aquatic, non-forested, non-urban, and non-polar land with wind turbines, but do wind turbines really integrate well with all the other rural land uses (particularly agriculture) that we have?
It seems to me that researching improved transmission efficiencies and putting wind turbines in the ocean and polar regions (and solar in the deserts) would be a better solution. This is particularly the case as population expands, and previously rural areas become more developed.
See if you can get the Nepal government to allow the citizens to use whatever level of encryption they see fit.
+1 insightful
The right to use encryption of any sort should be explicitly mentioned and permitted in the constitution. The right to encrypt one's personal data is fundamental to the right to privacy. Being forced to give up encryption keys should also be mentioned and protected in the same manner as self-incrimination (such as in the US 5th amendment).
The reason the right to encrypt is vital to place in the constitution is that aggressive or controlling/totalitarian governments (and there are varying shades of this) like to have a lot of control over their citizens. Thus, when they come into power, they can become very fearful of encryption amongst their citizens and erode a real right to free speech under various guises (such as monitoring all communications and banning encryption amongst other things).
What about simply creating a better web of trust? For example, if you only trust governments, then you only accept certificates issued by them. If I trust Verisign but not Godaddy, then I only accept Verisign and the other sites I trust.
This is how a web of trust should work. People trust certain sites to issue certificates. As certain sites gain trust, more people want to get certificates from them, etc. I might trust my friend Bob, but there is no reason you should. If a bank or e-commerce site wants to do business, then they need to make sure that they get certificate(s) from sources that the majority of their clients also trust. Simple as that.
This way, governments can issue certificates with the stature you mention. At the same time, it is not monopolized by them, and people who don't trust the government are also free to use certificates by private companies.
What is the point of this? If the sex-offenders have already been caught and tried, then what does this prove? If they have already been sentenced, then any incriminating evidence is merely extra. If they haven't been tried, then can't they plead the "5th"?
Finally, if this is to deter them from doing heinous acts in the future, then what is to stop them from opening another account?
To me, this smacks of government types trying to set a legal precedent for taking over peoples passwords, online identities, etc. Because it is the evil sex offenders, the public won't care. Then later the government can say: "But there is a precedent for taking passwords; its been done for a long time." Then the public shrugs and figures that if it has been going on for a while, then it can't be all that bad. And another personal liberty is thus erased.
Its called the "We've Got A Bigger Army" philosophy. Look up President Jackson and the Trail of Tears for more info on the Executive branch trumping the Supreme Court. Then look at the current administration, and see how many of these attitudes continue in the office to today. I'm not trying to politicize or anything, but merely demonstrate that power (in any situation) tends to create its own rules, whether legitimized or not.
It's a shame that this needs to be the case, that a person needs to go through a lot of effort to remain anonymous, just to comment on a government ostensibly there to protect them.
This offer is far from comprehensive, though, as it excludes case cracks, small numbers of dead pixels, broken keys, smashed screens, software issues, virus infections or failed batteries that are older than one year.
Basically, the normal wear and tear of a laptop is excluded. This seems particularly negligent regarding failed batteries, as I've noticed that most laptops become almost unusable after a few years. Even with a RAM upgrade after 3 years, it is unlikely to last much longer than that, especially if broken keys and worn out batteries aren't included. (Are batteries even designed to last that long?
This seems to just be a way to refine search results and collect more specified data. This is great for Google's aims of collecting all the data in the universe, but an annoying "feature" for me.
I really dislike the "refined" searches, especially as Google's memory lasts for a long time. If I am doing a project on something, or am really interested in a topic (lets say travelling to Timbuktu), I will search it to death. However, a week later, when I am trying to search for something else (say used cars), I have to slog through a bunch of pages about car sales in Timbuktu!
I've often thought about this, especially as most of my friends seem to use Facebook and I am certain Facebook would hand over any private data to any government agency that asked.
Instead of joining in the normal way, I would design a "$myname" app for Facebook for my friends who want to stay in touch. That app would have the functionality my profile would normally have, but would be encrypted and all the data would be off Facebook's servers.
Just a thought I've been mulling over recently, especially with the data mining of so many countries lately.
If I had mod points I'd mod parent up.
on
How We Used To Vote
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I quite agree, and feel that many young people become disenfranchised under the current system. Because of increasing fear of crime, children as young as ten are being tried as adults in certain localities. Yet they (including teenagers up to 18) have no say in how that system is run.
Either they are able to make decisions for themselves, and should be granted the right to vote, or they are incapable of making decisions and should not be punished for crimes, etc.
Using the infant example, if an infant smothers their sibling to death, they are unlikely to be sent to a maximum security prison as they probably had no idea what they were doing. They also shouldn't have the right to vote, as they would have no idea what it is about.
I was just reading your post and was affected by it. I really feel for you and others I've met in similar situations, parents who sacrifice so much for their kids only to be shafted in the end.
I used to work for a very expensive private school. Some parents would really strive so that their children could go to a "top" school. Yet the culture of that place had very little to do with real learning, and a LOT to do with getting good test scores. I was evaluated on how well my students did at test scores, and only that. We had a student who spoke quite poor English but had an external essay style exam which he would fail miserably. So the history teacher taught the student a few key words, and had him memorize a couple of short essays. If any of the key words came up, he would write the essay from memory for the exam! He had no idea what he was writing, but he passed the exam in the end, and the school applauded that teacher.
I have seen many similar examples. The only reason I still enjoy the teaching field is because I want to push the envelope beyond the lowest common denominator. Teenagers are capable of being such agents of change in the world. Yet the way most schools treat them is, frankly, criminal.
I myself did high school by correspondence, and enjoyed it immensely. I was able to go at my own pace, read and discover information on my own, and even went to university at 15. The UNL Independent Study HS is a particularly decent program. I would definitely recommend it, with the caveat that it is not for everyone. My sister couldn't cope with that learning style, for example, and after trying a couple of classes, went back to a traditional high school.
If your children are younger than, say, 12 or so, it takes a lot more effort to teach concepts and so writing to a teacher halfway across the country would probably be counterproductive. I would recommend having your kids skip a grade initially and then try an alternative option as they get into junior high/high school.
Just a few thoughts, and I really hope their schooling works out for your kids in the end...
Oh, I don't know about that. I think companies are actually quite strict about adhering to their privacy policies. I also think, however, that companies are strict about making privacy policies that are as vague and obfuscating as possible.
Thus, they can sell your info to whoever they want and do whatever they please, and come around and say "look, you agreed to it!" Same thing with EULAs. Unless you are a lawyer, it is unlikely you can figure out how many loopholes most companies leave open in their privacy policies to do whatever they want. But they aren't lying, in the legal sense at least.
Religion & spirituality are distinctly different from superstition, "wishing things", or adding psuedo-science to thoughts and beliefs.
I find a lot of atheistic scientists condemning religion, but in fact what they are condemning is sloppy or illogical thinking. It is up to religionists to realize that critical analysis strengthens, instead of weakens religious faith. Sigh.
Accepting a certificate ultimately comes down to trust. For example, most people trust Verisign. Therefore, if a certificate is signed by them, most people will think: "Here is a legitimate site with identifiable credentials accepted by Verisign."
A self-signed certificate encrypts your data just as well as any other. However, you need to trust the website you are at (and hence the signing authority). The reason people trust sites like Verisign, is that it is often difficult to know how legitimate/secure/etc a particular website is. Also, a website could be faked.
I'd trust a self-signed certificate from my bank. But I wouldn't necessary trust that the site I am at is actually my banking website (instead of a cleverly copied phishing scam).
Also, even if I trust a site, I wouldn't necessarily trust the people they trust. What I mean is that if a certificate is signed by an external CA, or with a mismatched domain, I would have to know and trust that CA or other domain before I would accept that certificate.
Considering that most people just click "OK" when something pops on their screen, I would say that Verisign and the like are useful for now. But I have nothing against self-signed certificates in principle.
Can someone write an open source facebook and myspace GPG key creator/signer/[loader of pubkey onto keyserver]? This is the only way I can foresee getting the masses to participate in the web of trust, by using a web of trust that they already use. Add it onto several OMG Ponies apps.
Of course, the myspace generation uses myspace/facebook messages for their email, so it's a pointless venture. Mod parent up! The comment might sound trivial or humorous, but if someone really did create a GPG app for facebook, then I am sure a LOT of people would start to use it.
Ease of use opens many doors...
Regarding privacy, is extreme privacy really such a major concern in this situation? I mean, it isn't private information that is being passed along, as much as just reading one's (public) surroundings. I am sure this is much more private than the current method of having a friend reading and explaining everything!
I have a friend who is extremely dyslexic, and thus can't really read. He loves walking down the street listening to books on tape, as it is his only chance to "read". How much more so for someone given a first chance to experience their surroundings like that! Having headphones instead of braille output allows someone complete mobility, instead of having to constantly hold something at all times.
It really isn't that bad, although I don't know how many people are going to click the ads. I'm sure some will to start, just for the novalty, but over time, I doubt this will be a big revenue generator for Google
Ummmm... I actually think it will be a big deal. Essentially, a video ad that no-one clicks on is a full graphical ad. On top of that, anyone who actually feels like clicking on it can get a full video hit. So it serves two types of people at once.
Personally, I find even graphical ads extremely annoying! This is the one reason I found Google's ads at least tolerable. But it looks like things are spiraling downhill. I find it quite telling that they are hosting video ads for others while keeping their own webite clean and simple. Apparently, the "do no evil" philosophy doesn't extend to what they are offering to others. Honestly, It is amazing what some webmasters can do to make even textual ads aggravating! I remember going to one site that was a full page of various Google ads and then after scrolling to the bottom a small link with the article I was looking for. Sigh.
Your comment sparked me thinking: What if ISPs simply used a cache for major high bandwidth and video sites? Then, like cable companies, they can provide as much bandwidth as they want from themselves to their customers, but do not need to pay any extra bandwidth to the "big boys"? Just a thought.
It should also be noted that this study studied all hurricane regions, not just the Atlantic region.
I hate to be pedantic, but hurricanes only occur in the Atlantic. When they occur in the pacific, they are called Typhoons, and when they occur in the Indian Ocean, they are called Cyclones....
Slashdot Mirror
Is this really about copyright? Or is it an excuse for the Chinese Government to have greater control over books written in Chinese (some of which may be potentially critical of the government)?
To be perfectly honest, why use LuLu in the first place? There are plenty of cheaper "Print on Demand" (POD) publishers, including Amazon's Booksurge, which lists books on Amazon. I can't see why authors would accept traditional publisher & distributor markups (typically >40% of the retail price) and then add a retailer markup, all for the privilege of selling a book electronically or via POD on LuLu! Find a cheaper POD publisher and sell it yourself, or if a sales page and distributor access are vital, then use Booksurge or an equivalent, not Lulu.
What about "Print on Demand" (POD) books? Just offer a PDF on your website and have a link for a POD book for those students that prefer a physical book. There are many, many POD publishers out there. and most are pretty good/indistinguishable from "regular" printing. And if you use Amazon's POD publisher, Booksurge, you automatically get listed with them. To me this seems like a "no fail" system that provides both free (ebook) and physical (POD) versions of your book while side-stepping an outdated publishing industry.
Besides transmission issues, what about land use? I mean, what will we eat if all our agricultural land is covered by wind turbines? It is a nice mental exercise to cover all the world's non-aquatic, non-forested, non-urban, and non-polar land with wind turbines, but do wind turbines really integrate well with all the other rural land uses (particularly agriculture) that we have?
It seems to me that researching improved transmission efficiencies and putting wind turbines in the ocean and polar regions (and solar in the deserts) would be a better solution. This is particularly the case as population expands, and previously rural areas become more developed.
See if you can get the Nepal government to allow the citizens to use whatever level of encryption they see fit.
+1 insightful
The right to use encryption of any sort should be explicitly mentioned and permitted in the constitution. The right to encrypt one's personal data is fundamental to the right to privacy. Being forced to give up encryption keys should also be mentioned and protected in the same manner as self-incrimination (such as in the US 5th amendment).
The reason the right to encrypt is vital to place in the constitution is that aggressive or controlling/totalitarian governments (and there are varying shades of this) like to have a lot of control over their citizens. Thus, when they come into power, they can become very fearful of encryption amongst their citizens and erode a real right to free speech under various guises (such as monitoring all communications and banning encryption amongst other things).
:-) Unfortunately, if hyperinflation hits, the banks will just raise your flexible interest rate loan to 10,000% or whatever.
What about simply creating a better web of trust? For example, if you only trust governments, then you only accept certificates issued by them. If I trust Verisign but not Godaddy, then I only accept Verisign and the other sites I trust.
This is how a web of trust should work. People trust certain sites to issue certificates. As certain sites gain trust, more people want to get certificates from them, etc. I might trust my friend Bob, but there is no reason you should. If a bank or e-commerce site wants to do business, then they need to make sure that they get certificate(s) from sources that the majority of their clients also trust. Simple as that.
This way, governments can issue certificates with the stature you mention. At the same time, it is not monopolized by them, and people who don't trust the government are also free to use certificates by private companies.
What is the point of this? If the sex-offenders have already been caught and tried, then what does this prove? If they have already been sentenced, then any incriminating evidence is merely extra. If they haven't been tried, then can't they plead the "5th"? Finally, if this is to deter them from doing heinous acts in the future, then what is to stop them from opening another account?
To me, this smacks of government types trying to set a legal precedent for taking over peoples passwords, online identities, etc. Because it is the evil sex offenders, the public won't care. Then later the government can say: "But there is a precedent for taking passwords; its been done for a long time." Then the public shrugs and figures that if it has been going on for a while, then it can't be all that bad. And another personal liberty is thus erased.
Its called the "We've Got A Bigger Army" philosophy. Look up President Jackson and the Trail of Tears for more info on the Executive branch trumping the Supreme Court. Then look at the current administration, and see how many of these attitudes continue in the office to today. I'm not trying to politicize or anything, but merely demonstrate that power (in any situation) tends to create its own rules, whether legitimized or not.
It's a shame that this needs to be the case, that a person needs to go through a lot of effort to remain anonymous, just to comment on a government ostensibly there to protect them.
Sigh. The world today...
This offer is far from comprehensive, though, as it excludes case cracks, small numbers of dead pixels, broken keys, smashed screens, software issues, virus infections or failed batteries that are older than one year.
Basically, the normal wear and tear of a laptop is excluded. This seems particularly negligent regarding failed batteries, as I've noticed that most laptops become almost unusable after a few years. Even with a RAM upgrade after 3 years, it is unlikely to last much longer than that, especially if broken keys and worn out batteries aren't included. (Are batteries even designed to last that long?
This seems to just be a way to refine search results and collect more specified data. This is great for Google's aims of collecting all the data in the universe, but an annoying "feature" for me.
I really dislike the "refined" searches, especially as Google's memory lasts for a long time. If I am doing a project on something, or am really interested in a topic (lets say travelling to Timbuktu), I will search it to death. However, a week later, when I am trying to search for something else (say used cars), I have to slog through a bunch of pages about car sales in Timbuktu!
Sigh.
I've often thought about this, especially as most of my friends seem to use Facebook and I am certain Facebook would hand over any private data to any government agency that asked.
Instead of joining in the normal way, I would design a "$myname" app for Facebook for my friends who want to stay in touch. That app would have the functionality my profile would normally have, but would be encrypted and all the data would be off Facebook's servers.
Just a thought I've been mulling over recently, especially with the data mining of so many countries lately.
I quite agree, and feel that many young people become disenfranchised under the current system. Because of increasing fear of crime, children as young as ten are being tried as adults in certain localities. Yet they (including teenagers up to 18) have no say in how that system is run.
Either they are able to make decisions for themselves, and should be granted the right to vote, or they are incapable of making decisions and should not be punished for crimes, etc.
Using the infant example, if an infant smothers their sibling to death, they are unlikely to be sent to a maximum security prison as they probably had no idea what they were doing. They also shouldn't have the right to vote, as they would have no idea what it is about.
It appears this is a good idea. But do the political parties know how to use technology in an efficient manner?
I was just reading your post and was affected by it. I really feel for you and others I've met in similar situations, parents who sacrifice so much for their kids only to be shafted in the end.
I used to work for a very expensive private school. Some parents would really strive so that their children could go to a "top" school. Yet the culture of that place had very little to do with real learning, and a LOT to do with getting good test scores. I was evaluated on how well my students did at test scores, and only that. We had a student who spoke quite poor English but had an external essay style exam which he would fail miserably. So the history teacher taught the student a few key words, and had him memorize a couple of short essays. If any of the key words came up, he would write the essay from memory for the exam! He had no idea what he was writing, but he passed the exam in the end, and the school applauded that teacher.
I have seen many similar examples. The only reason I still enjoy the teaching field is because I want to push the envelope beyond the lowest common denominator. Teenagers are capable of being such agents of change in the world. Yet the way most schools treat them is, frankly, criminal.
I myself did high school by correspondence, and enjoyed it immensely. I was able to go at my own pace, read and discover information on my own, and even went to university at 15. The UNL Independent Study HS is a particularly decent program. I would definitely recommend it, with the caveat that it is not for everyone. My sister couldn't cope with that learning style, for example, and after trying a couple of classes, went back to a traditional high school.
If your children are younger than, say, 12 or so, it takes a lot more effort to teach concepts and so writing to a teacher halfway across the country would probably be counterproductive. I would recommend having your kids skip a grade initially and then try an alternative option as they get into junior high/high school. Just a few thoughts, and I really hope their schooling works out for your kids in the end...
Oh, I don't know about that. I think companies are actually quite strict about adhering to their privacy policies. I also think, however, that companies are strict about making privacy policies that are as vague and obfuscating as possible.
Thus, they can sell your info to whoever they want and do whatever they please, and come around and say "look, you agreed to it!" Same thing with EULAs. Unless you are a lawyer, it is unlikely you can figure out how many loopholes most companies leave open in their privacy policies to do whatever they want. But they aren't lying, in the legal sense at least.
Religion & spirituality are distinctly different from superstition, "wishing things", or adding psuedo-science to thoughts and beliefs.
I find a lot of atheistic scientists condemning religion, but in fact what they are condemning is sloppy or illogical thinking. It is up to religionists to realize that critical analysis strengthens, instead of weakens religious faith. Sigh.
Accepting a certificate ultimately comes down to trust. For example, most people trust Verisign. Therefore, if a certificate is signed by them, most people will think: "Here is a legitimate site with identifiable credentials accepted by Verisign."
A self-signed certificate encrypts your data just as well as any other. However, you need to trust the website you are at (and hence the signing authority). The reason people trust sites like Verisign, is that it is often difficult to know how legitimate/secure/etc a particular website is. Also, a website could be faked.
I'd trust a self-signed certificate from my bank. But I wouldn't necessary trust that the site I am at is actually my banking website (instead of a cleverly copied phishing scam).
Also, even if I trust a site, I wouldn't necessarily trust the people they trust. What I mean is that if a certificate is signed by an external CA, or with a mismatched domain, I would have to know and trust that CA or other domain before I would accept that certificate.
Considering that most people just click "OK" when something pops on their screen, I would say that Verisign and the like are useful for now. But I have nothing against self-signed certificates in principle.
Regarding privacy, is extreme privacy really such a major concern in this situation? I mean, it isn't private information that is being passed along, as much as just reading one's (public) surroundings. I am sure this is much more private than the current method of having a friend reading and explaining everything!
I have a friend who is extremely dyslexic, and thus can't really read. He loves walking down the street listening to books on tape, as it is his only chance to "read". How much more so for someone given a first chance to experience their surroundings like that! Having headphones instead of braille output allows someone complete mobility, instead of having to constantly hold something at all times.
Funniest post I've read in a long while! :-) If I had some mod points, I'd mod you up.
Ummmm... I actually think it will be a big deal. Essentially, a video ad that no-one clicks on is a full graphical ad. On top of that, anyone who actually feels like clicking on it can get a full video hit. So it serves two types of people at once.
Personally, I find even graphical ads extremely annoying! This is the one reason I found Google's ads at least tolerable. But it looks like things are spiraling downhill. I find it quite telling that they are hosting video ads for others while keeping their own webite clean and simple. Apparently, the "do no evil" philosophy doesn't extend to what they are offering to others. Honestly, It is amazing what some webmasters can do to make even textual ads aggravating! I remember going to one site that was a full page of various Google ads and then after scrolling to the bottom a small link with the article I was looking for. Sigh.
Your comment sparked me thinking: What if ISPs simply used a cache for major high bandwidth and video sites? Then, like cable companies, they can provide as much bandwidth as they want from themselves to their customers, but do not need to pay any extra bandwidth to the "big boys"?
Just a thought.
I hate to be pedantic, but hurricanes only occur in the Atlantic. When they occur in the pacific, they are called Typhoons, and when they occur in the Indian Ocean, they are called Cyclones....