I skimmed the posts and did not see this mentioned...
As others have said, I do not feel that any media outlet has a 'pass' on accuracy and truth. Though as is often the case, truth can be relative. That is why I don't want some reporter's truth, I want the 'facts' and just the facts, when I read/watch/hear a news story. This highlights a much larger problem and trend, and that is an overall lack of integrity and honesty in news reporting. It seems that no reporters anywhere in the US follow the old school reporter rules of 'what, when, where, why and how'. It is a rarity to read/watch/hear a news story today and come away with the full picture and a fair understanding of what happened. Between lackadaisical reporting and editing standards and personal bias in the entire reporting/editing cycle, no neutral, complete stores are left.
This affects all news outlets, not just print. News media in the US have gone through some phases. Initially US newspapers proudly proclaimed their political bias with their titles and tag lines. Their stories were all written from that perspective. The country then went through a phase of 'honest reporting' where you got 'just the facts'. Now news reporting is sliding into a period of just not seeming to care about an honest, un-biased news piece. That coupled with the much lower reporting and editing standards leaves news stories that are just that, stories. Now a days, I can not sit and watch any of the local TV news broadcasts or any of the big three networks nightly news. The sorry state of TV news is appalling. Print is not much better. They are all in such a hurry to get the scoop that none of them care about the facts. What they have not twisted to their political bias, they have dumbed down for popular consumption.
Or even better, an automatic sunset clause on all laws that say they expire 5 years after being approved. This way bad laws die a quick (generally speaking) death and the various legislatures wind up so busy re-approving the good or needed laws that they have no time left to create new crappy laws.
If by 'gas' you mean solar wind, then yes but what a slow way to go. It would (should) be more efficient to collect all of the generated interstellar hydrogen and funnel it through a ram-scoop engine or an ion-drive engine, that you put in the hole...
May 08, Associated Press
Microsoft admits Passport was vulnerable. Computer researcher Muhammad
Faisal Rauf Danka of Pakistan discovered how to breach Microsoft Corp.'s
security procedures for its Internet Passport service. The service is
designed to protect customers visiting some retail Web sites, sending
e-mails and in some cases making credit-card purchases. Microsoft
acknowledged the flaw affected all its 200 million Passport accounts but
said it fixed the problem early Thursday, after details were published on
the Internet Wednesday night. Under a settlement with the Federal Trade
Commission (FTC) last year over lapsed Passport security, Microsoft pledged
to take reasonable safeguards to protect personal consumer information
during the next two decades or risk fines up to $11,000 per violation. The
FTC's Jessica Rich said Thursday that each vulnerable account could
constitute a separate violation - raising the maximum fine that could be
assessed against Microsoft to $2.2 trillion. Source:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A303 30-2003May8.html
Agreed but it is still far better then the current situation. And if these recommendations are followed (not likely) then anyone purposely manipulating a target system to gain access or additional privileges would be guilty of a criminal act not the broader interpretations that are available today. As I understand his paper, the system owner would not need to do anything. The act of attempting to circumvent system restrictions by means would be 'unauthorized access'.
What he is trying to avoid is having someone libel for a crime because of a breach of access contract verses acts of hacking. As the laws stand today, if the click-through contract states that you can not use your email account to send JPEGs and you do, you would be considered an unauthorized user and subject to criminal prosecution.
IBM demonstrated a prototype of this at least 10 years ago (I remember reading the article in an old InfoWorld). I believe it was in the mid to late 80s. Theirs only showed wire frame objects and it used a red laser. It was about the size of a hat-box, 12-15 in. across and about 8 in. high. It was WAY COOL back then...
Sorry but that was his business address. He just happens to live there too. If he did not want anyone to know where he lived, he should have business location that is not his home.
My apologies if something like this were already posted (were just too many to read). Here is a moral dilemma for you...
You are the manager of a software development team. You have X programmers working on the project. As is normal for software development projects, the delivery date was set by sales, not you. It cannot be changed. Your resources are fixed. No OT, no contractors, no nothing. In addition, you do not legally own enough copies of the development platform (let us say you are 30% short) to complete the project on time though you do have the manpower. Management will NOT approve an additional budget for purchasing the required number of licenses for you to be legal. If the project fails to meet the deadline there will be consequences. Staffing will be affected (i.e. layoffs).
Morally, you want to only use legal software. You are also the manager and your staff depends on you and you have a personal responsibility to do all you can to keep them employed especially since in the current economic climate, finding a new job is difficult. What do you do? Are you legal on the software and miss the deadline or do you do what ever is necessary to complete the project on time (given the constraints) and keep everyone employed? Which is more moral? Which is more right?
For anyone that missed it, the original MITRE report is here (this basically started things going) and the rebuttel paper from the Initiative for Software Choice is here.
Again, for those that missed it, the Initiative for Software Choice, though at an 'org' is funded by MS and others of the big software makers.
The response paper goes through quite a bit of trouble to label the GPU as a viral license and the resulting dangers as well as going into how giving 'preferential' treatment to open source will hurt the software industry (monetarily) and the government (by cutting off choice).
They definitely try to do a nice 'turn around'. Open source is hit as not being any more secure than commercial software, that the GPL (specifically) can/will pollute developed works and that the policy change is not only not needed but will deprive the government of choice and the ability to select the best software for a given job.
I started programming over 20 years ago, starting on main-frames, moving to minis, PCs and now the Internet. Worked through the accompanying shifts in paradigms; batch processing to client-server and now internet/stateless. I believe that you are half right. I feel that recently schooled programmers come out of school pretty much thinking that they 'know it all' (present company excluded of course) and that they have nothing else to learn. I work with coders that range from 10 to 20 years my juniors and it constantly amazes them what this 'old boy' brings to discussions, designs and problem resolutions.
When I started coding, the batch job was king. It either had to run right or if it failed, it had to fail right. You built code to expect the unexpected. As the systems changed, the paradigms adapted or were reinvented. They all still tried to solve the same problems, how do develop a system quickly, efficiently and robustly (emphasis on robustly). The concept of building components or black-boxes is nothing new. What does appear to be new is the lack of building in recovery from problems or even the anticipation that there could be problems. What I tell my coders is that everything they develop should be with the mindset that it is going to be controlling their mother's heart/lung machine. Everything should be designed with that level of coverage and recoverability. Most systems today are not designed or coded that way. Look at all of the issues Win/Tell systems have with SIMPLE things like buffer overflows. That is inexcusable. It is easy to blame this on MS but that is a scapegoat. The problem is in how students are taught and how they are mentored after they leave school.
How is it where you work? Do you take the time to have weekly meetings with the other developers? To review and discuss code and coding issues? Or does the code go from the developer to QA (if you even have any) and into product with no peer review? This is not a problem that can be solved over-night but it is one that we need to work on and it will NOT be solved by changing languages or paradigms. Compiler cycles are just too cheap and it is just too easy to hit the compile button. To some degree, I have seen the enemy and they is us.
Just a few questions about using the power lines
on
Broadband over Powerlines
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Just a few questions...
Sending communications signals over the electrical line must involve modulating the frequency of the current. That does not cause any problems for the existing electrical equipment that is using the lines? Do you need to install filters on your appliances to ensure that they get 'clean' power? If not, what is the long-term affect of running 'dirty' electricity through your electronic devices. I understand that existing current is not frequency perfect and that there are fluctuations but does this communications related modulation fall within the existing fluctuation parameters? If not, what is the affect? If it does, how is it distinguished from existing line noise?
For a minor solar system in a 'backwater' section of the milkyway, we are quite the tourist trap! The alien spaceships are just all over the place! There must be an interstellar Danny's on the other side of the sun.
It is a bit funny that all of the ship images that they show are in the solar plane and edge on. I always thought it was pretty funny that even though StarTrek and most of the rest of the space shows and films were about ships in outer space, all of the directors and producers seem to forget that objects move in three dimensions. Whenever ships in space approach each other, they always seem to come at each other in the same flat plane and usually head-on. Never from above or below or any other attack angels. I know that they may do some of that to simplify the production or to not loose the audience but it is amusing that the 'alien' ships in these photographs were kind enough to do the same thing!
I am not a lawyer and do not understand how this issue is affected by law (local and international) but I have always been uncomfortable with companies having the ability to patent genes and gene related information.
I could be wrong but was not the original genome project funded by public monies? And was not this work based in part on that work?
If Harvard had 'invented' this mouse as in splicing all of the needed genes together from scratch and grew it in a dish, then it might be considered an 'invention' but they did not do that. If I could be really simple for a bit, they took a block of genes from one pile (abet a very specific block) and added it to a mouse. They did not invent the original block and they did not invent the mouse. They are just laying claim to the result as being novel, unobvious and an invention. Is it? It looks like a mouse (and those have been around for quite some time) and acts like a mouse. I would argue that what they could have patented was the process by which they created the mouse, if it was different and unique from other existing processes for genetically modifying organisms but not on the end product.
I have the same sorts of feelings about genetically modified foods and such.
The fact that based on this (genetic) information, a company can determine that a specific sequence of genes will cause someone to develop a disease (and I understand that in most cases a large amount of research goes into determining which sequence of genes is responsible for what), patent that sequence, create a simple test to screen for that sequence and then charge enormous amounts of money for the test, is outrageous. I am not anti-capitalism by any means. I think that people and companies have a right to make money. I am just very uncomfortable with the idea that some of these companies are doing it not by 'inventing' something of value but just by managing to 'get there first' and by staking a claim to our very DNA and once the claim is staked, doing what they want with that information for the duration of the patent. Some information should just be public domain, for the general public good. DNA and DNA related information, I feel, fits the bill.
Just be carefull here... Remember that Sony is the same company that uses digital rights technology in their MP3 players.
To quote from their site:
Passage is efficient. With Passage Technology the customer experiences no degradation of existing services. A typical Passage system requires between 2-10% additional bandwidth* to deliver the same content and services including the new, secondary CA system. This means that Passage can be introduced in a system without changes to the existing channel line-up.
*Utilization of bandwidth overhead is controlled by the MSO. Utilization of more bandwidth increases security levels.
Is 'security levels' another word for digital rights management? I just have a hard time believing a company that goes through so much trouble to install DRM into their audio products would not do the same in the video market. Other posts have mentioned freedom to choose your own set-top box. That is not discussed on the Sony site. The freedom of choice is for the cable companies, not you or me. This could be good and it could reduce consumer costs but don't bank on it. It may just give the cable companies even more control over what you watch and how.
It is just as freaky when they ask you for your phone number and won't take no for an answer. I usually give them my area-code, 555-1212. That gives them an answer and gets them off of my back...
I am sure that the tag paragraph for this thread is true in many cases. Boys and their toys but I have been using various Palm PDAs for 6 years or so now and I would find it very difficult to get by without it. I attend a lot of meetings through out the day and would easily miss some without it handy to remind me. I know I could get by with a paper-based system (and used to before I got my first PDA) but then I would have to keep track of my schedule in two places. Online (outlook) because that is the calendar that the office has access to, for scheduling new meetings and then also in my paper based schedule so that I do not loose track of my schedule when I am not in front of my PC. My PDA just simplifies this sort of activity tracking a great deal. I do wish that it were easier to use it for more complicated tasks (like note taking) but that is not really its' primary purpose. Scheduling and contacts is. The Palm has been stretched to do other things (some of which it has adapted to better then others) but at least in my case, it still excels at scheduling and contact management.
Would I ever go back to paper? Not as long as I also have a PC. Let technology do what it can to simplify my life so that I have more time to deal with the rest. Just my 2 cents.
He clearly thinks that he is not doing anything wrong and claims to have tried to raise the issue of page rankings and his business model with Google...
Your search engine is very good at detecting things like link farms and hidden tricks. I'm certainly not asking for any special treatment. If I, or anyone in my network, tries to take advantage by lying, cheating or stealing, I would expect them to have to suffer the consequences the same as anyone else. I'm only asking that you look beyond the webmaster world posts and see that these niche sites need the respect and the income that a high PR deserves. They work hard and the reason they have those high PR's is that they don't spam. Please don't penalize them for trying to capitalize on the fact that Google rewarded their efforts.
He is certainly trying to imply by this post and others, that Google is unfairly targeting him because he has chosen to use their page ranking system to help set the prices he charges for ad space on the web sites that he hosts for his customers.
He claims to not be inflating rankings at all and just using the rankings to set his ad fees. If that is the case, he may have a claim but I guess that is for the lawyers to decide.
If he is manipulating rankings, he deserves to go down in flames. If Google is 'picking' on him cause he is trying to earn more from Google's rankings but he is not 'cooking' the numbers, he may have a case. Read the posts. The web site operators appear to benefit from the higher rankings by getting more for the hosted ads. Just compensation for good work building good sites. Hard to say this is clear-cut without seeing Google's response.
The marketers need to grow up�
on
The Aging Gamer
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
It was a rather short article but it is still satisfying to see it in print. It also matches other statistics that I have seen published elsewhere, in both gaming magazines and at online sites.
Makes much sense too. For example, I grew up playing pinball with my father, graduated to the first video games (pong, breakout, etc.), moved on to C64, Apple II and Atari games as they became available and now PC games with a big emphasis on the online worlds (that 1942 is not too shabby). I currently see myself playing games until I am too decrepit to move the controller (but hope by then the neural interface will be common place).
The key point of surveys like this is that it shows the average gamer is not a pimple faced adolescent that is cutting school, sitting at home with no social life, spending all of (usually) his life lost in games. It is the middle class, working, husbands and wives looking for a little relaxation and escapism from their day. The sooner that the game industry (with their associated marketing departments) and the bulk of game magazines accept this idea and redirect their marketing to this group, the better. Most of the non-gaming public accepts the adolescent gamer myth because that is what they see from how games are marketed both directly and via the industry magazines. Hollywood plays a part in this too. I guess it is just too easy for the industry to throw more T&A into the marketing plan then to take the time to understand the market and sell accordingly.
I have had one of these for about 2 weeks now and continue to have a lot of fun. The nice thing about it is it only annoys the dog, does not scare her. After chasing her with it for some time, she just lies down and ignores it.:)
I have been getting around 5 to 8 minutes run per charge and the car works great on tile or wood floors, fair on a short berber and crappy on anything deeper. I also picked up the 'performance' kit and the higher end motor and gearing does increase speed with some decrease to run time.
I also found a nice site that has been covering these cars and also has a nice little forum for discussing issues. There is even a post from some RS folks discussing how they have tweaked the cars.
Can you really copyright something that has demonstratable 'prior use' and 'prior art'? There must be many examples of silence in use, in various lengths of time. The silence between CD tracks must be of a uniform length for example. I do not believe that a copyright can be granted on that since it is in common use. And if that is the case, are not 'overtly similar' lengths of silence (like 1 to 5 seconds more or less) not copyright-able either? And as someone else noted in an earlier post, people often hold 'a minute of silence', plenty of prior art on that one too.
If so, is what Batt is doing: "Batt has been busy copyrighting chunks of silence of various lengths other than the four minutes, thirty-three seconds of silence owned by Cage" going to be invalid or just cause lawyers to get more wealthy as folks choose to fight his copyrights on silence?
This is a two fold problem. The first half is either you 'get' brould-band and want it or you don't. You either understand what it does and can do and appreciate how it can open up the Internet and make it such a more enjoyable experience or you don't.
The second half of the problem is, either you can get it or you can't. I spent 3 years waiting for DLS or cable to come to my area and I was not that 'far' out of the city. I had cable but since DSL was not available, the cable company was in no rush to get me digital cable. Once DSL became available, digital cable followed within a couple of months. In many areas you either have no choice or your only choice is expensive, too expensive.
I believe the report is going in the wrong direction, now and in the near future, the average Internet user does not want movies on demand, 50 music channels, V-IP and the rest, they just want cheap, fast access. Until the DSL and cable industries get that through their heads and start offering cable and DSL for the same price as a dial up line, many, many users will not see the cost justification to upgrade to the better access. It is the same sort of problem with online bill pay. Many folks feel that one, it is too complicated to use (same as with setting up your cable/DLS) and two, why pay $10.00 a month for 20 payments when a stamp is still less then that. Right now, for most users, dial-up is 'good enough'. Right now, for must users, dial-up is good enough. Not great but good enough.
I have had one of these for years and it has served me very well. It appears to be still around (thought the form has been modified from the one I have) and it can be had for under $30. I have had mine since 1990 and it is still going strong.
You have to switch the unit into hex but once switched, it sticks until turned off.
Your problem is not un-solvable but it is difficult. Most of the suggestions that have already been posted rely upon technology to too great a degree. Technological distribution is fine if you want to do it now. Now being today and maybe about 5 years into the future. The problem is technological change. If you want your information released more the a few years into the future, how can you be sure your information will be recognizable or usable. Think about someone planning to do this 15 years ago and planning to release this on CompuServe.
Your best bet would be to involve large organizations (so you have a chance that they will still be around) but in such a way that they do not know what they are doing or what part they are playing in your 'master' plan. For example, contract with Western Union to deliver a number of packages 30 years from now. Also contract with 5 or 6 large law firms to do the same thing. Have all of your packages delivered on the same day to 20 of the largest law firms that exist today as well as 20 of the larger non-profits like the ACLU, NAACP, other groups interested in individual rights, freedom of speech, etc. Diversity is the key. You want to ensure that at least some of the places you pick today are around tomorrow (future). These packages would contain a cover letter and your 'discovery'. Write your cover letter in such a way that each organization knows that they are not your only choice but do not say who the others are. Explain what your idea or discovery is and who or what should be done with it.
There is no guarantee that this will work but it is probably your best bet. Good luck.
Sorry, that would not work and you would get in quite a lot of trouble. There is a clear 'notification' clause in the bill, which reads in part:
A copyright owner has notified the department of justice, in such a manner as the Attorney General shall specify, of the specific technologies the copyright owner intends to use to impair the unauthorized distribution, display, performance, or reproduction of the owner's copyrighted works over a publicly accessible peer-to-peer file trading network and the notification under paragraph 1 was made at least 7 days before the copyright owner engaged in the act.
So you would have to let the DoJ know that you intended to DOS the MPAA and how, in order to not violate the law. If they use an automated notification system, you might still get away with it cause it could be weeks before anyone read it and realized what you intended to do and told you know, you only have to wait 7 days!
Slashdot Mirror
I skimmed the posts and did not see this mentioned...
As others have said, I do not feel that any media outlet has a 'pass' on accuracy and truth. Though as is often the case, truth can be relative. That is why I don't want some reporter's truth, I want the 'facts' and just the facts, when I read/watch/hear a news story. This highlights a much larger problem and trend, and that is an overall lack of integrity and honesty in news reporting. It seems that no reporters anywhere in the US follow the old school reporter rules of 'what, when, where, why and how'. It is a rarity to read/watch/hear a news story today and come away with the full picture and a fair understanding of what happened. Between lackadaisical reporting and editing standards and personal bias in the entire reporting/editing cycle, no neutral, complete stores are left.
This affects all news outlets, not just print. News media in the US have gone through some phases. Initially US newspapers proudly proclaimed their political bias with their titles and tag lines. Their stories were all written from that perspective. The country then went through a phase of 'honest reporting' where you got 'just the facts'. Now news reporting is sliding into a period of just not seeming to care about an honest, un-biased news piece. That coupled with the much lower reporting and editing standards leaves news stories that are just that, stories. Now a days, I can not sit and watch any of the local TV news broadcasts or any of the big three networks nightly news. The sorry state of TV news is appalling. Print is not much better. They are all in such a hurry to get the scoop that none of them care about the facts. What they have not twisted to their political bias, they have dumbed down for popular consumption.
Or even better, an automatic sunset clause on all laws that say they expire 5 years after being approved. This way bad laws die a quick (generally speaking) death and the various legislatures wind up so busy re-approving the good or needed laws that they have no time left to create new crappy laws.
If by 'gas' you mean solar wind, then yes but what a slow way to go. It would (should) be more efficient to collect all of the generated interstellar hydrogen and funnel it through a ram-scoop engine or an ion-drive engine, that you put in the hole...
May 08, Associated Press Microsoft admits Passport was vulnerable. Computer researcher Muhammad Faisal Rauf Danka of Pakistan discovered how to breach Microsoft Corp.'s security procedures for its Internet Passport service. The service is designed to protect customers visiting some retail Web sites, sending e-mails and in some cases making credit-card purchases. Microsoft acknowledged the flaw affected all its 200 million Passport accounts but said it fixed the problem early Thursday, after details were published on the Internet Wednesday night. Under a settlement with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) last year over lapsed Passport security, Microsoft pledged to take reasonable safeguards to protect personal consumer information during the next two decades or risk fines up to $11,000 per violation. The FTC's Jessica Rich said Thursday that each vulnerable account could constitute a separate violation - raising the maximum fine that could be assessed against Microsoft to $2.2 trillion. Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A303 30-2003May8.html
Agreed but it is still far better then the current situation. And if these recommendations are followed (not likely) then anyone purposely manipulating a target system to gain access or additional privileges would be guilty of a criminal act not the broader interpretations that are available today. As I understand his paper, the system owner would not need to do anything. The act of attempting to circumvent system restrictions by means would be 'unauthorized access'.
What he is trying to avoid is having someone libel for a crime because of a breach of access contract verses acts of hacking. As the laws stand today, if the click-through contract states that you can not use your email account to send JPEGs and you do, you would be considered an unauthorized user and subject to criminal prosecution.
IBM demonstrated a prototype of this at least 10 years ago (I remember reading the article in an old InfoWorld). I believe it was in the mid to late 80s. Theirs only showed wire frame objects and it used a red laser. It was about the size of a hat-box, 12-15 in. across and about 8 in. high. It was WAY COOL back then...
Sorry but that was his business address. He just happens to live there too. If he did not want anyone to know where he lived, he should have business location that is not his home.
My apologies if something like this were already posted (were just too many to read). Here is a moral dilemma for you...
You are the manager of a software development team. You have X programmers working on the project. As is normal for software development projects, the delivery date was set by sales, not you. It cannot be changed. Your resources are fixed. No OT, no contractors, no nothing. In addition, you do not legally own enough copies of the development platform (let us say you are 30% short) to complete the project on time though you do have the manpower. Management will NOT approve an additional budget for purchasing the required number of licenses for you to be legal. If the project fails to meet the deadline there will be consequences. Staffing will be affected (i.e. layoffs).
Morally, you want to only use legal software. You are also the manager and your staff depends on you and you have a personal responsibility to do all you can to keep them employed especially since in the current economic climate, finding a new job is difficult. What do you do? Are you legal on the software and miss the deadline or do you do what ever is necessary to complete the project on time (given the constraints) and keep everyone employed? Which is more moral? Which is more right?
For anyone that missed it, the original MITRE report is here (this basically started things going) and the rebuttel paper from the Initiative for Software Choice is here.
Again, for those that missed it, the Initiative for Software Choice, though at an 'org' is funded by MS and others of the big software makers.
The response paper goes through quite a bit of trouble to label the GPU as a viral license and the resulting dangers as well as going into how giving 'preferential' treatment to open source will hurt the software industry (monetarily) and the government (by cutting off choice).
They definitely try to do a nice 'turn around'. Open source is hit as not being any more secure than commercial software, that the GPL (specifically) can/will pollute developed works and that the policy change is not only not needed but will deprive the government of choice and the ability to select the best software for a given job.
For completeness, the cnet article is also here.
I started programming over 20 years ago, starting on main-frames, moving to minis, PCs and now the Internet. Worked through the accompanying shifts in paradigms; batch processing to client-server and now internet/stateless. I believe that you are half right. I feel that recently schooled programmers come out of school pretty much thinking that they 'know it all' (present company excluded of course) and that they have nothing else to learn. I work with coders that range from 10 to 20 years my juniors and it constantly amazes them what this 'old boy' brings to discussions, designs and problem resolutions.
When I started coding, the batch job was king. It either had to run right or if it failed, it had to fail right. You built code to expect the unexpected. As the systems changed, the paradigms adapted or were reinvented. They all still tried to solve the same problems, how do develop a system quickly, efficiently and robustly (emphasis on robustly). The concept of building components or black-boxes is nothing new. What does appear to be new is the lack of building in recovery from problems or even the anticipation that there could be problems. What I tell my coders is that everything they develop should be with the mindset that it is going to be controlling their mother's heart/lung machine. Everything should be designed with that level of coverage and recoverability. Most systems today are not designed or coded that way. Look at all of the issues Win/Tell systems have with SIMPLE things like buffer overflows. That is inexcusable. It is easy to blame this on MS but that is a scapegoat. The problem is in how students are taught and how they are mentored after they leave school.
How is it where you work? Do you take the time to have weekly meetings with the other developers? To review and discuss code and coding issues? Or does the code go from the developer to QA (if you even have any) and into product with no peer review? This is not a problem that can be solved over-night but it is one that we need to work on and it will NOT be solved by changing languages or paradigms. Compiler cycles are just too cheap and it is just too easy to hit the compile button. To some degree, I have seen the enemy and they is us.
Just a few questions...
Sending communications signals over the electrical line must involve modulating the frequency of the current. That does not cause any problems for the existing electrical equipment that is using the lines? Do you need to install filters on your appliances to ensure that they get 'clean' power? If not, what is the long-term affect of running 'dirty' electricity through your electronic devices. I understand that existing current is not frequency perfect and that there are fluctuations but does this communications related modulation fall within the existing fluctuation parameters? If not, what is the affect? If it does, how is it distinguished from existing line noise?
For a minor solar system in a 'backwater' section of the milkyway, we are quite the tourist trap! The alien spaceships are just all over the place! There must be an interstellar Danny's on the other side of the sun.
It is a bit funny that all of the ship images that they show are in the solar plane and edge on. I always thought it was pretty funny that even though StarTrek and most of the rest of the space shows and films were about ships in outer space, all of the directors and producers seem to forget that objects move in three dimensions. Whenever ships in space approach each other, they always seem to come at each other in the same flat plane and usually head-on. Never from above or below or any other attack angels. I know that they may do some of that to simplify the production or to not loose the audience but it is amusing that the 'alien' ships in these photographs were kind enough to do the same thing!
I am not a lawyer and do not understand how this issue is affected by law (local and international) but I have always been uncomfortable with companies having the ability to patent genes and gene related information.
I could be wrong but was not the original genome project funded by public monies? And was not this work based in part on that work?
If Harvard had 'invented' this mouse as in splicing all of the needed genes together from scratch and grew it in a dish, then it might be considered an 'invention' but they did not do that. If I could be really simple for a bit, they took a block of genes from one pile (abet a very specific block) and added it to a mouse. They did not invent the original block and they did not invent the mouse. They are just laying claim to the result as being novel, unobvious and an invention. Is it? It looks like a mouse (and those have been around for quite some time) and acts like a mouse. I would argue that what they could have patented was the process by which they created the mouse, if it was different and unique from other existing processes for genetically modifying organisms but not on the end product.
I have the same sorts of feelings about genetically modified foods and such.
The fact that based on this (genetic) information, a company can determine that a specific sequence of genes will cause someone to develop a disease (and I understand that in most cases a large amount of research goes into determining which sequence of genes is responsible for what), patent that sequence, create a simple test to screen for that sequence and then charge enormous amounts of money for the test, is outrageous. I am not anti-capitalism by any means. I think that people and companies have a right to make money. I am just very uncomfortable with the idea that some of these companies are doing it not by 'inventing' something of value but just by managing to 'get there first' and by staking a claim to our very DNA and once the claim is staked, doing what they want with that information for the duration of the patent. Some information should just be public domain, for the general public good. DNA and DNA related information, I feel, fits the bill.
Just be carefull here... Remember that Sony is the same company that uses digital rights technology in their MP3 players.
To quote from their site:
Passage is efficient. With Passage Technology the customer experiences no degradation of existing services. A typical Passage system requires between 2-10% additional bandwidth* to deliver the same content and services including the new, secondary CA system. This means that Passage can be introduced in a system without changes to the existing channel line-up.
*Utilization of bandwidth overhead is controlled by the MSO. Utilization of more bandwidth increases security levels.
Is 'security levels' another word for digital rights management? I just have a hard time believing a company that goes through so much trouble to install DRM into their audio products would not do the same in the video market. Other posts have mentioned freedom to choose your own set-top box. That is not discussed on the Sony site. The freedom of choice is for the cable companies, not you or me. This could be good and it could reduce consumer costs but don't bank on it. It may just give the cable companies even more control over what you watch and how.
It is just as freaky when they ask you for your phone number and won't take no for an answer. I usually give them my area-code, 555-1212. That gives them an answer and gets them off of my back...
I am sure that the tag paragraph for this thread is true in many cases. Boys and their toys but I have been using various Palm PDAs for 6 years or so now and I would find it very difficult to get by without it. I attend a lot of meetings through out the day and would easily miss some without it handy to remind me. I know I could get by with a paper-based system (and used to before I got my first PDA) but then I would have to keep track of my schedule in two places. Online (outlook) because that is the calendar that the office has access to, for scheduling new meetings and then also in my paper based schedule so that I do not loose track of my schedule when I am not in front of my PC. My PDA just simplifies this sort of activity tracking a great deal. I do wish that it were easier to use it for more complicated tasks (like note taking) but that is not really its' primary purpose. Scheduling and contacts is. The Palm has been stretched to do other things (some of which it has adapted to better then others) but at least in my case, it still excels at scheduling and contact management.
Would I ever go back to paper? Not as long as I also have a PC. Let technology do what it can to simplify my life so that I have more time to deal with the rest. Just my 2 cents.
He clearly thinks that he is not doing anything wrong and claims to have tried to raise the issue of page rankings and his business model with Google...
From his own forums section.
Your search engine is very good at detecting things like link farms and hidden tricks. I'm certainly not asking for any special treatment. If I, or anyone in my network, tries to take advantage by lying, cheating or stealing, I would expect them to have to suffer the consequences the same as anyone else. I'm only asking that you look beyond the webmaster world posts and see that these niche sites need the respect and the income that a high PR deserves. They work hard and the reason they have those high PR's is that they don't spam. Please don't penalize them for trying to capitalize on the fact that Google rewarded their efforts.
He is certainly trying to imply by this post and others, that Google is unfairly targeting him because he has chosen to use their page ranking system to help set the prices he charges for ad space on the web sites that he hosts for his customers.
His most recent post tries to explain some of the reasons for his suit.
He claims to not be inflating rankings at all and just using the rankings to set his ad fees. If that is the case, he may have a claim but I guess that is for the lawyers to decide.
If he is manipulating rankings, he deserves to go down in flames. If Google is 'picking' on him cause he is trying to earn more from Google's rankings but he is not 'cooking' the numbers, he may have a case. Read the posts. The web site operators appear to benefit from the higher rankings by getting more for the hosted ads. Just compensation for good work building good sites. Hard to say this is clear-cut without seeing Google's response.
It was a rather short article but it is still satisfying to see it in print. It also matches other statistics that I have seen published elsewhere, in both gaming magazines and at online sites.
Makes much sense too. For example, I grew up playing pinball with my father, graduated to the first video games (pong, breakout, etc.), moved on to C64, Apple II and Atari games as they became available and now PC games with a big emphasis on the online worlds (that 1942 is not too shabby). I currently see myself playing games until I am too decrepit to move the controller (but hope by then the neural interface will be common place).
The key point of surveys like this is that it shows the average gamer is not a pimple faced adolescent that is cutting school, sitting at home with no social life, spending all of (usually) his life lost in games. It is the middle class, working, husbands and wives looking for a little relaxation and escapism from their day. The sooner that the game industry (with their associated marketing departments) and the bulk of game magazines accept this idea and redirect their marketing to this group, the better. Most of the non-gaming public accepts the adolescent gamer myth because that is what they see from how games are marketed both directly and via the industry magazines. Hollywood plays a part in this too. I guess it is just too easy for the industry to throw more T&A into the marketing plan then to take the time to understand the market and sell accordingly.
I have had one of these for about 2 weeks now and continue to have a lot of fun. The nice thing about it is it only annoys the dog, does not scare her. After chasing her with it for some time, she just lies down and ignores it. :)
I have been getting around 5 to 8 minutes run per charge and the car works great on tile or wood floors, fair on a short berber and crappy on anything deeper. I also picked up the 'performance' kit and the higher end motor and gearing does increase speed with some decrease to run time.
I also found a nice site that has been covering these cars and also has a nice little forum for discussing issues. There is even a post from some RS folks discussing how they have tweaked the cars.
Can you really copyright something that has demonstratable 'prior use' and 'prior art'? There must be many examples of silence in use, in various lengths of time. The silence between CD tracks must be of a uniform length for example. I do not believe that a copyright can be granted on that since it is in common use. And if that is the case, are not 'overtly similar' lengths of silence (like 1 to 5 seconds more or less) not copyright-able either? And as someone else noted in an earlier post, people often hold 'a minute of silence', plenty of prior art on that one too.
If so, is what Batt is doing: "Batt has been busy copyrighting chunks of silence of various lengths other than the four minutes, thirty-three seconds of silence owned by Cage" going to be invalid or just cause lawyers to get more wealthy as folks choose to fight his copyrights on silence?
Right or wrong?
This is a two fold problem. The first half is either you 'get' brould-band and want it or you don't. You either understand what it does and can do and appreciate how it can open up the Internet and make it such a more enjoyable experience or you don't.
The second half of the problem is, either you can get it or you can't. I spent 3 years waiting for DLS or cable to come to my area and I was not that 'far' out of the city. I had cable but since DSL was not available, the cable company was in no rush to get me digital cable. Once DSL became available, digital cable followed within a couple of months. In many areas you either have no choice or your only choice is expensive, too expensive.
I believe the report is going in the wrong direction, now and in the near future, the average Internet user does not want movies on demand, 50 music channels, V-IP and the rest, they just want cheap, fast access. Until the DSL and cable industries get that through their heads and start offering cable and DSL for the same price as a dial up line, many, many users will not see the cost justification to upgrade to the better access. It is the same sort of problem with online bill pay. Many folks feel that one, it is too complicated to use (same as with setting up your cable/DLS) and two, why pay $10.00 a month for 20 payments when a stamp is still less then that. Right now, for most users, dial-up is 'good enough'. Right now, for must users, dial-up is good enough. Not great but good enough.
I have had one of these for years and it has served me very well. It appears to be still around (thought the form has been modified from the one I have) and it can be had for under $30. I have had mine since 1990 and it is still going strong.
You have to switch the unit into hex but once switched, it sticks until turned off.
Hope this helps.
Brian Valentine, formally senior vice-president in charge of Microsoft's Windows development, looking for VP/management job with software company.
Your problem is not un-solvable but it is difficult. Most of the suggestions that have already been posted rely upon technology to too great a degree. Technological distribution is fine if you want to do it now. Now being today and maybe about 5 years into the future. The problem is technological change. If you want your information released more the a few years into the future, how can you be sure your information will be recognizable or usable. Think about someone planning to do this 15 years ago and planning to release this on CompuServe.
Your best bet would be to involve large organizations (so you have a chance that they will still be around) but in such a way that they do not know what they are doing or what part they are playing in your 'master' plan. For example, contract with Western Union to deliver a number of packages 30 years from now. Also contract with 5 or 6 large law firms to do the same thing. Have all of your packages delivered on the same day to 20 of the largest law firms that exist today as well as 20 of the larger non-profits like the ACLU, NAACP, other groups interested in individual rights, freedom of speech, etc. Diversity is the key. You want to ensure that at least some of the places you pick today are around tomorrow (future). These packages would contain a cover letter and your 'discovery'. Write your cover letter in such a way that each organization knows that they are not your only choice but do not say who the others are. Explain what your idea or discovery is and who or what should be done with it.
There is no guarantee that this will work but it is probably your best bet. Good luck.
Sorry, that would not work and you would get in quite a lot of trouble. There is a clear 'notification' clause in the bill, which reads in part:
A copyright owner has notified the department of justice, in such a manner as the Attorney General shall specify, of the specific technologies the copyright owner intends to use to impair the unauthorized distribution, display, performance, or reproduction of the owner's copyrighted works over a publicly accessible peer-to-peer file trading network and the notification under paragraph 1 was made at least 7 days before the copyright owner engaged in the act.
So you would have to let the DoJ know that you intended to DOS the MPAA and how, in order to not violate the law. If they use an automated notification system, you might still get away with it cause it could be weeks before anyone read it and realized what you intended to do and told you know, you only have to wait 7 days!