I tend to believe that the only reason that it is so much simpler to go up and talk to someone is because most people are more used to it.
I don't agree; I think it's a latency issue. It's more difficult to have a telephone conversation with an antipodean than with your next-door neighbour. You can't exchange sentences as you normally do because the same pauses in conversation occur at different times for each of you. You compensate for this, and the exchange becomes laboured. With email, you compensate even more (grouping points of discussion together in a batch).
You wouldn't paint a picture by closing your eyes, painting a few strokes, opening your eyes and examining what you've done, closing them again and making a few more strokes, etc. Why would you want to brainstorm this way?
I think you may be missing what Chris was trying to say, too. Sure, it's possible to prove a program correct, but 'correct' means that it performs according to its specification. If its specification is not created by experts, it's not secure. The same is true of both open- and closed-source products, but the difference is that open-source products will then undergo further review. It's not about 'enough eyes make all code bugs shallow', it's about 'enough eyes make all specification problems and code bugs shallow'.
There are two roles for experts. To take a well-known example, cryptography, one role is for the mathematicians and the other is for the implementors. Open-sourcing aids verification of both.
RPT: BT to seek to exercise hyperlink patent in U.S. through Scipher 19/06/2000 13:26:41
LONDON (AFX) - British Telecommunications PLC has employed Scipher PLC to exercise a historic patent on hyperlinks, the technology whereby internet sites cross-link to each other, to U.S. internet service providers, Scipher said today.
Dr Ken Gray, chairman of Scipher, said that BT claims to have patented the hyperlink technology in doing their work on information retieval systems, which is used extensively throughout the navigation of the World Wide Web.
He said the patent predates the HTML standard that currently exists.
"On behalf of BT we are attempting to licence (hyperlink technology), and inviting licences to be taken out by ISPs in the States," Gray said.
"We will be inviting ISP's in the U.S. to licence that technology from us."
you know, when somebody fucks with what we do, we go after them. You don't sit down and sort of try and sort of justify yourself, well, 'Maybe our time and energy would be better spent thinking about something a year or two from now.'
Well, Lars... why not? Must you react in a knee-jerk fashion, despite having realised that that is just what it is?
I think that he was reasonably well-articulated, but nonetheless glossed over the cruxes of the argument. Case in point:
you know, when somebody fucks with what we do, we go after them. You don't sit down and sort of try and sort of justify yourself, well, 'Maybe our time and energy would be better spent thinking about something a year or two from now.'
You have to be joking (or trolling, but I'm the trusting sort). Are you seriously suggesting that the US should be left to its own affairs? And then, in the next paragraph, supporting your tradition of global interference?
UN regulations are intended to prevent this 'none of your business' attitude. Thereby, hopefully, averting another World War.
I just had a little look at your posting history, and you're a pretty amazing guy. I am surprised that you feel it necessary to tell me that you were a sponsor of that contest since I would have expected you to be well-informed enough to be aware that Our People have been watching you for some time. We are forming a new World Organisation called Braggard, Inc. which we feel you would be more than qualified to preside over.
There isn't ANY encryption I can't break in about 3 days.
How very kind of you it is, then, to leave the RSA / RC5 competition prize money at the mercy of the spare CPU cycles of millions of PCs and workstations worldwide.
Just like if you take two copies of PGP and compare them, you've got my secret key?
No. Completely different.
The secret key is encrypted remember - the card doesn't know it.
Wrong. Remember?
If they've managed to steal your finger without you noticing, you have bigger problems than your ATM balance...
Who said anything about noticing?
> Someone steals your scanner Essentially a DoS attack...
Get a clue.
The `attack' you describe would work perfectly well if this system were based on security through obscurity (CSS, anyone?). It isn't (I hope) - like PGP etc., it just relies on actually being secure. Perhaps we should patent idea that in case Microsoft try it? Nah - they'll just stick to FUD, lies and videotape;-)
I don't believe I've ever seen a more pathetic attempt at karma whoring than this.
It seems that broadcasters don't have to get permission to play songs over radio when there is no monetary gain involved (e.g. hospital radio etc.)
Therefore, would you consider it okay for a service like Napster to exist if everyone had to click through a declaration to state that there was no way in hell we'd buy anything by Metallica anyway - before being allowed to download all your songs?
What's worse, why is slashdot interviewing Metallica? I mean, it would be like Linus asking Bill Gates to take a look at his kernel. Do you really want to stir up a hornet's nest?
Absolutely. The more chances we give Metallica to answer questions directly, the more we educate them:
Either directly, that they realise what Napster is, what it means, and how it could benefit them
Or indirectly, if they start to realise that the record company is not interested in giving them a chance to answer questions themselves(giving Metallica the benefit of the doubt that they do not realise they're being used in a game of pure profit motive).
I'd like to ask the following question directly:
Lars, do you appreciate the irony of your statement "[it is] sickening to know that our art is being traded like a commodity rather than the art that it is."? If so, how does it feel to be speaking with the voice of The Man rather than the Metallica of old?
Hamish
p.s. elfbabe, if you didn't spot the link in Sig's post, this sentence must have been confusing:
Jon, this article has several passages almost identical to this article
Get a grip. The line you draw between rights and privileges is just as arbitrary as any other.
Why should you have a right to your life? You had no say in whether or not it was created. Many world religions deny your right to take it by your own hand.
Why should you have a right to your property? It's a social construct primarily maintained, tellingly enough, by those who have managed to convince others that they are the owners of much of the world's resource.
In a free society, you do what you like. Don't confuse your notion of a free society with the philosophically objective notion of a free society, viz. one in which everyone is radically free.
You've really bought their line, and you're a sucker for it.
Somewhat flawed logic (not necessarily yours, but that which you describe in marijuana-maintenance alcoholics): If you haven't drunk for a while, and you feel good, wheras before you didn't, what's your best course of action?
Also; yes, weed works on the judgement centres of your brain, but tends to make you more cautious (read: paranoid).
However, having said all that I have, I do think that I am a non-addicting sort of person, so who knows whether alcohol or pot makes any difference.
This post is as daft as whoever moderated it 'insightful'. Two really serious flaws in your argument:
'Was bringing about' implies that some change had already occured. These changes were far from 'imagined'.
Which part of the difference between 'technology' and 'social change' do you not understand? Yes, they were scared of losing their jobs. No, they were not scared of wheels with cogs on them.
I take it that English is not your first language. Failing which, I take it that rationality is not your favoured reaction.
I recognise certain negative traits in myself under the influence of alcohol (in particular: aggression) which I do not experience under the influence of cannabis. Therefore I choose the drug better-suited to me, and who knows, the world might be one alcoholic better-off for that decision.
Luddites were not scared of technology, although the word is often misused in this way. They were simply opposed to the humanistic changes that technology was bringing about.
To whit, if mobile phones had been available at the time, they would doubtless have used them as a tool for mobilising against the factory bosses.
Strange that you should draw an analogy about junkies and pushers in the same breath as talking about how trade is essentially 'voluntary economic transactions'. Somewhat weakens your argument, no? Or do you think that pushers are free trade heroes?
Slashdot Mirror
I tend to believe that the only reason that it is so much simpler to go up and talk to someone is because most people are more used to it.
I don't agree; I think it's a latency issue. It's more difficult to have a telephone conversation with an antipodean than with your next-door neighbour. You can't exchange sentences as you normally do because the same pauses in conversation occur at different times for each of you. You compensate for this, and the exchange becomes laboured. With email, you compensate even more (grouping points of discussion together in a batch).
You wouldn't paint a picture by closing your eyes, painting a few strokes, opening your eyes and examining what you've done, closing them again and making a few more strokes, etc. Why would you want to brainstorm this way?
Hamish
What on earth makes you think that Motorola/IBM/Apple won't take just the same approach as Intel/AMD?
Hamish
I think you may be missing what Chris was trying to say, too. Sure, it's possible to prove a program correct, but 'correct' means that it performs according to its specification. If its specification is not created by experts, it's not secure. The same is true of both open- and closed-source products, but the difference is that open-source products will then undergo further review. It's not about 'enough eyes make all code bugs shallow', it's about 'enough eyes make all specification problems and code bugs shallow'.
There are two roles for experts. To take a well-known example, cryptography, one role is for the mathematicians and the other is for the implementors. Open-sourcing aids verification of both.
Hamish
Or here it is:
RPT: BT to seek to exercise hyperlink patent in U.S. through Scipher19/06/2000 13:26:41
LONDON (AFX) - British Telecommunications PLC has employed Scipher PLC to exercise a historic patent on hyperlinks, the technology whereby internet sites cross-link to each other, to U.S. internet service providers, Scipher said today.
Dr Ken Gray, chairman of Scipher, said that BT claims to have patented the hyperlink technology in doing their work on information retieval systems, which is used extensively throughout the navigation of the World Wide Web.
He said the patent predates the HTML standard that currently exists.
"On behalf of BT we are attempting to licence (hyperlink technology), and inviting licences to be taken out by ISPs in the States," Gray said.
"We will be inviting ISP's in the U.S. to licence that technology from us."
Indeed.
you know, when somebody fucks with what we do, we go after them. You don't sit down and sort of try and sort of justify yourself, well, 'Maybe our time and energy would be better spent thinking about something a year or two from now.'
Well, Lars... why not? Must you react in a knee-jerk fashion, despite having realised that that is just what it is?
Hamish
I think that he was reasonably well-articulated, but nonetheless glossed over the cruxes of the argument. Case in point:
you know, when somebody fucks with what we do, we go after them. You don't sit down and sort of try and sort of justify yourself, well, 'Maybe our time and energy would be better spent thinking about something a year or two from now.'
Otherwise known as a 'kneejerk reaction'.
Hamish
You have to be joking (or trolling, but I'm the trusting sort). Are you seriously suggesting that the US should be left to its own affairs? And then, in the next paragraph, supporting your tradition of global interference?
UN regulations are intended to prevent this 'none of your business' attitude. Thereby, hopefully, averting another World War.
Hamish
Steven,
I just had a little look at your posting history, and you're a pretty amazing guy. I am surprised that you feel it necessary to tell me that you were a sponsor of that contest since I would have expected you to be well-informed enough to be aware that Our People have been watching you for some time. We are forming a new World Organisation called Braggard, Inc. which we feel you would be more than qualified to preside over.
thanks,
Z
p.s. Anticipating a positive response we have already disabled http://www.jjjulius.com.
Being pissed is certainly an improvement. WRT encryption policy the US was previously on crack.
Hamish
(p.s. in case any Americans are wondering this joke is based on the difference in meaning between 'pissed' and 'pissed off' in British English).
There isn't ANY encryption I can't break in about 3 days.
How very kind of you it is, then, to leave the RSA / RC5 competition prize money at the mercy of the spare CPU cycles of millions of PCs and workstations worldwide.
</sarcasm>
Hamish
Just like if you take two copies of PGP and compare them, you've got my secret key?
No. Completely different.
The secret key is encrypted remember - the card doesn't know it.
Wrong. Remember ?
If they've managed to steal your finger without you noticing, you have bigger problems than your ATM balance...
Who said anything about noticing?
> Someone steals your scanner
Essentially a DoS attack...
Get a clue.
The `attack' you describe would work perfectly well if this system were based on security through obscurity (CSS, anyone?). It isn't (I hope) - like PGP etc., it just relies on actually being secure. Perhaps we should patent idea that in case Microsoft try it? Nah - they'll just stick to FUD, lies and videotape ;-)
I don't believe I've ever seen a more pathetic attempt at karma whoring than this.
Hamish
It seems that broadcasters don't have to get permission to play songs over radio when there is no monetary gain involved (e.g. hospital radio etc.)
Therefore, would you consider it okay for a service like Napster to exist if everyone had to click through a declaration to state that there was no way in hell we'd buy anything by Metallica anyway - before being allowed to download all your songs?
Hamish
Lars seems a little confused on this point:
(three quotations from the chat transcript)
"The ideal situation is clear and simple - to put Napster out of business"
"We're not saying that bands who want to be part of Napster should not be allowed to."
"We're suing Napster for one reason and one reason because they exist to pirate music, nothing more, nothing less."
Is this really one person talking? Or is it a team of puppetmasters?
Metallica didn't rip their own MP3s. You scan Jon's books, make them available, then we'll see if your argument holds water.
Hamish
What's worse, why is slashdot interviewing Metallica? I mean, it would be like Linus asking Bill Gates to take a look at his kernel. Do you really want to stir up a hornet's nest?
Absolutely. The more chances we give Metallica to answer questions directly, the more we educate them:
- Either directly, that they realise what Napster is, what it means, and how it could benefit them
- Or indirectly, if they start to realise that the record company is not interested in giving them a chance to answer questions themselves(giving Metallica the benefit of the doubt that they do not realise they're being used in a game of pure profit motive).
I'd like to ask the following question directly:Lars, do you appreciate the irony of your statement "[it is] sickening to know that our art is being traded like a commodity rather than the art that it is."? If so, how does it feel to be speaking with the voice of The Man rather than the Metallica of old?
Hamish
p.s. elfbabe, if you didn't spot the link in Sig's post, this sentence must have been confusing:
Jon, this article has several passages almost identical to this article
;)
I'll email it to you, my friend.
Hamish
(aka hobbit, posting anonymously here because I've already moderated in this discussion).
Undoing moderation to Comment #78
Undoing moderation to Comment #87
Undoing moderation to Comment #116
Undoing moderation to Comment #218
Oops, that didn't work.
HamishGet a grip. The line you draw between rights and privileges is just as arbitrary as any other.
Why should you have a right to your life? You had no say in whether or not it was created. Many world religions deny your right to take it by your own hand.
Why should you have a right to your property? It's a social construct primarily maintained, tellingly enough, by those who have managed to convince others that they are the owners of much of the world's resource.
In a free society, you do what you like. Don't confuse your notion of a free society with the philosophically objective notion of a free society, viz. one in which everyone is radically free.
You've really bought their line, and you're a sucker for it.
Hamish
I keep getting amused by all these negative references to this new tartist 'Sisqo'.
(I work for 3Com).
Hamish
So how do the two concepts of...
Hamish
Somewhat flawed logic (not necessarily yours, but that which you describe in marijuana-maintenance alcoholics): If you haven't drunk for a while, and you feel good, wheras before you didn't, what's your best course of action?
Also; yes, weed works on the judgement centres of your brain, but tends to make you more cautious (read: paranoid).
However, having said all that I have, I do think that I am a non-addicting sort of person, so who knows whether alcohol or pot makes any difference.
Hamish
This post is as daft as whoever moderated it 'insightful'. Two really serious flaws in your argument:
I take it that English is not your first language. Failing which, I take it that rationality is not your favoured reaction.
Hamish
Why bring weed into this, 'coolgeek'?
I recognise certain negative traits in myself under the influence of alcohol (in particular: aggression) which I do not experience under the influence of cannabis. Therefore I choose the drug better-suited to me, and who knows, the world might be one alcoholic better-off for that decision.
Hamish
Allow me to set the record straight.
Luddites were not scared of technology, although the word is often misused in this way. They were simply opposed to the humanistic changes that technology was bringing about.
To whit, if mobile phones had been available at the time, they would doubtless have used them as a tool for mobilising against the factory bosses.
Without contradiction.
Hamish
Strange that you should draw an analogy about junkies and pushers in the same breath as talking about how trade is essentially 'voluntary economic transactions'. Somewhat weakens your argument, no? Or do you think that pushers are free trade heroes?
Hamish