Personally, I have no problem with losing privacy... I'm pretty open about everything anyways, and could give a shit if anyone out there doesn't like what they see.
What I do have a problem with is surrendering the power that knowledge brings exclusively to the government. There is no reason why we couldn't set up totally transparent systems of monitoring that are visible to the public at large, it would even increase safety... same as a community watch.
Just like the ppl that live under the cameras in shows like Big Brother, we would very quickly get used to the idea that ppl knew what we were doing, and would likely become more tolerant because of it... hard to throw stones when everyone knows your sins.
Considering that the genie is out of the bottle, a system of monitoring will be put into effect is pretty much inevitable. I'm more concerned that "Privacy Advocates" will sway public opinion away from an open society and towards monitoring by the "Trusted Few" than I am about my neighbour knowing about my weird little idiosyncrasies.
Who watches the watchers? If we're living in a democratic society, then the ought to be us.
If you'd read the article, you'd see that the advancement is that conventionally the efficient way to make ethanol is using food products such as corn, which yeilds a great deal of energy. However, trying to convert common cellulose such as wood or grass to ethanol used to be a useless endeavour... until now.
Basically this turns any sort of shit vegetable matter that's lying around into energy, which is a big fuckin deal if you ask me...
It's exciting not knowing what the next track will be!
You really need to get out of the house... you know that?
Re:Gave Nulloft/Justin no credit
on
VIA Pulls PadLockSL
·
· Score: 4, Informative
They gave Nulloft/Justin no credit for their work, even though the headers clearly had WASTE code in it, their work reports included with the source code mention finding/researching a certain "open source project", and even Justin's documentation was nearly copied and pasted for their User Guide.
So what? Correct me if I'm wrong, but did VIA not make substantial additions to the functionality of the code, GPL'd their source and released it back to the community? That is the extend of their obligations according to the license that the WASTE author elected to use when he released his source, is it not?
I chose to clean my home yesterday... I think I should be paid for that... I worked hard, why shouldn't I be rewarded?
When you get down to it, no one asked you to create anything, and no one needs you to make themselves a copy once it's created, so unless you're commissioning an artist in advance to make something, there's no reason why they should be rewarded. No one asked them to waste their time when they could have been making money fixing my car instead.
It benefits us all for ppl to make things, so we make this contrived system to make it happen... not because artists deserve it, but because we're all better off if we can get them to make stuff.
That's not the point. Rewarding both the artist and the media companies isn't an end, it's a means. The laws aren't directly intended to benefit them, they're intended to benefit us all. In other words, rewarding creators is a mechanism, not a goal.
...would be to prevent the transfer of ownership or licensing rights.
Want to keep it, fine. Sell copies at a profit, fine. License it out for commercial use, fine. Sell ownership to the big immortal mulitnational that owns everything else? Sorry, not permitted.
This doesn't kill the distribution and marketing industries, just puts them in the service of the artists, instead of the other way around. Bang, no more monopoly is possible, yet artists get rewarded.
There would no longer be a motive to remove things from circulation the way the big media companies do... that only comes from the fact that song a and song b are competing for market share, but media company x owns both, so they kill b to focus on a. If ownership fell only to the creators, they'd be more inclined to give away the non-marketables as a way of promoting themselves.
I leave the excercise of how to deal with collaborative works for someone who isn't sleep deprived and fuzzy-eyes from too much coding:P
long term implications. What is going on with the corporations will, in the long run, turn america into a third-world nation -- while the economic infrastructure will follow the IT industry to somewhere more freindly to innovation.
<devilsadvocate>Just like it turned Britian into a third world nation?</devilsadvocate>
It amazes me that so many people with skills start their job search by looking for job openings.
I've used the same technique to get my last few jobs, and all were good and in my field:
Use the yellow pages.
1) Look for companies that do work in the field you're interested in, and find contact details
2) Call them all and find out who makes hiring decisions
3) Send resume with cover letter to that person, specifically comparing projects you've done with projects they've done if possible
4) Starting from best company to worst, go to the offices IN PERSON and talk to the decision maker. It's not an job interview, which means you're the only one they'll be talking to, but they're not the only one you're talking to. This means they're not in a position of authority over you, and you can command some respect from them.
5) Contact them again by phone the day after you've spoken to them to thank them and let them know that you're interested in working there, and call them back again to check up once you've covered every business in town.
You don't need to know anyone to use this technique, and the longest it's taken me to get a GOOD job this way is 2 months.
Bottom line is, ppl hate going through all the bullshit of advertising and interviewing. If you give them the opportunity to avoid doing so, they will take it.
Oh, and another good thing to do once you get a job is call every other person you spoke to and tell them thanks for speaking to you, but you're not looking any more. That will really make you stand out in their minds, and if they're still there next time you need a job, they'll remember you in a very positive way.
Who gives a shit who paid?!? How fucked in the head can you be to say "oh, they've paused the football game to give us all a little talk about dick pills, that's cool, I'm sure the ppl who make the dick pills paid someone a lot of money, so it's all good"
You don't need a faster computer, unless you're multi-tasking like mad... the number one thing you can upgrade to increase productivity is is adding another monitor.
Umm... the book-writing monks didn't stop anyone from making books, but the printing press still gave books to the common man.
Umm... the printers didn't stop anyone from publishing text, but the internet still gave mass-market distribution of text to the common man
And finally, sending someone an email is not stealing, dimbulb, any more than telemarketing is stealing. Annoying at it's very worst.
Get a clue.
Well, the purpose of the site was to host the portfolio of designers (fashion design, industrial design, graphic design, etc) allowing employers to view them on the web for free and bypassing the employment agency.
We collected emails from various schools by approaching the professors in those schools, explaining what we were offering to their students, and walking away with lists. All told, around 150 schools, around 8000 addresses.
We sent out 3 runs of advertising spaced over a 3 month period, and the response rate was a little over 70%.
Seriously, why is everyone so up in arms about spam, when our brains are saturated in advertising everywhere we look?
Spam is what happens when you take mass-communication away from the multi-national mega-corps and give it to the common man...
I've started an online business or two in my time, and carefully-target unsolicited email (aka spam) was an essential part of our business plan, and it brought real benefit to most recipients.
I see a lot of ideas floating out of various government agencies around the world based on making spam more expensive. Personally I don't think this is a good approach. We shouldn't be removing the ability to mass-communicate from the common man, we need to be reining in advertising and other forms of brainwashing in a much more general sense.
What that should mean would make for a much more interesting and productive discussion than just talking about the "spam problem".
I used to have a job making paper toy caps, and that's what is used to make em, red phosphorous and potasium chlorate. You need to keep it constantly wet, as the moment the mix is dry, it will explode at the slightest touch, even a strong vibration can set it off. Only thing that keeps the toys from being so sensitive is liberal amounts of gum arabic mixed in with the chemicals.
Was a good thing I quit, actually... The factory exploded 6 months after I left, killing one of my former co-workers and sending debris as far as a kilometer away.
Slashdot Mirror
Personally, I have no problem with losing privacy... I'm pretty open about everything anyways, and could give a shit if anyone out there doesn't like what they see.
What I do have a problem with is surrendering the power that knowledge brings exclusively to the government. There is no reason why we couldn't set up totally transparent systems of monitoring that are visible to the public at large, it would even increase safety... same as a community watch.
Just like the ppl that live under the cameras in shows like Big Brother, we would very quickly get used to the idea that ppl knew what we were doing, and would likely become more tolerant because of it... hard to throw stones when everyone knows your sins.
Considering that the genie is out of the bottle, a system of monitoring will be put into effect is pretty much inevitable. I'm more concerned that "Privacy Advocates" will sway public opinion away from an open society and towards monitoring by the "Trusted Few" than I am about my neighbour knowing about my weird little idiosyncrasies.
Who watches the watchers? If we're living in a democratic society, then the ought to be us.
If you'd read the article, you'd see that the advancement is that conventionally the efficient way to make ethanol is using food products such as corn, which yeilds a great deal of energy. However, trying to convert common cellulose such as wood or grass to ethanol used to be a useless endeavour... until now.
Basically this turns any sort of shit vegetable matter that's lying around into energy, which is a big fuckin deal if you ask me...
It's exciting not knowing what the next track will be!
You really need to get out of the house... you know that?
They gave Nulloft/Justin no credit for their work, even though the headers clearly had WASTE code in it, their work reports included with the source code mention finding/researching a certain "open source project", and even Justin's documentation was nearly copied and pasted for their User Guide.
So what? Correct me if I'm wrong, but did VIA not make substantial additions to the functionality of the code, GPL'd their source and released it back to the community? That is the extend of their obligations according to the license that the WASTE author elected to use when he released his source, is it not?
...enacting a criminal law for this smacks of corporate america controling the legal system
Hello? Where the hell have you been, darkest Africa?
That's such a load of crap.
Diamonds have been valuable for thousands of years, and will remain valueable for thousands of years, long after your opera house has fallen to dust.
So in short, this is not a good example of the US being arrogant, and they really do have a point regarding laws and tradition.
Except that they're the ones shoving free trade down everyone elses throats by any means necessary...
Sounds good... get a RFID tag programmer, watch for sales, go buy stuff on sale, re-program tag with yesterdays details, return to store.
Rinse, Repeat.
Don't think it'll take many of these scams to kill that idea...
For one good reason.
:D
When this myth box breaks and your girlfriend can't watch her favorite show, it's not your fault!
apologies to all the geeks without girlfriends... didn't mean to rub your nose in it
I chose to clean my home yesterday... I think I should be paid for that... I worked hard, why shouldn't I be rewarded?
When you get down to it, no one asked you to create anything, and no one needs you to make themselves a copy once it's created, so unless you're commissioning an artist in advance to make something, there's no reason why they should be rewarded. No one asked them to waste their time when they could have been making money fixing my car instead.
It benefits us all for ppl to make things, so we make this contrived system to make it happen... not because artists deserve it, but because we're all better off if we can get them to make stuff.
Make sense when you look at it like that?
That's not the point. Rewarding both the artist and the media companies isn't an end, it's a means. The laws aren't directly intended to benefit them, they're intended to benefit us all. In other words, rewarding creators is a mechanism, not a goal.
...would be to prevent the transfer of ownership or licensing rights.
:P
Want to keep it, fine. Sell copies at a profit, fine. License it out for commercial use, fine. Sell ownership to the big immortal mulitnational that owns everything else? Sorry, not permitted.
This doesn't kill the distribution and marketing industries, just puts them in the service of the artists, instead of the other way around. Bang, no more monopoly is possible, yet artists get rewarded.
There would no longer be a motive to remove things from circulation the way the big media companies do... that only comes from the fact that song a and song b are competing for market share, but media company x owns both, so they kill b to focus on a. If ownership fell only to the creators, they'd be more inclined to give away the non-marketables as a way of promoting themselves.
I leave the excercise of how to deal with collaborative works for someone who isn't sleep deprived and fuzzy-eyes from too much coding
long term implications. What is going on with the corporations will, in the long run, turn america into a third-world nation -- while the economic infrastructure will follow the IT industry to somewhere more freindly to innovation.
<devilsadvocate>Just like it turned Britian into a third world nation?</devilsadvocate>
It amazes me that so many people with skills start their job search by looking for job openings.
I've used the same technique to get my last few jobs, and all were good and in my field:
Use the yellow pages.
1) Look for companies that do work in the field you're interested in, and find contact details
2) Call them all and find out who makes hiring decisions
3) Send resume with cover letter to that person, specifically comparing projects you've done with projects they've done if possible
4) Starting from best company to worst, go to the offices IN PERSON and talk to the decision maker. It's not an job interview, which means you're the only one they'll be talking to, but they're not the only one you're talking to. This means they're not in a position of authority over you, and you can command some respect from them.
5) Contact them again by phone the day after you've spoken to them to thank them and let them know that you're interested in working there, and call them back again to check up once you've covered every business in town.
You don't need to know anyone to use this technique, and the longest it's taken me to get a GOOD job this way is 2 months.
Bottom line is, ppl hate going through all the bullshit of advertising and interviewing. If you give them the opportunity to avoid doing so, they will take it.
Oh, and another good thing to do once you get a job is call every other person you spoke to and tell them thanks for speaking to you, but you're not looking any more. That will really make you stand out in their minds, and if they're still there next time you need a job, they'll remember you in a very positive way.
Hey dickwad... get a sense of perspective!
Who gives a shit who paid?!? How fucked in the head can you be to say "oh, they've paused the football game to give us all a little talk about dick pills, that's cool, I'm sure the ppl who make the dick pills paid someone a lot of money, so it's all good"
Fuckin hell...
You don't need a faster computer, unless you're multi-tasking like mad... the number one thing you can upgrade to increase productivity is is adding another monitor.
So is your phone and postbox and television... bottom line, you open the email account, you already said "send me what you've got"
Ah, but you don't spend 50 minutes in an hour reading that spam, do you...
I've stopped bothering with television for that very reason, but I'm still using email...
Umm... the book-writing monks didn't stop anyone from making books, but the printing press still gave books to the common man. Umm... the printers didn't stop anyone from publishing text, but the internet still gave mass-market distribution of text to the common man And finally, sending someone an email is not stealing, dimbulb, any more than telemarketing is stealing. Annoying at it's very worst. Get a clue.
In the same way that 20 minutes of adverts in a 60 minute show have rendered the 6pm news impractical as a means of communication?
Well, the purpose of the site was to host the portfolio of designers (fashion design, industrial design, graphic design, etc) allowing employers to view them on the web for free and bypassing the employment agency.
We collected emails from various schools by approaching the professors in those schools, explaining what we were offering to their students, and walking away with lists. All told, around 150 schools, around 8000 addresses.
We sent out 3 runs of advertising spaced over a 3 month period, and the response rate was a little over 70%.
Seriously, why is everyone so up in arms about spam, when our brains are saturated in advertising everywhere we look?
Spam is what happens when you take mass-communication away from the multi-national mega-corps and give it to the common man...
I've started an online business or two in my time, and carefully-target unsolicited email (aka spam) was an essential part of our business plan, and it brought real benefit to most recipients.
I see a lot of ideas floating out of various government agencies around the world based on making spam more expensive. Personally I don't think this is a good approach. We shouldn't be removing the ability to mass-communicate from the common man, we need to be reining in advertising and other forms of brainwashing in a much more general sense.
What that should mean would make for a much more interesting and productive discussion than just talking about the "spam problem".
Tell me about it... it's like a horror movie:
The Baby-Boomers That Wouldn't Die!
I used to have a job making paper toy caps, and that's what is used to make em, red phosphorous and potasium chlorate. You need to keep it constantly wet, as the moment the mix is dry, it will explode at the slightest touch, even a strong vibration can set it off. Only thing that keeps the toys from being so sensitive is liberal amounts of gum arabic mixed in with the chemicals.
Was a good thing I quit, actually... The factory exploded 6 months after I left, killing one of my former co-workers and sending debris as far as a kilometer away.
Great fun for the kiddies, eh?
You don't need numbers to tell time on an analog watch, which is the point.