Well, sure, sunlight is limited someplaces. So let's compare it to petroleum, crude oil.
Hmmm, checking atlas, oil reserves... hmmm
Nope! Sunlight wins, hands down, there's more sunlight than oil! A heap-o lotsa hella more. Just needs a variety of ways to use the stuff, that's all.
Posting via electricity produced by unisolar PV panels, BTW. I done "modded" my juice supply. Seems to work OK.
We'll never "do it" as humans and break free from petroleum until we "do it". We can not wait for the energy cartel monopolists to "do it" for us. It's like the early days of PCs, I am so thankful enough people thought it was worth the thousands of dollars to buy and use those early primitive PCs and start to develop the enthusiasm for the "alternative" to the mechanical typewriter and slide rule, instead of arguing about it and saying "more research is needed, and it's not practical" and whatnot. So, I'm doing my part now, it's partly a payback way of saying "thanks" to fellow geeks back then, then showing them "hey, look here, solar is not only practical for me right now, I can show by example, that yes, the sun actually DO shine in enough places to make all sorts of alternatives with it useful and practical. That's why I try to evangelize now, like on slashdot I would recommend "hold off one year on that new gaming box, put the loot into some energy alternatives this year". Just to help. If we could get one million more people to actually BUY and install some of the stuff that is available now, it would really help. No, one game machine' costs worth of solar or wind devices won't power your entire existence, but it's certainly enough to power a lot of your day to day normal stuff, and I can guarantee you'll get hooked. I say the same thing to non geeks when they see the rig, "go ahead, skip something else this year, get started on it, pick pizzas or something". This "they" guy never does squat, "energy" will be changed by millions of people just "doing it" and not talking about it.
And that algae--> hydrogen gas is just too dang slick of a find and idea. I would say that is the closest thing to a direct credible threat to the energy monopolist cartels I have seen, because it can be done millions of places, on most any scale. That and methane harvesting using most any biomass.
So iceland got two really cool things now, really slick alternative energy, and some outstanding babes!
--firearmns, any firearms, used defensively are used to shoot badguys. Badguys come in all sizes, colors, wear various pieces of clothing, and come in any number of configs. You use the appropriate tool to deal with the appropriate problem. One badguy right up close in your face, probably better to pull a handgun. 5 badguys across the room to 100 yards away, better to use a full auto. Any number of badguys more than 100 yards away, and given an exercise limit here of small arms-rifle class, it's better to have a bolt action rifle with a scope.
The US second amendment born-with right to keep and bear was about shooting badguys working for the exisiting regime at the time, who were so oppressing the people they decided to revolt, and used the highest tech available at the time to do it.
If the badguys in some regime insist on using better and better tech, the good guys have every moral and legal right to keep up with them, and frankly, are nuts if they don't. AKs are useful because they are fairly robust and strong, function well, are easily understood and handled, relatively inexpensive to manufacture, and are an example of a tool that "just works" inside it's design-specifications envelope. They also can be switched from semi automatic operation to full automatic operation, again, a useful feature.
The concept of self defense is relatively simple. You either are for self defense in all situations, or you are not. It is a binary decision any human is free to make. Anyone may choose to not engage in self defense. The converse is true too, and the people who choose to be armed with both hardware and knowledge and have aquired the skills to be effective in self defense should never be demonized. That is intellectually and morally bankrupt, IMO.
Like all tools they may be abused, but all in all, the concept is quite easy to understand, and just because someone else may abuse something, is no reason to deny or demonize those who do not.
That is the crux of the anti-gun argument, and it boils down to only victims or potential victims are required to not be armed.
It's quite insane. It's also illogical to an extreme.
--if this is how it works, it seems to me that it would be *quite legal* for anyone who has puchased a CD to use the dmca laws to fill out a form and demand that the riaa and their member corporations hand over all their records and traffic and emails because they are suspicious that they have indeed conspired to illegally fix prices and defraud investors and artists.
Why would that would be different? If they say it isn't a "copyright" issue, I'd counter that and say "yes it is because you are not paying the owners (the original musicians) their fair due under your transferred contracts of copyright, and are colluding to artifically maintain an erroneous set of books to hide and obfuscate your true business costs",because anyone "you" as a consumer who has purchased the use of the copyright with that CD does not have to suffer an illegal artificially raised price, i.e., it "involves" copyright issues and serious folding green. They've already been caught at it numerous times, both the recording industry and the movie industry, who with a straight face can claim that a movie that grosses a couple hundred million "cost" them money and they made nothing off of it. Several actors have sued studios and won, same with some musicians have sued and won, and the government has prosecuted them for payola and price fixing before, so there's prior examples that would tend to substantiate probable cause.
I say if this is applicable, then some people need to go after them and do just that. Demand just mountains of records, because you'd need all of them to sort it out. See how they like it. I imagine there would also be some interesting contacts with various legislators as well found in the records, and more likely than not, some underlings might be quite eager to turn over some additional information if that meant they might be let off the hook so to speak.
I mean, who thinks they AREN'T crooks and that their records are squaky clean?
Thought so.
Any EFF lawyers around want to comment? A coalition of musicians and cd purchasers could do this I think.
...and dang, it was decent money but I just despised it. All the uber leet sales guys talked just like this Ballmer guy, whatever they are selling, it gets to be so "cultish" they can't see the forest for the trees sometimes. Their manure has no odor and the other guy's is covered with flies.
I think when you get to the point you are as brainwashed as this guy that you need serious therapy. He may be a billionaire,but it doesn't mean he isn't rubber room crazy.
He's desperate, suffering from paranoid delusions of grandeur and megalomania, you can tell that from his sentence structure and tone, let alone the words.
What I got out of this interview is that microsoft has seen the light and is now seriously running scared. It didn't seem like it before to me, but now I can see it. They won't intellectually admit it, but their actions speak otherwise, it's like someone living in a high crime ghetto and not moving when deep down they know they should, but thinking they will be safer with another lock on the door, when they already have 5 of them installed. The race is still on, but they are dragging butt now. They are having to resort to tricks like lobbying to make open source illegal, or get countries and corporations and governments to not even look at it. That's a serious desperation move. It wouldn't even be attempted by them if they weren't scared, and I mean scared.
Even his demonization attempts are transparent, using the obvious buzzword "communism" sure to get the appropriate knee jerk reaction from jerks who allow their knees to get thwacked.That word was carefully picked, no other word like that strikes fear into any CEO, no way does he want his golf buddies to even *think* he might have once even read it. I bet microsoft sales people use that word constantly in all their raps now, probably under orders. Bet one dollah on that. I'm surprised he didn't just say "terrorism", seems to be the new 1337 speak from scandal plagued politicians and CEO's when they want to quick change the subject.
People talk about open source being a "cult"....well, if you want to see cult like behavior, re-read that article. That's a serious dangerous cult true believer, absolutely no doubt of that. Makes the next ayatollah or TV preacher look like an atheist.
Free and Open source is the BEST idea to come down the computer pike EVER. Can it get better? Sure! Is it perfect? No! I doubt you'd see many proponents say that. Does it kick butt on closed source, and is it catching up fast in most areas, and will it over take it and change paradigms? Yes,yes it will, unless it's actually made *illegal* by these rich cultists using bribes and threats and buying governments and mandating what is in essence "microsoft solutions" and disguising it as "security" and "trusted"..
The net and computers and IT are not about one company being the dominant player for ever and ever, that has NEVER worked in any other industry ever invented by mankind, and so far, what they have done just goes to show that that universal principle still holds true.
Rome never appeared stronger until right before it collapsed, when they so much believed their own hype they couldn't see "heathen" reality staring at them. They even resorted to the same sort of demonization efforts.
It's too bad to see what happens to people once pure raw greed takes over their lives, and becomes in essence their religion.
I am certainly way down the list on slashdot for "yearly income", but tell ya what, I would not trade my life for this ballmer guy's, despite his power and money. There's more to life than greed, too bad he never learned that lesson when he was a kid. And greed coupled with insanity? I feel sorry for him in a way. Not a lot, but some.
... too bad they just don't use the money to actually upgrade service, especially in the rural areas. Line noise and connectivity problems are immense all across the US. We have millions of people who have no way short of some multiple thousand dollar buggy crappy satellite to have any broadband, yet we still can't even get a good normal modem connection.
I only use the copper here for the modem, the cell with enough "anytime" minutes is more than enough for all the normal phone traffic, local and long distance, that we need, yet we are forced to pay all these additional charges for the landline that it costs MORE than a broadband connection a lot of places. My average download when I run these speed tests is like 14 to 17 k, and in normal just surfing it seems slower than that. Bytes it. Lemme see, that costs close to 60$ a month total, telco plus internet. Then the cell is another 50 clams. Sheesh. 110$ a month. How about 100$ a month to someplace that will give me broadband wireless and phone service over IP instead, just a normal bundle that "just works"? How about 50$ instead? give me maybe a choice of two speeds, normal fast enough "home surfin" or "business class". When will serious broadband and flat rate just calling someone on the phone ever make it to the 90% of the country's land mass that isn't "served" with any alternatives to ancient corroded copper and switches from the 1940's?? I got 4 antennas setup, why can't one of them give me the dang internet at some sort of decent speed? I got copper wires coming here, why can't that work? Why do I need to pay for stuff I really don't want or need? Is it the technology REALLY doesn't exist yet, or is it just entrenched inertia and so many layers of industry/government BS that they have lost the ability to even understand it themselves?
Rhetorical question, I know there's no answer. I think where we can see where the cash has gone though, and it hasn't gone into the infrastructure from these various "fees and charges". And no, not in a position to "do it myself" with some pringles can contraption. Fresh out of million dollar bills. All I know is that A-radio waves exist, and B-they ought to do something with them, and C-every penny of those "fees" needs to goto purchasing upgraded hardware and installing it, going all the way back to whenever they started charging for it, and D any manager-class goof who went along with this ripoff needs jail time. That's the trouble with corporations-no practical accountability. Plenty of flesh and blood named humans to take the cash, but when it's time to account for weird stuff all the "real" humans seem to disappear to be replaced with this non-person person called "something inc" who can't be chucked in jail for committing crimes, and is reprersented by these alien creatures called "lawyers" who's sole purpose is to so obfuscate the english language that it becomes incomprehensible.
I guess I'll try to keep happy with having "any" internet that is remotely affordable in the meantime while I'm waiting for my wishlist as a consumer and tax payer. I fulfilled my end of the bargain, WHEN are they going to fulfill their end? And dang if I can even see WHICH sort of wireless is the best, or what this "industry" guy is going to offer. OFFER something to me, maybe I'll buy it! Can't buy it if it ain't for sale! Either drag some real cable that won't be obsolete in six months to where people live, or offer some sort of decent wireless, pick one, I don't care, look, HERE'S CASH joe industry. Hmm, people WILL pay serious cash money for TV, radio, internet, and telephone, should be a BIG FAT CLUE there. All that stuff is just DATA, point A to B. SELL me that data without jumping though 85 ridiculous hoops, I'll buy it! Make me jump though reams of ridiculous paperwork and having to have 18 different electronic doo dad devices that are obsolete within a year and different bills, nope, I'll just stay at a lower consumer level then, no extra cash from me, I'm tapped, I just AIN'T gonna pay more than what is leaving
--I'm sure it HAS been asked, just I musta missed it. As long as everyone else is speculating and guessing, I'll give it a shot:
Why again doesn't apple just build their own dang chips? Is it really the simplest explanation, cost? What does it take to build a fab, a billion and a half now? Seems like for the past buncha years, it's always this problem "apple has to negotiate with ibm, moto, no they are going x86 no intel, no amd, no..." I mean REALLY, wouldn't it make more sense for them in the long run to just do it, make their own, and then they could have what they want, a really good chip and OS combo, and not have to always go begging to the various chip guys? Sort of a sun deal, but geared towards desktops and low end servers?
How this relates to their "talks" with IBM and amd I don't know. Perhaps purchasing a fab from one, purchasing a license from another,using some concepts and designs they develop inhouse, running those ideas past the chip guys for a fee, to make their own products? Or maybe someplace somewhere there's a radically NEW design waiting to be released, it just needs to be built? And isn't part of the cost difference with apple always been that they bought more expensive chips? if they made them themselves, well...it would be theirs, right? profit is profit! they'd be paying themselves eventually, could use that to drop prices, become much more attractive, still keep total control, sell more boxes and OS copies and etc.
--should have started my reply string here first. Yes, this is how I saw it too. It's up to someone to come up with something other than what we know of as drm , and if they can, then it can go into the kernel, but not until it can be both open and closed at the same time, else the license is violated.
So, this theoretical technology/code doesn't exist yet, does it? This statement by him is that IF it can be created and it works that it would pass muster, but not until then. A palladium styled approach wouldn't be legal, but something else-maybe.
I hope I understand this now.
I sort of understand..
on
Linus on DRM
·
· Score: 1
...that point about the crypto check. What I DON'T understand is what good is it if it has to be "open"? How will it be any good as a check if the entire source is there to see, and must be revelaed?
I can understand at the file and user level, but at the core level of the kernel? Your personal files and data do NOT have to be "open" to anyone under any license, BUT, how is something "open" and "hidden-secret" at the same time in kernel space?
Perhaps I am confused even more. I can see anyone doing this with their own kernel,and keeping inside the GPL, but not transferring it to others, because then they must provide the source, negating any benefit from having a "secret" in the kernel, which has to stay open, yes? Or no? You can transfer a kernel that has both open and closed source in it under the GPL? BSD license you can I think, but I am not so sure under GPL.
apparently it won't...
on
Linus on DRM
·
· Score: 1
...which means that you have lost the ability to tinker with it, if it doesn't. A kernel that will only boot "approved" code is little better than a closed source entire operating system. It is marginally better, but to me it appears to violate the spirit of the GPL, even though Linus says it doesn't.
It's his baby! I'm certainly not a kernel hacker nor a lawyer, but just from a layman's point of view that's what it looks like. Anyone "you" is free to do whatever, except with a drm kernel you can't, but wait a minute you can, no you can't, etc. It's a dichotomy near as I can see.
Is that legal with the kernel being GPL? I know it's technologically possible, but is it *legal* to do so?
Rhetorical question really. I have no doubt it will be done.
source to the key in the kernel?
on
Linus on DRM
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
--if you are going to do that, why would you even put the key in there? What am I missing?
Seems to me that drm violates the spirit of gpl, but I most likely still don't understand it. If some company wants to make a drm enabled kernel,and deploy it, then it can be cracked shortly if they follow the gpl? Or what? I don't get it obviously. This is like missiles, anti missiles, anti-anti missiles, ad absurdium.
in english (probably wrong here and there, just giving it a shot, any real lawyers please chime in) it says-although primarily directed at stuff like spammed headers in email and cracking and distributing cc numbers,and phone phreaking, etc-it says you can't obfuscate your machines IP number. No firewall. You can't decrypt any packets. You can't use encryption. You can't tunnel or ssh. You can't mod your computer without permission, nor your radio, television, satellite receiver, etc. You can't offer a webpage that is accessible in tennessee that shows how to do any of those things. You can't publish or sell a book there either that has any of that information. You can't talk about it over the phone. You can't look at source code or use compilers or editors, etc to see how things work that have anything to do with communications. You can't you can't you can't in other words, it's pretty broad, because you don't have to know what the next party is doing with the info, nor do you have to do anything with the info, mere possession of the information is illegal, not any actual *act* of stealing anything. It's analgous to the vague "burglary tools" statutes that cops use sometimes when they think they got you on something and find out they don't, they charge you with possession of burglary tools with a screwdriver, or a "weapon" like a tire iron in your car.. Any and all your hardware is subject to seizure if they *think* you are doing any of this stuff obviously.
Near as I can see, you are allowed to run a stock install approved closed OS, in a stock machine, go surf training wheels innocuous sites, do some normal email, that's about it. No proxies obviously. IT security in general terms looks pretty darn illegal, you can't even READ about a lot of exploits, nor talk about any you already know of. TALK. Running most stock distros with things like nmap installed looks rather touchy. In fact I think any prosecutor there could get you cold running a stock kitchen sink linux install.
Felony, too, see "patriot act" what they can do to you then.
I think if all the IT guys in that state announced to their employers that they would have to drop all the security and just hookup all the networks to the net direct,that it's the law now and sorry, too bad, and to take it up with the state that that might work better then a buncha geeks going down there. Let the suits with the cash complain, they are the ones contribute and pay for these bozos to be in office. Let the entire state have no computer security, see how long that flies. give em what they want, let those legislators step all over their own dicks trying to be leet lawyers all the time, see how that effects business. I bet a lot of businesses "volunteer" to relocate someplace else, no state income tax isn't the same as wide open networks.
..I'm not angry whatsoever, just wondering which part of linux that sco still owns, that's all. Simple enough and obvious question, they claim to want to "protect their source code". Where is it? In discovery it has to come out anyway, there's no practical reason to not release the information now. It will neither hurt nor help any case they might have, near as I can see, but will make their case at least clearer to the "community" at large. You'd think with all the press they would want to at least give some hints to back up their claims. So far all I have seen is "in general". They own unix so linux must therefore be their's because it couldn't have been written without IBM releasing propietary code. that is their general claim. Well.., I'll repeat,where's the beef, WHAT code? If it's been released, that means it's "out there" all over now, so that part is in the wild, all they need is to publish a road map where to look. I doubt anyone wants to run propietary, and if they KNEW about this, why did they wait so long? To bump up the potential damage award? That starts to get into some squirrely legal grounds then on their part.
I run some linux, sure, but I have confidence that no matter WHAT "unlawful" code might be in this or that distro, that the coders can fix it forthwith, and would be glad to do so, if they knew which code was stolen IP.
Can you see joe sixpack going to small claims court--> "yrr honor, my neighbor schlomo stole something of mine". Judge: "well, what?" Joe sixpack:"can't tell ya, it's a seekrit, but he did it and I want it back plus damages"
This case so far is just as ludicrous. SCO can remedy that with a simple text page press release of the code in question on the web,or at least a decent description, and shoot off some emails. That they don't is what most folks are wondering about, to most people it appears to be some sort of scam or scheme. Me, personally, don't care, it's not like I can't find a "lawful" operating system to use, got several sitting within 5 feet of me right now, several of them still sitting inside shrinkwrap for that matter.
If I had to guess and I was joe colombo, I would start with "gee, what do aix, suse and redhat all have in common that's slick enough to do a major lawsuit over?"
--well, isn't it? wouldn't this be a great time to actually catch the major spammers and have them served with papers, from whichever state has anti spam laws? It would take some research in advance, but an enterprising team of activists and some lawyers might be able to get the drop on dozens of them at that $$$ per spam rate I have heard about.
Of course, I actually COULD RTA before I post.... I usually wait until..later... to read interesting articles after they are posted, a few hours usually.
insurance claims are much better with a film camera over a digital. If you want to be frugal about it,not waste shots, get a high end polaroid. The film is expensive but you take the shots you need and no more, and you can see fairly instantly if the shot came out or not. Three shots is slightly under 3$, and is probably better quality than the 6$ throw away with developing of 23 more shots you don't need. I used to have to take pix of exhibits damaged in transit or from previous shows (exhibit & tradeshow industry) so we couldn't be charged for the damage, we always used polaroids for that.
...actually not give them any money. You don't stream any of their stupid music. that's the answer. You can't just dance with part of the devil, you have to make up your mind, make an executive decision. You don't *have* to use their stuff. If ALL the webcasters did that, then that would make a statement. Why ask what the listeners think? It's obvious,hardly no one likes those guys and just about everyone wants them to go pound sand. They are about as equally loathed as spammers. Loathed. I don't buy their new music from their "artistes". Period. Never. They don't get one cent from me. I don't do P2P download music either, but that's irrelevant to how I feel about them, because I'm old enough to have seen them pull the same lame crap for decades now. You either support RIAA branded music or you don't, if you do, pay them their money. You know they are blood suckers up front, nothing whatsoever is hidden or sneaky about it, they lie through their teeth over everything,always have, they've colluded for generations now on price fixing, payola bribes, screwing the artists, etc, none of that is any big secret, and it's gone on through every iteration of technology that passes through. You can't un-demonise them or avoid getting cooties from them if you do business with them, so what's the point? If webcasters can't see that, too bad, they get what they deserve then. if they can't find alternative stuff to stream, they can't run google and maybe should look for a new gig.
That's all my opinion of course, but it's based on past historical data and logical extrapolation. We won't stop this crap until those people hurt at the bank, only way to do that is to stop giving them cash, one customer, one dj, one broadcaster, one concert goer, one cd buyer, one listener, one stream caster at a time, JUST_SAY_NO. Streamcasters who avoid the fees will most likely stay in business and get more popular, that's US brand capitalism for you. The ones who pay, knowing in advance it's heinously expensive and no practical way to recoup, will gradually drop off the net. Good, that's how it should be. Good riddance to bad industry monopolists. The RIAA is too stupid to realise 'gee, free advertising for our artists". that entire industry is too stupid to walk outside, look around, notice the entire economy is not 1999 anymore, we are in this little "recession" deal now. They are too stupid to realise 15 clams for ten songs where two of them are any good is lame, people with less cash just won't buy them, let alone pay serious money to listen to them stream, no matter what "formula" they come up with. Webcasting is TOO EXPENSIVE to charge additional fees for, it's usually run at a net loss anyway as a labor of love for most folks, and from radio stations it's subsidised from their normal broadcasting revenues. Over the air can be profitable because for the same dollar in expense you can reach thousands and thousands more people. This is a DUH. RIAA is too stupid and predatory to see that.
coffee > aroma > realistic work and realistic expectations= bingo, success, people happy all around
coke > alcohol > out to lunch business models and demands of profits over and above anything realistic = problems, resentment, formulas that won't work, bad laws, bad vibes, bad feelings, "civil disobedience" by the millions with P2P.
The RIAA cartel can choose *one*, they can't have it both ways.
--I have an old powerbook 280c that I call my "storm computer". I run it off a 12 volt truck battery and an adapter. Whenever there is a really nasty thunderstorm I shut everything else off and surf with that one, using netscape 2 (or icab). Used it last week, with images off it's really not that bad a surfer.
Most webpages kinda sorta look like web pages still in netscape 2. Biggest problem is image links that don't have the alt text tag to them.
Ya, I started surfing a lot in 95 as well, on a 486 running win3.1. Netcom as the ISP. 16 megs of ram to run the OS and apps. Wha' happen? heh
...well, shoot, don't want to gum it up worse, guess we should switch to Plan B, which includes but is not limited to the following dependecies
louisville slugger
black ski mask
rubber gloves
fake license plates
earl scheib paint any car for xx.99$ (whatever it is now)
oh well, probably we'll see more jurisdictions making fake headers illegal, then they start to get taken down one after another. That would sure help and seems to be the main problem. I wish all the ISPs would just DO that now. If it gets to the point of blocking top level domains from offshore I honestly don't care, eventually those nations will get hip that having spammers coming from there gets them booted off the ole intarweb, the authorities there will then have enough clues on how to deal with it. Doubt it would take more than a week or two once some nation realises that spam costs, it doesn't pay.
Me personally I get so little spam (down to just a half dozen or so a day) that it doesn't matter, just wondering what would work that is not so complicated and involved as all this other stuff proposed. I don't run a server so can't run any spam honeypot traps to help out.
...why not put up crawlable web pages with just buhzillions of fake emails for the content. Let the email harvesting bots try to send spam to undeliverable domains. Wouldn't that clog it up on their end with bounces? And maybe change the pages every few days with a new list, maybe there's a random email generator thing to come up with fake domains, like a password generator?
Not a coder, no idea if this is any good, I am all for taking the anti spam measures to active offense instead of trying to defend from them.
We could do it here for another example, if everyone put some fake email addys inside every post, like kjfhgirtughfwuh@kjfdghtigut.com
here's one that claims to be able to do a reply back to the sender, not clear if it will initiate one though
http://www.email2phone.net/default.aspx?google.c om
Verizon claims full functionalty, receive, compose, forward, get scores, weather, etc all from one of their wireless phones and all voice activated once a two digit code is pressed in
On that dragon deal, I was trying out a beta they had for mac classic (well, I think it was them, dang if I can remember now but that dragon sticks with me)several years ago and it worked pretty well for starting and stopping applications. Literally just talked to the computer, impressed the friends over to the house. The only bugs I got with it was when the tv or radio was on in the room and some programmed in keyword got spoken by the other appliances, pretty funny! You'd have one dumb appliance giving commands to another one and they would get followed! hahahaha!
nice article on speech technology
http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?sto ry =30619535
Vanguard and Voice Web, including navigating inside of documents and attachments. Means you can skip around, don't have to have every single word repeated over and over. coolness.
http://www.speechtechmag.com/pub/industry/352-1. ht ml
There's quite a bit more, use google but search in news rather than websites, you'll get the very latest press releases. I used voice activation as an initial search term, then it can be refined, especially using words to not include. google is just the best if you get into doing advanced searching. I must use it 20 times a day at a minimum, and is one of the few things I would pay a reasonable yearly fee for on the web. I hardly ever just use a dumb search with google, you get so much better results with narrowing it down in a few steps.
good luck! I think voice activated everything is going to be a steady interest and growth field for the web.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, sure, sunlight is limited someplaces. So let's compare it to petroleum, crude oil.
Hmmm, checking atlas, oil reserves... hmmm
Nope! Sunlight wins, hands down, there's more sunlight than oil! A heap-o lotsa hella more. Just needs a variety of ways to use the stuff, that's all.
Posting via electricity produced by unisolar PV panels, BTW. I done "modded" my juice supply. Seems to work OK.
We'll never "do it" as humans and break free from petroleum until we "do it". We can not wait for the energy cartel monopolists to "do it" for us. It's like the early days of PCs, I am so thankful enough people thought it was worth the thousands of dollars to buy and use those early primitive PCs and start to develop the enthusiasm for the "alternative" to the mechanical typewriter and slide rule, instead of arguing about it and saying "more research is needed, and it's not practical" and whatnot. So, I'm doing my part now, it's partly a payback way of saying "thanks" to fellow geeks back then, then showing them "hey, look here, solar is not only practical for me right now, I can show by example, that yes, the sun actually DO shine in enough places to make all sorts of alternatives with it useful and practical. That's why I try to evangelize now, like on slashdot I would recommend "hold off one year on that new gaming box, put the loot into some energy alternatives this year". Just to help. If we could get one million more people to actually BUY and install some of the stuff that is available now, it would really help. No, one game machine' costs worth of solar or wind devices won't power your entire existence, but it's certainly enough to power a lot of your day to day normal stuff, and I can guarantee you'll get hooked. I say the same thing to non geeks when they see the rig, "go ahead, skip something else this year, get started on it, pick pizzas or something". This "they" guy never does squat, "energy" will be changed by millions of people just "doing it" and not talking about it.
And that algae--> hydrogen gas is just too dang slick of a find and idea. I would say that is the closest thing to a direct credible threat to the energy monopolist cartels I have seen, because it can be done millions of places, on most any scale. That and methane harvesting using most any biomass.
So iceland got two really cool things now, really slick alternative energy, and some outstanding babes!
jail4judges
Sherman Skolnick
Mike Brown solutions (check legal)
defrauding america (great book, recommended)
That should get you started.
--firearmns, any firearms, used defensively are used to shoot badguys. Badguys come in all sizes, colors, wear various pieces of clothing, and come in any number of configs. You use the appropriate tool to deal with the appropriate problem. One badguy right up close in your face, probably better to pull a handgun. 5 badguys across the room to 100 yards away, better to use a full auto. Any number of badguys more than 100 yards away, and given an exercise limit here of small arms-rifle class, it's better to have a bolt action rifle with a scope.
The US second amendment born-with right to keep and bear was about shooting badguys working for the exisiting regime at the time, who were so oppressing the people they decided to revolt, and used the highest tech available at the time to do it.
If the badguys in some regime insist on using better and better tech, the good guys have every moral and legal right to keep up with them, and frankly, are nuts if they don't. AKs are useful because they are fairly robust and strong, function well, are easily understood and handled, relatively inexpensive to manufacture, and are an example of a tool that "just works" inside it's design-specifications envelope. They also can be switched from semi automatic operation to full automatic operation, again, a useful feature.
The concept of self defense is relatively simple. You either are for self defense in all situations, or you are not. It is a binary decision any human is free to make. Anyone may choose to not engage in self defense. The converse is true too, and the people who choose to be armed with both hardware and knowledge and have aquired the skills to be effective in self defense should never be demonized. That is intellectually and morally bankrupt, IMO.
Like all tools they may be abused, but all in all, the concept is quite easy to understand, and just because someone else may abuse something, is no reason to deny or demonize those who do not.
That is the crux of the anti-gun argument, and it boils down to only victims or potential victims are required to not be armed.
It's quite insane. It's also illogical to an extreme.
--if this is how it works, it seems to me that it would be *quite legal* for anyone who has puchased a CD to use the dmca laws to fill out a form and demand that the riaa and their member corporations hand over all their records and traffic and emails because they are suspicious that they have indeed conspired to illegally fix prices and defraud investors and artists.
Why would that would be different? If they say it isn't a "copyright" issue, I'd counter that and say "yes it is because you are not paying the owners (the original musicians) their fair due under your transferred contracts of copyright, and are colluding to artifically maintain an erroneous set of books to hide and obfuscate your true business costs",because anyone "you" as a consumer who has purchased the use of the copyright with that CD does not have to suffer an illegal artificially raised price, i.e., it "involves" copyright issues and serious folding green. They've already been caught at it numerous times, both the recording industry and the movie industry, who with a straight face can claim that a movie that grosses a couple hundred million "cost" them money and they made nothing off of it. Several actors have sued studios and won, same with some musicians have sued and won, and the government has prosecuted them for payola and price fixing before, so there's prior examples that would tend to substantiate probable cause.
I say if this is applicable, then some people need to go after them and do just that. Demand just mountains of records, because you'd need all of them to sort it out. See how they like it. I imagine there would also be some interesting contacts with various legislators as well found in the records, and more likely than not, some underlings might be quite eager to turn over some additional information if that meant they might be let off the hook so to speak.
I mean, who thinks they AREN'T crooks and that their records are squaky clean?
Thought so.
Any EFF lawyers around want to comment? A coalition of musicians and cd purchasers could do this I think.
...and dang, it was decent money but I just despised it. All the uber leet sales guys talked just like this Ballmer guy, whatever they are selling, it gets to be so "cultish" they can't see the forest for the trees sometimes. Their manure has no odor and the other guy's is covered with flies.
I think when you get to the point you are as brainwashed as this guy that you need serious therapy. He may be a billionaire,but it doesn't mean he isn't rubber room crazy.
He's desperate, suffering from paranoid delusions of grandeur and megalomania, you can tell that from his sentence structure and tone, let alone the words.
What I got out of this interview is that microsoft has seen the light and is now seriously running scared. It didn't seem like it before to me, but now I can see it. They won't intellectually admit it, but their actions speak otherwise, it's like someone living in a high crime ghetto and not moving when deep down they know they should, but thinking they will be safer with another lock on the door, when they already have 5 of them installed. The race is still on, but they are dragging butt now. They are having to resort to tricks like lobbying to make open source illegal, or get countries and corporations and governments to not even look at it. That's a serious desperation move. It wouldn't even be attempted by them if they weren't scared, and I mean scared.
Even his demonization attempts are transparent, using the obvious buzzword "communism" sure to get the appropriate knee jerk reaction from jerks who allow their knees to get thwacked.That word was carefully picked, no other word like that strikes fear into any CEO, no way does he want his golf buddies to even *think* he might have once even read it. I bet microsoft sales people use that word constantly in all their raps now, probably under orders. Bet one dollah on that. I'm surprised he didn't just say "terrorism", seems to be the new 1337 speak from scandal plagued politicians and CEO's when they want to quick change the subject.
People talk about open source being a "cult"....well, if you want to see cult like behavior, re-read that article. That's a serious dangerous cult true believer, absolutely no doubt of that. Makes the next ayatollah or TV preacher look like an atheist.
Free and Open source is the BEST idea to come down the computer pike EVER. Can it get better? Sure! Is it perfect? No! I doubt you'd see many proponents say that. Does it kick butt on closed source, and is it catching up fast in most areas, and will it over take it and change paradigms? Yes,yes it will, unless it's actually made *illegal* by these rich cultists using bribes and threats and buying governments and mandating what is in essence "microsoft solutions" and disguising it as "security" and "trusted"..
The net and computers and IT are not about one company being the dominant player for ever and ever, that has NEVER worked in any other industry ever invented by mankind, and so far, what they have done just goes to show that that universal principle still holds true.
Rome never appeared stronger until right before it collapsed, when they so much believed their own hype they couldn't see "heathen" reality staring at them. They even resorted to the same sort of demonization efforts.
It's too bad to see what happens to people once pure raw greed takes over their lives, and becomes in essence their religion.
I am certainly way down the list on slashdot for "yearly income", but tell ya what, I would not trade my life for this ballmer guy's, despite his power and money. There's more to life than greed, too bad he never learned that lesson when he was a kid. And greed coupled with insanity? I feel sorry for him in a way. Not a lot, but some.
... too bad they just don't use the money to actually upgrade service, especially in the rural areas. Line noise and connectivity problems are immense all across the US. We have millions of people who have no way short of some multiple thousand dollar buggy crappy satellite to have any broadband, yet we still can't even get a good normal modem connection.
I only use the copper here for the modem, the cell with enough "anytime" minutes is more than enough for all the normal phone traffic, local and long distance, that we need, yet we are forced to pay all these additional charges for the landline that it costs MORE than a broadband connection a lot of places. My average download when I run these speed tests is like 14 to 17 k, and in normal just surfing it seems slower than that. Bytes it. Lemme see, that costs close to 60$ a month total, telco plus internet. Then the cell is another 50 clams. Sheesh. 110$ a month. How about 100$ a month to someplace that will give me broadband wireless and phone service over IP instead, just a normal bundle that "just works"? How about 50$ instead? give me maybe a choice of two speeds, normal fast enough "home surfin" or "business class". When will serious broadband and flat rate just calling someone on the phone ever make it to the 90% of the country's land mass that isn't "served" with any alternatives to ancient corroded copper and switches from the 1940's?? I got 4 antennas setup, why can't one of them give me the dang internet at some sort of decent speed? I got copper wires coming here, why can't that work? Why do I need to pay for stuff I really don't want or need? Is it the technology REALLY doesn't exist yet, or is it just entrenched inertia and so many layers of industry/government BS that they have lost the ability to even understand it themselves?
Rhetorical question, I know there's no answer. I think where we can see where the cash has gone though, and it hasn't gone into the infrastructure from these various "fees and charges". And no, not in a position to "do it myself" with some pringles can contraption. Fresh out of million dollar bills. All I know is that A-radio waves exist, and B-they ought to do something with them, and C-every penny of those "fees" needs to goto purchasing upgraded hardware and installing it, going all the way back to whenever they started charging for it, and D any manager-class goof who went along with this ripoff needs jail time. That's the trouble with corporations-no practical accountability. Plenty of flesh and blood named humans to take the cash, but when it's time to account for weird stuff all the "real" humans seem to disappear to be replaced with this non-person person called "something inc" who can't be chucked in jail for committing crimes, and is reprersented by these alien creatures called "lawyers" who's sole purpose is to so obfuscate the english language that it becomes incomprehensible.
I guess I'll try to keep happy with having "any" internet that is remotely affordable in the meantime while I'm waiting for my wishlist as a consumer and tax payer. I fulfilled my end of the bargain, WHEN are they going to fulfill their end? And dang if I can even see WHICH sort of wireless is the best, or what this "industry" guy is going to offer. OFFER something to me, maybe I'll buy it! Can't buy it if it ain't for sale! Either drag some real cable that won't be obsolete in six months to where people live, or offer some sort of decent wireless, pick one, I don't care, look, HERE'S CASH joe industry. Hmm, people WILL pay serious cash money for TV, radio, internet, and telephone, should be a BIG FAT CLUE there. All that stuff is just DATA, point A to B. SELL me that data without jumping though 85 ridiculous hoops, I'll buy it! Make me jump though reams of ridiculous paperwork and having to have 18 different electronic doo dad devices that are obsolete within a year and different bills, nope, I'll just stay at a lower consumer level then, no extra cash from me, I'm tapped, I just AIN'T gonna pay more than what is leaving
--I'm sure it HAS been asked, just I musta missed it. As long as everyone else is speculating and guessing, I'll give it a shot:
Why again doesn't apple just build their own dang chips? Is it really the simplest explanation, cost? What does it take to build a fab, a billion and a half now? Seems like for the past buncha years, it's always this problem "apple has to negotiate with ibm, moto, no they are going x86 no intel, no amd, no..." I mean REALLY, wouldn't it make more sense for them in the long run to just do it, make their own, and then they could have what they want, a really good chip and OS combo, and not have to always go begging to the various chip guys? Sort of a sun deal, but geared towards desktops and low end servers?
How this relates to their "talks" with IBM and amd I don't know. Perhaps purchasing a fab from one, purchasing a license from another,using some concepts and designs they develop inhouse, running those ideas past the chip guys for a fee, to make their own products? Or maybe someplace somewhere there's a radically NEW design waiting to be released, it just needs to be built? And isn't part of the cost difference with apple always been that they bought more expensive chips? if they made them themselves, well...it would be theirs, right? profit is profit! they'd be paying themselves eventually, could use that to drop prices, become much more attractive, still keep total control, sell more boxes and OS copies and etc.
--should have started my reply string here first. Yes, this is how I saw it too. It's up to someone to come up with something other than what we know of as drm , and if they can, then it can go into the kernel, but not until it can be both open and closed at the same time, else the license is violated.
So, this theoretical technology/code doesn't exist yet, does it? This statement by him is that IF it can be created and it works that it would pass muster, but not until then. A palladium styled approach wouldn't be legal, but something else-maybe.
I hope I understand this now.
...that point about the crypto check. What I DON'T understand is what good is it if it has to be "open"? How will it be any good as a check if the entire source is there to see, and must be revelaed?
I can understand at the file and user level, but at the core level of the kernel? Your personal files and data do NOT have to be "open" to anyone under any license, BUT, how is something "open" and "hidden-secret" at the same time in kernel space?
Perhaps I am confused even more. I can see anyone doing this with their own kernel,and keeping inside the GPL, but not transferring it to others, because then they must provide the source, negating any benefit from having a "secret" in the kernel, which has to stay open, yes? Or no? You can transfer a kernel that has both open and closed source in it under the GPL? BSD license you can I think, but I am not so sure under GPL.
...which means that you have lost the ability to tinker with it, if it doesn't. A kernel that will only boot "approved" code is little better than a closed source entire operating system. It is marginally better, but to me it appears to violate the spirit of the GPL, even though Linus says it doesn't.
It's his baby! I'm certainly not a kernel hacker nor a lawyer, but just from a layman's point of view that's what it looks like. Anyone "you" is free to do whatever, except with a drm kernel you can't, but wait a minute you can, no you can't, etc. It's a dichotomy near as I can see.
Is that legal with the kernel being GPL? I know it's technologically possible, but is it *legal* to do so?
Rhetorical question really. I have no doubt it will be done.
--if you are going to do that, why would you even put the key in there? What am I missing?
Seems to me that drm violates the spirit of gpl, but I most likely still don't understand it. If some company wants to make a drm enabled kernel,and deploy it, then it can be cracked shortly if they follow the gpl? Or what? I don't get it obviously. This is like missiles, anti missiles, anti-anti missiles, ad absurdium.
new distro, the yossarian distro
in english (probably wrong here and there, just giving it a shot, any real lawyers please chime in) it says-although primarily directed at stuff like spammed headers in email and cracking and distributing cc numbers,and phone phreaking, etc-it says you can't obfuscate your machines IP number. No firewall. You can't decrypt any packets. You can't use encryption. You can't tunnel or ssh. You can't mod your computer without permission, nor your radio, television, satellite receiver, etc. You can't offer a webpage that is accessible in tennessee that shows how to do any of those things. You can't publish or sell a book there either that has any of that information. You can't talk about it over the phone. You can't look at source code or use compilers or editors, etc to see how things work that have anything to do with communications. You can't you can't you can't in other words, it's pretty broad, because you don't have to know what the next party is doing with the info, nor do you have to do anything with the info, mere possession of the information is illegal, not any actual *act* of stealing anything. It's analgous to the vague "burglary tools" statutes that cops use sometimes when they think they got you on something and find out they don't, they charge you with possession of burglary tools with a screwdriver, or a "weapon" like a tire iron in your car.. Any and all your hardware is subject to seizure if they *think* you are doing any of this stuff obviously.
Near as I can see, you are allowed to run a stock install approved closed OS, in a stock machine, go surf training wheels innocuous sites, do some normal email, that's about it. No proxies obviously. IT security in general terms looks pretty darn illegal, you can't even READ about a lot of exploits, nor talk about any you already know of. TALK. Running most stock distros with things like nmap installed looks rather touchy. In fact I think any prosecutor there could get you cold running a stock kitchen sink linux install.
Felony, too, see "patriot act" what they can do to you then.
I think if all the IT guys in that state announced to their employers that they would have to drop all the security and just hookup all the networks to the net direct,that it's the law now and sorry, too bad, and to take it up with the state that that might work better then a buncha geeks going down there. Let the suits with the cash complain, they are the ones contribute and pay for these bozos to be in office. Let the entire state have no computer security, see how long that flies. give em what they want, let those legislators step all over their own dicks trying to be leet lawyers all the time, see how that effects business. I bet a lot of businesses "volunteer" to relocate someplace else, no state income tax isn't the same as wide open networks.
..I'm not angry whatsoever, just wondering which part of linux that sco still owns, that's all. Simple enough and obvious question, they claim to want to "protect their source code". Where is it? In discovery it has to come out anyway, there's no practical reason to not release the information now. It will neither hurt nor help any case they might have, near as I can see, but will make their case at least clearer to the "community" at large. You'd think with all the press they would want to at least give some hints to back up their claims. So far all I have seen is "in general". They own unix so linux must therefore be their's because it couldn't have been written without IBM releasing propietary code. that is their general claim. Well.., I'll repeat,where's the beef, WHAT code? If it's been released, that means it's "out there" all over now, so that part is in the wild, all they need is to publish a road map where to look. I doubt anyone wants to run propietary, and if they KNEW about this, why did they wait so long? To bump up the potential damage award? That starts to get into some squirrely legal grounds then on their part.
:"can't tell ya, it's a seekrit, but he did it and I want it back plus damages"
I run some linux, sure, but I have confidence that no matter WHAT "unlawful" code might be in this or that distro, that the coders can fix it forthwith, and would be glad to do so, if they knew which code was stolen IP.
Can you see joe sixpack going to small claims court--> "yrr honor, my neighbor schlomo stole something of mine". Judge: "well, what?" Joe sixpack
This case so far is just as ludicrous. SCO can remedy that with a simple text page press release of the code in question on the web,or at least a decent description, and shoot off some emails. That they don't is what most folks are wondering about, to most people it appears to be some sort of scam or scheme. Me, personally, don't care, it's not like I can't find a "lawful" operating system to use, got several sitting within 5 feet of me right now, several of them still sitting inside shrinkwrap for that matter.
If I had to guess and I was joe colombo, I would start with "gee, what do aix, suse and redhat all have in common that's slick enough to do a major lawsuit over?"
...well, exactly WHICH code did they *allegedly* steal? Got a link?
--well, isn't it? wouldn't this be a great time to actually catch the major spammers and have them served with papers, from whichever state has anti spam laws? It would take some research in advance, but an enterprising team of activists and some lawyers might be able to get the drop on dozens of them at that $$$ per spam rate I have heard about.
..later... to read interesting articles after they are posted, a few hours usually.
Of course, I actually COULD RTA before I post....
I usually wait until
insurance claims are much better with a film camera over a digital. If you want to be frugal about it,not waste shots, get a high end polaroid. The film is expensive but you take the shots you need and no more, and you can see fairly instantly if the shot came out or not. Three shots is slightly under 3$, and is probably better quality than the 6$ throw away with developing of 23 more shots you don't need. I used to have to take pix of exhibits damaged in transit or from previous shows (exhibit & tradeshow industry) so we couldn't be charged for the damage, we always used polaroids for that.
...actually not give them any money. You don't stream any of their stupid music. that's the answer. You can't just dance with part of the devil, you have to make up your mind, make an executive decision. You don't *have* to use their stuff. If ALL the webcasters did that, then that would make a statement. Why ask what the listeners think? It's obvious,hardly no one likes those guys and just about everyone wants them to go pound sand. They are about as equally loathed as spammers. Loathed. I don't buy their new music from their "artistes". Period. Never. They don't get one cent from me. I don't do P2P download music either, but that's irrelevant to how I feel about them, because I'm old enough to have seen them pull the same lame crap for decades now. You either support RIAA branded music or you don't, if you do, pay them their money. You know they are blood suckers up front, nothing whatsoever is hidden or sneaky about it, they lie through their teeth over everything,always have, they've colluded for generations now on price fixing, payola bribes, screwing the artists, etc, none of that is any big secret, and it's gone on through every iteration of technology that passes through. You can't un-demonise them or avoid getting cooties from them if you do business with them, so what's the point? If webcasters can't see that, too bad, they get what they deserve then. if they can't find alternative stuff to stream, they can't run google and maybe should look for a new gig.
That's all my opinion of course, but it's based on past historical data and logical extrapolation. We won't stop this crap until those people hurt at the bank, only way to do that is to stop giving them cash, one customer, one dj, one broadcaster, one concert goer, one cd buyer, one listener, one stream caster at a time, JUST_SAY_NO. Streamcasters who avoid the fees will most likely stay in business and get more popular, that's US brand capitalism for you. The ones who pay, knowing in advance it's heinously expensive and no practical way to recoup, will gradually drop off the net. Good, that's how it should be. Good riddance to bad industry monopolists. The RIAA is too stupid to realise 'gee, free advertising for our artists". that entire industry is too stupid to walk outside, look around, notice the entire economy is not 1999 anymore, we are in this little "recession" deal now. They are too stupid to realise 15 clams for ten songs where two of them are any good is lame, people with less cash just won't buy them, let alone pay serious money to listen to them stream, no matter what "formula" they come up with. Webcasting is TOO EXPENSIVE to charge additional fees for, it's usually run at a net loss anyway as a labor of love for most folks, and from radio stations it's subsidised from their normal broadcasting revenues. Over the air can be profitable because for the same dollar in expense you can reach thousands and thousands more people. This is a DUH. RIAA is too stupid and predatory to see that.
coffee > aroma > realistic work and realistic expectations= bingo, success, people happy all around
coke > alcohol > out to lunch business models and demands of profits over and above anything realistic = problems, resentment, formulas that won't work, bad laws, bad vibes, bad feelings, "civil disobedience" by the millions with P2P.
The RIAA cartel can choose *one*, they can't have it both ways.
--I have an old powerbook 280c that I call my "storm computer". I run it off a 12 volt truck battery and an adapter. Whenever there is a really nasty thunderstorm I shut everything else off and surf with that one, using netscape 2 (or icab). Used it last week, with images off it's really not that bad a surfer.
Most webpages kinda sorta look like web pages still in netscape 2. Biggest problem is image links that don't have the alt text tag to them.
Ya, I started surfing a lot in 95 as well, on a 486 running win3.1. Netcom as the ISP. 16 megs of ram to run the OS and apps. Wha' happen? heh
comic book guy --> best_reply_ever!
sorry man, shoulda checked first!
...well, shoot, don't want to gum it up worse, guess we should switch to Plan B, which includes but is not limited to the following dependecies
louisville slugger
black ski mask
rubber gloves
fake license plates
earl scheib paint any car for xx.99$ (whatever it is now)
oh well, probably we'll see more jurisdictions making fake headers illegal, then they start to get taken down one after another. That would sure help and seems to be the main problem. I wish all the ISPs would just DO that now. If it gets to the point of blocking top level domains from offshore I honestly don't care, eventually those nations will get hip that having spammers coming from there gets them booted off the ole intarweb, the authorities there will then have enough clues on how to deal with it. Doubt it would take more than a week or two once some nation realises that spam costs, it doesn't pay.
Me personally I get so little spam (down to just a half dozen or so a day) that it doesn't matter, just wondering what would work that is not so complicated and involved as all this other stuff proposed. I don't run a server so can't run any spam honeypot traps to help out.
...why not put up crawlable web pages with just buhzillions of fake emails for the content. Let the email harvesting bots try to send spam to undeliverable domains. Wouldn't that clog it up on their end with bounces? And maybe change the pages every few days with a new list, maybe there's a random email generator thing to come up with fake domains, like a password generator?
Not a coder, no idea if this is any good, I am all for taking the anti spam measures to active offense instead of trying to defend from them.
We could do it here for another example, if everyone put some fake email addys inside every post, like kjfhgirtughfwuh@kjfdghtigut.com
here's one that claims to be able to do a reply back to the sender, not clear if it will initiate one though
c om
2 00 2-10-17.html
o ry =30619535
. ht ml
http://www.email2phone.net/default.aspx?google.
Verizon claims full functionalty, receive, compose, forward, get scores, weather, etc all from one of their wireless phones and all voice activated once a two digit code is pressed in
http://news.verizonwireless.com/news/2002/10/pr
On that dragon deal, I was trying out a beta they had for mac classic (well, I think it was them, dang if I can remember now but that dragon sticks with me)several years ago and it worked pretty well for starting and stopping applications. Literally just talked to the computer, impressed the friends over to the house. The only bugs I got with it was when the tv or radio was on in the room and some programmed in keyword got spoken by the other appliances, pretty funny! You'd have one dumb appliance giving commands to another one and they would get followed! hahahaha!
nice article on speech technology
http://finance.lycos.com/home/news/story.asp?st
Vanguard and Voice Web, including navigating inside of documents and attachments. Means you can skip around, don't have to have every single word repeated over and over. coolness.
http://www.speechtechmag.com/pub/industry/352-1
There's quite a bit more, use google but search in news rather than websites, you'll get the very latest press releases. I used voice activation as an initial search term, then it can be refined, especially using words to not include.
google is just the best if you get into doing advanced searching. I must use it 20 times a day at a minimum, and is one of the few things I would pay a reasonable yearly fee for on the web. I hardly ever just use a dumb search with google, you get so much better results with narrowing it down in a few steps.
good luck! I think voice activated everything is going to be a steady interest and growth field for the web.
You can also get telephone based e-mail from several vendors.
hey, good post! Actually informative in e-z to understand english for non-programmers.
Hope the other distros jump all over these innovations!
sorry, no mod points,, give ya a virtual +1 though.