it sounds like bittorrent would be an expression of free speech and a form of political protest to me.
That's lovely, but don't forget that free speech can't be allowed to interfere with commerce. After all, to quote Calvin Coolidge, "The business of America is business."
It goes much farther back than this new-fangled web thing. This is ancient Usenet wisdom. I still find my flames and n00bness from the early 1980s mortifying, but there they are, courtesy of Google News. (Sheesh. Google news f's up everything good about Deja News, but they can't lose the embarrassing skeltons in my Usenet closet.)
I found an interesting article from a journalistic perspective about the persistence of stuff YOU disseminate on the net.
But that's not illegal. You may get thrown out (as businesses have a right to remove people from their store as they see fit), but offering better prices isn't wrong - I think it helps commerce.
As much as I hate malware/popups, I agree with the court on this.
I don't think you've thought this through too much, or you'd see the contradiction in your two adjacent sentences.
A targeted popup for a competitor appearing "on" (over, next to, on the same screen--but targeting) the website of a commercial interest is precisely analogous to Joe Schmoe of Foobar Drug standing in the foyer of Quuxly Pharmacy handing out "my prices are lower" fliers. By your admission, Mr. Quuxly has the right to pitch Joe out on the street.
But this judgement, extended into the Main Street Druggist Wars, says that Mr. Quuxly HAS NO SUCH RIGHT. He has to grit his teeth as Foobar Drug swarms his store with leafleteers and buttonholers, harassing his customers and interfering with his business.
No one has any natural right to any possession. Fundamentally, my property is defined by what I can either take and hide, or take and defend by any force I have available.
Government, via "social contract", creates and protects property rights and acts as the sanctioned force used to enforce those rights. The question then becomes, "what defines property, what defines fairness, and what limits and enpowers those rights?"
And that's why there's any argument at all. All the players in the intellectual property game have different and sometimes opposed ideas of roles, rights, and responsibilities. Fairness begins to boil down to "fair to who?", with the answer becoming "whoever can influence government to protect their interest best".
Explicitly, copyright was used to create and protect possession of the intellectual expression of a creator's ideas to allow those creators to profit for a short time by creating artificial scarcity and temporary monopoly. (Ideas and their expressed artifacts, uncaged, tend to flow around and multiply without regard to their creators' wishes to make a buck by them.) This was explicitly intended as incentive to publish, to share with culture the product of a creator's mind. The consumer's "right" to that creator's creation were deliberately circumscribed during the copyright time period. After that, the creation escapes into public domain.
Now, however, the rights of creators (or more specifically, the rights of those media corporate entities who co-opt the creators and wield their rights by proxy) have placed their profit rights well beyond the reasonable scope of incentive and, as you say, into the realm of perpetual monopoly, at the expense of the society which was intended as the primary beneficiary.
I don't run antispyware apps, I regard them as an attempt to bolt the stable door after the horse has bolted.
I'm awfully glad you're not a doctor. "Once disease prevention, safety training, and innoculation fails, we just let the patient bleed or waste away, because corrective, even lifesaving, medical treatment is an attempt to bolt the stable door after the horse has bolted."
You appear to have excessive and unreasonable faith in prevention. I'm led to believe that you think that if your (admittedly comprehensive and well thought out) preventative measures fail, it's the user's fault and consequently they deserve to suffer. But I may be reading too much into that.
Sorry, user are human, as are software developers. And there will be novel ("0-day") attack techniques which can defeat your "current" prophylactic measures (for any given value of "current"). A sane administrator doesn't hide from the fact that the capability for post-incident remediation is an absolute necessity.
Consider the underlying population. I can easily picture a substantial fraction of the "brand new Windows XP" installs actually being malware-infected before they're even plugged in; hence, negative survival time.
And it's interesting to note that currently, the "average time between attacks" is 32 minutes. According to the graph, average survival time hasn't ever been as low as 12 minutes.
I can't RTFA (stupid Websense), but the original Sophos press release doesn't shed much light on their methodology. I don't have any clue on how they arrived at their 12-minute "half-life", but I think I trust SANS ISC much more. At least, I'm fairly sure they don't have a commercial interest in raising anxiety about instantaneous system infection.
PHB (Reading memo to staff): "Tim will be leaving the company to pursue other opportunities." Note the abscence of key phrases such as "We regret" or "years of dedicated service." And notice that his new opportunity is not called "exciting."
Dilbert: I think you're reading a little too much into that announcement.
PHB: No, I'm reading the footnote.
-- Dilbert, Scott Adams. (Used without permission; I hope he doesn't mind.)
"Sushimi"? Please, Gaijin-san, spell "sashimi" correctly. (Damn romaji, too bad I can't insert kana or kanji.)
I had also heard the (probably original) attribution to HP, and agree that in general it makes more intuitive sense. But, in the Amiga community, we had long adopted that phrase about our beloved Crummy-dore. Without any real faith in the company trusting technical truth or anything; just a mildly humorous tweak at incompetent marketing.
And I'm not going to get too pedantic about sushi, except that most of my favorites indeed have "cold, dead, raw fish" in 'em. ("round-eyes", indeed. I'm half Japanese, you insensitive clod!)
Technically, correct. But, for inexplicable reasons, I never laid eyes on a Lisa until months after my encounter with Mac, and I'm sure most computer shoppers can say the same thing. A machine which doesn't manage to actually surface in the markets almost doesn't qualify. (Of course, the Alto was a Xerox experimental thing, so it doesn't qualify either, except in this case as a benchmark of capability.)
Yes, I was mildly impressed by the Lisa. But 5 1/4" floppies? How gauche, how totally 1983! Besides, $20,000 was overkill for a Lisa, but only by 50%--Lisa's MSRP was about $10,000. (Yes, it was actually $9,995--we're not going to play those silly little marketeer price games!)
2. Commodore could not market it's way out of a wet paper sack. If Commodore bought KFC they would have changed the name to "Warn dead birds in a paper bucket".
I heard another version: "Commodore Sushi: Cold, dead, raw fish."
I posted earlier (and therefore, below. Yeah that makes sense) about my lust for a Mac in 1984. The sequel is that when I could afford what I wanted (early 1986), I chose an Amiga 1000 and never looked back.
You're right, even if you're laughing (or trolling). But in 1984, you needed about $20,000 to do anything like a 128K Mac.
and I wanted a Mac SOOOO BAD. I test-drove one at a computer store in Oklahoma City in the evening of one of my days on a temporary assignment at Tinker Air Force Base, where I was doing system design documentation on a Xerox Alto. It was so karmic and wonderful, getting my first exposure to really cool UI stuff for desktop publishing during the day, and then playing in the evening with a machine which was obviously the wave of that particular future.
I couldn't afford a Mac, of course. I just jonesed for it. A lot.
Hmm. www.nerdbooks.com doesn't catalog used books on obsolete systems. Amazon does, even if it's through their affiliate used bookstores. Anyone have a useful alternative to Amazon in that case?
My cable company is my telephone company. Not VOIP, real honest-to-God landline, complete with real 911 and real phone number and everything. The household telephone wiring (2 jacks in every room!) concentrates into a little box that ties into the cableco's RG-59 run under the yard. Not twisted pair to a QWest 50-pair box in the middle of the block.
So, are they still a luxury entertainment service? I don't think so, unless calling the fire department is an entertaining luxury.
They're freakin' common carriers. The Supremes and the FCC just flat-out got it wrong.
Disclaimer, I'm not a network engineer for a major cable company, phone company, or other for-profit infrastructure provider. Just a lifelong customer.
Last time I looked at phone infrastructure laying around, it was labeled "QWest", or "Northwestern Bell" if it's old enough. I realize there are subsidies, but still, I had the distinct impression that most telephone infrastructure was originally built up at telco expense.
Correct me if I'm wrong. (Hell, this is Slashdot; someone will correct me even if I'm right.)
They're not a common carrier for purposes of access to underlying infrastructure, but at the same time they ARE a common carrier for purposes of content liability?
Is it unreasonable for me to be confused? Is a little consistency too much to ask here?
if I find a recipe with an ingredient I don't have, like mushrooms, a mushroom command which allows me to find out where I can find the best mushrooms would be very useful.
And the nice thing about namespace separation is that the "mushroom" in the "food" namespace probably won't take you to a recipe for mushroom tea. That would be in the "drug" namespace.
Re:I just want to say...
on
Dr Who Rolls On
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
He posted someone's address. Someone will regret this, come the day.
Slashdot Mirror
Errrm. No. I meant "Google Groups."
Great. Another screwup, immortalized for all time. This time, by Google Web.
Or do they cache comments?
That's lovely, but don't forget that free speech can't be allowed to interfere with commerce. After all, to quote Calvin Coolidge, "The business of America is business."
I found an interesting article from a journalistic perspective about the persistence of stuff YOU disseminate on the net.
As much as I hate malware/popups, I agree with the court on this.
I don't think you've thought this through too much, or you'd see the contradiction in your two adjacent sentences.
A targeted popup for a competitor appearing "on" (over, next to, on the same screen--but targeting) the website of a commercial interest is precisely analogous to Joe Schmoe of Foobar Drug standing in the foyer of Quuxly Pharmacy handing out "my prices are lower" fliers. By your admission, Mr. Quuxly has the right to pitch Joe out on the street.
But this judgement, extended into the Main Street Druggist Wars, says that Mr. Quuxly HAS NO SUCH RIGHT. He has to grit his teeth as Foobar Drug swarms his store with leafleteers and buttonholers, harassing his customers and interfering with his business.
No one has any natural right to any possession. Fundamentally, my property is defined by what I can either take and hide, or take and defend by any force I have available.
Government, via "social contract", creates and protects property rights and acts as the sanctioned force used to enforce those rights. The question then becomes, "what defines property, what defines fairness, and what limits and enpowers those rights?"
And that's why there's any argument at all. All the players in the intellectual property game have different and sometimes opposed ideas of roles, rights, and responsibilities. Fairness begins to boil down to "fair to who?", with the answer becoming "whoever can influence government to protect their interest best".
Explicitly, copyright was used to create and protect possession of the intellectual expression of a creator's ideas to allow those creators to profit for a short time by creating artificial scarcity and temporary monopoly. (Ideas and their expressed artifacts, uncaged, tend to flow around and multiply without regard to their creators' wishes to make a buck by them.) This was explicitly intended as incentive to publish, to share with culture the product of a creator's mind. The consumer's "right" to that creator's creation were deliberately circumscribed during the copyright time period. After that, the creation escapes into public domain.
Now, however, the rights of creators (or more specifically, the rights of those media corporate entities who co-opt the creators and wield their rights by proxy) have placed their profit rights well beyond the reasonable scope of incentive and, as you say, into the realm of perpetual monopoly, at the expense of the society which was intended as the primary beneficiary.
Sad, truly sad.
I don't run antispyware apps, I regard them as an attempt to bolt the stable door after the horse has bolted.
I'm awfully glad you're not a doctor. "Once disease prevention, safety training, and innoculation fails, we just let the patient bleed or waste away, because corrective, even lifesaving, medical treatment is an attempt to bolt the stable door after the horse has bolted."
You appear to have excessive and unreasonable faith in prevention. I'm led to believe that you think that if your (admittedly comprehensive and well thought out) preventative measures fail, it's the user's fault and consequently they deserve to suffer. But I may be reading too much into that.
Sorry, user are human, as are software developers. And there will be novel ("0-day") attack techniques which can defeat your "current" prophylactic measures (for any given value of "current"). A sane administrator doesn't hide from the fact that the capability for post-incident remediation is an absolute necessity.
Consider the underlying population. I can easily picture a substantial fraction of the "brand new Windows XP" installs actually being malware-infected before they're even plugged in; hence, negative survival time.
Statistics don't lie, but reality does.
Oops, forgot the <satire> tags.
I can't RTFA (stupid Websense), but the original Sophos press release doesn't shed much light on their methodology. I don't have any clue on how they arrived at their 12-minute "half-life", but I think I trust SANS ISC much more. At least, I'm fairly sure they don't have a commercial interest in raising anxiety about instantaneous system infection.
Dilbert: I think you're reading a little too much into that announcement.
PHB: No, I'm reading the footnote.
-- Dilbert, Scott Adams. (Used without permission; I hope he doesn't mind.)
"Inflammable means flammable? What a country!" -- Dr. Nick Riviera
Tapeworm Contagion Protocol/Infestation Protocol
Hey, if we filter RSS packets for the IP Evil Bit, we should be safe, yes?
Tapework Contagion Protocol/Infestation Protocol
A bit more difficult than it would be to learn how to spell "Swedish"...
I had also heard the (probably original) attribution to HP, and agree that in general it makes more intuitive sense. But, in the Amiga community, we had long adopted that phrase about our beloved Crummy-dore. Without any real faith in the company trusting technical truth or anything; just a mildly humorous tweak at incompetent marketing.
And I'm not going to get too pedantic about sushi, except that most of my favorites indeed have "cold, dead, raw fish" in 'em. ("round-eyes", indeed. I'm half Japanese, you insensitive clod!)
Yes, I was mildly impressed by the Lisa. But 5 1/4" floppies? How gauche, how totally 1983! Besides, $20,000 was overkill for a Lisa, but only by 50%--Lisa's MSRP was about $10,000. (Yes, it was actually $9,995--we're not going to play those silly little marketeer price games!)
I heard another version: "Commodore Sushi: Cold, dead, raw fish."
I posted earlier (and therefore, below. Yeah that makes sense) about my lust for a Mac in 1984. The sequel is that when I could afford what I wanted (early 1986), I chose an Amiga 1000 and never looked back.
You're right, even if you're laughing (or trolling). But in 1984, you needed about $20,000 to do anything like a 128K Mac.
I couldn't afford a Mac, of course. I just jonesed for it. A lot.
Hmm. www.nerdbooks.com doesn't catalog used books on obsolete systems. Amazon does, even if it's through their affiliate used bookstores. Anyone have a useful alternative to Amazon in that case?
My cable company is my telephone company. Not VOIP, real honest-to-God landline, complete with real 911 and real phone number and everything. The household telephone wiring (2 jacks in every room!) concentrates into a little box that ties into the cableco's RG-59 run under the yard. Not twisted pair to a QWest 50-pair box in the middle of the block.
So, are they still a luxury entertainment service? I don't think so, unless calling the fire department is an entertaining luxury.
They're freakin' common carriers. The Supremes and the FCC just flat-out got it wrong.
Disclaimer, I'm not a network engineer for a major cable company, phone company, or other for-profit infrastructure provider. Just a lifelong customer.
Last time I looked at phone infrastructure laying around, it was labeled "QWest", or "Northwestern Bell" if it's old enough. I realize there are subsidies, but still, I had the distinct impression that most telephone infrastructure was originally built up at telco expense.
Correct me if I'm wrong. (Hell, this is Slashdot; someone will correct me even if I'm right.)
Is it unreasonable for me to be confused? Is a little consistency too much to ask here?
And the nice thing about namespace separation is that the "mushroom" in the "food" namespace probably won't take you to a recipe for mushroom tea. That would be in the "drug" namespace.
Postal Joe-job, anyone?
Mao Zedong