Yeah, I really think campaign reform is going to have to happen medium-by-medium. There's now effective rules for mass-media ads such as TV and radio that make it very clear whose campaign or which "non-partisan" group (defined as anything that isn't a candidate or mothership party) authorized and paid for a negative ad. However, things like phone calls and e-mails need to get better regulated...
Of course, here in the age of spam, there still isn't a tech way to verify that an standard e-mail that claims to have come from The Comittee to elect John Doe really did. Requiring it be digitally signed would be nice, but who would bother to read digitally signed spam...
We've already seen this set of loopholes exploited by the Bush team who e-mailed out an anti-Kerry video that doesn't contain the "I approve..." video from Bush that would be required if it was placed as a TV ad. Not too many people saw the e-mailed ad, but the major news organizations did and the cable networks all felt obligated to run the 30 second a few times amid several segments that discussed it.
It's not exactly an ad that's destined for the hall of fame of political advertising. This is far too early in the campaign to be going negative. It really seems like we're in for a bumpy ride of an election, especially if Kerry decides to return fire.
On the other hand, this bug existed in IE5 all along, but was not discovered until the code was leaked. Now, IE6, which is not at risk, has far surpassed the at-risk version in usage.
ActiveX is not sandboxed at all like Java is. So, like any powerful tool, it can be used for both good and bad.
Windows Update depends on ActiveX to determine which updates a user already has. Many virus-scanning websites need to be able to read and (and when cleaning, write to) every file on the system, so they need ActiveX too.
When it comes down to it, ActiveX controls are just as powerful as any other executable, which is why the user is presented with a security certificate before they run. I think the critical flaw in ActiveX is right there at that dialog box, because the default answer is "Yes" and users don't read the whole thing to understand what it means.
She might be better off if she were to turn up the volume output on her end, or possibly to use a hands-free device that puts the speaker into her ear.
Re:Only so much carbon...
on
Space Burial
·
· Score: 1
The mass from their Earthview service, the only one they've actually gotten paying customers up with it seems, actually gets returned to the earth's atmoshphere because the craft vaporizes by design during reentry. "Orbit" doesn't have to be a stable one that stays up forever...
Re:Take down a space station
on
Space Burial
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
This service won't help you with that. The small sample of you that they send will end up vaporized on reentry.
Re:I'd go ahead and outlaw this guys
on
Space Burial
·
· Score: 1
I think their space-radio service is cute, although it's nothing more than a slightly modified version of the infamous star-naming services...
Seriously, they've gotten a couple rockets into a low earth orbit, but not a stable one so the entire vehicle gets vaporized on reentry. The lunar or deep space service depends on their ability to by a little space on larger missions.
A quarter ounce or less...
on
Space Burial
·
· Score: 4, Informative
For those imagining yourself in a coffin in space, try again. Only 7 grams (less than 1/4 of an ounce) is sent up in the full version of their "Earthview" service, which involves a craft that projects the ashes out into "orbit" (not exactly one that can be tracked) while the craft itself vaporizes in the atmosphere. A discount version involves only one gram of ashes.
Other services mention only a "symbolic portion", and its questionable whether they even exist. The only non-"Earthview" activity was purchasing a capsule on a NASA mission that was headed to the moon. I presume their deep space service would be offered the same way...
Broadcasting dead...
on
Space Burial
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
As a lower cost option, these people allow you to broadcast a digital message which can contain any audio or picture format you want into space.
They call the service Ad Astra. I like the dobule meaning of the word "ad" in that name...
One thing people don't realize is that yelling into their phone does not produce a clearer signal on a digital cell phone. It in fact makes your signal harder to understand for the person on the other side.
What Iceburg is demonstrating is a technology that will only catch on if the FCC requires all camera-capable cell phones to honor it. The providers will never include a remote disabling "feature" unless the law requires them to, it simply does not make the phone more attractive to customers.
While there's a legit reason to establish "no camera zones" I don't think tech will ever be able to police them, we'll just have to prohibit cameras the normal security ways...
Re:Cell phone jamming on private property
on
Cell-Phone Wars
·
· Score: 4, Informative
The act of jamming a cell phone is illegal no matter where you are, even on your own property. Simply put, it's transmitting on a licensed frequency without a license to do so.
Cell phone companies hold the licenses to any frequency being used for cell phones, and that license extends to their subscribers for using the service only. If you're jamming, you don't have permission to transmit on that frequency, and that's where the FCC can come down on you.
A Luddite isn't just somebody who refuses to adopt a technology, but somebody who goes out of their way to try to destroy the new technology because they are against its existance.
That's exactly what the people who want these jammers are doing, trying to get in the way of cell phones because they just don't like them.
No commercial outfit would be stupid enough to mass install these things. Other than being just plain illegal, it's not that smart an idea because they'd lose the business of those who need to stay in cell conact.
One problem with your writeup... DJ Danger Mouse is based out of London. Assuming the album was made there, it would be UK law that determines if it the sampling was lawfully done, not US law. If UK law allows DJ Danger Mouse to hold any copyright interest at all, then there's the "applicable foriegn law" that the notes were talking about.
It's the UK laws on derivative works that are going to matter here, not the US ones.
Jay-Z would likely have agreed to reasonable rates if he charged anything at all. If you read the Wired News artice, you'll see on page 2 that a words-only mix of Jay-Z's album was put out so that mixing DJs could have fun with it.
The interesting thing here is that he pressed 3000 copies for his friends and family as gifts, he likely still has a supply leftover at this point, and he never sold it. They're not going to be able to get much money as damages in court from that.
Any further sales or downloads are not Danger Mouse's problem... that's somebody else doing that. EMI's going to have to go after a few hundred people to grab that money.
Clearly, the path that leads to the most money for EMI would be a deal that leads to the legal release of the record. But, guess what, that's going to take Danger Mouse's approval in order to do that. If Danger Mouse is not willing to license his share of the project at any price, then this is dead on arrival. (And who's to say DM didn't reach out to EMI before and they refused to contribute their part at any price?) This could set up the ultimate irony... big money in front of a major record company that is just out of its reach.
If anything, Danger Mouse is getting his name out, and it'll likely lead to future work for him...
A record deemed illegal by a major label is not likely to be allowed to be nominated for a Grammy Award. It's the labels throwing the party there, so they just won't allow it.
But, I wonder if the other more fan-centric music award shows might nominate this as an anti-industry protest. Might be a nice way to get some headlines.
Under the original 14 year copyright length, the Beatles recordings would all be public domain by now, and therefore this whole thing would be in the clear. However, since the copyright timespan keeps expanding, it seems like nothing created past Steamboat Willie is ever going to hit the public domain.
So yeah, EMI is stifling creativity, but it's their right to under the present laws. It's a great case to highlight what could be if the copyright laws were different. But since they're not, it's illegal and this is gonna get shut down. If it ever is mass released, EMI will be getting more profits than the original author. Sorry, Danger Mouse, Penfold can't get you out of this one...
Furthermore, those who come up with a diamond mine not controled by DeBeers can still be crushed because there are many types of diamonds, and no mine find is going to generate all of them... so:
1. Release extra supply of the type(s) found by the competitor. Prices will naturally plummet. 2. ????
2a: Offer to buy out competitor at newly their reduced value.
2b: Wait for competitor to run out of supply and go away. 3. Profit!
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, I really think campaign reform is going to have to happen medium-by-medium. There's now effective rules for mass-media ads such as TV and radio that make it very clear whose campaign or which "non-partisan" group (defined as anything that isn't a candidate or mothership party) authorized and paid for a negative ad. However, things like phone calls and e-mails need to get better regulated...
Of course, here in the age of spam, there still isn't a tech way to verify that an standard e-mail that claims to have come from The Comittee to elect John Doe really did. Requiring it be digitally signed would be nice, but who would bother to read digitally signed spam...
We've already seen this set of loopholes exploited by the Bush team who e-mailed out an anti-Kerry video that doesn't contain the "I approve..." video from Bush that would be required if it was placed as a TV ad. Not too many people saw the e-mailed ad, but the major news organizations did and the cable networks all felt obligated to run the 30 second a few times amid several segments that discussed it.
It's not exactly an ad that's destined for the hall of fame of political advertising. This is far too early in the campaign to be going negative. It really seems like we're in for a bumpy ride of an election, especially if Kerry decides to return fire.
On the other hand, this bug existed in IE5 all along, but was not discovered until the code was leaked. Now, IE6, which is not at risk, has far surpassed the at-risk version in usage.
There apparently is already a fix for this one installed on many machines. It's called IE6.
Oops... we just gave MS a chance to say keeping the source secret keeps flaws like this secret as well. :)
"No to all" would be redundant to "Cancel". Both would immediately stop the operation with no further questions.
ActiveX is not sandboxed at all like Java is. So, like any powerful tool, it can be used for both good and bad.
Windows Update depends on ActiveX to determine which updates a user already has. Many virus-scanning websites need to be able to read and (and when cleaning, write to) every file on the system, so they need ActiveX too.
When it comes down to it, ActiveX controls are just as powerful as any other executable, which is why the user is presented with a security certificate before they run. I think the critical flaw in ActiveX is right there at that dialog box, because the default answer is "Yes" and users don't read the whole thing to understand what it means.
She might be better off if she were to turn up the volume output on her end, or possibly to use a hands-free device that puts the speaker into her ear.
The mass from their Earthview service, the only one they've actually gotten paying customers up with it seems, actually gets returned to the earth's atmoshphere because the craft vaporizes by design during reentry. "Orbit" doesn't have to be a stable one that stays up forever...
This service won't help you with that. The small sample of you that they send will end up vaporized on reentry.
I think their space-radio service is cute, although it's nothing more than a slightly modified version of the infamous star-naming services...
Seriously, they've gotten a couple rockets into a low earth orbit, but not a stable one so the entire vehicle gets vaporized on reentry. The lunar or deep space service depends on their ability to by a little space on larger missions.
For those imagining yourself in a coffin in space, try again. Only 7 grams (less than 1/4 of an ounce) is sent up in the full version of their "Earthview" service, which involves a craft that projects the ashes out into "orbit" (not exactly one that can be tracked) while the craft itself vaporizes in the atmosphere. A discount version involves only one gram of ashes.
Other services mention only a "symbolic portion", and its questionable whether they even exist. The only non-"Earthview" activity was purchasing a capsule on a NASA mission that was headed to the moon. I presume their deep space service would be offered the same way...
As a lower cost option, these people allow you to broadcast a digital message which can contain any audio or picture format you want into space.
They call the service Ad Astra. I like the dobule meaning of the word "ad" in that name...
One thing people don't realize is that yelling into their phone does not produce a clearer signal on a digital cell phone. It in fact makes your signal harder to understand for the person on the other side.
What Iceburg is demonstrating is a technology that will only catch on if the FCC requires all camera-capable cell phones to honor it. The providers will never include a remote disabling "feature" unless the law requires them to, it simply does not make the phone more attractive to customers.
While there's a legit reason to establish "no camera zones" I don't think tech will ever be able to police them, we'll just have to prohibit cameras the normal security ways...
The act of jamming a cell phone is illegal no matter where you are, even on your own property. Simply put, it's transmitting on a licensed frequency without a license to do so.
Cell phone companies hold the licenses to any frequency being used for cell phones, and that license extends to their subscribers for using the service only. If you're jamming, you don't have permission to transmit on that frequency, and that's where the FCC can come down on you.
A Luddite isn't just somebody who refuses to adopt a technology, but somebody who goes out of their way to try to destroy the new technology because they are against its existance.
That's exactly what the people who want these jammers are doing, trying to get in the way of cell phones because they just don't like them.
No commercial outfit would be stupid enough to mass install these things. Other than being just plain illegal, it's not that smart an idea because they'd lose the business of those who need to stay in cell conact.
One problem with your writeup... DJ Danger Mouse is based out of London. Assuming the album was made there, it would be UK law that determines if it the sampling was lawfully done, not US law. If UK law allows DJ Danger Mouse to hold any copyright interest at all, then there's the "applicable foriegn law" that the notes were talking about.
It's the UK laws on derivative works that are going to matter here, not the US ones.
Jay-Z would likely have agreed to reasonable rates if he charged anything at all. If you read the Wired News artice, you'll see on page 2 that a words-only mix of Jay-Z's album was put out so that mixing DJs could have fun with it.
$150,000 is less than most of the RIAA kids were sued for...
The interesting thing here is that he pressed 3000 copies for his friends and family as gifts, he likely still has a supply leftover at this point, and he never sold it. They're not going to be able to get much money as damages in court from that.
Any further sales or downloads are not Danger Mouse's problem... that's somebody else doing that. EMI's going to have to go after a few hundred people to grab that money.
Clearly, the path that leads to the most money for EMI would be a deal that leads to the legal release of the record. But, guess what, that's going to take Danger Mouse's approval in order to do that. If Danger Mouse is not willing to license his share of the project at any price, then this is dead on arrival. (And who's to say DM didn't reach out to EMI before and they refused to contribute their part at any price?) This could set up the ultimate irony... big money in front of a major record company that is just out of its reach.
If anything, Danger Mouse is getting his name out, and it'll likely lead to future work for him...
A record deemed illegal by a major label is not likely to be allowed to be nominated for a Grammy Award. It's the labels throwing the party there, so they just won't allow it.
But, I wonder if the other more fan-centric music award shows might nominate this as an anti-industry protest. Might be a nice way to get some headlines.
Under the original 14 year copyright length, the Beatles recordings would all be public domain by now, and therefore this whole thing would be in the clear. However, since the copyright timespan keeps expanding, it seems like nothing created past Steamboat Willie is ever going to hit the public domain.
So yeah, EMI is stifling creativity, but it's their right to under the present laws. It's a great case to highlight what could be if the copyright laws were different. But since they're not, it's illegal and this is gonna get shut down. If it ever is mass released, EMI will be getting more profits than the original author. Sorry, Danger Mouse, Penfold can't get you out of this one...
Furthermore, those who come up with a diamond mine not controled by DeBeers can still be crushed because there are many types of diamonds, and no mine find is going to generate all of them... so:
1. Release extra supply of the type(s) found by the competitor. Prices will naturally plummet.
2. ????
2a: Offer to buy out competitor at newly their reduced value.
2b: Wait for competitor to run out of supply and go away.
3. Profit!