And I demand to be renumerated for all of my expenses for all unwanted communication.
At $20/month for phone usage, I *DEMAND* my $.000015 for twenty seconds of *STOLEN* phone time.
Worse, the costs to me for the garbage truck to haul away a single postal pamphlet ar far worse. $.00166 (at 1/30 pound/letter, $.05/pound disposal fee).
I don't know about you, but those cost me 10x and 100x the cost of receiving a single spam. Where is the cry about *that* supposed theft of service?
I'm not for spam at all, but at least I'm not hypocritical and irrational about it. Each postal letter you dont' want costs *you* more than 100 spams, in terms of the cost to you. I don't know about you, but I get a couple fliers every day in my mailbox, costing me 10x as much as the email spam I get.
If you disagree about these prices, please give me numbers. I've been looking for numbers for over a year, and NOBODY has given me anything that wasn't outright bullshit.
Due to the excessive volume of robotic responses to the emails I spend time and effort to send to people I have not known to prior to this, have been forced to do this robotics test.
If you do not run a robot, please ignore this message. I will only send it once. Its purpose is to check someone's mailbox to make sure that I am not communicating to a robot, either some whitelist robot, or a vacation program, or something equivalent. I value my time: Nothing is more annoying than to spend an hour carefully writing a message to you about a subtle technical flaw than to have an obnoxious robot tell me my effort was a waste. Now, if this email is sent without resulting in a bounce, my 'AEIOU ('Avoid Egocentric Ignorant Obnoxious Users') will inform me to not write the message. Otherwise, please reply to this message to confirm that you do exist and this message is read. Only then will I proceed to write the message I wished to.
So, if this email arrives in your inbox, my apologies. It will only happen once. I've been forced to such extremes only because of the widespread use of such robots. You have my apologies, but I have been left with no choice.
I do have some good news however. In the future, we'll have constructed a realtime blackhole list that anyone can check to verify if an address runs a robot or not. This way, people not running can be looked up to verify that they're not running a robot and will not see these messages. If you wish to voluntarily add yourself to this list to state that you are or are not a robot, please see http://aeiou.losers.example.com/addlist.html
Why do we listen to these cultural squatters, who sit on our culture and claim they have a right to take it?
Who listens to these speculators, who hoard cultural creations hoping that someday they might win it big?
Who pays attention to these meglomaniacs, who try to perpetually hold our heritage hostage and control every use and access.
Who set up the modern intellectual feudalism, where you have kings, dukes, and other nobility fighting over fiefdoms of our intellectual and cultural landscape. Nobility who rape the peasants who are subject to their idiosyncratic and meglomaniac wills
Who are these people who claim that every work that is not created by them is a 'shallow reinterpreation' that should be burned, yet the nobility's creations are invariably unique and special.
If they shall call me a thief, pirate, and shoplifter.. Well, what shall these men and women be called?
Where are the numbers that show wind as being economical?
I've been searching for such numbers, with no luck.
Its hard when one nuke plant with two reactors produces four times as much electricity as 13,000 wind turbines in california COMBINED. (And they produce reliable electricity requiring no storage infrastructure.)
Productivitity is what means we can get more gadgets every year. The printing press made books affordable to the masses. Interchangable parts and the assembly line is what led to our modern world of cheap plentiful non-handcrafted goods.
Productivity is how much output we can produce per hour, as an aggregate. Now, the more we produce per hour, the more we can consume per hour of work. So, 10% more productivity accross the board means that my paycheck can buy 10% more goodies.
If GDP is a measure of the material wealth of a civilization, then it can only increase in one of two ways: More people working, or higher productivity.
The problem is that the only thing that can determine what is and isn't copyright infringment is a federal judge. Unless you can mass-manufacture a box with a federal judge in it, any system for 'digital control' will either be too permissive, or too restrictive.
I highly doubt it'll be too permissive; there are too many fair uses that could require the full decrypted output (legacy hardware, backup on more modern media, etc)
Given that, then there's a legitimate fair use need to break *ANY* encryption or other access controls on controlled media. If this is explicitly made legal, then at that point, there's no point in bothering. There'll be controlled media, but it'll be legal to sell products to break the protection. Those products will be very lucrative and sell extremely well as people won't want controlled and restricted media. (See playstation or other modchips.)
It'll be a pointless war, but a war the controllers can't win. Thats why they'll fight tooth and nail against this.
From the DoE website on energy generation, wind generation costs are about $.05, but only assuming constant 13mph winds. [1] Thats excluding the costs to build an energy storage plant to store energy for nights.[4] Its also excluding TCO, for example noise pollution, ugliness, bird-chopping, road building to put them up (and cutting down inconvenient nearby forests.) Its also excluding all the pollution from mining, refining, smelting, and manufacturing the equipment.
Wind is also small-scale. For example, all 13,000 bird-choppers in California combined generate half as much power as one of the two nuclear reactors in the Diablo Canyon Nuclear plant. [2][3] (and at that, they generate unreliable power.) For comparison, each nuclear reactor generates 1gw, or about 3000x as much power as the tidal station we're talking about.
Almost all renewable power suffers from this, its usually either intermittent, or of such low density that it cannot source any more than a trivial fraction of the 300MW we use.
Last I heard, the cost for coal or nuclear is $.03/kWh, including disposal costs[7]. Unfortunately, nuclear power is much more expensive due to kooks.[5]
As for global warming, check out [9] or [8], where nuclear energy contributes either the same or much less CO2 than wind or solar energy.
[4] http://www.awea.org/pubs/factsheets/Cost2001.PDF Which certainly seems to follow your claim.. However, if you look at where the actual numbers come from, you see something different and unpleasant. [6]
[5] http://www.ecn.cz/temelin/diablo.htm
Where the discussion about Diablo Canyon was an environmental 'success', because they forced construction to take 10 years and cost TWELVE times as much to build.
At least decomissioning costs aren't ballooning from kooks.[8]
[6] http://www.energy.ca.gov/etsr/reportsu.html
Which isn't quite so rosy. Specifically, they don't deal at all with the costs of the energy storage infrastructure. Intermittent power is EXPENSIVE if it has to be stored. The *baseline* storage cost is on the order of $.15/kw*H
[7] http://www.uic.com.au/nip08.htm
[8] Vattenfall 1999, Vattenfall's life cycle studies of electricity, also energy data 2000.
It shows the following CO2 emissions in kg/MWh (approx): Hydro 3, wind 5.5, nuclear 6, solar PV 50, gas combined cycle 450, coal 980, gas turbines (as reserve, peak load) 1170.
[9] Kivisto A. 1995, Energy payback period & CO2 emissions in different power generation methods in Finland
Finland (all kg/MWh CO2): wind 14, nuclear (centrifuge) 10, nuclear (diffusion) 26, Solar PV 95, gas 472, and coal 894
When another person can control what I do with my own equipment, with my own computers, can control what I write on the paper I *buy*. When they can say that a particular labor I may wish to do is illegal, then I am a slave.
Copyright is an infringment on my human rights. Copyright is a monopoly. Copyright is censorship. Copyright makes me into a slave.
How could anyone who likes Atlas Shrugged not see this stark fact?
Such a horrible evil could only be accepted if the benefits were worth the horror. Once, I would have said 'yes'. Now, my answer is slowly changing. The current copyright censorship&control regime is detestable.
Let Rearden make his metal, but the moment he discloses its recipe publically, by what right shall he gain the ability to say to me 'thou shaln't use this recipee'?
Let Ayn write her book, but the moment she distributes it publically.. How can she claim that she has lost any rights to control what I do with it. Unless the default state of humanity is control and slave, she never had any ability to control me in the first place.
Whether or not its immoral, you're forgetting something: No producer will ever sell a product at a loss. If it costs $10,000 to make a car, charging $30000 from faculty and $8000 from students isn't going to happen. However, they could try to charge $11000 and $30000. In either case, thats fine, what isn't fine is restricting resale.
In the case of products that require large fixed investment, but low marginal cost. (movies, games, etc) this argument breaks down. Were they to be non-discriminatory, the price would be higher than were they to be discriminatory.
Price dicrimination is attempting to partitian a market for higher prices. This is a dangerous precedent. For one thing, such discrimination requires some sort of restraint of free trade. Such restraint can easily be abused.
Its hard to have price discrimination without either price fixing or a monopoly. If there's no a monopoly on a good, then competition will cause prices to drop to the production cost.
In the case of a monopoly (like those enforced by copyright), there is nothing to restrain the producer from abuse.
Here's a similar question, about a different sort of monopoly... Is it moral for the government to tax more from those who earn more? A person earnin g 50% more income could use fewer government services than one earning less.
DDT didn't save 'thousands of lives'. It saved 25 MILLION a year, for 20 years.. And apparently, it was mostly bullshit and flawed studies that 'proved' that it affected eggshells.
Because I certainly don't.. What matters to people isn't how how envious of the rich they can be, but their standard of living.
I'd rather live in a country where I make $20k/year, and the richest person makes 100,000x as much as that, than live in a country where I make $10k/year, and the richest person makes 10x that.
You might rather be poorer, but I don't.
Sure, throw in some adjustment on prices based on, say, median income... But basing *ANY* social policy on envy (which is what is occuring if people complain about 'income inequality' between the rich and poor) is STUPID and NONPRODUCTIVE.
Are people better off in, say, India, where the median income is $2500, with the lowest 10% of households consuming 3.5% of total GNP? Or the US, where its $36000 and 1.8%? [numbers from CIA world factbook 2002 edition]
I applied for grad schools about 2.5 years ago, and got 5 rejection letters...
Did I hate 'abroad students'? No.. I did research and grad classes for 2 years, and tried again, last winter, and had a choice between two top shcools, in a much tougher year for grad schools.. I still got 3 rejection letters, but I got in.
Another thing, if you're applying to top schools, try setting your sights a little lower. There are enough spectacular faculty that *any* top-40 school will have them.
Finally, remember, a lot of the application process is chance and brownian motion. If a faculty member is interested in your particular skills&background, spectacular, if that member isn't on the admissions committee this year, better luck next year.
The first crack was they identified the algorithm and *one* key that was left in the open.
Then someone analyzed the hash-algorith it used.. (The disk stores a 'one way hash' of the correct key.) They noticed that the hash algorithm leaked about 16 bits of the 40 bit key. So, instead of requiring a few days to try a trillion keys, they only need check a few ten million, and any disc can be broken in a few seconds.
40 bits is still too few to be hard to crack, but the real flaw was that they had a crap algorithm. Without the algorithm.flaws, it'd take a day or two to crack a disc. (Assuming that the algorithm was public. Most of their security was in the secret algorithm)
Most software licenses proclaim that they're contracts, you must agree to the contract (and waive rights granted you under copyright law) if you wish to use the software.
The GPL is a copyright license. As such, it cannot take away any rights granted under copyright law. It only gives additional rights, but only under certain terms. If you do not agree to the terms, you do not get those additional rights.. However, if you do not agree to the terms, copyright law itself prevents you from abusing it.
Ergo, GPL is utterly unaffected by UCITA. UCITA's primary feature is that it gives much more legal weight to 'shrinkwrap contracts' that attempt to remove rights.
Don't forget the promise of digital control crap. People *want* VCR's. People want to avoid having digital control crap in their TV; they're not used to it.
However, the MPAA is really thirsty to put it in. For example, look at the rate of uptake of 'digital cable'.. If it didn't have that control crap, we'd have digital-cable-ready TV's and VCR's by now and we'd all use it. But it does, and thats why nobody uses it.
Tragedy of the Commons. TMDA pollutes.
on
Spam Doesn't Work?
·
· Score: 2
No.. Think of it carefully.. TMDA works by polluting everyone else. By forcing everyone else you contact to do extra work. This is tragedy of the commons.
Imagine a world where everyone uses it (or something similar), but, say, 10% have it misconfigured. This is a world with mailing lists.
Mailing list maintance functions (including initial requests to subscribe, or confirmation requests from web-maintance.) either get accepted automatically, (direct route for spam!), or force the mailing list admin to deal with the automated 'please reply to me' messages.. Which they'll ignore, then they'll still get users asking why email subscriptions don't work.
Mailing list messages... Post to a mailing list the first time and potentially get tens, hundreds, even thousands of 'please reply to me' messages. Hey, they only take a second each to deal with!
Now, imagine there's a daemon that autoreplies to such 'please reply to me' messages.. Well, just forge the spam to appear to come from a legitimate user, and guess what, the bounces go to them, and their client helpfully 'authenticates' the spam.. (The daemon can't be configured to record every email sent and only autoreply to autoreplies to emails the user actually sent. Many times people will use many systems and email servers, but only one email address.)
For more fun, you may even get mail loops of 'please reply to me' messages.
Now, in the above examples, you can eliminate this undesireable behavior by automatically accepting, unchecked, mailing list maintance messages, or autoreply messages, or a blanket opening for mailing list messages... However, spam can be easily forged to appear to be a maintance message or an autoreply message.
Under the assumption that there *will* be misconfigured clients, they'll have to deal with mailing lists that they don't know about. either by spamming posters to the list (unacceptable), or filtering them out into a seperate folder that the user will have to manually check.
In all cases, if the 'please reply to me' messages are mechanically replyable, then a daemon will be created to deal with that trash automatically, and most users will use it. (So, spammers can forge their email to come from almost any user, and the daemon of the forged address reply.) Or, those messages can be used to indicate that an email address is life. (Send a message to someone using TMDA, confirm that they use TMDA, now you know you can forge spam from that address and their daemon will authenticate it for you for free!)
Of course the other option here is to spam from legitimate hosts that have been cracked by today's IIS/outlook worm. (Or one of the 30,000 infected code-red machines.) The cracked systems run email servers and reply automatically.
Now, if the 'please reply to me' messages are NOT mechanically replyable, then we've saturated the internet with an even larger amount of trash and mail pollution that has to be dealt with on a message-by-message basis. (As per the above scenario's.)
In any case. TMDA is not a solution, its a problem.
TMDA and any other scheme that requires such automated response to all sent emails is tragedy of the commons. There's no better example. It superficially helps the user, to the detriment of everyone else. Ergo, it will proliferate and everyone will be even worse off.
Alas, auto-reply bots like that are the perfect example of tragedy of the commons.
There's no way it can be used in a widespread fashion... Either spamcrap will automate replying to it, or every time you post to a mailing list you'll get hundreds of responses, or spam will forge itself to look like a mailing list message.
If everyone used it, we'll turn to everyone sending random confirm-emails to everyone else all the time.
If 20 bicyclists get hit by cars and die in london every year.. I have a question. How many car drivers get hit by other cars and killed in london every year?
What do you know, I use TMDA too... Now, will our TMDA's get into an infinite loop asking each other for acknowledgements? If not, then I forge spam to look like a TMDA acknowledgement. And, tough luck.
Another thing about this that bugs me is that it doesn't save any time or solve any problems, it just pushes the problem onto someone else. That is not a solution.
I refuse to respond to any TMDA or other robot autoreply. You use it, and you're immediately added onto my blacklist and bitbucketed.. A blacklist of people who value other people so little that they should be ignored.. A blacklist that is public.
What AT&T saw was potential embarassment. IE, having it shown, publically, how bad their security is.... If I tried a social engineering tricks a week ago, how far would I have gotten? If I did it in 6 months, how far would I go?
AT&T just wanted to warn everyone to not cause embarassment to them THIS PARTICULAR weekend.
If you want security, what AT&T should do is hire these guys and have them try to social engineer themselves in at least once a month on a random day. Keep them on guard EVERY day, not just 2 days a year.
Its that I won't and refuse to be helpful at someone elses convenience.. And if its inconvenient enough, (and, that I'd consider your program inconvenient) I'll say fuck it and not bother to reply the autoresponder.. Or, I might, and then email a ''don't bother to reply, I'm adding you to a blackhole list.'' (which I'd make publically available to others.:)
At one level, I see that as, to avoid door-to-door salesmen, you have a burly security guy who kicks everyone they don't know on their ass.. Then lets them in if they try a second time.. Yes, it helps with salesmen, but it also discourages friendly neighbors, relatives, friends, hell, random people who've seen your blog. ETC.
Your solution seems free and painless, to you.. The problem is that it pushes much more effort onto everyone else.. Thats why I despise people who can't bother to trim and excerpt messages they're replying to on mailing lists.. Yes, it saves the send 30 seconds, but it costs each of a hundred readers 10 seconds each to try to figure out what crap in the message is and isn't new.
One thing you're perhaps not considering is that not everyone knows how to configure such a program. What happens if everyone uses it and only 10% make a mistake.. Post a message on a mailing list and 300 people all ask you to authenticate to them? No thanks!
I see you as another instance of that. Sure. Filter. Put messages with a moderate (not high) spam score from unknown senders into a seperate folder that you only check every few days.
My eventual plan is filtering, and manually deal with the rare stuff that gets through. That and laws...
Now, tell me why you're worth that hassle to me.. Why I shouldn't treat your words with the same respect you treat mine, and bitbucket them.
Here's an idea too.. If you run red lights, you can get around faster.. Of course, if everyone did that, everything would turn to crap..... Just because its cool and good for one person does not make it good if everyone uses it.
If everytime you sent an email reply or CC'ed someone on a mailing list reply, how'd you like to HAVE to deal with an autoreply.... On nearly every message? You'd come to the same conclusion I have: nobody's worth that much communicating to that they're worth dealing with crap like ASK.. Anyone that uses it has no respect for me or my words, so I shall have no respect for theirs.
Right now, I'm just happy that I've *NEVER* communicated with someone with such a setup... And hopefully never will.
Excellent, I forge my spam to appear to be coming from a mailing list. Abra-Cadabra, your filter is useless... If you don't and misconfigure ASK so that it does autoreply to mailing lists, then you deserve any blackholing you get.
Or, if everyone has procmail that auto-replies to ASK challenges, I forge my spam to appear to be coming from someone who uses ASK... You'll bounce a reply to them who'll autoreply back to you, and the spam goes through.
Thats why ASK won't work.. If too many use it, it'll either be worked around, or make email so much hassle that there's no point in using it.
And yes, if someone expects me to deal with crap like ASK. Well, I'll treat their words with the same respect they treat mine, and bitbucket them.
Slashdot Mirror
And I demand to be renumerated for all of my expenses for all unwanted communication.
At $20/month for phone usage, I *DEMAND* my $.000015 for twenty seconds of *STOLEN* phone time.
Worse, the costs to me for the garbage truck to haul away a single postal pamphlet ar far worse. $.00166 (at 1/30 pound/letter, $.05/pound disposal fee).
I don't know about you, but those cost me 10x and 100x the cost of receiving a single spam. Where is the cry about *that* supposed theft of service?
I'm not for spam at all, but at least I'm not hypocritical and irrational about it. Each postal letter you dont' want costs *you* more than 100 spams, in terms of the cost to you. I don't know about you, but I get a couple fliers every day in my mailbox, costing me 10x as much as the email spam I get.
If you disagree about these prices, please give me numbers. I've been looking for numbers for over a year, and NOBODY has given me anything that wasn't outright bullshit.
Due to the excessive volume of robotic responses to the emails I spend time and effort to send to people I have not known to prior to this, have been forced to do this robotics test.
If you do not run a robot, please ignore this message. I will only send it once. Its purpose is to check someone's mailbox to make sure that I am not communicating to a robot, either some whitelist robot, or a vacation program, or something equivalent. I value my time: Nothing is more annoying than to spend an hour carefully writing a message to you about a subtle technical flaw than to have an obnoxious robot tell me my effort was a waste. Now, if this email is sent without resulting in a bounce, my 'AEIOU ('Avoid Egocentric Ignorant Obnoxious Users') will inform me to not write the message. Otherwise, please reply to this message to confirm that you do exist and this message is read. Only then will I proceed to write the message I wished to.
So, if this email arrives in your inbox, my apologies. It will only happen once. I've been forced to such extremes only because of the widespread use of such robots. You have my apologies, but I have been left with no choice.
I do have some good news however. In the future, we'll have constructed a realtime blackhole list that anyone can check to verify if an address runs a robot or not. This way, people not running can be looked up to verify that they're not running a robot and will not see these messages. If you wish to voluntarily add yourself to this list to state that you are or are not a robot, please see http://aeiou.losers.example.com/addlist.html
Why do we listen to these cultural squatters, who sit on our culture and claim they have a right to take it?
Who listens to these speculators, who hoard cultural creations hoping that someday they might win it big?
Who pays attention to these meglomaniacs, who try to perpetually hold our heritage hostage and control every use and access.
Who set up the modern intellectual feudalism, where you have kings, dukes, and other nobility fighting over fiefdoms of our intellectual and cultural landscape. Nobility who rape the peasants who are subject to their idiosyncratic and meglomaniac wills
Who are these people who claim that every work that is not created by them is a 'shallow reinterpreation' that should be burned, yet the nobility's creations are invariably unique and special.
If they shall call me a thief, pirate, and shoplifter.. Well, what shall these men and women be called?
Where are the numbers that show wind as being economical?
I've been searching for such numbers, with no luck.
Its hard when one nuke plant with two reactors produces four times as much electricity as 13,000 wind turbines in california COMBINED. (And they produce reliable electricity requiring no storage infrastructure.)
Productivitity is what means we can get more gadgets every year. The printing press made books affordable to the masses. Interchangable parts and the assembly line is what led to our modern world of cheap plentiful non-handcrafted goods.
Productivity is how much output we can produce per hour, as an aggregate. Now, the more we produce per hour, the more we can consume per hour of work. So, 10% more productivity accross the board means that my paycheck can buy 10% more goodies.
If GDP is a measure of the material wealth of a civilization, then it can only increase in one of two ways: More people working, or higher productivity.
With increasing productivity, EVERYONE wins.
The problem is that the only thing that can determine what is and isn't copyright infringment is a federal judge. Unless you can mass-manufacture a box with a federal judge in it, any system for 'digital control' will either be too permissive, or too restrictive.
I highly doubt it'll be too permissive; there are too many fair uses that could require the full decrypted output (legacy hardware, backup on more modern media, etc)
Given that, then there's a legitimate fair use need to break *ANY* encryption or other access controls on controlled media. If this is explicitly made legal, then at that point, there's no point in bothering. There'll be controlled media, but it'll be legal to sell products to break the protection. Those products will be very lucrative and sell extremely well as people won't want controlled and restricted media. (See playstation or other modchips.)
It'll be a pointless war, but a war the controllers can't win. Thats why they'll fight tooth and nail against this.
Who needs fusion? Fission works now. Fission is cheap. Fission can supply energy for millions or billions of years.
http://www.energy.ca.gov/etsr/9704ETSR.PDF
a nce/reactors/diablo.html
Where'd you get those numbers from?
From the DoE website on energy generation, wind generation costs are about $.05, but only assuming constant 13mph winds. [1] Thats excluding the costs to build an energy storage plant to store energy for nights.[4] Its also excluding TCO, for example noise pollution, ugliness, bird-chopping, road building to put them up (and cutting down inconvenient nearby forests.) Its also excluding all the pollution from mining, refining, smelting, and manufacturing the equipment.
Wind is also small-scale. For example, all 13,000 bird-choppers in California combined generate half as much power as one of the two nuclear reactors in the Diablo Canyon Nuclear plant. [2][3] (and at that, they generate unreliable power.) For comparison, each nuclear reactor generates 1gw, or about 3000x as much power as the tidal station we're talking about.
Almost all renewable power suffers from this, its usually either intermittent, or of such low density that it cannot source any more than a trivial fraction of the 300MW we use.
Last I heard, the cost for coal or nuclear is $.03/kWh, including disposal costs[7]. Unfortunately, nuclear power is much more expensive due to kooks.[5]
As for global warming, check out [9] or [8], where nuclear energy contributes either the same or much less CO2 than wind or solar energy.
Now, where are your numbers coming from?
Convergence
[1] http://www.nrel.gov/wind/cost.html
[2] http://www.energy.ca.gov/wind/overview.html
[3] http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/at_a_gl
[4] http://www.awea.org/pubs/factsheets/Cost2001.PDF
Which certainly seems to follow your claim.. However, if you look at where the actual numbers come from, you see something different and unpleasant. [6]
[5] http://www.ecn.cz/temelin/diablo.htm
Where the discussion about Diablo Canyon was an environmental 'success', because they forced construction to take 10 years and cost TWELVE times as much to build.
At least decomissioning costs aren't ballooning from kooks.[8]
[6] http://www.energy.ca.gov/etsr/reportsu.html
Which isn't quite so rosy. Specifically, they don't deal at all with the costs of the energy storage infrastructure. Intermittent power is EXPENSIVE if it
has to be stored. The *baseline* storage cost is on the order of
$.15/kw*H
[7] http://www.uic.com.au/nip08.htm
[8] Vattenfall 1999, Vattenfall's life cycle studies of electricity, also energy data 2000.
It shows the following CO2 emissions in kg/MWh (approx): Hydro 3, wind 5.5, nuclear 6, solar PV 50, gas combined cycle 450, coal 980, gas turbines (as reserve, peak load) 1170.
[9] Kivisto A. 1995, Energy payback period & CO2 emissions in different power generation methods in Finland
Finland (all kg/MWh CO2): wind 14, nuclear (centrifuge) 10, nuclear (diffusion) 26, Solar PV 95, gas 472, and coal 894
When another person can control what I do with my own equipment, with my own computers, can control what I write on the paper I *buy*. When they can say that a particular labor I may wish to do is illegal, then I am a slave.
Copyright is an infringment on my human rights. Copyright is a monopoly. Copyright is censorship. Copyright makes me into a slave.
How could anyone who likes Atlas Shrugged not see this stark fact?
Such a horrible evil could only be accepted if the benefits were worth the horror. Once, I would have said 'yes'. Now, my answer is slowly changing. The current copyright censorship&control regime is detestable.
Let Rearden make his metal, but the moment he discloses its recipe publically, by what right shall he gain the ability to say to me 'thou shaln't use this recipee'?
Let Ayn write her book, but the moment she distributes it publically.. How can she claim that she has lost any rights to control what I do with it. Unless the default state of humanity is control and slave, she never had any ability to control me in the first place.
Whether or not its immoral, you're forgetting something: No producer will ever sell a product at a loss. If it costs $10,000 to make a car, charging $30000 from faculty and $8000 from students isn't going to happen. However, they could try to charge $11000 and $30000. In either case, thats fine, what isn't fine is restricting resale.
In the case of products that require large fixed investment, but low marginal cost. (movies, games, etc) this argument breaks down. Were they to be non-discriminatory, the price would be higher than were they to be discriminatory.
Price dicrimination is attempting to partitian a market for higher prices. This is a dangerous precedent. For one thing, such discrimination requires some sort of restraint of free trade. Such restraint can easily be abused.
Its hard to have price discrimination without either price fixing or a monopoly. If there's no a monopoly on a good, then competition will cause prices to drop to the production cost.
In the case of a monopoly (like those enforced by copyright), there is nothing to restrain the producer from abuse.
Here's a similar question, about a different sort of monopoly... Is it moral for the government to tax more from those who earn more? A person earnin g 50% more income could use fewer government services than one earning less.
Just some small ramblings.
DDT didn't save 'thousands of lives'. It saved 25 MILLION a year, for 20 years.. And apparently, it was mostly bullshit and flawed studies that 'proved' that it affected eggshells.
Because I certainly don't.. What matters to people isn't how how envious of the rich they can be, but their standard of living.
I'd rather live in a country where I make $20k/year, and the richest person makes 100,000x as much as that, than live in a country where I make $10k/year, and the richest person makes 10x that.
You might rather be poorer, but I don't.
Sure, throw in some adjustment on prices based on, say, median income... But basing *ANY* social policy on envy (which is what is occuring if people complain about 'income inequality' between the rich and poor) is STUPID and NONPRODUCTIVE.
Are people better off in, say, India, where the median income is $2500, with the lowest 10% of households consuming 3.5% of total GNP? Or the US, where its $36000 and 1.8%? [numbers from CIA world factbook 2002 edition]
Deal..
I applied for grad schools about 2.5 years ago, and got 5 rejection letters...
Did I hate 'abroad students'? No.. I did research and grad classes for 2 years, and tried again, last winter, and had a choice between two top shcools, in a much tougher year for grad schools.. I still got 3 rejection letters, but I got in.
Another thing, if you're applying to top schools, try setting your sights a little lower. There are enough spectacular faculty that *any* top-40 school will have them.
Finally, remember, a lot of the application process is chance and brownian motion. If a faculty member is interested in your particular skills&background, spectacular, if that member isn't on the admissions committee this year, better luck next year.
Its not the US, but heh!
c er .html
http://www.quern.demon.co.uk/jonathan/stuff/sau
One patented flying saucer.... Who wants to sue little green men?
The first crack was they identified the algorithm and *one* key that was left in the open.
Then someone analyzed the hash-algorith it used.. (The disk stores a 'one way hash' of the correct key.) They noticed that the hash algorithm leaked about 16 bits of the 40 bit key. So, instead of requiring a few days to try a trillion keys, they only need check a few ten million, and any disc can be broken in a few seconds.
40 bits is still too few to be hard to crack, but the real flaw was that they had a crap algorithm. Without the algorithm.flaws, it'd take a day or two to crack a disc. (Assuming that the algorithm was public. Most of their security was in the secret algorithm)
Not quite.
Most software licenses proclaim that they're contracts, you must agree to the contract (and waive rights granted you under copyright law) if you wish to use the software.
The GPL is a copyright license. As such, it cannot take away any rights granted under copyright law. It only gives additional rights, but only under certain terms. If you do not agree to the terms, you do not get those additional rights.. However, if you do not agree to the terms, copyright law itself prevents you from abusing it.
Ergo, GPL is utterly unaffected by UCITA. UCITA's primary feature is that it gives much more legal weight to 'shrinkwrap contracts' that attempt to remove rights.
Don't forget the promise of digital control crap. People *want* VCR's. People want to avoid having digital control crap in their TV; they're not used to it.
However, the MPAA is really thirsty to put it in. For example, look at the rate of uptake of 'digital cable'.. If it didn't have that control crap, we'd have digital-cable-ready TV's and VCR's by now and we'd all use it. But it does, and thats why nobody uses it.
No.. Think of it carefully.. TMDA works by polluting everyone else. By forcing everyone else you contact to do extra work. This is tragedy of the commons.
Imagine a world where everyone uses it (or something similar), but, say, 10% have it misconfigured. This is a world with mailing lists.
Mailing list maintance functions (including initial requests to subscribe, or confirmation requests from web-maintance.) either get accepted automatically, (direct route for spam!), or force the mailing list admin to deal with the automated 'please reply to me' messages.. Which they'll ignore, then they'll still get users asking why email subscriptions don't work.
Mailing list messages... Post to a mailing list the first time and potentially get tens, hundreds, even thousands of 'please reply to me' messages. Hey, they only take a second each to deal with!
Now, imagine there's a daemon that autoreplies to such 'please reply to me' messages.. Well, just forge the spam to appear to come from a legitimate user, and guess what, the bounces go to them, and their client helpfully 'authenticates' the spam.. (The daemon can't be configured to record every email sent and only autoreply to autoreplies to emails the user actually sent. Many times people will use many systems and email servers, but only one email address.)
For more fun, you may even get mail loops of 'please reply to me' messages.
Now, in the above examples, you can eliminate this undesireable behavior by automatically accepting, unchecked, mailing list maintance messages, or autoreply messages, or a blanket opening for mailing list messages... However, spam can be easily forged to appear to be a maintance message or an autoreply message.
Under the assumption that there *will* be misconfigured clients, they'll have to deal with mailing lists that they don't know about. either by spamming posters to the list (unacceptable), or filtering them out into a seperate folder that the user will have to manually check.
In all cases, if the 'please reply to me' messages are mechanically replyable, then a daemon will be created to deal with that trash automatically, and most users will use it. (So, spammers can forge their email to come from almost any user, and the daemon of the forged address reply.) Or, those messages can be used to indicate that an email address is life. (Send a message to someone using TMDA, confirm that they use TMDA, now you know you can forge spam from that address and their daemon will authenticate it for you for free!)
Of course the other option here is to spam from legitimate hosts that have been cracked by today's IIS/outlook worm. (Or one of the 30,000 infected code-red machines.) The cracked systems run email servers and reply automatically.
Now, if the 'please reply to me' messages are NOT mechanically replyable, then we've saturated the internet with an even larger amount of trash and mail pollution that has to be dealt with on a message-by-message basis. (As per the above scenario's.)
In any case. TMDA is not a solution, its a problem.
TMDA and any other scheme that requires such automated response to all sent emails is tragedy of the commons. There's no better example. It superficially helps the user, to the detriment of everyone else. Ergo, it will proliferate and everyone will be even worse off.
Alas, auto-reply bots like that are the perfect example of tragedy of the commons.
There's no way it can be used in a widespread fashion... Either spamcrap will automate replying to it, or every time you post to a mailing list you'll get hundreds of responses, or spam will forge itself to look like a mailing list message.
If everyone used it, we'll turn to everyone sending random confirm-emails to everyone else all the time.
Tragedy of the commons...
I bitbucket any one who uses it.
To pull a little sense out of that nonsense...
If 20 bicyclists get hit by cars and die in london every year.. I have a question. How many car drivers get hit by other cars and killed in london every year?
What do you know, I use TMDA too... Now, will our TMDA's get into an infinite loop asking each other for acknowledgements? If not, then I forge spam to look like a TMDA acknowledgement. And, tough luck.
Another thing about this that bugs me is that it doesn't save any time or solve any problems, it just pushes the problem onto someone else. That is not a solution.
I refuse to respond to any TMDA or other robot autoreply. You use it, and you're immediately added onto my blacklist and bitbucketed.. A blacklist of people who value other people so little that they should be ignored.. A blacklist that is public.
What AT&T saw was potential embarassment. IE, having it shown, publically, how bad their security is.... If I tried a social engineering tricks a week ago, how far would I have gotten? If I did it in 6 months, how far would I go?
AT&T just wanted to warn everyone to not cause embarassment to them THIS PARTICULAR weekend.
If you want security, what AT&T should do is hire these guys and have them try to social engineer themselves in at least once a month on a random day. Keep them on guard EVERY day, not just 2 days a year.
Heh...
:)
Its that I won't and refuse to be helpful at someone elses convenience.. And if its inconvenient enough, (and, that I'd consider your program inconvenient) I'll say fuck it and not bother to reply the autoresponder.. Or, I might, and then email a ''don't bother to reply, I'm adding you to a blackhole list.'' (which I'd make publically available to others.
At one level, I see that as, to avoid door-to-door salesmen, you have a burly security guy who kicks everyone they don't know on their ass.. Then lets them in if they try a second time.. Yes, it helps with salesmen, but it also discourages friendly neighbors, relatives, friends, hell, random people who've seen your blog. ETC.
Your solution seems free and painless, to you.. The problem is that it pushes much more effort onto everyone else.. Thats why I despise people who can't bother to trim and excerpt messages they're replying to on mailing lists.. Yes, it saves the send 30 seconds, but it costs each of a hundred readers 10 seconds each to try to figure out what crap in the message is and isn't new.
One thing you're perhaps not considering is that not everyone knows how to configure such a program. What happens if everyone uses it and only 10% make a mistake.. Post a message on a mailing list and 300 people all ask you to authenticate to them? No thanks!
I see you as another instance of that. Sure. Filter. Put messages with a moderate (not high) spam score from unknown senders into a seperate folder that you only check every few days.
My eventual plan is filtering, and manually deal with the rare stuff that gets through. That and laws...
Now, tell me why you're worth that hassle to me.. Why I shouldn't treat your words with the same respect you treat mine, and bitbucket them.
Here's an idea too.. If you run red lights, you can get around faster.. Of course, if everyone did that, everything would turn to crap..... Just because its cool and good for one person does not make it good if everyone uses it.
If everytime you sent an email reply or CC'ed someone on a mailing list reply, how'd you like to HAVE to deal with an autoreply.... On nearly every message? You'd come to the same conclusion I have: nobody's worth that much communicating to that they're worth dealing with crap like ASK.. Anyone that uses it has no respect for me or my words, so I shall have no respect for theirs.
Right now, I'm just happy that I've *NEVER* communicated with someone with such a setup... And hopefully never will.
Excellent, I forge my spam to appear to be coming from a mailing list. Abra-Cadabra, your filter is useless... If you don't and misconfigure ASK so that it does autoreply to mailing lists, then you deserve any blackholing you get.
Or, if everyone has procmail that auto-replies to ASK challenges, I forge my spam to appear to be coming from someone who uses ASK... You'll bounce a reply to them who'll autoreply back to you, and the spam goes through.
Thats why ASK won't work.. If too many use it, it'll either be worked around, or make email so much hassle that there's no point in using it.
And yes, if someone expects me to deal with crap like ASK. Well, I'll treat their words with the same respect they treat mine, and bitbucket them.