Re:Funny timing
on
P2P Bits
·
· Score: 2, Informative
"Songwriters are in a different situation than programmers. I can charge whatever I like for my time or my programs. Songwriters are beholden to federal law (in the US) regarding what they can charge which is $0.085 per song per album cut, and $0.015 per song per radio play. Songwriters cannot charge a salary and forego any rights to what they write legally."
This sounds like manditory mechanical licensing (might have the exact terms wrong... I can't find my copy of 'This Business of Music' right now). This isn't the fee the songwriter gets paid for an original recording, but rather means two things: 1) that once you record a song and publish publicly, anyone can make another recording of the same song as long as it's substantially true to the original recording (whether the songwriter likes it or not), and 2) the people making the second recording (the licensee) must pay the statutory royalties as you describe them. The right to make the second recording and the payment for that second record is dictated by federal law, but not the original recording of the work. And it's payable to the copyright holder which may/may not be the songwriter.
Songwriters can negotiate for whatever they want for the initial recording and radio play is mostly governed by the public performance license clearing houses (ASCAP/BMI/others).
This is worth a double check, it's been about a decade since I was actively in the business, but I think I've got the facts right in principle if not in specifics.
You're making rhetorical errors that prove my point. But you'll know better as you get older;-).
The attitudes by older manager types is that wisdom comes with intelligence and technical acumen. My point is that this is a mistake that increases the likelihood of such breaches. Remember my inititial observation: IT, notorious for age discrimination in favor of young, brighteyed types, may actually be introducing a greater security risk with the practice.
Depending on the exact role of this 'engineer' there may be legitimate reasons for that individual to have access to this data. Indeed, even older and higher ranking people within AOL may have been so enamored with this young man that he might have been a team lead or other senior technical resource with the authority himself to be the gatekeeper. Another scenario says maybe he wasn't 'granted' access at all: software engineers are ultimately in control... including the programming of backdoors, exploiting of known flaws, etc.
My point isn't that older workers don't make mistakes, but that they are less likely to be reckless or take as many chances with authority as younger workers.
Finally, the real error with your most recent comments is that the older manager you speak of didn't act with malicious intent; whereas the younger worker clearly did. This is the heart of my point: managers should be more cautious in assigning younger workers to places of high responsibility regardless of skill or qualifications.
Indeed, I've been there... twice... and haven't done anything like this. If he didn't like the terms of his employment with AOL, he should have started looking for another job or look into starting his own business.
The simple fact is that I believe in being as professional as possible under all circumstances; if I disagree with my employer or suspect I won't be needed for long, I simply look elsewhere.
I would neither encourage anyone else to do what was done by this (now former)AOL jerk, I encourage the full and rigorous prosecution of this guy (and others involved), and would not hire him or anyone believing there was justification for what he did. Period. I don't care if he made $.12 an hour and was training his direct replacement. I bet, given he was a software developer, he was paid more than most.
"...notorious for age discrimination in favor of young, brighteyed types, may actually be introducing a greater security risk with the practice."
is why you were called an asshole.
On the reason for which I was called an asshole... I disagree. The reason I was called an asshole was that calling the larger portion of your audience a security threat (even just statistically) is not a way to endear them to you. The original statement was more an interpretation of management attitudes on the subject; this is really how younger workers are perceived in many companies.
well said, but "less mature workers" can be 20, 30, 40, 50, etc.
First, thank you. You're right in what you say. I know person that, when we were in our mid-20s, I was asked to predict where he'd be in 10 years: I said he'd still be a pizza delivery guy because he wasn't going to mature from where he was... way too cool for his own good. He proved me 100% correct (sorry Mr. Rounds!) immaturity is a problem at any age. Having said that, I think you'll find that there are more immature 20 year olds than 30 year olds, etc. A pyramid as it were. Remember, my hypothesis is statistical.
The rest of your post I agree with completely. I don't like to think of this kind of problem in terms of law (the original topic), but rather gain vs. consequence. $100K is a lot of money to most 20 year olds (to most people period), and the consequences are not that huge (or I should say seems not to be that huge). I also think younger people do fall victim to not perceiving the future as keenly as someone that has a history of mistakes they have to live with day in and day out.
Why don't we put it another way? "Note that both people involved were guys. By its traditional discrimination against women (who more civilized) in favor of men (more aggressive and violent), IT is introducing a security risk since men will take more chances." It makes as much sense as the above "these damn' kids screw up all the time" rant (and before some/. feminist says "you go girl!", I should add that I'm male, 23, and consider both arguments completely idiotic).
Actually, I wouldn't be terribly surprised if the counter-point you offer to try to discredit my argument is, itself, true. By the way, my observation is derived not from a single article but experience from my experience working in IT. The article simply providing an interesting context.
IT is a younger field, therefore more IT guys are younger. Granted, it's been around for the last 40 years, but for about half of that time, you needed a lot of money to get a computer. The generation that got to use truly cheap computers came of age just ten years ago. It's natural that there is now an explosion of younger IT workers.
I'm not sure what relavence this statement has to my point. This is all true on the face of it, but neither supports nor detracts from my hypothesis. What I will say, assuming your statement is true, is that the impact mistakes made by anyone in IT has the potential to be greater than at any time in history. Would, 40 years ago, a couple of 20somethings have had the tools to commit a crime that impacted as many 93 million people? What if he weren't at AOL, but Bank of America?
Marital, family, religious, and civic ties to society, IMHO, are much more likely to keep people honest than their age, even counting the fact that younger workers may be less experienced.
Thank you for help in supporting my point. Much of my point is predicated on the fact that younger people are more likely not to have the same connections and convictions that older people do. How many professional 24 year olds are married as compared to say married 45 year olds? How many have their own families (a strong connection than to just mom & dad)? Never did I mention experience: I was careful to say mature.
And if you don't believe me, check a newspaper and see how many older, powerful men are at this moment headed to Club Fed because they weren't any better at ethics than the AOL dimwits mentioned in this article. Most of Congress is composed of older men, and I'd almost rather have Sanford Wallace (of Cyber Promotions infamy) representing me than some of these folks.
I find trouble in using the newspaper to uncover trends, there are too many other factors to consider them useful sources of this kind of information. Older people are more likely to have roles in more sophisticated, larger stakes games. But what we don't see in the papers are how many people are being put away for $50K in embezzlement here, $75K in kickbacks there... in fact, if it weren't for the 93 million users, you would probably have never heard of this either in the papers. I still maintain that younger workers will have higher security issues as compared to the population as a whole. By the way... how many older people do we hear about getting put away writing viruses and worms? Don't confuse high profile for quantity or even severity.
I work in a government agency, so I see a large proportion of older workers. Some are smart, hard workers; others are idiots. I see no larger proportion of idiots among younger people than I do among older ones, nor do I see any indication that the intelligence or ethics of the old have anything to do with the fact that they are old.
Don't get me wrong... avarice comes in all ages. But the selection process for congress is slanted to those that are most likely to be less than honest and government workers are place, in my experience, by other less than optimal hiring methodologies. Though, sure there are older idiots as well. But I find the young, smart, but overly ambitious types to be the ones to keep an eye on.
Well argued nonetheless. And for the record I'm an old guy in tech terms... mid 30s!
An interesting way to look at this is consider the age of the people involved. The engineer was 24 and the Casino guy was 21. IT, notorious for age discrimination in favor of young, brighteyed types, may actually be introducing a greater security risk with the practice.
I remember when I was in my early 20s and lets just say I didn't have a lot to lose... and everything to gain from taking a chance here and there. By placing less mature workers into places where personal ethics and great responsibility collide, you're asking for issues just like this.
I don't mean in indict all younger workers. Certainly most are good employees; I've hired many younger people without trouble. But as a percentage of population, the younger I expect to make more 'mistakes' both simple errors and errors in judgment.
Prop 13 is basically a measure, that was submitted to the voters of California, that said: property taxes will be taxed according to the value of the home at the time of purchase and that rate won't fluctuate over time with the housing market. So if I bought a house 20 years ago, 20 years later I will still be taxed at the value it was 20 years ago... not the current value. I believe this only applied to residential property. (All of this should be fact checked... I didn't look it up prior to posting).
Prop 13 was before my time, but here's my understanding of what why it came to be. Essentially local governments started taxing property abusively in California while at the same time housing prices were going up fast due to population growth. This had the effect of causing taxes to go so high that someone that had bought a house years ago could no longer afford the taxes as the years went by.
The citizens of California signed petitions to put a limit on property tax rates... this was Proposition 13 on the ballot (which is what I describe above).
Another strange part about California property taxes is that the local (county) governments collect the tax, but the taxes actually end up in the state general treasury. The state then redistributes a portion of the taxes out to the communities in a so-called 'fair' way.
The permitting process is a different issue. I'd like to see the substantiation that building fees are directly related to Prop 13 or that they wouldn't have increased to ridiculous levels without Prop 13.
The tripling of the car tax (a yearly tax in addition to sales tax) didn't happen due to any restrictions on sales tax or any other fee. They simply wanted more money to fuel the spending spree they've been on for the past 6-8 years.
Forget about the gandmother argument... the undiciplined rates at which property taxes were increasing was bad for everyone. Just because these same tax and spenders may find other ways to extract their pound of flesh isn't a valid basis for condeming prop 13.
While I don't disagree necessarily on the move against SBC.......I have to say California is often times a step ahead of the country. A step ahead in mostly wrong, silly, stupid and self destructive ways.
Take the Gmail legislative initiatives here in good old CA. While SBC is for all practical purposes a legal monopoly, Google is not... especially for email. Yet our enlightened legislature still feels the need to regulate it to death. First step in the country, but totaly unnecessary and harmful to a California business known to employ many of the best and brightest.
So a step ahead... yes... we'll go over the cliff before everyone else.
Truth be told: If you want free speech-- opt out and continue to use SMTP based mail servers.
However, just because someone wants to say something anonymously doesn't mean I have to listen. Most mail servers are private property and the standards/protocols used on them is matter of choice of the operators. (Of course, make a bad choice and things won't work everywhere.)
Whilst I support anonymous free speech in principle, I don't have to support all modes of it nor finance it. Indeed, other rights would be trumped by preventing me from validating a user/server's identity: I have rights of association, rights of privacy, and rights to enjoy my property.
You raise a valid point... but the open relay part was less my argument for change than was developing some means by which mail servers can reliably identify each other. Otherwise I agree, we're not talking open relays. (True I might have mentioned it in the post).
A well constructed server validation scheme would cut down the problems with trojaned machines since the trojans would not be validated (again in a well constructed scheme). This would avoid penalizing the honest users (such as myself) that for whatever silly reason want to run their own services.
I just realized. The solution isn't for carriers (which is all I view comcast as) to block any services. A better email infrastructure is what is required.
We've now heard tales of domain keys, SPF what have you. These types of measures are the only ones that will really solve for the problem.
There is no reason for mail servers to be anonymous or blindly relay. Mail admins should also decide whether to accept email from anonymous sources or not. By bringing to bear some sort of digitial signature solution for servers and even users, you would be able to put a serious speedbump for spammers.
Punishing independent minded people such as myself is not correct.
Actually, their reps have said during calls that mail servers are not officially supported, but that they willingly turn a blind eye.
Given that they are the only broadband I can get and I do run a mail server for any host of reasons; the targeted approach would be the only acceptable method.
Increased security? No decreased culpability
on
Safe and Insecure?
·
· Score: 1
The premise of the article description is wrong.
Leaving your network wide open doesn't increase your security, it decreases it. What you do in decrease your culpability for anything that happens with your systems.
Of course, this can backfire you want to shop online or do anything else that requires a small measure of privacy.... afterall, your security has been decreased!
I use to work for Virgin Entertainment Group, Inc. (the Virgin Megastores in the US) and other retailers where listening stations were involved.
Really you have to consider how many people will comoe through the exhibit, average age, how long the exhibit will run etc. to understand what solution is best or to really cost it out.
So if you go with $15 dollar headphones, will they stand up to being put on, taken off, people tugging on them, etc. or will you be replacing one set a day due to breakage? This naturally means each set doesn't cost $15, but each station costs somewhat higher than that. You really need to think along these lines to compare costs. Especially given your condition of minimal oversight; that means people will be more inclined to abuse them (or rather less inhibited to, and yes even the queit museum crowd will abuse equipment as we saw in our classical departments.)
You could source the sound from a single computer, but you would need multiple output channels (probably multiple sound cards) and software to support it. Other than the pre-packaged solutions, I'm not so familiar with what's available in this category.
If you want to go cheaper could you not use actual speakers, with partitions and volume settings such that there isn't too much bleed over from one sound space to another? Disney actually puts this same kind of concept to effective use on many of their themepark rides. This would eliminate the 'touch' element which usually cause headphones to die in these situations. Of course, not seeing the exhibit, it might not be practical.
Yes and when I was that I age I was teaching my computer teachers how to use computers, but that doesn't mean a damn thing. 1) the young often times more easily adapt to complicated technologies than older people, 2) a twelve year old often times doesn't have much better to do than fuck with an IRC client, 3) -Most- 12 year olds don't use IRC because there are more readily available methods (like AOL and IM).
Much of the point is that IRC takes more to get logged in, it takes more to find the client, it takes more to find an IRC server. Finally, you have to go looking for IRC whereas AOL and IM clients are thrust in your face.
"The oldest and strongest emotion of mankind is fear. And the oldest and strongest kind of fear is fear of the unknown." -- Lovecraft.
IRC is still more difficult to use than AOL chat rooms and largely the domain of techies. Sure bad stuff happens there because it's not part of the mainstream, but I don't know that it's worse there than anywhere else......god help them if they find USENET.
Well, this isn't a very good test. Really what we learned is how effective one individual can be using google compared to other methods. Even then the tests didn't try to see how this applied to different kinds of information or how these results may have different from a group perspective. Worse still, the results for the author's first question makes me question if the author knew the answers ahead of time and had no way to call a result 'correct' or otherwise.
Also, more comprehensive searches at a library could involve actually having to visit the library... with it's associated drive time.
A good test would have had more questions, more participants and questions selected for a vareity of information types. The premise of the article I think is interesting: what kinds of research is the net really good for? Other than porn, of course, which is a given (try not finding it).
The problem with Google (et al) isn't finding information: it's finding reliable information (for most subjects). There's a hell of a lot of noise out there.
Slashdot Mirror
"Songwriters are in a different situation than programmers. I can charge whatever I like for my time or my programs. Songwriters are beholden to federal law (in the US) regarding what they can charge which is $0.085 per song per album cut, and $0.015 per song per radio play. Songwriters cannot charge a salary and forego any rights to what they write legally."
This sounds like manditory mechanical licensing (might have the exact terms wrong... I can't find my copy of 'This Business of Music' right now). This isn't the fee the songwriter gets paid for an original recording, but rather means two things: 1) that once you record a song and publish publicly, anyone can make another recording of the same song as long as it's substantially true to the original recording (whether the songwriter likes it or not), and 2) the people making the second recording (the licensee) must pay the statutory royalties as you describe them. The right to make the second recording and the payment for that second record is dictated by federal law, but not the original recording of the work. And it's payable to the copyright holder which may/may not be the songwriter.
Songwriters can negotiate for whatever they want for the initial recording and radio play is mostly governed by the public performance license clearing houses (ASCAP/BMI/others).
This is worth a double check, it's been about a decade since I was actively in the business, but I think I've got the facts right in principle if not in specifics.
Cheers!
SCB
You're making rhetorical errors that prove my point. But you'll know better as you get older ;-).
The attitudes by older manager types is that wisdom comes with intelligence and technical acumen. My point is that this is a mistake that increases the likelihood of such breaches. Remember my inititial observation: IT, notorious for age discrimination in favor of young, brighteyed types, may actually be introducing a greater security risk with the practice.
Depending on the exact role of this 'engineer' there may be legitimate reasons for that individual to have access to this data. Indeed, even older and higher ranking people within AOL may have been so enamored with this young man that he might have been a team lead or other senior technical resource with the authority himself to be the gatekeeper. Another scenario says maybe he wasn't 'granted' access at all: software engineers are ultimately in control... including the programming of backdoors, exploiting of known flaws, etc.
My point isn't that older workers don't make mistakes, but that they are less likely to be reckless or take as many chances with authority as younger workers.
Finally, the real error with your most recent comments is that the older manager you speak of didn't act with malicious intent; whereas the younger worker clearly did. This is the heart of my point: managers should be more cautious in assigning younger workers to places of high responsibility regardless of skill or qualifications.
Cheers!
SCB
I wouldn't.
Indeed, I've been there... twice... and haven't done anything like this. If he didn't like the terms of his employment with AOL, he should have started looking for another job or look into starting his own business.
The simple fact is that I believe in being as professional as possible under all circumstances; if I disagree with my employer or suspect I won't be needed for long, I simply look elsewhere.
I would neither encourage anyone else to do what was done by this (now former)AOL jerk, I encourage the full and rigorous prosecution of this guy (and others involved), and would not hire him or anyone believing there was justification for what he did. Period. I don't care if he made $.12 an hour and was training his direct replacement. I bet, given he was a software developer, he was paid more than most.
"...notorious for age discrimination in favor of young, brighteyed types, may actually be introducing a greater security risk with the practice."
is why you were called an asshole.
On the reason for which I was called an asshole... I disagree. The reason I was called an asshole was that calling the larger portion of your audience a security threat (even just statistically) is not a way to endear them to you. The original statement was more an interpretation of management attitudes on the subject; this is really how younger workers are perceived in many companies.
well said, but "less mature workers" can be 20, 30, 40, 50, etc.
First, thank you. You're right in what you say. I know person that, when we were in our mid-20s, I was asked to predict where he'd be in 10 years: I said he'd still be a pizza delivery guy because he wasn't going to mature from where he was... way too cool for his own good. He proved me 100% correct (sorry Mr. Rounds!) immaturity is a problem at any age. Having said that, I think you'll find that there are more immature 20 year olds than 30 year olds, etc. A pyramid as it were. Remember, my hypothesis is statistical.
The rest of your post I agree with completely. I don't like to think of this kind of problem in terms of law (the original topic), but rather gain vs. consequence. $100K is a lot of money to most 20 year olds (to most people period), and the consequences are not that huge (or I should say seems not to be that huge). I also think younger people do fall victim to not perceiving the future as keenly as someone that has a history of mistakes they have to live with day in and day out.
Anyway enough. Thanks for the good observations.
SCB
Why don't we put it another way? "Note that both people involved were guys. By its traditional discrimination against women (who more civilized) in favor of men (more aggressive and violent), IT is introducing a security risk since men will take more chances." It makes as much sense as the above "these damn' kids screw up all the time" rant (and before some /. feminist says "you go girl!", I should add that I'm male, 23, and consider both arguments completely idiotic).
Actually, I wouldn't be terribly surprised if the counter-point you offer to try to discredit my argument is, itself, true. By the way, my observation is derived not from a single article but experience from my experience working in IT. The article simply providing an interesting context.
IT is a younger field, therefore more IT guys are younger. Granted, it's been around for the last 40 years, but for about half of that time, you needed a lot of money to get a computer. The generation that got to use truly cheap computers came of age just ten years ago. It's natural that there is now an explosion of younger IT workers.
I'm not sure what relavence this statement has to my point. This is all true on the face of it, but neither supports nor detracts from my hypothesis. What I will say, assuming your statement is true, is that the impact mistakes made by anyone in IT has the potential to be greater than at any time in history. Would, 40 years ago, a couple of 20somethings have had the tools to commit a crime that impacted as many 93 million people? What if he weren't at AOL, but Bank of America?
Marital, family, religious, and civic ties to society, IMHO, are much more likely to keep people honest than their age, even counting the fact that younger workers may be less experienced.
Thank you for help in supporting my point. Much of my point is predicated on the fact that younger people are more likely not to have the same connections and convictions that older people do. How many professional 24 year olds are married as compared to say married 45 year olds? How many have their own families (a strong connection than to just mom & dad)? Never did I mention experience: I was careful to say mature.
And if you don't believe me, check a newspaper and see how many older, powerful men are at this moment headed to Club Fed because they weren't any better at ethics than the AOL dimwits mentioned in this article. Most of Congress is composed of older men, and I'd almost rather have Sanford Wallace (of Cyber Promotions infamy) representing me than some of these folks.
I find trouble in using the newspaper to uncover trends, there are too many other factors to consider them useful sources of this kind of information. Older people are more likely to have roles in more sophisticated, larger stakes games. But what we don't see in the papers are how many people are being put away for $50K in embezzlement here, $75K in kickbacks there... in fact, if it weren't for the 93 million users, you would probably have never heard of this either in the papers. I still maintain that younger workers will have higher security issues as compared to the population as a whole. By the way... how many older people do we hear about getting put away writing viruses and worms? Don't confuse high profile for quantity or even severity.
I work in a government agency, so I see a large proportion of older workers. Some are smart, hard workers; others are idiots. I see no larger proportion of idiots among younger people than I do among older ones, nor do I see any indication that the intelligence or ethics of the old have anything to do with the fact that they are old.
Don't get me wrong... avarice comes in all ages. But the selection process for congress is slanted to those that are most likely to be less than honest and government workers are place, in my experience, by other less than optimal hiring methodologies. Though, sure there are older idiots as well. But I find the young, smart, but overly ambitious types to be the ones to keep an eye on.
Well argued nonetheless. And for the record I'm an old guy in tech terms... mid 30s!
Cheers!
SCB
Ahh... youth :-)
An interesting way to look at this is consider the age of the people involved. The engineer was 24 and the Casino guy was 21. IT, notorious for age discrimination in favor of young, brighteyed types, may actually be introducing a greater security risk with the practice.
I remember when I was in my early 20s and lets just say I didn't have a lot to lose... and everything to gain from taking a chance here and there. By placing less mature workers into places where personal ethics and great responsibility collide, you're asking for issues just like this.
I don't mean in indict all younger workers. Certainly most are good employees; I've hired many younger people without trouble. But as a percentage of population, the younger I expect to make more 'mistakes' both simple errors and errors in judgment.
My two bits...
SCB
* Mozilla Firefox 0.8 and newer (download: Windows Macintosh Linux )
Sure about that?
Prop 13 is basically a measure, that was submitted to the voters of California, that said: property taxes will be taxed according to the value of the home at the time of purchase and that rate won't fluctuate over time with the housing market. So if I bought a house 20 years ago, 20 years later I will still be taxed at the value it was 20 years ago... not the current value. I believe this only applied to residential property. (All of this should be fact checked... I didn't look it up prior to posting).
Prop 13 was before my time, but here's my understanding of what why it came to be. Essentially local governments started taxing property abusively in California while at the same time housing prices were going up fast due to population growth. This had the effect of causing taxes to go so high that someone that had bought a house years ago could no longer afford the taxes as the years went by.
The citizens of California signed petitions to put a limit on property tax rates... this was Proposition 13 on the ballot (which is what I describe above).
Another strange part about California property taxes is that the local (county) governments collect the tax, but the taxes actually end up in the state general treasury. The state then redistributes a portion of the taxes out to the communities in a so-called 'fair' way.
The permitting process is a different issue. I'd like to see the substantiation that building fees are directly related to Prop 13 or that they wouldn't have increased to ridiculous levels without Prop 13.
The tripling of the car tax (a yearly tax in addition to sales tax) didn't happen due to any restrictions on sales tax or any other fee. They simply wanted more money to fuel the spending spree they've been on for the past 6-8 years.
Forget about the gandmother argument... the undiciplined rates at which property taxes were increasing was bad for everyone. Just because these same tax and spenders may find other ways to extract their pound of flesh isn't a valid basis for condeming prop 13.
Steve
A Californian.. By Choice!
well said!
This is business as usual in California.
While I don't disagree necessarily on the move against SBC.... ...I have to say California is often times a step ahead of the country. A step ahead in mostly wrong, silly, stupid and self destructive ways.
Take the Gmail legislative initiatives here in good old CA. While SBC is for all practical purposes a legal monopoly, Google is not... especially for email. Yet our enlightened legislature still feels the need to regulate it to death. First step in the country, but totaly unnecessary and harmful to a California business known to employ many of the best and brightest.
So a step ahead... yes... we'll go over the cliff before everyone else.
Truth be told: If you want free speech-- opt out and continue to use SMTP based mail servers.
However, just because someone wants to say something anonymously doesn't mean I have to listen. Most mail servers are private property and the standards/protocols used on them is matter of choice of the operators. (Of course, make a bad choice and things won't work everywhere.)
Whilst I support anonymous free speech in principle, I don't have to support all modes of it nor finance it. Indeed, other rights would be trumped by preventing me from validating a user/server's identity: I have rights of association, rights of privacy, and rights to enjoy my property.
You raise a valid point... but the open relay part was less my argument for change than was developing some means by which mail servers can reliably identify each other. Otherwise I agree, we're not talking open relays. (True I might have mentioned it in the post).
A well constructed server validation scheme would cut down the problems with trojaned machines since the trojans would not be validated (again in a well constructed scheme). This would avoid penalizing the honest users (such as myself) that for whatever silly reason want to run their own services.
Cheers!
SCB
I just realized. The solution isn't for carriers (which is all I view comcast as) to block any services. A better email infrastructure is what is required.
We've now heard tales of domain keys, SPF what have you. These types of measures are the only ones that will really solve for the problem.
There is no reason for mail servers to be anonymous or blindly relay. Mail admins should also decide whether to accept email from anonymous sources or not. By bringing to bear some sort of digitial signature solution for servers and even users, you would be able to put a serious speedbump for spammers.
Punishing independent minded people such as myself is not correct.
Actually, their reps have said during calls that mail servers are not officially supported, but that they willingly turn a blind eye.
Given that they are the only broadband I can get and I do run a mail server for any host of reasons; the targeted approach would be the only acceptable method.
The premise of the article description is wrong.
Leaving your network wide open doesn't increase your security, it decreases it. What you do in decrease your culpability for anything that happens with your systems.
Of course, this can backfire you want to shop online or do anything else that requires a small measure of privacy.... afterall, your security has been decreased!
Cheers!
SCB
Shoot! The secret's out.
Hi--
I use to work for Virgin Entertainment Group, Inc. (the Virgin Megastores in the US) and other retailers where listening stations were involved.
Really you have to consider how many people will comoe through the exhibit, average age, how long the exhibit will run etc. to understand what solution is best or to really cost it out.
So if you go with $15 dollar headphones, will they stand up to being put on, taken off, people tugging on them, etc. or will you be replacing one set a day due to breakage? This naturally means each set doesn't cost $15, but each station costs somewhat higher than that. You really need to think along these lines to compare costs. Especially given your condition of minimal oversight; that means people will be more inclined to abuse them (or rather less inhibited to, and yes even the queit museum crowd will abuse equipment as we saw in our classical departments.)
You could source the sound from a single computer, but you would need multiple output channels (probably multiple sound cards) and software to support it. Other than the pre-packaged solutions, I'm not so familiar with what's available in this category.
If you want to go cheaper could you not use actual speakers, with partitions and volume settings such that there isn't too much bleed over from one sound space to another? Disney actually puts this same kind of concept to effective use on many of their themepark rides. This would eliminate the 'touch' element which usually cause headphones to die in these situations. Of course, not seeing the exhibit, it might not be practical.
Yeah... but if you did it too much, the drive heads would fall out of alignment.
Funny... I still have my old copy of, 'The Anatomy of the 1541 Disk Drive' up on my shelf.
Cheers!
SCB
Sure and after trying to connect to 3 servers that wouldn't let me... I remembered this was the 21st century and let it go.
Yes and when I was that I age I was teaching my computer teachers how to use computers, but that doesn't mean a damn thing. 1) the young often times more easily adapt to complicated technologies than older people, 2) a twelve year old often times doesn't have much better to do than fuck with an IRC client, 3) -Most- 12 year olds don't use IRC because there are more readily available methods (like AOL and IM).
Much of the point is that IRC takes more to get logged in, it takes more to find the client, it takes more to find an IRC server. Finally, you have to go looking for IRC whereas AOL and IM clients are thrust in your face.
I think this best sums up what is at play here:
...god help them if they find USENET.
"The oldest and strongest emotion of mankind is fear. And the oldest and strongest kind of fear is fear of the unknown." -- Lovecraft.
IRC is still more difficult to use than AOL chat rooms and largely the domain of techies. Sure bad stuff happens there because it's not part of the mainstream, but I don't know that it's worse there than anywhere else...
Cheers!
SCB
Well, this isn't a very good test. Really what we learned is how effective one individual can be using google compared to other methods. Even then the tests didn't try to see how this applied to different kinds of information or how these results may have different from a group perspective. Worse still, the results for the author's first question makes me question if the author knew the answers ahead of time and had no way to call a result 'correct' or otherwise.
Also, more comprehensive searches at a library could involve actually having to visit the library... with it's associated drive time.
A good test would have had more questions, more participants and questions selected for a vareity of information types. The premise of the article I think is interesting: what kinds of research is the net really good for? Other than porn, of course, which is a given (try not finding it).
The problem with Google (et al) isn't finding information: it's finding reliable information (for most subjects). There's a hell of a lot of noise out there.
Cheers!
SCB