Earlier today I made a reference to "cookie camouflage", and got a very apt response about a program which runs in background as a browser. In this case, the solution would also be software - not software that blocks, but GPS etc. software which submits camouflage (false) data. http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2393464&cid=37178870 The thread identifies a legitimate attempt at camouflage strategy http://news.cnet.com/8301-13880_3-9950126-68.html
The point is that people's tolerance level to COMPLAIN about something is much lower than their tolerance level to DO SOMETHING.
Invisibility is futile. We need fake cookies, or randomly collected cookies, so that the advertising value of a cookie falls, i.e. "information inflation". Sure, Vehix knows now that I was car shopping, but what if EVERYONE had a copy of the Vehix search on their Html? What if in addition to the car I was really searching for, my browser held a record of every other car I wasn't interested in? Why can't we just run a random program, searching for random words, in the background, loading up on Zombie cookies from everywhere? "I'm Spartacus" http://retroworks.blogspot.com/2010/09/simpler-ideas-cookie-camouflage-digital.html
According to Wikipedia, the company was split up into many pieces, with different pieces having rights to the name. Hasbro owns the games, a French company owns part of it, etc. Makes me wonder who is paying the "Atari" lawyer. I guess I'd bet on Hasbro, they can be pretty grumpy about playing games with their name.
Newsflash: USA has under 10% unemployment, and statistically, about 20% of humans are bad employees. These three articles are all basically saying that Asians are competitive. The same kinds of articles were circulating in the 1980s as Japan made better and better automobiles.
When the Red Sox improve, it doesn't mean the Yankees are getting worse. USA got used to under 10% unemployment (everybody with a glove making the team), but now Asia is catching up, just as Japan caught up with us in auto manufacturing. Isn't it possible that stronger competition will make us a better team even if we lose more often?
Keeping Asus from making Kindles, or Japan from making cars, or Africa from growing cotton, isn't the solution. The rest of the world doesn't have to do badly for USA to do well.
Unless the teacher agrees to let every student be their friend, I can see how it would create problems if the teacher was selective. I would find it easier as a teacher if there was a policy keeping me from accepting several dozen friend requests per year ("Sorry, Billy, I can't accept your Farmville invitation, state rules.") While the ban probably wasn't a good idea in hindsight, I can imagine a thoughtful person supporting Missouri in the policy, and can imagine a lot of teachers groaning if it's reversed.
If I patented "if then" logic lines, then I could sue the court for using my patented logic either way. Unless they generated randomized rulings. Which sometimes does appear to be the case. If on the other hand, I was issued a patent for a process of applying for patents, then I'd be protected from any other patent holder. The court needs to think very hard about applying patents to mental processes.
This does not appear to be a "blind" test (humans searching should be randomized, not know which engine they are using). These stats don't show, for example, whether the person choosing Bing may likely to be the same type of person to click through earlier, or whether the high quality photos on bing lead a person to have more confidence in earlier search results. While it might be enough evidence to suggest the hypothesis that Bing is more "effective", it fails to support a "claim" of such. I would be interested in the results of a blind test of random individuals with the search engine cloaked, not interested in peoples hypotheses of causes of historical data.
He might have brought us 4G wireless by 1998. With his second $100B, he may have cured cancer. While I share the/. community's disgust with patent trolls, SLAPP lawsuits, and (especially) patent exhaustion doctrine extentions, I think you also have to ask what would have happened if Thomas Edison hadn't patented the light bulb. Would he still have raised the money to bring it to scale, and would we still have created demand for utilities? Or would more people be in the dark? Is it the "freeness" of the web which made internet widespread, or is it the money that was to be made by people selling computers?
The quote from the author about "mind mining" might be true of all intellectual property combined, as a ratio of all finite resource property value. I officially dunno. But stating that a day's stock valuation is evidence of that? Gee, how did Exxon compare to Blockbuster Video ten years ago? How did Exxon compare to TWA thirty years ago? How does De Beers compare to Borders Bookstores? Stock market prices are a snapshot. If Steve Jobs has a heart attack and the stock value plummets, what grand conclusions can we draw about Exxon's future value? Sandcastle stock, selling at low tide.
Mail in programs (like this, and Staples, and Gazelle) are avoiding the heavy lifting. Most of the expense in public "e-waste" recycling programs are the 100+ pound CRT TVs, no one mails those or even boxes them. The computers actually almost pay for themselves, and the small Ipods and ebay-able items really offset the cost of recycling. While I wouldn't criticize Apple per se, mail in programs and cell phone returns are to ewaste recycling infrastructure what plastic surgery is to public health care. Save the publicity for the public recycling programs who manage everything with a cord.
Legally speaking, an "unhackable" security system is starting to resemble an attractive nuisance. Design utmost security, you are inviting hackers, thereby defeating your trespass claims...
I tried data polluting on FB, tagging myself incorrectly. I even started a Facebook "Data Camouflage" Group http://www.facebook.com/groups/151915044879668/ in order to get other people to mis-tag their images. What I found was that after I mistagged a certain number of friends, etc., that my "tagging" was turned off. I lost the ability to camouflage. That would be concrete evidence that there is "no clear way" to opt-out.
Horizontally, information is getting better and better. We can find information and news in many countries and languages within a few keystrokes. Vertically, the inflationary impact of "free news" is decimating the editors./. is free, but the model of submitting stories which are weakly edited and commenting on them is going to be correction-based after publication.
I read the NYT version of the article. I seems like we need more vocabulary to define "attack" vs. "tresspass" vs. "spying" vs. "wikileaking". The UN should by all rights be FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) accessible, providing this information to everyone. For five years, someone peeked through agency files. I wouldn't expect anything I sent to the UN to remain a secret.
If we care enough about this, we should all follow the example of the Freedom March... everyone should join, and supply "I am Sparticus" mugshots. Providing false data creates inflation in the data security industry. You can do more damage to an economy with counterfeiting than you can by burning currency. My problem is, why do I care? If I accept that the people getting mugshots are drunk drivers etc., I am not motivated to "march" for them.
Part of defense security is strategic leaks of "dis-information". Who knows whether these are "Area 51" leaks (USA acting like it was covering up flying saucers in order to confuse Russians)? To borrow a quote from a famous battle of Little Big Horn (from Little Big Man - Custer to Hoffman):
''Still trying to outsmart me, aren't you, mule-skinner. You want me to think that you don't want me to go down there, but the subtle truth is you really *don't* want me to go down there! ''
I like how they always say "could lead to a cure for Alzheimer's" every time they use genetic engineering to do a nerdy prank. There is need or market demand for glowing dogs, no problem being solved or cost reduced. Sooner or later someone's going to let the DNA loose and nature is going to get hurt.
I agree, but over the longer term think this is blowback from allowing multi-million dollar lawsuits against major corporations in the 1970s and 80s. People with "nothing to lose" began bringing lawsuits (McDonalds! Your coffee is hot!) and the corporations began settling them based on the risk of a ruling going against them. The lawyers are like gun runners, they sell the leverage to either side when it is cheaper to give in than to contest.
Slashdot Mirror
Earlier today I made a reference to "cookie camouflage", and got a very apt response about a program which runs in background as a browser. In this case, the solution would also be software - not software that blocks, but GPS etc. software which submits camouflage (false) data. http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2393464&cid=37178870 The thread identifies a legitimate attempt at camouflage strategy http://news.cnet.com/8301-13880_3-9950126-68.html
The point is that people's tolerance level to COMPLAIN about something is much lower than their tolerance level to DO SOMETHING.
Wow. Yes, a lot like that. I'm not worthy.
Invisibility is futile. We need fake cookies, or randomly collected cookies, so that the advertising value of a cookie falls, i.e. "information inflation". Sure, Vehix knows now that I was car shopping, but what if EVERYONE had a copy of the Vehix search on their Html? What if in addition to the car I was really searching for, my browser held a record of every other car I wasn't interested in? Why can't we just run a random program, searching for random words, in the background, loading up on Zombie cookies from everywhere? "I'm Spartacus" http://retroworks.blogspot.com/2010/09/simpler-ideas-cookie-camouflage-digital.html
According to Wikipedia, the company was split up into many pieces, with different pieces having rights to the name. Hasbro owns the games, a French company owns part of it, etc. Makes me wonder who is paying the "Atari" lawyer. I guess I'd bet on Hasbro, they can be pretty grumpy about playing games with their name.
Newsflash: USA has under 10% unemployment, and statistically, about 20% of humans are bad employees. These three articles are all basically saying that Asians are competitive. The same kinds of articles were circulating in the 1980s as Japan made better and better automobiles.
When the Red Sox improve, it doesn't mean the Yankees are getting worse. USA got used to under 10% unemployment (everybody with a glove making the team), but now Asia is catching up, just as Japan caught up with us in auto manufacturing. Isn't it possible that stronger competition will make us a better team even if we lose more often?
Keeping Asus from making Kindles, or Japan from making cars, or Africa from growing cotton, isn't the solution. The rest of the world doesn't have to do badly for USA to do well.
Unless the teacher agrees to let every student be their friend, I can see how it would create problems if the teacher was selective. I would find it easier as a teacher if there was a policy keeping me from accepting several dozen friend requests per year ("Sorry, Billy, I can't accept your Farmville invitation, state rules.") While the ban probably wasn't a good idea in hindsight, I can imagine a thoughtful person supporting Missouri in the policy, and can imagine a lot of teachers groaning if it's reversed.
For sale now, no reserve.
If I patented "if then" logic lines, then I could sue the court for using my patented logic either way. Unless they generated randomized rulings. Which sometimes does appear to be the case. If on the other hand, I was issued a patent for a process of applying for patents, then I'd be protected from any other patent holder. The court needs to think very hard about applying patents to mental processes.
C'mon, this is a repackaged duplication. http://apple.slashdot.org/story/11/08/10/1928206/Wall-Street-Software-More-Valuable-Than-Oil
And THAT one was really not adding much to this. http://slashdot.org/index2.pl?fhfilter=apple+exxon Slashdot, make another pot of coffee.
This does not appear to be a "blind" test (humans searching should be randomized, not know which engine they are using). These stats don't show, for example, whether the person choosing Bing may likely to be the same type of person to click through earlier, or whether the high quality photos on bing lead a person to have more confidence in earlier search results. While it might be enough evidence to suggest the hypothesis that Bing is more "effective", it fails to support a "claim" of such. I would be interested in the results of a blind test of random individuals with the search engine cloaked, not interested in peoples hypotheses of causes of historical data.
He might have brought us 4G wireless by 1998. With his second $100B, he may have cured cancer. While I share the /. community's disgust with patent trolls, SLAPP lawsuits, and (especially) patent exhaustion doctrine extentions, I think you also have to ask what would have happened if Thomas Edison hadn't patented the light bulb. Would he still have raised the money to bring it to scale, and would we still have created demand for utilities? Or would more people be in the dark? Is it the "freeness" of the web which made internet widespread, or is it the money that was to be made by people selling computers?
Now THAT would be truly a chick magnet!
The quote from the author about "mind mining" might be true of all intellectual property combined, as a ratio of all finite resource property value. I officially dunno. But stating that a day's stock valuation is evidence of that? Gee, how did Exxon compare to Blockbuster Video ten years ago? How did Exxon compare to TWA thirty years ago? How does De Beers compare to Borders Bookstores? Stock market prices are a snapshot. If Steve Jobs has a heart attack and the stock value plummets, what grand conclusions can we draw about Exxon's future value? Sandcastle stock, selling at low tide.
America, always fighting the last war against squirrels. We need to look forward, it is the flying squirrels who represent the risk tomorrow.
Mail in programs (like this, and Staples, and Gazelle) are avoiding the heavy lifting. Most of the expense in public "e-waste" recycling programs are the 100+ pound CRT TVs, no one mails those or even boxes them. The computers actually almost pay for themselves, and the small Ipods and ebay-able items really offset the cost of recycling. While I wouldn't criticize Apple per se, mail in programs and cell phone returns are to ewaste recycling infrastructure what plastic surgery is to public health care. Save the publicity for the public recycling programs who manage everything with a cord.
The article neglects to mention the google-car's previous DUI. Influence of.....?
Legally speaking, an "unhackable" security system is starting to resemble an attractive nuisance. Design utmost security, you are inviting hackers, thereby defeating your trespass claims...
I tried data polluting on FB, tagging myself incorrectly. I even started a Facebook "Data Camouflage" Group http://www.facebook.com/groups/151915044879668/ in order to get other people to mis-tag their images. What I found was that after I mistagged a certain number of friends, etc., that my "tagging" was turned off. I lost the ability to camouflage. That would be concrete evidence that there is "no clear way" to opt-out.
Horizontally, information is getting better and better. We can find information and news in many countries and languages within a few keystrokes. Vertically, the inflationary impact of "free news" is decimating the editors. /. is free, but the model of submitting stories which are weakly edited and commenting on them is going to be correction-based after publication.
I read the NYT version of the article. I seems like we need more vocabulary to define "attack" vs. "tresspass" vs. "spying" vs. "wikileaking". The UN should by all rights be FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) accessible, providing this information to everyone. For five years, someone peeked through agency files. I wouldn't expect anything I sent to the UN to remain a secret.
If we care enough about this, we should all follow the example of the Freedom March... everyone should join, and supply "I am Sparticus" mugshots. Providing false data creates inflation in the data security industry. You can do more damage to an economy with counterfeiting than you can by burning currency. My problem is, why do I care? If I accept that the people getting mugshots are drunk drivers etc., I am not motivated to "march" for them.
Part of defense security is strategic leaks of "dis-information". Who knows whether these are "Area 51" leaks (USA acting like it was covering up flying saucers in order to confuse Russians)? To borrow a quote from a famous battle of Little Big Horn (from Little Big Man - Custer to Hoffman):
''Still trying to outsmart me, aren't you, mule-skinner. You want me to think that you don't want me to go down there, but the subtle truth is you really *don't* want me to go down there! ''
Duh.
I like how they always say "could lead to a cure for Alzheimer's" every time they use genetic engineering to do a nerdy prank. There is need or market demand for glowing dogs, no problem being solved or cost reduced. Sooner or later someone's going to let the DNA loose and nature is going to get hurt.
I agree, but over the longer term think this is blowback from allowing multi-million dollar lawsuits against major corporations in the 1970s and 80s. People with "nothing to lose" began bringing lawsuits (McDonalds! Your coffee is hot!) and the corporations began settling them based on the risk of a ruling going against them. The lawyers are like gun runners, they sell the leverage to either side when it is cheaper to give in than to contest.