As the webmaster of NoJailForPot.com, I have had a number of people ask me to remove their names for exactly this reason (which after verification of identity, I always do). The interesting thing about a lot of people who believe society would be better off with decriminalization of marijuana, many like myself don't even smoke pot...
(by the way, yes I know the html sucks, we're working on a new site that has fully valid code...)
That's probably it. They are probably looking to gather names of more intelligent and educated arabs. These arabs are the ones most likely to be influential if the muslim community in the US ever gets its act together and starts lobbying and pushing for change.
If only that where true. You give the policy makers too mych credit, I think.
Uh, you do know the difference between decryption and translation? No, I guess you don't.
So, I'm guessing from your flippant remarks that you have no idea what the NSA does? Really, neither do I for the most part, but I sort of speculate that code breaking is not the only thing they do, for example we do know they also bug phones... Maybe, just maybe, they also employ linguists? It's possible, you know.
Why don't they put the NSA's crack team on ti, they seem to be good at this sort of thing. Or they couls hire translators? Maybe they are just trying to ferret out people who show too much interest in these documents?
Neither MDA nor Boeing conducted required Information Assurance (IA) training for users before they were granted access to the network, the report stated.
Having been involved with the Air Force since 1985 and done my shair of IA traing, I can say it is basically worthless and more or less comes down to "Don't give out your password, or run software from home".
I didn't say no good developers want to do OSS. I said very few good developers want to work for free. That includes OSS, which is not synonymous with working for free. The guys at IBM and RedHat (and many many other less "high profile" shops) are certainly not working on OSS for free, and I seriously question if they would give up their generally upper-middle class life-style to do so. Alan Cox does not work for free, and though I don't know for sure, I'll bet Mr. Card is paid for his work as well. Even the Socialist pretentious blowhard RMS does not work for free.
So, where does that fit into your idea of "few people want to give away their labor for free"?I don't care what newsgroup you where part of back in to day, or how many projects you have at Sourceforge, it's irrelevant. Out of all developers, almost certainly all *good* developers, the number that wish to work for free (beer if you wish, or whatever), is small. I'm sorry it doesn't fit with you political views, and honestly, if more people leaned in a Socialist direction, the world might be a better place. But that's just not the way it is.
I have always wondered what those guys suing for anything _really_ think ? For example, does this guy honestly thought Google was violating his copyright ? Or did he sue just to give a try and maybe obtain easy money via financial compensation ?
According to the ZDNet write-up, he does business as the Snodgrass Publishing Group, who have some interesting offerings at a site they own called "cybersheet.com". This is the top result from a Google search for "Snodgrass Publishing Group"
He sued over Google indexing and achieving a USNET post of his, so this means he isn't that technologically ignorant. To me, his suit smells like a cash grab. But it's also good he lost because it sets a useful precedent.
Like most propaganda, anecdotal evidence rarely holds up to true scrutiny. Seriously, I think inovation does still take place, but as technology marches on, that inovation moves from the macro level to the micro level. Such things rarely sound exciting and Earth shaking, yet ofter really are. And, they are all being patented and folded into consumer products.
...I was mainsly saying that doesn't make any sense to single out Vint Cerf.
I think it does. Vint Cerf advertises himself as a forward thinker, a Renaissance Man of the Internet. But his agreement to sell Dot Com to VeriSign shows that he has fallen into the Greed Trap.
Doesn't Go Daddy make a lot of money on the (in my opinion) shitty practice of after market domain name sales (registering a domain name that you will never use in order to sell it at a profit to someone who does need it or will use it)?
Go Daddy doesn't ask its customers what they plan to do with their domains. Are you suggesting that people should be required to justify their intended domain use before they can buy it? Do we set up some committee to decide who is worthy and who is not? Sounds like a big can of worms to me...
So would GoDaddy have turned down the same contract offer? Would Network Solutions have turned ICANN's offer down? Would ANY registrar have turned down this offer?
It would be a difficult decision. But that ethical dilemma does not make it right. So they are all greedy fuckers, we should let them fight over the meat? The meat does not belong to any of them it should not be given to any of them to exploit.
...it will go a long way in providing the United Nations with the ammunition it needs to begin taking control of the Internet...
Some people think that would be a good idea. What with the current ICANN fiasco and the specter of tired Internet, maybe having the UN take over would be a good idea? It's clear the Corporate America has some ideas for the Internet, is this what we really want? (Yes I know, some people say the Internet does not belong to the United States. But clearly, ICANN does...)
There is something very unhealthy going on at ICANN, and I just can imagine any reasonable explanations other than money changing hands over riding commonsense and objectivity. I'm very disappointed in Vint Cerf, my opinion of him has lost a lot of ground over this.
Slashdot Mirror
(by the way, yes I know the html sucks, we're working on a new site that has fully valid code...)
If only that where true. You give the policy makers too mych credit, I think.
So, I'm guessing from your flippant remarks that you have no idea what the NSA does? Really, neither do I for the most part, but I sort of speculate that code breaking is not the only thing they do, for example we do know they also bug phones... Maybe, just maybe, they also employ linguists? It's possible, you know.
Why don't they put the NSA's crack team on ti, they seem to be good at this sort of thing. Or they couls hire translators? Maybe they are just trying to ferret out people who show too much interest in these documents?
Let's just hope it's not the same thing that happened to Spirit Rover...
http://origin.mars5.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/2/f/7 82/2F195787507EFFAQ67P1209L0M1.JPG
Yes, it looks like it's locked up. (have a look at the pic)
Having been involved with the Air Force since 1985 and done my shair of IA traing, I can say it is basically worthless and more or less comes down to "Don't give out your password, or run software from home".
I didn't say no good developers want to do OSS. I said very few good developers want to work for free. That includes OSS, which is not synonymous with working for free. The guys at IBM and RedHat (and many many other less "high profile" shops) are certainly not working on OSS for free, and I seriously question if they would give up their generally upper-middle class life-style to do so. Alan Cox does not work for free, and though I don't know for sure, I'll bet Mr. Card is paid for his work as well. Even the Socialist pretentious blowhard RMS does not work for free.
So, where does that fit into your idea of "few people want to give away their labor for free"?I don't care what newsgroup you where part of back in to day, or how many projects you have at Sourceforge, it's irrelevant. Out of all developers, almost certainly all *good* developers, the number that wish to work for free (beer if you wish, or whatever), is small. I'm sorry it doesn't fit with you political views, and honestly, if more people leaned in a Socialist direction, the world might be a better place. But that's just not the way it is.
No, I mean rarely *want* to work for free. Very few people, even those who can afford it, choose to give away their labor.
People often code out of passion, but rarely want to work for free.
20 Million should be enough for anyone. Who would need more?
He's in the porn business. He sued for publicity.
According to the ZDNet write-up, he does business as the Snodgrass Publishing Group, who have some interesting offerings at a site they own called "cybersheet.com". This is the top result from a Google search for "Snodgrass Publishing Group"
He sued over Google indexing and achieving a USNET post of his, so this means he isn't that technologically ignorant. To me, his suit smells like a cash grab. But it's also good he lost because it sets a useful precedent.
When ever there is a product recall, will it make fron page at Slashdot?
Queue anti-PHP jokes...
Like most propaganda, anecdotal evidence rarely holds up to true scrutiny. Seriously, I think inovation does still take place, but as technology marches on, that inovation moves from the macro level to the micro level. Such things rarely sound exciting and Earth shaking, yet ofter really are. And, they are all being patented and folded into consumer products.
I think it does. Vint Cerf advertises himself as a forward thinker, a Renaissance Man of the Internet. But his agreement to sell Dot Com to VeriSign shows that he has fallen into the Greed Trap.
Mainly, I'm saying I think money changed hands in unsavory ways.
Go Daddy doesn't ask its customers what they plan to do with their domains. Are you suggesting that people should be required to justify their intended domain use before they can buy it? Do we set up some committee to decide who is worthy and who is not? Sounds like a big can of worms to me...
It would be a difficult decision. But that ethical dilemma does not make it right. So they are all greedy fuckers, we should let them fight over the meat? The meat does not belong to any of them it should not be given to any of them to exploit.
Some people think that would be a good idea. What with the current ICANN fiasco and the specter of tired Internet, maybe having the UN take over would be a good idea? It's clear the Corporate America has some ideas for the Internet, is this what we really want? (Yes I know, some people say the Internet does not belong to the United States. But clearly, ICANN does...)
There is something very unhealthy going on at ICANN, and I just can imagine any reasonable explanations other than money changing hands over riding commonsense and objectivity. I'm very disappointed in Vint Cerf, my opinion of him has lost a lot of ground over this.
Yes, but it is unlikely the Brits would break an agreement with us.