"This new 'home appliance' evidently keeps track of the number of twinkies its owner consumes. Consumer innovation? Or geek profiling plot by the FBI?"
I strongly disagree with that. He's actually doing quite the reverse - asking others not to use emotionally-loaded language which manipulates people psychologically without their conscious consent. The terms he and RMS have chosen are devoid of emotionl content. If we use neutral terms to discuss the issues then we are far more likely to get to the heart of the matter and reach an agreement.
I disagree. I would take the back door. What disappeared first? Slavery or the confederate flags flown from state capitols?
Not that the word "piracy" is a symbol, it's just kind of a "you lay your weapons down, we'll give up nothing, then we'll talk" kind of thing. The british got in a pickle asking the IRA to do that, but, really, peace negotiations have been carried out with revolutionary groups that *haven't* laid down their weapons, and they've went fine.
Furthermore, I kind of believe that the words "piracy" or "pirates" are mostly frequently associated with either the words "software," "penzeance,"(sp?) or another I won't repeat. As for Worrying About Offending People Because of Their Views on the Nature of Software Distribution, don't ask.
Moral : asking people to stop saying "piracy" is far less bang for the buck than talking to them about real issues. And I Guarantee that to be true for at least one person;)
Hemos : I could sure use some nachos. (Pearl Jam music kicks in) Cut to interview with Taco : "Hemos sure wanted some nachos." Cut to interview with Worf : "Hemos didn't realize that he was *really* gettin' down on my Klingon Ancestors when he asked for those nachos." back to scene : Hemos "I just remembered I left some under the couch." (Pearl Jam fade out, Backstreet fades in...)
Piracy is a perfectly acceptable word to people who feel that the act carries pejorative connotations. Not to be rude, but no propensity of corrections will ever change minds.
What you're asking is akin to informing "pro-life" activists that they should really call themselves "pro-government-mandate." Whatever your views on this matter, it's kind of absurd. What you're really demanding is for people to change their language to suit your own particular ethical/political viewpoints.
Have your own morals! Embrace them! Argue for them! Just don't go all linguistic-war on people that don't.
On the other hand, the reason I most like slashdot is that it's got personality.
Instead of [science article], we have [science article]Hemos : this science is crap.
If our boys are going to have artistic license, and add some personality to the page, do you expect them to Keep Quiet When One Of Their Friends Gets A Potential Movie Deal? I wouldn't. Would you?
You'd be appealing to a lot of young professionals with lots of disposable income.
There are lots of easy plot ideas. The guys meet one of the "first post" guys, who turns out to be some famous celebrity (preferably an attractive female one). Hemo's hamster gets killed by crawling into a computer, the guys have an adventure replacing it, etc.
Eventually, however, they'd end up transferring Lt. Worf to the geek compound to boost ratings.
It would turn out to be a boon to the writers, who finally get the chance to eliminate Jon Katz' character, despite his immense popularity as a result of being played by michael richards. ("Katz!")
Worf : Katz! In writing these articles you insult my Klingon Ancestors! [Worf cleaves Katz]
Their job is to hunt down government contracts and get them.
I would guess that SAIC probably competed against Secure Computing to get the contract. Obviously, if they did, they lost.
My possibly true assumption : SAIC bid, possibly using their own tool as evidence of their prowess. For whatever reason, the NSA *still* passed them up on the deal.
You mean like the Census Long Form? (Oops, that's not a company. Never mind....)
Ummm, I think I was talking about aggregating and disclosing personal data without your permission, not asking you for personal data with your permission and then not disclosing it as Part of A Large Number (#,###,### people Speak Only Spanish At Home). Sorry if I didn't make myself transparent.
Generally, unless you're kevin mitnick, you have more to fear from criminals and unethical people than from the government.
One cannot draw a firm distinction between groups which overlap so extensively.
"Oh yes, since I had No Idea that any unethical people or criminals are running any part of the government, you must be correct!" Nobody claims that. I simply believe that the government is composed of mostly non-corrupt people (like any large organization) and frankly has a lot more crappy laws governing itself than governing the real world. Why did Red Hat have to team with another company to market itself to the government? It's hiring an expert in government regulations -- acquisitions and contracts.
It is perhaps not Big Brother we should be worried about, but big browser," said New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer. "We need to be fearful that the aggregation of information, if it is misused, is very terrifying."
That perhaps people are fearful of the government (All of Slashdot Except Me), but perhaps they have more to fear from some guy who steals their credit card number. Or a company that aggregates legally available information that, when brought together, violates privacy, then distributes it.
Generally, unless you're kevin mitnick, you have more to fear from criminals and unethical people than from the government. A novel idea, I'm sure.
Even though anti-abortion activists call themselves "Pro-Life," how come you've never heard anyone call themselves "Pro-Death"? How about "pro-choice" opponents calling themselves "pro-mandate"?
The point is, nobody would ever, ever, ever use the word "privacy" as something to get rid of, except maybe when dealing with prisoners, companies, or politicians. (When the word "privacy" suggests something inherently evil)
The case reno cited was people's credit card numbers being revealed. Are you advocating this? Or are you suggesting we slashdot the hackers to prevent this from happening?
Notice how the article emphasized one (totalitarian) law enforcement agency.
Interpol, Hello? Back when international crime had to involve people or contraband Physically Crossing borders this was necessary. Why wouldn't it be that much more necessary on the internet?
You know, I just read the email again... (honestly) was it a joke? I'm stupid. Sorry:P
It's kind of like picking the best comedian of Monty Python. Get some five-sided dice, and make sure the contest lasts for at least five years.
Really, I would hate to be the person that would have to pick between Linus, RMS, and ESR.
As for the whole "controversial-so-we-shouldn't-nominate-them" thing, come on. Is there anyone who can sit around all day and talk about linux and not make about everybody mad? No. People that don't make people mad Aren't Talking About Everything. That's fine, but it doesn't necessarily make you a great advocate.
A guy from the one hacked company had hired one of the global hell hackers as a consultant after he was hacked.
The security guy's justification was that if he had turned the hacker in, he would have become a target of global hell.
Furthermore, he felt that since he had paid one global hell hacker, he wouldn't be attacked by anyone else in the group.
Two Thoughts:
1. Holy racketeering batman. Say what you want about whether or not hacking systems is ok, but doing it to extort money from people is unjustifiable.
2. Stupid sysadmins who pay hackers are idiots. This is like paying off the mafia and keeping your mouth shut about it. Sure, you'll probably be safe. But you've just encouraged them to use the same tactics against other companies,insured their existence FOREVER, and you're going to have them on your a** that whole time.
All their fellow hardliners (Russia doesn't have just two parties, like we do) lost big. So while the communists did well, they now have less influence because their traditional political allies are kaput.
I feel there is a huge difference between "censorship," as in I Don't Want To See A Person Killed On The Evening News, and "Censorship," as in "we don't want people to hear about (insert random dogma.)"
While you may find the lines blurry, I do not. I wouldn't mind if my hypothetical kids read all about dangerous political ideas. I would mind if my children are exposed to violence or pornography. I don't believe *at all* that these things are "relative to the situation." I'm also unwilling to subscribe to the unoffical NRA motto ("give 'em an inch...").
My question is, do you see a difference between these? Do you feel that all children everywhere should be subjected to all sorts of pornography and violence rather than, by some horrible oversight, they aren't exposed to somebody's political viewpoints? Is there any possibility of either of your organizations reaching a consensus with your "censorware" opponents?
I'm certain I haven't been the first person to bring this up, but I couldn't really find any docs on your websites about it...
Unless its illegal to try to fool these cameras then let's have fun. Pretend that you're about to steal your own car.
Yeah, you'll sure show them who's boss!!
Umm, if you parked your car in the parking lot, theoretically, the whole reason this system is in place is to keep *your car* from being stolen, and to keep *you* from being assaulted. What you're suggesting is like prank calling 911 for giggles.
While it will certainly be abused (everything is), this is just another expert system. Store detectives can tell you who's gonna shoplift. If shoplifters didn't all act similarly, you would probably never be able to catch them. This system just simulates the abilities of humans to recognize suspicious behavior.
XML will allow software written to Microsoft's Com object model to interact with non-Windows objects. In essence, Microsoft is replacing the DCOM RPC messaging technology with an XML/HTTP technology that allows for remote method invocation.
It nearly sounds like Microsoft is moving from a semi-proprietary technology to a non-proprietary technology. Maybe the millenium will be the end of the world. I probably just misunderstood something.
I think the problem with patenting business strategies lies in the non-evolutionary nature of it.
Mapquest was (I believe) the first online map engine. Mapblast came along, it does the same sort of thing, but it's a superior product. (don't argue with me about the previous if I'm wrong, I'm just trying to make a point.) If mapquest had patented the idea of having a map online (I don't really know if they have or not), we would be stuck with crappy Mapquest until the patent ran out, or until someone came along with enough money to start a new business *and* license the patent, which could be a long time.
When the business strategy is nearly the product, (you can buy the same book ten different places on the web, so you use the easiest one) only allowing the original inventors to use a strategy stifles innovation. It's like the first bookstore that thought to put a coffeeshop in it would sue every other one that did it. You could argue for something like that, but traditionally that hasn't been patent fodder.
Bookselling online is obviously different from an online service (like the map businesses), but I think the analogy extends. I think the bookseller with the best prices and best marketing strategy (not the best totally original strategy, just the best strategy) should be able to be the best bookseller, not the bookseller with the best patents.
p.s. if think that if Amazon were smart, they would have just found a way to license their software to all the other booksellers that were slow to come online. It would have really fattened their profits (if they have even started making them yet).
Have any of you considered pointing this out to B&N? If what you say is true (I'm not doubting your veracity -- just IANAL), I'm sure they would be more than happy to get the patent overturned for you.
I am firmly of the belief that public companies are inherently evil.
This evilness is especially disturbing to observe in companies we think/thought are/were cool. It seems like once a company goes public, it loses its soul -- the purpose of the company is then to make as much money as possible for the shareholders. Obviously, you have to be somewhat ethical to make money -- you must keep your employees and customers, and you must behave according to the law to keep from being involved in lawsuits.
Unfortunately, it's very good business strategy to file stupid lawsuits against people because they might infringe on a stupid patent you hold that stupid people shouldn't have issued you in the first place. This sort of stupid lawsuit is now just another tool of a "successful business." Suits probably have friggin' seminars on it.
(After all, the British are involved in the SIGINT project, and any loss of intelligence, which could be profitable to them, would not be good.)
I think you may be referring the the (mythical or infamous, depending on who you ask) echelon project. SIGINT is shorthand for Signals Intelligence, i.e. the art of listening into your enemies communications, which nearly every military in the world does. (you can tell the ones that don't, because they're dead.) If echelon exists it would be SIGINT, but all SIGINT is not echelon.
Slashdot Mirror
"This new 'home appliance' evidently keeps track of the number of twinkies its owner consumes. Consumer innovation? Or geek profiling plot by the FBI?"
language which manipulates people psychologically without their conscious consent. The terms he and RMS
have chosen are devoid of emotionl content. If we use neutral terms to discuss the issues then we are far more
likely to get to the heart of the matter and reach an agreement.
I disagree. I would take the back door. What disappeared first? Slavery or the confederate flags flown from state capitols?
Not that the word "piracy" is a symbol, it's just kind of a "you lay your weapons down, we'll give up nothing, then we'll talk" kind of thing. The british got in a pickle asking the IRA to do that, but, really, peace negotiations have been carried out with revolutionary groups that *haven't* laid down their weapons, and they've went fine.
Furthermore, I kind of believe that the words "piracy" or "pirates" are mostly frequently associated with either the words "software," "penzeance,"(sp?) or another I won't repeat. As for Worrying About Offending People Because of Their Views on the Nature of Software Distribution, don't ask.
Moral : asking people to stop saying "piracy" is far less bang for the buck than talking to them about real issues. And I Guarantee that to be true for at least one person ;)
1. I find the terms "pirate" and "piracy" offensive, you should be more cautious in your word choice so as to be inoffensive. Thank you!
and then...
2. Oh, by the way, if you disagree with me about abortion rights, you're an idiot!! Moron!! Dork!! Loser!! (hee hee)
p.s. generally the media says "pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion," so neither group really gets called what they want to be called, but, oh well.
Hemos : I could sure use some nachos.
(Pearl Jam music kicks in)
Cut to interview with Taco : "Hemos sure wanted some nachos."
Cut to interview with Worf : "Hemos didn't realize that he was *really* gettin' down on my Klingon Ancestors when he asked for those nachos."
back to scene : Hemos "I just remembered I left some under the couch."
(Pearl Jam fade out, Backstreet fades in...)
Piracy is a perfectly acceptable word to people who feel that the act carries pejorative connotations. Not to be rude, but no propensity of corrections will ever change minds.
What you're asking is akin to informing "pro-life" activists that they should really call themselves "pro-government-mandate." Whatever your views on this matter, it's kind of absurd. What you're really demanding is for people to change their language to suit your own particular ethical/political viewpoints.
Have your own morals! Embrace them! Argue for them! Just don't go all linguistic-war on people that don't.
Instead of [science article], we have [science article]Hemos : this science is crap.
If our boys are going to have artistic license, and add some personality to the page, do you expect them to Keep Quiet When One Of Their Friends Gets A Potential Movie Deal? I wouldn't. Would you?
There are lots of easy plot ideas. The guys meet one of the "first post" guys, who turns out to be some famous celebrity (preferably an attractive female one). Hemo's hamster gets killed by crawling into a computer, the guys have an adventure replacing it, etc.
Eventually, however, they'd end up transferring Lt. Worf to the geek compound to boost ratings.
It would turn out to be a boon to the writers, who finally get the chance to eliminate Jon Katz' character, despite his immense popularity as a result of being played by michael richards. ("Katz!")
Worf : Katz! In writing these articles you insult my Klingon Ancestors! [Worf cleaves Katz]
Their job is to hunt down government contracts and get them.
I would guess that SAIC probably competed against Secure Computing to get the contract. Obviously, if they did, they lost.
My possibly true assumption : SAIC bid, possibly using their own tool as evidence of their prowess. For whatever reason, the NSA *still* passed them up on the deal.
Ummm, I think I was talking about aggregating and disclosing personal data without your permission, not asking you for personal data with your permission and then not disclosing it as Part of A Large Number (#,###,### people Speak Only Spanish At Home). Sorry if I didn't make myself transparent.
Generally, unless you're kevin mitnick, you have more to fear from criminals and unethical people than from the
government.
One cannot draw a firm distinction between groups which overlap so extensively.
"Oh yes, since I had No Idea that any unethical people or criminals are running any part of the government, you must be correct!" Nobody claims that. I simply believe that the government is composed of mostly non-corrupt people (like any large organization) and frankly has a lot more crappy laws governing itself than governing the real world. Why did Red Hat have to team with another company to market itself to the government? It's hiring an expert in government regulations -- acquisitions and contracts.
Eliot Spitzer. "We need to be fearful that the aggregation of information, if it is misused, is very terrifying."
That perhaps people are fearful of the government (All of Slashdot Except Me), but perhaps they have more to fear from some guy who steals their credit card number. Or a company that aggregates legally available information that, when brought together, violates privacy, then distributes it.
Generally, unless you're kevin mitnick, you have more to fear from criminals and unethical people than from the government. A novel idea, I'm sure.
Even though anti-abortion activists call themselves "Pro-Life," how come you've never heard anyone call themselves "Pro-Death"? How about "pro-choice" opponents calling themselves "pro-mandate"?
The point is, nobody would ever, ever, ever use the word "privacy" as something to get rid of, except maybe when dealing with prisoners, companies, or politicians. (When the word "privacy" suggests something inherently evil)
The case reno cited was people's credit card numbers being revealed. Are you advocating this? Or are you suggesting we slashdot the hackers to prevent this from happening?
Notice how the article emphasized one (totalitarian) law enforcement agency.
Interpol, Hello? Back when international crime had to involve people or contraband Physically Crossing borders this was necessary. Why wouldn't it be that much more necessary on the internet?
You know, I just read the email again ... (honestly) was it a joke? I'm stupid. Sorry :P
ugh. Try the Sierra Club instead. Spend your money protecting the environment instead of harassing nuclear submarines.
Really, I would hate to be the person that would have to pick between Linus, RMS, and ESR.
As for the whole "controversial-so-we-shouldn't-nominate-them" thing, come on. Is there anyone who can sit around all day and talk about linux and not make about everybody mad? No. People that don't make people mad Aren't Talking About Everything. That's fine, but it doesn't necessarily make you a great advocate.
p.s. I thought the coolest thing to do for special edition would be to add in some good cursing that would have been too much for the original.
ex. Luke (after blowing up death star) "May the force fscking be with you!"
The security guy's justification was that if he had turned the hacker in, he would have become a target of global hell.
Furthermore, he felt that since he had paid one global hell hacker, he wouldn't be attacked by anyone else in the group.
Two Thoughts:
1. Holy racketeering batman. Say what you want about whether or not hacking systems is ok, but doing it to extort money from people is unjustifiable.
2. Stupid sysadmins who pay hackers are idiots. This is like paying off the mafia and keeping your mouth shut about it. Sure, you'll probably be safe. But you've just encouraged them to use the same tactics against other companies,insured their existence FOREVER, and you're going to have them on your a** that whole time.
Umm, this is like saying "Does Fort Knox deserves greater protection than a convenience store?"
The risk and potential damages are much greater to a big corporation, so it would be kind of stupid to afford it no extra protection. (duh)
All their fellow hardliners (Russia doesn't have just two parties, like we do) lost big. So while the communists did well, they now have less influence because their traditional political allies are kaput.
While you may find the lines blurry, I do not. I wouldn't mind if my hypothetical kids read all about dangerous political ideas. I would mind if my children are exposed to violence or pornography. I don't believe *at all* that these things are "relative to the situation." I'm also unwilling to subscribe to the unoffical NRA motto ("give 'em an inch ...").
My question is, do you see a difference between these? Do you feel that all children everywhere should be subjected to all sorts of pornography and violence rather than, by some horrible oversight, they aren't exposed to somebody's political viewpoints? Is there any possibility of either of your organizations reaching a consensus with your "censorware" opponents?
I'm certain I haven't been the first person to bring this up, but I couldn't really find any docs on your websites about it...
Yeah, you'll sure show them who's boss!!
Umm, if you parked your car in the parking lot, theoretically, the whole reason this system is in place is to keep *your car* from being stolen, and to keep *you* from being assaulted. What you're suggesting is like prank calling 911 for giggles.
While it will certainly be abused (everything is), this is just another expert system. Store detectives can tell you who's gonna shoplift. If shoplifters didn't all act similarly, you would probably never be able to catch them. This system just simulates the abilities of humans to recognize suspicious behavior.
I could check if I wasn't lazy, but does anyone know off the top of their head what organization (if any) defines this kind of stuff?
It nearly sounds like Microsoft is moving from a semi-proprietary technology to a non-proprietary technology. Maybe the millenium will be the end of the world. I probably just misunderstood something.
Mapquest was (I believe) the first online map engine. Mapblast came along, it does the same sort of thing, but it's a superior product. (don't argue with me about the previous if I'm wrong, I'm just trying to make a point.) If mapquest had patented the idea of having a map online (I don't really know if they have or not), we would be stuck with crappy Mapquest until the patent ran out, or until someone came along with enough money to start a new business *and* license the patent, which could be a long time.
When the business strategy is nearly the product, (you can buy the same book ten different places on the web, so you use the easiest one) only allowing the original inventors to use a strategy stifles innovation. It's like the first bookstore that thought to put a coffeeshop in it would sue every other one that did it. You could argue for something like that, but traditionally that hasn't been patent fodder.
Bookselling online is obviously different from an online service (like the map businesses), but I think the analogy extends. I think the bookseller with the best prices and best marketing strategy (not the best totally original strategy, just the best strategy) should be able to be the best bookseller, not the bookseller with the best patents.
p.s. if think that if Amazon were smart, they would have just found a way to license their software to all the other booksellers that were slow to come online. It would have really fattened their profits (if they have even started making them yet).
Have any of you considered pointing this out to B&N? If what you say is true (I'm not doubting your veracity -- just IANAL), I'm sure they would be more than happy to get the patent overturned for you.
I am firmly of the belief that public companies are inherently evil.
This evilness is especially disturbing to observe in companies we think/thought are/were cool. It seems like once a company goes public, it loses its soul -- the purpose of the company is then to make as much money as possible for the shareholders. Obviously, you have to be somewhat ethical to make money -- you must keep your employees and customers, and you must behave according to the law to keep from being involved in lawsuits.
Unfortunately, it's very good business strategy to file stupid lawsuits against people because they might infringe on a stupid patent you hold that stupid people shouldn't have issued you in the first place. This sort of stupid lawsuit is now just another tool of a "successful business." Suits probably have friggin' seminars on it.
I think you may be referring the the (mythical or infamous, depending on who you ask) echelon project. SIGINT is shorthand for Signals Intelligence, i.e. the art of listening into your enemies communications, which nearly every military in the world does. (you can tell the ones that don't, because they're dead.) If echelon exists it would be SIGINT, but all SIGINT is not echelon.