I have often wondered why the recording industry, faced with increasing competition from other distribution technologies, has not concluded that "recording" no longer is a viable business today. It is perfectly normal for businesses to want to use their business model for as long as they can.
They should go out of business or enter into new ventures, instead of bitching all the time. But they have. They've gone into the business of screwing and suing. When that is a bigger business than distributing music, your wish will have been granted.
Maybe they should get into the business of distributing music for real, instead of ownership and control of every "package" that get's delivered using their "trucks". Now if UPS could collect royalties on every item they delivered, that would be a business.
I think that's rubbish, there's no way a kid under the age of 15 would spot the danger of talking on a cellphone while driving unless it was explained to him/her by their parents althought I don't see a good reason to at that age. This is the same kind of kid who flushes their parents' cigaretts down the toilet. They got that idea somewhere other than the parents. Kids don't grow up in a parent controlled bubble. But, parents do have the ability to influence the kids. Being hypocritical about cell phones, smoking, etc, just louses up that credibility.
Hackers can think whatever they want. The real problem right now is that the governments of the countries they live in don't care and don't do anything about it. Perhaps that's understandable since many of those countries have enough non-tech issues to deal with already. But I think that if that's the case, they just shouldn't be allowed on the internet yet. s/countries/communities/
there are plenty of jurisdictions in civilized places where the government is more concerned with traffic and violent crimes. Should all these communities be banned from the internet? Of course not, just because a few people abuse a right or a priviilige doesn't mean the whole community should be banned. Even in lawless communities, the internet has positive uses that far outway the negatives
no, it's more like sharing a meal. We don't watch much TV, but when we do, we do it together. We usually watch DVD, talk while watching, hit rewind if we manage to miss something, etc. It's not exactly educational talk, but fun talk, our own commentary, etc. It's frequently more interesting than the "How was your day?" stuff at the table. Kids talk more when they have something interesting to talk about.
Using cells is simply a way of sharing the resource amongst more users. We will probably continue to use cells until we have a better way of splitting up the spectrum. Even then, we will probably continue to use cells in combination with other resource sharing technologies.
but, I'm in the industry, and it never made much sense to me for users to refer to cell phones as such or especially simply as "cells". that reflects an understanding of the technology that is unnecesary for a user. I've always preferred the term "mobile" since it is usage related rather than technology related. If you handed a nontechie an oldfashioned, precelluar car phone, they could call it a mobie and be correct. If they called it a cell, they would be wrong, but they wouldn't even know why.
I doubt that the main attraction of celluar will go away, it allows more user operating at lower power. Celluar concepts will remain applicable even with WiFi phones, or mesh phones, or whatever is coming next.
I read about this years ago, a penguin wanted to travel north, so he used an iceberg as a boat. this is what happens when the cinemas run too many penguin movies.
Agreed. The boarding pass is a relic of the days when the reservatin system was on a large mainframe in the bowels of the airport that did not operate in real time. Nowadays, you can print your own boarding pass or get one our of a kiosk with your credit card. If you can do that, it would be just as easy to use your credit card itself as a boarding pass. Doesn't need to be human readable.
It's a dumb list, at least on the Senate side. I didn't even bother to check out the House side.
Yeah, it's another dumb list, because CNet commits the error of confusing an enabling technology with the activities that it enables. Gambling is a dumb thing that adults are allowed to enjoy, internet gambling just gives adults another way to access this activity. Gambling activities are best covered by amending or writing gambling laws, not technology laws. Same for most other online activities. The significant features of using the internet is differences in convenience and privacy. Any legisilation that promates a technological solution to control the convenience and privacy of gambling/child born/unameit will also interfere with legitimate activities such as shopping for other products and obtaining healthcare information. This is why such behavior must be controlled the old fashioned way using the existing laws as much as possible. Legislators cannot be experts on every law they legislate.
Like anyone, he must choose his battles. The stand on abortion and gay marriage aligns him with the Republican Party line. Must line up with them somewhere if he's going to diverge on issues he considers important. That's the unpleasant truth of politics in a two party system. Unlike so many career politicians, he actually ran with a thrid party, lost, and managed to get back on board with the Republicans. So, he has his place in the legislature as a Republican with Libertarian leanings, which I suppose is better than being unelectable because he isn't a Democrat or a Republican. It's a terrible tradeoff.
I'd like to know where he stands on correcting the biases in the system that make more than 2 viable parties virtually impossible.
While we're at it, I'd also like to point out you've got the best conspiracy theoreticians ever.
I do not think it is smart to dismiss conspiracy theorists out of hand as crazies. Many of mankinds biggest accomplishments are the result of complex plans that were kept secret from the general population. This includes corporate strategy, military strategy, political campaigns, and acts of terrorism. We are told repeatedly that OK explosion, JFK assassination, etc, must be due to a single man simply because they are too complicated for an organization to keep secret. In REAL LIFE, people form groups to do things that are too complicated to do as individuals. People aren't as bad at keeping secrets as the anticonspiracy people would like for you to believe.
I know I'm risking being seen as a crazy by posting this, but like all rumors, there might be a grain of truth in there. If not, there is someone with a motive. Even if we don't know what that grain of truth or motive might be, the fact that it exists might explain why people react or overreact to the idea that certain schemes are "conspiracy theories".
The people want the good guys to be more powerful than the bad guys. They figure that the good guys will only use that power against the bad guys. As long as they think the rogues in government are rare and under control, a powerful government seems very desirable. Most people seem to think that abuse of power, or even, bad guys masquerading as good guys until they have the power as higly unlikely. So called intelligent people find conspiracy theories to be laughable. But, people in power can keep secrets quite well.
The problem is that the boardingpass is checked against the database at one checkpoint and against the ID at a different checkpoint and that the fake boarding pass is used at the first cp, but the real is checked at the second. As long as two separate checkpoints are used, this opportunity exists. Just because no one is known to have taken advantage of this opportunity does't mean that they won't or they have't. They are failing at every airport that hasn't combined these checks into one checkpoint. So, it isn't spectacular. That isn't because the problem doesn't exist, but because anyone who wants to use it has chosen not to be "spectacular".
By going public, risking a trial, and possibly becoming a martry, he has a better chance of attracting the attention of the media and the general public. He's a real person, not a nebulus internet sockpuppet, so is more likely to gain the sympathy of other people who don't quite equate internet identies with ordinary people, or even ordinary grad students.
Without a ransacked house and a possible trial to discuss, the mass media wouldn't have any interest, it would remain in the tech and legal communities alone, and you know what an insignificant, ignored group we are.
Actually the Data Protection Act is UK law, and makes these fines possible. We have all the protections that USians on/. frequently wish for. From the relevant Act:
I don't need to be able to quote law to notice that the only buisinesses in my neighborhood that don't have outdoor trash collection are the banks. Anyone with common sense would avoid a bank that had dumpsters. This isn't a new thing, I'm almst 50, and I've never seen a bank that set its trash outside. Of course, the secure trash truck, I'm not sure where it goes, and I've seen quite a few businesses with so-called "secure dumpsters" out back that were easy to get into for dumpster diving. But, they weren't banks.
Keeping an exploit obsure insures that the people who should be aware of the problem, citizens who can demand the loophole closed, would be the least likely to know. You can bet that this sort of thing spreads like wildfire through the terror industry. Although the procedure is already quite simple, by automating it on a website so that it is no trouble at all, this man has held a magnifyiing glass up to a problem that those responsible for the fix might wish we wouldn't see. More work for them, you see. Rather than making life/death easier for the terrorists who already know this trick, this website and the ensuing courtcase should create the attention to shut it off quickly, before it gets used by the "bad guys". While this could have been done anonymously, it would have resulted in less publicity than having a real person and a public investigation for the press to shout about.
When people give a shit more about some gays marrying in NJ than they do about genocide in Darfur, military and civilian deaths in Iraq & Afghanistan, and people dying in this country due to being priced out of receiving their necessary meds, we have become a country that has lost focus on things that *actually matter*.
The people that you are referring to are the Republican strategists who think that this tactic will be an effective distraction from the fact that the administration hasn't done anything worth bragging about concerning the genocide, Irag, Afghanistan, and overpriced meds. I am hoping that the silliness of this attempt will make the failings of those in power completely obvious to anyone who pays attention.
We need a lot of somebodies to do this. If only a few machines are hacked, it's a statistically small error and some judge will get to decide. To me, it would be unethical for the errors to be so small that the hacking isn't obvious. If Ralph Nader, or even better, Mickey Mouse, won by a landslide, the problems would be so obvious, that the election would need to be repeated and on oldfashioned PAPER ballots of the sort Jimmy Carter would endorse. It might still be illegal, and the patriots involved might be arrestedd, but this would be more likely to lead to effective reform than simply stealing the election.
He probably just didn't like the idea of the entire human race ganging up together on this project. The height of the tower doesn't matter, or we wouldn't have skyscrapers or space shuttles, etc. So what is it about universal cooperation that is threatening?
Slashdot Mirror
You can buy live mice at petco, just 2 aisles over from the kitty litter
Maybe they should get into the business of distributing music for real, instead of ownership and control of every "package" that get's delivered using their "trucks". Now if UPS could collect royalties on every item they delivered, that would be a business.
Hackers can think whatever they want. The real problem right now is that the governments of the countries they live in don't care and don't do anything about it. Perhaps that's understandable since many of those countries have enough non-tech issues to deal with already. But I think that if that's the case, they just shouldn't be allowed on the internet yet. s/countries/communities/
there are plenty of jurisdictions in civilized places where the government is more concerned with traffic and violent crimes. Should all these communities be banned from the internet? Of course not, just because a few people abuse a right or a priviilige doesn't mean the whole community should be banned. Even in lawless communities, the internet has positive uses that far outway the negatives
no, it's more like sharing a meal. We don't watch much TV, but when we do, we do it together. We usually watch DVD, talk while watching, hit rewind if we manage to miss something, etc. It's not exactly educational talk, but fun talk, our own commentary, etc. It's frequently more interesting than the "How was your day?" stuff at the table. Kids talk more when they have something interesting to talk about.
Unfortunately, that is the only kind of road that seems to exist around here.
Using cells is simply a way of sharing the resource amongst more users. We will probably continue to use cells until we have a better way of splitting up the spectrum. Even then, we will probably continue to use cells in combination with other resource sharing technologies.
but, I'm in the industry, and it never made much sense to me for users to refer to cell phones as such or especially simply as "cells". that reflects an understanding of the technology that is unnecesary for a user. I've always preferred the term "mobile" since it is usage related rather than technology related. If you handed a nontechie an oldfashioned, precelluar car phone, they could call it a mobie and be correct. If they called it a cell, they would be wrong, but they wouldn't even know why.
I doubt that the main attraction of celluar will go away, it allows more user operating at lower power. Celluar concepts will remain applicable even with WiFi phones, or mesh phones, or whatever is coming next.
http://dragon.sleepdeprived.ca/songbook/songs9/S9
Did they run out at 6 or 7 geeks, and needed filler?
/. girls on the list. There might be enogh to round out the group of ten.
Apparently it didn't occur to them to put the
Uh, James?
I read about this years ago, a penguin wanted to travel north, so he used an iceberg as a boat. this is what happens when the cinemas run too many penguin movies.
Agreed. The boarding pass is a relic of the days when the reservatin system was on a large mainframe in the bowels of the airport that did not operate in real time. Nowadays, you can print your own boarding pass or get one our of a kiosk with your credit card. If you can do that, it would be just as easy to use your credit card itself as a boarding pass. Doesn't need to be human readable.
It's a dumb list, at least on the Senate side. I didn't even bother to check out the House side.
Yeah, it's another dumb list, because CNet commits the error of confusing an enabling technology with the activities that it enables. Gambling is a dumb thing that adults are allowed to enjoy, internet gambling just gives adults another way to access this activity. Gambling activities are best covered by amending or writing gambling laws, not technology laws. Same for most other online activities. The significant features of using the internet is differences in convenience and privacy. Any legisilation that promates a technological solution to control the convenience and privacy of gambling/child born/unameit will also interfere with legitimate activities such as shopping for other products and obtaining healthcare information. This is why such behavior must be controlled the old fashioned way using the existing laws as much as possible. Legislators cannot be experts on every law they legislate.
Like anyone, he must choose his battles. The stand on abortion and gay marriage aligns him with the Republican Party line. Must line up with them somewhere if he's going to diverge on issues he considers important. That's the unpleasant truth of politics in a two party system. Unlike so many career politicians, he actually ran with a thrid party, lost, and managed to get back on board with the Republicans. So, he has his place in the legislature as a Republican with Libertarian leanings, which I suppose is better than being unelectable because he isn't a Democrat or a Republican. It's a terrible tradeoff.
I'd like to know where he stands on correcting the biases in the system that make more than 2 viable parties virtually impossible.
Where would internet inventor Al Gore rank? And the old guy who knows all about the tubes? If they are near the top, what does that mean for the rest?
While we're at it, I'd also like to point out you've got the best conspiracy theoreticians ever.
I do not think it is smart to dismiss conspiracy theorists out of hand as crazies. Many of mankinds biggest accomplishments are the result of complex plans that were kept secret from the general population. This includes corporate strategy, military strategy, political campaigns, and acts of terrorism. We are told repeatedly that OK explosion, JFK assassination, etc, must be due to a single man simply because they are too complicated for an organization to keep secret. In REAL LIFE, people form groups to do things that are too complicated to do as individuals. People aren't as bad at keeping secrets as the anticonspiracy people would like for you to believe.
I know I'm risking being seen as a crazy by posting this, but like all rumors, there might be a grain of truth in there. If not, there is someone with a motive. Even if we don't know what that grain of truth or motive might be, the fact that it exists might explain why people react or overreact to the idea that certain schemes are "conspiracy theories".
The people want the good guys to be more powerful than the bad guys. They figure that the good guys will only use that power against the bad guys. As long as they think the rogues in government are rare and under control, a powerful government seems very desirable. Most people seem to think that abuse of power, or even, bad guys masquerading as good guys until they have the power as higly unlikely. So called intelligent people find conspiracy theories to be laughable. But, people in power can keep secrets quite well.
The problem is that the boardingpass is checked against the database at one checkpoint and against the ID at a different checkpoint and that the fake boarding pass is used at the first cp, but the real is checked at the second. As long as two separate checkpoints are used, this opportunity exists. Just because no one is known to have taken advantage of this opportunity does't mean that they won't or they have't. They are failing at every airport that hasn't combined these checks into one checkpoint. So, it isn't spectacular. That isn't because the problem doesn't exist, but because anyone who wants to use it has chosen not to be "spectacular".
By going public, risking a trial, and possibly becoming a martry, he has a better chance of attracting the attention of the media and the general public. He's a real person, not a nebulus internet sockpuppet, so is more likely to gain the sympathy of other people who don't quite equate internet identies with ordinary people, or even ordinary grad students.
Without a ransacked house and a possible trial to discuss, the mass media wouldn't have any interest, it would remain in the tech and legal communities alone, and you know what an insignificant, ignored group we are.
I don't need to be able to quote law to notice that the only buisinesses in my neighborhood that don't have outdoor trash collection are the banks. Anyone with common sense would avoid a bank that had dumpsters. This isn't a new thing, I'm almst 50, and I've never seen a bank that set its trash outside. Of course, the secure trash truck, I'm not sure where it goes, and I've seen quite a few businesses with so-called "secure dumpsters" out back that were easy to get into for dumpster diving. But, they weren't banks.
Keeping an exploit obsure insures that the people who should be aware of the problem, citizens who can demand the loophole closed, would be the least likely to know. You can bet that this sort of thing spreads like wildfire through the terror industry. Although the procedure is already quite simple, by automating it on a website so that it is no trouble at all, this man has held a magnifyiing glass up to a problem that those responsible for the fix might wish we wouldn't see. More work for them, you see. Rather than making life/death easier for the terrorists who already know this trick, this website and the ensuing courtcase should create the attention to shut it off quickly, before it gets used by the "bad guys". While this could have been done anonymously, it would have resulted in less publicity than having a real person and a public investigation for the press to shout about.
The people that you are referring to are the Republican strategists who think that this tactic will be an effective distraction from the fact that the administration hasn't done anything worth bragging about concerning the genocide, Irag, Afghanistan, and overpriced meds. I am hoping that the silliness of this attempt will make the failings of those in power completely obvious to anyone who pays attention.
Because you obviously haven't been reading the second topic long enought to understand the discussion and write a meaningful comment.
We need a lot of somebodies to do this. If only a few machines are hacked, it's a statistically small error and some judge will get to decide. To me, it would be unethical for the errors to be so small that the hacking isn't obvious. If Ralph Nader, or even better, Mickey Mouse, won by a landslide, the problems would be so obvious, that the election would need to be repeated and on oldfashioned PAPER ballots of the sort Jimmy Carter would endorse. It might still be illegal, and the patriots involved might be arrestedd, but this would be more likely to lead to effective reform than simply stealing the election.
He probably just didn't like the idea of the entire human race ganging up together on this project. The height of the tower doesn't matter, or we wouldn't have skyscrapers or space shuttles, etc. So what is it about universal cooperation that is threatening?