Why don't we make this all a lot easier to follow and understand:
Simply replace the Senate with the MPAA and the House with the RIAA. We'll save some money by not having to pay the middle-men.
I don't think you get what is going on here. It is not targeting ads to you. It is targeting ads to others using you as an unpaid spokesperson without your direct consent (or consent in the small print of the TOS). In the example on the facebook site, a person who liked the movie 'Top Gun' has their image being used to advertise Blockbuster. I'd be pretty pissed to find my face on a Blockbuster or Walmart ad just because I liked a product that one of these companies wants to sell. I think it is all pretty unseemly.
Of course this is ridiculous because the only people that will be effected by it are innocent people. Criminals and (gasp) terrorists will simply find other ways of communicating. The cafe owners will lose business, and innocent folks will suffer a completely useless invasion of privacy so the government can say they are doing something without actually doing something that makes any difference.
Perhaps in all their discussions they'll come to the conclusion that unlike qualities such as weight and speed it doesn't really make sense to talk about intelligence as if it were an easily-measurable attribute. For instance, I would guess most if not all./ readers are 'smarter' than a starfish, but none (again I guess) are better at being a starfish than a starfish. Would these machines be 'more human' than people? Or would they simply be better at math? Or maybe better at predicting the future based on available facts. It only adds to out misunderstanding to talk about intelligence as though it were a simple quality. It would be nice if they came away from this with a clearer understanding of what we mean when we talk about an intelligent machine rather than just waxing poetic about the future utopia (or dystopia).
These sort of things will continue to happen because both apple and NBC (or insert whatever label/network) are trying to be the distributor and reap the profits that business model. Unfortunately for NBC, Apple has beat them in the new order of distribution and they will loose a ever expanding market if they don't work with them, but unfortunately for Apple the labels and networks still control the content. Sooner or later somebody will figure out how to control (or at least work with) both. I suppose in a utopia independent artists could strike a deal directly with the distributor and avoid the network/label business all together. But, as is the nature of most utopian visions, the devil is in the details.
I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine
Considering the recent slashdot article stating that a quarter of all connected computers are part of a botnet, it seems people have already taken Bill up on his dare--those are all windows machines aren't they. In fact, it seems they preemptively took him up on his dare. At one a month it would take 12,500,000 years to infect all these computers. Microsoft would be lucky if they only had one labratory exploit a month rather than millions in the wild.
I've always wondered what physicists were doing when they were busy not discovering cold fusion. Seriously though, what I got from this was that while still incredibly unlikely it is possible for two snowflakes to be the same. Just like everything else that is extremely unlikely but not quite impossible.
UN's specialized agency for intellectual property wants to impose a new legal regime
I, for one, like living in a society ruled by laws rather than the whims of men. If by 'legal regime' the author means a legal structure in which to resolve disputes, I am all for it. After all, disputes will happen and the law should provide a means to deal with them in a civilized and fair manner. By referring to an attempt to codify our values as a regime we indicate that we are no longer willing to participate in this discourse and abdicate any power we might have to influence the outcome in a way beneficial to us. We shouldn't focus on the fact that there will be laws that may limit what we can do when interacting with other people, but should remember that laws have their uses and abuses and we should try to participate in the process. If we don't I guarantee to you that someone will and that their interests will be considered with a weight proportional to the energy and money they invested in the process. As individuals and groups without great political and economic resources we shouldn't turn out backs on the very idea of law, it's all we have.
This is the answer we hear most often and it is often the most frustrating because it offers nothing but vague warnings...in the parlance of slashdot: FUD. So maybe some folks here can enumerate some SPECIFIC examples of how this will "trample individual rights". Since, as the question states, there are other countries doing this we should have some recent historical data to back up such claims. My gut is against National IDS but having real, well-argued, reasons to be against them will go a lot further in preventing them than simply stating that we will lose our rights and that they are bad.
I'm sure a lot of places of similar policies. To me, though, the disconcerting part of this story isn't that someone got fired for playing solitaire, it's that the mayor came in and fired somebody of whose work performance he was ignorant based on one impression. This guy could have been the most productive person in the building for all the mayor knew. If I was in charge of this employee I would have been seriously pissed if someone came in and decided to fire my employee. It's arrogance and micromanagement taken to an extreme height. On the other hand it appears this guy new the mayor was coming to shake his hand and have a photo taken and left the game up--that's really not so bright.
I applaud the resistance Google's is showing towards the government's recent requests for user data, but as their decision in China demonstrates, there is not always an evil and not-evil choice. For a publicly-held company there are always conflicting interests. If it comes to a choice between giving up your information and breaking the law google doesn't have much choice.
I think we all understand this. For instance here on slashdot this is the way the moderation works--things either don't get mod points or get the extreme value (not that I am hinting, dear bearer of mod-points, the you in particular lack independent judgement) . Pretty soon somebody will come along and mod this post down -1 as a troll. Seeing this, the next person with mod points will quickly mod it down as well--a kind of kick in the./ groin if you will. If, on the other hand, the first person with points happens to have a wit worthy of Falstaff he will see the genuine insightful nature of this post and graces it with a +1. The result will be an avalanche of +1 placing this post among the few of well-meaning ineptitude that rises to empyreal absurdity. I'll leave it to the reader to determine which case illustrates the "Britney effect" mentioned in TFA.
That's weird because I could have sworn when I went to bed last night it was yesterday and now its today.
Nevertheless...this is fun. Looking at the equation from which all his arguments flow, it seems he is only demonstrating that it doesn't make sense to talk about one's velocity through time. I would agree. If I hop in my time machine and zip off to tomorrow, it doesn't make much sense for you to ask how long it took to get there. Or if you and I both have time machines and we decided to race to 1:00 pm tomorrow it would be always be a tie. But this is a far stretch from demonstrating that it is impossible. By this same logic we could define slope as the change in x over y or s = dx/dy. Does this definition make it impossible to move along the y axis because then the slope of our movement would be dy/dy? No. but it does say that if you move along the y axis your slope will be a constant.
FTFA: Take note. For you "Apollo landings were a hoax" believers LROC's sightseeing abilities should set the record straight...
Like I'm going to buy that. If they could fake the whole dog and pony show in the 60's do they really think we're so guallible as to beleive they can't doctor a few images? Like NASA doesn't have photoshop.
On a more serious note, when I read these amazing stories I can't help think of Hamlet:
What a piece of work is man! How noble in reason! how infinite in faculties! in form and moving, how express and admirable! in action how like an angel! in apprehension, how like a god! the beauty of the world! the paragon of animals! And yet, to me, what is this quintessence of dust? Man delights not me;
Here we are performing these amazing feats of technology while down on the ground we are firebombing each other, mincing words about what is and isn't torture, and rioting in the street over a few line drawings. Part of me thinks we should focus our resources on problems here where our feet touch the ground, but another part thinks that we have tried that long enough and hopes that maybe by demonstrating how admirable our faculties really are we may move beyond our differences and inspire some solidarity.
I wonder how long it will be before real-life politicians start setting up their own virtual offices in Second Life so they can tax the in-game profits of Janie Marlowe or try to regulate her online business.
Well, I've got to admit, my knee-jerk reaction to this was so what. The main browsers are already so intrenched in my habits, from the way I author html to my day-to-day use of the browser that it is unlikely I will care about another application unless it captures a significant share of the market thus forcing me to care about any quirks it may have in behavior and compliance to standards. But after reading the list of features, I find myself thinking I might be interested in some of them. Site-specific prefs are an interesting idea; A torrent client would be handy; the ability to change the default search engine is nice too. It looks like I'll try it out.
Although the scientist doing this work stated, "we would like to formally show this before making any claims that would cause unwanted hype" and the "few AIDS research luminaries" mentioned in the article are not willing to comment this early, it looks like there may already be some interest in Ceragenix Pharmaceuticals' OTC stock which closed at 3.67--up a healthy 122.42% today.
Free lunch? It seems like it's neither free as in beer nor speech. As all/.ers know, there is no other kind of free. I'm sure Google's network bandwidth fees are neither free nor small and I know I pay for internet access. So who's getting what for free? Maybe the telecoms are using that little-knownrhetorical device called hyperbole. Or perhaps they are trying to say that companies like Google have found a moreprofitable use for bandwidth than they have and they would like apiece of the pie. A free piece of the pie.
I'm at a loss to understand how this will reduce spam. If I understand TFA they will essentially be allowing certain companies a pass through the spam filter in exchange for money. While I can see how this is useful in a situation like AOL or Yahoo! mail where the end user has little control over the spam filterparameters and is having trouble getting wanted e-mail from their bank or other business, I don't understand why they think spam producers will stop finding ways to circumvent the filter--it still seems like business asusual for spammers. I have my spam filter set up to let certain mail through automatically, but I canguarantee that this has not reduced the amount of spam hitting the filter. It sounds like they stand to make a decent amount of money from this and would rather make is sound like it's an anti-spam measure when really it is closer to advertising.
p.s. I can't wait until I start seeing the 'seal alerting recipients they're legitimate.' attached as a gif file to spam in my inbox.
Slashdot Mirror
Why don't we make this all a lot easier to follow and understand: Simply replace the Senate with the MPAA and the House with the RIAA. We'll save some money by not having to pay the middle-men.
Isn't David Hasselhoff also hug in Japan?
That link shows a bunch of photos a building's exterior. Not exactly the secret stuff spy movies are made of.
I don't think you get what is going on here. It is not targeting ads to you. It is targeting ads to others using you as an unpaid spokesperson without your direct consent (or consent in the small print of the TOS). In the example on the facebook site, a person who liked the movie 'Top Gun' has their image being used to advertise Blockbuster. I'd be pretty pissed to find my face on a Blockbuster or Walmart ad just because I liked a product that one of these companies wants to sell. I think it is all pretty unseemly.
Of course this is ridiculous because the only people that will be effected by it are innocent people. Criminals and (gasp) terrorists will simply find other ways of communicating. The cafe owners will lose business, and innocent folks will suffer a completely useless invasion of privacy so the government can say they are doing something without actually doing something that makes any difference.
Perhaps in all their discussions they'll come to the conclusion that unlike qualities such as weight and speed it doesn't really make sense to talk about intelligence as if it were an easily-measurable attribute. For instance, I would guess most if not all ./ readers are 'smarter' than a starfish, but none (again I guess) are better at being a starfish than a starfish. Would these machines be 'more human' than people? Or would they simply be better at math? Or maybe better at predicting the future based on available facts. It only adds to out misunderstanding to talk about intelligence as though it were a simple quality. It would be nice if they came away from this with a clearer understanding of what we mean when we talk about an intelligent machine rather than just waxing poetic about the future utopia (or dystopia).
These sort of things will continue to happen because both apple and NBC (or insert whatever label/network) are trying to be the distributor and reap the profits that business model. Unfortunately for NBC, Apple has beat them in the new order of distribution and they will loose a ever expanding market if they don't work with them, but unfortunately for Apple the labels and networks still control the content. Sooner or later somebody will figure out how to control (or at least work with) both. I suppose in a utopia independent artists could strike a deal directly with the distributor and avoid the network/label business all together. But, as is the nature of most utopian visions, the devil is in the details.
whooo--pass the doobie
Considering the recent slashdot article stating that a quarter of all connected computers are part of a botnet, it seems people have already taken Bill up on his dare--those are all windows machines aren't they. In fact, it seems they preemptively took him up on his dare. At one a month it would take 12,500,000 years to infect all these computers. Microsoft would be lucky if they only had one labratory exploit a month rather than millions in the wild.
I've always wondered what physicists were doing when they were busy not discovering cold fusion. Seriously though, what I got from this was that while still incredibly unlikely it is possible for two snowflakes to be the same. Just like everything else that is extremely unlikely but not quite impossible.
UN's specialized agency for intellectual property wants to impose a new legal regime
I, for one, like living in a society ruled by laws rather than the whims of men. If by 'legal regime' the author means a legal structure in which to resolve disputes, I am all for it. After all, disputes will happen and the law should provide a means to deal with them in a civilized and fair manner. By referring to an attempt to codify our values as a regime we indicate that we are no longer willing to participate in this discourse and abdicate any power we might have to influence the outcome in a way beneficial to us. We shouldn't focus on the fact that there will be laws that may limit what we can do when interacting with other people, but should remember that laws have their uses and abuses and we should try to participate in the process. If we don't I guarantee to you that someone will and that their interests will be considered with a weight proportional to the energy and money they invested in the process. As individuals and groups without great political and economic resources we shouldn't turn out backs on the very idea of law, it's all we have.
This is the answer we hear most often and it is often the most frustrating because it offers nothing but vague warnings...in the parlance of slashdot: FUD. So maybe some folks here can enumerate some SPECIFIC examples of how this will "trample individual rights". Since, as the question states, there are other countries doing this we should have some recent historical data to back up such claims. My gut is against National IDS but having real, well-argued, reasons to be against them will go a lot further in preventing them than simply stating that we will lose our rights and that they are bad.
Well...if my brain is where my wife says it is, I can see this working quite well.
We can all give Abe Usher the bird for offering management a reason to prohibit iPods a work. Thanks Abe--you're off my Christmas Card list.
I'm sure a lot of places of similar policies. To me, though, the disconcerting part of this story isn't that someone got fired for playing solitaire, it's that the mayor came in and fired somebody of whose work performance he was ignorant based on one impression. This guy could have been the most productive person in the building for all the mayor knew. If I was in charge of this employee I would have been seriously pissed if someone came in and decided to fire my employee. It's arrogance and micromanagement taken to an extreme height. On the other hand it appears this guy new the mayor was coming to shake his hand and have a photo taken and left the game up--that's really not so bright.
I applaud the resistance Google's is showing towards the government's recent requests for user data, but as their decision in China demonstrates, there is not always an evil and not-evil choice. For a publicly-held company there are always conflicting interests. If it comes to a choice between giving up your information and breaking the law google doesn't have much choice.
I think we all understand this. For instance here on slashdot this is the way the moderation works--things either don't get mod points or get the extreme value (not that I am hinting, dear bearer of mod-points, the you in particular lack independent judgement) . Pretty soon somebody will come along and mod this post down -1 as a troll. Seeing this, the next person with mod points will quickly mod it down as well--a kind of kick in the ./ groin if you will. If, on the other hand, the first person with points happens to have a wit worthy of Falstaff he will see the genuine insightful nature of this post and graces it with a +1. The result will be an avalanche of +1 placing this post among the few of well-meaning ineptitude that rises to empyreal absurdity. I'll leave it to the reader to determine which case illustrates the "Britney effect" mentioned in TFA.
Finally...software that is a perfect fit for my finances.
That's weird because I could have sworn when I went to bed last night it was yesterday and now its today.
Nevertheless...this is fun. Looking at the equation from which all his arguments flow, it seems he is only demonstrating that it doesn't make sense to talk about one's velocity through time. I would agree. If I hop in my time machine and zip off to tomorrow, it doesn't make much sense for you to ask how long it took to get there. Or if you and I both have time machines and we decided to race to 1:00 pm tomorrow it would be always be a tie. But this is a far stretch from demonstrating that it is impossible. By this same logic we could define slope as the change in x over y or s = dx/dy. Does this definition make it impossible to move along the y axis because then the slope of our movement would be dy/dy? No. but it does say that if you move along the y axis your slope will be a constant.
Like I'm going to buy that. If they could fake the whole dog and pony show in the 60's do they really think we're so guallible as to beleive they can't doctor a few images? Like NASA doesn't have photoshop.
On a more serious note, when I read these amazing stories I can't help think of Hamlet:
What a piece of work is man! How noble in reason! how infinite in faculties! in form and moving, how express and admirable! in action how like an angel! in apprehension, how like a god! the beauty of the world! the paragon of animals! And yet, to me, what is this quintessence of dust? Man delights not me;
Here we are performing these amazing feats of technology while down on the ground we are firebombing each other, mincing words about what is and isn't torture, and rioting in the street over a few line drawings. Part of me thinks we should focus our resources on problems here where our feet touch the ground, but another part thinks that we have tried that long enough and hopes that maybe by demonstrating how admirable our faculties really are we may move beyond our differences and inspire some solidarity.
I wonder how long it will be before real-life politicians start setting up their own virtual offices in Second Life so they can tax the in-game profits of Janie Marlowe or try to regulate her online business.
Well, I've got to admit, my knee-jerk reaction to this was so what. The main browsers are already so intrenched in my habits, from the way I author html to my day-to-day use of the browser that it is unlikely I will care about another application unless it captures a significant share of the market thus forcing me to care about any quirks it may have in behavior and compliance to standards. But after reading the list of features, I find myself thinking I might be interested in some of them. Site-specific prefs are an interesting idea; A torrent client would be handy; the ability to change the default search engine is nice too. It looks like I'll try it out.
Although the scientist doing this work stated, "we would like to formally show this before making any claims that would cause unwanted hype" and the "few AIDS research luminaries" mentioned in the article are not willing to comment this early, it looks like there may already be some interest in Ceragenix Pharmaceuticals' OTC stock which closed at 3.67--up a healthy 122.42% today.
Free lunch? It seems like it's neither free as in beer nor speech. As all /.ers know, there is no other kind of free. I'm sure Google's network bandwidth fees are neither free nor small and I know I pay for internet access. So who's getting what for free? Maybe the telecoms are using that little-knownrhetorical device called hyperbole. Or perhaps they are trying to say that companies like Google have found a moreprofitable use for bandwidth than they have and they would like apiece of the pie. A free piece of the pie.
p.s. I can't wait until I start seeing the 'seal alerting recipients they're legitimate.' attached as a gif file to spam in my inbox.