I must admit that I disagree with the assertion that "Pressure to Respond Quickly" is some sort of negative issue with e-mail; in fact, I'd go so far as to say that with the volume of mail in inboxes today, people are actually not feeling enough pressure to respond quickly. Sure, sometimes we're okay with waiting for a response for a while, but oftentimes nowadays email is used in the role that voicemail used to play, and if one receives a voicemail, one tends to reply directly afterwards. Sometimes, the same attitude needs to be taken in regards to email. Here, I see a much more accurate and responsible use of the priority feature in messages being used, with some type of slider built into the client to rate the priority of a message more efficiently as it is sent...
The article mentions simple, nice uses such as detoxing or removing poisons from the bloodstream, but what prevents a similar method from being designed (all be it you would have to design particles corresponding to these to be in the bloodstream) to remove viral infections from the blood? That seems like where the real interest in this technology would be!
I predict that the only consequences that this could have for Sherman's network are negative ones. Honestly, have the sharers with fast connections been using the proper, sherman client? Simply, NO! Can one really expect, after so long sans spyware, these advanced, high-speed users to begin to use their spyware-filled client? Simply, NO! These users will maintain the status quo by continuing to use their existing Kazaa-lite clients, or they won't share on the Kazaa network at all; either way, how does this help you, Sherman?
The analogy needs to be furthered a bit: this would be like a pharmaceutical company not only spreading that which they themselves sell the cure for, but above it all, that cure being phony, so that the market for the cure is maintained. Think, do you think IronPort's spam protection measures will stop their own supported spam? This reminds me of a bond-type plot where evil villains pay an evil company to let them continue ravaging the world. Even though this obviously would only last so long in the pharmaceutical industry, I'd call it a feasible, profitable, and despicable practice for the e-mail industry, with all the sources of spam floating around.
The infrastructure we use may have been derived from DARPANet, but the network grew out of networked research institutions, and that's an important distinction!
I think the issue here is much less one of the right to publish and to speak, though of course in the end that will always be most important. This story is really one for universal concern because it exposes the way in which companies like Gamespy are spelling their own death by sending out these letters. It is publicly revealed information that inspires companies to take security seriously and act quickly toward hole-patching. There should be no doubt in anyone's mind that this information will be disseminated irregardless of its wide publication, and so challenges to security will still happen. Is it not in everyone's best interest that change-motivating embarrassing public releases of information like this be allowed? And plus, doesn't the even wider attention which a company stands to garner by sending out C&D's to avid exposers of flaws like this make them completely worthless?
"are growing dissatisfied with the workings of California-based Icann (the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers), the semi-private internet address regulator set up five years ago."
I've read many slashdot gripes about some of the horors of the ICANN/Verisign run Internet, but never before heard these used as an excuse for state-sponsored control/censorship of the Internet. Really, even if they manage to work out the logistical headache (read: 120 years at least) this kind of thing would take, good luck to them finding any consensus as to proper content/use for the Internet.
Not so sure if this is going to work in any of the situations we seem to have the idea of putting ourself into anytime soon... Destroying mass amounts of electronic infrastructure seemes counter-productive to rebuilding efforts in urban environments.
The evoloution of Thinkgeek's line of optical toys:
1. Red Lasar
2. Green Lasar
3. Lasar capable of pre-detonating munitions from miles away. (But no one will buy it because it is neither green nor capable of being seen in the air.)
What's convenient is, when your attacked by a spider in a video game, you lose one of 15 remaining lives, and when you fall from extraordinary heights in Unreal, you end up with a little less health. It will be interesting to see if this will create a breed of former phobics who now fling themselves off buildings or into dens of black widow spiders under the misimpression that the damage done won't be too great...
This was a typical example of the government imposing unenforcable rules on the internet in the classical why-can't-they-just-hold-their-ID-up-to-the-screen style. Almost never before the internet came along did you have people who genuinely wanted to act legally but had no idea how. Credit-card verification is out, kids can have credit/debit cards at 13 now. No using checking accounts for verification, those can be had by kids even younger. Driver's licenses? Not nationalized. I guess until a generation which grew up with computer-in-hand runs the legislature, we'll be seeing more and more of this absurdity...
I think that the poster makes a misconnection regarding the new privileges in the patriot act (as much as I hate it) and this theory about book spying. The library record clause of the patriot act is scary in and of itself, and as far as I'm concerned, provides much more to be worried about than this new issue because it gives the government a much easier way of quickly determining "terrorist sudpects" (why clandestinly scan the books in people's hands as they walk out the library door or as they're hanging out reading in starbucks when you can just ask the library directly what they have checked out?) - but certainly, the two ideas for pseudo spying are fairly unconnected.
Why do people insist on using the umbrella term "P2P" for Napter or its spawn? It was server based. In addition, I doubt if any of these new legal services are going to be peer-to-peer, how could one possibly keep it legal, when it is inherently not controlled centrally. So the answer is no, legal P2P services can't succeed, they're not even being tried!
I think this demonstrates to linux-hypies very well that while their open-source systems may contain the potential for quicker and more efficent fixes, these are not always implemented so quickly by the magical code-maker in the sky (i.e. collectively, the typical OSS coders who often are forced to treat the job as more of a hobby, and who are not always as motivated as internal authors.
Register with every "reputable" company with a "privacy policy" you can find, and make purchases with them.
Register a domain with the addy.
Put the addy on tons of those little fill out cards that you have to mail in from magazines for free this, free that.
Buy subscriptions to tons of Pr0n sites with the addy.
Instead of usenet, post on several pay or exclusive product-support forums, where spam-runners can be assured of sure-fire hits.
Damn! It's expensive to acquire SPAM!
This is a place where the definitions in copyright and patent law become sketchy and begin to blur together. The question at hand seems to be one of whether GUI's and other elements of program I/O (this so-called "functional structure") come under copyright protection as elements of a creative rendering or patent protection as means of achieving a computational purpose; the idea that such elements may be shakily protected by both seems dangerous and a strong possibility, in Britain's case anyway (although the actual case has yet to commence).
While I like the irony implied, of the music industry's hypocrisy in accusing file-sharers of stealing when they, in fact, are stealing themselves, I think the two ideas of intellectual property stealing do not mesh quite so easily. The file-sharing theft usually committed is one of profit-deprivation; users download and share for personal enjoyment, depriving the industry of sales money. The theft committed by artists, publishers, recording studios, authors, and the like in unauthorized use of other's works in their own, as much as it may be argued to be a form of innovation, aims to boost one's own profits. This difference, while alleviating some of the irony of the situation, does not paint the industry in any better of a light...
On the surface, this statistic serves both as a testament to linux's growing popularity as a server OS and ammo for those windows admins who have long taken abuses about the insecure nature of their OS. These ideas, particularly the latter, however, may prove misguided; breaches against servers are rooted not only in the security of their running OS, but also in the effectiveness of the security implementation of the system admin him/herself.
I dare say that thr problem comes not with the development of dual-use technologies; the other use may very well be a well-merited one. The problem really comes with single-use military development by scientists who could have their hours devoted to tasks which have an even more beneficial effect.
I hope that most people who have gotten past using the major brand-name monopoly operating system have similarly gotten past using a major brand name company-who-puts-computers-together (and I use this expression because I think to say that they build computers is a bit absurd)...
Slashdot Mirror
I must admit that I disagree with the assertion that "Pressure to Respond Quickly" is some sort of negative issue with e-mail; in fact, I'd go so far as to say that with the volume of mail in inboxes today, people are actually not feeling enough pressure to respond quickly. Sure, sometimes we're okay with waiting for a response for a while, but oftentimes nowadays email is used in the role that voicemail used to play, and if one receives a voicemail, one tends to reply directly afterwards. Sometimes, the same attitude needs to be taken in regards to email. Here, I see a much more accurate and responsible use of the priority feature in messages being used, with some type of slider built into the client to rate the priority of a message more efficiently as it is sent...
The article mentions simple, nice uses such as detoxing or removing poisons from the bloodstream, but what prevents a similar method from being designed (all be it you would have to design particles corresponding to these to be in the bloodstream) to remove viral infections from the blood? That seems like where the real interest in this technology would be!
I predict that the only consequences that this could have for Sherman's network are negative ones. Honestly, have the sharers with fast connections been using the proper, sherman client? Simply, NO! Can one really expect, after so long sans spyware, these advanced, high-speed users to begin to use their spyware-filled client? Simply, NO! These users will maintain the status quo by continuing to use their existing Kazaa-lite clients, or they won't share on the Kazaa network at all; either way, how does this help you, Sherman?
I bet the dewey beats truman guy wished he could go back and change the news like this!
The analogy needs to be furthered a bit: this would be like a pharmaceutical company not only spreading that which they themselves sell the cure for, but above it all, that cure being phony, so that the market for the cure is maintained. Think, do you think IronPort's spam protection measures will stop their own supported spam? This reminds me of a bond-type plot where evil villains pay an evil company to let them continue ravaging the world. Even though this obviously would only last so long in the pharmaceutical industry, I'd call it a feasible, profitable, and despicable practice for the e-mail industry, with all the sources of spam floating around.
The infrastructure we use may have been derived from DARPANet, but the network grew out of networked research institutions, and that's an important distinction!
I think the issue here is much less one of the right to publish and to speak, though of course in the end that will always be most important. This story is really one for universal concern because it exposes the way in which companies like Gamespy are spelling their own death by sending out these letters. It is publicly revealed information that inspires companies to take security seriously and act quickly toward hole-patching. There should be no doubt in anyone's mind that this information will be disseminated irregardless of its wide publication, and so challenges to security will still happen. Is it not in everyone's best interest that change-motivating embarrassing public releases of information like this be allowed? And plus, doesn't the even wider attention which a company stands to garner by sending out C&D's to avid exposers of flaws like this make them completely worthless?
"are growing dissatisfied with the workings of California-based Icann (the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers), the semi-private internet address regulator set up five years ago."
I've read many slashdot gripes about some of the horors of the ICANN/Verisign run Internet, but never before heard these used as an excuse for state-sponsored control/censorship of the Internet. Really, even if they manage to work out the logistical headache (read: 120 years at least) this kind of thing would take, good luck to them finding any consensus as to proper content/use for the Internet.
Not so sure if this is going to work in any of the situations we seem to have the idea of putting ourself into anytime soon... Destroying mass amounts of electronic infrastructure seemes counter-productive to rebuilding efforts in urban environments.
Isn't the way this is worded a bit odd? Instead of a policy of buying only RFID'ed stuff, they are actually mandating that the RFID be put in?
The evoloution of Thinkgeek's line of optical toys: 1. Red Lasar 2. Green Lasar 3. Lasar capable of pre-detonating munitions from miles away. (But no one will buy it because it is neither green nor capable of being seen in the air.)
What's convenient is, when your attacked by a spider in a video game, you lose one of 15 remaining lives, and when you fall from extraordinary heights in Unreal, you end up with a little less health. It will be interesting to see if this will create a breed of former phobics who now fling themselves off buildings or into dens of black widow spiders under the misimpression that the damage done won't be too great...
This was a typical example of the government imposing unenforcable rules on the internet in the classical why-can't-they-just-hold-their-ID-up-to-the-screen style. Almost never before the internet came along did you have people who genuinely wanted to act legally but had no idea how. Credit-card verification is out, kids can have credit/debit cards at 13 now. No using checking accounts for verification, those can be had by kids even younger. Driver's licenses? Not nationalized. I guess until a generation which grew up with computer-in-hand runs the legislature, we'll be seeing more and more of this absurdity...
I think that the poster makes a misconnection regarding the new privileges in the patriot act (as much as I hate it) and this theory about book spying. The library record clause of the patriot act is scary in and of itself, and as far as I'm concerned, provides much more to be worried about than this new issue because it gives the government a much easier way of quickly determining "terrorist sudpects" (why clandestinly scan the books in people's hands as they walk out the library door or as they're hanging out reading in starbucks when you can just ask the library directly what they have checked out?) - but certainly, the two ideas for pseudo spying are fairly unconnected.
Why do people insist on using the umbrella term "P2P" for Napter or its spawn? It was server based. In addition, I doubt if any of these new legal services are going to be peer-to-peer, how could one possibly keep it legal, when it is inherently not controlled centrally. So the answer is no, legal P2P services can't succeed, they're not even being tried!
I think this demonstrates to linux-hypies very well that while their open-source systems may contain the potential for quicker and more efficent fixes, these are not always implemented so quickly by the magical code-maker in the sky (i.e. collectively, the typical OSS coders who often are forced to treat the job as more of a hobby, and who are not always as motivated as internal authors.
Register with every "reputable" company with a "privacy policy" you can find, and make purchases with them. Register a domain with the addy. Put the addy on tons of those little fill out cards that you have to mail in from magazines for free this, free that. Buy subscriptions to tons of Pr0n sites with the addy. Instead of usenet, post on several pay or exclusive product-support forums, where spam-runners can be assured of sure-fire hits. Damn! It's expensive to acquire SPAM!
Now, what was that late-night dining escapade into south-east for?
This cell phone has been certified by the Association of Alternative Medicines as an evvective communications/healing device.
This is a place where the definitions in copyright and patent law become sketchy and begin to blur together. The question at hand seems to be one of whether GUI's and other elements of program I/O (this so-called "functional structure") come under copyright protection as elements of a creative rendering or patent protection as means of achieving a computational purpose; the idea that such elements may be shakily protected by both seems dangerous and a strong possibility, in Britain's case anyway (although the actual case has yet to commence).
"Now you can make it at home"
Okay, sure, I'll just pull the sodium borate out of my cabinet under the sink.
While I like the irony implied, of the music industry's hypocrisy in accusing file-sharers of stealing when they, in fact, are stealing themselves, I think the two ideas of intellectual property stealing do not mesh quite so easily. The file-sharing theft usually committed is one of profit-deprivation; users download and share for personal enjoyment, depriving the industry of sales money. The theft committed by artists, publishers, recording studios, authors, and the like in unauthorized use of other's works in their own, as much as it may be argued to be a form of innovation, aims to boost one's own profits. This difference, while alleviating some of the irony of the situation, does not paint the industry in any better of a light...
On the surface, this statistic serves both as a testament to linux's growing popularity as a server OS and ammo for those windows admins who have long taken abuses about the insecure nature of their OS. These ideas, particularly the latter, however, may prove misguided; breaches against servers are rooted not only in the security of their running OS, but also in the effectiveness of the security implementation of the system admin him/herself.
I dare say that thr problem comes not with the development of dual-use technologies; the other use may very well be a well-merited one. The problem really comes with single-use military development by scientists who could have their hours devoted to tasks which have an even more beneficial effect.
I hope that most people who have gotten past using the major brand-name monopoly operating system have similarly gotten past using a major brand name company-who-puts-computers-together (and I use this expression because I think to say that they build computers is a bit absurd)...