I thought the headline First Swede prosecuted for sharing files on net was fairly ominous but then I felt better after I read down a bit...
Here's a quote from the prosecutor:
"As these cases do not involve criminals, but instead quite ordinary people who share their files, any prison sentence would certainly be suspended," Rudström said.
Is it just me or does this sound like something that would be said by a defense attorney?
I would generally concur with your laissez-faire attitude but by your position:
The only justification for forced intervention in others life is self-defence. This would include the defence of the unborn child (so for example if I *wished* my child to be born without arms, the State most certainly should intervene) but the *gender* of the child? I cannot see how this can be thought of as harming the child.
Would the inevitable imbalance in the male/female ratio and the resulting (possibly society-killing) problems it creates invoke the defense clause that you bring up?
If you're doing an in vitro fertilization, your doctor likely has several viable fertilized eggs to choose from.
I don't necessarily see the problem with the parents choosing which one they want. My largest concern is this leading us down a slippery slope that ends on prospective parents going to www.amazon.com, clicking on the Baby tab and selecting every aspect of your new baby which will be shipped to you for free if you select a model over $25.
It appears the article summary might be misleading. From the first sentence of www.numenta.com:
Numenta is developing a new type of computer memory system modeled after the human neocortex. The applications of this technology are broad and can be applied to solve problems in computer vision, artificial intelligence, robotics and machine learning.
They further go on to say:
Numenta is a technology platform provider rather than an application developer. The Company is creating a scalable software toolkit that will allow developers and partners to configure and adapt HTM systems to particular problems.
My reading on this is that they aren't an AI company - they're just developing a technology that could be used for AI or many, many other uses.
I'm not usually one to point out typos, but... You might want to check your spelling when you're making a very public argument about how your software is not more prone to vulnerabilities than another.
IE is part of the Windows Operating System so that parts of the OS and other applicaitons can rely on the functionality and APIs being present. IE in turn relies on Operating System funcitonality to do it's job.
There are maybe a dozen sentences in the blog entry and two in a row have glaring typos (not to mention using "it's" when they mean "its"). I know we should judge it on the merits of what they're trying to say and not the careless way they said it, but it's hard not to have this reflect poorly on the speaker and the claims they're making.
This article is ridiculous. I've been a user of (BUY ADOBE ACROBAT!!!!) Adobe's toolbar and I have never seen any (BUY ADOBE ACROBAT!!!!) evidence of being infected with any sort of adware (BUY ADOBE ACROBAT!!!!) or malware.
You're correct. Not passing judgement on the merits, but the Attorney General's complaint is that the disclaimers that you mention are not in the marketing materials.
As you state, they are part of the signup process though.
When they asked the richest man in the world, who happened to have amassed his wealth in the PC business what he thought about the PC business, he had nothing but positive things to say.
There were a lot of questions that weren't asked of MC Chris...
1. What cereal is in your cupboard?
2. What is the coolest article of clothing you own?
3. Ever buy a winning lottery ticket?
4. Who is your closest celebrity neighbor?
5. Why are you so hot?
(Special thanks to Teen Magazine for providing inspiration for these questions)
He explains that his program works by bypassing iTunes which adds the DRM itself at the end of the transfer.
I don't think it would be trivial to change the time that they add the DRM. So, is this a true fix that won't be broken again quickly? Or is this just a small patch that changes something just significant enough to break the Pymusique application?
I'm asked all the time to show my ID by various cashiers when I use my credit card in a store and it's a bit annoying.
Since the U.S. federal government limits my liability to $50 for someone fraudulently using my credit card, and all of my credit card companies waive even that, I don't care who uses my credit card.
I just had to have one credit card replaced because someone attempted to charge $9,000 worth of "computer equipment" to it while I was on vacation. It was actually the third incident of someone putting fraudulent charges on that card. The funny thing is that even my credit card company didn't care - it was I that insisted on getting new numbers on the card. Which explains why more and more vendors are asking for ID or checking signatures - they're the ones that lose money when fraud happens.
Will this include books still in copyright?
Google will be scanning books that are in as well as out of copyright from the Harvard collections. Harvard-owned books in the public domain will be available in the search results. Google may choose to display descriptive catalog information for books that are still under copyright. We believe that Google's treatment of in-copyright works is consistent with copyright law.
If I'm reading this correctly, that Google is placing the text of copyrighted works into a freely searchable and viewable database, it's an amazingly brazen step. It's also incredibly useful, but I can't imagine book publishers lying down for this. Add to this Disney's propensity for lobbying for extending copyrights everytime Mickey Mouse comes up for entering the public domain and I think we're headed for an interesting copyright showdown.
It sounds to me like the real problem is that government workers aren't able to hit Alt-Tab fast enough. Once we address that, then the problem will be neatly swept under the rug.
I have a block for caller ID on my home phone. I know that when I call a 1-800 number though, they still are easily able to discern what my true phone number is. My understanding is that this is by using Automatic Number Identification - ANI. Does Western Union not use this or do VoIP phones allow you to fake this as well as standard caller ID? If the latter, then I think we have bigger problems than Western Union. Most 911 systems use ANI also. Imagine if knuckleheads could make anonymous calls to 911.
First of all, you're taking what was intended to be humorous far too seriously. But I'll bite.
Anyone that says that your computer (which is your property) should be destroyed because of his radical agenda (which is on the extreme side of copyright holders) is a terrorist.
You may use your computer solely for playing games and futzing around on the Internet but many people use their computer for their livelihood or to maintain their quality of life. Some people even use their computer to buy medicines at a price they can afford. Orrin Hatch declaring RIAA operatives as the judge, jury and executioner allowed to destroy anyone's computer they want makes him a terrorist in my book.
In Microsoft's short-term thinking, they're less likely to support standards. Despite losing market share, their browser is still the defacto standard on the Internet.
Supporting standards only makes other browsers a viable alternative. How many people use Firefox but have to continue to use IE at work because of sites that only work in IE?
The headline of the BetaNews site seems misleading to me. Reading "Internet Usage Flattening", you might come to the conclusion that the use of the Internet is not growing.
It appears that the actual Nielson report is just showing that the amount of time an individual user spends on the Internet is not growing. They don't appear to be making any judgements as to additional users coming online.
From data that I have seen, there are a large number of older people that have no desire to use the internet - ever. As the older population that has never been exposed to the internet and never will dies, they will be replaced by people that grew up with an intimate knowledge of the internet providing substantial organic growth.
Mister Transistor, yours is a common misconception. Your workstation's address is never transmitted outside your local network.
To the world outside your local network, every MAC address coming from your local network appears to be the same one - the one of your router. Any such WiFi Boogeyman would appear to have the same exact MAC address as you.
As for the "more sophisticated tracking"... There are some things that can be done but to be honest they're not very sophisticated. Suffice it to say that you could very easily get away with doing just about anything you want if the law enforcement-types are in any way ready to believe that someone other than you might have done it through your network.
When criminals operate online through a Wi-Fi network, law enforcement agents can track their activity to the numeric Internet Protocol address corresponding to that connection. But from there the trail may go cold, in the case of a public network, or lead to an innocent owner of a wireless home network.
After reading the article, it gives me the impression that you have a license to do just about any illegal internet activity so long as your WiFi router uses the default SSID, broadcasts its SSID and keeps the default passwords. If anything is traced back to you, you just blame the WiFi-Boogeyman for any illegal activities originating from your IP address.
Slashdot Mirror
I thought the headline First Swede prosecuted for sharing files on net was fairly ominous but then I felt better after I read down a bit...
Here's a quote from the prosecutor:
"As these cases do not involve criminals, but instead quite ordinary people who share their files, any prison sentence would certainly be suspended," Rudström said.
Is it just me or does this sound like something that would be said by a defense attorney?
I would generally concur with your laissez-faire attitude but by your position:
The only justification for forced intervention in others life is self-defence. This would include the defence of the unborn child (so for example if I *wished* my child to be born without arms, the State most certainly should intervene) but the *gender* of the child? I cannot see how this can be thought of as harming the child.
Would the inevitable imbalance in the male/female ratio and the resulting (possibly society-killing) problems it creates invoke the defense clause that you bring up?
If you're doing an in vitro fertilization, your doctor likely has several viable fertilized eggs to choose from.
I don't necessarily see the problem with the parents choosing which one they want. My largest concern is this leading us down a slippery slope that ends on prospective parents going to www.amazon.com, clicking on the Baby tab and selecting every aspect of your new baby which will be shipped to you for free if you select a model over $25.
It appears the article summary might be misleading. From the first sentence of www.numenta.com:
Numenta is developing a new type of computer memory system modeled after the human neocortex. The applications of this technology are broad and can be applied to solve problems in computer vision, artificial intelligence, robotics and machine learning.
They further go on to say:
Numenta is a technology platform provider rather than an application developer. The Company is creating a scalable software toolkit that will allow developers and partners to configure and adapt HTM systems to particular problems.
My reading on this is that they aren't an AI company - they're just developing a technology that could be used for AI or many, many other uses.
I'm not usually one to point out typos, but... You might want to check your spelling when you're making a very public argument about how your software is not more prone to vulnerabilities than another.
IE is part of the Windows Operating System so that parts of the OS and other applicaitons can rely on the functionality and APIs being present. IE in turn relies on Operating System funcitonality to do it's job.
There are maybe a dozen sentences in the blog entry and two in a row have glaring typos (not to mention using "it's" when they mean "its"). I know we should judge it on the merits of what they're trying to say and not the careless way they said it, but it's hard not to have this reflect poorly on the speaker and the claims they're making.
But what if your name's not Gene?
This article is ridiculous. I've been a user of (BUY ADOBE ACROBAT!!!!) Adobe's toolbar and I have never seen any (BUY ADOBE ACROBAT!!!!) evidence of being infected with any sort of adware (BUY ADOBE ACROBAT!!!!) or malware.
I prefer Goohoo
You're correct. Not passing judgement on the merits, but the Attorney General's complaint is that the disclaimers that you mention are not in the marketing materials.
As you state, they are part of the signup process though.
When they asked the richest man in the world, who happened to have amassed his wealth in the PC business what he thought about the PC business, he had nothing but positive things to say.
There were a lot of questions that weren't asked of MC Chris...
1. What cereal is in your cupboard?
2. What is the coolest article of clothing you own?
3. Ever buy a winning lottery ticket?
4. Who is your closest celebrity neighbor?
5. Why are you so hot?
(Special thanks to Teen Magazine for providing inspiration for these questions)
From the original story:
He explains that his program works by bypassing iTunes which adds the DRM itself at the end of the transfer.
I don't think it would be trivial to change the time that they add the DRM. So, is this a true fix that won't be broken again quickly? Or is this just a small patch that changes something just significant enough to break the Pymusique application?
The server appears to be hosed. It looks like:
ourmedia.org resolves to 69.44.153.99.
69.44.153.99 is part of ServerBeach's netblock
I guess our only hope is that server isn't a shared one, taking down several other sites with it.
I'm asked all the time to show my ID by various cashiers when I use my credit card in a store and it's a bit annoying.
Since the U.S. federal government limits my liability to $50 for someone fraudulently using my credit card, and all of my credit card companies waive even that, I don't care who uses my credit card.
I just had to have one credit card replaced because someone attempted to charge $9,000 worth of "computer equipment" to it while I was on vacation. It was actually the third incident of someone putting fraudulent charges on that card. The funny thing is that even my credit card company didn't care - it was I that insisted on getting new numbers on the card. Which explains why more and more vendors are asking for ID or checking signatures - they're the ones that lose money when fraud happens.
From the Harvard FAQ at: http://hul.harvard.edu/publications/041213faq.html ...
Will this include books still in copyright? Google will be scanning books that are in as well as out of copyright from the Harvard collections. Harvard-owned books in the public domain will be available in the search results. Google may choose to display descriptive catalog information for books that are still under copyright. We believe that Google's treatment of in-copyright works is consistent with copyright law.
If I'm reading this correctly, that Google is placing the text of copyrighted works into a freely searchable and viewable database, it's an amazingly brazen step. It's also incredibly useful, but I can't imagine book publishers lying down for this. Add to this Disney's propensity for lobbying for extending copyrights everytime Mickey Mouse comes up for entering the public domain and I think we're headed for an interesting copyright showdown.
Do you think the creators of www.iwon.com had any idea they'd be in store for a $2,000,000,000 windfall?
It sounds to me like the real problem is that government workers aren't able to hit Alt-Tab fast enough. Once we address that, then the problem will be neatly swept under the rug.
I have a block for caller ID on my home phone. I know that when I call a 1-800 number though, they still are easily able to discern what my true phone number is. My understanding is that this is by using Automatic Number Identification - ANI. Does Western Union not use this or do VoIP phones allow you to fake this as well as standard caller ID? If the latter, then I think we have bigger problems than Western Union. Most 911 systems use ANI also. Imagine if knuckleheads could make anonymous calls to 911.
First of all, you're taking what was intended to be humorous far too seriously. But I'll bite.
Anyone that says that your computer (which is your property) should be destroyed because of his radical agenda (which is on the extreme side of copyright holders) is a terrorist.
You may use your computer solely for playing games and futzing around on the Internet but many people use their computer for their livelihood or to maintain their quality of life. Some people even use their computer to buy medicines at a price they can afford. Orrin Hatch declaring RIAA operatives as the judge, jury and executioner allowed to destroy anyone's computer they want makes him a terrorist in my book.
"Osama Bin Laden has been named the new head of the United States' Department of Homeland Security."
If anyone deserves the name "copyright terrorist", it's Orrin Hatch.
In Microsoft's short-term thinking, they're less likely to support standards. Despite losing market share, their browser is still the defacto standard on the Internet.
Supporting standards only makes other browsers a viable alternative. How many people use Firefox but have to continue to use IE at work because of sites that only work in IE?
The headline of the BetaNews site seems misleading to me. Reading "Internet Usage Flattening", you might come to the conclusion that the use of the Internet is not growing.
It appears that the actual Nielson report is just showing that the amount of time an individual user spends on the Internet is not growing. They don't appear to be making any judgements as to additional users coming online.
From data that I have seen, there are a large number of older people that have no desire to use the internet - ever. As the older population that has never been exposed to the internet and never will dies, they will be replaced by people that grew up with an intimate knowledge of the internet providing substantial organic growth.
Mister Transistor, yours is a common misconception. Your workstation's address is never transmitted outside your local network.
To the world outside your local network, every MAC address coming from your local network appears to be the same one - the one of your router. Any such WiFi Boogeyman would appear to have the same exact MAC address as you.
As for the "more sophisticated tracking"... There are some things that can be done but to be honest they're not very sophisticated. Suffice it to say that you could very easily get away with doing just about anything you want if the law enforcement-types are in any way ready to believe that someone other than you might have done it through your network.
When criminals operate online through a Wi-Fi network, law enforcement agents can track their activity to the numeric Internet Protocol address corresponding to that connection. But from there the trail may go cold, in the case of a public network, or lead to an innocent owner of a wireless home network.
After reading the article, it gives me the impression that you have a license to do just about any illegal internet activity so long as your WiFi router uses the default SSID, broadcasts its SSID and keeps the default passwords. If anything is traced back to you, you just blame the WiFi-Boogeyman for any illegal activities originating from your IP address.
Now that Google's a publicly traded company flush with cash, many potential litigants are smelling blood.
Google is both suing and being sued by so many parties now it's hard to keep track, as a search on Google will show.
One of the cases involving images.google.com appears to me to be more of a publicity stunt by the plaintiff.
I think we can expect more such lawsuits.