Lets get real: Information does not want to be free. Information does not want anything. Information is just information.
The only basis we could have for moralizing as we do about information is of a consequentialist bent. Saying "Information wants to be free" really means that, In general, the best consequences obtain if information is free. With this as a premise, the burden of proof when we talk about "information ethics" then falls on those who would restrict it.
Now, this shifting of the burden of proof should not be mistaken for (as it seems to have been by the poster) an objective and universal assessment of the ideal fate of *all* data. Obviously the best ends are not reached by my (or someone else's) making my banking information public. Its just that, thanks to the "Information wants to be free" mantra, the burden of proof falls on me to demonstrate why this particular information should be kept private, as opposed to the other way around -- wherein all data is kept private and proprietary and I have to argue for exceptions open standards, OSS, etc.
I drive a 2004 Saab 9-3. Since buying it a year ago, it has been back to the dealership three times. In all three of those cases, there has been nothing physically wrong with the car; the software on various parts of the car was just buggy and needed to be patched.
That being said, I'm not sure how that sort of virus would spread. Maybe a car could infect the diagnostic computer at the dealership which would then infect other cars? Just a thought...
YDI (DC based, I think) offers training seminars/conferences. I've sent some employees there and have been reasonably satisfied with the results. Here's their info page: http://www.ydi.com/support/training.php
I overlooked the possibility that the bug might simply consume a mineral for fuel. A martian germ that consumes various organic molecules found in human tissue could be a big problem. I'm not so sure that our immune system would be competent to handle a bug that simply broke down our molecules to feast on the carbon rings within and that reproduced on its own (without help from the host). Out skin may also not be any defense if it was edible itself.
Given, however, that we would not play the normal role of "host" in this relationship, but simply the role of food, would it really be proper to think of them as pathogens? They would seem more like either a nasty microscopic predator, or simply a caustic chemical (depending on how they work).
Well, perhaps another thing to point out is that pathogens don't simply eat their hosts. Most pathogens use the host for shelter, sustenance, and a mode of reproduction (particularly in the case of viri). Again, since no macro-organisms exist to infect on Mars, its hard to see how a Martian pathogen could possibly be equipped to benefit from the infection of a host as do Earthly germs.
Unless these pathogens have evolved from something found on Earth (or vice versa...creepy), it's probably pretty unlikely that they will be bacteria (or viri, for that matter) per se. I think it would be fair to assume that any martian pathogen would be a totally new beast.
That said, however, given that there are no macro-scale living things on Mars to infect, its pretty unlikely that it would have any mechanisms in place to handle our immune defenses. While this cuts both ways (our immune defenses would also be woefully ill-prepared), our immune system is good enough to have generalized responses queued up to handle just about anything (think about inflamation, etc). This is not to mention that the pathogen is unlikely to have any idea (if you'll excuse the anthropomorphism) how to infect the human body in the first place (how to cross from the lungs to the blood stream, how to infiltrate mucous membranes, etc).
I think we'll probably have to look for the apocalypse somewhere other than in the form of a martian plague.
a. Mozilla.org would rather not have to keep up with the load of millions of Firefox users immediately hitting their server everytime they open the browser.
b. Google was more than happy to contribute some of their space for the brand exposure and ad revenue...considering that many Firefox default pages are changed to google anyway, I suspect, Google has very little to lose.
There may be more at work here, but if I were either party, this would be enough to bring me to the table.
The oft-ignored problem with paper voting receipts is this:
It allows for voter extortion.
A major requirement of voting systems is that it not provide any way to allow a voter to, after the fact, prove what/who he voted for. This way no one can pay (or threaten) voters to change their vote.
It is clear to anyone who reads the license itself (or, if you perfer english, the FAQ) that Microsoft is not trying to claim IP ownership over *any* of the protocols listed in the license. They specifically and clearly say this a number of times in both documents.
However, that doesn't mean this is totally benign. It is classic M$ policy to require the user to license technology from them whether they plan to profit from it, or restrict usage or not; it is better, on their view, to have consumers using their technologies under only a nominal license (the terms of which may be changed later, if need be) than under no license at all. Given that M$ clearly doesn't *know* what protocols they have what rights over, it may be that they're distributing a catch-all license, in the hopes of figuring out what their rights are later and locking them down.
However, as IANAL, this raises the question of whether such a hypothetical license is binding...can you ask a user to sign a license under an IP right that neither party can identify, and that may not even exist? Given that it doesnt even specifiy what it is that the user is licensing (it only effectively says what it relates to)...can this even be considered a real license?
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I would assume that such systems would use the biometric factor as the key with which it encrypts the data. But I could be wrong...
I happen to know from some inside sources that they have a *lot* of donated XServes lying around ... and have nothing to do with them.
You obviously didn't RTFA. If you had you would know that this scenario is impossible as Neanderthal femals were very ugly. (See the illustration)
:)
Have a nice day.
Er...no. It comes out September 16, 2005. :)
Wait...section 508 requires accessibility to those with disabilities. Is using Firefox a disability? :)
Lets get real: Information does not want to be free. Information does not want anything. Information is just information.
The only basis we could have for moralizing as we do about information is of a consequentialist bent. Saying "Information wants to be free" really means that, In general, the best consequences obtain if information is free. With this as a premise, the burden of proof when we talk about "information ethics" then falls on those who would restrict it.
Now, this shifting of the burden of proof should not be mistaken for (as it seems to have been by the poster) an objective and universal assessment of the ideal fate of *all* data. Obviously the best ends are not reached by my (or someone else's) making my banking information public. Its just that, thanks to the "Information wants to be free" mantra, the burden of proof falls on me to demonstrate why this particular information should be kept private, as opposed to the other way around -- wherein all data is kept private and proprietary and I have to argue for exceptions open standards, OSS, etc.
Hope this made sense.
I drive a 2004 Saab 9-3. Since buying it a year ago, it has been back to the dealership three times. In all three of those cases, there has been nothing physically wrong with the car; the software on various parts of the car was just buggy and needed to be patched. That being said, I'm not sure how that sort of virus would spread. Maybe a car could infect the diagnostic computer at the dealership which would then infect other cars? Just a thought...
Take a look at LARTC (Linux Advanced Routing and Traffic Control). I have been impressed with how much this suite has to offer.
Anyone using the phrase "digital workplace of tomorrow" will be flogged.
are awesome.
I know I sure can't say "Surginal Nuclear Strick" with a straight face... ;)
Crediblity? Retain? :)
Monkies are stupid. No one pays for porn!
And VIIV looks cooler. Thats worth a lot to a company like Intel.
YDI (DC based, I think) offers training seminars/conferences. I've sent some employees there and have been reasonably satisfied with the results. Here's their info page: http://www.ydi.com/support/training.php
I overlooked the possibility that the bug might simply consume a mineral for fuel. A martian germ that consumes various organic molecules found in human tissue could be a big problem. I'm not so sure that our immune system would be competent to handle a bug that simply broke down our molecules to feast on the carbon rings within and that reproduced on its own (without help from the host). Out skin may also not be any defense if it was edible itself.
Given, however, that we would not play the normal role of "host" in this relationship, but simply the role of food, would it really be proper to think of them as pathogens? They would seem more like either a nasty microscopic predator, or simply a caustic chemical (depending on how they work).
Well, perhaps another thing to point out is that pathogens don't simply eat their hosts. Most pathogens use the host for shelter, sustenance, and a mode of reproduction (particularly in the case of viri). Again, since no macro-organisms exist to infect on Mars, its hard to see how a Martian pathogen could possibly be equipped to benefit from the infection of a host as do Earthly germs.
Unless these pathogens have evolved from something found on Earth (or vice versa...creepy), it's probably pretty unlikely that they will be bacteria (or viri, for that matter) per se. I think it would be fair to assume that any martian pathogen would be a totally new beast.
That said, however, given that there are no macro-scale living things on Mars to infect, its pretty unlikely that it would have any mechanisms in place to handle our immune defenses. While this cuts both ways (our immune defenses would also be woefully ill-prepared), our immune system is good enough to have generalized responses queued up to handle just about anything (think about inflamation, etc). This is not to mention that the pathogen is unlikely to have any idea (if you'll excuse the anthropomorphism) how to infect the human body in the first place (how to cross from the lungs to the blood stream, how to infiltrate mucous membranes, etc).
I think we'll probably have to look for the apocalypse somewhere other than in the form of a martian plague.
Its incurable and we have no cure? Talk about a one, two punch...
Wouldn't reducing the mass of an orbiting body increase the radius of its orbit?
It seems to me that the real risk would be of the moon flying out of orbit, leaving us tideless (among other things), not of it's crashing into earth.
It may just be that:
a. Mozilla.org would rather not have to keep up with the load of millions of Firefox users immediately hitting their server everytime they open the browser.
b. Google was more than happy to contribute some of their space for the brand exposure and ad revenue...considering that many Firefox default pages are changed to google anyway, I suspect, Google has very little to lose.
There may be more at work here, but if I were either party, this would be enough to bring me to the table.
The oft-ignored problem with paper voting receipts is this: It allows for voter extortion. A major requirement of voting systems is that it not provide any way to allow a voter to, after the fact, prove what/who he voted for. This way no one can pay (or threaten) voters to change their vote.
Evidently, I need a better dictionary. Sorry guys.
It is clear to anyone who reads the license itself (or, if you perfer english, the FAQ) that Microsoft is not trying to claim IP ownership over *any* of the protocols listed in the license. They specifically and clearly say this a number of times in both documents.
However, that doesn't mean this is totally benign. It is classic M$ policy to require the user to license technology from them whether they plan to profit from it, or restrict usage or not; it is better, on their view, to have consumers using their technologies under only a nominal license (the terms of which may be changed later, if need be) than under no license at all. Given that M$ clearly doesn't *know* what protocols they have what rights over, it may be that they're distributing a catch-all license, in the hopes of figuring out what their rights are later and locking them down.
However, as IANAL, this raises the question of whether such a hypothetical license is binding...can you ask a user to sign a license under an IP right that neither party can identify, and that may not even exist? Given that it doesnt even specifiy what it is that the user is licensing (it only effectively says what it relates to)...can this even be considered a real license?
I really hate to post this kind of criticism, but just so everyone knows...
:)
Emergency: " A condition of urgent need for action or assistance."
The word for "the act of emerging" is "Emergence"
And no, emergency doesn't mean both things.
Live and learn...