Netscape has amazingly bequeathed us a lot of things,
whether they're good or not - LiveScript aka JavaScript
being one.
JavaSript is not related in any way to Java. It was a cold
day in November 1995 when Bill Joy, in contract negotiations
between Sun and Netscape, told them "sure, go ahead and use
the name JavaScript."
Sort of funny when you think about the current protection
of the Java trademark, or whatever it is.
People are wrong, I think, to dismiss ID as stupid, just like creationism,
and so on. ID is attempting to be subtle. Their science, if you want
to call it that, is flawed, but it is not the same as creationism and "poof!"
Recall the maxim, Keep your enemies closer. Read this great 8-page New Yorker
article from May, 2005 to understand better where these people are coming from:
I get a different reading than that, from reading papers on www.cdc.gov,
nih.gov and scholars.google.com, but surely we agree this is a complex and
one might say mutating problem.
Incidentally, my point was that plague survivors are probably not the
fortunate ones who passed on to northern European populations the
protective mutation known as CCR5-delta32, c'est tout! As for immunity
against HIV/AIDS and CCR5's role - certainly a very active research topic.
...but probably not true. This has been soundly refuted (in my
judgement) by a 2003 paper published at Berkeley. See reference below.
CCR5-delta32 (the allele) does protect against HIV, but it's unlikely it's
the result of the genetic mutations of plague survivors. More likely can be traced back to smallpox survivors from 700 years ago. Check out the ref, it's
online.
HIV has many strains, not just two. HIV is rapidly mutating. If you're into
this topic, check out the many papers at www.cdc.gov.
Marianne
reference:
Proc Natl Acad Sci 2003 December 9; 100(25): 15276-15279
Published online 2003 November 25. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2435085100.
c2003 National Academy of Sciences
"Evaluating plague and smallpox as historical selective pressures for
the CCR5-[Delta]32 HIV resistance allele", by Alison P. Galvani* and
Montgomery Slatkin, Department of Integrative Biology, University of
California, Berkeley, CA 94720
*To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: agalvani@nature.berkeley.edu.
Edited by Robert May, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
Received August 8, 2003; Accepted October 3, 2003.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcg i?artid=299980
I can't say I've read EVERY comment but I've read a lot, and I'm surprised no one yet has quoted John
Gilmore:
The Internet treats censorship as damage, and routes around it.
To me, the Internet isn't owned or controlled by any government or corporation (allowing that the mysterious forces that control ICANN are, well, mysterious; does anyone else remember the NSA conspiracy theories re: DNS control?) - it's possibly the best instance of distributed anarchism that works for good (most of the time) and for ill (some of the time, bearing in mind
human nature). I like to hope that if anything can combat totalitarianism, it's the Internet.
I agree wholeheartedly (re: Who cares?) At what point DO we stand up for freedom? This is something practical and tangible. Yes, it can be abused, therefore, it will be abused. But if a gazillion blogs are hosted on a gazillion servers, and those blogs additionally keep moving around, I think it will be hard to track and filter.
I despise the Patriot Act, but you cannot compare that to the abuse of freedom in China. It was touching to hear C. Rice exhort the Mideast to uphold freedom of expression, assembly, religious worship. All those noble sentiments the US government and US corporations have checked at the door when it comes to China.
As for the person who opined perhaps the Chinese government has the right idea - after all, their economy is so spiffy now - A) this person has no idea what economic life is really like in China for most people, and B) running the trains on time is something totalitarian governments are demonstrably good at, but I still don't want one.
Democracy is the worst system there is, except
for all the rest...
I'm awaiting with baited breath EFF's analysis, but
I'm willing to bet this password protection is about as good your average password prompt on a web page. Will deflect your Mom. Will not deflect someone bent on breaking it.
I agree that the question is, what problem is being solved here? Surprising to me that you young people (under 25:-)) (Ok, under 44)
don't have a problem with it. You need to watch
more old movies.
If the US gov't wanted to protect privacy, it could encrypt the data. But it doesn't want to "share our encryption technology" with those rogue states. (I admit, encrypting/decrypting might require more power but... in the scenario the State Dept describes, power would hardly be a concern. And the chips will be 64KB so data size is also not a factor.)
This is a terrible idea. ISPs should not
be traffic cops. This is 100% the wrong
approach for spam. All the responses that
talk cleverly about spam statistics are
missing the point, imho.
Recall that false positives are a fact of life.
So this heavy handed approach will (just one recent
example from SpamAssassin) block me from visiting
the ACLU site.
Marianne
This guy has a messianic complex. I thought it
was telling how he describes himself and his
incredible career.
Also rather naive of him to implicitly threaten
companies who don't have billions in cash to
defend fake IP lawsuits.
Also rather stupid of him not to be able to imagine
a world in which GPL protects producers AND
consumers.
Marianne
I think it is very disturbing, this trend
of holding ISPs responsible for content,
whether that content is benign, illegally
ripped off website, criminal virus code,
or what have you.
I don't know what the EFF would say, but I
sure think they would say the ISP is never
to be held responsible for content. It is
a first amendment issue.
That makes law enforcement and "personal
protection" harder, therefore it's not a
popular opinion.
Slashdot Mirror
JavaSript is not related in any way to Java. It was a cold day in November 1995 when Bill Joy, in contract negotiations between Sun and Netscape, told them "sure, go ahead and use the name JavaScript."
Sort of funny when you think about the current protection of the Java trademark, or whatever it is.
p.s. yes I was there
Recall the maxim, Keep your enemies closer. Read this great 8-page New Yorker article from May, 2005 to understand better where these people are coming from:
"Why Intelligent Design Isn't"_ fact
http://www.newyorker.com/printables/fact/050530fa
Marianne
See this 1998 paper for a good paper by O'Brien: http://www.hosppract.com/issues/1998/07/obrien.htm
Cool graphics! :-)
Incidentally, my point was that plague survivors are probably not the fortunate ones who passed on to northern European populations the protective mutation known as CCR5-delta32, c'est tout! As for immunity against HIV/AIDS and CCR5's role - certainly a very active research topic.
Marianne
...but probably not true. This has been soundly refuted (in my judgement) by a 2003 paper published at Berkeley. See reference below. CCR5-delta32 (the allele) does protect against HIV, but it's unlikely it's the result of the genetic mutations of plague survivors. More likely can be traced back to smallpox survivors from 700 years ago. Check out the ref, it's online. HIV has many strains, not just two. HIV is rapidly mutating. If you're into this topic, check out the many papers at www.cdc.gov. Marianne reference: Proc Natl Acad Sci 2003 December 9; 100(25): 15276-15279 Published online 2003 November 25. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2435085100. c2003 National Academy of Sciences "Evaluating plague and smallpox as historical selective pressures for the CCR5-[Delta]32 HIV resistance allele", by Alison P. Galvani* and Montgomery Slatkin, Department of Integrative Biology, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720 *To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: agalvani@nature.berkeley.edu. Edited by Robert May, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom Received August 8, 2003; Accepted October 3, 2003. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcg i?artid=299980
I can't say I've read EVERY comment but I've read a lot, and I'm surprised no one yet has quoted John Gilmore: The Internet treats censorship as damage, and routes around it. To me, the Internet isn't owned or controlled by any government or corporation (allowing that the mysterious forces that control ICANN are, well, mysterious; does anyone else remember the NSA conspiracy theories re: DNS control?) - it's possibly the best instance of distributed anarchism that works for good (most of the time) and for ill (some of the time, bearing in mind human nature). I like to hope that if anything can combat totalitarianism, it's the Internet.
I agree wholeheartedly (re: Who cares?) At what point DO we stand up for freedom? This is something practical and tangible. Yes, it can be abused, therefore, it will be abused. But if a gazillion blogs are hosted on a gazillion servers, and those blogs additionally keep moving around, I think it will be hard to track and filter. I despise the Patriot Act, but you cannot compare that to the abuse of freedom in China. It was touching to hear C. Rice exhort the Mideast to uphold freedom of expression, assembly, religious worship. All those noble sentiments the US government and US corporations have checked at the door when it comes to China. As for the person who opined perhaps the Chinese government has the right idea - after all, their economy is so spiffy now - A) this person has no idea what economic life is really like in China for most people, and B) running the trains on time is something totalitarian governments are demonstrably good at, but I still don't want one. Democracy is the worst system there is, except for all the rest ...
I'm awaiting with baited breath EFF's analysis, but I'm willing to bet this password protection is about as good your average password prompt on a web page. Will deflect your Mom. Will not deflect someone bent on breaking it. I agree that the question is, what problem is being solved here? Surprising to me that you young people (under 25 :-)) (Ok, under 44)
don't have a problem with it. You need to watch
more old movies.
If the US gov't wanted to protect privacy, it could encrypt the data. But it doesn't want to "share our encryption technology" with those rogue states. (I admit, encrypting/decrypting might require more power but ... in the scenario the State Dept describes, power would hardly be a concern. And the chips will be 64KB so data size is also not a factor.)
P = NP
This is a terrible idea. ISPs should not be traffic cops. This is 100% the wrong approach for spam. All the responses that talk cleverly about spam statistics are missing the point, imho. Recall that false positives are a fact of life. So this heavy handed approach will (just one recent example from SpamAssassin) block me from visiting the ACLU site. Marianne
This guy has a messianic complex. I thought it was telling how he describes himself and his incredible career. Also rather naive of him to implicitly threaten companies who don't have billions in cash to defend fake IP lawsuits. Also rather stupid of him not to be able to imagine a world in which GPL protects producers AND consumers. Marianne
I think it is very disturbing, this trend of holding ISPs responsible for content, whether that content is benign, illegally ripped off website, criminal virus code, or what have you. I don't know what the EFF would say, but I sure think they would say the ISP is never to be held responsible for content. It is a first amendment issue. That makes law enforcement and "personal protection" harder, therefore it's not a popular opinion.