I purchased the Archos Jukebox from Think Geek. Cool looking gadget; but it didn't turn on. I got an "I2C Error" from the get-go.
So, I went down to Best Buy and picked up another one. This one turned on and worked fine; I could transfer files over, and it was a pleasure to use. The sound was a bit muddy, but not too bad.
But, any time I pushed a specific button, the entire machine shut down. There was a "soft spot" around the button that, when *very* slight pressure was applied, caused the logic end to shut down, and the hard drive to spin up. Obviously, there was some sort of short happening. Within the day, the machine would not turn on, and the hard drive would not spin down.
I reluctantly purchased a Nomad Jukebox (6G instead of 20G-- damn!). There are some libraries for Linux. And, you *can* transfer tracks back from the unit. However, there is a flag that may be set to "play-only." This is true for all the pre-loaded music (most of which is not very good). However, all the music I uploaded to the device can be downloaded back to my computer. Granted, I have only transferred music I've ripped from my own CDs.
In addition, the Nomad Jukebox has *excellent* sound. I'm not sure I could deal with an Archos now that I've heard what it *can* sound like.
I have to defend Rio and Creative and all the other "SDMI-Ready" manufacturers. They watched as both Napster and mp3.com got smacked down hard. They can't afford to go against the music industry. I can't blame them for caving. I wish they had the brass balls to stand up to the schoolyard bully, but it ain't gonna happen soon.
Anyway, that's my take, from a practical and philosophical standpoint.
This is probably the best place to start:
Contact. This is similar to the references I have seen before-- groups of scientists and science fiction authors brought together to create first contact scenarios. Although Contact is not a political group, it is a scientific association.
Here is the actual link to our "First Contact" protocol.
How many scientists, engineers, and researchers were influenced by the books they read as kids? Asimov himself was one, though he ended up doing little research.
How much were the scientists who shot the moon influenced by Verne, Welles, and E. E. Doc Smith? If many of them were inspired by these authors' works, then the novels indeed had an impact and influence on technology.
Many authors directly and indirectly influenced our technosphere. Clarke calculated geosynchronous orbit; most satellites orbit in the belt named after him. Larry Niven's warnings about the effects of organ transplants has changed the way people approach the ethics of taking organs from executed criminals. (Incidently, the "Slashdot effect" is really nothing more than a virtual flash crowd, which Niven predicted as a result of easy teleportation.)
The early works about robots and sentient computers have influenced the direction of research in these fields. AI researchers talk earnestly about the three laws of robotics.
Terraforming was an idea first proposed in science fiction. The US First Contact Protocol is based on science fiction scenerios.
SF influences science and research because scientists tend to read science fiction. If that doesn't color our ideas of the world (which in turn influences our research), then our imagination has died.
Yeah, I am rather suspicious of the whole thing, too. As Eddy Izzard says, "The infrastructure's fucked." (God: "Oh? Well, have some jam. And here's a radiator.")
It looks like Katz is the butt of someone's joke. Without some backing evidence (such as complete mail headers showing routes, and evidence that the headers aren't forged), I consider this a kremvax.
So far, the Nomad is a great MP3 player. I only have the 6G model, so I can't take many CDs with me (only about a hundred), but it's my favorite 100, so that's okay.
The Archos 20G looks nice in theory, but I purchased one, and it didn't work. I2C error while booting. I figure it's probably a loose wire, but didn't want to void the warranty opening it up.
So I purchased another, and it worked great. The sound was kinda muddy, even with good headphones, but I figured I could live with that. Then, I discovered that pressing one button (one important for navigation), the entire thing shut down. A little creative troubleshooting indicated that one entire area near the faulty button had a "soft spot," that, when pressed, caused a short, shutting the entire machine down. Then, it started shutting down spontaneously. After a while, it wouldn't even run.
All this was within one day.
So, I believe the Creative Nomad is a far superior product, even if it looks lame. It has great sound, as well. I figured the EAX processing was a gimmick, but it's really kinda cool. Yeah, the environmental processors are kinda cheesy (who the hell wants to listen to Gus in a cave?), but the concept is neat.
All-in-all, I say the Nomad is a great choice.
On the other hand, a cool case wouldn't be bad, either.
I suppose playing a musical instrument exposes me as a non-geek.
Oddly enough, there is a stong correlation between musical ability and geekdom. A lot of geeks I know are very musically talented.
Now, about the $50k violin-- my daughter has been informed she has the ability to play violin professionally (that is, in a paying symphony). My question is this:
A $50k violin?!? Are you insane?
Funny, though. When I think in terms of computers, I can see spending $50k on a quad-proc Ultrasparc III machine. So I guess $50k for a violin isn't that extravagant.
I mean there wouldn't have been any start up money to fund these businesses that have eventually failed if the "potential" wasn't there.
You're joking, right? You underestimate the power of human stupidity coupled with the blinding effect of human greed.
Business people are, on a whole, dumber than the rest of the population. They will invest in anything if they believe they might make a buck. And everyone wanted to get in on another "Microsoft," only at the ground floor. So Ifni flung her dice, and they came up boxcars. Of course, in this case, the dice were loaded.
I know of *no* tech-geek in my personal sphere who believed in the power of.com . Most of us knew it was a sham. But the hype was somewhat awe-inspiring, and as a social experiment in blind greed coupled with a giant dose of ignorance, it was quite fun to watch.
Considering the growing technical nature of our society, with the ever-increasing complexity of information and copyright laws, is there hope of better-educated lawmakers making important decisions that will affect not only our current lives, but the way our near-future society grows?
I know that Alaska's reps (Ted Stevens and Neil... I mean, Don Young) are just good ol' boys, never meanin' no harm. But, they are also rather ignorant about technology and information. Is this changing? Are lawmakers *choosing* to become educated about the topics on which they make important decisions?
Or, do they react only to questions and concerns of money? (Does it all come down to the dollar, in the end?)
Jesus. The entire industry has become a bunch of bawl-babies. Apple's crying because someone has taken their blue-lozenge looks, and other people are crying because Apple has started getting a little rougher.
Okay, these are all just my opinions, but:
1: I don't believe Apple really has any say over the blue-lozenge widgets, as long as we don't just cuttenpaste an Aqua screenshot. I'm not a lawyer, and I don't know the laws; I'm speaking from an ethical standpoint.
2: Apple has a *right* to scream if anyone uses their logo, just like the Linux crowd has a right to scream if someone starts using Tux in a non-Linux context.
3: With something like "art," shouldn't we respect Apple's wishes? It's only polite. If someone in the Free Software crowd got upset about someone copying them (not their code, but their art), wouldn't we respect them?
Oh. Maybe not.
4: The shape and color of a widget set do *not* make up the interface!!!!! Aqua is *not* just clear blue freakin' buttons!!!!!
Anyway, just my opinion. I think this is a sign that we don't have enough important things to do-- (and I paraphrase): "The battle was so fierce because the cause was so trivial." Or something like that.
This interview wasn't about Gnome; it was about a component model that might be better than the one Gnome currently uses. Although MS doesn't often come up with good ideas, it does employ some extremely bright people; if some of those bright people come up with a good idea, it behooves us to learn.
In this way, perhaps computers will someday suck less.
The flaw to backdoor encryption? That's an easy one.
Think of the term, "backdoor." What's the flaw with a backdoor in a webserver, or any server on the internet, for that matter?
ANS: once the backdoor is compromised (READ: publicly known), *any*one can access that service, rendering security useless. You'd have to change the backdoor key.
The other option is key escrow, in which, to use encryption, you must register your keys with the government. This option is certainly better, but still less-than-desirable.
For instance:
Imagine you are writing an expose' of the President, talking about his cocaine years and how he payed for his hookers by dealing crack. You are interviewing sources via the 'net (in addition to other methods), and you want to a: verify they are whom they say they are, and b: talk without worries of being overheard. Honestly, encrypted email is more secure than talking on the phone.
Or, suppose you wish to bypass what you consider terrible laws, like those outlawing the use of Free/Open Source DVD players, or talking about encryption itself.
People here have mentioned using cryptography to work within oppressive regimes; well, what if that oppressive regime is the grand ol' US of A, where it is becoming illegal to give bad reviews of software? Or where soon you may not be able to legally use Linux (if the SSSCA goes through)?
I have seen arguments that the mythical founding fathers of the US didn't have weapons of mass destruction in mind when they wrote the Declaration of Independence, or the Constitution. What they layed down was a philosophy, and that philosophy covers a way of life, not the tools and weapons of that way of life. As our powers expand, our responsibilities also expand; but we must never allow our liberty to be compromised.
You asked for an example in which having my email exposed would harm me in some way. I did that. Never mind that the first example is illegal; it doesn't mitigate the damage.
The second example is justified by the actions of various government agencies during the McCarthy years; look at the files on many of our best writers of the time (for example) to see what kind of information was gathered illegally. Didn't stop them. Our government *is* a black box, with only occassional (generally controlled) glimpses within.
Email can be fairly secure. Encryption favors the encryptor; yes, eventually any encryption can be cracked. But the practicality of it is something else entirely. And as the saying goes, you can decrypt some of the messages some of the time, but not all of the messages all of the time.
I'm not gonna flame-- your points of view are valid and well thought out. I just distrust my government, so my conclusions are a bit different.
Not really-- we've given up lots of convenience with the new FAA regs, but not gotten one iota more security than we had before.
Under the new rules, a terrorist could *still* get on board with knives (say, obsidian blades taped to their body). So we are in just as much danger today as we were two weeks ago.
Of course, the outcome of pulling a knife on an airplane will be different. I don't know of anyone who wouldn't tackle and pummel someone idiotic enough to try that now.
Of course privacy != freedom. Privacy is a *subset* of freedom.
In France, the government passed a law outlawing strong crypto. They had the same idea our country has right now-- it'll help keep crime under control.
This worked well, since most criminals are either so stupid they were bound to get caught anyway, or smart enough to work around this lack of privacy.
However, some government officials started eavesdropping on corporate communications. They stole some sensitive corporate data and sold it to competitors.
Hm.
Eventually, France reversed their position, and now supports strong crypto.
Second example:
I am writing an expose' on a government agency (say, corruption in the FBI). I need to communicate with sources, editors, and publishers. How can I safely do that when the FBI is watching my email? ANS: I can't! So I have to work around the restrictions, and use the USPS to communicate (Fedex if its an emergency).
Thousands died to *gain* us these liberties you so blithely offer up. Though you are willing to give up your privacy, *I* am not. I am willing to die to protect that right.
You say that people have a right to go to work without having a building fall on them? The world is a dangerous place. People have the right to drive on the freeway without dieing in an accident. But it happens.
We shouldn't expect a building to fall on our heads. But our *government* didn't abridge that right, some jerkoff fundamentalist psychos did.
Our government has the responsibility to guard us as best as possible. But if someone commits murder, does it prove our government has failed? No. It just means that our government has a *new* task, to find and prosecute that murderer.
If I thought for one minute that giving up our rights would stop thousands from dieing, I would gladly give up those rights. But the terrorists have already worked around the restrictions already in place. You cannot believe they won't work around online surveilance.
The hijackers' biggest weapon was not the knives they snuck aboard, or the 'net as a communications medium, but their willingness... no, their *eagerness* to die for their cause. And that is something you simply cannot legislate away.
Your suggestion is flawed in the same way the new airport restrictions are flawed-- they would *not* have prevented this horror. Instead of box knives, the terrorists could have snuck aboard glass knives taped to their backs. An obsidian knife is substantially sharper than a box knive, and is useful in stabbing as well as slashing.
Another example: you can no longer discharge or pick up travelers at curbside. What is this supposed to prevent? Car bombs going off near the airport? The marine barracks in Beirut had an armed guard, a gate, and many rules against blowing up marines. That did not stop one terrorist with a willingness (Eagerness!) to die for his cause-- one kamikaze truckload of explosives, and all the rules, armed guards at gates, and paranoia of serving in a volatile country did not stop another terrible incident.
Rules will not suffice. Infringing our liberties will not suffice. As someone else in this forum suggested, we must become a *decent* world citizen. We must participate in Kyoto Treaties; we must put the welfare of the citizens of the world above the welfare of our corporations (like *that* is going to happen); and, mostly, we must honor our own liberties, and take an interest (as a country) in the events going on around us.
I wish the death of thousands would be enough to shock this country out of its apathy; but, somehow, I fear we are just as willfully-ignorant today as we were two weeks ago.
But it needn't be an end to liberty. If Israel (a country that clearly has its own governmental problems) can do it, so surely can the United States.
Unwarranted search of property is a tresspass of civil liberty. Constant surveilance is a tresspass of civil liberty.
It is the duty of our government to protect us, and they have done a damned poor job of it. I'm not talking about the 4 flights that were taken; that could not have been stopped by adding more searches at the airport-- it could only have been stopped as the Pennsylvania flight was stopped, by concerted action of the passengers or flight crew.
I'm talking about protecting our liberties from the likes of multi-national corporations, which they have slowly been legislating away in the in fiscal interest of a few very wealthy companies.
If the government has proven they will abuse that trust, what will stop them from abusing the police state you are recommending?
I love my country, but distrust my government (which is *not* my country-- Geo. W. is not our country (he gave $42M to the Taliban this last May, as a side note), our senators are not our country, and our military is not our country).
Also, "Power Shift," by Alvin Toffler; and "War and Anti-War," by Alvin and Heidi Toffler. There are hundreds of books written on the subject that present and argue this idea cogently and completely.
Nothing's perfect, but some things are more perfect than others. Passport is not perfect in many ways-- security, the group that controls it, single-point-of-failure concerns, scaling concerns, etc.
*I* want to manage my own personal data; it should be up to *me* to handle it. There is no reason a public-key system shouldn't work in a peer fashion for single-login authentication. Security would still be a problem, but a security breach means only one person has to deal with it. An *individual* should be responsible for maintaining their own identity, just as they are responsible for maintaining their own wallet or house.
Just my views on this, but I think a combination would work well-- by default, a person can manage their own data, but proxy sites can be set up to manage it for them, like passport does currently.
There is nothing hypocritical about supporting both Open Source software development and copyright protection.
I agree. But, there's a difference between protecting copyright and crippling hardware. The goal of CPRM is essentially that of a curfew-- curtail the legitimate rights of individuals by creating an artificial barrier in the hopes of stifling a few crimes.
CPRM, DMCA, etc, all assume one thing: everyone is a criminal, and will act in a criminal way if given the chance.
A lot of people (me, too) embrace the Linux philosophy as well as Linux itself. IBM has embraced Linux; how much of the philosophy have they embraced?
As a PR person, you try to encourage a certain viewpoint. During meetings, is the Linux philosophy presented as a tool to be used against us, or as a way of changing people's concepts of software-- that is, do you try to sell the Linux philosophy as well as Linux, or are you selling Linux by using the philosophy?
I'm just sad that Caldera Doesn't Get It. They are implementing this new licensing policy about the same time Red Hat announces their first real profit-- sad, isn't it?
Slashdot Mirror
I purchased the Archos Jukebox from Think Geek. Cool looking gadget; but it didn't turn on. I got an "I2C Error" from the get-go.
So, I went down to Best Buy and picked up another one. This one turned on and worked fine; I could transfer files over, and it was a pleasure to use. The sound was a bit muddy, but not too bad.
But, any time I pushed a specific button, the entire machine shut down. There was a "soft spot" around the button that, when *very* slight pressure was applied, caused the logic end to shut down, and the hard drive to spin up. Obviously, there was some sort of short happening. Within the day, the machine would not turn on, and the hard drive would not spin down.
I reluctantly purchased a Nomad Jukebox (6G instead of 20G-- damn!). There are some libraries for Linux. And, you *can* transfer tracks back from the unit. However, there is a flag that may be set to "play-only." This is true for all the pre-loaded music (most of which is not very good). However, all the music I uploaded to the device can be downloaded back to my computer. Granted, I have only transferred music I've ripped from my own CDs.
In addition, the Nomad Jukebox has *excellent* sound. I'm not sure I could deal with an Archos now that I've heard what it *can* sound like.
I have to defend Rio and Creative and all the other "SDMI-Ready" manufacturers. They watched as both Napster and mp3.com got smacked down hard. They can't afford to go against the music industry. I can't blame them for caving. I wish they had the brass balls to stand up to the schoolyard bully, but it ain't gonna happen soon.
Anyway, that's my take, from a practical and philosophical standpoint.
This is probably the best place to start:
Contact. This is similar to the references I have seen before-- groups of scientists and science fiction authors brought together to create first contact scenarios. Although Contact is not a political group, it is a scientific association.
Here is the actual link to our "First Contact" protocol.
How many scientists, engineers, and researchers were influenced by the books they read as kids? Asimov himself was one, though he ended up doing little research.
How much were the scientists who shot the moon influenced by Verne, Welles, and E. E. Doc Smith? If many of them were inspired by these authors' works, then the novels indeed had an impact and influence on technology.
Many authors directly and indirectly influenced our technosphere. Clarke calculated geosynchronous orbit; most satellites orbit in the belt named after him. Larry Niven's warnings about the effects of organ transplants has changed the way people approach the ethics of taking organs from executed criminals. (Incidently, the "Slashdot effect" is really nothing more than a virtual flash crowd, which Niven predicted as a result of easy teleportation.)
The early works about robots and sentient computers have influenced the direction of research in these fields. AI researchers talk earnestly about the three laws of robotics.
Terraforming was an idea first proposed in science fiction. The US First Contact Protocol is based on science fiction scenerios.
SF influences science and research because scientists tend to read science fiction. If that doesn't color our ideas of the world (which in turn influences our research), then our imagination has died.
Yeah, I am rather suspicious of the whole thing, too. As Eddy Izzard says, "The infrastructure's fucked." (God: "Oh? Well, have some jam. And here's a radiator.")
It looks like Katz is the butt of someone's joke. Without some backing evidence (such as complete mail headers showing routes, and evidence that the headers aren't forged), I consider this a kremvax.
But that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.
So far, the Nomad is a great MP3 player. I only have the 6G model, so I can't take many CDs with me (only about a hundred), but it's my favorite 100, so that's okay.
The Archos 20G looks nice in theory, but I purchased one, and it didn't work. I2C error while booting. I figure it's probably a loose wire, but didn't want to void the warranty opening it up.
So I purchased another, and it worked great. The sound was kinda muddy, even with good headphones, but I figured I could live with that. Then, I discovered that pressing one button (one important for navigation), the entire thing shut down. A little creative troubleshooting indicated that one entire area near the faulty button had a "soft spot," that, when pressed, caused a short, shutting the entire machine down. Then, it started shutting down spontaneously. After a while, it wouldn't even run.
All this was within one day.
So, I believe the Creative Nomad is a far superior product, even if it looks lame. It has great sound, as well. I figured the EAX processing was a gimmick, but it's really kinda cool. Yeah, the environmental processors are kinda cheesy (who the hell wants to listen to Gus in a cave?), but the concept is neat.
All-in-all, I say the Nomad is a great choice.
On the other hand, a cool case wouldn't be bad, either.
I suppose playing a musical instrument exposes me as a non-geek.
Oddly enough, there is a stong correlation between musical ability and geekdom. A lot of geeks I know are very musically talented.
Now, about the $50k violin-- my daughter has been informed she has the ability to play violin professionally (that is, in a paying symphony). My question is this:
A $50k violin?!? Are you insane?
Funny, though. When I think in terms of computers, I can see spending $50k on a quad-proc Ultrasparc III machine. So I guess $50k for a violin isn't that extravagant.
I mean there wouldn't have been any start up money to fund these businesses that have eventually failed if the "potential" wasn't there.
.com . Most of us knew it was a sham. But the hype was somewhat awe-inspiring, and as a social experiment in blind greed coupled with a giant dose of ignorance, it was quite fun to watch.
You're joking, right? You underestimate the power of human stupidity coupled with the blinding effect of human greed.
Business people are, on a whole, dumber than the rest of the population. They will invest in anything if they believe they might make a buck. And everyone wanted to get in on another "Microsoft," only at the ground floor. So Ifni flung her dice, and they came up boxcars. Of course, in this case, the dice were loaded.
I know of *no* tech-geek in my personal sphere who believed in the power of
Considering the growing technical nature of our society, with the ever-increasing complexity of information and copyright laws, is there hope of better-educated lawmakers making important decisions that will affect not only our current lives, but the way our near-future society grows?
I know that Alaska's reps (Ted Stevens and Neil... I mean, Don Young) are just good ol' boys, never meanin' no harm. But, they are also rather ignorant about technology and information. Is this changing? Are lawmakers *choosing* to become educated about the topics on which they make important decisions?
Or, do they react only to questions and concerns of money? (Does it all come down to the dollar, in the end?)
It's MS-Windows only. Didn't see any multi-platform support mentioned-- and it had minimum requirements of IE5.5 for the web browser.
Considering that Blender is free, *and* multiplatform, and lighter-weight, I'm not sure what advantage Gmax would give me.
But, then again, I'm a platform-bigot. So maybe that's coloring my opinion.
Jesus. The entire industry has become a bunch of bawl-babies. Apple's crying because someone has taken their blue-lozenge looks, and other people are crying because Apple has started getting a little rougher.
Okay, these are all just my opinions, but:
1: I don't believe Apple really has any say over the blue-lozenge widgets, as long as we don't just cuttenpaste an Aqua screenshot. I'm not a lawyer, and I don't know the laws; I'm speaking from an ethical standpoint.
2: Apple has a *right* to scream if anyone uses their logo, just like the Linux crowd has a right to scream if someone starts using Tux in a non-Linux context.
3: With something like "art," shouldn't we respect Apple's wishes? It's only polite. If someone in the Free Software crowd got upset about someone copying them (not their code, but their art), wouldn't we respect them?
Oh. Maybe not.
4: The shape and color of a widget set do *not* make up the interface!!!!! Aqua is *not* just clear blue freakin' buttons!!!!!
Anyway, just my opinion. I think this is a sign that we don't have enough important things to do-- (and I paraphrase): "The battle was so fierce because the cause was so trivial." Or something like that.
KDE sucks.
Gnome sucks.
Computers, in general, suck.
This interview wasn't about Gnome; it was about a component model that might be better than the one Gnome currently uses. Although MS doesn't often come up with good ideas, it does employ some extremely bright people; if some of those bright people come up with a good idea, it behooves us to learn.
In this way, perhaps computers will someday suck less.
The flaw to backdoor encryption? That's an easy one.
Think of the term, "backdoor." What's the flaw with a backdoor in a webserver, or any server on the internet, for that matter?
ANS: once the backdoor is compromised (READ: publicly known), *any*one can access that service, rendering security useless. You'd have to change the backdoor key.
The other option is key escrow, in which, to use encryption, you must register your keys with the government. This option is certainly better, but still less-than-desirable.
For instance:
Imagine you are writing an expose' of the President, talking about his cocaine years and how he payed for his hookers by dealing crack. You are interviewing sources via the 'net (in addition to other methods), and you want to a: verify they are whom they say they are, and b: talk without worries of being overheard. Honestly, encrypted email is more secure than talking on the phone.
Or, suppose you wish to bypass what you consider terrible laws, like those outlawing the use of Free/Open Source DVD players, or talking about encryption itself.
People here have mentioned using cryptography to work within oppressive regimes; well, what if that oppressive regime is the grand ol' US of A, where it is becoming illegal to give bad reviews of software? Or where soon you may not be able to legally use Linux (if the SSSCA goes through)?
I have seen arguments that the mythical founding fathers of the US didn't have weapons of mass destruction in mind when they wrote the Declaration of Independence, or the Constitution. What they layed down was a philosophy, and that philosophy covers a way of life, not the tools and weapons of that way of life. As our powers expand, our responsibilities also expand; but we must never allow our liberty to be compromised.
My God, that was the most lucid, insightful comment I have yet read on this subject.
Really? Cool. Thank you.
Do you mind if I put that up on my website?
Feel free.
You asked for an example in which having my email exposed would harm me in some way. I did that. Never mind that the first example is illegal; it doesn't mitigate the damage.
The second example is justified by the actions of various government agencies during the McCarthy years; look at the files on many of our best writers of the time (for example) to see what kind of information was gathered illegally. Didn't stop them. Our government *is* a black box, with only occassional (generally controlled) glimpses within.
Email can be fairly secure. Encryption favors the encryptor; yes, eventually any encryption can be cracked. But the practicality of it is something else entirely. And as the saying goes, you can decrypt some of the messages some of the time, but not all of the messages all of the time.
I'm not gonna flame-- your points of view are valid and well thought out. I just distrust my government, so my conclusions are a bit different.
Not really-- we've given up lots of convenience with the new FAA regs, but not gotten one iota more security than we had before.
Under the new rules, a terrorist could *still* get on board with knives (say, obsidian blades taped to their body). So we are in just as much danger today as we were two weeks ago.
Of course, the outcome of pulling a knife on an airplane will be different. I don't know of anyone who wouldn't tackle and pummel someone idiotic enough to try that now.
Of course privacy != freedom. Privacy is a *subset* of freedom.
In France, the government passed a law outlawing strong crypto. They had the same idea our country has right now-- it'll help keep crime under control.
This worked well, since most criminals are either so stupid they were bound to get caught anyway, or smart enough to work around this lack of privacy.
However, some government officials started eavesdropping on corporate communications. They stole some sensitive corporate data and sold it to competitors.
Hm.
Eventually, France reversed their position, and now supports strong crypto.
Second example:
I am writing an expose' on a government agency (say, corruption in the FBI). I need to communicate with sources, editors, and publishers. How can I safely do that when the FBI is watching my email? ANS: I can't! So I have to work around the restrictions, and use the USPS to communicate (Fedex if its an emergency).
Two examples. Can I flame you now?
Mr. Katz,
Thousands died to *gain* us these liberties you so blithely offer up. Though you are willing to give up your privacy, *I* am not. I am willing to die to protect that right.
You say that people have a right to go to work without having a building fall on them? The world is a dangerous place. People have the right to drive on the freeway without dieing in an accident. But it happens.
We shouldn't expect a building to fall on our heads. But our *government* didn't abridge that right, some jerkoff fundamentalist psychos did.
Our government has the responsibility to guard us as best as possible. But if someone commits murder, does it prove our government has failed? No. It just means that our government has a *new* task, to find and prosecute that murderer.
If I thought for one minute that giving up our rights would stop thousands from dieing, I would gladly give up those rights. But the terrorists have already worked around the restrictions already in place. You cannot believe they won't work around online surveilance.
The hijackers' biggest weapon was not the knives they snuck aboard, or the 'net as a communications medium, but their willingness... no, their *eagerness* to die for their cause. And that is something you simply cannot legislate away.
Your suggestion is flawed in the same way the new airport restrictions are flawed-- they would *not* have prevented this horror. Instead of box knives, the terrorists could have snuck aboard glass knives taped to their backs. An obsidian knife is substantially sharper than a box knive, and is useful in stabbing as well as slashing.
Another example: you can no longer discharge or pick up travelers at curbside. What is this supposed to prevent? Car bombs going off near the airport? The marine barracks in Beirut had an armed guard, a gate, and many rules against blowing up marines. That did not stop one terrorist with a willingness (Eagerness!) to die for his cause-- one kamikaze truckload of explosives, and all the rules, armed guards at gates, and paranoia of serving in a volatile country did not stop another terrible incident.
Rules will not suffice. Infringing our liberties will not suffice. As someone else in this forum suggested, we must become a *decent* world citizen. We must participate in Kyoto Treaties; we must put the welfare of the citizens of the world above the welfare of our corporations (like *that* is going to happen); and, mostly, we must honor our own liberties, and take an interest (as a country) in the events going on around us.
I wish the death of thousands would be enough to shock this country out of its apathy; but, somehow, I fear we are just as willfully-ignorant today as we were two weeks ago.
But it needn't be an end to liberty. If Israel (a country that clearly has its own governmental problems) can do it, so surely can the United States.
Unwarranted search of property is a tresspass of civil liberty. Constant surveilance is a tresspass of civil liberty.
It is the duty of our government to protect us, and they have done a damned poor job of it. I'm not talking about the 4 flights that were taken; that could not have been stopped by adding more searches at the airport-- it could only have been stopped as the Pennsylvania flight was stopped, by concerted action of the passengers or flight crew.
I'm talking about protecting our liberties from the likes of multi-national corporations, which they have slowly been legislating away in the in fiscal interest of a few very wealthy companies.
If the government has proven they will abuse that trust, what will stop them from abusing the police state you are recommending?
I love my country, but distrust my government (which is *not* my country-- Geo. W. is not our country (he gave $42M to the Taliban this last May, as a side note), our senators are not our country, and our military is not our country).
My God. You're right. Fresnel lenses over the monitors and everything, probably.
Terry Gilliam is brilliant. I just wish he wasn't so damned accurate, too.
Also, "Power Shift," by Alvin Toffler; and "War and Anti-War," by Alvin and Heidi Toffler. There are hundreds of books written on the subject that present and argue this idea cogently and completely.
Short and simple: Microsoft is evil and untrustworthy.
Unlike Visa or Mastercard.
Oh, both Visa and Mastercard are evil-- but they already own the financial world. This is just Microsoft's attempt to take over the financial world.
They need a source of recurring cash flow, which Visa and MC already have.
Nothing's perfect, but some things are more perfect than others. Passport is not perfect in many ways-- security, the group that controls it, single-point-of-failure concerns, scaling concerns, etc.
*I* want to manage my own personal data; it should be up to *me* to handle it. There is no reason a public-key system shouldn't work in a peer fashion for single-login authentication. Security would still be a problem, but a security breach means only one person has to deal with it. An *individual* should be responsible for maintaining their own identity, just as they are responsible for maintaining their own wallet or house.
Just my views on this, but I think a combination would work well-- by default, a person can manage their own data, but proxy sites can be set up to manage it for them, like passport does currently.
There is nothing hypocritical about supporting both Open Source software development and copyright protection.
I agree. But, there's a difference between protecting copyright and crippling hardware. The goal of CPRM is essentially that of a curfew-- curtail the legitimate rights of individuals by creating an artificial barrier in the hopes of stifling a few crimes.
CPRM, DMCA, etc, all assume one thing: everyone is a criminal, and will act in a criminal way if given the chance.
A lot of people (me, too) embrace the Linux philosophy as well as Linux itself. IBM has embraced Linux; how much of the philosophy have they embraced?
As a PR person, you try to encourage a certain viewpoint. During meetings, is the Linux philosophy presented as a tool to be used against us, or as a way of changing people's concepts of software-- that is, do you try to sell the Linux philosophy as well as Linux, or are you selling Linux by using the philosophy?
I'm just sad that Caldera Doesn't Get It. They are implementing this new licensing policy about the same time Red Hat announces their first real profit-- sad, isn't it?