How is his product going to be shipped -- by air drop? I bet he uses the roads in your customer's state.
The state is providing for the welfare and education of his customers; what would happen to his customer base in that state over the long term if there were no education?
Suppose he ships it by UPS. UPS already pays taxes which they include in their shipping cost. The transaction occurs over phone/data lines, which the customer and merchant already pay taxes on, and so do the network providers in between. This of course is also passed to the consumer as part of the user's Internet access. As far as the state providing for the welfare and education of customers I believe that the merchant probably is paying taxes towards these things in the form of property tax, or as a portion of the rent (allowing the merchant's landlord to pay taxes on such things.) In the end, this filters back to the consumer as well. Not to mention that the consumer is paying taxes on the money they earn before they even get to use it.
I don't see it so much as a question of "Do we need to tax Internet purchases" as "Do we need to add yet another tax to our transactions?"
Of course I could be under the wrong in my assumptions. Perhaps they only intend to take as much taxes as they absolutely need.
I'd really like to see an organization that performs some kind of verification of the "openess" of a product whether it is hardware or software. They could allow products that are open to bear their logo.
Initally it would be nice because it would make it easier to identify products that conform to an "open" standard. Later on, as open products become more common and prove themselves to the public, it may encourage hardware and software producers to keep their products open.
This assumes that it will eventually become a more widely known fact that "open" products are by definition better. Of course, the logo may raise awareness in the meantime.
Really this is just an idea that's been bouncing around my head. I'm not convinced that it would be worthwhile at this point, but it seems to have possibilities. This article sort of reminded me to mention the idea.
Funny that a GUINNESS toast would occur at about 4:30-6:30 in the morning in Europe...
I thought about this and the idea is to set a world record for the biggest simultaneous toast. I figured the timing of the event is when most of the US is out at bars and just in time for breakfast in Ireland.
Um, interesting that this story should pop up this morning on my considering that tonight is the annual Great Guinnes Toast. February 26th, at 11:30PM EST (EST=GMT-5.) You may read about it at http://www.guinness.ie, but you must enter your age to verify that you are 21.
Also I believe that the results of this study are wildly inaccurate. I can't believe even amateurs would account for such a loss of Guinness. If this were accurate I'm sure that someone would damn well be looking for a solution to this problem. Why hasn't there been been a 'Voices from the HairMouth' article or something like that, hmm?
A lot of people, including me, will agree with you on this. I think Linux (and friends) got where they are today due to their disregard of Windows. The idea has not been to create a competitor for Windows. It was to create a stable, flexible, open, modular operating environment. The fact that Windows happens to be none of these things is what makes Linux a threat to Microsoft.
However, now that many people have become used to using Linux, they get disgusted when they are required to use Windows. I work on Windows NT boxes all day long and think how much productivity is wasted fixing things that never would have broken in the first place if we were using Linux or BSD. What bothers me most is that I have to click 20 different things to do something in Windows that could be done in Linux by typing a short, if perhaps cryptic, command.
That said, I'll really be happy to see better GUI utilities for Linux. Gnome's file manager (yes there is one, despite what the article claims) just doesn't cut it for me. I hate to say it but I'd rather use NT Explorer (not to be confused with Internet Explorer) than gfm. Fortunately I find it pretty easy to use the shell instead and type "cp file1 file2" to copy files, "mv file1 file2" to move files, and "rm file" to remove a file. So I rarely use a file manager anyway. There are times however when I prefer to see a visual representation of the file system...especially in cases where the filesystem is complex, or just plain messy. I understand why Nautilus seems to be Eazel's primary focus at this point.
BTW, in case anyone hasn't mentioned this, non-Linux/*nix users can get a look at many of the currently available configurations/themes for Linux at http://e.themes.org. I'm really just pointing this out because I object to the idea that people's Linux desktops are all ugly. True, the default Redhat 6.x desktops are as bland as Win2k's default, but there is a lot of flexibility already in how you can make it look. As a default setting, bland is better anyway.
I haven't been incredibly happy with Cyrix either. I'm a not-so-proud owner of two Cyrix MediaGX boxes that can't reliably run Linux, Win95-98, or NT 4.0. These boxes are the most worthless pieces of trash I've ever bought.
I paid less than $50 a piece for these ~200Mhz boxes and I still feel like it's a total rip-off. I know Alan Cox has a couple of them...I wonder what he thinks of them.
(Frankly, I'm surprised my rant got moderated up as high as it did - in all honesty, it's only tangentially related to the topic at hand. Or maybe we're just ready to move from hot gr1tz to volumes of the OED:-)
Maybe you're just being modest, but I think your summary from your original post just about "sums" it up:
Quickly, Gary, since you're the expert on what's obscene and what's not obscene - did I just jot down an obscene piece of violent pornography, or was I making valid commentary on what it means to the victims when you trivialize rape?
No filter could effectively differentiate between those two possibilities. Gary apparently can't either.
As for the industrial espionage allegations, I could see someone doing that, but would suggest that it isn't commonplace. The government keeps a Very tight rein on its contractors, in terms of what they are allowed and not allowed to do, and it seems unlikely that it would make a *habit* of breaking similar rules itself, with the complicity of one of its contractors.
From the summary: (emphasis added)
7. Key findings concerning the state of the art in Comint include :
Comprehensive systems exist to access, intercept and process every important modern form of communications, with few exceptions (section 2, technical annexe);
Contrary to reports in the press, effective "word spotting" search systems automatically to select telephone calls of intelligence interest are not yet available, despite 30 years of research. However, speaker recognition systems - in effect, "voiceprints" - have been developed and are deployed to recognise the speech of targeted individuals making international telephone calls;
Recent diplomatic initiatives by the United States government seeking European agreement to the "key escrow" system of cryptography masked intelligence collection requirements, and formed part of a long-term program which has undermined and continues to undermine the communications privacy of non-US nationals, including European governments, companies and citizens;
There is wide-ranging evidence indicating that major governments are routinely utilising communications intelligence to provide commercial advantage to companies and trade.
Keep in mind the part about voice-printing when you read Admiral Burrito's response to your post. Also, keep these in mind: Who does the NSA report to? Where do their loyalties lie? Is it part of their charter (or whatever they call it) to make sure that the information they collect is used only for ethical purposes? Who's the watchdog that makes sure the NSA doesn't do anything it's not supposed to? Don't look at me--I don't know.
Complaining on forums such as Slashdot, Attrition or HNN will not accomplish anything in bringing this stuff into the light. Whining on Slashdot only increases your Karma.
Not to disagree with your point about being proactive, but I've noticed a lot of people of people seem to disregard the importance of actually having the discussion. Most of the whining and bitching I read contains at least one element of interest, whether intended by the author or not.
Also keep in mind that not everyone that reads HNN, attrition, slashdot, etc, is predisposed to getting involved or reading discussions like this.
Even the things that could be considered "preaching to the choir" have some educational value for me. Reading other's thoughts on here reinforces ideas that I may have already had, but never thought to articulate or couldn't articulate as well as they did. Later on I can, and occasionally do, use these arguments effectively in day to day conversation. I'd dare say that I learn more from the bitching and preaching than I do from the original articles.
For Gary Glenn, president of the family association's state chapter, the issue is simple. "Our only concern is providing maximum protection for children," he says, citing a recent case in Muskegon, Mich., where a girl was raped at a library with full Internet access.
This is from the ZDnet article that Industrial Disease posted. Some of the stuff in it is unbelievable. Some of you might want to read the part about Hudsonville, MI--a nearby town--where the AFA got enough people to sign a petition to get the Internet access in the library shut off completely. And not because they refused to filter, but because their plan would have allowed adults unfiltered access with an ID card.
"On February 22, send a clear message to America. Tell America we must protect our children from Internet pornography and drugs."
Many drugs become more hazardous when they are distributed on digital media. We should at least consider removing the floppy drives from these machines to prevent children from downloading Internet drugs.
(I realize that the following sounds very opinionated. That's because it's an opinion. duh.)
Real's support for Linux products has always sucked. I remember reading a couple years ago about how Glaser originally liked to talk trash about Microsoft, but in the end Gates slapped him around a little and got him to work a little more 'in sync' with Microsoft. Afterwards M$ went ahead and bundled Windows Media Player with Windows. I would have thought at that point Real would start focusing more on it's non-Windows products.
When Realaudio first came out I thought it was just about the coolest thing in the world. Since then I've watched it become less and less relevant as other competition shows up. In the meantime I've just developed a distaste for Real's products, their annoying reminder messages, lack of regard for privacy, etc. Glaser just seems like an opportunist, and not a very good one at that. If there's one thing that impresses my about Real, it's that they're still around at all. I guess this has more to do with being the first to market than anything.
I think all this press release means is that Real found another free way to get their software distributed. I'll believe that they are truly making an effort to support their *nix users when I see it.
The good Christian should beware of mathematicians and all those who make empty prophecies. The danger already exists that the mathemeticians have made a covenant with the devil to darken the spirit and to confine man in the bonds of Hell. -- St. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo in Africa.
I mentally replaced "mathematician" with "hacker" as soon as I read that. I think this wise man understood as far back as 400AD the danger of people coming in direct contact with the wrong kind of information. He tried to warn us.
So why is it that television, a relatively new technology, doesn't get blasted? I think it's because television does bring us closer together. It offers a limited amount of pre-digested knowledge that everyone can see the same way and learn at the same time without exerting an effort. The Internet OTOH leads people to information and ideas that are raw and varied. The poor Netheads drift away from the mainstream pool of knowledge until they become downright dangerous and wierd. For example, they might rant about some obscure norwegian teen's legal problems, but have no insight into more pressing issues such as who won the "big game" on Sunday and why.
Please, for your own sake, spend some time in front of the television and get back in touch with your fellow man!
numb
In all civilizations some people at least have tried to answer such questions as: How did the universe come about? How old is the universe and the earth in particular? How large are the sun and the earrt? Is man an accident or part of a larger design? Will the solar system continue to function or will the earth some day fall into the sun? What is light? Of course, not all people are interested in such questions. Food, shelter, sex, and television are enough to keep many people happy. But others, aware of the pervasive natural mysteries, are more strongly obsessed to resolve them than any business man is to acquire wealth and power. -- from Mathematics for the Nonmathemetician by Morris Kline, 1967.
The one I thought was really neat are their Virtual Retinal Displays which can scan a 3D image directly onto your retinas using tiny lasers. That would rock for Unreal TE.
Why is does the response have a higher rating than the object of it's response?
I get +1 to my score for being a karma slut (I'm not a whore, I do it because I like it.) I responded and quoted him intentionally so his idea would have less chance of being overlooked.
Well, it's an interesting idea if the only thing you use email for is to talk to real people. Probably 99% of my email is listserves. I have a right to require them to put MY filtering words in their subject? They're not going to unless they're morons. You order something from amazon.com and theres a problem with your order? You'll never know about it because you bounced their mail back with your silly rules to either an empty address or to/dev/null (no one is supposed to reply to those order confirmation things).
I had my filter set up with a list of addresses to never filter so this wasn't a problem. It's set up like this: a list of addresses/sites to never filter, always filter, or send an autoresponse to. Also a list of keywords to never filter, always filter, or send a response to. Default behaviour was to autorespond.
Keep in mind, addresses that passed the filter were automatically added to the 'never' filter list as default behaviour. I had over 250 spams in the course of a month, only one made it through. I never had a complaint about it from anyone who e-mailed me either--in fact many people asked me how they could do it.
A well thought out filtering system would only be the first step in killing spam. To really implement it properly clients and servers need to have additional abilities. Understand that I'm not advocating using the exact method I used--it was, perhaps, a clever hack, but not a final solution.
You may argue that this doesn't stop spammers from congesting the Internet with their trash--it is after all filtered near the end of it's path. This is true. For it to truly kill spam this technology would have to be very pervasive. This will take years to happen, but I could crack 1024 bit encryption with paper and pencil before any legislation will do an equivalent job of stopping it. Until then looping autoresponders can provide entertainment.
And yes, there are a plentitude of reasons why it can't be done. Fortunately there are a few reasons why it can be done--and thats the important thing IMHO. In the long run this could be implemented in an unobtrusive manner if done properly. I wish someone would hold a contest to see who could design the best system to do this--or at least hold a lengthy discussion about it. I really am convinced that this will work and that legislation will not.
linuxers should organize carpools for these things. that way, people who live all the way out in the forest (read: canada) can attend these things. Thats the spirit the linux community needs! not only that, the cars (because of the nerds) would have mp3 steros! yes!
Hey, an excellent idea. I hope your idea gets moderated up for more eyes to see.
I hate spam. Yet I don't see how ANY law could stop spam. First of all, I'd wager that most spam that citizens of Colorado receive does not originate in Colorado. Secondly, how would you enforce this law? How do you collect your $10 from some loser who can't even afford to pay for a full month of Internet access and has just sent 15,000 e-mails from his free NetZero account? Most of the spam I get is very obviously (at least to me) from individuals that really could care less about the legality or ethics of what they are doing.
The part that really bothers me is giving government a precedent where they are allowed to regulate communications over the Internet. Anti-spam legislation just seems like a good way to get their foot in the door.
I honestly believe that spam CAN be stopped by technology. We need to protect ourselves. I wrote a great procmail filter a couple years ago that filtered all my spam based on required keywords. If the e-mail was filtered out, procmail sent an e-mail back explaining that all mail without the required keyword was filtered--please include [keyword] in your e-mail to get through the filter.
Once someone sent the e-mail with a valid keyword they would be added to the "never" filter list. Everyone I showed it to thought it was way cool, however I got my ass flamed to cinders when I proposed the idea on Usenet.
Using a procmail filter like mine was NOT an ideal solution. For instance, bounce messages from mail daemons were lost so I wouldn't know if I sent e-mail to an invalid address. However, I can see fairly clearly in my mind how a new e-mail system could be implemented that would be easier and more reliable.
I'd really like to get some people to put some brain-power behind an e-mail system that could display a "terms of use" or any message before letting an unknown user into your system. No, your average spammer won't give a sh*t about your terms of use message. However, the average spammer is not going to read through 15,000 "terms of use" messages and type in 15,000 keywords just to get you to send him $5.
Anyone have any insight on how this might be implemented? I'd rather put a 'password' on my account for security than risk trading my liberty for it.
No, this wouldn't defeat DeCSS. However even without DeCSS it was still possible to capture the video on it's way to the monitor. This would prevent that. I think the intent is to force users of future types of media from using it on 'unauthorized' equipment.
What I wonder is how they intend to force people to buy encrypted monitors. Why pay extra money for a device that introduces limitations on how and where you use your software/media?
This wouldn't be much more of a security risk because you would actually have to purchase a very expensive license to look at the code. Your average hacker/cracker still would not be able to get their hands on the code. Keep in mind that Microsoft has licensed it's code out before to other companies, though not to sell their own version of Windows, without the rest of the world being able to view it.
I know Microsoft licensed it's code to Citrix at one point. They don't anymore. Do they still do this for anyone? I dunno. I do know about MSDN. Microsoft Developer Network CD's contain a lot of stuff that your 'average hacker' probably DOES have access too. If you work at a Fortune 500 company then you almost definately have access to a stack of MSDN CD's (a very convincing reason to switch to open source if there ever was one IMHO.) These discs give companies an 'edge' because they've paid good money for the latest information and development tools for Windows that Microsoft is willing to release (stuff that your 'average' hacker and non-hacker can legally get for free when it comes to open source.) The thing is, not all hackers work out of their basement with Linux boxes...some actually work for companies that will have access to this code should it become available Many will not hesitate to make that code availble to 50 of their closest friends.
If Microsoft actually makes the source available to more than a few select people it will escape. The saying "information wants to be free" isn't just wishful thinking. It's a statement about something observable that just happens on it's own.
This is only true for the VERY short-term. Within a few days, all of the major holes will have been plugged, and every minor one will be plugged very soon after it pops up.
The only difference between an OS that starts out open (like Linux) and one that opens after eight years of development (like W95) is how many bugs there will be to fix in that short period.
I haven't been regularly reading Slashdot lately so I don't know if this link was ever posted...blah can't find the link... It was on ZDnet and called Win2k Bugfest or something like that about a week ago. It exposed an internal Microsoft memo about 63,000 known bugs in Win2k. The author of them memo asks his employees "Would you pay $500 for software you knew had that many bugs?" Did anyone else see this article? I did a search on ZDnet for "bugfest" and it turned up nothing.
The reason I bring this up is that Windows has no small amount of known bugs. We know from experience that the holes in open OS's get fixed quickly. But that's because they've been exposed and fixed all along the way. Will the holes be found and fixed as quickly when they are exposed to so many eyes all at once?
Windows was NOT designed with security in mind any more than it was designed to be a stable operating system. It was designed with making money as the focus. It was kept closed. Maybe we should be optimistic and assume that Microsoft had the foresight to think something other than "security through obscurity is good enough?" I'm not a betting man, but I'll buy you a Guinness if I'm wrong.
Think about it. Everyone who is realiant on Microsoft now...they'll be incredibly screwed when the Windows source code is released. Open operating systems have had the benifit of being examined by many hackers for security flaws. Windows has had so many security holes exposed just from reverse engineering...I couldn't imagine what the source code would expose.
Slashdot Mirror
How is his product going to be shipped -- by air drop? I bet he uses the roads in your customer's state.
The state is providing for the welfare and education of his customers; what would happen to his customer base in that state over the long term if there were no education?
Suppose he ships it by UPS. UPS already pays taxes which they include in their shipping cost. The transaction occurs over phone/data lines, which the customer and merchant already pay taxes on, and so do the network providers in between. This of course is also passed to the consumer as part of the user's Internet access. As far as the state providing for the welfare and education of customers I believe that the merchant probably is paying taxes towards these things in the form of property tax, or as a portion of the rent (allowing the merchant's landlord to pay taxes on such things.) In the end, this filters back to the consumer as well. Not to mention that the consumer is paying taxes on the money they earn before they even get to use it.
I don't see it so much as a question of "Do we need to tax Internet purchases" as "Do we need to add yet another tax to our transactions?"
Of course I could be under the wrong in my assumptions. Perhaps they only intend to take as much taxes as they absolutely need.
numb
I'd really like to see an organization that performs some kind of verification of the "openess" of a product whether it is hardware or software. They could allow products that are open to bear their logo.
Initally it would be nice because it would make it easier to identify products that conform to an "open" standard. Later on, as open products become more common and prove themselves to the public, it may encourage hardware and software producers to keep their products open.
This assumes that it will eventually become a more widely known fact that "open" products are by definition better. Of course, the logo may raise awareness in the meantime.
Really this is just an idea that's been bouncing around my head. I'm not convinced that it would be worthwhile at this point, but it seems to have possibilities. This article sort of reminded me to mention the idea.
numb
Funny that a GUINNESS toast would occur at about 4:30-6:30 in the morning in Europe...
I thought about this and the idea is to set a world record for the biggest simultaneous toast. I figured the timing of the event is when most of the US is out at bars and just in time for breakfast in Ireland.
Mc'numb
Um, interesting that this story should pop up this morning on my considering that tonight is the annual Great Guinnes Toast. February 26th, at 11:30PM EST (EST=GMT-5.) You may read about it at http://www.guinness.ie, but you must enter your age to verify that you are 21.
Also I believe that the results of this study are wildly inaccurate. I can't believe even amateurs would account for such a loss of Guinness. If this were accurate I'm sure that someone would damn well be looking for a solution to this problem. Why hasn't there been been a 'Voices from the HairMouth' article or something like that, hmm?
numb
Linux shouldn't necessarily compete with Windows.
A lot of people, including me, will agree with you on this. I think Linux (and friends) got where they are today due to their disregard of Windows. The idea has not been to create a competitor for Windows. It was to create a stable, flexible, open, modular operating environment. The fact that Windows happens to be none of these things is what makes Linux a threat to Microsoft.
However, now that many people have become used to using Linux, they get disgusted when they are required to use Windows. I work on Windows NT boxes all day long and think how much productivity is wasted fixing things that never would have broken in the first place if we were using Linux or BSD. What bothers me most is that I have to click 20 different things to do something in Windows that could be done in Linux by typing a short, if perhaps cryptic, command.
That said, I'll really be happy to see better GUI utilities for Linux. Gnome's file manager (yes there is one, despite what the article claims) just doesn't cut it for me. I hate to say it but I'd rather use NT Explorer (not to be confused with Internet Explorer) than gfm. Fortunately I find it pretty easy to use the shell instead and type "cp file1 file2" to copy files, "mv file1 file2" to move files, and "rm file" to remove a file. So I rarely use a file manager anyway. There are times however when I prefer to see a visual representation of the file system...especially in cases where the filesystem is complex, or just plain messy. I understand why Nautilus seems to be Eazel's primary focus at this point.
BTW, in case anyone hasn't mentioned this, non-Linux/*nix users can get a look at many of the currently available configurations/themes for Linux at http://e.themes.org. I'm really just pointing this out because I object to the idea that people's Linux desktops are all ugly. True, the default Redhat 6.x desktops are as bland as Win2k's default, but there is a lot of flexibility already in how you can make it look. As a default setting, bland is better anyway.
numb
I haven't been incredibly happy with Cyrix either. I'm a not-so-proud owner of two Cyrix MediaGX boxes that can't reliably run Linux, Win95-98, or NT 4.0. These boxes are the most worthless pieces of trash I've ever bought.
I paid less than $50 a piece for these ~200Mhz boxes and I still feel like it's a total rip-off. I know Alan Cox has a couple of them...I wonder what he thinks of them.
numb
(Frankly, I'm surprised my rant got moderated up as high as it did - in all honesty, it's only tangentially related to the topic at hand. Or maybe we're just ready to move from hot gr1tz to volumes of the OED :-)
Maybe you're just being modest, but I think your summary from your original post just about "sums" it up:
Quickly, Gary, since you're the expert on what's obscene and what's not obscene - did I just jot down an obscene piece of violent pornography, or was I making valid commentary on what it means to the victims when you trivialize rape?
No filter could effectively differentiate between those two possibilities. Gary apparently can't either.
numb
karb, you said:
As for the industrial espionage allegations, I could see someone doing that, but would suggest that it isn't commonplace. The government keeps a Very tight rein on its contractors, in terms of what they are allowed and not allowed to do, and it seems unlikely that it would make a *habit* of breaking similar rules itself, with the complicity of one of its contractors.
From the summary: (emphasis added)
7. Key findings concerning the state of the art in Comint include :
Comprehensive systems exist to access, intercept and process every important modern form of communications, with few exceptions (section 2, technical annexe);
Contrary to reports in the press, effective "word spotting" search systems automatically to select telephone calls of intelligence interest are not yet available, despite 30 years of research. However, speaker recognition systems - in effect, "voiceprints" - have been developed and are deployed to recognise the speech of targeted individuals making international telephone calls;
Recent diplomatic initiatives by the United States government seeking European agreement to the "key escrow" system of cryptography masked intelligence collection requirements, and formed part of a long-term program which has undermined and continues to undermine the communications privacy of non-US nationals, including European governments, companies and citizens;
There is wide-ranging evidence indicating that major governments are routinely utilising communications intelligence to provide commercial advantage to companies and trade.
Keep in mind the part about voice-printing when you read Admiral Burrito's response to your post. Also, keep these in mind: Who does the NSA report to? Where do their loyalties lie? Is it part of their charter (or whatever they call it) to make sure that the information they collect is used only for ethical purposes? Who's the watchdog that makes sure the NSA doesn't do anything it's not supposed to? Don't look at me--I don't know.
numb
Complaining on forums such as Slashdot, Attrition or HNN will not accomplish anything in bringing this stuff into the light. Whining on Slashdot only increases your Karma.
Not to disagree with your point about being proactive, but I've noticed a lot of people of people seem to disregard the importance of actually having the discussion. Most of the whining and bitching I read contains at least one element of interest, whether intended by the author or not.
Also keep in mind that not everyone that reads HNN, attrition, slashdot, etc, is predisposed to getting involved or reading discussions like this.
Even the things that could be considered "preaching to the choir" have some educational value for me. Reading other's thoughts on here reinforces ideas that I may have already had, but never thought to articulate or couldn't articulate as well as they did. Later on I can, and occasionally do, use these arguments effectively in day to day conversation. I'd dare say that I learn more from the bitching and preaching than I do from the original articles.
Bitch on brothers!
numb
For Gary Glenn, president of the family association's
state chapter, the issue is
simple. "Our only concern
is providing maximum
protection for children," he
says, citing a recent case
in Muskegon, Mich.,
where a girl was raped at
a library with full Internet access.
This is from the ZDnet article that Industrial Disease posted. Some of the stuff in it is unbelievable. Some of you might want to read the part about Hudsonville, MI--a nearby town--where the AFA got enough people to sign a petition to get the Internet access in the library shut off completely. And not because they refused to filter, but because their plan would have allowed adults unfiltered access with an ID card.
numb
"On February 22, send a clear message to America. Tell America we must protect our children from Internet pornography and drugs."
Many drugs become more hazardous when they are distributed on digital media. We should at least consider removing the floppy drives from these machines to prevent children from downloading Internet drugs.
numb
(I realize that the following sounds very opinionated. That's because it's an opinion. duh.)
Real's support for Linux products has always sucked. I remember reading a couple years ago about how Glaser originally liked to talk trash about Microsoft, but in the end Gates slapped him around a little and got him to work a little more 'in sync' with Microsoft. Afterwards M$ went ahead and bundled Windows Media Player with Windows. I would have thought at that point Real would start focusing more on it's non-Windows products.
When Realaudio first came out I thought it was just about the coolest thing in the world. Since then I've watched it become less and less relevant as other competition shows up. In the meantime I've just developed a distaste for Real's products, their annoying reminder messages, lack of regard for privacy, etc. Glaser just seems like an opportunist, and not a very good one at that. If there's one thing that impresses my about Real, it's that they're still around at all. I guess this has more to do with being the first to market than anything.
I think all this press release means is that Real found another free way to get their software distributed. I'll believe that they are truly making an effort to support their *nix users when I see it.
numb
The good Christian should beware of mathematicians and all those who make empty prophecies. The danger already exists that the mathemeticians have made a covenant with the devil to darken the spirit and to confine man in the bonds of Hell. -- St. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo in Africa.
I mentally replaced "mathematician" with "hacker" as soon as I read that. I think this wise man understood as far back as 400AD the danger of people coming in direct contact with the wrong kind of information. He tried to warn us.
So why is it that television, a relatively new technology, doesn't get blasted? I think it's because television does bring us closer together. It offers a limited amount of pre-digested knowledge that everyone can see the same way and learn at the same time without exerting an effort. The Internet OTOH leads people to information and ideas that are raw and varied. The poor Netheads drift away from the mainstream pool of knowledge until they become downright dangerous and wierd. For example, they might rant about some obscure norwegian teen's legal problems, but have no insight into more pressing issues such as who won the "big game" on Sunday and why.
Please, for your own sake, spend some time in front of the television and get back in touch with your fellow man!
numb
In all civilizations some people at least have tried to answer such questions as: How did the universe come about? How old is the universe and the earth in particular? How large are the sun and the earrt? Is man an accident or part of a larger design? Will the solar system continue to function or will the earth some day fall into the sun? What is light? Of course, not all people are interested in such questions. Food, shelter, sex, and television are enough to keep many people happy. But others, aware of the pervasive natural mysteries, are more strongly obsessed to resolve them than any business man is to acquire wealth and power. -- from Mathematics for the Nonmathemetician by Morris Kline, 1967.
yes, or you may replace the 'www' part of the url with 'partners' to go directly there (as someone pointed out earlier today.) Or click here:
/ 021900sci-dark-matter.html
htt p://partners.nytimes.com/library/national/science
No annoying registration...who would've thought it would be that easy?
numb
The Human Interfaces Technology Lab at U Washington has some cool projects going on.
The one I thought was really neat are their Virtual Retinal Displays which can scan a 3D image directly onto your retinas using tiny lasers. That would rock for Unreal TE.
numb
hmm. nevermind.
numb
naivete paranoia
---------------------------------
ok, maybe it's not art.
numb
Why is does the response have a higher rating than the object of it's response?
I get +1 to my score for being a karma slut (I'm not a whore, I do it because I like it.) I responded and quoted him intentionally so his idea would have less chance of being overlooked.
numb
Well, it's an interesting idea if the only thing you use email for is to talk to real people. Probably 99% of my email is listserves. I have a right to require them to put MY filtering words in their subject? They're not going to unless they're morons. You order something from amazon.com and theres a problem with your order? You'll never know about it because you bounced their mail back with your silly rules to either an empty address or to
I had my filter set up with a list of addresses to never filter so this wasn't a problem. It's set up like this: a list of addresses/sites to never filter, always filter, or send an autoresponse to. Also a list of keywords to never filter, always filter, or send a response to. Default behaviour was to autorespond.
Keep in mind, addresses that passed the filter were automatically added to the 'never' filter list as default behaviour. I had over 250 spams in the course of a month, only one made it through. I never had a complaint about it from anyone who e-mailed me either--in fact many people asked me how they could do it.
A well thought out filtering system would only be the first step in killing spam. To really implement it properly clients and servers need to have additional abilities. Understand that I'm not advocating using the exact method I used--it was, perhaps, a clever hack, but not a final solution.
You may argue that this doesn't stop spammers from congesting the Internet with their trash--it is after all filtered near the end of it's path. This is true. For it to truly kill spam this technology would have to be very pervasive. This will take years to happen, but I could crack 1024 bit encryption with paper and pencil before any legislation will do an equivalent job of stopping it. Until then looping autoresponders can provide entertainment.
And yes, there are a plentitude of reasons why it can't be done. Fortunately there are a few reasons why it can be done--and thats the important thing IMHO. In the long run this could be implemented in an unobtrusive manner if done properly. I wish someone would hold a contest to see who could design the best system to do this--or at least hold a lengthy discussion about it. I really am convinced that this will work and that legislation will not.
numb
linuxers should organize carpools for these things. that way, people who live all the way out in the forest (read: canada) can attend these things. Thats the spirit the linux community needs! not only that, the cars (because of the nerds) would have mp3 steros! yes!
Hey, an excellent idea. I hope your idea gets moderated up for more eyes to see.
numb
I hate spam. Yet I don't see how ANY law could stop spam. First of all, I'd wager that most spam that citizens of Colorado receive does not originate in Colorado. Secondly, how would you enforce this law? How do you collect your $10 from some loser who can't even afford to pay for a full month of Internet access and has just sent 15,000 e-mails from his free NetZero account? Most of the spam I get is very obviously (at least to me) from individuals that really could care less about the legality or ethics of what they are doing.
The part that really bothers me is giving government a precedent where they are allowed to regulate communications over the Internet. Anti-spam legislation just seems like a good way to get their foot in the door.
I honestly believe that spam CAN be stopped by technology. We need to protect ourselves. I wrote a great procmail filter a couple years ago that filtered all my spam based on required keywords. If the e-mail was filtered out, procmail sent an e-mail back explaining that all mail without the required keyword was filtered--please include [keyword] in your e-mail to get through the filter.
Once someone sent the e-mail with a valid keyword they would be added to the "never" filter list. Everyone I showed it to thought it was way cool, however I got my ass flamed to cinders when I proposed the idea on Usenet.
Using a procmail filter like mine was NOT an ideal solution. For instance, bounce messages from mail daemons were lost so I wouldn't know if I sent e-mail to an invalid address. However, I can see fairly clearly in my mind how a new e-mail system could be implemented that would be easier and more reliable.
I'd really like to get some people to put some brain-power behind an e-mail system that could display a "terms of use" or any message before letting an unknown user into your system. No, your average spammer won't give a sh*t about your terms of use message. However, the average spammer is not going to read through 15,000 "terms of use" messages and type in 15,000 keywords just to get you to send him $5.
Anyone have any insight on how this might be implemented? I'd rather put a 'password' on my account for security than risk trading my liberty for it.
numb
No, this wouldn't defeat DeCSS. However even without DeCSS it was still possible to capture the video on it's way to the monitor. This would prevent that. I think the intent is to force users of future types of media from using it on 'unauthorized' equipment.
What I wonder is how they intend to force people to buy encrypted monitors. Why pay extra money for a device that introduces limitations on how and where you use your software/media?
numb
This wouldn't be much more of a security risk because you would actually have to purchase a very expensive license to look at the code. Your average hacker/cracker still would not be able to get their hands on the code. Keep in mind that Microsoft has licensed it's code out before to other companies, though not to sell their own version of Windows, without the rest of the world being able to view it.
I know Microsoft licensed it's code to Citrix at one point. They don't anymore. Do they still do this for anyone? I dunno. I do know about MSDN. Microsoft Developer Network CD's contain a lot of stuff that your 'average hacker' probably DOES have access too. If you work at a Fortune 500 company then you almost definately have access to a stack of MSDN CD's (a very convincing reason to switch to open source if there ever was one IMHO.) These discs give companies an 'edge' because they've paid good money for the latest information and development tools for Windows that Microsoft is willing to release (stuff that your 'average' hacker and non-hacker can legally get for free when it comes to open source.) The thing is, not all hackers work out of their basement with Linux boxes...some actually work for companies that will have access to this code should it become available Many will not hesitate to make that code availble to 50 of their closest friends.
If Microsoft actually makes the source available to more than a few select people it will escape. The saying "information wants to be free" isn't just wishful thinking. It's a statement about something observable that just happens on it's own.
numb
This is only true for the VERY short-term. Within a few days, all of the major holes will have been plugged, and every minor one will be plugged very soon after it pops up.
The only difference between an OS that starts out open (like Linux) and one that opens after eight years of development (like W95) is how many bugs there will be to fix in that short period.
I haven't been regularly reading Slashdot lately so I don't know if this link was ever posted...blah can't find the link... It was on ZDnet and called Win2k Bugfest or something like that about a week ago. It exposed an internal Microsoft memo about 63,000 known bugs in Win2k. The author of them memo asks his employees "Would you pay $500 for software you knew had that many bugs?" Did anyone else see this article? I did a search on ZDnet for "bugfest" and it turned up nothing.
The reason I bring this up is that Windows has no small amount of known bugs. We know from experience that the holes in open OS's get fixed quickly. But that's because they've been exposed and fixed all along the way. Will the holes be found and fixed as quickly when they are exposed to so many eyes all at once?
Windows was NOT designed with security in mind any more than it was designed to be a stable operating system. It was designed with making money as the focus. It was kept closed. Maybe we should be optimistic and assume that Microsoft had the foresight to think something other than "security through obscurity is good enough?" I'm not a betting man, but I'll buy you a Guinness if I'm wrong.
numb
Think about it. Everyone who is realiant on Microsoft now...they'll be incredibly screwed when the Windows source code is released. Open operating systems have had the benifit of being examined by many hackers for security flaws. Windows has had so many security holes exposed just from reverse engineering...I couldn't imagine what the source code would expose.
Go ahead Microsoft, I dare you.
numb