I am a fervent liberal, but Republicans claim to be about smaller gov, and less taxes. Well, the tax cuts enacted earlier warranted great cuts in programs. I don't like seeing the space and science budgets cut, being a fervent liberal, but hey, they need to do things right, and it's about time.
I have an 8 month old daughter and she will be paying for the sins of this administration for a long time after I am (possibly) retired. What they need are massive cuts around the board to protect her. They want to do big tax cuts, it needs to come out someplace.
I am of the opinion, however, that the federal government should be nothing more than international relations and international science (these would include space exploration and military), and that would greatly reduce our national taxes. All other things should vary from state to state, and that would enable each state to model its own economy and laws that could overwrite the federal ones.
Smoke up!
There are far too many things built into the internet explorer browser in an attempt to make it a 'solve-everything' for Windows, and that's where the real flaw is. Further, the programming for Windows, and particularly IE, is not modular enough to encourage practical security controls.
This creates an environment on the web browser that makes it easy to include flaw after flaw, because the developers who work on it (while totally decent), are not really good enough to encourage quality coding from the get go in such a manner that would prevent these kinds of things from occuring. ActiveX, while nice, is bloated and has far too many problems, and it is unecessary and not cross-browser compatible, along with many of the other things in IE that make it so powerful.
The simple solution is to resimplify IE, and remodularize it in such a way that there are bug fixes released for downloadable modules, and not the browser itself. There should be a default browser that doesn't have all of the BS that would enable some user to take over your computer. By disabling this, it would remove millions in cost from the people of the world, simply by not allowing as many viruses to get pushed around.
Therefore, I believe that the solution for Microsoft is simplification. That simple step would make certain items on the web incompatible for a while, but I think that the only time a commercial venture really needs to use ActiveX is when it is dealing with some for of subscribing end user or when programming in intranet type application.
Of course, windows won't do this because they are interested in aesthetics and ease of use for the end user, which also creates ease of use for the people who write viruses as well.
Like I said earlier, look at the Matrix system, which is a database that uses near match to find possible felons that shouldn't be allowed to vote. I was almost disenfranchised due to this, I had to fight.
My name is Paul David Salcido. Now go out to google and look up Frank Salcido. He's on the FBI's most wanted list. He used the name David Salcido or Salcedo once or twice.
Now, the media isn't allowed to have the list. If they did, I would have been contacted earlier. I missed a key state vote, but otherwise, I'm fine. I'll make the next presidential election (but now I'm moving to Ohio, another Matrix member, so I wonder if I'll have to do this again).
Inaccurate informatino is as bad as accurate information.
Don't forget that they used cameras to identify criminals at a superbowl with an automated program. Imagine: you buy tickets with cash, but they still know that you were there.
As the power of technology improves there will be more of this going on. You never know what they'll be able to trace. My point is that when we give up some privacy, so do they.
That's the real question here. My issue is not with the supermarket, and it's not with the library. It's with government secrecy. They are collection information on our everyday lives, and we really don't get a whole hell of a lot back. We are less informed to make quality decisions about leadership. In order to make it fair, we should be able to collect everything that the government has on us and be able to put big black lines through it if we don't want them to read it, like the government does to us.
I don't think that privacy is necessarily a right, but man, the government has us by the nuts on this one.
The point is, that this book (along with any George Orwell novel) is on a list by the government that sends a red flag. Who knows what else sends up a red flag. So, by checking out a book maybe out of simple interest, you are giving up your freedom to anonymity and privacy.
Shouldn't the government be forced to do the same?
There are situations where this will clearly work, but then it comes down to your opinion. Everyone is entitled to one, and eventually you're going to want to tell someone the truth... and it ends up in there daily blog.
Now, I don't think that the government is doing this yet, but lets say they have their robot program out there and it hits that blog and your information is once again property of the government. So now you don't want to tell anyone anything anymore because it could reach the gov. or whatnot.
So then, I ask, what is the point of being human if you are unwilling to voice an opinion. Whether you make that happen by buying the book The price of loyalty or by attending an anti-bush rally, all of this information could one day fall into the hands of the administration. So, are you willing to give up your voice in order to protect your privacy
I know that I'm not!
So, once again, basic argument, I want the government to give up some of it's privacy in order that we have better control of this (US) 'democracy' (actually a republic) and are better informed to make national decisions, like we should.
My major point is, though, that most of the stuff that we do is already being DB'd somewhere. Much of it by the government. My argument is, therefore, that we should have more access to what our government is doing because of their collection on us.
For instance, the MATRIX program, which is designed to make sure that past felons cannot vote, disenfranchised ME because I have a name where the middle and last name match that of a felon. I did get my voting rights back, but many lost them before the election. Access to that database is currently denied to the media. This brainchild of the Republican Party should not be Private. This is clearly a public issue. Thus, if I give up my right to privacy, the government that is collecting everyday data on us should stop too.
This article at least suggests that we'll be getting something back for it. The privacy and secrecy afforded to our government (US) is so ubiquitous that I would be able to accept my loss of privacy in order to get more information out of them.
The article suggests that this information will be available in the future and that we all will be willing to absolutely forgo anonymity to have information about anything at any given time. I do have to admit that I forsee one small problem here: if the government, your boss, your neighbor, know what you are reading through, then you will be more selective about what you study, and thus, it really isn't free access to information.
It's like the government knowing what you are checking out of the library. It makes you think again about trying to get a copy of the Anarchists Cookbook, you know, even if you feel that you have the right to read it. Even so, as I said, we no longer have privacy, so if we can end our governments' monopoly on privacy, then I believe that we will be better off for it.
You can accept, then, that there is no anonymity in modern systems, and be happy with that. I mean, we are already NOT anonymous on the internet (of course, it's possible to be anonymous, but also generally illegal).
The problem with this is that the user PAYS for anonymity, and it is far too easy to break. Thus, I wonder, is the act of getting the information illegal because of the DMCA?
Even if not, the telcos should write up something that enables only certain end users (such as the telco itself) to determine the start point of a call. This would be some kind of encryption method, or data grabbing when the call is handled by the telco. This would enable the only people who really need anonymous caller information (the police) to be able to get it when they need it.
It's a good thing that your being sarcastic, but we all know that the software involved has nothing to do with Linux, as probably code that worked in the same manner would work for any operating system handling the call.
The real issue here is, as you said, with the person sending the information (poorly written corporate slop that they call code), and the expect laws to back up this crap that they send out that says that it's illegal to break the most mundane of security protocol.
It really ticks me off. I have to get off this thread.
I'm a big Linux fan, which is all that I use at home, but my question is, if there is some form of security in place preventing you from getting the information out of private calls, then aren't you already breaking a rule of the DMCA?
This here is just proof positive that people skip the simplest security bugs, imagining that others will simply accept there bogus obfuscation and live with what they are given.
I feel that as consumers, we need to demand better from these corporations. This is a joke and a slight security risk that we shouldn't have to deal with, and corporations inability to supply a quality product in software terms is so shoddy, I can't believe that we go for it anymore.
If everyone shared this point of view - we use it more often so it's a waste of time to use different standards - then we'd still be living in the middle ages (John Ashcroft is trying to take us back to it, but that's another issue).
It is of utmost importance, that we, as the end user, voice our dissaproval of the inability of IE to display png's correctly by:
Using nonproprietary images
Using browsers that properly display nonproprietary images correctly.
Without this, nothing will change. Because of the way the government is run these days, it is only a matter of time before the length on patents is extended by corporation force on the legislature (This hasn't happened in patenting, but I believe that it will, based on the copyright extensions that happened several years ago).
Because of this, we need to practice what we preach. If we want the Web to be free (well... whatever) and be able to develop our websites and whatnot without the fear of retaliation, we have to push the advancement.
Konqueror and Netscape on Linux both display png images correctly. I guess I'm just trying to step out of the dark ages.
The problem with this logic is that mathematical fact cannot be patented. The algorithms used to create compression techniques are just that - mathematical fact. The code that is used to turn the mathematical idea that was only an algorithm before is not easy to reproduce and it is copyright[able]. Thus, algorithms should not be patented because of their intrinsic mathematical nature. Recreating them in code is NOT simple, and that should be protected.
Now, the real issue here is that we, as users, need to make sure that we don't fall into the trap of using algorithms that are patented, for the time being that algorithmical patents exist, and use ones that are being developed by the highly skilled Open source communities. Who needs gif? use png. Do your work using XPM's (which work better with gtk+ anyhow), and just be vigilant. Eventually, these silly issues will start to go away.
Now, in your message you state something about copy-and-pasting someones algorithm. An algorithm is an IDEA. A mathematical construct. Nothing more. A good example is an AVL tree. Simple enough to code, as long as one is not completely novice, but it's been coded thousands of times by thousands of Comp-Sci graduates. Now, each person must write their own code when in class (some get away with this), and we can imagine that as a kind of copyright protection. Some code the same thing better than others. To be put simply, patenting reduces the quality of software released by removing the possibility of competition.
The problem with creating your own algorithms for this type of stuff is getting sufficient market saturation for it to be useful. Further, why should we have to reinvent the wheel. There are much better things to do then try and redo someones work. We should be advancing, not dealing with this bs.
But then again, capitalism promotes the status quo. I guess I'm just a socialist.
Slashdot Mirror
I am a fervent liberal, but Republicans claim to be about smaller gov, and less taxes. Well, the tax cuts enacted earlier warranted great cuts in programs. I don't like seeing the space and science budgets cut, being a fervent liberal, but hey, they need to do things right, and it's about time. I have an 8 month old daughter and she will be paying for the sins of this administration for a long time after I am (possibly) retired. What they need are massive cuts around the board to protect her. They want to do big tax cuts, it needs to come out someplace. I am of the opinion, however, that the federal government should be nothing more than international relations and international science (these would include space exploration and military), and that would greatly reduce our national taxes. All other things should vary from state to state, and that would enable each state to model its own economy and laws that could overwrite the federal ones. Smoke up!
This creates an environment on the web browser that makes it easy to include flaw after flaw, because the developers who work on it (while totally decent), are not really good enough to encourage quality coding from the get go in such a manner that would prevent these kinds of things from occuring. ActiveX, while nice, is bloated and has far too many problems, and it is unecessary and not cross-browser compatible, along with many of the other things in IE that make it so powerful.
The simple solution is to resimplify IE, and remodularize it in such a way that there are bug fixes released for downloadable modules, and not the browser itself. There should be a default browser that doesn't have all of the BS that would enable some user to take over your computer. By disabling this, it would remove millions in cost from the people of the world, simply by not allowing as many viruses to get pushed around.
Therefore, I believe that the solution for Microsoft is simplification. That simple step would make certain items on the web incompatible for a while, but I think that the only time a commercial venture really needs to use ActiveX is when it is dealing with some for of subscribing end user or when programming in intranet type application.
Of course, windows won't do this because they are interested in aesthetics and ease of use for the end user, which also creates ease of use for the people who write viruses as well.
My name is Paul David Salcido. Now go out to google and look up Frank Salcido. He's on the FBI's most wanted list. He used the name David Salcido or Salcedo once or twice.
Now, the media isn't allowed to have the list. If they did, I would have been contacted earlier. I missed a key state vote, but otherwise, I'm fine. I'll make the next presidential election (but now I'm moving to Ohio, another Matrix member, so I wonder if I'll have to do this again).
Inaccurate informatino is as bad as accurate information.
As the power of technology improves there will be more of this going on. You never know what they'll be able to trace. My point is that when we give up some privacy, so do they.
They haven't yet.
I don't think that privacy is necessarily a right, but man, the government has us by the nuts on this one.
Shouldn't the government be forced to do the same?
Now, I don't think that the government is doing this yet, but lets say they have their robot program out there and it hits that blog and your information is once again property of the government. So now you don't want to tell anyone anything anymore because it could reach the gov. or whatnot.
So then, I ask, what is the point of being human if you are unwilling to voice an opinion. Whether you make that happen by buying the book The price of loyalty or by attending an anti-bush rally, all of this information could one day fall into the hands of the administration. So, are you willing to give up your voice in order to protect your privacy
I know that I'm not!
So, once again, basic argument, I want the government to give up some of it's privacy in order that we have better control of this (US) 'democracy' (actually a republic) and are better informed to make national decisions, like we should.
Unfortunately, this is not available to us.
For instance, the MATRIX program, which is designed to make sure that past felons cannot vote, disenfranchised ME because I have a name where the middle and last name match that of a felon. I did get my voting rights back, but many lost them before the election. Access to that database is currently denied to the media. This brainchild of the Republican Party should not be Private. This is clearly a public issue. Thus, if I give up my right to privacy, the government that is collecting everyday data on us should stop too.
The article suggests that this information will be available in the future and that we all will be willing to absolutely forgo anonymity to have information about anything at any given time. I do have to admit that I forsee one small problem here: if the government, your boss, your neighbor, know what you are reading through, then you will be more selective about what you study, and thus, it really isn't free access to information.
It's like the government knowing what you are checking out of the library. It makes you think again about trying to get a copy of the Anarchists Cookbook, you know, even if you feel that you have the right to read it. Even so, as I said, we no longer have privacy, so if we can end our governments' monopoly on privacy, then I believe that we will be better off for it.
The problem with this is that the user PAYS for anonymity, and it is far too easy to break. Thus, I wonder, is the act of getting the information illegal because of the DMCA?
Even if not, the telcos should write up something that enables only certain end users (such as the telco itself) to determine the start point of a call. This would be some kind of encryption method, or data grabbing when the call is handled by the telco. This would enable the only people who really need anonymous caller information (the police) to be able to get it when they need it.
The real issue here is, as you said, with the person sending the information (poorly written corporate slop that they call code), and the expect laws to back up this crap that they send out that says that it's illegal to break the most mundane of security protocol.
It really ticks me off. I have to get off this thread.
This here is just proof positive that people skip the simplest security bugs, imagining that others will simply accept there bogus obfuscation and live with what they are given.
I feel that as consumers, we need to demand better from these corporations. This is a joke and a slight security risk that we shouldn't have to deal with, and corporations inability to supply a quality product in software terms is so shoddy, I can't believe that we go for it anymore.
Oh well. I'm too peeved to go on.
It is of utmost importance, that we, as the end user, voice our dissaproval of the inability of IE to display png's correctly by:
- Using nonproprietary images
- Using browsers that properly display nonproprietary images correctly.
Without this, nothing will change. Because of the way the government is run these days, it is only a matter of time before the length on patents is extended by corporation force on the legislature (This hasn't happened in patenting, but I believe that it will, based on the copyright extensions that happened several years ago).Because of this, we need to practice what we preach. If we want the Web to be free (well ... whatever) and be able to develop our websites and whatnot without the fear of retaliation, we have to push the advancement.
Konqueror and Netscape on Linux both display png images correctly. I guess I'm just trying to step out of the dark ages.
Now, the real issue here is that we, as users, need to make sure that we don't fall into the trap of using algorithms that are patented, for the time being that algorithmical patents exist, and use ones that are being developed by the highly skilled Open source communities. Who needs gif? use png. Do your work using XPM's (which work better with gtk+ anyhow), and just be vigilant. Eventually, these silly issues will start to go away.
Now, in your message you state something about copy-and-pasting someones algorithm. An algorithm is an IDEA. A mathematical construct. Nothing more. A good example is an AVL tree. Simple enough to code, as long as one is not completely novice, but it's been coded thousands of times by thousands of Comp-Sci graduates. Now, each person must write their own code when in class (some get away with this), and we can imagine that as a kind of copyright protection. Some code the same thing better than others. To be put simply, patenting reduces the quality of software released by removing the possibility of competition.
The problem with creating your own algorithms for this type of stuff is getting sufficient market saturation for it to be useful. Further, why should we have to reinvent the wheel. There are much better things to do then try and redo someones work. We should be advancing, not dealing with this bs.
But then again, capitalism promotes the status quo. I guess I'm just a socialist.