They would not need to datamine your bookmarks/passwords etc. any more than they "datamine" every single e-mail you read in your G-mail account.
I guess you haven't been paying attention to your g-mail account. I have a couple of them that I use for very specific and distinct purposes - and I make sure never to cross-contaminate them via persistent cookies or the like. Each one shows me ads that are obviously targetted to the email in that specific account - and not necessarily to the message I may be currently reading.
In other words, Google does mine your g-mail in order to build a profile that they can then use to try and match advertisements against. Your bookmarks and browsing history provide just as much, if not better, detail about you than your google search history does - they would be foolish to ignore it if you don't encrypt it.
If you think google isn't building and storing profiles for each user - then you are just being willfully ignorant - the evidence is there in the results if you just look for it.
Its not really clear about how much of your information is encryped. Your passwords yes, but your browsing history? Your bookmarks?
I would expect google to want to datamine both of those things, but I would not feel comfortable giving it to them in a form that they could use because it means that someone else, like our friendly NSA for example, could use it too.
With that in mind - does anyone know of an extention that does the same sort of sync, but encrypts everything and lets you store it on the website or ftp server of your choice (presuming of course that you have write permission there)?
A bazillion years ago my father was a bush pilot up in Alaska. He had more than a few stories about ball lighting inside the planes he piloted - sometimes lasting for many seconds, rolling up and down the passenger/cargo areas. Maybe they were tall tales meant to impress us kids, but he wasn't usually one to exaggerate.
When 0.0001% of women are 'predators' and 0.01% of men are 'predators' - that makes men 100x more likely to be 'predators' but at the same time so few of them actually are that screening them is wasteful and uncalled for.
I see a lot of this - the 'anti-feminists' are just guys with a bunch of conspiracy theories about society being anti-men when 99% of the time it is just them focusing on a subset of the predictably regular stupidities of society.
We can all guess what rms would have done in their place.
Come up with a clever hack of Chinese censorship laws that effectively reverses the intended effect, causing Beijing to firewall all of the pro-censorship politicians, but leaving the rest of the citizens Free to access whatever information they want?
Remember that companies are not run by public opinion, they are run by stockholders - if I owned google stock i would be furious if they werent doing everything tay could to corner China.
If you owned google stock, you would not have a say in how google operates. The shares that they have been selling on the open market are different from the shares that most companies sell - they have much reduced voting rights in comparison to the voting rights in the shares held by the founders.
Google explicitly disclosed this fact in their prospectus. Their stated goal is to avoid the short-term vision that most public companies suffer under - the wall-street enforced horizon of quarterly reports. They hope to be able to be both public and still take a long-term approach to how they conduct business.
You could have just operated in oposition to the law. As far as I know, the only enforcement mechanism is the visa denial. Make sure the people using your site know about IMBRA and then let them decide if they want to take their chances or not. As it is now, a TRO was granted against IMBRA a week or two before it was due to go into effect, so no one has actually ever had to suffer under it.
As mentioned in the summary - the first attempt at legislation along these lines is being challenged in court because it was, well, absolutely idiotic and probably completely unconstitutional.
The International Marriage Broker Regulation Act of 2005 has the following requirements on websites that bring American men and foreign women together:
Gather mandatory background information and documents on the American client's past criminal history.
Provide the man's background information to any woman who has correspondence with an American through their site.
Check the National Sex Offender public registry and state public registry for each U.S client.
Secure a signed, written consent from the lady before releasing her contact information to the American client interested in her.
Provide her a brochure (created by our government) to explain her U.S. rights to her.
Some of those requirements are reasonable - but (1) and (2) are absolutely nuts. Simply chatting with, or even sending a simple note to, a woman means that a guy has to give out way more information than he would ever give out to a woman he just met in a bar or other similar 'dating' situation.
The background information includes things like details of part marriages, names and ages of any children, his current address and full name, etc. The kind of information that fraudsters and identity thieves would just love to get their hands on.
Furthermore, there is no recriprocation - the woman are under no obligation to provide any verifiable information at all to the men.
The law goes so far as to try to impose itself on all 'international' dating websites, even if the ownership is 100% non-American and are hosted outside of the US. The enforcement mechanism is to deny marriage visas to any woman who admits to meeting her American husband or husband-to-be through a website that has not officially adopted the rules and been certified by some sort of quasi-governmental certification authority.
Unfortunately, it really doesn't help all the honest Joes out there that most of the websites that discuss the IMBRA are laden with misogyny, using terms like "feminazi" that are really self-labels for the writers as probably not being fit to marry a woman - American or otherwise.
Fallacy. "When I give a sandwich to friends, it's because I would have them give a sandwich to me." If you got that sandwich by stealing it from a person smaller than you, you have not followed the spirit of the golden rule.
And if I steal it from someone much, much, much bigger than me, then that should make me a David.
I think you already understand that those are silly examples. The car, for instance, wasn't sold on the terms that you pay somebody each day you drive it. Car rental contracts, however, do stipulate this. If you rent a car and then refuse to pay the daily rental fee, you are not following the golden rule. Do you see the difference?
If I stole it in the first place, then there are no terms of sale.
I think a more intellectually honest way to approach the golden rule vis. file sharing is to ask "does that artist want me to make copies of their work without their permission?".
I don't see anything in treat others as you would have them treat you that says that I have to be in the other person's shoes.
When I give music to friends its because I would have them give music to me. Seems to be by the Book to me.
If being in the producer's shoes were a requirement of the golden rule - then things would really get out of hand - I'm sure the guys who built my car would really appreciate it if I gave them each a $1 every time I drove somewhere - or all the carpenters and the architect who worked on my house, they would love to get a couple bucks for each night I spend in there. Heck, I want to get paid every time someone runs a copy of software that I've written - but nobody is doing that.
I'm sure if you were willing to pay the going rate for exclusive rights to the music you want to listen to, the labels would consider your offer. But if you want to stick to $12 a CD don't expect to get the whole works...
Why not?
If an album goes platinum in the USA, that is 1,000,000 copies sold. That's at least $10M, probably more like $15M.
Just how much do "exclusive rights" cost? Just how much of a profit must the studios make?
They do the hypervisor thing on a cluster - you can take 16 single-cpu boxes and build one big 16-cpu single-system-image server, or two 8-cpu servers, or whatever and you can move the cpus between running virtual machines as well as move running virtual machines between cpus.
Kind of like the described situation of manually queisceing the laptop and then moving the disk to another box - except tons more flexible.
Re:The late great Mancur Olson
on
Death By DMCA
·
· Score: 2
Whenever you have enough power to give one group something at the expense of another, you'll have maggots working to make it happen. And the "special" interests will always win out over the "general". Always.
Yes, there is even a name for the phenomenon - it is called Regulatory Capture.
Re:Non-U.S.'ers not safe either
on
Death By DMCA
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
It would be very interesting to hear **AA commentary on what they think of anonymous nets, something they've had the pleasure of not having overly popular yet due to less performance.
That's easy. They are terrorist tools and should be illegal. They'll get lots of support from the spook-overlords in the government too, probably end up reducing their bribery^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hcampaign controbutions budget in the process.
Just notice that even such "harmless" decisions as "1 child per family" program in China have some not-quite-expected consequences where there many, many more boys being born than girls. They are heading to a big social crisis in 15-20 years this way (and they know it). Expect arrival of single horny chinese young men hunting for your daughters wherever you live.
Not only horny - but economically disenfranchised. "1 Family 1 Child" means that for every 2 retired people there will only be 1 working person. The US has concerns about their social security pyramid scheme collapsing because american families have something like 1.8 kids. China's got it much worse with around 1.05 kids. I would be leaving the country if I were forced into that kind of scheme too - which only makes it worse for the ones who don't leave.
Just take the Numa Numa video on the internet from a year ago. This is a potential hit song made popular in the US from the "Numa Numa" video at http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/206373 that went nowhere on the buying charts due to pure stupidity of the recording industry. If you liked this song, you couldn't buy it.
I know this is slashdot and the culture is to be inward nerd looking, but even then I think you are vastly overestimating the general public's interest in non-uniform memory architecture.
I understand women are allowed to vote and slavery has been abolished.
Slavery is back in fashion. Do a little research on prison labor in America - the country with the highest incarceration rate in the world, bare none.
Not only is it immoral all on its own - it is anti-free market because the businesses that 'hire' the prison labor get the benefit of paying below-market wages - which their competitors do not.
We know for a fact that they knew that it would require a "Pearl Harbor" level event to convince the American people to back the invasion.
You know, I absolutely, 100% remember reading a statement like that on that website very shortly after 9/11 - and the paper was from the mid-to-late 90s. I distinctly remember emailing people about it at the time, it was such a shocker even for my own jaded ass.
But I can not find it anymore. Nor can google, and last time I tried, nor could the wayback machine. The only mentions of Pearl Harbor are either post-9/11 or innocuous.
In September 1996, an anonymous user posted the confidential writings of the Church of Scientology through the Penet remailer.
Damn! Almost 10 years ago.
That whole thing still feels like it happened just a few months back. Makes me feel old, and yet it seems like so little has changed in the last decade.
Anyone else around for stuff like that and the Green Card Lawyers and the Clipper Chip, and B1FF, etc feel the same way?
My 'awful big assumption' argument was attempting to point out that the carrot that is currently available might look a whole lot tastier to artists -- your big assumption is that the new carrot is tastier.
Not necessarily tastier on its own, but that the market will get there on its own via competition. If, on one hand you have content that is DRM'ed up the wazoo and costs a pretty penny competing with content producers that work cheap (not necessarily earn cheap, but may have a lower cost for reasons like cutting out the middlemen and such) and ultimately give away the end result - eventually the pay-for-copy guys are going to lose marketshare to the free-to-copy to products. Like Jack Valenti said - you can't compete with free.
People with access to 50 songs that they really liked might not be willing to risk even $0.25 on a new song that they might not like, especially if 'someone else will pay for the new stuff'.
You can say almost the same thing about the current system. Someone who has purchased 50 songs that they really like might decide that they aren't going to buy any more songs either.
As for the concern that no-one will pay for new stuff because they are all waiting for 'someone else' to spend the money - in that extreme of a case, no song would be produced at all. I believe that eventually all that unspent money is going to burn a hole in someone's pocket and at the same time the musician may have to re-evaluate his pricing to attract that money. Pretty much your basic free market scenario.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sure Jack Thompson will use this to leverage his arguments
Gaming is a gateway drug to MURDER ADDICTION!!!!
They would not need to datamine your bookmarks/passwords etc. any more than they "datamine" every single e-mail you read in your G-mail account.
I guess you haven't been paying attention to your g-mail account. I have a couple of them that I use for very specific and distinct purposes - and I make sure never to cross-contaminate them via persistent cookies or the like. Each one shows me ads that are obviously targetted to the email in that specific account - and not necessarily to the message I may be currently reading.
In other words, Google does mine your g-mail in order to build a profile that they can then use to try and match advertisements against. Your bookmarks and browsing history provide just as much, if not better, detail about you than your google search history does - they would be foolish to ignore it if you don't encrypt it.
If you think google isn't building and storing profiles for each user - then you are just being willfully ignorant - the evidence is there in the results if you just look for it.
Actually, it does say it will be encrypted:
Its not really clear about how much of your information is encryped. Your passwords yes, but your browsing history? Your bookmarks?
I would expect google to want to datamine both of those things, but I would not feel comfortable giving it to them in a form that they could use because it means that someone else, like our friendly NSA for example, could use it too.
With that in mind - does anyone know of an extention that does the same sort of sync, but encrypts everything and lets you store it on the website or ftp server of your choice (presuming of course that you have write permission there)?
I never miss a chance to let the old man know that he's an old man, you know?
A bazillion years ago my father was a bush pilot up in Alaska. He had more than a few stories about ball lighting inside the planes he piloted - sometimes lasting for many seconds, rolling up and down the passenger/cargo areas. Maybe they were tall tales meant to impress us kids, but he wasn't usually one to exaggerate.
Sounds like simple bad math to me.
When 0.0001% of women are 'predators' and 0.01% of men are 'predators' - that makes men 100x more likely to be 'predators' but at the same time so few of them actually are that screening them is wasteful and uncalled for.
I see a lot of this - the 'anti-feminists' are just guys with a bunch of conspiracy theories about society being anti-men when 99% of the time it is just them focusing on a subset of the predictably regular stupidities of society.
We can all guess what rms would have done in their place.
Come up with a clever hack of Chinese censorship laws that effectively reverses the intended effect, causing Beijing to firewall all of the pro-censorship politicians, but leaving the rest of the citizens Free to access whatever information they want?
Remember that companies are not run by public opinion, they are run by stockholders - if I owned google stock i would be furious if they werent doing everything tay could to corner China.
If you owned google stock, you would not have a say in how google operates. The shares that they have been selling on the open market are different from the shares that most companies sell - they have much reduced voting rights in comparison to the voting rights in the shares held by the founders.
Google explicitly disclosed this fact in their prospectus. Their stated goal is to avoid the short-term vision that most public companies suffer under - the wall-street enforced horizon of quarterly reports. They hope to be able to be both public and still take a long-term approach to how they conduct business.
You could have just operated in oposition to the law. As far as I know, the only enforcement mechanism is the visa denial. Make sure the people using your site know about IMBRA and then let them decide if they want to take their chances or not. As it is now, a TRO was granted against IMBRA a week or two before it was due to go into effect, so no one has actually ever had to suffer under it.
The International Marriage Broker Regulation Act of 2005 has the following requirements
on websites that bring American men and foreign women together:
Some of those requirements are reasonable - but (1) and (2) are absolutely nuts. Simply chatting with, or even sending a simple note to, a woman means that a guy has to give out way more information than he would ever give out to a woman he just met in a bar or other similar 'dating' situation.
The background information includes things like details of part marriages, names and ages of any children, his current address and full name, etc. The kind of information that fraudsters and identity thieves would just love to get their hands on.
Furthermore, there is no recriprocation - the woman are under no obligation to provide any verifiable information at all to the men.
The law goes so far as to try to impose itself on all 'international' dating websites, even if the ownership is 100% non-American and are hosted outside of the US. The enforcement mechanism is to deny marriage visas to any woman who admits to meeting her American husband or husband-to-be through a website that has not officially adopted the rules and been certified by some sort of quasi-governmental certification authority.
Unfortunately, it really doesn't help all the honest Joes out there that most of the websites that discuss the IMBRA are laden with misogyny, using terms like "feminazi" that are really self-labels for the writers as probably not being fit to marry a woman - American or otherwise.
Fallacy. "When I give a sandwich to friends, it's because I would have them give a sandwich to me." If you got that sandwich by stealing it from a person smaller than you, you have not followed the spirit of the golden rule.
And if I steal it from someone much, much, much bigger than me, then that should make me a David.
I think you already understand that those are silly examples. The car, for instance, wasn't sold on the terms that you pay somebody each day you drive it. Car rental contracts, however, do stipulate this. If you rent a car and then refuse to pay the daily rental fee, you are not following the golden rule. Do you see the difference?
If I stole it in the first place, then there are no terms of sale.
You're missing the point.
Oh I got the point and am significantly beyond it.
For a hint on what the real point is, consult a dictionary for the meaning of the word "exclusive."
You might try: "excessive"
or "justification"
or even "social contract."
I think a more intellectually honest way to approach the golden rule vis. file sharing is to ask "does that artist want me to make copies of their work without their permission?".
I don't see anything in treat others as you would have them treat you that says that I have to be in the other person's shoes.
When I give music to friends its because I would have them give music to me. Seems to be by the Book to me.
If being in the producer's shoes were a requirement of the golden rule - then things would really get out of hand - I'm sure the guys who built my car would really appreciate it if I gave them each a $1 every time I drove somewhere - or all the carpenters and the architect who worked on my house, they would love to get a couple bucks for each night I spend in there. Heck, I want to get paid every time someone runs a copy of software that I've written - but nobody is doing that.
I'm sure if you were willing to pay the going rate for exclusive rights to the music you want to listen to, the labels would consider your offer. But if you want to stick to $12 a CD don't expect to get the whole works...
Why not?
If an album goes platinum in the USA, that is 1,000,000 copies sold. That's at least $10M, probably more like $15M.
Just how much do "exclusive rights" cost? Just how much of a profit must the studios make?
Check out Virtual Iron.
http://www.virtualiron.com/
They do the hypervisor thing on a cluster - you can take 16 single-cpu boxes and build one big 16-cpu single-system-image server, or two 8-cpu servers, or whatever and you can move the cpus between running virtual machines as well as move running virtual machines between cpus.
Kind of like the described situation of manually queisceing the laptop and then moving the disk to another box - except tons more flexible.
Whenever you have enough power to give one group something at the expense of another, you'll have maggots working to make it happen. And the "special" interests will always win out over the "general". Always.
Yes, there is even a name for the phenomenon - it is called Regulatory Capture.
It would be very interesting to hear **AA commentary on what they think of anonymous nets, something they've had the pleasure of not having overly popular yet due to less performance.
That's easy. They are terrorist tools and should be illegal. They'll get lots of support from the spook-overlords in the government too, probably end up reducing their bribery^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hcampaign controbutions budget in the process.
Just notice that even such "harmless" decisions as "1 child per family" program in China have some not-quite-expected consequences where there many, many more boys being born than girls. They are heading to a big social crisis in 15-20 years this way (and they know it). Expect arrival of single horny chinese young men hunting for your daughters wherever you live.
Not only horny - but economically disenfranchised. "1 Family 1 Child" means that for every 2 retired people there will only be 1 working person. The US has concerns about their social security pyramid scheme collapsing because american families have something like 1.8 kids. China's got it much worse with around 1.05 kids. I would be leaving the country if I were forced into that kind of scheme too - which only makes it worse for the ones who don't leave.
Just take the Numa Numa video on the internet from a year ago. This is a potential hit song made popular in the US from the "Numa Numa" video at http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/206373 that went nowhere on the buying charts due to pure stupidity of the recording industry. If you liked this song, you couldn't buy it.
I know this is slashdot and the culture is to be inward nerd looking, but even then I think you are vastly overestimating the general public's interest in non-uniform memory architecture.
Yep that's it. I got it as my first hit too, but doh, I focused on the second mention of pearl harbor later in the document for some reason.
The internal timestamp is still in 2000, so although not 100% it does appear to be the same document, unaltered even today.
I understand women are allowed to vote and slavery has been abolished.
Slavery is back in fashion. Do a little research on prison labor in America - the country with the highest incarceration rate in the world, bare none.
Not only is it immoral all on its own - it is anti-free market because the businesses that 'hire' the prison labor get the benefit of paying below-market wages - which their competitors do not.
We know for a fact that they knew that it would require a "Pearl Harbor" level event to convince the American people to back the invasion.
You know, I absolutely, 100% remember reading a statement like that on that website very shortly after 9/11 - and the paper was from the mid-to-late 90s. I distinctly remember emailing people about it at the time, it was such a shocker even for my own jaded ass.
But I can not find it anymore. Nor can google, and last time I tried, nor could the wayback machine. The only mentions of Pearl Harbor are either post-9/11 or innocuous.
In September 1996, an anonymous user posted the confidential writings of the Church of Scientology through the Penet remailer.
Damn! Almost 10 years ago.
That whole thing still feels like it happened just a few months back. Makes me feel old, and yet it seems like so little has changed in the last decade.
Anyone else around for stuff like that and the Green Card Lawyers and the Clipper Chip, and B1FF, etc feel the same way?
My 'awful big assumption' argument was attempting to point out that the carrot that is currently available might look a whole lot tastier to artists -- your big assumption is that the new carrot is tastier.
Not necessarily tastier on its own, but that the market will get there on its own via competition. If, on one hand you have content that is DRM'ed up the wazoo and costs a pretty penny competing with content producers that work cheap (not necessarily earn cheap, but may have a lower cost for reasons like cutting out the middlemen and such) and ultimately give away the end result - eventually the pay-for-copy guys are going to lose marketshare to the free-to-copy to products. Like Jack Valenti said - you can't compete with free.
People with access to 50 songs that they really liked might not be willing to risk even $0.25 on a new song that they might not like, especially if 'someone else will pay for the new stuff'.
You can say almost the same thing about the current system. Someone who has purchased 50 songs that they really like might decide that they aren't going to buy any more songs either.
As for the concern that no-one will pay for new stuff because they are all waiting for 'someone else' to spend the money - in that extreme of a case, no song would be produced at all. I believe that eventually all that unspent money is going to burn a hole in someone's pocket and at the same time the musician may have to re-evaluate his pricing to attract that money. Pretty much your basic free market scenario.
My original post mocked his being claimed to be a mega-star period.
Then you fell off the path at the start. The article is written by a German, in Germany talking about a German game production.