By owning the intellectual property one gains rights but also duties to protect the intellectual property. It is in fact the burden on shoulders of IP holders that is specified by law.:-) This is a very nice example of businesses delegating their duties to people (I mean tax-funded police). Definitely smart way to lower the costs of intellectual property ownership and thus increasing the profit margin.
I am sure that ordinary British will not like it. I am interested to see what will they do about it (to know when our Police will get the same idea;).
I can understand that gold has a real price. I can understand that a house has a real price... because they are scarce. That is why there will be real-world poor a rich people.
Internet and the whole intellectual world was never meant to be driven by scarcity. The Internet was build to mitigate the real-world problems with duplicating resources. The Internet allows the main commodity - information - to be transferred, duplicated, created, shared... at virtually no cost. Internet is the attempt to create a world where there are no poor (speaking of knowledge) people but everybody share everything as much as possible for the good of mankind.
The scarcity complex is artificially introduced to this unlimited e-world by companies who simply failed so far to find a new business model in a world where everybody is already rich with information - everybody are already fed with information. Where there is no hunger/demand there is no traditional business model. So lets make those information rich people become poor so they will hunger for information and then we can feed them for a price.
Let's deny access to information using a copyrights, laws, DRMs... Let's artificially create once again information-rich and information-poor people because the existing real-world model proved to work so well.
You wish. If you are an employee of Nokia part time assigned to this job how will you know who paid for your idea? Today you work on EU project, tomorrow you work for Nokia on related project... and boom you got an idea. Who paid for it?
And after all Nokia is just a commercial company currently struggling for money so I have no doubt what will be the management decision.
I rather wander if it is not just a case of disguised subvention by EU.
So if I store and run Microsoft Windows from my home cloud (whatever computer configuration fits the "cloud" definition) - does it mean that Microsoft lost property rights to it? Cool! I love it!
Firefox is striving for open web and more choices. That is a noble goal. But what means giving users more choices? It means that people will start choosing other alternatives. Firefox' market share declines? Don't call it failure but rather celebrate that their goal came true. There is no monopoly anymore. And that they may fall victim to their own vision should not be surprising.
They decided to get stick with limited set of standard technologies. And that is a hard game to play when all "sellers" sell the very same stuff and there is no much of a differentiation (proprietary things... XUL is gone:-(...). Then the "buyers" choice is rather impulsive then rational...
I don't get it. Which part of the sensitive technology iPad contains you deny to Iranians in Apple Stores that they cannot get from communist China where the iPad is manufactured?
This whole "sensitive technology" banning in common consumer market... that just makes common Iranians feel bad because they are Iranians, nothing else.
Would you be able to claim victory with all that Windows-based state-sponsored spyware Stuxnet and Flame if it were not for commercial companies (Siemens) breaking your funny rules and installing export-regulated Windows directly into nuclear facilities? ( www.microsoft.com/exporting/faq.htm ) Did you notice, that nobody says a word against Siemens ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet ) but some common no-name Iranian (slash American)... Big money different rules?
> if you know, or have reason to know, that the item is being purchased for export. And he knew it for sure. She was speaking Farsi! And that is a clear sign that she supports terrorists and intends to hand iPad to bomb-makers in Iran. And if not then she is for sure going to develop a nuclear weapon with it.
Everybody knows that language, colour of the skin, passport your own,... constitute the guilt. No doubt. Once it was state policy to don't serve non-white people... in my country we used to have state policy to don't serve Jews... now you have a policy to don't serve Iranians in Apple stores... and as always all is backed up by law and very serious regulations (with very severe penalties if not followed) and political theories. Works - proved by history, congratulations for using time-proven practices.
I think that US should get back to once well working signs "We don't serve niggers" with slight modification to read "We don't serve Iranians". Because for Apple it is exactly what it is.
I think it would save time to both parties as Iranians would not be required to get this information too late after poking around the things they cannot buy anyway. Signs are good. Use signs. They save your time and money. You used to be so good in it.
(Weird feeling imagining the signs "We don't serve XY" in the stores? Good! There is still hope;-) . Tell Apple about it. It is your country.)
My sister has entered the lawsuit with Mad Dog Athletics because she uses the word "Aerospinning"... and MDA happened to have trademarked the word "spinning(R)". During the course of hearings it turned out that MDA lawyers in Czech Republic were sending threatening letters to publishers of Czech-English dictionaries demanding either a) Removing the trademarked word "spinning" from the dictionary b) Accompanying the word "spinning" with "TM" and their name as respective trademark owners.
You would be surprised but publishers are just publishers making their living out of books and nobody is really interested in having legal battle with some US companies because of one word... We know at least about 3 dictionaries that surrendered to their demands and removed the word "spinning" from Czech-English dictionary.
> I ain't scared of homos, but I don't want them around me. First part of this sentence clearly contradicts the other part. You simply say that "excomunication" (not having "others" around) is what you prefer.
Did you know that for social beings the excomunication from the society is in fact even worse then death? Why would you wish anybody such as horrific punishment if you are not a homophobe?
To me it looks like you are the typical homophobe.:-) Sorry if I am wrong but there is no other way I can explain your words.
I am sure that he didn't jump because he was videotaped by one asshole. It was most probably that he feared the reaction of others when it leaks... the reason was the homophobic society rather then one particular guy. I would say that the society's attitude killed him. What would be the label for the society then?
I thought that the standard is French:-))) (Just teasing you. The standard is really different for every social group.)
Never mind. Does anybody actually really care since we have translate.google.com? I really don't. I will gladly start writing in my mother language too without feeling sorry that so many I-Speak-Only-English people might miss my bright ideas.:-)
And anyway isn't it nice that so many Chinese philosophical writings are to be found on internet in their original language...
Honestly. English speakers - are you afraid that people will abandon English or rather that you will stop understanding the rest of the world or that you will be forced to learn other language to communicate? Either one is not going to happen. Don't worry. Just the communication will become more natural to so many people while keeping the information interchange even more vivid.;-)
Same as fining the bus driver for transporting the bad guy who later stole valet and took the bus to get back home. Is driver responsible for whom he transports? Should the driver secure the buss against unauthorized third parties abusing the law?
Should not be the securing of the valet (copyrighted material) be responsibility of the owner?
If firefox has the search randomizer then it might have other extensions?
For example extension that - keeps different sets of cookies for different URLs based on well-defined URL patterns. (this way the search may use different or none cookies then your Gmail pages or Reader or...) - uses proxy based on the URL patterns (this way your queries to search pages are routed through different way then your Gmail pages...)
For the starter this should satisfy most common needs for a privacy, right?
The XMLHttpRequest can be pretty fast when optimized for performance. There is plenty of time to request a lock and pull information about all current editors from the server between user clicking on "Edit" and focusing on the edited information and moving hands from the mouse back to keyboard...;-) Lot of time to warn/notify/forbid the first edit before it really happens.
Other approach is revisions. User might be informed that there is somebody else editing and the user might choose to request the lock/ignore warning. If ignored then the latest saved a) wins - overwrites earliest (but thanks the revisions nothing is permanently lost so all overwritten info can be recovered) b) the DIFF user interface is brought up and user may try to merge all changes that happened in the meantime into his/her revision before really saving (can be automated - depends on type of data and extent of changes, you can use open source diff tool that is provided as a library to many languages including PHP...)
I will buy an allotment. However steps on my property first will be sued for breaking into my non-existent house and I will demand that the burglar builds the house for me. With proper anti-burglar features like proper doors, cameras, wires, walls, fences, "My Property" signs...:-) Isn't it paradox? How could you break the security in the case that there were no security? Is it possible to break something that does not exist? Can you be ordered to create something that didn't exist before by reasoning that you did break it before?
Sorry, is it just my bad English that forces my Slavic brain no to get the idea?
Sure! I am doing it now! Although I am not as rich as you imply that one must be... I am having good paid job that allows me to work only few hours a day to cover my expenses... And the rest is dedicated... wait... to programming of the project of my choice! Which is Web CMS written in XUL.:-):-) Simply put. One does not need to be that rich to be able to afford the same comfort as the aforementioned people do! Sure, I don't have 4 Boings and 3 yachts and 7 financial advisers.... but still I get as big satisfaction from my project as they do. As my sister says: How much of a ham can you eat every day? If you are rich (very relative term) you can eat 0.5Kg of ham a day. If you are superrich, can you eat more? No, you cannot. So why to hassle to be superrich?
Google is just a search engine. They need document management.:-) Correct me if it is not the thing called content management they need?
Import it into some CMS, sort it and make it available through the website secured by the password. We did something like this for http://www.olympus-ims.com/ (but these are public documents) and it really contains thousands of documents (in dozen languages) together with all the document revisions it is over the hundred of thousands of documents. Easy to search, easy to navigate, easy to manage.
The article states: "Most countries lack our First Amendment tradition, and if we wish to protect the free speech rights of Americans online, we should not allow Internet domain names to be hostage to foreign standards."
My country is democratic and definitely has the "First Amendment Tradition" no worse then US. Will my country be awarded the same right to "protect the free speech rights of ??????s online"?
If not, why would US deny the rights to others? We experienced several "protectors" throughout our more then thousand year long history and we've learnt that it takes just a small twist to change "protectors" into "dictators".
Any democracy can easily slide into dictatorship. Giving a control over Internet to the more people will ensure that if the "bad times" comes to US (aren't you sometimes scared of your own government?) then the Internet will not become the effective tool of control in the hands of few...
Think about it. We don't want to steal something from US. We want to fully share what was built for sharing... Everybody will benefit from it.
> Brooks said he then deleted the presumably stolen account information
Google says: > We have suspended the suspect account, and are in the process of notifying the owners of those accounts whose passwords may have been compromised.
If am I right, Google says that they have copies of the deleted e-mails so they can "notify the owners of those accounts", so no, you don't need to use IMAP for backuping, Google "backups" the e-mails for you automatically.
Did anybody found the "recover deleted e-mails" button in Gmail? Please advise where to find it. I hope that this button is not available exclusively only to Gmail stuff & FBI...
> Although this idiotic move by the Chinese government will demonstrate why we don't want hit-to-kill ASAT testing in orbit--that will be a long-term recognition. In the short-term, the Chinese will simply not be credible partners in efforts to keep space peaceful. Moreover, other countries could follow suit with their own anti-satellite programs, including the United States.
---
This statement made me smile. This is a very nice piece of propaganda. Who talks about peaceful space in the time when every other satellite in the space is the military one?:-D
Slashdot Mirror
By owning the intellectual property one gains rights but also duties to protect the intellectual property. It is in fact the burden on shoulders of IP holders that is specified by law. :-) This is a very nice example of businesses delegating their duties to people (I mean tax-funded police). Definitely smart way to lower the costs of intellectual property ownership and thus increasing the profit margin.
I am sure that ordinary British will not like it. I am interested to see what will they do about it (to know when our Police will get the same idea ;).
I can understand that gold has a real price. I can understand that a house has a real price... because they are scarce. That is why there will be real-world poor a rich people.
Internet and the whole intellectual world was never meant to be driven by scarcity. The Internet was build to mitigate the real-world problems with duplicating resources. The Internet allows the main commodity - information - to be transferred, duplicated, created, shared... at virtually no cost. Internet is the attempt to create a world where there are no poor (speaking of knowledge) people but everybody share everything as much as possible for the good of mankind.
The scarcity complex is artificially introduced to this unlimited e-world by companies who simply failed so far to find a new business model in a world where everybody is already rich with information - everybody are already fed with information. Where there is no hunger/demand there is no traditional business model. So lets make those information rich people become poor so they will hunger for information and then we can feed them for a price.
Let's deny access to information using a copyrights, laws, DRMs... Let's artificially create once again information-rich and information-poor people because the existing real-world model proved to work so well.
You wish. If you are an employee of Nokia part time assigned to this job how will you know who paid for your idea? Today you work on EU project, tomorrow you work for Nokia on related project... and boom you got an idea. Who paid for it?
And after all Nokia is just a commercial company currently struggling for money so I have no doubt what will be the management decision.
I rather wander if it is not just a case of disguised subvention by EU.
So if I store and run Microsoft Windows from my home cloud (whatever computer configuration fits the "cloud" definition) - does it mean that Microsoft lost property rights to it? Cool! I love it!
Firefox is striving for open web and more choices. That is a noble goal. But what means giving users more choices? It means that people will start choosing other alternatives. Firefox' market share declines? Don't call it failure but rather celebrate that their goal came true. There is no monopoly anymore. And that they may fall victim to their own vision should not be surprising.
They decided to get stick with limited set of standard technologies. And that is a hard game to play when all "sellers" sell the very same stuff and there is no much of a differentiation (proprietary things... XUL is gone :-( ...). Then the "buyers" choice is rather impulsive then rational...
I don't get it. Which part of the sensitive technology iPad contains you deny to Iranians in Apple Stores that they cannot get from communist China where the iPad is manufactured?
This whole "sensitive technology" banning in common consumer market... that just makes common Iranians feel bad because they are Iranians, nothing else.
Would you be able to claim victory with all that Windows-based state-sponsored spyware Stuxnet and Flame if it were not for commercial companies (Siemens) breaking your funny rules and installing export-regulated Windows directly into nuclear facilities? ( www.microsoft.com/exporting/faq.htm ) Did you notice, that nobody says a word against Siemens ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet ) but some common no-name Iranian (slash American)... Big money different rules?
> if you know, or have reason to know, that the item is being purchased for export.
And he knew it for sure. She was speaking Farsi! And that is a clear sign that she supports terrorists and intends to hand iPad to bomb-makers in Iran. And if not then she is for sure going to develop a nuclear weapon with it.
Everybody knows that language, colour of the skin, passport your own, ... constitute the guilt. No doubt. Once it was state policy to don't serve non-white people... in my country we used to have state policy to don't serve Jews... now you have a policy to don't serve Iranians in Apple stores... and as always all is backed up by law and very serious regulations (with very severe penalties if not followed) and political theories. Works - proved by history, congratulations for using time-proven practices.
I think that US should get back to once well working signs "We don't serve niggers" with slight modification to read "We don't serve Iranians". Because for Apple it is exactly what it is.
I think it would save time to both parties as Iranians would not be required to get this information too late after poking around the things they cannot buy anyway. Signs are good. Use signs. They save your time and money. You used to be so good in it.
(Weird feeling imagining the signs "We don't serve XY" in the stores? Good! There is still hope ;-) . Tell Apple about it. It is your country.)
You would be surprised - but yes. It is normal.
My sister has entered the lawsuit with Mad Dog Athletics because she uses the word "Aerospinning"... and MDA happened to have trademarked the word "spinning(R)". During the course of hearings it turned out that MDA lawyers in Czech Republic were sending threatening letters to publishers of Czech-English dictionaries demanding either
a) Removing the trademarked word "spinning" from the dictionary
b) Accompanying the word "spinning" with "TM" and their name as respective trademark owners.
You would be surprised but publishers are just publishers making their living out of books and nobody is really interested in having legal battle with some US companies because of one word... We know at least about 3 dictionaries that surrendered to their demands and removed the word "spinning" from Czech-English dictionary.
> I ain't scared of homos, but I don't want them around me.
First part of this sentence clearly contradicts the other part. You simply say that "excomunication" (not having "others" around) is what you prefer.
Did you know that for social beings the excomunication from the society is in fact even worse then death? Why would you wish anybody such as horrific punishment if you are not a homophobe?
To me it looks like you are the typical homophobe. :-) Sorry if I am wrong but there is no other way I can explain your words.
I am sure that he didn't jump because he was videotaped by one asshole. It was most probably that he feared the reaction of others when it leaks... the reason was the homophobic society rather then one particular guy. I would say that the society's attitude killed him. What would be the label for the society then?
I thought that the standard is French :-))) (Just teasing you. The standard is really different for every social group.)
Never mind. Does anybody actually really care since we have translate.google.com? I really don't. I will gladly start writing in my mother language too without feeling sorry that so many I-Speak-Only-English people might miss my bright ideas. :-)
And anyway isn't it nice that so many Chinese philosophical writings are to be found on internet in their original language...
Honestly. English speakers - are you afraid that people will abandon English or rather that you will stop understanding the rest of the world or that you will be forced to learn other language to communicate? Either one is not going to happen. Don't worry. Just the communication will become more natural to so many people while keeping the information interchange even more vivid. ;-)
One of the Russian comments points out that the software is in fact French PERICOLOR-1000 translated to Russian.
Same as fining the bus driver for transporting the bad guy who later stole valet and took the bus to get back home. Is driver responsible for whom he transports? Should the driver secure the buss against unauthorized third parties abusing the law?
Should not be the securing of the valet (copyrighted material) be responsibility of the owner?
If firefox has the search randomizer then it might have other extensions?
For example extension that
- keeps different sets of cookies for different URLs based on well-defined URL patterns. (this way the search may use different or none cookies then your Gmail pages or Reader or...)
- uses proxy based on the URL patterns (this way your queries to search pages are routed through different way then your Gmail pages...)
For the starter this should satisfy most common needs for a privacy, right?
The XMLHttpRequest can be pretty fast when optimized for performance. There is plenty of time to request a lock and pull information about all current editors from the server between user clicking on "Edit" and focusing on the edited information and moving hands from the mouse back to keyboard... ;-) Lot of time to warn/notify/forbid the first edit before it really happens.
Other approach is revisions. User might be informed that there is somebody else editing and the user might choose to request the lock/ignore warning. If ignored then the latest saved
a) wins - overwrites earliest (but thanks the revisions nothing is permanently lost so all overwritten info can be recovered)
b) the DIFF user interface is brought up and user may try to merge all changes that happened in the meantime into his/her revision before really saving (can be automated - depends on type of data and extent of changes, you can use open source diff tool that is provided as a library to many languages including PHP...)
I will buy an allotment. However steps on my property first will be sued for breaking into my non-existent house and I will demand that the burglar builds the house for me. With proper anti-burglar features like proper doors, cameras, wires, walls, fences, "My Property" signs... :-) Isn't it paradox? How could you break the security in the case that there were no security? Is it possible to break something that does not exist? Can you be ordered to create something that didn't exist before by reasoning that you did break it before?
Sorry, is it just my bad English that forces my Slavic brain no to get the idea?
Sure! I am doing it now! Although I am not as rich as you imply that one must be... I am having good paid job that allows me to work only few hours a day to cover my expenses... And the rest is dedicated... wait... to programming of the project of my choice! Which is Web CMS written in XUL. :-) :-) Simply put. One does not need to be that rich to be able to afford the same comfort as the aforementioned people do! Sure, I don't have 4 Boings and 3 yachts and 7 financial advisers.... but still I get as big satisfaction from my project as they do. As my sister says: How much of a ham can you eat every day? If you are rich (very relative term) you can eat 0.5Kg of ham a day. If you are superrich, can you eat more? No, you cannot. So why to hassle to be superrich?
Run the script on some event that the Google will not emulate.
For example: [Write me] where the link has something like href="javascript:decodeMail();"
(And at best program the web form that will submit it to you on the server side without revealing your address ;-)
Google is just a search engine. They need document management. :-) Correct me if it is not the thing called content management they need?
Import it into some CMS, sort it and make it available through the website secured by the password. We did something like this for http://www.olympus-ims.com/ (but these are public documents) and it really contains thousands of documents (in dozen languages) together with all the document revisions it is over the hundred of thousands of documents. Easy to search, easy to navigate, easy to manage.
Simply: CMS is what you need. Do research.
The article states:
"Most countries lack our First Amendment tradition, and if we wish to protect the free speech rights of Americans online, we should not allow Internet domain names to be hostage to foreign standards."
My country is democratic and definitely has the "First Amendment Tradition" no worse then US. Will my country be awarded the same right to "protect the free speech rights of ??????s online"?
If not, why would US deny the rights to others? We experienced several "protectors" throughout our more then thousand year long history and we've learnt that it takes just a small twist to change "protectors" into "dictators".
Any democracy can easily slide into dictatorship. Giving a control over Internet to the more people will ensure that if the "bad times" comes to US (aren't you sometimes scared of your own government?) then the Internet will not become the effective tool of control in the hands of few...
Think about it. We don't want to steal something from US. We want to fully share what was built for sharing... Everybody will benefit from it.
I typed in "XUL" and it surprised me with results that Google will have problems to surpass. Just go to Google and compare.
(I tried even more keywords at once, but I was simplifying it more and more... so I ended up with one keyword to get the best results).
> Brooks said he then deleted the presumably stolen account information
Google says:
> We have suspended the suspect account, and are in the process of notifying the owners of those accounts whose passwords may have been compromised.
If am I right, Google says that they have copies of the deleted e-mails so they can "notify the owners of those accounts", so no, you don't need to use IMAP for backuping, Google "backups" the e-mails for you automatically.
Did anybody found the "recover deleted e-mails" button in Gmail? Please advise where to find it. I hope that this button is not available exclusively only to Gmail stuff & FBI...
> Although this idiotic move by the Chinese government will demonstrate why we don't want hit-to-kill ASAT testing in orbit--that will be a long-term recognition. In the short-term, the Chinese will simply not be credible partners in efforts to keep space peaceful. Moreover, other countries could follow suit with their own anti-satellite programs, including the United States.
:-D
---
This statement made me smile. This is a very nice piece of propaganda. Who talks about peaceful space in the time when every other satellite in the space is the military one?
That small red point in the upper-left corner of the map... is there a label "China" attached to it?