To use Raymond's The Cathedral and the Bazaar point of view as well as Neal Stephenson's In the Beginning..., as well), Windows has less and less sale value, while operating systems (including Linux and Windows) have tremendous, and ever-growing use value.
Microsoft depends on the sale value of its operating system to generate the revenue necessary to fund its continued research and development. Linux depends on its use value for futher adoption and enhancement from the community that uses and supports it.
If all goes according to ESR's and SN's predictions, operating systems will be free, unless some provide compelling value, above and beyond the capability of other free operating systems. My point is, there will probably be no room for commercial operating systems in the near future.
I think you're right. There will be room for both free and commercial software. Microsoft will just need to focus on software that can still be productized and sold for profit. Windows will likely soon not meet that burden as Linux continues to make progress.
OK, I know this is a little off the beaten track for Slashdot articles, but it's nice to see that there's a broadcaster out there more interested in providing a meaningful service than figuring out ways to squeeze more and more money out of viewers.
What broadcasts are you watching? So far, all of the broadcasts I happen to view are FREE OF CHARGE. I stick up an arial, and view. Thus the name broadcast. If I want better quality reception or quantity of broadcasts, I can pay a third party (cable company) to put a pipe right up to my home.
Capitalism dictates broadcasters need to make money for the service they provide. Today, they are "figuring out ways to squeeze more and more money out of" ADVERTISERS. PVRs might change all this, of course. In five years from now, perhaps your point will be applicable.
Our patent-pending technology ReductioAdAbsurdum (TM) will likely be infringed upon by this new technology, so rest assured that our lawyers will scrutinize their compression algorithm closely.
On we go:
compress(B) = C (size is now 10)
compress(C) = D (size 1).
So everything compresses into 1 byte.
The press release failed to indicate that their new compression algorithm "brings order from chaos", a feature that I first recognized in the motion picture "Big Trouble in Little China".
Conservatively assuming a 10:1 compression result in both their algorithm and more common compression algorithms, in order to achieve your one-byte result, you need to achieve it in a slightly different manner...
randomCompress(A) = B (size is now 100, but less random, therefore less compressable by randomCompress than A.
normalCompress(B) = C (size is now 10, but more random, therefore more suitable for randomCompress function. In the next iteration.
randomCompress(C) = D (size is now 1, but no longer exhibits randomness nor pattern, and therfore is no longer reducable), unless extremelyLossyNonDeterministicCompress function is used, which allows this one last bit to be reduced to zero bytes, but which results in a 50:50 chance of being undecompressable.
Another feature of their algorithm that was not mentioned was its ability to remove uncertainty from other volitile complex systems such as stock markets, and badly/over-managed economies.
I predict this new algorithm will revolutionize the gambling industry when it is discovered that practically random events can be de-entrophized, allowing more deterministic behavior, and thus unprecidented gambling profits to result.
... many countries have poured $billions$ into it's development and should thus have a say in whether there should be any cutbacks.
It seems to me that no country, business, person, or other entity should be obligated to continue paying unless a legally binding contract is in place to enforce such payment. In some jurisdictions, termination clauses are manditory for the contract to be considered legally binding.
What binding contract is in place that actually stipulates who is obligated to pay what amount for the ISS? Are contracts even relevant when the United States in concerned? For example, when was the last time the United States paid its membership dues in the United Nations? What about its compliance with greenhouse emissions agreements?
It seems to me, engaging the United States in a debate about cutbacks would be much like an ant trying to playing a game of chicken with a rhino. Being the resident superpower has its perks.
Unfortunately, as many crypto and media format experts have pointed out, it is impossible to truly protect content from being copied without authorization.
If someone can view it, someone will find a way to copy it. If a watermark is imperceptable to a person, it can be compressed out without anyone noticing a difference in quality.
These are based on the laws of mathematics and physics. Try as they might, the content owners and their representatives will never be able to change these immutable facts.
Unfortunately, law makers don't believe in the laws of physics or mathematics, only their own laws. When will the emperor discover that he has no clothes?
ATI AIW TV edition, 100$
motherboard, 100$
lots of ram, 50$
40gig harddrive, 150$
duron 850 processor, 80$
Not paying heating bills because your collection of computers keep your home toasty warm... priceless. There are things money can't buy, for everything else there's an innovative hacker.
If the box has network access, why do you need it?
The Bokks is designed to allow you to transfer content to the hard drive, then take it with you. At the size of a few of VHS tapes, it's small enough to take anywhere, plug in and enjoy.
If I am not mistaken, the term "fair use" also equally applies to the purchaser's use of copyrighted content, and was heavily touted during the videocassette legal challenges in the 80s, which was eventually won, a success for consumers, a thorn in the side of the television networks.
I believe an owner's right to copy purchased content for backup purposes is considered fair use in the legal sense. I believe using your TiVO to record and "time shift" content is considered fair use in the legal sense.
I believe transferring the CD you purchased into MP3s for personal use is considered fair use in the legal sense, and will not expose the purchaser to legal action for doing so.
I'm sure a legal type could shed more light on this subject by giving a precice definition.
The DMCA cannot only applied in civil litigation; it can also be applied in a criminal prosecution. Case in point: Dmitry Sklyarov.
Dmitry was arrested by the FBI based on a "tip" they received from Adobe. Adobe withdrew their complaint, but that didn't stop the FBI. The FBI concluded that criminal law was being violated, and that Dmitry should be prosecuted.
If all it takes is one relatively credible tipster to cause the arrest of Cox for violating the DMCA, then Cox's actions seem perfectly reasonable. If he were to visit the United States, he'd like to go home when he's done.
This is unacceptable. I could understand a project admin not disclosing trivial changes that didn't go into a release of a product/system, but failing to disclose non-trivial changes that did go in is inexcusable.
And did you write your representative in United States Congress yet? Did you submit an amica brief at Dmitry's preliminary hearing? Did you join the EFF to help battle the DMCA? Did you at least buy a Free Dmitry t-shirt so some of your purchase goes to stop the DMCA?
If you have, then I applaud your actions and encourage you to continue engaging in constructive solutions. If not, then put up or shut up. Far too many people are bitching about this problem and taking no substantive action.
It is unreasonable to expect Cox to behave differently. He's seen what happened to Dmitry. He knows what could happen if he were to disclose this information to Americans, then set foot in the United States. Cox did the right thing.
... how about if kernel maintainers started putting in comments about their pro-life stance, their pro-Christian religious views, or their pro-gun views...
In my opinion, his comments were directly applicable to kernel development. Gun control, abortion, and Christian views on the otherhand, seem inapplicable to kernel development.
According to the DMCA, it is illegal to post information about such vulnerabilities, and he took steps necessary to protect himself from prosection under United States federal law should he ever set foot in that country.
Re: Paying for _community_ content?
on
Slashdot Updates
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I agree that to an extent, we are actually contributing to Slashdot by posting informative, interesting, humorous content. In fact, I posted a suggestion for rewarding good posters.
However, Slashdot is providing a service, namely providing an organized space for this type of communication -- in a form that is informative, interesting and humorous. In many ways, this is more valuable to me than the opinion of one individual, filtered by the opinions of a couple of editors.
The folks at Slashdot deserve to profit from their service. Banner ads are no longer viable. I'll wager ads don't defray the cost of bandwidth -- which probably runs tens of thousands of dollars per month.
An interesting scenario would be for people who contribute to the value of Slashdot to get a reduction on the number and/or size of banner ads they receive, possibly defraying the costs of subscribing to Slashdot.
Reactions of a Microsoft investor, returning on vacation to discover news of the DRM crack...
"Oh my God! I'm back. After all this time!" Anger began to surface as he fell to his knees amid the waves repeatedly pounding the sand with his fist.
"You finally, really did it! You murderers! You blew it all up! God damn you, God damn you all to Hell!"
He broke down at that point and stared down at the mounds of wet sand in his hands as his wife approached him, not comprehending why he was behaving the way he was...
Complaining on and on about how Company X won't provide Software X for Linux, followed (immediately upon release by Company X of Linux version) of complete deriding of that software (comparing its features to some previously created Linux software) is not good encouragement for other software companies looking into the possibility.
The only encouragement for commercial software companies looking into the possibility is the potential to make money from the sale of their software product. That's going to be any software company's burden to overcome if they're going to play in the Linux arena.
Linux users are naturally going to compare the proprietary software offering with open source alternatives. Some are naturally going to resist using the closed source product because they know what they'll have to give up if they do, namely some freedom.
Some software overcomes this burden and succeeds. I dare say VMware is presently in this position, providing the best hardware virtualization software available today. Perhaps Plex86 may one day shift the balance of power, in the Linux workstation market.
Most commercial software companies who introduce proprietary software in the Linux marketplace will naturally find a lukewarm response unless the value potential of their offering overcomes the existing culture.
Bert's getting promoted!
on
Bert Is Evil
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I'm watching the Bert/bin Laden picture slowly climb to the top of the list, presumably because more people are clicking on the image.
I think, perhaps you translating the Japanese in English the Babel fish the place the way. Use several of the words where the cod the translator who is automated causes and those which are not the way the hole is seems the way, chooses and chooses you use.
"I see you've been sent to the my office for the fourth time this month."
Jimmy continued silently staring at the cardboard floor, kicking impatiently at the corrogated ridges under his feet showing through after three months of moderate traffic.
"Jimmy?"
Jimmy looked up, feigning a look of innocence.
"You know matches, lighters and magnifying glasses were banned after we lost the North wing."
Hydrogen seems like a neat way to store and transfer energy. It's a pure, simple, easy to transport, easy to extract form of energy.
However, there are number of issues that makes the short-term outlook for hydrogen difficult to justify running out and buying your own fuel cell...
In order to manufacture hydrogen in any meaningful quantity, "toxic" (environmentalist definition) by-products are an inevitable. To wit:
1. Electrolytic conversion from water requires electricity. The vast amount of electricity generated comes from icky dirty coal.
2. Extraction of hydrogen from fossil fuels still generates some toxic pollutants, and is still in relatively early stages of development.
No matter how meaningful quantities hydrogen are generated, greenheads will hate the fact that mother earth will incur vast amounts of greenhouse gases.
Shall we address the infrastructure problems associated with hydrogen? The costs of retooling fuel distribution channels to handle hydrogen?
Another issue conveniently ignored is the storage of hydrogen. Hydrogen, in its current form, is not particularly dense, requiring large tanks to store the equivalent energy stored in fossil fuels.
In the future, wind and/or solar power could provide the greenhouse gas-free hydrogen generation alternative to make it a sound fuel source from an environmentalist standpoint.
Advances in storage mediums, extraction and distribution should one day make hydrogen an exceptional fuel.
I'm perplexed how the FBI possibly ascertained exactly that West was rewriting the Perl scripts in PHP to resell as a product, as they indicate as the impetus of their response of search warrant and arrest.
At first blush, it seemed like he just poked around the site a bit -- something I might do if I accidentally came across this problem, if to do nothing more than to understand the scope of the vulnerability.
So he downloaded some files here and there. Even, *gasp*, Perl scripts. Does this constitute the theft of intellectual property? Does this warrant the execution of a search warrant by the FBI?
It seems, on its face, that:
a) PDNS had more information about this individual's competitive position and included this in its complaint to the FBI, or
b) the FBI did lots of detective work (including possibly monitoring email and/or phone communication) and concluded that he wasn't so helpful, or
c) this is simply what the FBI found after the fact as a justification for their overreaction to PDNS's complaint.
Katz is a proposing the eliminiation and/or restriction of rights, without any evidence that in fact this will make us safer.
Let me attempt, perhaps in vain, to address some of the issues Katz tries to raise...
But there is a new reality in the post-World Trade Center world, one that now may have to balance some rights against others and prepare for aircraft-bombs, biological and chemical attacks,and horrific assaults on civilians.
Reality didn't change - our perception of it has.
The perception is that nobody is safe anymore, and that significant measures need to be taken to provide a safe environment for American citizens.
The reality is that have always been fragile, continue to work in buildings that can collapse on impact, and some bad people exploited a specific vulnerability in airline security and the structural integrity of some buildings.
I postulate that the restriction of basic rights and freedoms will move American citizens from the frying pan into the fire. The delicate balance of power that has existed between the government and citizens for two centuries could be shifted in an irreversable fashion.
The Justice Department isn't proposing dropping all restrictions or warrants or oversight regarding wiretapping and surveillance. They propose to ease some of them. This may or may not be a good idea.
The United Kingdom took a similar measure during the height of their domestic terrorism crisis. It allowed them to hold prisoners for questioning virtually indefinitely and it lead to an unprecidented abuse of government power over its citizens.
Yes, people online have the right to keep their communications private and people have the right -- I believe -- to move online and travel in the real world without their movements being monitored and recorded by governmental authorities. But people have the right to go to work without buildings falling on them, too.
People have the right to walk down the street without being mugged or raped. When someone's right is violated, we seek justice. We find the perpetrator(s). We try them in a court, and we punish them if they're found guilty.
Our system of justice protects our rights, not by limiting other rights. People have a right to live safely, and these rights are upheld, in general, through a system of freedom and justice.
The cost, you might ask? The cost is the risk that someone could have his or her rights violated. When I walk down the street, someone could mug me. It would be illegal, and subject to prosecution and punishment, which serves as an effective deterrant and underpins a system to justice.
We generally accept the risks of walking down a street, because the likelihood of having our rights violated is relatively low. We make choices about what streets we walk down, at what time of day or night, and whom we are accompanied by.
Freedom and justice are inextricably bound together. One may not exist without the other. It is an illusion to believe that by restricting some rights, others will magically be better protected.
The government has an obligation to protect them.
The government has an obligation to uphold its system of justice. People have an obligation to protect themselves, by making choices about the circumstances they place themselves in, and by defending themselves when under assault.
This assault on 5,000 lives was an assault virtually impossible to repel. This is why justice is so important in our political system. It realizes that people will be assaulted and provides a system of consequences to punish attackers and discourage prospective attackers.
Is it really totally unreasonable for authorities to seek broader powers to follow these conversations? Wiretap laws are not adequate for teaching these kinds of criminals. Existing wiretap laws require warrants for each telephone, even though criminals and terrorists might use dozens of phones or a variety of communications systems.
It is unreasonable for citizens of the United States to be protected from unwarranted search and seizure. But more importantly, wiretaps are useless for sophisticated criminals, because these criminals have sophisticated tools (lawful or not) at their disposal to avoid government surveillance.
I'm not just talking about cryptography. I'm also talking about steganography. You might outlaw cryptography, and it might be quasi-enforceable, but the result is users of cryptography will revert to steganography to keep their covert communication secret. This is ultimately unenforceable, because it is virtually undetectable.
And, where will be be? To borrow a phrase from the PGP movement (which they borrowed from the NRA), if cryptography is outlawed, only outlaws (and government) will have cryptography.
Freedom comes at a price. The price is that we run some risk of having our rights violated. So far, we have accepted the tradeoff, and generally relied on justice to prevail if a violation occurred.
If enough people talk and vote like Katz, America will no longer be the land of the free. At best, maybe Americans can call their nation the land of the safe.
Slashdot Mirror
To use Raymond's The Cathedral and the Bazaar point of view as well as Neal Stephenson's In the Beginning... , as well), Windows has less and less sale value, while operating systems (including Linux and Windows) have tremendous, and ever-growing use value.
Microsoft depends on the sale value of its operating system to generate the revenue necessary to fund its continued research and development. Linux depends on its use value for futher adoption and enhancement from the community that uses and supports it.
If all goes according to ESR's and SN's predictions, operating systems will be free, unless some provide compelling value, above and beyond the capability of other free operating systems. My point is, there will probably be no room for commercial operating systems in the near future.
I think you're right. There will be room for both free and commercial software. Microsoft will just need to focus on software that can still be productized and sold for profit. Windows will likely soon not meet that burden as Linux continues to make progress.
OK, I know this is a little off the beaten track for Slashdot articles, but it's nice to see that there's a broadcaster out there more interested in providing a meaningful service than figuring out ways to squeeze more and more money out of viewers.
What broadcasts are you watching? So far, all of the broadcasts I happen to view are FREE OF CHARGE. I stick up an arial, and view. Thus the name broadcast. If I want better quality reception or quantity of broadcasts, I can pay a third party (cable company) to put a pipe right up to my home.
Capitalism dictates broadcasters need to make money for the service they provide. Today, they are "figuring out ways to squeeze more and more money out of" ADVERTISERS. PVRs might change all this, of course. In five years from now, perhaps your point will be applicable.
Our patent-pending technology ReductioAdAbsurdum (TM) will likely be infringed upon by this new technology, so rest assured that our lawyers will scrutinize their compression algorithm closely.
On we go:
compress(B) = C (size is now 10)
compress(C) = D (size 1).
So everything compresses into 1 byte.
The press release failed to indicate that their new compression algorithm "brings order from chaos", a feature that I first recognized in the motion picture "Big Trouble in Little China".
Conservatively assuming a 10:1 compression result in both their algorithm and more common compression algorithms, in order to achieve your one-byte result, you need to achieve it in a slightly different manner...
randomCompress(A) = B (size is now 100, but less random, therefore less compressable by randomCompress than A.
normalCompress(B) = C (size is now 10, but more random, therefore more suitable for randomCompress function. In the next iteration.
randomCompress(C) = D (size is now 1, but no longer exhibits randomness nor pattern, and therfore is no longer reducable), unless extremelyLossyNonDeterministicCompress function is used, which allows this one last bit to be reduced to zero bytes, but which results in a 50:50 chance of being undecompressable.
Another feature of their algorithm that was not mentioned was its ability to remove uncertainty from other volitile complex systems such as stock markets, and badly/over-managed economies.
I predict this new algorithm will revolutionize the gambling industry when it is discovered that practically random events can be de-entrophized, allowing more deterministic behavior, and thus unprecidented gambling profits to result.
... many countries have poured $billions$ into it's development and should thus have a say in whether there should be any cutbacks.
It seems to me that no country, business, person, or other entity should be obligated to continue paying unless a legally binding contract is in place to enforce such payment. In some jurisdictions, termination clauses are manditory for the contract to be considered legally binding.
What binding contract is in place that actually stipulates who is obligated to pay what amount for the ISS? Are contracts even relevant when the United States in concerned? For example, when was the last time the United States paid its membership dues in the United Nations? What about its compliance with greenhouse emissions agreements?
It seems to me, engaging the United States in a debate about cutbacks would be much like an ant trying to playing a game of chicken with a rhino. Being the resident superpower has its perks.
I think, sadly, you're wrong.
Can you qualify this somehow? Have the laws of the universe changed? Have our interpretation of said laws changed?
Unfortunately, as many crypto and media format experts have pointed out, it is impossible to truly protect content from being copied without authorization.
If someone can view it, someone will find a way to copy it. If a watermark is imperceptable to a person, it can be compressed out without anyone noticing a difference in quality.
These are based on the laws of mathematics and physics. Try as they might, the content owners and their representatives will never be able to change these immutable facts.
Unfortunately, law makers don't believe in the laws of physics or mathematics, only their own laws. When will the emperor discover that he has no clothes?
To backup a 100GB drive, you require...
- 6 DVD+RW (18 GB) discs, or
- 20 DVD-RAM (5.2 GB) discs, or
- 158 CD-R discs, or
- 72,818 HD 3.5" floppy discs
ATI AIW TV edition, 100$
... priceless. There are things money can't buy, for everything else there's an innovative hacker.
motherboard, 100$
lots of ram, 50$
40gig harddrive, 150$
duron 850 processor, 80$
Not paying heating bills because your collection of computers keep your home toasty warm
If the box has network access, why do you need it?
The Bokks is designed to allow you to transfer content to the hard drive, then take it with you. At the size of a few of VHS tapes, it's small enough to take anywhere, plug in and enjoy.
If I am not mistaken, the term "fair use" also equally applies to the purchaser's use of copyrighted content, and was heavily touted during the videocassette legal challenges in the 80s, which was eventually won, a success for consumers, a thorn in the side of the television networks.
I believe an owner's right to copy purchased content for backup purposes is considered fair use in the legal sense. I believe using your TiVO to record and "time shift" content is considered fair use in the legal sense.
I believe transferring the CD you purchased into MP3s for personal use is considered fair use in the legal sense, and will not expose the purchaser to legal action for doing so.
I'm sure a legal type could shed more light on this subject by giving a precice definition.
The DMCA cannot only applied in civil litigation; it can also be applied in a criminal prosecution. Case in point: Dmitry Sklyarov.
Dmitry was arrested by the FBI based on a "tip" they received from Adobe. Adobe withdrew their complaint, but that didn't stop the FBI. The FBI concluded that criminal law was being violated, and that Dmitry should be prosecuted.
If all it takes is one relatively credible tipster to cause the arrest of Cox for violating the DMCA, then Cox's actions seem perfectly reasonable. If he were to visit the United States, he'd like to go home when he's done.
This is unacceptable. I could understand a project admin not disclosing trivial changes that didn't go into a release of a product/system, but failing to disclose non-trivial changes that did go in is inexcusable.
And did you write your representative in United States Congress yet? Did you submit an amica brief at Dmitry's preliminary hearing? Did you join the EFF to help battle the DMCA? Did you at least buy a Free Dmitry t-shirt so some of your purchase goes to stop the DMCA?
If you have, then I applaud your actions and encourage you to continue engaging in constructive solutions. If not, then put up or shut up. Far too many people are bitching about this problem and taking no substantive action.
It is unreasonable to expect Cox to behave differently. He's seen what happened to Dmitry. He knows what could happen if he were to disclose this information to Americans, then set foot in the United States. Cox did the right thing.
Go with FreeBSD and you'll never have to worry about which distro you use.
Ahem, isn't FreeBSD a distribution based on BSD?
... how about if kernel maintainers started putting in comments about their pro-life stance, their pro-Christian religious views, or their pro-gun views ...
In my opinion, his comments were directly applicable to kernel development. Gun control, abortion, and Christian views on the otherhand, seem inapplicable to kernel development.
According to the DMCA, it is illegal to post information about such vulnerabilities, and he took steps necessary to protect himself from prosection under United States federal law should he ever set foot in that country.
I agree that to an extent, we are actually contributing to Slashdot by posting informative, interesting, humorous content. In fact, I posted a suggestion for rewarding good posters.
However, Slashdot is providing a service, namely providing an organized space for this type of communication -- in a form that is informative, interesting and humorous. In many ways, this is more valuable to me than the opinion of one individual, filtered by the opinions of a couple of editors.
The folks at Slashdot deserve to profit from their service. Banner ads are no longer viable. I'll wager ads don't defray the cost of bandwidth -- which probably runs tens of thousands of dollars per month.
An interesting scenario would be for people who contribute to the value of Slashdot to get a reduction on the number and/or size of banner ads they receive, possibly defraying the costs of subscribing to Slashdot.
Reactions of a Microsoft investor, returning on vacation to discover news of the DRM crack...
"Oh my God! I'm back. After all this time!" Anger began to surface as he fell to his knees amid the waves repeatedly pounding the sand with his fist.
"You finally, really did it! You murderers! You blew it all up! God damn you, God damn you all to Hell!"
He broke down at that point and stared down at the mounds of wet sand in his hands as his wife approached him, not comprehending why he was behaving the way he was...
[Fade to black]
Complaining on and on about how Company X won't provide Software X for Linux, followed (immediately upon release by Company X of Linux version) of complete deriding of that software (comparing its features to some previously created Linux software) is not good encouragement for other software companies looking into the possibility.
The only encouragement for commercial software companies looking into the possibility is the potential to make money from the sale of their software product. That's going to be any software company's burden to overcome if they're going to play in the Linux arena.
Linux users are naturally going to compare the proprietary software offering with open source alternatives. Some are naturally going to resist using the closed source product because they know what they'll have to give up if they do, namely some freedom.
Some software overcomes this burden and succeeds. I dare say VMware is presently in this position, providing the best hardware virtualization software available today. Perhaps Plex86 may one day shift the balance of power, in the Linux workstation market.
Most commercial software companies who introduce proprietary software in the Linux marketplace will naturally find a lukewarm response unless the value potential of their offering overcomes the existing culture.
I'm watching the Bert/bin Laden picture slowly climb to the top of the list, presumably because more people are clicking on the image.
I think, perhaps you translating the Japanese in English the Babel fish the place the way. Use several of the words where the cod the translator who is automated causes and those which are not the way the hole is seems the way, chooses and chooses you use.
"I see you've been sent to the my office for the fourth time this month."
Jimmy continued silently staring at the cardboard floor, kicking impatiently at the corrogated ridges under his feet showing through after three months of moderate traffic.
"Jimmy?"
Jimmy looked up, feigning a look of innocence.
"You know matches, lighters and magnifying glasses were banned after we lost the North wing."
Hydrogen seems like a neat way to store and transfer energy. It's a pure, simple, easy to transport, easy to extract form of energy.
However, there are number of issues that makes the short-term outlook for hydrogen difficult to justify running out and buying your own fuel cell...
In order to manufacture hydrogen in any meaningful quantity, "toxic" (environmentalist definition) by-products are an inevitable. To wit:
1. Electrolytic conversion from water requires electricity. The vast amount of electricity generated comes from icky dirty coal.
2. Extraction of hydrogen from fossil fuels still generates some toxic pollutants, and is still in relatively early stages of development.
No matter how meaningful quantities hydrogen are generated, greenheads will hate the fact that mother earth will incur vast amounts of greenhouse gases.
Shall we address the infrastructure problems associated with hydrogen? The costs of retooling fuel distribution channels to handle hydrogen?
Another issue conveniently ignored is the storage of hydrogen. Hydrogen, in its current form, is not particularly dense, requiring large tanks to store the equivalent energy stored in fossil fuels.
In the future, wind and/or solar power could provide the greenhouse gas-free hydrogen generation alternative to make it a sound fuel source from an environmentalist standpoint.
Advances in storage mediums, extraction and distribution should one day make hydrogen an exceptional fuel.
I'm perplexed how the FBI possibly ascertained exactly that West was rewriting the Perl scripts in PHP to resell as a product, as they indicate as the impetus of their response of search warrant and arrest.
At first blush, it seemed like he just poked around the site a bit -- something I might do if I accidentally came across this problem, if to do nothing more than to understand the scope of the vulnerability.
So he downloaded some files here and there. Even, *gasp*, Perl scripts. Does this constitute the theft of intellectual property? Does this warrant the execution of a search warrant by the FBI?
It seems, on its face, that:
a) PDNS had more information about this individual's competitive position and included this in its complaint to the FBI, or
b) the FBI did lots of detective work (including possibly monitoring email and/or phone communication) and concluded that he wasn't so helpful, or
c) this is simply what the FBI found after the fact as a justification for their overreaction to PDNS's complaint.
Katz is a proposing the eliminiation and/or restriction of rights, without any evidence that in fact this will make us safer.
Let me attempt, perhaps in vain, to address some of the issues Katz tries to raise...
But there is a new reality in the post-World Trade Center world, one that now may have to balance some rights against others and prepare for aircraft-bombs, biological and chemical attacks,and horrific assaults on civilians.
Reality didn't change - our perception of it has.
The perception is that nobody is safe anymore, and that significant measures need to be taken to provide a safe environment for American citizens.
The reality is that have always been fragile, continue to work in buildings that can collapse on impact, and some bad people exploited a specific vulnerability in airline security and the structural integrity of some buildings.
I postulate that the restriction of basic rights and freedoms will move American citizens from the frying pan into the fire. The delicate balance of power that has existed between the government and citizens for two centuries could be shifted in an irreversable fashion.
The Justice Department isn't proposing dropping all restrictions or warrants or oversight regarding wiretapping and surveillance. They propose to ease some of them. This may or may not be a good idea.
The United Kingdom took a similar measure during the height of their domestic terrorism crisis. It allowed them to hold prisoners for questioning virtually indefinitely and it lead to an unprecidented abuse of government power over its citizens.
Yes, people online have the right to keep their communications private and people have the right -- I believe -- to move online and travel in the real world without their movements being monitored and recorded by governmental authorities. But people have the right to go to work without buildings falling on them, too.
People have the right to walk down the street without being mugged or raped. When someone's right is violated, we seek justice. We find the perpetrator(s). We try them in a court, and we punish them if they're found guilty.
Our system of justice protects our rights, not by limiting other rights. People have a right to live safely, and these rights are upheld, in general, through a system of freedom and justice.
The cost, you might ask? The cost is the risk that someone could have his or her rights violated. When I walk down the street, someone could mug me. It would be illegal, and subject to prosecution and punishment, which serves as an effective deterrant and underpins a system to justice.
We generally accept the risks of walking down a street, because the likelihood of having our rights violated is relatively low. We make choices about what streets we walk down, at what time of day or night, and whom we are accompanied by.
Freedom and justice are inextricably bound together. One may not exist without the other. It is an illusion to believe that by restricting some rights, others will magically be better protected.
The government has an obligation to protect them.
The government has an obligation to uphold its system of justice. People have an obligation to protect themselves, by making choices about the circumstances they place themselves in, and by defending themselves when under assault.
This assault on 5,000 lives was an assault virtually impossible to repel. This is why justice is so important in our political system. It realizes that people will be assaulted and provides a system of consequences to punish attackers and discourage prospective attackers.
Is it really totally unreasonable for authorities to seek broader powers to follow these conversations? Wiretap laws are not adequate for teaching these kinds of criminals. Existing wiretap laws require warrants for each telephone, even though criminals and terrorists might use dozens of phones or a variety of communications systems.
It is unreasonable for citizens of the United States to be protected from unwarranted search and seizure. But more importantly, wiretaps are useless for sophisticated criminals, because these criminals have sophisticated tools (lawful or not) at their disposal to avoid government surveillance.
I'm not just talking about cryptography. I'm also talking about steganography. You might outlaw cryptography, and it might be quasi-enforceable, but the result is users of cryptography will revert to steganography to keep their covert communication secret. This is ultimately unenforceable, because it is virtually undetectable.
And, where will be be? To borrow a phrase from the PGP movement (which they borrowed from the NRA), if cryptography is outlawed, only outlaws (and government) will have cryptography.
Freedom comes at a price. The price is that we run some risk of having our rights violated. So far, we have accepted the tradeoff, and generally relied on justice to prevail if a violation occurred.
If enough people talk and vote like Katz, America will no longer be the land of the free. At best, maybe Americans can call their nation the land of the safe.