That's pretty obvious. There are so many large and powerful companies who want this pushed through that they will keep on and on and on at Europe to enforce software patents. That doesn't mean we should just sit back and let them. There are contact details already in this slashdot discussion, and there are protest sites out there. We don't have to sit back and let it happen.
Big business wants to force this through? They'll soon find they have a fight on their hands each and every single time they try it.
I'm glad that he's paying attention to this ridiculous bill by showing how daft the implications of it would be. Hopefully, along with Rowan Atkinson's recent attack, the bill will be defeated
Microsoft's problem is that they're fighting battles on too many fronts. Instead of doing one area extrememy well, such as search or OS or an iPod competitor, they're fighting a multitude of companies on their own soil.
Microsoft may have the financial resources to throw at these battle fronts, but without public support and without the better product, they have no long term hope
I have no need to put the tinfoil on for Pakistan.
Why not? Assuming for one moment that it was brought down by an *unnamed* government, surely this is serious enough to warrent serious concern, even if it is only Pakistan. The world relies on the internet in a major way, almost to the point where we are dependent on it. If governments can bring down other government's internet access, this is a major problem
Most Americans don't seem to realise that they have one of the most right wing societies in the west. You 'liberal' democrats would be considered rather right wing in most European countries. Just like most of your media. This is most likely the same with your 'leftist' stations.
"the sole purpose of pushing leftist heart string stories to gain the support of the global public. This kind of manipulation outrages me."
I don't really see how a heart string story can be considered left or right. If a newspaper prints a story about Timmy losing his pet cat, does that make it leftist? Similarly, if a website wants to print the views of ordinary Iraqis or Afghans, that does not instantly make it a leftist website?
I take it your outrage at manipulation doesn't stop there. You must hate any sort of biased media. Given that, do you watch Fox News?
There are many 'other sides' to bit torrent, such as downloading patches, programs, and non-copyright material. The only whining we hear about bit torrent is when the **AA complain about users downloading their material, thus attacking their distribution methods. I'm sure they'd feel differently about bit torrent as a distribution tool if they embraced it. Sadly, they seem to be attacking it in the same way they attacked VHS, cds and other recording mediums.
It's nice to see courts uphold a person's privacy, even if there is debate as to the morality of what they are doing.
I do wonder how the MPAA/RIAA will react to this. Slashdot have already covered how America is trying to force the DRMA upon Canada and perhaps they will now step up their efforts? Or will this just further widen the gap between the American and Canadian governments, and cause more friction?
What would have happened if people had downloaded the show, watched it, hated it, and told their friends not to tune in? Viewing figures would be down, and piracy could be held accountable. This sort of result works both ways, folks
Which is a shame because whilst IM can be used for a lot of negative purposes, such as transfering virii or timewasting, it can also be used for a lot of positive reasons in business. For instance, it can provide, in my view, a more rapid and more effective way of communicating over long distance than email (obviously if both users are online at the same time). This can lead to greater communication within a company. IT departments should think carefully before banning IM programs across the board.
The "New business model" argument again. Do any of you even think these issues all the way through? Do you test your ideas with the same rigerous standards that you apply to your code? Do you know what Apple's iTunes is?
Apple iTunes is all still quite new in relation to the overall issue. Even as far back as the 80's people were copying music. Yes, iTunes is a new type of distributing legal music, but it still has it's flaws, and it's still in its infancy. By now, the record companies should be at the forefront of this technology if they want to survive. Simply filling stores with expensive singles and even more expensive albums doesn't seem to cut it any more.
How about the fact that "censor the web" or "suing people left and right" isn't what's happening, despite the tendency for exaggeration around here
Fair enough, "suing people left and right" is an exaggeration, but we've all heard horror stories about record companies suing grannies, or trying to get info from ISPs without the proper legal requirements...etc etc. And this very slashdot article is about asking ISPs to enforce a voluntary code to....censor certain websites! I wouldn't be shocked if these companies began lobbying governments to make it law.
I can understand the record companies from their perspective thinking that this is a good idea, but to what I hope to be the majority of outsiders, it seems a lot like asking ISPs to censor what their customers are trying to view.
Regardless of how you view file sharing, I think it's quite obvious that the record companies seriously need to update their business model before they are totally overtaken. Trying to censor the web, or suing people left, right and centre will just lead to negative publicity
I'm sorry, but after the news that a Gator executive was being appointed to the board, did anyone really expect this Privacy board to be anything of the sort? I'm not an American, but if I were, I'd be writing to my government representative now asking for help on this issue.
Personally, I look at this issue like I do with European software patents. If ordinary people don't stand up and lobby their government representative, then nothing will change. If you believe strongly about this, then try to do something about it. Make your views known
I had to read quite a way down TFA before I actually came to the information detailing what the virus actually does.
"At this point, mobile viruses are more of an irritant than a serious security...the messages that Mabir sends do not contain any text message, only the info.sis file.
So it seems this virus is more of a proof that they can be spread via phones, which we already knew, rather than an attempt to actually damage or corrupt the OS. Hopefully it'lll persuade manufacturers to work more on their phone security, rather than obvious new features for the user.
I write in "SEE ID" and then my signature next to it on my credit cars. I then say thank you to the cashiers who check my ID.
That's quite a good idea, but over here in the UK we have a new scheme to counter fake signitures. Instead of signing for using your card, you simply enter your secure 4 digin pin into a terminal. If they match, then your identity is verified. Although, personally, I still don't trust this scheme. There are simply too many ways to have your identity stolen, and it is simply too easy to have someone secretly watch you enter a secure 4 digit pin. At least signitures need some mild degree of talent to forge.
Why should they be? Perhaps their scientific advances were forced by wars? Or perhaps they were just given their knowledge from another race? It really is impossible to discuss so many hypothetical situations. The point of the matter is that they are alien. Our ways of thinking may not apply to them in the slightest.
But sufficiently advanced minds aren't always interested in these things.
That's just how I feel when reading about these efforts at communicating with alien civilisations, and recieving their signals. Just because the human race has had a tendancy to explore the unknown, doesn't mean an alien race will feel the same. For all we know, they could be well aware of our existance, but not care one bit.
a growing number of these sources are now barred to the public as "sensitive but unclassified" or "for official use only."
For a start, what does "sensitive but unclassified" actually mean? Does it have any legal status? Or is it simply there because of the connotations? The subtle purposes of the phrase are easily explained; the government isn't hiding the material, but it's in everyone's best interests that you don't and anyone who says otherwise could be dangerous.
I'm a big fan of the BBC's independence, and also of the license fee to pay for it, therefore I would like to continue seeing the BBC funded by the taxpayer for the forseeable future. Saying that, I'm not entirely convinced that a computer tax is the right way to go about this.
If you buy a television, you're pretty likely to be watching tv shows on it, and therefore the license fee seems like a good idea. With PCs, the scope of activity is pretty much unlimited, so I can't really see the connection between computers and BBC funding. Although, this may all change in the future as no-one really yet knows how television will eventually integrate with computers. All we can do is speculate.
At least this robot might create the opportunity to go play outside.
I feel the more important point is that no amount of television or 'nanny robots' can protect a child, and also help along its development, as well as genuine parental interaction, or general human interaction.
The teddy bear sitting in the corner of the child's room might look normal, until his head starts following the kid around using a face recognition program
Does anyone else think that this could be the scariest thing ever? Especially if they make a clown version?
Personally, I grew up in a househould where we had a lot of animals, especially dogs. While these animals were certainly nowhere near as intelligent as we were, they certainly had their own individual personalities and traits. As a result, I just don't really like the idea of animal testing if harm comes to the animal.
But using tools for us humans is almost as natural as using our hands.
Is it? We are only just beginning to scrape the surface of what makes us human. Language aquisition, for example, is a much debated surface, as no one can be 100% how we start to learn to communicate. Likewise, just because we have the ability to use tools, does that mean that it's a natural process? Or does our upbringing and factors from society teach us to do this?
"Inserting probes into the brain" doesnt mean that the animals were harmed. It's a surgical proceedure. Ok, it's a long shot, but we still aren't sure either way whether there was lasting damage. Hopefully, there wasn't.
That's a fair point, but my main concern is that the algorithm may not be perfect, which is expected as the technology is only in development. I just don't like the idea of 'unimportant' messages being filtered. What is their definition of unimportant?
I'd be more concerned about the algorithm they use. Due to the large amount of messages, most are scrapped and only the seemingly 'important' ones are saved. I'd want to make sure that the algorithm is actually effective before trying out this technology, or I'd like an explaination as to how they sort unimportant signals from important ones. Otherwise, the movements of the tool may not relate to what the user actually intended.
Slashdot Mirror
That's pretty obvious. There are so many large and powerful companies who want this pushed through that they will keep on and on and on at Europe to enforce software patents. That doesn't mean we should just sit back and let them. There are contact details already in this slashdot discussion, and there are protest sites out there. We don't have to sit back and let it happen.
Big business wants to force this through? They'll soon find they have a fight on their hands each and every single time they try it.
I'm glad that he's paying attention to this ridiculous bill by showing how daft the implications of it would be. Hopefully, along with Rowan Atkinson's recent attack, the bill will be defeated
Microsoft's problem is that they're fighting battles on too many fronts. Instead of doing one area extrememy well, such as search or OS or an iPod competitor, they're fighting a multitude of companies on their own soil.
Microsoft may have the financial resources to throw at these battle fronts, but without public support and without the better product, they have no long term hope
I have no need to put the tinfoil on for Pakistan.
Why not? Assuming for one moment that it was brought down by an *unnamed* government, surely this is serious enough to warrent serious concern, even if it is only Pakistan. The world relies on the internet in a major way, almost to the point where we are dependent on it. If governments can bring down other government's internet access, this is a major problem
"leftist media stations of the US"
Most Americans don't seem to realise that they have one of the most right wing societies in the west. You 'liberal' democrats would be considered rather right wing in most European countries. Just like most of your media. This is most likely the same with your 'leftist' stations.
"the sole purpose of pushing leftist heart string stories to gain the support of the global public. This kind of manipulation outrages me."
I don't really see how a heart string story can be considered left or right. If a newspaper prints a story about Timmy losing his pet cat, does that make it leftist? Similarly, if a website wants to print the views of ordinary Iraqis or Afghans, that does not instantly make it a leftist website?
I take it your outrage at manipulation doesn't stop there. You must hate any sort of biased media. Given that, do you watch Fox News?
There are many 'other sides' to bit torrent, such as downloading patches, programs, and non-copyright material. The only whining we hear about bit torrent is when the **AA complain about users downloading their material, thus attacking their distribution methods. I'm sure they'd feel differently about bit torrent as a distribution tool if they embraced it. Sadly, they seem to be attacking it in the same way they attacked VHS, cds and other recording mediums.
It's nice to see courts uphold a person's privacy, even if there is debate as to the morality of what they are doing. I do wonder how the MPAA/RIAA will react to this. Slashdot have already covered how America is trying to force the DRMA upon Canada and perhaps they will now step up their efforts? Or will this just further widen the gap between the American and Canadian governments, and cause more friction?
What would have happened if people had downloaded the show, watched it, hated it, and told their friends not to tune in? Viewing figures would be down, and piracy could be held accountable. This sort of result works both ways, folks
Which is a shame because whilst IM can be used for a lot of negative purposes, such as transfering virii or timewasting, it can also be used for a lot of positive reasons in business. For instance, it can provide, in my view, a more rapid and more effective way of communicating over long distance than email (obviously if both users are online at the same time). This can lead to greater communication within a company. IT departments should think carefully before banning IM programs across the board.
The "New business model" argument again. Do any of you even think these issues all the way through? Do you test your ideas with the same rigerous standards that you apply to your code? Do you know what Apple's iTunes is?
Apple iTunes is all still quite new in relation to the overall issue. Even as far back as the 80's people were copying music. Yes, iTunes is a new type of distributing legal music, but it still has it's flaws, and it's still in its infancy. By now, the record companies should be at the forefront of this technology if they want to survive. Simply filling stores with expensive singles and even more expensive albums doesn't seem to cut it any more.
How about the fact that "censor the web" or "suing people left and right" isn't what's happening, despite the tendency for exaggeration around here
Fair enough, "suing people left and right" is an exaggeration, but we've all heard horror stories about record companies suing grannies, or trying to get info from ISPs without the proper legal requirements...etc etc. And this very slashdot article is about asking ISPs to enforce a voluntary code to....censor certain websites! I wouldn't be shocked if these companies began lobbying governments to make it law.
I can understand the record companies from their perspective thinking that this is a good idea, but to what I hope to be the majority of outsiders, it seems a lot like asking ISPs to censor what their customers are trying to view.
Regardless of how you view file sharing, I think it's quite obvious that the record companies seriously need to update their business model before they are totally overtaken. Trying to censor the web, or suing people left, right and centre will just lead to negative publicity
I'm sorry, but after the news that a Gator executive was being appointed to the board, did anyone really expect this Privacy board to be anything of the sort? I'm not an American, but if I were, I'd be writing to my government representative now asking for help on this issue.
Personally, I look at this issue like I do with European software patents. If ordinary people don't stand up and lobby their government representative, then nothing will change. If you believe strongly about this, then try to do something about it. Make your views known
I had to read quite a way down TFA before I actually came to the information detailing what the virus actually does.
"At this point, mobile viruses are more of an irritant than a serious security...the messages that Mabir sends do not contain any text message, only the info.sis file.
So it seems this virus is more of a proof that they can be spread via phones, which we already knew, rather than an attempt to actually damage or corrupt the OS. Hopefully it'lll persuade manufacturers to work more on their phone security, rather than obvious new features for the user.
I write in "SEE ID" and then my signature next to it on my credit cars. I then say thank you to the cashiers who check my ID.
That's quite a good idea, but over here in the UK we have a new scheme to counter fake signitures. Instead of signing for using your card, you simply enter your secure 4 digin pin into a terminal. If they match, then your identity is verified. Although, personally, I still don't trust this scheme. There are simply too many ways to have your identity stolen, and it is simply too easy to have someone secretly watch you enter a secure 4 digit pin. At least signitures need some mild degree of talent to forge.
Why should they be? Perhaps their scientific advances were forced by wars? Or perhaps they were just given their knowledge from another race? It really is impossible to discuss so many hypothetical situations. The point of the matter is that they are alien. Our ways of thinking may not apply to them in the slightest.
But sufficiently advanced minds aren't always interested in these things.
That's just how I feel when reading about these efforts at communicating with alien civilisations, and recieving their signals. Just because the human race has had a tendancy to explore the unknown, doesn't mean an alien race will feel the same. For all we know, they could be well aware of our existance, but not care one bit.
a growing number of these sources are now barred to the public as "sensitive but unclassified" or "for official use only."
For a start, what does "sensitive but unclassified" actually mean? Does it have any legal status? Or is it simply there because of the connotations? The subtle purposes of the phrase are easily explained; the government isn't hiding the material, but it's in everyone's best interests that you don't and anyone who says otherwise could be dangerous.
I'm a big fan of the BBC's independence, and also of the license fee to pay for it, therefore I would like to continue seeing the BBC funded by the taxpayer for the forseeable future. Saying that, I'm not entirely convinced that a computer tax is the right way to go about this.
If you buy a television, you're pretty likely to be watching tv shows on it, and therefore the license fee seems like a good idea. With PCs, the scope of activity is pretty much unlimited, so I can't really see the connection between computers and BBC funding. Although, this may all change in the future as no-one really yet knows how television will eventually integrate with computers. All we can do is speculate.
At least this robot might create the opportunity to go play outside.
I feel the more important point is that no amount of television or 'nanny robots' can protect a child, and also help along its development, as well as genuine parental interaction, or general human interaction.
The teddy bear sitting in the corner of the child's room might look normal, until his head starts following the kid around using a face recognition program
Does anyone else think that this could be the scariest thing ever? Especially if they make a clown version?
Personally, I grew up in a househould where we had a lot of animals, especially dogs. While these animals were certainly nowhere near as intelligent as we were, they certainly had their own individual personalities and traits. As a result, I just don't really like the idea of animal testing if harm comes to the animal.
But using tools for us humans is almost as natural as using our hands.
Is it? We are only just beginning to scrape the surface of what makes us human. Language aquisition, for example, is a much debated surface, as no one can be 100% how we start to learn to communicate. Likewise, just because we have the ability to use tools, does that mean that it's a natural process? Or does our upbringing and factors from society teach us to do this?
"Inserting probes into the brain" doesnt mean that the animals were harmed. It's a surgical proceedure. Ok, it's a long shot, but we still aren't sure either way whether there was lasting damage. Hopefully, there wasn't.
That's a fair point, but my main concern is that the algorithm may not be perfect, which is expected as the technology is only in development. I just don't like the idea of 'unimportant' messages being filtered. What is their definition of unimportant?
I'd be more concerned about the algorithm they use. Due to the large amount of messages, most are scrapped and only the seemingly 'important' ones are saved. I'd want to make sure that the algorithm is actually effective before trying out this technology, or I'd like an explaination as to how they sort unimportant signals from important ones. Otherwise, the movements of the tool may not relate to what the user actually intended.