I use Opera (on Windows, so far) and I like it.
However it has some problems. The current Windows version (4.02) still has a few kinks to work out. I'd like to see them either fix the email client or just jettison it. I can use an external client as it is, but if the built-in one is there I 'd like it to work. Fortunately an email client does not a browser make.
The big problem, for some, is that it isn't free. Since there are free alternatives this does rather limit the usership to those user who are so annoyed they will pay or have gotten so used to how Opera works that other browsers seem weird or lacking. (I admit I am very used to the Opera way and get irked that other browsers don't let me do things the way I expect, if at all. Yes, this is a "backwards" point of view from most.)
The other problem is that Opera has only recently started to be cross-platform and is far from ideally cross-platform. The linux versions are still in beta... and just for x86 and PPC. Folks want to run Alphas, and run BSD and so on. The Be version is back at 3.62 and a 'Release Candidate'though at least the EPOC version, still 3.62, is out of beta. MacOS, any flavor, isn't released yet and the OS/2 and others haven't been heard from in a while. In my ideal dreamworld I could move from any OS to any other and still use the programs I like. This dream hasn't quite come true yet.
I'd like to see Opera out of beta on many, many platforms, but only so much can be done at once, so I wait. (Opening the source won't happen. Opera doesn't have any other revenue beyond its browsers, unlike a couple other companies).
So?
So for now for cross platform use it (almost) anywhere, Mozilla may be the thing. And there are others. I may not like them as much as my favorite but they can do the job. And there is always lynx. Not fancy at all, but it works.
The real winners would at first appear to be the media. Now they get to talk about this election for even longer.
But maybe the people did win over the media. Media and pollsters got a lesson: the people make the decisions, maybe indirectly, but they do.
It was so very amusing this morning to hear a couple announcers on the radio and one ask the other to predict something and get a reply that she'd learned NOT to go predicting things. Now if the rest of the lot will learn.. and remember.
While Jesse Ventura did have a web site that was more than 'vote for me' and 'send me a check' that was likely not the deciding factor. The traditional campaign methods were.
Here's my experience:
First hearing Jesse Ventura is running.. and thinking "Oh, brother, an ex-pro wrestlier? Nutcase. Next."
But then I started hearing radio interviews with the candidates.. and one was making a lot of sense. It was only at the very end that I found out the sensible one was named Ventura. He also did soemthing else amazing. When someone asked him about something he didn't know about, he came right out and said he didn't know know about it. No bluffing, no BS, just a very honest answer. The press was stunned into silence for a moment.
He made few campaign promises, and wouldn't let the press badger him into making more. It was fun to hear him ask a reporter what part of "no" he didn;t understand. Jesse explained that he only made promises he knew he could keep.
And then I heard a debate. Both the Republican and the Democratic tended to respond with "You're right, Jesse, but..." and then went at each other. Jesse didn't step in. There was the issue of public funding for a new Twins stadium. The Republican wanted to fund it one way. The Democrat wanted to fund it another way. Jesse suggested that maybe they could "..build there own damn stadium." And right there I stopped wondering if I should I vote for him.
By election day the polls showed each with roughly 30-33%, taking into account the margin of error. It was a real three-way race. And then the only polls that really matter opened... and it wasn't so close any more.
The Big Two parties took away one lesson from this: Don't let a third candidate into your debates. They did NOT learn the lesson the voters wanted them to learn, which is that we want someone who is honest (love him, hate him, think he's an idiot, you never doubt where Jesse stands - he tells you and doesn't give a damn if that bothers anyone), who understands that the government's role should be to get out of the way. (One major party says they want to get government out of my wallet. The other major party says they want to get out of my bedroom. I want government the hell out of both places.)
I have net access almost every waking hour. I didn't visit his web site until very late in the campaign, if at all before the election. But Jesse got out. He went to the small towns. He got on the local cable shows. He got on public radio. He got the word out, himself, the "old fashioned" ways. Maybe the net helped, but it was far from the only thing.
If...Ventura were running, would you vote for [him]?
In a Minnesota minute!
I suppose this is the "wasted vote" theory you're trying to bring up. Well, I voted for a third party candidate before and it wasn't vote. (In Ventura's post-election speech he said "We won with 'wasted votes'.")
Yes, I've also vote for third party candidates that didn't win. Of course, I also voted for major party candidates that didn't win. Were those wasted votes too?
Need you be employed as such, or does taking care of your little network at home count? Sure, they both do...to us. And to them? Sounds like an opening into selective enforcement, which means arbitrary enforcement.
Do they have a point? Yes, they do. Using a tool for illicit acts should be illegal.
But they miss a point as well. Merely possessing a tool should not be illegal. It is possible to break and enter with a hammer... but we don't limit hammers to professional carpenters; we have laws against breaking and entering.
Do you think they're going to prosecute you for running an FTP client anyway?
For most people, most of the time, no. But a bad law that is selectively enforced may be even more dangerous than a bad law universally enforced. This allows capricous judgement on the part of law enforcement and the judiciary. A bad law, universally enforced, would be more likely to generate outrage and get scrutiny by the general public. But as long as they don't after you, selective enforcement is fine, right? What about tomorrow when someone else is deciding how selective to be?
An example of this is laws trying to regulate sexuality and morality. Will someone go after "Mr. and Mrs. Missionary Position and Never On Sunday" for the time they decide to for once try something 'kinky'? Or will they go after "Those Immoral Kids"? This double-standard could become "Oh, no we don't prosecute those using tools on the job." but "Anyone at home with these is suspect." Nevermind if the only thing you do with the tools, whatever they may be, is make sure your own little in-house network is as secure as you can make it.
Using tools for illegal acts is already illegal. Making the tool illegal is foolish. Need we start applying for hammer licenses (and getting considered suspicious if we aren't professional carpenters)?
The thing is, those who want a 'naked' PC plan on isntalling their own choice of operating system. Why ask for a naked PC? Since then they aren't relying on the dealer/oem to install one they don't want and certainly don't want to pay for.
In the current consumer market it may make sense to use WinMe or Win2000 as the default -- for those who *want* Windows. If someone doesn't want Windows, why make them pay for it? Thus the request for a 'naked' PC. Won't/Can't sell a 'naked' PC? Fine, put any free OS (Linux, BSD, even FreeDOS, etc.) on it and it isn't naked.. and the customer can keep the OS or wipe it and not be out the "Windows tax." Microsoft should be free to make money -- providing they make it *honestly*. If a customer wants Windows, sell it to him or her. If not, don't go mugging him and forcing him to pay for Windows anyway. 'tain't ethical.
It's a matter of not screwing the customer. I don't agree that *all* machines should run Linux. For many, that'd be a problem. But do let the customer have a choice. What happened to "the customer is always right"? A seller may *advise* a customer -- but should not dictate.
Think the customer is wrong? Suggest, but don't dictate. The customer is free to be wrong. And some value that freedom more than being forced to be someone else's version of "right."
I doubt this is in the bill, but the presence in the introduction here caught my attention.
All images, sounds and ideas presented may not be re-used...
Copyright and ownership issues of notes, images, and sounds aside, that line is rather silly with the ideas bit in it. Is not part of the purpose of the education to instill concepts and ideas?
It may have been humorous exaggeration but I rather doubt even the densest of seats of higher learning would actually go as far as that. It defeats their purpose.
The earth does have a magnetosphere and yet we get radio signals to and from spacecraft so it should be a matter of picking frequencies that penetrate the bubble.
That a craft inside would be unable to get some frequencies through the sheild could even be useful. This would allow local 'on ship' (if it ever got to be a ship and not a probe) radio that wouldn't go interfering with anyone else and be free of interference from anyone/anything else.
Since you'd control the bubble you might even be able to use the sheild itself as your antenna. I suspect reception would be tricky and transmitting with it would take considerable power, but it seems something that could be investigated.
I may know the terms. That doesn't mean I use encrypted e-mail. Others who do not know need to read it. Now the Right Way is to make encryption transparent and make Carnivore-like systems preety much a non-issue. But that's not today. Maybe not tomorrow. And the problem is right now.
Why worry?
It's the little encroachments that need attention, that's why worry. They grow.
Where do you draw the line?
"It's just e-mail."
How about "it's just a phone call"?
Voice can be digitized and scrambled as well. Do have a phone that does this? I don't. Maybe someday this will be a standard feature of phones. Meanwhile we're careful about who gets to put what on the lines. It's not perfect, but there is some protection of privacy (freedom).
We do not live in a world tolerant of even each other's skin colors or beliefs or even acts that are legal. These are not all readily made private, but the point is the intolerance exists. Thus there is a need to protect freedom by having privacy which at least works for some things. Freedom without privacy would, at the very least, require universal tolerance. I don't foresee that happening anytime soon.
I'd like to know, for sure, what Carnivore really does. And how the results will be handled.
What information is really collected?
Can it do more than collect information?
Is it really selectively collected?
If it is selective, how do we know it will stay that way?
Who gets to see it?
Does it get archived?
Who has access to any archive?
What happens if something is "leaked"?
When (not if) Carnivore fails, is it likely to at least fail in a way that won't compromise privacy?
"Trust me." is not good answer to any of those.
I worry because it is far easier to lose freedom than to win it back.
I like the proposal that sure, crack SDMI. Make it public with before and after files. But don't say how it was done. This is enough to send the message that SDMI is defective and crackable but doesn't tell Big Music where to patch anything. They get to do their own dirty work. Or get a clue. Their choice.
I do not have a "CueCat" and am unlikely to get one as I don't see that it has any usefulness for me.
One thing that occurs to me is that DC is leaving themselve open to database poisoning (wow, another DC blunder... film at 11) unless they manually review each entry. Do they?
Suppose you "ACTUALLY MANAGE TO FIND AN ITEM NOT IN THE DATABASE" or whatever. How do they know you'll enter the correct site and info for it?
This may be a reason they would really like the serial number present. Suppose little Johny (Q. Public) scanned one of his comic books and was sent off to [pornsite]? DigitalConvergance would probably like to blame anyone but themselves for that, and ideally get whoever entered the false info. (Disclaimer: I expect server logs could be used to narrow it down without the serial number, so this is a Bad Idea - don't do this.)
Sure DC may be asking folks to do their work. Do they expect the work to be done correctly? Even without anyone being malicious (ooh, scan company X products and get competing company Y websites) I would expect a significant number of erroneous entries from typos and misunderstanding.
A standard telescope can see pretty much anything visible from the latitude at which it is located, aside from problem of mount design (the 100 inch at Mt. Wilson can't see near 90 degrees N because the mount is in the way) or due to all the atmosphere and ground clutter within about 15 degrees of the horizon.
A mercury telescope can't be pointed excpet straight up. As in it points to the zenith and not anywhere else, like a utility pole. The standard telescope can track against the earth's rotation; the mercury mirror telescope cannot.
Since it can't point away from the zenith, no long exposures are possible. The exposures are limited by how long before the earth's rotation cuases blurring, or if there is tracking across the focal place, how far off-axis the tracking can occur. It may be possible to get a couple minutes, but nothing like the long exposures -- sometime measured in hours -- that can be had with a standard telescope.
A staticly fixed telescope can have light sent to it by means of other mirrors but there are a few drawbacks:
* The external mirror must be at least as large (and ideally larger) than the primaray telescope mirror, and be *flat* (to within a tiny fractions of a wavelength of light). Big *flat* mirrors are expen$ive.
* The addition reflection(s) do more mirror reversals (not a big deal) and each reflection is a loss (this can be a big deal with faint objects).
* The external mirrors need more structure as they have to be mounted someplace and have to be able to be moved and possibly track.
If you were setting out to map all the sky, a fixed telescope would be a bad idea. But if you only need a rather random sample of sky -- which seems to be the case here -- a fixed telescope will do nicely. The choice is made by latitude. Need a different set of data? Build another system at a different latitude.
"We DEMAND you have FUN.. on our terms!"
on
Disconnected
·
· Score: 3
...restructuring its softball teams so that no team could have more than one person from the same department.
I can only wonder what they and places similar would do about those of us who would rather avoid softball (and other "but everybody likes x" activities).
Probably something about 'not a team a player' or other such dreck. Am I an 'isolate'? Perhaps. But let's get cause and effect straight first shall we? Maybe the 'popular' things are the same things I'd sooner visit a dentist than get involved in. (I have finally gotten my coworkers trained enough to not bother me with their "fun" things I find nauseating or painful.. took long enough too).
About apparent isolation the first question should be "Is it real?" and follow that with "And if so, is it a problem?" and only after finding 'yes' as an answer to both questions should a treatment be sought -- and of that it must be asked "Will this help, or it will cause resentment?" Just becuase some simpleton believes "everybody likes X" doesn't make it the case. (Quick: Does every geek like Star Wars? Does every male watch the Superbowl?)
I'm just tired of being seen as a nail by imbeciles that only have hammers.
Why not use the IRC protocol for instant messaging and instead of ICQ? It's a free and open protocol. And as a bonus, it's decentralized for easy legal bullet dodging (unlike Napster).
The advantage AIM has is that it is established and known and used. Any new message service has to either interoperate with the existing service(s) or be so attractive that AIM (or ICQ) users would want to switch and try to get their contacts to switch.
The idea of using IRC protocol is attractive but has its own problems. Which IRC network or server will be used? Make that selectable? That's an added hassle for current messenger service users. Who maintains it? An existing network or a new one? These are not insurmountable -- regular IRC has managed to get by, after all -- but for a messaging service they need to be considered.
As for decentralized 'bullet dodging', it really isn't the issue with message services (is it? Yet?) but something needs to play server unless things are extended the Gnutella way with each client also playing server.
While using IRC protocols for messenger services seems a possibility, I do not foresee it being done AND catching on in general. Nevermind the technical details, they're trivial. How do you get "Aunt Maude" to switch from AIM? There's the difficult part.
Does anyone know if there is anything like this already in existance? Would you use it if it were available?
I do not know of any such thing like that but if I did I would probably be using it, for the same reasons you would.
I don't care to encumber myself with credit cards and no way will I give out a bank account number to be debited by someone other than myself. I don't want someone else charging me at inopportune times. They can send a bill and I'll deal with it. Maybe not same day, but before the due date -- and I won't suddenly find my account depleted because I decided to withdraw just after someone else did the same.
Convenience is a great thing. Control is a great thing. I want both. If I have to trade off, I'll put up with a bit of inconvenience (like mailed bills and money orders - postal so I can sic the Inspection Service on problems if need be) rather than give up control.
You may have the point there, but the problem is USPS did not present that point. They presented the 'great deal cross-country' arguement, which falls flat.
If they wanted to present the point you made, they failed miserably at. Had they said what you did, they would have seem much less silly.
They only have a little bit more to do with the government than UPS or FedEx.
Odd, those were US Federal Gov't checks I got when I worked for USPS.
As for the posts mentioning missing or damaged mail, you're doing business with a company when you send a letter. If you dissatisfied with the service, find an alternative means to do so.
Find one that can handle first class letter legally and is as pervasive as USPS - there are places UPS and FedEX don't go.
That said, USPS does general do a helluva job (yes, even considering my rant about them elsewhere) and often is better than UPS, at least.
I must disgree. While USPS may be technically a nongovernmental entity that just happens to get a federal grant, it acts like governmental entity - or at the very lest like a monopoly, which it is.
I have worked for USPS. (I'm feeling much better now, thanks.) Guess what one of the things you do upon getting a job there is? Take an oath to uphold the Constitution... doesn't sound non-governmental to me. The ex-military people I started with all remarked on this. The idea of having to really compete scare the hell out of USPS and the unions therein. (After busting my tail to things that HAD to be done and getting chewed out for not doing the impossible *while* a unionoid making several times what I did was goofing off I have no sympathy for organized "labor.")
One of the common lines was "We charge for a letter across town and across the country. A great deal!" But did anyone think about that? Isn't the schmuck sending a letter across town getting screwed then?
USPS running e-mail is something I will watch with great amusement. If it is run as a typical post office is, I'll stay well clear. Before I started I wondered why mail was late and what drove the occasional nut to terrorize a post office. By the time I left I was simply amazed that the mail got through at all and even more amazed that [NameWitheld] hadn't been killed yet.
Slashdot Mirror
I use Opera (on Windows, so far) and I like it.
However it has some problems. The current Windows version (4.02) still has a few kinks to work out. I'd like to see them either fix the email client or just jettison it. I can use an external client as it is, but if the built-in one is there I 'd like it to work. Fortunately an email client does not a browser make.
The big problem, for some, is that it isn't free. Since there are free alternatives this does rather limit the usership to those user who are so annoyed they will pay or have gotten so used to how Opera works that other browsers seem weird or lacking. (I admit I am very used to the Opera way and get irked that other browsers don't let me do things the way I expect, if at all. Yes, this is a "backwards" point of view from most.)
The other problem is that Opera has only recently started to be cross-platform and is far from ideally cross-platform. The linux versions are still in beta... and just for x86 and PPC. Folks want to run Alphas, and run BSD and so on. The Be version is back at 3.62 and a 'Release Candidate'though at least the EPOC version, still 3.62, is out of beta. MacOS, any flavor, isn't released yet and the OS/2 and others haven't been heard from in a while. In my ideal dreamworld I could move from any OS to any other and still use the programs I like. This dream hasn't quite come true yet.
I'd like to see Opera out of beta on many, many platforms, but only so much can be done at once, so I wait. (Opening the source won't happen. Opera doesn't have any other revenue beyond its browsers, unlike a couple other companies).
So?
So for now for cross platform use it (almost) anywhere, Mozilla may be the thing. And there are others. I may not like them as much as my favorite but they can do the job. And there is always lynx. Not fancy at all, but it works.
The real winners would at first appear to be the media. Now they get to talk about this election for even longer.
But maybe the people did win over the media. Media and pollsters got a lesson: the people make the decisions, maybe indirectly, but they do.
It was so very amusing this morning to hear a couple announcers on the radio and one ask the other to predict something and get a reply that she'd learned NOT to go predicting things. Now if the rest of the lot will learn.. and remember.
Hey, I can dream, can't I?
While Jesse Ventura did have a web site that was more than 'vote for me' and 'send me a check' that was likely not the deciding factor. The traditional campaign methods were.
Here's my experience:
First hearing Jesse Ventura is running.. and thinking "Oh, brother, an ex-pro wrestlier? Nutcase. Next."
But then I started hearing radio interviews with the candidates.. and one was making a lot of sense. It was only at the very end that I found out the sensible one was named Ventura. He also did soemthing else amazing. When someone asked him about something he didn't know about, he came right out and said he didn't know know about it. No bluffing, no BS, just a very honest answer. The press was stunned into silence for a moment.
He made few campaign promises, and wouldn't let the press badger him into making more. It was fun to hear him ask a reporter what part of "no" he didn;t understand. Jesse explained that he only made promises he knew he could keep.
And then I heard a debate. Both the Republican and the Democratic tended to respond with "You're right, Jesse, but..." and then went at each other. Jesse didn't step in. There was the issue of public funding for a new Twins stadium. The Republican wanted to fund it one way. The Democrat wanted to fund it another way. Jesse suggested that maybe they could "..build there own damn stadium." And right there I stopped wondering if I should I vote for him.
By election day the polls showed each with roughly 30-33%, taking into account the margin of error. It was a real three-way race. And then the only polls that really matter opened... and it wasn't so close any more.
The Big Two parties took away one lesson from this: Don't let a third candidate into your debates. They did NOT learn the lesson the voters wanted them to learn, which is that we want someone who is honest (love him, hate him, think he's an idiot, you never doubt where Jesse stands - he tells you and doesn't give a damn if that bothers anyone), who understands that the government's role should be to get out of the way. (One major party says they want to get government out of my wallet. The other major party says they want to get out of my bedroom. I want government the hell out of both places.)
I have net access almost every waking hour. I didn't visit his web site until very late in the campaign, if at all before the election. But Jesse got out. He went to the small towns. He got on the local cable shows. He got on public radio. He got the word out, himself, the "old fashioned" ways. Maybe the net helped, but it was far from the only thing.
If...Ventura were running, would you vote for [him]?
In a Minnesota minute!
I suppose this is the "wasted vote" theory you're trying to bring up. Well, I voted for a third party candidate before and it wasn't vote. (In Ventura's post-election speech he said "We won with 'wasted votes'.")
Yes, I've also vote for third party candidates that didn't win. Of course, I also voted for major party candidates that didn't win. Were those wasted votes too?
Need you be employed as such, or does taking care of your little network at home count? Sure, they both do...to us. And to them? Sounds like an opening into selective enforcement, which means arbitrary enforcement.
Do they have a point? Yes, they do. Using a tool for illicit acts should be illegal. But they miss a point as well. Merely possessing a tool should not be illegal. It is possible to break and enter with a hammer... but we don't limit hammers to professional carpenters; we have laws against breaking and entering.
Do you think they're going to prosecute you for running an FTP client anyway?
For most people, most of the time, no. But a bad law that is selectively enforced may be even more dangerous than a bad law universally enforced. This allows capricous judgement on the part of law enforcement and the judiciary. A bad law, universally enforced, would be more likely to generate outrage and get scrutiny by the general public. But as long as they don't after you, selective enforcement is fine, right? What about tomorrow when someone else is deciding how selective to be?
An example of this is laws trying to regulate sexuality and morality. Will someone go after "Mr. and Mrs. Missionary Position and Never On Sunday" for the time they decide to for once try something 'kinky'? Or will they go after "Those Immoral Kids"? This double-standard could become "Oh, no we don't prosecute those using tools on the job." but "Anyone at home with these is suspect." Nevermind if the only thing you do with the tools, whatever they may be, is make sure your own little in-house network is as secure as you can make it.
Using tools for illegal acts is already illegal. Making the tool illegal is foolish. Need we start applying for hammer licenses (and getting considered suspicious if we aren't professional carpenters)?
...it was a neat idea.
But now, well, multilayer circuit boards are common and anyone looking at a PC board would expect that. X-rays anyone?
What, in your belief, is the US federal government not doing that it should be doing?
What, in your belief, is the US federal government doing that it should not be?
How will you rectify this situation? (assuming your answer to the above isn't 'nothing'.)
The thing is, those who want a 'naked' PC plan on isntalling their own choice of operating system. Why ask for a naked PC? Since then they aren't relying on the dealer/oem to install one they don't want and certainly don't want to pay for.
In the current consumer market it may make sense to use WinMe or Win2000 as the default -- for those who *want* Windows. If someone doesn't want Windows, why make them pay for it? Thus the request for a 'naked' PC. Won't/Can't sell a 'naked' PC? Fine, put any free OS (Linux, BSD, even FreeDOS, etc.) on it and it isn't naked.. and the customer can keep the OS or wipe it and not be out the "Windows tax." Microsoft should be free to make money -- providing they make it *honestly*. If a customer wants Windows, sell it to him or her. If not, don't go mugging him and forcing him to pay for Windows anyway. 'tain't ethical.
It's a matter of not screwing the customer. I don't agree that *all* machines should run Linux. For many, that'd be a problem. But do let the customer have a choice. What happened to "the customer is always right"? A seller may *advise* a customer -- but should not dictate.
Think the customer is wrong? Suggest, but don't dictate. The customer is free to be wrong. And some value that freedom more than being forced to be someone else's version of "right."
Better yet, not just any DOS, but FreeDOS.
I doubt this is in the bill, but the presence in the introduction here caught my attention.
All images, sounds and ideas presented may not be re-used...
Copyright and ownership issues of notes, images, and sounds aside, that line is rather silly with the ideas bit in it. Is not part of the purpose of the education to instill concepts and ideas?
It may have been humorous exaggeration but I rather doubt even the densest of seats of higher learning would actually go as far as that. It defeats their purpose.
The earth does have a magnetosphere and yet we get radio signals to and from spacecraft so it should be a matter of picking frequencies that penetrate the bubble.
That a craft inside would be unable to get some frequencies through the sheild could even be useful. This would allow local 'on ship' (if it ever got to be a ship and not a probe) radio that wouldn't go interfering with anyone else and be free of interference from anyone/anything else.
Since you'd control the bubble you might even be able to use the sheild itself as your antenna. I suspect reception would be tricky and transmitting with it would take considerable power, but it seems something that could be investigated.
I may know the terms. That doesn't mean I use encrypted e-mail. Others who do not know need to read it. Now the Right Way is to make encryption transparent and make Carnivore-like systems preety much a non-issue. But that's not today. Maybe not tomorrow. And the problem is right now.
Why worry?
It's the little encroachments that need attention, that's why worry. They grow.
Where do you draw the line?
"It's just e-mail."
How about "it's just a phone call"?
Voice can be digitized and scrambled as well. Do have a phone that does this? I don't. Maybe someday this will be a standard feature of phones. Meanwhile we're careful about who gets to put what on the lines. It's not perfect, but there is some protection of privacy (freedom).
We do not live in a world tolerant of even each other's skin colors or beliefs or even acts that are legal. These are not all readily made private, but the point is the intolerance exists. Thus there is a need to protect freedom by having privacy which at least works for some things. Freedom without privacy would, at the very least, require universal tolerance. I don't foresee that happening anytime soon.
I'd like to know, for sure, what Carnivore really does. And how the results will be handled.
What information is really collected?
Can it do more than collect information?
Is it really selectively collected?
If it is selective, how do we know it will stay that way?
Who gets to see it?
Does it get archived?
Who has access to any archive?
What happens if something is "leaked"?
When (not if) Carnivore fails, is it likely to at least fail in a way that won't compromise privacy?
"Trust me." is not good answer to any of those.
I worry because it is far easier to lose freedom than to win it back.
Exactly.
I like the proposal that sure, crack SDMI. Make it public with before and after files. But don't say how it was done. This is enough to send the message that SDMI is defective and crackable but doesn't tell Big Music where to patch anything. They get to do their own dirty work. Or get a clue. Their choice.
If a signature can be defined as a form button now it would seem this would be used to try to legitimize 'click through' licensing.
Not to mention stupid web-based games that could be played with this.
I really hope I read that wrong.
"No, Timmy, don't click that! AARRRGH!!!"
I do not have a "CueCat" and am unlikely to get one as I don't see that it has any usefulness for me.
One thing that occurs to me is that DC is leaving themselve open to database poisoning (wow, another DC blunder... film at 11) unless they manually review each entry. Do they?
Suppose you "ACTUALLY MANAGE TO FIND AN ITEM NOT IN THE DATABASE" or whatever. How do they know you'll enter the correct site and info for it?
This may be a reason they would really like the serial number present. Suppose little Johny (Q. Public) scanned one of his comic books and was sent off to [pornsite]? DigitalConvergance would probably like to blame anyone but themselves for that, and ideally get whoever entered the false info. (Disclaimer: I expect server logs could be used to narrow it down without the serial number, so this is a Bad Idea - don't do this.)
Sure DC may be asking folks to do their work. Do they expect the work to be done correctly? Even without anyone being malicious (ooh, scan company X products and get competing company Y websites) I would expect a significant number of erroneous entries from typos and misunderstanding.
A slight difference of meaning here.
A standard telescope can see pretty much anything visible from the latitude at which it is located, aside from problem of mount design (the 100 inch at Mt. Wilson can't see near 90 degrees N because the mount is in the way) or due to all the atmosphere and ground clutter within about 15 degrees of the horizon.
A mercury telescope can't be pointed excpet straight up. As in it points to the zenith and not anywhere else, like a utility pole. The standard telescope can track against the earth's rotation; the mercury mirror telescope cannot.
Since it can't point away from the zenith, no long exposures are possible. The exposures are limited by how long before the earth's rotation cuases blurring, or if there is tracking across the focal place, how far off-axis the tracking can occur. It may be possible to get a couple minutes, but nothing like the long exposures -- sometime measured in hours -- that can be had with a standard telescope.
A staticly fixed telescope can have light sent to it by means of other mirrors but there are a few drawbacks:
* The external mirror must be at least as large (and ideally larger) than the primaray telescope mirror, and be *flat* (to within a tiny fractions of a wavelength of light). Big *flat* mirrors are expen$ive.
* The addition reflection(s) do more mirror reversals (not a big deal) and each reflection is a loss (this can be a big deal with faint objects).
* The external mirrors need more structure as they have to be mounted someplace and have to be able to be moved and possibly track.
If you were setting out to map all the sky, a fixed telescope would be a bad idea. But if you only need a rather random sample of sky -- which seems to be the case here -- a fixed telescope will do nicely. The choice is made by latitude. Need a different set of data? Build another system at a different latitude.
I can only wonder what they and places similar would do about those of us who would rather avoid softball (and other "but everybody likes x" activities).
Probably something about 'not a team a player' or other such dreck. Am I an 'isolate'? Perhaps. But let's get cause and effect straight first shall we? Maybe the 'popular' things are the same things I'd sooner visit a dentist than get involved in. (I have finally gotten my coworkers trained enough to not bother me with their "fun" things I find nauseating or painful.. took long enough too).
About apparent isolation the first question should be "Is it real?" and follow that with "And if so, is it a problem?" and only after finding 'yes' as an answer to both questions should a treatment be sought -- and of that it must be asked "Will this help, or it will cause resentment?" Just becuase some simpleton believes "everybody likes X" doesn't make it the case. (Quick: Does every geek like Star Wars? Does every male watch the Superbowl?)
I'm just tired of being seen as a nail by imbeciles that only have hammers.
Why not use the IRC protocol for instant messaging and instead of ICQ? It's a free and open protocol. And as a bonus, it's decentralized for easy legal bullet dodging (unlike Napster).
The advantage AIM has is that it is established and known and used. Any new message service has to either interoperate with the existing service(s) or be so attractive that AIM (or ICQ) users would want to switch and try to get their contacts to switch.
The idea of using IRC protocol is attractive but has its own problems. Which IRC network or server will be used? Make that selectable? That's an added hassle for current messenger service users. Who maintains it? An existing network or a new one? These are not insurmountable -- regular IRC has managed to get by, after all -- but for a messaging service they need to be considered.
As for decentralized 'bullet dodging', it really isn't the issue with message services (is it? Yet?) but something needs to play server unless things are extended the Gnutella way with each client also playing server.
While using IRC protocols for messenger services seems a possibility, I do not foresee it being done AND catching on in general. Nevermind the technical details, they're trivial. How do you get "Aunt Maude" to switch from AIM? There's the difficult part.
Does anyone know if there is anything like this already in existance? Would you use it if it were available?
I do not know of any such thing like that but if I did I would probably be using it, for the same reasons you would.
I don't care to encumber myself with credit cards and no way will I give out a bank account number to be debited by someone other than myself. I don't want someone else charging me at inopportune times. They can send a bill and I'll deal with it. Maybe not same day, but before the due date -- and I won't suddenly find my account depleted because I decided to withdraw just after someone else did the same.
Convenience is a great thing. Control is a great thing. I want both. If I have to trade off, I'll put up with a bit of inconvenience (like mailed bills and money orders - postal so I can sic the Inspection Service on problems if need be) rather than give up control.
Nobody really knows what the hell "SPAM" stands for anyway.
SPiced hAM
Source: http://www.straightdope.com/classi cs/a5_229.html
You may have the point there, but the problem is USPS did not present that point. They presented the 'great deal cross-country' arguement, which falls flat.
If they wanted to present the point you made, they failed miserably at. Had they said what you did, they would have seem much less silly.
They only have a little bit more to do with the government than UPS or FedEx.
Odd, those were US Federal Gov't checks I got when I worked for USPS.
As for the posts mentioning missing or damaged mail, you're doing business with a company when you send a letter. If you dissatisfied with the service, find an alternative means to do so.
Find one that can handle first class letter legally and is as pervasive as USPS - there are places UPS and FedEX don't go.
That said, USPS does general do a helluva job (yes, even considering my rant about them elsewhere) and often is better than UPS, at least.
I must disgree. While USPS may be technically a nongovernmental entity that just happens to get a federal grant, it acts like governmental entity - or at the very lest like a monopoly, which it is.
I have worked for USPS. (I'm feeling much better now, thanks.) Guess what one of the things you do upon getting a job there is? Take an oath to uphold the Constitution... doesn't sound non-governmental to me. The ex-military people I started with all remarked on this. The idea of having to really compete scare the hell out of USPS and the unions therein. (After busting my tail to things that HAD to be done and getting chewed out for not doing the impossible *while* a unionoid making several times what I did was goofing off I have no sympathy for organized "labor.")
One of the common lines was "We charge for a letter across town and across the country. A great deal!" But did anyone think about that? Isn't the schmuck sending a letter across town getting screwed then?
USPS running e-mail is something I will watch with great amusement. If it is run as a typical post office is, I'll stay well clear. Before I started I wondered why mail was late and what drove the occasional nut to terrorize a post office. By the time I left I was simply amazed that the mail got through at all and even more amazed that [NameWitheld] hadn't been killed yet.