Has anyone considered what an extraordinary situation it is where government tax collectors are collecting taxes which are funneled straight to corporations?
The government often does something like this, in order to compensate the "losers" during a time of drastic change in the economy. The hard part is making sure that the level of compensation is appropriate, and that small-scale victims (independent book publishers, for example) are treated fairly alongside the mega-corporations who are able to pay a lobbyist to keep within arm's length of legislators at all times.
If done correctly, this could actually help the publishing firms move their business in a new direction, by encouraging (financially) their participation in the New Economy.
This whole venture looks like another variation of the "let's give away something for free and hope we capture lots of customers forever" business model, ala free ISP's and pay-for-use browsers like AllAdvantage. I wonder how far out (if at all) their business plan expects to become profitable. The idea that you can give something away, and not expect a small few to start tinkering away at it, is foolish and short-sighted.
I just can't wait until these guys show up on fuckedcompany.com. They just made my pick o' the week...
Since Atheism generally connotes a belief in the definite non-existence of a "god", I prefer a term that I came up with after a failed year of Ancient Greek in college:
Agnokapathetic
It's a combination of agnostic and apathetic, as in "I don't know and I don't care."
And what is it about so many (not all) Christians, that they can't understand that you don't need a vengeful bogeyman looking over your shoulder to act decently and respect other people?
Isn't the word "non-obvious" supposed to apply to potential patents? Filing trade documents via computer-to-computer transfers is hardly an innovation. It's simply an application of existing technology, in a way that's already taking place in a wide array of business practices. This guy may have made a nice product that he should market to import-export firms, but to expect that everyone doing electronic forms transfer for international shipments should somehow owe him license fees is, well, patently absurd.
The best was when ESPN was showing highlights of a NASCAR race in which one driver hit Trickle and started a huge pileup. The announcer couldn't resist the line, "now you see what happens when you tap Dick Trickle..."
Just two examples of legitamate, well-run sports journalism sites. Sadly, your ignorance on this subject is all too common amongst PR departments and SID's. Hopefully, this task force will help correct that problem.
Being an online sports journalist myself, I'd kindly suggest you go suck an egg. While there are plenty of hacks out there running there own sites, there are also a plethora of professionally run, independent online sports journals (follow the link in my sig to the best independent hockey site on the web - www.inthecrease.com).
They would compartmentalize the Games into various sections (Track & Field, gymnastics, martial arts, etc) and auction off the broadcast rights seperately. By doing so they would be likely to get much higher overall revenue, and the Games would be covered much more completely and professionally. Just think of all the events that aren't going to be covered because there is an artificial limit on TV time.
It's not just real-time streaming that's being banned, but also media credentials for on-line sports journalists. Oh, and there's no radio play-by-play, either. Nobody is saying that the IOC shouldn't sell the real-time video rights (TV) to the highest bidder. But to exclude on-line media outlets altogether, and restrict radio (what the hell is up with that?) only serves to restrict unnecessarily the public's participation in what can be a wonderful event.
On-line sports journalists have always had difficulty getting taken seriously by some organizations. The NCAA (at this year's Final Four) in particular has been less than supportive of this new medium for getting sports news and information out to a waiting audience. A nice summary of the issues involved can be found here
So? We're talking about jurisdiction relating to international transactions taking place via the Internet - not whether the law itself is stupid. Like another poster noted, the situation is similar to that of offshore Internet gambling.
It doesn't matter where the servers are. Doing business with someone while they are on French soil brings on French jurisdiction. It's the same reason why someone in Minnesota who gambles with an offshore internet casino is still breaking Minnesota law.
Basically, if you do business in a certain area, you are bound by the laws of that land. In Yahoo!'s case, they have buyers and sellers on their auctions from France, so they have to obey the laws just like any local site would. If you don't want to be governed by a certain country's laws, don't do business there (i.e. ban users from that region).
In this case, Yahoo! will have an interesting decision to make. They can
get rid of Nazi-related auctions,
get rid of French users, or
come up a means to prevent French users from accessing Nazi auctions.
I was on a contracting gig where I didn't have access to the internet from my PC, but the HP3000 we were working remotely on did - so once I found a version of Lynx for the HP3000, I had my fresh air again...
The point is to make a determined effort to keep the screens clean - absolving themselves of liability lawsuits. Otherwise, parents could sue them for negligence in allowing porn to be displayed in an environment that the proprietor knows will be used largely by mothers and their kids.
This is a laundromat, not a public library - as a private business, they can restrict access however they would like. In this case, they're probably worried about liability lawsuits ("my little darling was playing on the computer in your establishment and got trapped in xxx.hotteenbabes.com - gimme $5 million for our pain and suffering").
While it's true that you can't porn-proof the proxy server, you can give it a good shot by either using commercial software or coming up with your own list of ban keywords. Sure, users might not get to do their breast cancer research while waiting for their duds to dry - but there are other avenues available. A determined user could also get to what they really want, but in order to absolve themselves of liability the laundromat wants to make a sincere effort to keep things above board. And, like many others have said, just make sure the monitors are in plain view of the rest of the laundromat. Self-regulation can do wonders.
Exactly - the file name is the ad, in this fake-IP Stealth Mode. If you search for "Ozzy", a file returns as a query hit that reads "www.flatnet.com - get your porn here at blah blah blah... ozzy.mp3"
To get around this the way you're suggesting, the spammer would have to dynamically create the bogus filenames on these other IP addresses - something they could possibly do if they had the access on that other machine while running the software. But unless it's an unwitting partner in the process (trojan?), it exposes at least one of the spammer's machines.
Like I mentioned, I'm no IP guru. This is starting to make my head hurt...
But the client at the false IP address, even if it's on the Gnutella network, wouldn't have the file "www.flatnet.com blah blah blah", so the verification would fail. I'm thinking that you pass the file name (not just the search string) in the verification request.
Re:What about IP verification??? Won't work
on
Gnutella Vs. SPAM
·
· Score: 2
How would those clients on your LAN handle a Push request? By GUID? What I was thinking of was something similar to a Push request, just to verify that there is someone on the network at that IP address or GUID, I guess...
The idea is just to ensure that IP addresses aren't faked - if a verification message is sent to x.x.x.x, and nothing comes back, the client doesn't bother to display it in the query hits window.
Somebody else raised the very legitimate question of how this would effect clients behind firewalls. Would a change in the protocol, accomodating a proxy server or firewall IP address relative to the client, help? I ain't no IP guru, just curious.
If I understand correctly, the spammer in Stealth Mode sends out replies to queries such as "www.spammer.org blah blah blah (your query)" with a false return IP address.
What if Gnutella had a built-in query verification step, something wherein each search result gets re-queried, as in "do you really have this file?"
Step 1: The query goes out
Step 2: A result comes back from IP address x.x.x.x
Step 3: A verification transmission is sent to x.x.x.x to confirm the presence of the file
Step 4: Upon successful verification, the file is displayed in the search return window.
Would this add to much new traffic to the network? I'd hope not...
Software is primarily a tool, not art...
on
Hacker Crackdown?
·
· Score: 2
The programmers who create file-swapping software are doing so with full knowledge of how it will be used, to share copyrighted material. They are producing a tool that will be used by the public for (mostly) illicit purposes, although of course they could use it to share public domain material.
The entertainment examples you're talking about are an entirely different issue - some make the argument that actions and attitudes portrayed in the media influence the actions and attitudes of the viewing public (makes sense in the macro case, but hard to pinpoint in the micro).
Ah, my first computer, back in late 1979 (a Christmas present). I found that of all the different joysticks out there, the plain old Atari one with the short joystick and the one orange button at the upper left corner held up the best over time. I tried the latest-and-greatest whenever something would come out, but always drifted back to the old standby.
Talk about your clever use of limited technology - in the game "Kingdom" (a Hammurabi clone), as the game loaded from cassette tape, it would hit a section with a slick introduction to the game, with music and instructions. I was pretty impressed at the time!
Slashdot Mirror
The government often does something like this, in order to compensate the "losers" during a time of drastic change in the economy. The hard part is making sure that the level of compensation is appropriate, and that small-scale victims (independent book publishers, for example) are treated fairly alongside the mega-corporations who are able to pay a lobbyist to keep within arm's length of legislators at all times.
If done correctly, this could actually help the publishing firms move their business in a new direction, by encouraging (financially) their participation in the New Economy.
I just can't wait until these guys show up on fuckedcompany.com. They just made my pick o' the week...
Agnokapathetic
It's a combination of agnostic and apathetic, as in "I don't know and I don't care."
And what is it about so many (not all) Christians, that they can't understand that you don't need a vengeful bogeyman looking over your shoulder to act decently and respect other people?
Isn't the word "non-obvious" supposed to apply to potential patents? Filing trade documents via computer-to-computer transfers is hardly an innovation. It's simply an application of existing technology, in a way that's already taking place in a wide array of business practices. This guy may have made a nice product that he should market to import-export firms, but to expect that everyone doing electronic forms transfer for international shipments should somehow owe him license fees is, well, patently absurd.
The best was when ESPN was showing highlights of a NASCAR race in which one driver hit Trickle and started a huge pileup. The announcer couldn't resist the line, "now you see what happens when you tap Dick Trickle..."
"We shall fight them on the beaches..."
www.sportsjones.com
Just two examples of legitamate, well-run sports journalism sites. Sadly, your ignorance on this subject is all too common amongst PR departments and SID's. Hopefully, this task force will help correct that problem.
Being an online sports journalist myself, I'd kindly suggest you go suck an egg. While there are plenty of hacks out there running there own sites, there are also a plethora of professionally run, independent online sports journals (follow the link in my sig to the best independent hockey site on the web - www.inthecrease.com).
They would compartmentalize the Games into various sections (Track & Field, gymnastics, martial arts, etc) and auction off the broadcast rights seperately. By doing so they would be likely to get much higher overall revenue, and the Games would be covered much more completely and professionally. Just think of all the events that aren't going to be covered because there is an artificial limit on TV time.
It's not just real-time streaming that's being banned, but also media credentials for on-line sports journalists. Oh, and there's no radio play-by-play, either. Nobody is saying that the IOC shouldn't sell the real-time video rights (TV) to the highest bidder. But to exclude on-line media outlets altogether, and restrict radio (what the hell is up with that?) only serves to restrict unnecessarily the public's participation in what can be a wonderful event.
On-line sports journalists have always had difficulty getting taken seriously by some organizations. The NCAA (at this year's Final Four) in particular has been less than supportive of this new medium for getting sports news and information out to a waiting audience. A nice summary of the issues involved can be found here
So? We're talking about jurisdiction relating to international transactions taking place via the Internet - not whether the law itself is stupid. Like another poster noted, the situation is similar to that of offshore Internet gambling.
Here are some interesting links talking about the issue.
It doesn't matter where the servers are. Doing business with someone while they are on French soil brings on French jurisdiction. It's the same reason why someone in Minnesota who gambles with an offshore internet casino is still breaking Minnesota law.
In this case, Yahoo! will have an interesting decision to make. They can
get rid of Nazi-related auctions,
get rid of French users, or
come up a means to prevent French users from accessing Nazi auctions.
I was on a contracting gig where I didn't have access to the internet from my PC, but the HP3000 we were working remotely on did - so once I found a version of Lynx for the HP3000, I had my fresh air again...
The point is to make a determined effort to keep the screens clean - absolving themselves of liability lawsuits. Otherwise, parents could sue them for negligence in allowing porn to be displayed in an environment that the proprietor knows will be used largely by mothers and their kids.
While it's true that you can't porn-proof the proxy server, you can give it a good shot by either using commercial software or coming up with your own list of ban keywords. Sure, users might not get to do their breast cancer research while waiting for their duds to dry - but there are other avenues available. A determined user could also get to what they really want, but in order to absolve themselves of liability the laundromat wants to make a sincere effort to keep things above board. And, like many others have said, just make sure the monitors are in plain view of the rest of the laundromat. Self-regulation can do wonders.
To get around this the way you're suggesting, the spammer would have to dynamically create the bogus filenames on these other IP addresses - something they could possibly do if they had the access on that other machine while running the software. But unless it's an unwitting partner in the process (trojan?), it exposes at least one of the spammer's machines.
Like I mentioned, I'm no IP guru. This is starting to make my head hurt...
But the client at the false IP address, even if it's on the Gnutella network, wouldn't have the file "www.flatnet.com blah blah blah", so the verification would fail. I'm thinking that you pass the file name (not just the search string) in the verification request.
How would those clients on your LAN handle a Push request? By GUID? What I was thinking of was something similar to a Push request, just to verify that there is someone on the network at that IP address or GUID, I guess...
Somebody else raised the very legitimate question of how this would effect clients behind firewalls. Would a change in the protocol, accomodating a proxy server or firewall IP address relative to the client, help? I ain't no IP guru, just curious.
What if Gnutella had a built-in query verification step, something wherein each search result gets re-queried, as in "do you really have this file?"
Step 1: The query goes out
Step 2: A result comes back from IP address x.x.x.x
Step 3: A verification transmission is sent to x.x.x.x to confirm the presence of the file
Step 4: Upon successful verification, the file is displayed in the search return window.
Would this add to much new traffic to the network? I'd hope not...
The entertainment examples you're talking about are an entirely different issue - some make the argument that actions and attitudes portrayed in the media influence the actions and attitudes of the viewing public (makes sense in the macro case, but hard to pinpoint in the micro).
Talk about your clever use of limited technology - in the game "Kingdom" (a Hammurabi clone), as the game loaded from cassette tape, it would hit a section with a slick introduction to the game, with music and instructions. I was pretty impressed at the time!