"But when the _only_ purpose of a server is to link to illegal content. .."
Wait. ..are you arguing that all of the material that Razorback2 indexed was illegal? Or are you arguing that a substantial number of legitimate uses for the indexing service does not justify it's existence? Because if you're arguing the first--you're just plain wrong. I share public domain content all the time. And if you are arguing the second, well, the Supreme court disagrees with you.
Only someone from the inside, with a broad picture of how all the pieces fit together, could possibly judge whether the classification of any particular piece of information is justified or not.
If only someone from the inside is capable of recognizing that the document has relevance. ..then it's declassification cannot possibly be a threat, because someone from the outside won't have the frame of reference to understand it (as you just said yourself). You've just set up a very spurious assertion.
Hardly, my point is that the entire American government culture is flawed, and that culture includes Bush only as a single wheel in a much larger machine. America seems to think that the government should take care of it's people.
There are three aspects to a man's welfare that should always be his responsibility, and ONLY his responsibility: One is his sustenance, another is is safety, and the third is his liberty.
The minute he farms out the protection of those to his government he's in for a hard time, and in America we seem to have decided that these areas should all be Somebody Elses Problem.
Totally true. Even the 'minor' characters in Crypto could have their own movies. Heck, You could devide another movie between just Rudy and Turing's stories.
0x80 says he got into writing viruses by accident after logging onto an AOL chat room named "Lesbians Only."
"Someone sent me a virus that made it so that every time I typed anything on the keyboard it would pop a message up on the screen that said, 'I'M [expletive] GAY!'" 0x80 recalls. [. ..]
After that, 0x80 became obsessed with computer viruses and dedicated nearly all his time to tinkering with them.
So if any of you know the moron who spent his free time 7 years ago distributing comical viruses via lame AOL chat rooms. . . give him this message: the tech community which spends disgusting amounts of time fixing the problems your prodigy generates would like a word with you.
Last year I worked as a bartender in a small independent restaurant.
We had good employees and bad employees, sure, but we NEVER had a major incident where the bad/lazy employees did something truely detrimental to the restaurant. Why? Because we had good management.
Policy is not just what is on paper, it's also the internal attitudes of the superiors in each department. If the superiors truely felt that the rights of the American citizens were first priority, their subordinates would too, and would never try something like this. If they thought that their new department was obviously created so they could suppress any 'badness' throughout their little scrap of American turf than thats what their subordinates would do--case in point.
This isn't a case of someone stepping out of line--it's a case of someone following his commander's attitudes and unwritten leadership. And this particular attitude ("what I think is right matters more than America basic rights") seems to be present in every commander, all the way up to the Commander in Chief.
Cap'n Crunch: Gads I loved that scene.
Really though, the limitation with Crypto is more this one:
Imagine taking 900+ pages of techno-thriller spanning 3 major characters and 60 years of American history and cramming it into 2 hours.
That's 40 minutes of screen-time per character.
*you* wanna try telling Bobby Shaftoe's entire story in less than 40 minutes of screen time? 'cause I sure as hell wouldn't.
corporations finally realise that the patent system only helps lawyers as is.
This won't happen because under the current system, a company with patents to enforce can turn their legal department into a profit center--i.e. the lawyers make more money for the company (in licensing fees--extortions from smaller companies, and so on) than it costs to keep them employed, so the corporations see a positive bottom line, not a negative one.
Ok, the problem is that you then have to create an artificial distinction.
Lets say I create a new sharing program, similar to that vaporware allpeers in functionality. Let's say that version one works by creating a 'buddy list' of my friends, and allowing me to share only with them.
We call that "private use" because it is simply a digital version of what we already do when we hand somebody a mix we burned ourselves.
Now, lets say that I release version two of the program. In that version, if my buddy A wants a file, and none of *his* buddies have it, he can send a one-generation 'find this file' request, which pops up and I click "ok" if I want to help him out. If so, my copy of the program automatically looks through all *my* buddies' files and if buddy C has the file, my computer will automatically download the file, transfer it to Buddy A, and let me keep a copy if I feel like it.
Still private use? I'm just acting as the middleman to pass the file from Buddy C to Buddy A. They both know me, and this would be no different than Buddy A taking that mix CD that I made him and making a copy for his girlfriend. So we can't possibly argue that this isn't private use if the first one IS private use.
Obviously you can see where this is going. Let's say that in version three of the program I make the process of 'passing on' music allowed automatically, and I allow up to three generations of pass-on. Now if I oversimplify the math, let's say the average buddy list is 40 people, with 10% overlap and a total user space of 2 million (So four generations of 'access' would be 36^4 = 1.6 million), then the request is likely to hit 75%+ saturation of the entire user-base--Even though I'm only passing the file through three intermediate friends (which would still be easily classified as "private" if it were done in meatspace).
Now obviously this would be ridiculously computation intensive and kindof a silly way to share files, but it illustrates an important point: The disinction between public and private becomes completely aribtrary at some point, based on some vague idea of social limitations that is decided by who? The Courts? The RIAA? The average file-sharer?
Clearly technology obviates the ability to distinguish between 'private' (small scale) sharing and 'public' (large scale) sharing and makes the boundary artificial, silly, and impractical to impose or enforce.
Google isn't the only search engine. If you'd rather use a search engine that turns a blind eye to abuse and constantly have your results filled with false positives, be my guest.
I for one hope all the search engines take aggressive steps to curb and suppress the effectiveness of artificial hacks to improve results. If spamming isn't rewarding for the companies, maybe they'll learn to spend their resources on improving things like page readability, content and functionality instead.
Ever leave a five year old with aspirations of a future in engineering alone with electronic gear? The results, while not malicious and bourne only out of curiosity, are usually disastrous.
It's a classic case of "What's this button do?" and "Does this part come off? Neat!"
Actually, it says first, "These are the ONLY things the government IS allowed to do." And then, in the amendments, it says "Here are some things it IS NEVER allowed to do."
For that matter, there's plenty of time within the series that could be used. Plenty of other tales could be told. I'd like to see the Wobbly-Headed-Doll caper, myself.:) People loved those dolls!
If this is your problem, rip your DVD collection to your hard drive, throw it all in a giant Winamp playlist, randomize it once, and then just open winamp and hit play when you want to watch. No thought required. If you don't like what happens to be "on" skip forward or backward until you find something you do feel like watching.
Hey presto! All the brainlessness of TV for you, without TV being allowed to impose its arbitrary restrictions on the rest of us.
Don't claim you need a giant content distrobution corporation to solve a problem your computer can solve for you.
FWIW: this is a problem of enunciation, not the limitations of technology.
Recognize has a G asnd a Z in it. And 'B' and 'P' are (subtly) different sounds. The computer cannot be blaimed for being unable to translate a language that the user isn't correctly speaking.
And if you are [sic] photographer who has gallery exhibitions, forget digitals. You will never be able to blow it up the wall size [sic] even with 30 mega pixel.
Speaking as a degreed engineer and an amatuer photographer: This just isn't true. The only thing that stops a person from using an ultra-high resolution digital projector to print digital "negatives" onto photo paper is a series of incremental expansions in the limitations on the technology.
Five years ago, you couldn't get high enough quality pictures to compete with film. But no-one said "Digital will never be able to make pictures of higher quality than 35mm film" because we all knew that digital lenses, CCDs and capture cards would improve to the point where it *was* possible to capture higher quality images with digital. Now, with 5 and 8 megapixel SLRs driving the development of new printers, and digital-to-photo-paper enlargers like Devere Digital Enlarger, the technology is coming to wipe out a need for chemical image capture altogether.
In the fall of 1997 I bet a friend of mine that digital would have replaced chemical as the primary form of photography for most photographers (from shapshooters, to amatuers, to professionals) within a decade. With 20 months left, I'm confident that I will win that bet. One reason is that nothing spoils a wedding like a persistent shutter click and a flash, and digital photography is quickly becoming not only quieter, but less visually invasive than chemical. And since the image printing process will only become cleaner, cheaper, and less time consuming than chemical for the majority of professional applications, professionals will have to adopt. Professional portrait photographers now have to compete with a home market that is being exposed to more and more powerful hardware that they can use to make their own photographs, and will be forced to cut costs just to survive.
Sorry to break it to you, because I like chemical photography (I still do some of it myself, using my father's 1970s era Petri SLR) but the Digital camera will eventually replace the Chemical entirely, and people who use chemical cameras will become a niche antique/collectors market, like the guys that collect, restore and drive old automobiles or the cabbies that offer horse-drawn-carriage rides in Central park.
and DON'T make the "history of computers and the internet" the first chapter.
Nothing annoyed me more throughout my CS courses than that each textbook decided that it had to re-teach me the history of punch cards and vaccuum tubes. Make that crap an appendix and keep it out of my way. If I'm looking for a practical guide to computing, finding that the book's most valued factoids concern how many rooms the first computer took up gives me little confidence in its remaining pages.
Slashdot Mirror
"But when the _only_ purpose of a server is to link to illegal content. . ."
.are you arguing that all of the material that Razorback2 indexed was illegal? Or are you arguing that a substantial number of legitimate uses for the indexing service does not justify it's existence? Because if you're arguing the first--you're just plain wrong. I share public domain content all the time. And if you are arguing the second, well, the Supreme court disagrees with you.
Wait. .
Sounds like somebody needs to read Sony vs. Universal again.
Only someone from the inside, with a broad picture of how all the pieces fit together, could possibly judge whether the classification of any particular piece of information is justified or not. If only someone from the inside is capable of recognizing that the document has relevance. . .then it's declassification cannot possibly be a threat, because someone from the outside won't have the frame of reference to understand it (as you just said yourself). You've just set up a very spurious assertion.
He is on the money. The fact that he's only got a two right now is disgraceful.
Hardly, my point is that the entire American government culture is flawed, and that culture includes Bush only as a single wheel in a much larger machine. America seems to think that the government should take care of it's people. There are three aspects to a man's welfare that should always be his responsibility, and ONLY his responsibility: One is his sustenance, another is is safety, and the third is his liberty. The minute he farms out the protection of those to his government he's in for a hard time, and in America we seem to have decided that these areas should all be Somebody Elses Problem.
Totally true. Even the 'minor' characters in Crypto could have their own movies. Heck, You could devide another movie between just Rudy and Turing's stories.
From TFA:
0x80 says he got into writing viruses by accident after logging onto an AOL chat room named "Lesbians Only."
.]
"Someone sent me a virus that made it so that every time I typed anything on the keyboard it would pop a message up on the screen that said, 'I'M [expletive] GAY!'" 0x80 recalls. [. .
After that, 0x80 became obsessed with computer viruses and dedicated nearly all his time to tinkering with them.
So if any of you know the moron who spent his free time 7 years ago distributing comical viruses via lame AOL chat rooms. . . give him this message: the tech community which spends disgusting amounts of time fixing the problems your prodigy generates would like a word with you.
Come alone.
Last year I worked as a bartender in a small independent restaurant.
We had good employees and bad employees, sure, but we NEVER had a major incident where the bad/lazy employees did something truely detrimental to the restaurant. Why? Because we had good management.
Policy is not just what is on paper, it's also the internal attitudes of the superiors in each department. If the superiors truely felt that the rights of the American citizens were first priority, their subordinates would too, and would never try something like this. If they thought that their new department was obviously created so they could suppress any 'badness' throughout their little scrap of American turf than thats what their subordinates would do--case in point.
This isn't a case of someone stepping out of line--it's a case of someone following his commander's attitudes and unwritten leadership. And this particular attitude ("what I think is right matters more than America basic rights") seems to be present in every commander, all the way up to the Commander in Chief.
Cap'n Crunch: Gads I loved that scene. Really though, the limitation with Crypto is more this one: Imagine taking 900+ pages of techno-thriller spanning 3 major characters and 60 years of American history and cramming it into 2 hours. That's 40 minutes of screen-time per character. *you* wanna try telling Bobby Shaftoe's entire story in less than 40 minutes of screen time? 'cause I sure as hell wouldn't.
To Paraphrase Zoe:
"Maybe you're not remembering some of [their] previous plans?"
You mean to say that it is morally wrong to break a rule created by anyone in authority over you, regardless of the morality of that rule?
Apparently they did consider that scenario, so they built it to have a second level of functionality as a gravel slinger.
:)
Tada! Problem solved.
corporations finally realise that the patent system only helps lawyers as is. This won't happen because under the current system, a company with patents to enforce can turn their legal department into a profit center--i.e. the lawyers make more money for the company (in licensing fees--extortions from smaller companies, and so on) than it costs to keep them employed, so the corporations see a positive bottom line, not a negative one.
Because if you are, I'm curious: what are your thoughts on the Boston Tea Party?
Ok, the problem is that you then have to create an artificial distinction.
Lets say I create a new sharing program, similar to that vaporware allpeers in functionality. Let's say that version one works by creating a 'buddy list' of my friends, and allowing me to share only with them.
We call that "private use" because it is simply a digital version of what we already do when we hand somebody a mix we burned ourselves.
Now, lets say that I release version two of the program. In that version, if my buddy A wants a file, and none of *his* buddies have it, he can send a one-generation 'find this file' request, which pops up and I click "ok" if I want to help him out. If so, my copy of the program automatically looks through all *my* buddies' files and if buddy C has the file, my computer will automatically download the file, transfer it to Buddy A, and let me keep a copy if I feel like it.
Still private use? I'm just acting as the middleman to pass the file from Buddy C to Buddy A. They both know me, and this would be no different than Buddy A taking that mix CD that I made him and making a copy for his girlfriend. So we can't possibly argue that this isn't private use if the first one IS private use.
Obviously you can see where this is going. Let's say that in version three of the program I make the process of 'passing on' music allowed automatically, and I allow up to three generations of pass-on. Now if I oversimplify the math, let's say the average buddy list is 40 people, with 10% overlap and a total user space of 2 million (So four generations of 'access' would be 36^4 = 1.6 million), then the request is likely to hit 75%+ saturation of the entire user-base--Even though I'm only passing the file through three intermediate friends (which would still be easily classified as "private" if it were done in meatspace).
Now obviously this would be ridiculously computation intensive and kindof a silly way to share files, but it illustrates an important point: The disinction between public and private becomes completely aribtrary at some point, based on some vague idea of social limitations that is decided by who? The Courts? The RIAA? The average file-sharer?
Clearly technology obviates the ability to distinguish between 'private' (small scale) sharing and 'public' (large scale) sharing and makes the boundary artificial, silly, and impractical to impose or enforce.
Google isn't the only search engine. If you'd rather use a search engine that turns a blind eye to abuse and constantly have your results filled with false positives, be my guest.
I for one hope all the search engines take aggressive steps to curb and suppress the effectiveness of artificial hacks to improve results. If spamming isn't rewarding for the companies, maybe they'll learn to spend their resources on improving things like page readability, content and functionality instead.
I mean, it *is* supposed to be humour, right?
Forget the cats, "Curiosity kills kit."
Ever leave a five year old with aspirations of a future in engineering alone with electronic gear? The results, while not malicious and bourne only out of curiosity, are usually disastrous.
It's a classic case of "What's this button do?" and "Does this part come off? Neat!"
Actually, it says first, "These are the ONLY things the government IS allowed to do." And then, in the amendments, it says "Here are some things it IS NEVER allowed to do."
Could have fooled me. . .
For that matter, there's plenty of time within the series that could be used. Plenty of other tales could be told. I'd like to see the Wobbly-Headed-Doll caper, myself. :) People loved those dolls!
If this is your problem, rip your DVD collection to your hard drive, throw it all in a giant Winamp playlist, randomize it once, and then just open winamp and hit play when you want to watch. No thought required. If you don't like what happens to be "on" skip forward or backward until you find something you do feel like watching.
Hey presto! All the brainlessness of TV for you, without TV being allowed to impose its arbitrary restrictions on the rest of us.
Don't claim you need a giant content distrobution corporation to solve a problem your computer can solve for you.
FWIW: this is a problem of enunciation, not the limitations of technology.
Recognize has a G asnd a Z in it. And 'B' and 'P' are (subtly) different sounds. The computer cannot be blaimed for being unable to translate a language that the user isn't correctly speaking.
I'm surprised no-one has linked here yet in this debate: The Gigapxl Project.
And if you are [sic] photographer who has gallery exhibitions, forget digitals. You will never be able to blow it up the wall size [sic] even with 30 mega pixel.
Speaking as a degreed engineer and an amatuer photographer: This just isn't true. The only thing that stops a person from using an ultra-high resolution digital projector to print digital "negatives" onto photo paper is a series of incremental expansions in the limitations on the technology.
Five years ago, you couldn't get high enough quality pictures to compete with film. But no-one said "Digital will never be able to make pictures of higher quality than 35mm film" because we all knew that digital lenses, CCDs and capture cards would improve to the point where it *was* possible to capture higher quality images with digital. Now, with 5 and 8 megapixel SLRs driving the development of new printers, and digital-to-photo-paper enlargers like Devere Digital Enlarger, the technology is coming to wipe out a need for chemical image capture altogether.
In the fall of 1997 I bet a friend of mine that digital would have replaced chemical as the primary form of photography for most photographers (from shapshooters, to amatuers, to professionals) within a decade. With 20 months left, I'm confident that I will win that bet. One reason is that nothing spoils a wedding like a persistent shutter click and a flash, and digital photography is quickly becoming not only quieter, but less visually invasive than chemical. And since the image printing process will only become cleaner, cheaper, and less time consuming than chemical for the majority of professional applications, professionals will have to adopt. Professional portrait photographers now have to compete with a home market that is being exposed to more and more powerful hardware that they can use to make their own photographs, and will be forced to cut costs just to survive.
Sorry to break it to you, because I like chemical photography (I still do some of it myself, using my father's 1970s era Petri SLR) but the Digital camera will eventually replace the Chemical entirely, and people who use chemical cameras will become a niche antique/collectors market, like the guys that collect, restore and drive old automobiles or the cabbies that offer horse-drawn-carriage rides in Central park.
and DON'T make the "history of computers and the internet" the first chapter.
Nothing annoyed me more throughout my CS courses than that each textbook decided that it had to re-teach me the history of punch cards and vaccuum tubes. Make that crap an appendix and keep it out of my way. If I'm looking for a practical guide to computing, finding that the book's most valued factoids concern how many rooms the first computer took up gives me little confidence in its remaining pages.