Most authors of IEEE papers already have access to the IEEE database, which somebody (e.g. a university library or research institution) is already paying for. So the funding issue could easily be managed merely by most institutions shifting some funds from the library to the EEE faculty.
The actual amount of money is not the real problem. The real issue, as far as scientific integrity is concerned, is whether this brings up a conflict of interest. I'm sure that can be managed, (peer review is already anonymous) but it is important for them to lay down guidelines about it now, to avoid the conflict of interest from the start.
Hmm . . . now that I look at it, I see that this is not exactly the same as the one I read. There is a speech with this same title in the book "Free Software Free Society", but the one is the book was given in the UK; this one was given in India. Whatever, the speech is roughly the same.
Software patents intefere with the right to use software.
Stallman's speech The Danger of Software Patents provides an excellent explanation of this. I read this speech for the first time yesterday and think it is one of his best ones.
Some people say that the BSD license isn't totally free because the code can be put into a closed source product so long as it is credited. The analogy they use is slavery -- assuming that you are in some sort of modern democracy, you are probably "free", although you do not have the freedom to become a slave (i.e. renounce your freedom).
OTOH, the GPL imposes a huge restriction by saying that anything derived from the source must be free (as in speech). However this is because RMS's view on software is that it is immoral to provide binaries without source, hence the GPL enforces that moral standpoint to prevent anybody from doing the immoral act of keeping the source closed.
Personally I'm not sure which one is more free, since the slavery analogy is pretty strong. What it comes down to though is that with the BSD license you are allowing others to make their own moral decision about what they will do with your source, but with the GPL you are forcing them to uphold your moral views.
What would happen if the next GPL was declared invalid by the courts? How would this effect those pieces of software which have the "any later version" clause?
Say gnufoo is licensed under GPL 2, or "any later version", and GPL 3 is declared unenforceable after some legal struggle, would this mean that I could choose to license gnufoo under an unenforcable license (with whatever consequences that has), or would I have to use GPL 2, since "any later version" is invalid?
Here in Australia I've heard that government legislation forces any telecommunications carrier to be able to give access to law enforcement when requested. They also have an obligation to be able to decrypt any information which they have encrypted for their clients (e.g. GSM digital mobile calls). This is one of the reason new technologies take so long to get rolled out here, they have to have it approved by AUSTEL that the police have access. Luckily I don't think this applies to ISP's, only the telcos.
Has anyone thought about the fact . . .
on
Laptop Lojack?
·
· Score: 1
That these recent "losses" of laptops could just be attempts by intelligence agencies to leak false information to the enemy. You leave a weakly encrypted laptop somewhere with some disinformation (and some real intelligence to make it look reliable) and then put a story in the press saying how dumb the agency is to lose their data. I wouldn't be suprised if that's what it was, although it has been happening a bit often lately, hasn't it?
On most new computers with OEM versions of Microsoft products, the EULA is the first thing which comes up when the machine boots for the first time. So the software might be pre-installed, but you still have to agree to the license before you can use it.
Never trust that a large organization, especially a government, will act in its best interests. If that were the case, we would have no crypto export regulations.
Isn't it in a country's best interest for their neighbours/enemies to be denied access to strong crypto?
Also, each denomination is slightly longer than the next to assist visually impaired people in sorting out which note is which. And if you accidently leave them in your pocket when you wash your clothes nothing bad happens to them.
American currency sucks, it's all green, it's all paper, and pennies? Who uses pennies? What use is one cent? I suppose the problem is that would be a nearly impossible task to change the currency, since there is so much of it not just in America but all over the world.
Would big companies follow a EULA like that anyway? How would you prove it if they didn't?
BTW, the board members of Australian companies must declare their incomes, including the value of fringe benefits, in the company's annual report. That's a bit of legislation the government did get right, even though they just copied America. Getting their addresses could be harder though . . .
As an Australian who is sick of the lack of clues that our government has when it comes to technology, I'd like to suggest that articles like this come under a new heading -- "Stupid developments from down under" -- maybe have an icon of a dead koala or something.
I'm sick of people thinking of Australia as a backward nation, but when it comes to things like this, it's even worse that it's actually true. With the increasing credibility and attention/. is getting, maybe this could even help change the situation, I can imagine some hip MP saying "the government's latest proposal is so flawed it has gone down on Slashdot's list of dumb ideas from down under."
It's federal law that all telco's must be able to provide "access" to all their transmissions to law enforcement or whatever. Even if the telco encrypts your data (like over the digital phone network) they have a legal responsibility to be able to decrypt it if the right people ask them to. That's one of the reasons it took so long for ISDN lines to be rolled out, and it's probably one of the things slowing down DSL.
Actually the referendum was a safe bill which would've replaced the Governor-General (who is appointed by the Prime Minister) with a President who would be appointed by a two-thirds majority of parliament (so the President couldn't be a political figure like he is in the US).
The Monarchists had to be against it because if passed, the Queen would no longer be our head of state. There was a good old FUD campain by the Monarchists and Direct Electionists to confuse the uneducated -- statistics show that the educated and high income electorates mostly voted 'yes', while the poorer areas with less educated people voted against the proposal. Personally I reckon that says something for the 'no' cases PR campaign, but not much else.
The Gulf War was supposedly the first "cyber" war, I've got a book called "The First Information War", which is basically a really boring collection of military reports about the way Iraq was basically "blindfolded" by the Allies during the war, with many of the methods you've described.
I would think that the book is definetly incorrectly titled though, as the Second World War was certainly an information war, and intelligence agencies carried out activities akin to the cr/hacking discussed here. For example, at Station M in Canada, documents were faked with impecible accuracy (right down to the straw used to make the paper and the typewriters used to type them), and used for various acts of war. There isn't much difference between the Ultra intercepts obtained by breaking the Enigma code, and modern forms of "cyber warfare".
It is believed that letters faked by the Nazis and "leaked" to Stalin resulted in him having almost half of his officers executed before World War II. This is hardly different to hacking into a computer and changing records to have soldiers arrested/fired/whatever, it's just a matter of whether it can be done without being detected.
Remember a couple of years ago when the Australian foreign affairs minister Alexander Downer totally pissed off Greenspan by telling the US press that the Fed was about to cut interest rates?
So it could just be an Australian problem about keeping secrecy. However, as an Australian, I'd prefer to think that this Echelon information was leaked on purpose (possibly on advice of the NSA, in line with some other posts), or maybe because we're sick of other countries stealing our ideas when it comes to new commercial opportunities (which IMHO is actually due to a lack of venture capital, and not theft of secrets).
If this system doesn't exist it's a bit of a waste of time to try and jam it. But what if it does exist? Do you really want to piss off the NSA, DSD, GCCS or whoever's running this thing?
Think about what happens if you send a message with enough keywords. Your email addy and the one you're sending too would conceivable go down on a "watch list", and from then on your mail (and probably phones) would be monitored just a bit more closely.
Those of us who live in "echelon base" countries (i.e USA, Oz, Canada, NZ and UK) could be obstructing our defense interests. I'm Australian, and there is no way I can picture Echelon being used to suppress any (domestic) subversive activities. However, whether our govts are using Echelon info to keep puppet governments in other places (eg Mexico) in power is another question.
I think some of you are getting too excited about being able to "fight da Man", and not actually thinking about how Echelon could be working _for_ you, now against you.
"parents of severely disabled infants should be allowed to kill them painlessly in order to save them from a life of suffering" I think it would be extremely difficult to say whether or not a severly disabled child is going to have a "life of suffering". A friend of mine who did his community service at a special school once commented to me that for those kids every day was a massive party - they were rarely upset. Admitedly it would be expensive to send children to such a school, so I don't know that it would be the same for low income families to have such a child.
One practical issue with such children is whether or not the child is expected to outlive the parents. If so, what happens to them once the parents die, especially if the children are no longer minors?
Back to my subject, though, when you're born with a disability it's probably much easier to get used to, and when you don't have to worry about the difficulties of "normal life" things might be more fun. Basically it comes down to money - if the parents are rich enough to keep the child in comfort and don't have to worry about what he's costing them (and the state), then killing the child most likely won't be an issue, and the child most likely wont live a life of suffering. On the other hand, if the family is poor and the child will be a financial and emotional burden its life may well be one of suffering, and so the arguement for killing it is strong.
Gough Whitlam is still very much alive. Harold Holt is the PM who disappeared while swimming. (Ironically he was such an avid/strong swimmer that a swimming centre in Melbourne is named after hime). Apparently Pine Gap was cruicial in processing the satellite data required to take out SCUDs in the Gulf War.
Slashdot Mirror
Most authors of IEEE papers already have access to the IEEE database, which somebody (e.g. a university library or research institution) is already paying for. So the funding issue could easily be managed merely by most institutions shifting some funds from the library to the EEE faculty.
The actual amount of money is not the real problem. The real issue, as far as scientific integrity is concerned, is whether this brings up a conflict of interest. I'm sure that can be managed, (peer review is already anonymous) but it is important for them to lay down guidelines about it now, to avoid the conflict of interest from the start.
Hmm . . . now that I look at it, I see that this is not exactly the same as the one I read. There is a speech with this same title in the book "Free Software Free Society", but the one is the book was given in the UK; this one was given in India. Whatever, the speech is roughly the same.
Software patents intefere with the right to use software.
Stallman's speech The Danger of Software Patents provides an excellent explanation of this. I read this speech for the first time yesterday and think it is one of his best ones.
Yes! Where?
The cheaper hardware is not necessarily as good, and OS X is not Free Software. I use Gentoo on an iBook.
Some people say that the BSD license isn't totally free because the code can be put into a closed source product so long as it is credited. The analogy they use is slavery -- assuming that you are in some sort of modern democracy, you are probably "free", although you do not have the freedom to become a slave (i.e. renounce your freedom).
OTOH, the GPL imposes a huge restriction by saying that anything derived from the source must be free (as in speech). However this is because RMS's view on software is that it is immoral to provide binaries without source, hence the GPL enforces that moral standpoint to prevent anybody from doing the immoral act of keeping the source closed.
Personally I'm not sure which one is more free, since the slavery analogy is pretty strong. What it comes down to though is that with the BSD license you are allowing others to make their own moral decision about what they will do with your source, but with the GPL you are forcing them to uphold your moral views.
What would happen if the next GPL was declared invalid by the courts? How would this effect those pieces of software which have the "any later version" clause?
Say gnufoo is licensed under GPL 2, or "any later version", and GPL 3 is declared unenforceable after some legal struggle, would this mean that I could choose to license gnufoo under an unenforcable license (with whatever consequences that has), or would I have to use GPL 2, since "any later version" is invalid?
Here in Australia I've heard that government legislation forces any telecommunications carrier to be able to give access to law enforcement when requested. They also have an obligation to be able to decrypt any information which they have encrypted for their clients (e.g. GSM digital mobile calls). This is one of the reason new technologies take so long to get rolled out here, they have to have it approved by AUSTEL that the police have access. Luckily I don't think this applies to ISP's, only the telcos.
That these recent "losses" of laptops could just be attempts by intelligence agencies to leak false information to the enemy. You leave a weakly encrypted laptop somewhere with some disinformation (and some real intelligence to make it look reliable) and then put a story in the press saying how dumb the agency is to lose their data. I wouldn't be suprised if that's what it was, although it has been happening a bit often lately, hasn't it?
One question: where?
On most new computers with OEM versions of Microsoft products, the EULA is the first thing which comes up when the machine boots for the first time. So the software might be pre-installed, but you still have to agree to the license before you can use it.
Never trust that a large organization, especially a government, will act in its best interests. If that were the case, we would have no crypto export regulations.
Isn't it in a country's best interest for their neighbours/enemies to be denied access to strong crypto?
Also, each denomination is slightly longer than the next to assist visually impaired people in sorting out which note is which. And if you accidently leave them in your pocket when you wash your clothes nothing bad happens to them.
American currency sucks, it's all green, it's all paper, and pennies? Who uses pennies? What use is one cent? I suppose the problem is that would be a nearly impossible task to change the currency, since there is so much of it not just in America but all over the world.
Would big companies follow a EULA like that anyway? How would you prove it if they didn't?
BTW, the board members of Australian companies must declare their incomes, including the value of fringe benefits, in the company's annual report. That's a bit of legislation the government did get right, even though they just copied America. Getting their addresses could be harder though . . .
As an Australian who is sick of the lack of clues that our government has when it comes to technology, I'd like to suggest that articles like this come under a new heading -- "Stupid developments from down under" -- maybe have an icon of a dead koala or something.
/. is getting, maybe this could even help change the situation, I can imagine some hip MP saying "the government's latest proposal is so flawed it has gone down on Slashdot's list of dumb ideas from down under."
I'm sick of people thinking of Australia as a backward nation, but when it comes to things like this, it's even worse that it's actually true. With the increasing credibility and attention
It's federal law that all telco's must be able to provide "access" to all their transmissions to law enforcement or whatever. Even if the telco encrypts your data (like over the digital phone network) they have a legal responsibility to be able to decrypt it if the right people ask them to. That's one of the reasons it took so long for ISDN lines to be rolled out, and it's probably one of the things slowing down DSL.
Actually the referendum was a safe bill which would've replaced the Governor-General (who is appointed by the Prime Minister) with a President who would be appointed by a two-thirds majority of parliament (so the President couldn't be a political figure like he is in the US).
The Monarchists had to be against it because if passed, the Queen would no longer be our head of state. There was a good old FUD campain by the Monarchists and Direct Electionists to confuse the uneducated -- statistics show that the educated and high income electorates mostly voted 'yes', while the poorer areas with less educated people voted against the proposal. Personally I reckon that says something for the 'no' cases PR campaign, but not much else.
The Gulf War was supposedly the first "cyber" war, I've got a book called "The First Information War", which is basically a really boring collection of military reports about the way Iraq was basically "blindfolded" by the Allies during the war, with many of the methods you've described.
I would think that the book is definetly incorrectly titled though, as the Second World War was certainly an information war, and intelligence agencies carried out activities akin to the cr/hacking discussed here. For example, at Station M in Canada, documents were faked with impecible accuracy (right down to the straw used to make the paper and the typewriters used to type them), and used for various acts of war. There isn't much difference between the Ultra intercepts obtained by breaking the Enigma code, and modern forms of "cyber warfare".
It is believed that letters faked by the Nazis and "leaked" to Stalin resulted in him having almost half of his officers executed before World War II. This is hardly different to hacking into a computer and changing records to have soldiers arrested/fired/whatever, it's just a matter of whether it can be done without being detected.
Remember a couple of years ago when the Australian foreign affairs minister Alexander Downer totally pissed off Greenspan by telling the US press that the Fed was about to cut interest rates?
So it could just be an Australian problem about keeping secrecy. However, as an Australian, I'd prefer to think that this Echelon information was leaked on purpose (possibly on advice of the NSA, in line with some other posts), or maybe because we're sick of other countries stealing our ideas when it comes to new commercial opportunities (which IMHO is actually due to a lack of venture capital, and not theft of secrets).
If this system doesn't exist it's a bit of a waste of time to try and jam it. But what if it does exist? Do you really want to piss off the NSA, DSD, GCCS or whoever's running this thing?
Think about what happens if you send a message with enough keywords. Your email addy and the one you're sending too would conceivable go down on a "watch list", and from then on your mail (and probably phones) would be monitored just a bit more closely.
Those of us who live in "echelon base" countries (i.e USA, Oz, Canada, NZ and UK) could be obstructing our defense interests. I'm Australian, and there is no way I can picture Echelon being used to suppress any (domestic) subversive activities. However, whether our govts are using Echelon info to keep puppet governments in other places (eg Mexico) in power is another question.
I think some of you are getting too excited about being able to "fight da Man", and not actually thinking about how Echelon could be working _for_ you, now against you.
"parents of severely disabled infants should be allowed to kill them painlessly in order to save them from a life of suffering"
I think it would be extremely difficult to say whether or not a severly disabled child is going to have a "life of suffering". A friend of mine who did his community service at a special school once commented to me that for those kids every day was a massive party - they were rarely upset. Admitedly it would be expensive to send children to such a school, so I don't know that it would be the same for low income families to have such a child.
One practical issue with such children is whether or not the child is expected to outlive the parents. If so, what happens to them once the parents die, especially if the children are no longer minors?
Back to my subject, though, when you're born with a disability it's probably much easier to get used to, and when you don't have to worry about the difficulties of "normal life" things might be more fun. Basically it comes down to money - if the parents are rich enough to keep the child in comfort and don't have to worry about what he's costing them (and the state), then killing the child most likely won't be an issue, and the child most likely wont live a life of suffering. On the other hand, if the family is poor and the child will be a financial and emotional burden its life may well be one of suffering, and so the arguement for killing it is strong.
Gough Whitlam is still very much alive. Harold Holt is the PM who disappeared while swimming. (Ironically he was such an avid/strong swimmer that a swimming centre in Melbourne is named after hime). Apparently Pine Gap was cruicial in processing the satellite data required to take out SCUDs in the Gulf War.