But how come I don't get to escape to a pause or break when I press them?
Re:Angels (redundant if you read the article)
on
Swedish Lemon Angels
·
· Score: 2
It's a practical joke. It's called "swedish" just to make it sound foreign and intresting. A swede would probably have called it "Amerikanska citronänglar" One tends to overlook bizarre things in a recipie and simply figure it's a foreign thing.
Baking soda and the acid from the lemon juice will cause a messy reaction in your kitchen.
Nothing to do with the swedish chef either (bort-bort-bort)
Bakpulver inlindat i lite hushållspapper (så reaktionen dröjer lite) och ättikssprit i en väl tillsluten c-vitamintub. Se där en kul liten fälla att lämna någonstans...
In the book "How to Play With Your Food," Penn
and Teller included a fake recipe for "Swedish
Lemon Angels," with ingredients such as five
teaspoons of baking soda and a cup of fresh
lemon juice, designed to erupt all over the
kitchen. They spent considerable time
explaining how you should leave their book open
to the one fake page, or photocopy it and sneak
it into friends' kitchens. It's much easier to put it
up on cookinclub.com and wait for search
engines to index it.
Oh c'mon troll
The choise is not between expensive patented or cheap open-source medication. The choise is between patented medication that is expensive until the patent runs out and no medication at all.
Drug development cost billions and someone has to pay. Sorry, but thats the truth. Either we pay by tax money or grandma pays for herself.
If you can show me one example to the contrary, please do. If not, shut up.
(this has certainly ben posted in other words elsewhere in this thread, but bear with me OK?)
If someone comes up with an innovative new idea, they should be rewarded for it, above and beyond what the free-market would give
them.
Some people won't even attempt to inovate unless they can be guranteed that no one will copy them, because if people copy them they
won't be able to get enough back for their investment of effort into the invetion.
What about "real" patents? The normal case is not the abusive "Hey I just got an idea, let's patent it" but "Hey, I have this problem that I've been working on for years, spending millions of dollars testing it. Now I finally have a solution and I think I'm entitled to earn those dollars back"
Pharmaceuticals is the obvious example. You don't patent "A pill that cures disease X" but a well documented formula that can be used against the disease.
Translated into the digital world, you can patent a compression algorithm, but not (in a perfect world) "the process of compacting sound files using a compression algorithm".
Stop thinking of inventions as a momentary stroke of genius, and start appriciating the 99% of hard work. (1% inspiration and 99% transpiration, remember)
Dunno,...
Content is not the one important thing about a book. Ease of use is almost as important.
A have a nice high quality monitor in front of me. Nevertheless I sometimes make a printout of some document or other text that I want to read and study more closely.
If all devices that transmited text were equally good, why don't we still use those phosphorous green on black monitors? After all it is the same content!
I agree that electronic devices eventually will win over paper. First for manuals and other text where search functions make up for a worse reading experience (sorry for the marketoid language) After that we will se short stories and news och those things and, eventually, even novels.
...a minor can be sentenced to death in the US. Actually you are one of the two countries in the world who has not signed the UN declaration of childrens right (the other is Somalia...)
I recently had to analyse some companys web statistics as well. Some nightmare! They had changed the structure on their web, changed hosting company and lost some logs. Not to mention how noone even was sure when those changes had taken place...
Fortunately, I was only intrested in changes over time, so I concentrated on inventing a measurement that gave a fair comparison.
My work was done the old fashion way... Look at some server log filter out the obvious (gifs, anything with a sessionID in it, internal or developer hits etc) throw spss (statistical analysis tool) at it and start scratching your head...
I started my presentation by telling everyone to please ignore the absolute figures and focus on trends and variations.
What really bothered me was the thought of how good an site analysis tool I could have hacked together in those hours I spent decrypting archived data. The intresting part was to see how some people really care about being anonymous on the web. Makes an slashdot addict glad to see stuff like referer="none of your business" and cookie: Note="like most people I prefer my browsing habits to be anonymous"
My bank has an extra little box which provides one-time login codes.
That way, if someone should install a trojan in my PC and pick up the pin code, that code would be useless next time. Furthermore, before I send any money off my accounts I have to verify with another one-time code from my box. (so even if a trojan would somehow add a transaction during my banking session it would not be sent to the bank unless I verified it)
The system is not perfect, of course. Someone might reverse engineer the code box to get the algortihm *AND* somehow get the key for my box without breaking it. I guess it is possible, but it would be easier to just rob me.
Another way would be to rely on me being clueless enough to leave bo box somewhere together with a note containing the PIN for the box. In that case I'd deserve to get robbed...
Bottom line. Never trust anything user configurable. It must be secure from the box *AND* foolproof (as in "don't let any fool tamper with it")
When an individual has an economic interest in me and my personal information, that individual's access to my personal information should be regulated.
No
The individuals (or corporations) *use* of that data should be regulated.
Furthermore, the spreading of information that is potentially harmful to me as an individual should be regulated.
I don't mind if Visa has extensive info about my buying habits as long as they keep it to themselves I wouldn't mind if my mail adress was common knowledge if I didn't get spammed as a consequence
Some people seem to think that the proverbial cat will go back into the bag simply because it is my cat. Exactly the same reasoning the media giants use. Fredom of information can be turned against you just as easily as it can be turned against Universal.
But if I choose to become a hermit and not allow anyone to contact me, I have that right.
Sure, fine by me. The issue is really what the default should be. If I walk up to your door and see no sign saying either "hermit residence keep out" or "Come in, come in whoever you are" What should I expect?
The consensus of our society is that unless anything else is specified, I may walk straight to your door and ring the doorbell. If you do not answer it may or may not be considered OK to have a look on the back of your house, depending on where you live. If you tell me to go away I shoud do that, if you are not at home I should leave, perhaps dropping a note.
If you have a mailbox I assume it is OK to put mail in it. If you print your e-mail adress I assume it is OK to use it.
If you want to be a hermit, *you* are responsible for letting everyone know that you don't want any contact. Not because you "don't have the right to privacy" but because most people are not hermits and everyone assumes that if you don't state any preferences you want to be treated like everyone else.
Your name and adress might be considered your private property. The *information* about your name and adress can not. "Information wants to be free" is used to death, but in this case it is true. You can not keep the information of your existence to yourself (not really). You are, however, entitled to the amount of privacy of your choice *despite* the fact that your existence is public knowledge. (to the extent of the law)
I want to allow every natural individual to decide where they, as individuals, want to draw the line when it comes to
public access to their private property.
So do I. As I said, the question is what I should consider default.
So you have to respond to what he actually said, rather than just pigeonholing his arguments and firing off a boilerplate
Slashbot auto-reply. How terrible for you. How terrible for you all.
Since my post could be considered to be against absolute privacy, it hardly qualifies as a slashbot response, does it?
Anyway, that one can't tell your trolling from sincere posts is IMHO a good thing...
Ah this streetlawyer. One is seldom sure wether he is trolling or not...
However, I've seen too many posts like this not to reply.
So your personal information is your property? Like your adress, meat or online? Like your name? Like your hair color? Exactly how do you propose we enforce this? In your ideal world there would be no communication, since I cannot contact you without seeking your permission. And I can't get that permission since I can't contact you. There we sit shivering in two separate caves unaware that there is that thing called "fire" that we could use for warmth. We never heard of it, since the guy who discovered it wanted to respect our privacy.
In this world you must give up some of that sacred privacy, or be left alone. Oh yes I forgot, you want to be left alone! Because if people knew where you were, some evil corporation might abuse that knowledge!
For every piece of information, as well as for every piece of physical good, there is use and abuse. You restrict access to that information and expect only the abuse to be affected. (if you could, it would mean that the RIAA et al are right)
Of course the line must be drawn somewhere. I don't want my medical data available. In those cases the damage of abuse outweighs the gain of fair use. The rule is that everything that is not said in strict confidence must be considered public knowledge.
Bless the fair use, deal with the abuse, get a life!
File 1 has no watermark.
File 2 is the same audio as file 1 with a watermark applied. File 3 is a different song with a watermark applied. Your
"challenge" is to remove the watermark from file 3.
Now, I'm not much into cracking and cryptos, but wouldn't the first thing to do for a real cracker to get the *same* song with two *different* watermarks?
XOR:ing those two should give some intresting info
SLASHDOT ZEALOTRY
"It is my godgiven right to do unto others what I would never let them do to me (cuz they're evil corporate droids and I'm a 1337 h4XX0r)"
-- http://64.28.67.48
Thanks for the summary though. I was going to post something similar, but I wouldn't have found so many examples.
... or using a CYA strategy, passing leaflets with a wording like:
"How to access the site www.somesite.org at the library" (where somesite.org is wrongfully blocked of course
Now, on the bottom of the page, you put some sentence like "Warning. By following these instructions, you have bypassed the filters. I take no responsibility if you would accidentaly access www.playboy.com as a result of this"
So, all you did was to tell the public how to acess your completely innocent site.
You know what, in a sense your boss was right.
Nobody succeded in their attempts to break in, so any money spent on more security would have been wasted.
Rather than being stupid one could argue that your boss took a gamble (the current state of security will suffice) and won.
(OTOH buying a firewall without spending enough time to get it to work properly... THAT is stupid. He just wasted the money spent on equipment without getting any better security in return)
The article was right. The goal of most businesses is not to have maximum security, but to spend *just enough* time and money on it.
But I'm not talking/. readers. I'm talking about the vast majority of web users. Their opinion on what "sucks" differ from yours and mine. The sad truth is that those flashy Javascript ridden websites *work*. When I try to explain to people that they shouldn't have Javascript turned on I get a questioned look and eventually remarks like. "Well, but I have never had any problems, and my favourite site won't work without it. (Damnit our corporate homepage demands Javascript. Quite embarassing, but not my desicion)
In a nutshell: Geeks no longer have final say on the web.
This certainly is similar to the deCSS case, apart from the fact that murder is quite different from copyright infringement. (well as long as ask someone who does not work for the MPAA)
My gut feeling tells me that this desicion was correct, while the deCSS desicion was wrong. Why?
I guess the difference lies in the fact that this list was a threat to those doctors freedom (not ot mention life), while deCSS if merely redistributing some cash.
So, the only thing more important than one persons freedom is other peoples freedom.
Opera
Really nice browser, but the competitors are free(beer).
Gecko
Too low on features. Do you know how many sites require Javascript today? I know Javascript sucks and that you should never build a site that depends on it, but nevertheless, without it you are effectively shut out from a large percentage of sites.
icab
Mac only. Plus the same problems as Gecko.
Show me a browser that is stable, supports the most frequent add-ons to html (like Javascript), is free(beer and preferably speech) AND FINISHED and I'll jump for joy.
Slashdot Mirror
But how come I don't get to escape to a pause or break when I press them?
Baking soda and the acid from the lemon juice will cause a messy reaction in your kitchen.
Nothing to do with the swedish chef either (bort-bort-bort)
Bakpulver inlindat i lite hushållspapper (så reaktionen dröjer lite) och ättikssprit i en väl tillsluten c-vitamintub. Se där en kul liten fälla att lämna någonstans...
The choise is not between expensive patented or cheap open-source medication. The choise is between patented medication that is expensive until the patent runs out and no medication at all.
Drug development cost billions and someone has to pay. Sorry, but thats the truth. Either we pay by tax money or grandma pays for herself.
If you can show me one example to the contrary, please do. If not, shut up.
What about "real" patents? The normal case is not the abusive "Hey I just got an idea, let's patent it" but "Hey, I have this problem that I've been working on for years, spending millions of dollars testing it. Now I finally have a solution and I think I'm entitled to earn those dollars back"
Pharmaceuticals is the obvious example. You don't patent "A pill that cures disease X" but a well documented formula that can be used against the disease.
Translated into the digital world, you can patent a compression algorithm, but not (in a perfect world) "the process of compacting sound files using a compression algorithm".
Stop thinking of inventions as a momentary stroke of genius, and start appriciating the 99% of hard work. (1% inspiration and 99% transpiration, remember)
... must be that filtering would certainly block George W Bush...
Content is not the one important thing about a book. Ease of use is almost as important.
A have a nice high quality monitor in front of me. Nevertheless I sometimes make a printout of some document or other text that I want to read and study more closely.
If all devices that transmited text were equally good, why don't we still use those phosphorous green on black monitors? After all it is the same content!
I agree that electronic devices eventually will win over paper. First for manuals and other text where search functions make up for a worse reading experience (sorry for the marketoid language) After that we will se short stories and news och those things and, eventually, even novels.
*sigh* I do NOT miss my teenage days...
Fortunately, I was only intrested in changes over time, so I concentrated on inventing a measurement that gave a fair comparison.
My work was done the old fashion way... Look at some server log filter out the obvious (gifs, anything with a sessionID in it, internal or developer hits etc) throw spss (statistical analysis tool) at it and start scratching your head...
I started my presentation by telling everyone to please ignore the absolute figures and focus on trends and variations.
What really bothered me was the thought of how good an site analysis tool I could have hacked together in those hours I spent decrypting archived data. The intresting part was to see how some people really care about being anonymous on the web. Makes an slashdot addict glad to see stuff like referer="none of your business" and cookie: Note="like most people I prefer my browsing habits to be anonymous"
That way, if someone should install a trojan in my PC and pick up the pin code, that code would be useless next time. Furthermore, before I send any money off my accounts I have to verify with another one-time code from my box. (so even if a trojan would somehow add a transaction during my banking session it would not be sent to the bank unless I verified it)
The system is not perfect, of course. Someone might reverse engineer the code box to get the algortihm *AND* somehow get the key for my box without breaking it. I guess it is possible, but it would be easier to just rob me.
Another way would be to rely on me being clueless enough to leave bo box somewhere together with a note containing the PIN for the box. In that case I'd deserve to get robbed...
Bottom line. Never trust anything user configurable. It must be secure from the box *AND* foolproof (as in "don't let any fool tamper with it")
No
The individuals (or corporations) *use* of that data should be regulated.
Furthermore, the spreading of information that is potentially harmful to me as an individual should be regulated.
I don't mind if Visa has extensive info about my buying habits as long as they keep it to themselves I wouldn't mind if my mail adress was common knowledge if I didn't get spammed as a consequence
Some people seem to think that the proverbial cat will go back into the bag simply because it is my cat. Exactly the same reasoning the media giants use. Fredom of information can be turned against you just as easily as it can be turned against Universal.
Sure, fine by me. The issue is really what the default should be. If I walk up to your door and see no sign saying either "hermit residence keep out" or "Come in, come in whoever you are" What should I expect?
The consensus of our society is that unless anything else is specified, I may walk straight to your door and ring the doorbell. If you do not answer it may or may not be considered OK to have a look on the back of your house, depending on where you live. If you tell me to go away I shoud do that, if you are not at home I should leave, perhaps dropping a note.
If you have a mailbox I assume it is OK to put mail in it. If you print your e-mail adress I assume it is OK to use it.
If you want to be a hermit, *you* are responsible for letting everyone know that you don't want any contact. Not because you "don't have the right to privacy" but because most people are not hermits and everyone assumes that if you don't state any preferences you want to be treated like everyone else.
Your name and adress might be considered your private property. The *information* about your name and adress can not. "Information wants to be free" is used to death, but in this case it is true. You can not keep the information of your existence to yourself (not really). You are, however, entitled to the amount of privacy of your choice *despite* the fact that your existence is public knowledge. (to the extent of the law)
I want to allow every natural individual to decide where they, as individuals, want to draw the line when it comes to public access to their private property.
So do I. As I said, the question is what I should consider default.
So you have to respond to what he actually said, rather than just pigeonholing his arguments and firing off a boilerplate Slashbot auto-reply. How terrible for you. How terrible for you all.
Since my post could be considered to be against absolute privacy, it hardly qualifies as a slashbot response, does it?
Anyway, that one can't tell your trolling from sincere posts is IMHO a good thing...
However, I've seen too many posts like this not to reply.
So your personal information is your property? Like your adress, meat or online? Like your name? Like your hair color? Exactly how do you propose we enforce this? In your ideal world there would be no communication, since I cannot contact you without seeking your permission. And I can't get that permission since I can't contact you. There we sit shivering in two separate caves unaware that there is that thing called "fire" that we could use for warmth. We never heard of it, since the guy who discovered it wanted to respect our privacy.
In this world you must give up some of that sacred privacy, or be left alone. Oh yes I forgot, you want to be left alone! Because if people knew where you were, some evil corporation might abuse that knowledge!
For every piece of information, as well as for every piece of physical good, there is use and abuse. You restrict access to that information and expect only the abuse to be affected. (if you could, it would mean that the RIAA et al are right)
Of course the line must be drawn somewhere. I don't want my medical data available. In those cases the damage of abuse outweighs the gain of fair use. The rule is that everything that is not said in strict confidence must be considered public knowledge.
Bless the fair use, deal with the abuse, get a life!
Now, I'm not much into cracking and cryptos, but wouldn't the first thing to do for a real cracker to get the *same* song with two *different* watermarks?
XOR:ing those two should give some intresting info
SLASHDOT ZEALOTRY
"It is my godgiven right to do unto others what I would never let them do to me (cuz they're evil corporate droids and I'm a 1337 h4XX0r)"
-- http://64.28.67.48
Thanks for the summary though. I was going to post something similar, but I wouldn't have found so many examples.
Sort of the definition of hacker, N'est ce pas?
"How to access the site www.somesite.org at the library" (where somesite.org is wrongfully blocked of course
Now, on the bottom of the page, you put some sentence like "Warning. By following these instructions, you have bypassed the filters. I take no responsibility if you would accidentaly access www.playboy.com as a result of this"
So, all you did was to tell the public how to acess your completely innocent site.
Nobody succeded in their attempts to break in, so any money spent on more security would have been wasted.
Rather than being stupid one could argue that your boss took a gamble (the current state of security will suffice) and won.
(OTOH buying a firewall without spending enough time to get it to work properly... THAT is stupid. He just wasted the money spent on equipment without getting any better security in return)
The article was right. The goal of most businesses is not to have maximum security, but to spend *just enough* time and money on it.
Amen.
Now where are those mod points...
Sorry, man Not my site.
/guran
But I'm not talking /. readers. I'm talking about the vast majority of web users. Their opinion on what "sucks" differ from yours and mine. The sad truth is that those flashy Javascript ridden websites *work*. When I try to explain to people that they shouldn't have Javascript turned on I get a questioned look and eventually remarks like. "Well, but I have never had any problems, and my favourite site won't work without it. (Damnit our corporate homepage demands Javascript. Quite embarassing, but not my desicion)
In a nutshell: Geeks no longer have final say on the web.
My gut feeling tells me that this desicion was correct, while the deCSS desicion was wrong. Why?
I guess the difference lies in the fact that this list was a threat to those doctors freedom (not ot mention life), while deCSS if merely redistributing some cash.
So, the only thing more important than one persons freedom is other peoples freedom.
But, as I said, this isn't easy
Really nice browser, but the competitors are free(beer).
Gecko
Too low on features. Do you know how many sites require Javascript today? I know Javascript sucks and that you should never build a site that depends on it, but nevertheless, without it you are effectively shut out from a large percentage of sites.
icab
Mac only. Plus the same problems as Gecko.
Show me a browser that is stable, supports the most frequent add-ons to html (like Javascript), is free(beer and preferably speech) AND FINISHED and I'll jump for joy.