This brings up a question that is more scientific than moral/ethical, regardless of how it sounds: How much can we self-engineer ourselves before becoming an unstable system?
JavaScript is a relatively harmless language. While it could do something dramatic redirect the user to a porn site or display something obnoxious on the screen, I doubt that it would do anything like delete user's harddrives or give h@x0rs access to user's computers.
This isn't a serious security breech, just an annoying oversight by Lycos programmers which will probably be patched up in the next fifteen seconds.
Hollywood's top lobbyist, Motion Picture Assn. of America president Jack Valenti, has said digital TV produces such a perfect picture that even amateurs could successfully pirate the content.
No joke. AOL/Time/Warner/Megacorp/Whatever can bet that anything they put on the air will be on the internet within half an hour.
Broadcasters say they will be crippled if over-the-air programming isn't protected. A content provider will turn exclusively to cablers, leaving broadcasters out of the mix.
Help! Protect us! We're been left behind because of our outdated technology and poor content!
In the early 1980s, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that consumers have the right to record TV programs for home viewing. Consumer advocates say that decision means over-the-air broadcasts can't be copy-protected -- period.
That's baloney. All you need to record something is a visual output signal. Regardless of what crap they incorporate into it, there will always, *always* be a hack just one step ahead.
The FTC looks at at for Express Claims and Implied Claims. In the case of search engines there is a clear implied claim that results are relevant to your search. Search engines are entirely free to mix in paid results - this is not in contention. However, when they do so it is a clear endorsement and they are required by law to disclose any material connection.
So are you saying that it's all right for a company to lie to you as long as it helps them to make money?
Are they actually lying, or just not meeting ill-informed assumptions?
When I took Business Administration in college, one point that got hammered home in first year was that the function of business was to serve the market segment's needs and/or wants.
When you type in a query and get back a list of sites that probably have what you're looking for, your "needs and/or wants" have been met. If they are not, start your own company which gives away brilliant search results for free.
The complaint is not that search engines are accepting money to have certain links pop up towards the top of a search, it's that they're doing it without LABELING it as such - essentially, they're trying to masquerade the paid links as normal, objective search data, to make it seem like the paid links are somehow more "relevant" to a search.
Why should they? Search Engines are dot coms. They are companies. Their one and only purpose in existing is to make money, not to help you find "+hot +xxx +monkeys" with the utmost efficiency. They do a pretty good job, even if they do tweak the output a bit.
What nobody seems to understand is that nobody has an intrinsic "right" to receive pure search results. If you want them, write your own search engine.
"Machines are going to take over our lives." Isn't that what they said after the invention of the loom, the windmill, the clock, the printing press, and just about everything else?
And yet, humans are still on top. We have not yet reached the point where the creation is greater than the creator, and it's unlikely that we ever will -- As machines take over certain mundane aspects of human life, we move on and put our time into other things.
Microsoft measures its power in machines sold; Their contracts ensure that more machines will be sold with MS software than with Linux or other free/open software.
Linux measures its power in the number of machines with Microsoft OSes which are reformatted and installed with Linux instead.:-)
Ben Franklin, I believe, was the first one to institute libraries in which patrons could actually remove books, take them home, read them at their leisure, and then return them.
This was at a time when the United States was in a struggle for its own survival as a colony in the harsh American wilderness. Freedom of information, Franklin understood, was the only way that people would quickly learn the things they needed to know.
The same principles apply today, though with some modification. Now there is so much free information that the embarassing pay-for-knowledge era of our history is nearly finished. The internet brought back what Ben Franklin started.
What does this have to do with libraries?
Well, as the vast number of books published each year eventually forces libraries to go all- or mostly-digital, some of that content is going to find its way online in one form or another. It will leak out, or users will leak in.
It's coming. Publishers will try to fight it, of course, but they have no chance. They're just trying to keep their jobs for as long as they can.
"To my mind this matter is now ripe for speedy resolution," New Mexico Attorney General Patricia Madrid said in a statement. "I am no longer persuaded a breakup remains appropriate or will ultimately be ordered by the courts. It is obvious Microsoft will continue to resist attempts to require this remedy. It is time to settle this case and move forward."
I think that is a great summary of where this case is going, not just on a state level but also on a national level.
The courts will not order a break-up, and Microsoft knows it. They've cleaned up their image enough to get away with what they've done in the past. If anyone wants to get in a slap on the wrist before it's too late, this would be the time to give it to them.
Slashdot Mirror
Those are the worst kind of strangers!
K&R, and anything O'Reilly
This brings up a question that is more scientific than moral/ethical, regardless of how it sounds: How much can we self-engineer ourselves before becoming an unstable system?
This article was just posted, but then disappeared from the home page. Interesting.
This isn't a serious security breech, just an annoying oversight by Lycos programmers which will probably be patched up in the next fifteen seconds.
If Floridans can't figure out paper ballots, how are they supposed to figure out how to vote with GNU/Linux??
...coming right after CmdrTaco's rant of the month?
No joke. AOL/Time/Warner/Megacorp/Whatever can bet that anything they put on the air will be on the internet within half an hour.
Broadcasters say they will be crippled if over-the-air programming isn't protected. A content provider will turn exclusively to cablers, leaving broadcasters out of the mix.
Help! Protect us! We're been left behind because of our outdated technology and poor content!
In the early 1980s, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that consumers have the right to record TV programs for home viewing. Consumer advocates say that decision means over-the-air broadcasts can't be copy-protected -- period.
Amen, Amen, and Amen.
That's baloney. All you need to record something is a visual output signal. Regardless of what crap they incorporate into it, there will always, *always* be a hack just one step ahead.
Machines do not have free will.
Don't confuse me with the facts!
Are they actually lying, or just not meeting ill-informed assumptions? When I took Business Administration in college, one point that got hammered home in first year was that the function of business was to serve the market segment's needs and/or wants.
When you type in a query and get back a list of sites that probably have what you're looking for, your "needs and/or wants" have been met. If they are not, start your own company which gives away brilliant search results for free.
Why should they? Search Engines are dot coms. They are companies. Their one and only purpose in existing is to make money, not to help you find "+hot +xxx +monkeys" with the utmost efficiency. They do a pretty good job, even if they do tweak the output a bit.
What nobody seems to understand is that nobody has an intrinsic "right" to receive pure search results. If you want them, write your own search engine.
And yet, humans are still on top. We have not yet reached the point where the creation is greater than the creator, and it's unlikely that we ever will -- As machines take over certain mundane aspects of human life, we move on and put our time into other things.
It's a cute design. Maybe it'll inspire some two-bit amateur sci-fi writer somewhere. Will it ever be built on the moon? Not this century, it won't.
Yeesh.
Linux measures its power in the number of machines with Microsoft OSes which are reformatted and installed with Linux instead. :-)
This was at a time when the United States was in a struggle for its own survival as a colony in the harsh American wilderness. Freedom of information, Franklin understood, was the only way that people would quickly learn the things they needed to know.
The same principles apply today, though with some modification. Now there is so much free information that the embarassing pay-for-knowledge era of our history is nearly finished. The internet brought back what Ben Franklin started.
What does this have to do with libraries?
Well, as the vast number of books published each year eventually forces libraries to go all- or mostly-digital, some of that content is going to find its way online in one form or another. It will leak out, or users will leak in.
It's coming. Publishers will try to fight it, of course, but they have no chance. They're just trying to keep their jobs for as long as they can.
I think that is a great summary of where this case is going, not just on a state level but also on a national level.
The courts will not order a break-up, and Microsoft knows it. They've cleaned up their image enough to get away with what they've done in the past. If anyone wants to get in a slap on the wrist before it's too late, this would be the time to give it to them.
I agree! It actually was pretty funny. Mod it up!
Yawn. I've got *plenty* of Karma to burn.
"Uh...yeah...turns out there are plenty more of them. If you want to see the data, though, you need to pay us royalties!"
Okay, mod me up as "insightful."
Have you ever been to Slashdot? You should try it sometime.
Lee Harvey Oswald: What if I aim for his foot?
Bill Clinton: What if I just put my hand on her knee?
O.J. Simpson: What if I just scratch her up a bit?
Clyde Barrow: We're Bonnie and Clyde, and you're gonna give us one penny on the dollar or we'll shoot!
(Let's face it -- 99% compliance with the law is still non-compliance)