My bad, it's a biennial conference, so...I guess that'd be last 12 years or so. The wiki, if you've not gone there already is over at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.O.P.E..
Your geek-card may be reissued as 'provisional,' but no, you're not bad;) HOPE, as noted is the 'Hackers on Planet Earth, held I think in New York by the 2600 crew at, from reading 2600 quarterly, the HOtel PEnnsylvania in New York. The reason it's the last HOPE is because the Hotel they've used for the past 6 years (HOPEs 1-6) is about to be either redeveloped or demolished. I'm not sure which.
This might be the last HOPE, but there's no certainty it'll be the last 2600 get-together/conference. Here's hoping anyway.
Can you blame them? With this they get press releases and can claim that they are doing SOMETHING, whatever that something might be against child porn the next time the US AG gets a bug up his ass about child porn online.
Blame them? Yes. I can understand why they're doing it, but I don't like the direction it takes the ISPs; censorship is always bad. I don't wish to state the obvious but, hey why not?, I'm an adult. I can vote, I can certainly decide whether or not I find something offensive.
And, if that 'something' is material of a criminal nature, I can report it to the relevant authorities and they can deal with it properly. Not by sticking their fingers in their ears, or up their ass, whichever term you prefer, and ignoring it; hoping that if no one can find the difficult-to-prosecute crime they won't have to spend their time finding the criminals. Hiding it ain't solving it. And I really want child porn, however prevalent it may, or may not, be, ended. But even with that mindset I think censorship is wrong, especially so with no way to review the list of content to be blocked.
bad news about Google will be: *insert fingers in ears* NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA! I can't hear you! NA NA NA NA NA NA!
When has that ever been true? From what I can tell from reading the comments to most Google stories, certainly in the past six months, the groupthink seems to be more along the lines of cynicism and criticism. I can't recall any company that gets unanimous praise regardless of its actions. The opposite used to be true, that scorn was heaped onto some companies regardless of their actions (Microsoft is probably the most obvious target of that group-disgust), but even that seems to be waning, there's still the hard-bitten MS-haters, but the view seems to be more balanced and critical these days.
Even the Mac fanboys aren't quite so unfettered any more.
I can only apologise for my apparent n00b-ness, I wasn't intending to offend anyone while referring to the Matt Le Blanc vehicle, my intent was simply to attach the comedy value (such as there was any) of the phrase 'danger...' to the crappy remake, rather than attach any satire to the original. That and I couldn't remember the cast names. I'm not quite that old...
You all talk here and you leave out streets and the congressmen.
I bet a month's salary (to be donated to ACLU) that the bill WILL pass.
Because none of you guys protested like your dads and moms did during Vietnam War.
Sitting on your collective asses will not achieve anything.
God save you guys from your president.
God save us from their president. If the government of any country is willing to oppress its own citizens in what regard do you think hold the rest of us? I don't know where you're from but over in Britain we've got our own human-rights-defying issues to worry about, the Swiss have theirs. Does your country have nothing to worry about from its government? If so could you tell me your nationality so I can seek citizenship?
In this day and age, why is the use of this type of privacy technologies still so limited? Why isn't there a larger movement promoting the use of privacy tools?
Only terrorists have anything to fear from this! Are you a terrorist?
Yeah, it's turning into an old joke now, but, sadly (and in the words of Homer J.) it's funny 'cause it's true. Sort of (the perception, not the reality).
As for the "why are privacy technologies so limited?" question I think that probably, though not certainly, has something to do with Phil Zimmerman's experiences; I'm not sure, but I suspect that the prospect of criminal investigation puts many people off researching privacy technologies.
Seconded. The only restart involved for me was closing down 2.0.0.14 (from memory, so the version could be wrong) and then restarting with 3.0. This on WinXP SP2.
"At the request of theatrical film makers, the Federal Communications Commission on Friday quietly launched a proceeding on whether to let video program distributors remotely block consumers from recording recently released movies on their DVRs.
Why? Why would they even bother? The very people this is going to piss off is the legitimate customers, the people downloading (AKA 'Pirates') are going to get around this in about twenty minutes. And even then, they'll get around it by getting the movie at more or less the release date to the cinemas (I can't imagine a pirate waiting til it's released to TV).
Using animate metaphors for inanimate objects is the Pathetic Fallacy.
Does it offend you that much? Really? I'm not sure of the exact terms, but if the metaphor helps commmunication, without confusing people, then what's the harm?
I've *never* heard of a programming job where the boss requires you to use a specific code editor.
Me neither, but I was responding to an excerpt from the summary, not quoting something I've heard of, or experienced. I suppose I was criticising a programmer that refuses to use a mandated tool, whatever that tool is. In some cases I can imagine that being a problem, particularly if the mandated tool is sub-par in some way. But mostly it comes over as being a tad histrionic.
So to summarise, paying staff to work on a base product is "welfare" and harms the overall economy, but paying them to work on something "advanced" does not.
Not at all. Economy's not based on what we'd like it to be, not based on anything moral or worthy, but simply upon what is. And if there's competition in a market for a code editor (or anything else at all) which is being distributed for no cost then the commercial entities have to compete against that product. Saying, as Mike Masnick, from Techdirt, asserts "that you can't compete against free" means that "you can't compete, period."
Product A achieves the same ends as Product B. Product A is free, Product B requires a payment. If there is no distinction between the two products except price, then many people will go for Product A, and will forgive a few quirks or bugs. I tend to assume then that Product B has to compete with this product to maintain, or gain, market share. This is why I tend to believe that there should be a basic free version. The paid-for version should have added value; whether it's advanced features and/or support is largely irrelevant; the point is that to justify the cost of the product there has to be more than just the basics, which can be acquired legally for free in the form of the FOSS.
Plus in the context of software, once it's been developed then there's no further cost (if distributed digitally) to producing another million copies (okay, there's the cost of servers and bandwidth) beyond the initial copy (and the bug-fixes, which I'd tend to assume are more or less negligible next to the original development cost). If a commercial entity wants to continue earning money for releasing a product it has to compete with the prevalent market conditions. If free software is your competitor then you have to compete with free.
My comment about 'welfare' was perhaps a little harsh or glib, though it was intended to contribute towards the point that continuing in the vein of the old market tradition (build it, sell it, profit, rinse and repeat) doesn't work so well when the sell it stage is removed. And expecting to continue to sell a product, when alternatives are available for free, is counter-intuitive at best.
"Some developers would rather quit their job than be forced to use a new editor or IDE."
And some prima-donna developers will presumably find themselves without a job after a couple of resignations based on the code-editor they were required to use.
I'm glad to see that (F)OSS is making an impact, even if it means that a company has to give away their software. I know that this might put a lot of jobs at risk, which is bad, but maintaining a false-economy-based business model as a welfare system is, I tend to assume, more harmful to the overall economy. Plus there's always the option to release advanced tools under a paid-for license, as well as the paid-for support contract.
I have a feeling that, with the censorship being taken mostly at the ISP level in order to avoid governmental scrutiny/sanctions, that it occurs at the ISP's servers. So rather than any one piece of hardware doing all the work there's hundreds (I presume, I have no idea how many ISPs operate inside of China, though I'd expect there to be quite a few).
"Once again, supposedly sensitive information blacked out from a government report turns out to be visible by computer experts armed with the Ctrl+C keys
What confuses me is that, and I might be too generous in my assumption, I assume that there's an IT professional somewhere that looks over these released files prior to their release? I know that common sense is entirely too uncommon these days, but if I were to release a digital file (whether to an individual or the public) I'd make sure that someone from the IT department looked it over before release.
Otherwise it's like having a flu vaccine released by managers that went nowhere near an immunologist or virologist.
Still, I'm sure that, sometime soon, MS will remove the Ctrl+C combination. For national security, of course.
When it comes to security, the best answer usually becomes the most unpopular and hard to swallow.
Hard to swallow? Then you don't want to know where I hide the thumb drive with my SSH keys.
Slashdot Mirror
My bad, it's a biennial conference, so...I guess that'd be last 12 years or so. The wiki, if you've not gone there already is over at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.O.P.E..
Your geek-card may be reissued as 'provisional,' but no, you're not bad ;) HOPE, as noted is the 'Hackers on Planet Earth, held I think in New York by the 2600 crew at, from reading 2600 quarterly, the HOtel PEnnsylvania in New York. The reason it's the last HOPE is because the Hotel they've used for the past 6 years (HOPEs 1-6) is about to be either redeveloped or demolished. I'm not sure which.
This might be the last HOPE, but there's no certainty it'll be the last 2600 get-together/conference. Here's hoping anyway.
Blame them? Yes. I can understand why they're doing it, but I don't like the direction it takes the ISPs; censorship is always bad. I don't wish to state the obvious but, hey why not?, I'm an adult. I can vote, I can certainly decide whether or not I find something offensive.
And, if that 'something' is material of a criminal nature, I can report it to the relevant authorities and they can deal with it properly. Not by sticking their fingers in their ears, or up their ass, whichever term you prefer, and ignoring it; hoping that if no one can find the difficult-to-prosecute crime they won't have to spend their time finding the criminals. Hiding it ain't solving it. And I really want child porn, however prevalent it may, or may not, be, ended. But even with that mindset I think censorship is wrong, especially so with no way to review the list of content to be blocked.
When has that ever been true? From what I can tell from reading the comments to most Google stories, certainly in the past six months, the groupthink seems to be more along the lines of cynicism and criticism. I can't recall any company that gets unanimous praise regardless of its actions. The opposite used to be true, that scorn was heaped onto some companies regardless of their actions (Microsoft is probably the most obvious target of that group-disgust), but even that seems to be waning, there's still the hard-bitten MS-haters, but the view seems to be more balanced and critical these days.
Even the Mac fanboys aren't quite so unfettered any more.
I can only apologise for my apparent n00b-ness, I wasn't intending to offend anyone while referring to the Matt Le Blanc vehicle, my intent was simply to attach the comedy value (such as there was any) of the phrase 'danger...' to the crappy remake, rather than attach any satire to the original. That and I couldn't remember the cast names. I'm not quite that old...
After reading the summary the only thing that went through my head was memories of Matt Le Blanc, and the urge to cry: "Danger, Will Robinson!"
I could probably do with a rest...
God save us from their president. If the government of any country is willing to oppress its own citizens in what regard do you think hold the rest of us? I don't know where you're from but over in Britain we've got our own human-rights-defying issues to worry about, the Swiss have theirs. Does your country have nothing to worry about from its government? If so could you tell me your nationality so I can seek citizenship?
Only terrorists have anything to fear from this! Are you a terrorist?
Yeah, it's turning into an old joke now, but, sadly (and in the words of Homer J.) it's funny 'cause it's true. Sort of (the perception, not the reality).
As for the "why are privacy technologies so limited?" question I think that probably, though not certainly, has something to do with Phil Zimmerman's experiences; I'm not sure, but I suspect that the prospect of criminal investigation puts many people off researching privacy technologies.
Seconded. The only restart involved for me was closing down 2.0.0.14 (from memory, so the version could be wrong) and then restarting with 3.0. This on WinXP SP2.
Does SP3 make a difference?
Why? Why would they even bother? The very people this is going to piss off is the legitimate customers, the people downloading (AKA 'Pirates') are going to get around this in about twenty minutes. And even then, they'll get around it by getting the movie at more or less the release date to the cinemas (I can't imagine a pirate waiting til it's released to TV).
Does it offend you that much? Really? I'm not sure of the exact terms, but if the metaphor helps commmunication, without confusing people, then what's the harm?
Thanks; I now feel thoroughly chastised. *sigh*
But...has anyone told Scott Ramsoomair?
Me neither, but I was responding to an excerpt from the summary, not quoting something I've heard of, or experienced. I suppose I was criticising a programmer that refuses to use a mandated tool, whatever that tool is. In some cases I can imagine that being a problem, particularly if the mandated tool is sub-par in some way. But mostly it comes over as being a tad histrionic.
Not at all. Economy's not based on what we'd like it to be, not based on anything moral or worthy, but simply upon what is. And if there's competition in a market for a code editor (or anything else at all) which is being distributed for no cost then the commercial entities have to compete against that product. Saying, as Mike Masnick, from Techdirt, asserts "that you can't compete against free" means that "you can't compete, period."
Product A achieves the same ends as Product B. Product A is free, Product B requires a payment. If there is no distinction between the two products except price, then many people will go for Product A, and will forgive a few quirks or bugs. I tend to assume then that Product B has to compete with this product to maintain, or gain, market share. This is why I tend to believe that there should be a basic free version. The paid-for version should have added value; whether it's advanced features and/or support is largely irrelevant; the point is that to justify the cost of the product there has to be more than just the basics, which can be acquired legally for free in the form of the FOSS.
Plus in the context of software, once it's been developed then there's no further cost (if distributed digitally) to producing another million copies (okay, there's the cost of servers and bandwidth) beyond the initial copy (and the bug-fixes, which I'd tend to assume are more or less negligible next to the original development cost). If a commercial entity wants to continue earning money for releasing a product it has to compete with the prevalent market conditions. If free software is your competitor then you have to compete with free.
My comment about 'welfare' was perhaps a little harsh or glib, though it was intended to contribute towards the point that continuing in the vein of the old market tradition (build it, sell it, profit, rinse and repeat) doesn't work so well when the sell it stage is removed. And expecting to continue to sell a product, when alternatives are available for free, is counter-intuitive at best.
Apologies if I offended anyone.
And some prima-donna developers will presumably find themselves without a job after a couple of resignations based on the code-editor they were required to use.
I'm glad to see that (F)OSS is making an impact, even if it means that a company has to give away their software. I know that this might put a lot of jobs at risk, which is bad, but maintaining a false-economy-based business model as a welfare system is, I tend to assume, more harmful to the overall economy. Plus there's always the option to release advanced tools under a paid-for license, as well as the paid-for support contract.
Only terrorists question or oppose their government! Are you a terrorist?
I have a feeling that, with the censorship being taken mostly at the ISP level in order to avoid governmental scrutiny/sanctions, that it occurs at the ISP's servers. So rather than any one piece of hardware doing all the work there's hundreds (I presume, I have no idea how many ISPs operate inside of China, though I'd expect there to be quite a few).
You know, I hadn't considered it seriously. But, now you mention it, I think I'll give it a go too.
And here I used to think my method was faster; but since there's more than 23 stickers on the cube I guess it ain't any more...
...we can all watch Firefly without the subtitles! Is this just a clever preparation for the MMO?
What confuses me is that, and I might be too generous in my assumption, I assume that there's an IT professional somewhere that looks over these released files prior to their release? I know that common sense is entirely too uncommon these days, but if I were to release a digital file (whether to an individual or the public) I'd make sure that someone from the IT department looked it over before release.
Otherwise it's like having a flu vaccine released by managers that went nowhere near an immunologist or virologist.
Still, I'm sure that, sometime soon, MS will remove the Ctrl+C combination. For national security, of course.
You are aware that the H release has been released already? Anyways, you could always refer to it as Ubuntu X.04, or X.10.
I think he already does.
That's true; I guess I did. I should've paid a tad more attention to my typing...my bad.