We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!
davide marney (231845) writes "I was on my way to the local cineplex, thinking about the article I'd just read about how several states had worked together to amass a database of 20,000 license plates scanned with drive-by sensors. What's with that? It seems like everyone wants to get in on the surveillance party.
Everywhere you turn people are probing you, searching you, tracking you, and it's really beginning to tick me off. As I parked my car in the lot, I said to myself, "in fact, I wouldn't be surprised if they start searching people in movie theaters."
After paying my ticket, a security guard comes up and asks me very politely if he can search my backpack.No, I answer equally politely, you cannot.
The guard is momentarily stunned, and repeats the question. I repeat my answer. Why? he wants to know.
Because it's my stuff. I don't let people look through my stuff just because they want to. Are you telling me I can't come to this movie theater unless you look in my backpack?
Oh no, sir, I'm not saying that. Look at me, he says very sternly, eye-to-eye. I am telling you I did NOT say you have to leave the theater. Do you understand that?
Okay. So, what ARE you saying?
I'm saying that I want to look at your backpack.
Hmm. Look, I wouldn't even let the police look in my backpack unless I was being formally charged with something. Do you have a reasonable cause to suspect me of doing something wrong?
No sir, but we have "reasonable cause" to search any bag we want, because that's company policy.
Really? What are you searching for?
We're looking for drugs. No, I don't have any drugs.
We're looking for movie cameras. No, I don't have a movie camera.
We're looking for guns. I CERTAINLY don't have a gun.
We're looking for glass bottles. No, no bottles.
Look, my movie has already started. What's it going to be? Are you going to let me see this movie or not?
OK, sir, no one has ever refused to let us search a bag before. You can go this one time, but I'm putting you on notice that the next time you come here, your bag WILL be searched, and I'm going to notify the manager.
Hmm, OK. (Off I go to my seat)
10 minutes later, the manager tracks me down in the theater and basically repeats the exchange, almost verbatim. Must be something corporate sent out as a script. At one point she says, "Nobody else has a problem with this, why do you?"
Why, indeed? I'm not entirely sure. The fact that a corporate rent-a-cop can walk up to you and demand to rifle through your belongings just sticks in my craw. We can't live with this level of security. If we don't start pushing back, where will it all end?
Of course, that movie theater completely lost my business, that pretty much goes without saying. It may be their policy to look through their patron's things, but that sure doesn't mean I have to pay for the privilege." top
davide marney writes "What do 1-800-Contacts, Adidas, Americans for Tax Reform, Comcast, the Country Music Association, Estee Lauder, Ford, Nike and Xerox all have in common? According to OpenCongress.org, they all have specifically endorsed H.R. 3261, the Stop Online Piracy Act. A total of 158 corporations have signed up in favor of the bill, and only 87 against. $21 Million has been donated to Congressmen who favor the bill, but only $5 Million to those against. Thanks to OpenCongress for these insights. This goes a long way towards explaining why this bill has so much traction, despite all its negative publicity." Link to Original Source top
davide marney writes "You start an interesting new project, involving you and a handful of your friends and associates. The project initially starts out small, but it starts to catch on. Great! Now there are 10 people who all need to start coordinating their work. Time to get organized!
The geek in the group says, "hey, I can set up a Google Site and we can manage our project there. It has a place for documents, a calendar, discussion threads, everything." A few people nod their heads; yeah, they've used the web before. The rest of the group is thinking to themselves, "ok, whatever, why are we creating this whole web site just for this little, tiny project; but, go along to get along, I guess."
Half the group starts putting things into the web site. The other half ignores it completely. Things quickly start breaking down.
"Did you get my email telling you we've changed our meeting space?"
"What? Did you post that on the web?"
"No, I don't know how to use the web site."
"Well, OK, let me post that for you so the rest of the group will see it."
"Oh, no need, I'll just email everyone."
"Well, not everyone reads email; you better let me put it up for you."
. . . . . . .
A classic case of low efficiency caused by a clash of operational styles: is group work done as a series of individually-managed tasks in a personal process, or by collectively building up a common set of resources? Are you a "process" person or a "resource" person?
I am personally organized, but I don't expect anyone else to be
I have my own, customized system for managing work
I have my own, customized filing system
I use it to store my own works
I use it to store copies of other people's works, if they are important to my project
I live and die by notifications (email, etc.), to do lists, and my personal calendar
I am constantly updating my and other people's status
I expect that everyone on the project is as organized as me
There should be one, central place for everything important to a shared project, and everyone should use it.
(Implied) There is a common process for managing work
(Implied) There is a common filing system
(Implied) There is a common event calendar
I'll check the resource and synchronize my status when I need to
Notifications are nice to have, but only for truly important changes to status or events
davide marney writes "According to the Virginia Board of Elections Democrat Gerald Connolly defeated Republican Keith Fimian for House District 11 in Virginia by 981 votes out of 226,951 cast, a difference of 0.4%. Even though Fimian is entitled by law to a recount at taxpayer expense, Fimian just conceded the race, stating that "In our race, we have not seen any obvious errors in the results". District 11 spans a city and parts of two counties, all of which use either touch-screen or optical scan machines. Whatever the arguments about electronic voting, in this case it produced a result that was trustworthy enough to convince a challenger not to contest a result within 0.4% of the total. If the main requirement of a voting method is to produce a clear, uncontested winner, electronic voting worked very well in this case." Link to Original Source top
davide marney writes "In a Washington Post opinion piece, Hugh Price argues that using a decidedly low-tech solution to sequestering excess carbon — making piles of agricultural waste — is better than any "green" technology. Sometimes the easy answer is the right answer. After all, that's how coal forms, and we know that works pretty well." top
davide marney writes "As part of Google’s facelift, there is a new "on-demand" navigation UI:
- Go to google.com using just the keyboard – no mouse - Note that there are no menus, headers, footers, etc. – just the logo and the search box - Start typing for a search term – still no navigational UI, the page is still tightly focused on search - Now touch the mouse, and the navigational UI fades into view
I think this is a brilliant innovation. It’s a great way to show one “layer” of a UI that is stripped down, and completely task-focused, and yet still add a second layer of additional functionality without requiring the user to explicitly ask for it by clicking a button or a link." Link to Original Source top
Comparison of Pixel Qi's Epaper+Color+Video Screen
davide marney writes "Pixel Qi, the commercial display technology spin-off from the OLPC project, has posted of new set side-by-side photos that compare it's new 10-inch laptop display with anti-glare and standard LCD screens in an indoor, office setting. Impressively, the Pixel Qi screen looks nearly as good with the backlight off as the others do with backlight on. This translates into a much longer battery life for a Pixel Qi-equipped laptop. The Pixel Qi screen also has terrific anti-glare characteristics, which should make it much easier on the eyes." Link to Original Source top
davide marney writes "Recently, I was introduced to Privoxy, a perfect little gem of a utility that blocks the 15% or so of web content that is devoted to showing ads and tracking your behavior. Privoxy's great strengths are that it runs on a very wide range of platfoms, works with any browser, comes configured out of the box, and installs in minutes. On any given day I move from using IE on my company's WinXP box to Chrome running on my personal laptop, to Opera running on my OLPC XO-1. We don't have a Mac in the house yet, but if we did, Privoxy could run on that, too. What joy to have one, common privacy solution that "just works", across the board!
One unexpected benefit to running Privoxy was it convinced me to finally pony up for a paid subscription to Slashdot. Once I saw how many ads Slashdot is having to sneek in there to pay the bills, I decided that paying $5 for reading a thousand pages ad-free is really not too much to ask for the hours of benefit I get from reading and contributing." Link to Original Source top
Davide Marney writes "As reported by the Washington Post, Google co-founder Larry Page claims that an FCC field test of white space wireless devices was "rigged" to make the test device fail to detect wireless microphone broadcasts. A Google spokesman explained later that testers had hidden the wireless microphones within the same frequency as local television stations, preventing the test device from detecting them. Paige was on Capitol Hill to boost the company's "Free the Airwaves" campaign." top
Davide Marney writes "According to the Associated Press, millions of dollars' worth of electronic voting machines banned by U.S. state legislatures are sitting unused in warehouses across the country. Many of these machines cost $3,500 to $5,000 each. Surely we can come up with a good way to re-use all that iron! The peripherals are actually pretty cool: touch screens, built-in card readers, register-paper printers, flash drives that can be sealed. The OS is typically Windows. And, as a bonus, they each come in a extremely rugged carrying case that converts into a stand." top
China has a "One Country, Two Laws" policy that lets Hong Kong operate outside the restrictions of mainland China. This is a great idea! I bet it could work for America, too. It could set up two versions of entitlement programs: one for those who believe that the government should provide universal coverage, and one for those who believe that government governs best which governs least. And may the best team win!
Team Blue, the universal coverage believers, would continue under the existing entitlement laws of the U.S. They would continue to pay into Medicare, Social Security, and the new health care assurance programs.
Team Red, the limited government believers, wouldn't pay any taxes for social programs. If their employer provides health care and retirement as a benefit, they would get its cash value instead. They would be free to create new social programs such as voluntary cross-border health exchanges, health savings accounts, retirement bonds, etc.
There would need to be some fair-play adjustments, such as how to deal with people who receive government support now, but aren't paying taxes. Naturally, anyone living off of the government would want to be on Team Blue! We could simply divide this population between the teams based on random selection.
Each team could then deal with this population according to its philosophy. Team Blue might want to continue down the path of the recent health care bill. Team Red might do it differently, perhaps focusing more on efforts to take people off of welfare.
If China can do it, so can the Americans. Game on!
Tech Dirt has a series of articles on the"lies" that the copyright industry tells, and takes particular exception to those in the U.S. Congress who support their cause (see the articles on Rep. Waxman and Sen. Hatch).
I am definitely one of those who feel that the original intent of copyright law has been so distorted that it is now possible to have it serve its opposite purpose: to prevent, rather than promote, the useful arts.
While I am with the author in spirit, I am not in the letter. These articles do little to advance the cause. They are largely just a collection of raw assertions that people are lying. There is little attempt to actually prove any of these claims, as far as I can see.
In the end, what does shouting "liar, liar, pants on fire" truly accomplish? Very little. So, please, let us move on. It is very easy to lay blame and to critique. Much more difficult is to propose a solution.
We have a problem between two communities: the entrenched copyright-holding community, and the consumer. What can be done to bring these two groups to a better understanding of each other's needs?
First, I think we can agree that copyright is a good thing. The right to control copying is rooted in the concept of basic fairness: if a person creates something, they should get to decide who else can have it.
Secondly, I think we can agree that getting something for nothing is unsustainable over the long term. People ought to pay for what they use. None of us would last very long if we never charged anyone for our time and effort.
Thirdly, I think we can agree that the current business model for monetizing the right to copy is broken. Copyright holders try to control distribution and end use, which is technically impossible. Consumer scofflaws use content they haven't paid for, which is unfair.
Add these together, and I think it's pretty obvious that what we need is a consumer-friendly way to pay for content in proportion to how widely it is shared, not purchased. The whole concept of a financial "transaction" with a buyer, seller, and product, works in a retail context, but not in a viral context. Viral communities don't have buyers and sellers, they have friend networks.
It sounds simple, but it hasn't been cracked yet. What would a payment system look like that didn't depend on storefronts and individual transactions? Could we make it lucrative enough to draw the next generation of talent away from the old, out-moded system, and into a new system? Would it be easy enough to implement, such that no reasonable person would object?