Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Pentagon Spending (Score 1) 114

by iiiears (#47117615) Attached to: Comcast-Time Warner Deal May Hinge On Low-Cost Internet Plan

With the first internet we had waste fraud and abuse.

The government should own it all. We would pay as much and get as much. With a government "service plan" you get bloviating politicians at no extra cost. (Funny is guaranteed)

  In a for profit system shareholders demand increasing returns and care nothing about "suitability for purpose" it's a race to divide services and collect revenue. The "Useful" parts are increasingly claimed. fenced and charged for until everyone not in on the scam throws up their hands in disgust.

Comment: Re:They're not important even on the desktop (Score 1) 137

by iiiears (#46574243) Attached to: Ubuntu Phone Isn't Important Enough To Demand an Open Source Baseband

I would like one but for now the price is beyond me. Fingers are crossed the price comes after several million have been sold..

About Canonical's ability to make money...

Linux belongs to us, All of us. It's unique, useful and available at no cost. poverty shouldn't be a barrier to learning right? Having source code makes us kings, without it serfs in a walled garden,

Donate. (Slashdot can wait a few minutes.)

Comment: Technical issue? Not likely, (Score 1) 365

by iiiears (#45603107) Attached to: FCC Chair: It's Ok For ISPs To Discriminate Traffic

Agency functionaries wait impatiently for their chance to try the revolving door.

    There is no technical solution for regulatory capture. We (voters) don't pay as much as lobbyists. Our wallets don't support campaigns. Few of us after a long day at work care to read the congressional record.
     

Comment: Re:Grumpy? (Score 3, Informative) 80

by iiiears (#45602991) Attached to: In Letter To 20 Automakers, Senator Demands Answers On Cybersecurity

Have you read what researchers have written about the firmware for phones, your television, your router?

A little poking around Blackhat Convention videos, Bruce Schnier posts and OpenWRT You bet your life it's well worth a few minutes of your time and a letter of support.

  Industry Average: "about 15 - 50 errors per 1000 lines of delivered code. Source www.forbes.com

 

Comment: Re:Language not as important as motivation / conte (Score 1) 144

by iiiears (#45569051) Attached to: Zuckerberg Shows Kindergartners Ruby Instead of JavaScript

The tutorial was likely incomprehensible to kindegartners but maybe Mark Z. was speaking equally to kindergartners as legisilators and educators

Your 6 yr old might enjoy the "ComputerCraft" mod.

  Minecraft and Minetest have several forks, mods that allow coding in game and complete access to all the code in "grown up" languages. Teaching Scratch is easier but the two biggeest hurdles are still time and patience.

Comment: Re:If this is the draft version (Score 1) 212

by iiiears (#45420265) Attached to: WikiLeaks Releases the Secret Draft Text of the TPP IP Rights Chapter

When you say "laws" is it domestic laws? This supercedes that and becomes enforceable on all of us without so much as a "by your leave." These agreements easily bypass the wishes of any local electorate or protections they find important,

Has anyone used dissent to revoke a recent trade pact?

Comment: They represent us but don't work for us. (Score 1) 222

by iiiears (#45420155) Attached to: Legislation Would Prohibit ISPs From Throttling Online Video Services

Quid pro quo for including DRM in the new standard.

Piecemeal legislation to ensure content providers can deliver from many sources and guaruntee many bidders for copyrighted movies and sporting events. Do you wonder if anyone will tackle the privacy issue?

They must be indebted to us for their jobs AND wealth or they will feel no obligation to us.

Comment: Anibotic Resistance. (Score 1) 106

by iiiears (#45420117) Attached to: We're Safe From the Latest SARS-Like Disease...For the Moment

From the Center for Disease Control.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpKZvnJwicA

It wasn't profitable to continue research ahead of disaster. Shareholders demanded a better return. (Though Pfizer felt obligated to their history in this area did maintain a small program.)
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-03-19/health/ct-met-antibiotics-pipeline-20130319_1_drug-resistant-tuberculosis-resistant-bacteria-ketek

How did we get here?
It's likely that we wern't careful to preserve the efficacy of antibiotics. Using wide spectrum antibiotics instead of $$ testing and treating for a specific organism. Surely livestock didn't need it for faster weight gain.

http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-food-system/industrial-agriculture/prescription-for-trouble.html

Bacteria have "learned" to share resistance thus increasing the threat to us.

http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/antibiotic-resistance-mutation-rates-and-mrsa-28360

Comment: Virtualised garden. (Score 1) 92

by iiiears (#45419977) Attached to: Amazon Jumps Into Desktop Virtualization With "WorkSpaces"

Why wouldn't you download an easy to use self configuring (platform agnostic) entertainment and shopping framework?

Earn points for your next Amazon purchase today!
Be part of the Amazon community and share your bandwidth to deliver content.

Apple and or Microsoft VMs must be uninstalled.

Linux support comming soon..... (cough)

Comment: Guerilla Open Access Manifesto and wikipedia, (Score 1) 362

by iiiears (#45051641) Attached to: 'Dangerously Naive' Aaron Swartz 'Destroyed Himself'

Description
Blueprint for information revolution.
Creative Commons license: Public Domain Mark 1.0

Guerilla Open Access Manifesto

Information is power. But like all power, there are those who want to keep it for
themselves. The world's entire scientific and cultural heritage, published over centuries
in books and journals, is increasingly being digitized and locked up by a handful of
private corporations. Want to read the papers featuring the most famous results of the
sciences? You'll need to send enormous amounts to publishers like Reed Elsevier.

There are those struggling to change this. The Open Access Movement has fought
valiantly to ensure that scientists do not sign their copyrights away but instead ensure
their work is published on the Internet, under terms that allow anyone to access it. But
even under the best scenarios, their work will only apply to things published in the future.
Everything up until now will have been lost.

That is too high a price to pay. Forcing academics to pay money to read the work of their
colleagues? Scanning entire libraries but only allowing the folks at Google to read them?
Providing scientific articles to those at elite universities in the First World, but not to
children in the Global South? It's outrageous and unacceptable.

"I agree," many say, "but what can we do? The companies hold the copyrights, they
make enormous amounts of money by charging for access, and it's perfectly legal â"
there's nothing we can do to stop them." But there is something we can, something that's
already being done: we can fight back.

Those with access to these resources â" students, librarians, scientists â" you have been
given a privilege. You get to feed at this banquet of knowledge while the rest of the world
is locked out. But you need not â" indeed, morally, you cannot â" keep this privilege for
yourselves. You have a duty to share it with the world. And you have: trading passwords
with colleagues, filling download requests for friends.

Meanwhile, those who have been locked out are not standing idly by. You have been
sneaking through holes and climbing over fences, liberating the information locked up by
the publishers and sharing them with your friends.

But all of this action goes on in the dark, hidden underground. It's called stealing or
piracy, as if sharing a wealth of knowledge were the moral equivalent of plundering a
ship and murdering its crew. But sharing isn't immoral â" it's a moral imperative. Only
those blinded by greed would refuse to let a friend make a copy.

Large corporations, of course, are blinded by greed. The laws under which they operate
require it â" their shareholders would revolt at anything less. And the politicians they
have bought off back them, passing laws giving them the exclusive power to decide who
can make copies.

There is no justice in following unjust laws. It's time to come into the light and, in the
grand tradition of civil disobedience, declare our opposition to this private theft of public
culture.

We need to take information, wherever it is stored, make our copies and share them with
the world. We need to take stuff that's out of copyright and add it to the archive. We need
to buy secret databases and put them on the Web. We need to download scientific
journals and upload them to file sharing networks. We need to fight for Guerilla Open
Access.

With enough of us, around the world, we'll not just send a strong message opposing the
privatization of knowledge â" we'll make it a thing of the past. Will you join us?

Aaron Swartz

July 2008, Eremo, Italy

https://archive.org/stream/GuerillaOpenAccessManifesto/Goamjuly2008_djvu.txt

Why isn't this on wikipedia's list of manifestos?

Comment: Guerilla Open Access Manifesto and Wikipedia. (Score 1) 362

by iiiears (#45050093) Attached to: 'Dangerously Naive' Aaron Swartz 'Destroyed Himself'

Help me understand why Wikipedia hasn't added this to their listing of manifestos.

  "A manifesto is a published verbal declaration of the intentions, motives, or views of the issuer, be it an individual, group, political party or government."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifesto

"Guerilla Open Access Manifesto

Information is power. But like all power, there are those who want to keep it for
themselves. The world's entire scientific and cultural heritage, published over centuries
in books and journals, is increasingly being digitized and locked up by a handful of
private corporations. Want to read the papers featuring the most famous results of the
sciences? You'll need to send enormous amounts to publishers like Reed Elsevier.

There are those struggling to change this. The Open Access Movement has fought
valiantly to ensure that scientists do not sign their copyrights away but instead ensure
their work is published on the Internet, under terms that allow anyone to access it. But
even under the best scenarios, their work will only apply to things published in the future.
Everything up until now will have been lost.

That is too high a price to pay. Forcing academics to pay money to read the work of their
colleagues? Scanning entire libraries but only allowing the folks at Google to read them?
Providing scientific articles to those at elite universities in the First World, but not to
children in the Global South? It's outrageous and unacceptable.

"I agree," many say, "but what can we do? The companies hold the copyrights, they
make enormous amounts of money by charging for access, and it's perfectly legal â"
there's nothing we can do to stop them." But there is something we can, something that's
already being done: we can fight back.

Those with access to these resources â" students, librarians, scientists â" you have been
given a privilege. You get to feed at this banquet of knowledge while the rest of the world
is locked out. But you need not â" indeed, morally, you cannot â" keep this privilege for
yourselves. You have a duty to share it with the world. And you have: trading passwords
with colleagues, filling download requests for friends.

Meanwhile, those who have been locked out are not standing idly by. You have been
sneaking through holes and climbing over fences, liberating the information locked up by
the publishers and sharing them with your friends.

But all of this action goes on in the dark, hidden underground. It's called stealing or
piracy, as if sharing a wealth of knowledge were the moral equivalent of plundering a
ship and murdering its crew. But sharing isn't immoral â" it's a moral imperative. Only
those blinded by greed would refuse to let a friend make a copy.

Large corporations, of course, are blinded by greed. The laws under which they operate
require it â" their shareholders would revolt at anything less. And the politicians they
have bought off back them, passing laws giving them the exclusive power to decide who
can make copies.

There is no justice in following unjust laws. It's time to come into the light and, in the
grand tradition of civil disobedience, declare our opposition to this private theft of public
culture.

We need to take information, wherever it is stored, make our copies and share them with
the world. We need to take stuff that's out of copyright and add it to the archive. We need
to buy secret databases and put them on the Web. We need to download scientific
journals and upload them to file sharing networks. We need to fight for Guerilla Open
Access.

With enough of us, around the world, we'll not just send a strong message opposing the
privatization of knowledge â" we'll make it a thing of the past. Will you join us?

Aaron Swartz

July 2008, Eremo, Italy
"
https://archive.org/stream/GuerillaOpenAccessManifesto/Goamjuly2008_djvu.txt

Comment: Re:Illusion of privacy (Score 2) 224

by iiiears (#44943345) Attached to: Google To Encrypt All Keyword Searches

Always pleased to read an informed opinion on slashdot.

I was fascinated by the news of stuxnet and persistent rootkits. Nearly everything connected to a data bus has firmware. How likely is it that embedded devices would be compromised?

It was surprising to me even the simplest hard disk has three controller CPUs, RAM and ROM.

Thank you again for making slashdot a site about technology.
 

"Be *excellent* to each other." -- Bill, or Ted, in Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure

Working...