I have contemplated this issue for many an hour...mainly because i am a die hard xbox360 fan, and anyone who keeps up with the console and its accessories knows that the company (microsoft) has just announced the release of an external usb HD-DVD player that will connect to your entertainment system. I have considered all of the pros and cons i could think of concerning whether or not to buy this accessory. While doing some research on the hardware, i got to thinking more about the benefits of Blu-ray over HD-DVDs and vise versa. My opinion, based off of personal research, is that neither one will "win" over the other, i think that the only way there will be success with next generation DVDs will be if the companies can combine the features from both of their products. Even though the playstation3 will come with an integrated Blu-ray player, it doesn't necessarily mean that the particular format will prevail over the other. We must take into consideration that still only a small percentage of buyers have entertainment systems that can display the HD video, and even a smaller percentage can display true HD video (1080progressive scan) resolution, which is the Blu-Ray and HD-DVD's most prevalent feature.

My opinion is mainly based off of a similar situation, if anyone knows about the competition between VHS and Betamax. It shows that continuous competition between two different formats isn't possible and can't result in a benefit for either company.
The biggest problem will probably come from consumer confusion by having two different formats and two different players. Most consumers will not take the time to do research and find the benefits from either one.

one website with some relevant material on Blu-Ray vs. HD-DVD is here: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1982533,00.asp

I think that if a parody is made and consumers can't tell the difference between the original and the parody then its not really a parody. Similarly the creators of the parody should be penalized because consumers are unable to differentiate between the two versions of a song.  Weird Al's new song "White and Nerdy" is a good example of an actual parody,  I have yet to come across someone that cannot decifer between that and it's original.

The article doesn't mention much about what Barney has done to "harass" this guy, I'd like to know more about that. Threatening legal action is not harassment, especially if the company that owns Barney is losing money from the parody.

parody n. the humorous use of an existing song, play, speaker or writing which changes the words to give farcical and ironic meaning. Parodies have been challenged as copyright infringements on the original works, particularly since some have reaped terrific profits. Recent decisions favor the parodies and say they have an originality of their own and, thus, are not infringements. There is a free speech issue involved in these decisions since parodies traditionally have social and political significance.

The problem I see is that someone comes up with something new, in this case Barney  (however freakishly annoying he is), and the creators copywrite it to protect their creation and the money they will make off of it. If a parody is not different enough so consumers know that the parody is not the actual product the company with the copywright gets screwed.

You could make a song out of it, you really could. This is old news but barneys lawyers surrendered to the EFF (The Electronic Frontier Foundation) see: http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/06/11/28/2059246.shtml It seems that Barney tried to take advantage of copyright laws when they blantently violated the rights of a parody site owner's right to free speach. They wanted to censor his cartoons and drawn images. It seems more and more obvious that copyright laws are being used to silence critics and parodies. Its obvious that it is WRONG. but if you need more proof check out the links and read the history.

This really needs to stop. From various articles and slashdot she has hardly used a computer and the RIAA has subpoenad her sons computer, who lives 4 miles away, and has begun harassing him at work. A striking pattern emerges when you begin to look at who is on the wrong side of these lawsuits: the unemplyed, the disabled, houswives, and singlemothers. In other words, THE WEAK AND DEFENSELESS. If you need more clarification, its the people who don't have the resources to defend themselves. http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/06/11/28/1549242.shtml

I think that Blue Ray will definately be the one that wins this battle. As most people probably know Blu Ray players are already being produced and many consumers already have them in the form of the Playstation 3 (PS3) gaming console. I actually had not heard of HD-DVD before reading this and I think that many other people are probably oblivious to this too. I think that the fact that the PS3 uses Blu Ray will be the deciding factor in which technology will succeed. I have read several things on the internet that state many people are actually planning on buying PS3's not for playing games on them, but because they are able to play Blu Ray movies and are a lot cheaper than other Blu Ray players. The PS3 costs around $500 for the cheaper version and $600 for the other and the cheapest Blu Ray player I could find was $750. Because so many people are going to have PS3's thath ave the ability to play Blu Ray discs I'm sure that movie companies will create Blu Ray versions of their movies because they know there are so many people out there that have Blu Ray players.

 

I found a great article that explains all the disadvantages and advantages of each format.

http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-8900_7-5600201-1.html

Although DVD's appear to have an excellent picture to me, technology has advanced to producing an even better picture quality. There are two different versions of the next generation of DVD's. The Blu-Ray disc and the HD-DVD. Currently both are battling it out, but what it truly comes down to is the consumer. Since they were unable to settle on anything both HD-DVD and Blu-Ray systems are hitting the market. Unfortunately the systems are no way close to being compatible with each other. They differ greatly in track pitches and in surface layer thickness. HD-DVD uses a 0.6mm thick surface layer compared to Blu-Ray, which is only 0.1mm thick. Since the Blu-Ray disks have a thinner surface layer it's able to hold information, but they are also more expensive to produce compared to HD-DVD. (Information found from engadget.com)
Well now that you know some of the background information on the two different types of DVD's, which one do you think will make it in the long run? Do you think it's fair since the companies couldn't settle on an agreement as consumers we could end up wasting money if we purchase the system that ends up not surviving in the long run?

I'm sorry, I don't see the bulk of the issue. What did the judge want? He wanted a copy of the video game, but as far as I understand this didn't mean they couldn't sell it when it came out, or after the judge made whatever decision he needed to.

If "minors dont have any idea of responsibility" how will they ever learn? MySpace has an agreement you have to make when signing up for an account saying that you are the person you claim to be.

1. Eligibility. Use of and Membership in the MySpace Services is void where prohibited. By using the MySpace Services, you represent and warrant that (a) all registration information you submit is truthful and accurate; (b) you will maintain the accuracy of such information; (c) you are 14 years of age or older; and (d) your use of the MySpace Services does not violate any applicable law or regulation. Your profile may be deleted and your Membership may be terminated without warning, if we believe that you are under 14 years of age.
   (http://collect.myspace.com/misc/terms.html?z=1)

Shouldn't these kids be held accountable for breaking this agreement? Also, we don't know what kind of mental strain this situation has put on her, the money that seems to be such a big issue, could go to pay her medical bills. Another thing about this case is that it's not only her that is effected. I'm sure her kids are now stimatized as well and you know how harsh kids can be. Having to pay large amounts of money may not be a big deal to a teenager, but the process of a legal trial is not a short one. They will have a constant reminder of what they did until the trial is over, whereas simply suspending them is over after a week or two. Also, we always hear statistics about abused women who don't report the crime because they don't want people to know and we are appalled that they didn't do anything to stop the abuse. This woman and her family was emotionally abused and you think she should merely slap the students on the wrist?

Why does it matter that you can't play for money if you are just brushing up for a later live game? I guess I don't know a whole lot about the issue since I don't play poker except on rare occaision, so I don't know how much you could potentially gain from an online site. This seems like a matter that should be dealt with in the States instead of Federally, but I imagine the reason the bill was passed had something to do with interstate commerce. Also, on a side note, I would appreciate it if you didn't call me stupid for being a republican as I would not call you names for being a democrat.

I realize it's not essential to functioning, but doesn't it bug anybody else that there is only one mouse button on a Mac? It drives me insane. Also, my roommate last semester was also having the freezing problem with her relatively new iBook. It might not be a fair analogy, but I've never had that problem with my PC in the four years I've had it.

From http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/question535.htm

What counts in the BCS ratings?
Here is a closer look at how the math that produces the BCS rating works. There are four components that contribute to a team's rank.

1. Subjective polls
2. Computer rankings
3. Strength of a team's schedule
4. Number of Losses

Each of these factors is represented by a numerical value. Teams are assigned a certain number of points for their performance in each category. These four values are then totaled to produce a team's final score. The team with the lowest point total gets the number one spot for the week.

The Four Variables Explained
The Associated Press (AP) and USA Today/ESPN Coaches Poll Ratings
Two subjective polls, The Associated Press ranking and USA Today/ESPN Coaches Poll make up the first variable. Both of these polls have been around for many years and have an established track record. Both of these are personal choice polls. They are called this because members of both groups cast their votes based on what they think about a team's performance. Both groups also know a whole lot about football. A national board of sports writers and broadcasters participate in the AP poll, and a select group of football coaches determines the USA Today ratings. The BCS incorporates their input by averaging team rankings from these polls. For example, a team ranked No. 3 in one poll and No. 5 in the other would get four points in this category.

Computer ranking
There are eight computer-generated rankings that make up this variable. The rankings are actually the output of computer programs that crunch weekly game statistics. Most of these programs were designed by people with backgrounds in math or statistics. Their formulas factor in an eclectic mix of variables, from who won to where a game was played.

To get a team's point total, the lowest ranking is dropped, and the remaining seven are averaged to produce the team's score. This prevents any one computer's results from ruining a team's chances at No. 1 or 2. For example, if a team is ranked 1, 1, 1, 1, 4, 2, 2, 1, the fourth place finish will be dropped. A team's final computer ranking would then be

( 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 2 + 2 + 1 ) / 7 = 9 / 7 = 1.29

rather than what they would have scored with all eight included

( 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 2 + 2 + 1 + 4) / 8= 13 / 8 = 1.63

Some of the teams at the top of the BCS ranking can be separated by tenths of points, so a difference of 0.34 points is no small matter!

Computer Ranking	Run by	Important variable
Billingsley Report	Richard Billingsley, businessman	Strength of opponent, final score, won-lost records of teams (before and after the game)
Dunkel Index	John Duck, statistician	Strength of schedule, won-lost record, the upset factor
Massey Ratings	Kenneth Massey, mathematics graduate student	Overall team rating, offense and defense specific ratings, strength of schedule, home-field advantage
New York Times (NYT)	Marjorie Connelly, editor of NYT surveying department	Margin of victory, strength of schedule, recent performance
Rothman	David Rothman, retired mathematician	Number of wins, margin of victory, quality of opponent
Sagarin's USA Today	Jeff Sagarin, mathematician and MBA	Margin of victory, strength of schedule, location of game
Scripps-Howard	Herman Matthews, mathematics and computer science professor	Game score, penalty for running up score, strength of schedule
Seattle Times	Jeff Anderson, political science graduate student and Chris Hester, sportswriter and broadcaster	Quality of opponent, strength of schedule

Strength of a Team's Schedule
Another computer program helps to determine the third variable -- how a team's strength of schedule compares to other teams nationally. The cumulative win/loss record of not only the team's opponents, but their opponents' opponents are included in this calculation. This makes teams think twice about lining up a bunch of teams they know that they can crush on the field. It also makes coaches and athletic directors once again jump into the world of statistics. They have to plan their schedule in advance, meaning that they have to predict how well their opposition will do in the future as well as who they are likely to play.

The computer program produces a numerical value representing the strength of the opponents schedule (So) and one for the opponents' opponents (Soo). A team's overall strength of schedule (St) is then calculated using these numbers. The opponent's scheduled strength is worth twice as much as their opponents' schedule. Let's put it in the form of an equation:

2 * So + Soo= St

The resulting number, St, is used in ranking a team's schedule relative to all other 115 Division I schools. Once they have been placed in order, this list is then subdivided into quartiles (1-25, 25-50, 50-75, and so on). Their rank is then converted back to a point total by multiplying it by 0.04. This allows teams to be rated based on their placement within a given quartile.

Here's an example: A team's schedule strength is ranked No. 30 in the nation. Multiplying 30 by 0.04 gives you their point total for this category, 1.2. The 1 tells you that they placed in the second quartile, and the 2 tells you approximately where they placed within that group.

Number of Losses
The final category, number of losses, can really sound the death knell for a team. Each loss equals one point, and is added directly to a team's total score. Remember, a lower point total means a higher ranking. One loss often means the difference between playing in the national championship game and hoping to be chosen for one of the other BCS bowls. If you think about it, that's fair. This is the one place where what happens on the field matters far more than mathematical models.

While I agree on some of your points that the government shouldn't be the internet police there are others I have questions about. How do we protect children from seeing things on the internet that are inappropriate? Personally I think that every parent should teach their children how to use the internet and monitor their use, but what about when they're at school, or a friends house? Another point you brought up was identity theft and credit card companys. Without some sort of stamp of approval how do you know you can trust giving your credit card information on line? The way I see this is kind of like the Better Business Bureau, you can generally trust members of the BBB. You also mentioned that we get junk mail through the USPS which is much like spam. The way companys get your address is by you giving it out, people don't just know that Joe lives at 1234 Main Street. The same goes for your e-mail, so I don't think the junk mail/spamming analogy really works. If you didn't want junk mail you would be more careful about guarding your address. I would think that there could be some sort of do not send list much like the do not call list that could be effective in dealing with spam.Also, there are standards, I'm fairly sure, about what can be sent which I think is the real issue. I don't know about you but I generally don't get junk mail through the USPS advertising porn. Like I said before, I don't disagree with you but there are some points that raise questions.

I can say i have enjoyed playing poker online before it's a nice way to brush up on your skills for a real game. However i've never been dumb enough to actually bet money online it is far too easy to get all your buddies at one table and cheat the poor sucker who happens to join you. I have never let myself be that poor sucker and i'm happy that Congress is at least trying to limit the amount of those that lose their money on the internet. And Congress has been passing laws like that forever, if a law is unpopular with a certain group they attach another law to satify that one group so they will approve it. The Democrats wanted to make a 4 year deadline to the previous port security bill which the Republicans voted down, then to get the democrats on their side for their bill they added the internet gambling clause to it. That is why you're internet gambling law was passed it was a compromise with the democrats so that the Republicans could better protect our ports.

I understand both sides of the arguement and after reading the articles I found that I had a much greater understanding of both sides of the debate but I think that a .xxx would be more effective than having a "kids friendly" domain. Middle school children (or ages there abouts) would be limited in terms of doing research projects and finding information for school if the only sites they were permitted to go to were that of a "kids friendly" domain. Having a .xxx sets an across the board situation in terms of the content that a person may or may not want there children to be exposed to.

As we learned in class IPv4 is starting to become exhausted of available IP addresses because the population is increasing, there are more people using the internet, and more devices are being networked. I've read several articles that predict the year that IPv4 will be completely exhausted; some say around 2025, and others 2011 or anywhere inbetween.

I found a good article about IPv4 and IPv6 that explains about both of them.

http://www.trap17.com/index.php/ipv4-vs-ipv6_t24034.html

IPv4 is capable of addressing 4,294,967,296 different computers with a 32 bit address, while IPv6 is capable of addressing 340-undecillion (34, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000) with a 128 bit address. An interesting thing mentioned in this article is that in the future most, if not all, vehicles will be using Onstar or other navigational devices and these need to be networked with an IP also adding even more demand for the implentation of IPv6.

IPv6 also has many other positive things over IPv4 such as:

-IPv6 provide a security layer that places "options" in separate extension headers while IPv4 does not.  The extension headers can be of arbitrary length and has no limit to the amount of options that can be carried.
-IPv6 has an anycast address that allows nodes to control the path which their traffic flows, IPv4 does not.
-IPv6 can handle different speed of networks, from Extra Low Frequency networks to very high speed of 500Gbits/s.
-IPv6 connects to global internet using a combination of it's global prefixes, while IPv4 manually renumbers to connect to the internet.  IPv6 renumbers automatically.

Another article I came across was this: http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0605/062905tdpm2.htm
Which states that the government is sapposed to be integrated with the new IPv6 tehcnology by June 2008.

 

The article said that for each song pirated the RIAA loses only 70 cents per a song, but that doesn't mean the defendant will only have to pay that much. The judge must believe that $750 per a song is way too much, but I'm sure he would also agree that 70 cents per a song isn't enough, so I think that the defendant will have have to pay somewhere in between.

This whole subject reminds me of a few years ago when everyone here in the United States started calling french fries "Freedom Fries" because the French didn't want to support our position on Iraq.

As said in this article posted above http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,59674,00.html, I think that e-mail is already deeply embedded in their everyday language that it is going to be hard for them to make the switch, but since it's a law people that work for the government will be forced to use the new word "courriel" instead of e-mail.

I stand corrected. Very nice!

I just happened to be reading this article - Wakamaru Bot at Your Service - and thought that robotics, although farther off from the computer science we've discussed in class, is a rather exciting branch of CS, and one that carries a lot of social issues with it. Artificial intelligence, Isaac Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics, and military applications. To start off, what do you guys think about the type of robot featured in the first article? Are domestic service robots a good idea, or something that will eventually result in a massive robot revolution enslaving the human race?

I recently took the PCAT, which is a test like the MCAT but instead of it being for medical schools it's for pharmacy schools. The PCAT had an essay question and because I was instructed not to I will not write the question word for word but I will give the gist of it. The question asked for the test taker to write their opinion about the following statement: With the problems of spamming, internet bullying and innapropriate material on the internet, the government should be allowed to intervene and police it to protect people.

I salavated at this question because I was dreading the essay, thinking it was going to be hard and I was pitched this lowball that I was able to knock out of the park. It is an opinionated subject and my opinion is that the government should not be a policing unit of the internet, nor should it be allowed to regulate the internet in anyway.

My justifications for this was detailed for each problem the statement brought up. Spamming has been around pretty much since the beginning of e-mail, I assume. Today there are plenty of anti spam programs and bulk bins that really eliminate most of the spam and the few messages that get through can be deleted by the user, not really a problem. The government controls the regular mail and I constantly am throwing away junk mail that I recieve and I think that the e-mailed spam is similar if not the same. Internet bullying is another problem that is being dealt with. Steps have been taken to eliminate the means for which the 'bullies' use to pick on thier victims. The worst of this, the identity theft, also is being dealt with by credit card companies and websites without the government's intervention, so I believe they really do not need to get involved. As for the last problem, the innapropriate sites, this relies not on the government but instead the first line of defense, and that is you yourself. A person is not being forced to go to any site they don't want to. If the government were allowed to regulate the internet, it would become a violation of the freedoms that we have.

I just thought I would share the essay question and give my quick opinion. If anyone has a different opinion or something to add please post.

The decision by the judge is a move that is going to probably take all the power away from the RIAA. This may be a premature statement, but since the judge allowed the admendment to the verdict of the first trial it seems that the defendant will get her way and pay around 70 cents per song. I am happy about this outcome because I've never really been a fan of the music or movie industry and the way the consider money. Atheletes do it too. For some reason once they get rich and famous they feel the need to live that lifestyle, which requires a lot of money. If they do not get all this money that they need they complain and blame piracy. I don't believe piracy is hurting the music or movie industry. I think what is hurting both these industries is the fact that nothing really spectacular is being made by either, but that's just my opinion. To reitterate, I say kudos to the judge for admending the verdict and I shake my head at those who are rich for being famous.

Mentioned in class was the possibility of adult-entertainment sites having the .com or .net replaced with .xxx. This debated subject has been around for a while, I found one article dating back to December 2000.

http://www.lewiscenter.org/lcer/media/fight121100.php

To further understand it I went to the very popular resource site of wikipedia and found this entry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.xxx

In the begging paragraph it links to this website that explains why we don't have the .xxx addresses.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12728784/

This is the link I found most useful for learning about the reasoning behind both sides of the debate. Before reading the article I thought that the .xxx address seemed reasonable and a good solution, however after reading I now understand that the pornographic sites would be encouraged to use the address but not enforced , also they would be able to keep their .com address as well. The biggest problem that would arrise would be that it would be one step closer to having the internet being regulated and policed by the government, which would lead to a lot of problems.

The people who are not opposed to it are mainly concerned about children and them viewing the pornographic material. The article states that the porn industry trade group, Free Speech Coalition, has a solution for this: make a domain name for kid-friendly sites.

I think this is probably the better idea of the two for a couple of reasons. First, there are a lot of porn sites on the internet compared to kid friendly sites. I guess I should define what kid friendly sites means to me. A kid friendly site would be one that would have information for kids, games for kids, and cartoons or other activities for kids. The second reason I think this is a better idea is because of the internet's security systems already being used to protect kids from the dangers of the internet would be able to implement this very easily. I don't know of any downside to this considering the main proponent argument of the .xxx domain is to protect the kids and having a kid site domain would do the same thing. What are some of your opinions?

Lindor challenges RIAA '$750 per track' damages I just read this interesting article about a case the RIAA has brought against a woman they have accused of being a music pirate, in which the woman has called into question the amount of money the RIAA is seeking in comparison to how much money they have actually lost. According to the RIAA, "The trade group claimed it was not up to Ms. Lindor to decide the damages and that her complaint was without merit, the motion was untimely and it would prejudice the RIAA." Any thoughts?

I feel silly now for not taking the time to look something up. This helped me, however - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipv4#Exhaustion

I may be mistaken, but I believe that the E-mail subject that was brought up in class wasn't that the French don't e-mail each other but it's that they don't call it E-mail. I found this article on the internet that explains the situation a bit more.

http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,59674,00.html

The article suggests that the ban on the word was "the latest step to stem an incursion of English words into the French lexicon." However I do not see E-mail as an English word. I consider it to be a universal word, like the word Internet. I don't know why a government would want to ban a word anyways. What good comes from banning a word? Does someone get fined if they say or use it? It seems pretty trivial and ridiculous to me, but that's just my opinion.

well there's not plenty of IP Addresses.  That is why we are switching over to IPv6.  In IPv4 there isnt enough IP Addresses for the amount of people in the world.  In IPv6 there will be  enough for several billion IP Addresses per person.  I think that will suit us for a while.

 

but he is correct.  mail.browse.com is a sub-domain of browse.com and it couldnt be sold to any other company or person that wants it.

Are you saying France doesn't use e-mail? And is your last sentence saying that a memo is more efficient or an e-mail is?

Actually, you wouldn't own any site that has browse.com in its address, because any website such as mail.browse.com or cse.browse.com is a subdomain of browse.com, and thus owned by them. And yes, it might limit the number of IP addresses available, but if you consider that an address is of the form ***.***.***.***, the total (although not actual) amount of addresses possible is 999,999,999,999. There's plenty of room.

I think that on any ground of military standpoint what France has done as absolutely nothing to do with their forms of communication in terms of E-mail. I do find E-mail is a very effective and effcient means of communication when trying to contact any number of people, quickly. I do agree that the spam, jokes, and "you know you grew up in the 90's if..." are over played and for the most part demean the amount of potential E-mail has. When in a position where you need to contact many people very quickly, giving them all the same information, E-mail is a great way to do so and I feel that France may in fact be missing out on such a resource. If a CEO of a company wants to give everyone the day off, sending a memo down is going to be much efficient then sending an E-mail.

Wouldn't the use of * before your example Browse.com be less beneficial for ICANN and the IP Address providers? It would seem that that limits the number of IP Address's that can be created because I might want to have the IP Address Search.Browse.Com and you've already setup your IP Address as *.Browse.com making it so that if someone attempts to access my IP Address they are automatically taken to yours instead. I understand from a business perspective how that might be nice because more people will be directed to your website but in terms of allowing the greatest number of IP Address's possible to be created this greatly limits the number that can be created.

I find little fault in France wanting to hold on to their language by encouraging other forms of communication.  I personally think E-mail is a loser way of communicating as well.  I know I'm old, but I think face to face communication or even phone calls have worked well for me. This might prove to be an effective intervention before the guys dressed up as Chewbaka, in line for Star Wars 9, reduce all forms of communication to E mail.  I find that people usually turn E-mail into testing grounds for their amatuer comedian practices, I don't need four pages of jokes about the 80's that are, at best, mildly amusing.  So I say way to go France, by the way, military guys, France bailed us out way before we bailed them out. 

Today we talked in class about why most websites dont require www. when going to their site.  I would like to add to what was said in class.

It was mentioned that most browsers are smart enough to just know.  That is half way true.  When you register for a domain name at some name server company, you have many different options when setting it up.  Let's say I own the domain Browse.com.  When I go to set it up I have to manually enter an IP Address for the domain to go to.  Now if I want to create a subdivision like cse.brose.com i would have to enter in a different IP address for that to be forwarded to.  So when companies go to setup their domain name they have an option for an *.  The * allows any kind of prefix to beforwarded to the IP Address. 

 

Lets say that www.browse.com is pointed to 129.68.15.158.  I would want anyone who puts anything in place of the www. to go to my main website at 129.68.15.158.  so if people leave it blank it will go to 129.68.15.158 or if they put in mail.browse.com they are forwarded to 129.68.15.158.  That is the beauty of the *.  No matter what people put in place for the www. in a URL, companies can set it to automatically be forwarded to the default IP Address of choice.

 

About the Internet browsers themself being intelligent, that is true to some degree.  If you type in google in mozilla, it will take you to http://www.google.com.  if you type in google in Internet Explorer it does a search for google using your default search engine.  Somethings are browser specific.

I'm not sure how the entire business process side of ICANN works but this is what I know about it.

 

ICANN was developed after InterNIC in 1998.  Why?  I dont know...  ICANN is the controller of the database that holds domain names and IP Addresses.  They maintain what is out there.  Below ICANN are profitable organizations that sell domain names and IP Addresses.  Network Solutions is a Domain Name reseller.  They are simply the lookup to the database that holds all domain names.  Cox Communications or Windstream or Alltel are companies that sell you IP Addresses.  When you get high speed internet at home they are selling you service to the Inetnet and an IP Address.  These two different types of companies branch off from ICANN's services. 

 

Why don't ICANN just provide these services?  I think it is because there can only be one true database that holds ALL domain names and IP Address assignments.  If ICANN were able to make money off that and be the only company out there for this service, we would have a monopoly and who knows where the price range would go.

 

As for it to stay in the United States I am indifferent about.  Most of the board members are from the United States and there are only a few people from other countries.  I think the United States does a better job than other countries would do.  But should it be controlled by one country only?  Well, the inventor of the Internet was from the United States and many networks were first established for US Governments.

Well as discussed in class there are several key components to a network topology.  We have discussed hubs, repeaters, switches, bridges and routers very vaguely for each.  But what are they and what do they do and how are they characterized?  I think the best ways to separate these are by the OSI Model.

 

For more information on the OSI Model, hit wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osi_model.  Basically the model is categorized into 7 different layers.  The two that relate to us right now for this discussion are layers 1, 2, and 3.  Layer 1 is called Physical Layer, Layer 2 is called Data Link Layer, and Layer 3 is the Network Layer.  The layer 2 deals with switching and the layer 3 deals with routing.  Layer 1 is the most basic because it is only a connection and there is no logic to its network transportation.

 

Having said all that, this is how our network devices fall apart.  Layer 1 is categorized of Network Cards, Hubs, and Repeaters.  Layer 2 is categorized of Bridges and Switches.  Layer 3 is categorized of Routers and Switches.  

 

·         Layer 1 (Hubs and Repeaters)

o   I know it was mentioned in class what device was most related to another device.  Hubs and repeaters are basically the same thing.  The only difference is that hubs are a multi-port repeater.  In fact, many times a hub is called a multiport repeater.  Layer 1 has no method for forwarding data, it just does it.  If something hits one port on a hub, it is automatically forwarded out every other port even if the destination of the data is not on that port.  A hub creates one entire Collision Domain where all data bounces around each other on the hub and is not separated.

·         Layer 2 (Switches and Bridges)

o   Switches and Bridges are the most similar to each other.  The difference once again is the fact that a Switch is a multiport bridge.  Layer 2 has a method of forwarding that uses MAC Addresses.  Each switch has a MAC Address Table which lists every MAC address that has passed through the switch and the port associated where it came from.  If someone sends data from port 1 on the switch to a registered MAC Address elsewhere on the switch it will send it directly to the port associated with the MAC.  This is called Switching.  This is different from Layer 1 because it creates multiple Collision Domains (CD).  Each port itself is its own CD.  This reduces the amount of traffic passed over the entire switch. 

·         Layer 3 (Routers and Switches)

o   Layer 3 encompasses the technology of Routing.  Routing is similar to Switching only it uses IP Address instead of MAC Addresses.  Also, the Layer 3 devices separate Broadcast Domains.  This is separates the different networks on each side of the Layer 3 device from broadcast storms.  I mentioned that Switches are a part of Layer 3 and 2.  Layer 3 Switches are relatively new in the fact that they now support routing.  The other difference between Layer 2 Switches and Layer 3 Switches are cost, Layer 3 being the more expensive.

 

So I have just outlined the different Network Devices.  This is a little bit controversial to what was said in class but Wikipedia and general network standards back me up.  Also after writing all of this, I don't think this was much of a discussion'  So let's make it one.

 

It seems that Layer 2 devices serve the same purpose as Layer 1 and more.  So why is it that you can still purchase Hubs and Repeaters to use for networks?  What are the advantages of Layer 1 and Layer 2?

Why is it that ICANN is able to control what IP addresses are used and not used? Why are they a non-profit organization? Who pays for all of the work that they do and why aren't they on the news more often? In a significant way, they control the names of the internet.

Until my freshman year in college I was strictly a PC user. I now own an ibookG4. I absolutely love it. I find that it is a lot more user friendly, like the previous pepole have said. It is also very easy to manage several programs at one time. If you're a visual person there are also a lot of cool visual things that macs have to offer. Yes, it is slightly more espensive than a PC. It just depends on what features are important to you. keep in mind though macs rarely get viruses which is a major plus. As far as adjusting to using a mac it isn't that bad. If you get a mac you'll discover how much easier it is to do certain things compared to a PC.

Laws are law, there can be NO exceptions or cases of "it depends." What can be debate is how much and to whom those law benefits. And is it really 'bad' to share files, if every body started sharing files would we have created havoc for society? Would singers and actors become unemployed and have to work minimum hourly wages to survive like most people? What about thinking it this way: maybe sharing files is free advertising... In economical terms, there is no such thing as "free" downloading; persons who use file sharing programs pay other fees in the process. It seemed that in our culture (i don't know how we got there but we did) wealth and material possessions defined who we are almost always. We might have a gene for it that we have not discovered yet... I remember several years back when there was the new idea of letting people open a cd and listen in the stores, but that didn't last too long. The reason, i think, is that people quickly find out that most of the stuff they sampled were not worth spending money on, and stores and owner of works realized that themselves. Speaking for myself, i do not believed that all works that claimed intellectual right are works of intellects or artistic for that matter. What i'm trying to express is perhaps those who are engaged in file-sharing realized that they're becoming more dissatisfied with those who uses 'intellectual or artistic' labels to enhances themselves. And it seemed our law is protecting a label that people can attach to and not individuals and society as a whole. I'm not saying the law is wrong, i'm saying it needs refinement if it is going to be used on against individuals and not other because it is protecting certain individuals and not all people.

I think that the arrest is justified because he was knowingly running a site that was used in distributing pirated software, games, and media. I think that the only way the government can begin to stop all the illegal filesharing through torrents is by going after the owner's of websites used to track these torrents. Once the websites to track torrents are down people will have no where to get them from. Like mentioned in a previous post another huge problem for the U.S. is that a lot of the torrent sites are not run off of servers in the United States so there is no way for them shut them down. I think the only way the U.S. government will ever be able to stop all the illegal filesharing is if they can get other countries to enact the same laws and penalties as in the United States, so that the majority of torrent sites will be shut down,  but then there will still be p2p programs such as limewire, and bearshare.

It would seem that precedent can only be set by unustly prosecuting the major players in the pirating industry. What the question then becomes is it right to decrease the value of the justice system in order to make examples of a few people who in all actually probably have little to do with the pirating once the program is created. I think that pirating programs should not be allowed at all and the creating any future programs should be prohibited. "Based on precedent" it is illegal to download music/copy music that has not been paid for and that the person who has rights to the information is not receiving money for. In reality, its impossible to put a cap on the internet, and you can't stop everyone from downloading music, and taking out the main pirating players only allows room for people to take there place, there isn't really a whole lot that you can do about it.

heres the article

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/13/AR2006101300147.html

These types of issues are fascinating. How do we deal with the great number of people/programs that are created for pirating data in the US? There is little judicial precedent dealing with internet-related issues, since the world wide web is (1) fairly new, and (2) almost ungovernable. How is the precedent set? Scape-goating the major players in the market. Do you believe that is fair?

As a bit of a sidetrack, what about pirating in the rest of the world? Many countries, particularly Asian countries, have the resources to be high-tech, but have no laws about intellectual property (i.e. let the US & Europe make software and pharmaceuticals, then we can copy them and sell for cheaper). It is mind-boggling to think about these issues...

Can you provide a link to the bill that was passed?

Well, yes, they should be going after everyone downloading, but how? It's much easier to uncover the identity of someone running a website than someone accessing a website. Also, which is more important - stopping someone facilitating the downloading of millions of songs, or stopping someone downloading a few songs?

In my opinion, of course it's right. The admin was knowingly running a site which allowed the illegal downloading of copyrighted works, and he was prosecuted for it.

Also, for anyone else reading, the way Bittorrent is different is in how you get a file from other people. Normally when you get a file from a website, you connect to that one website and download the entire file from them. With bittorrent, you connect to that website, but at the same time you are downloading you are also uploading what you have to all of the other people trying to download the file, and in turn they are uploading their pieces to you. The benefit of this is that there is much less stress on the initial provider of the file because all of the users are helping out, and therefore it is easier for them to spread it to more people.

This in itself is in no way illegal, but it also happens to be an incredibly efficient way to spread pirated data to a mass of people, and is heavily used as such. In fact, a few research teams have said that Bittorrent alone accounts for 35% to 55% of ALL internet traffic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bittorrent - has a lot more information about it.

http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/06/10/27/0119226.shtml
From the article an Admin from the bittorrent site Elitetorrents was sentenced to prison. For those of you who don't know, Bit torrent is a P2P downloader but it doesn't have a singular interface like Kazaa or Morpheus, instead you search websites for a file and then begin to download (I love it).
My Question to you is: Is this right?
These admins seem to be scape goats in the downloading war. They prosecute these few people to scare millions of downloaders. If the RIAA or any other organizations have this big of a problem with downloaders, they should be coming after all of us insteqad of persueing a few and punishing them unjustly.

There a couple issues coming up here. 1.) should gambling be legal, online or at a casino. 2.) How much regulation does the government have over the internet.

1.) I would vote for casino gambling in Nebraska, I did when it came up last time. But it is still illegal in the state of nebraska whether it is at the $5 home game I play in every thursday night, the back room of a store, or at a computer in your home. People go to the boats in council bluffs because its legal there, others do it at home because its easy and the odds of getting caught are less than getting a royal flush. The government making it harder to do something illegal isnt a bad thing. The way they did it is shady to say the least, including it on what I believe as a port security funds bill (something bush would never veto) is cowardly but thats the congress we have.

2.) The internet is pretty much impossible to regulate as a whole.  It should be up to the individual user to what they see and can do. The government should protect people from crimes such as fraud and child porn but involving themselves in social issues is a "where does it stop" battle worse than the war on drugs.

One thing that does bug me is what about someone at home in Nevada. They can gamble legally in there state but now cannot online? if the federal government dislike gambling so much why not just ban all forms? Oh wait, it's called states rights. They left it up to each state and now they want to take back control because they dont like the way its being used. Big Brother at its finest.

In case you havent seen it in the news lately, congress passed a bill that made it illegal for banks to transfer funds to sites that run internet gambling operations.  Not only is this a huge hit to the players, it is forcing some of the largest gaming companies to pull out of the U.S. market.  Party Gaming (largest internet poker room on the net) was the first to pull out of the U.S. and it is expected that the other large players might follow.  What really makes me mad about this bill is the sneaky way congress passed it.  They simply added a clause onto the end of a port security bill because they have been having problems passing a straight-up internet gambling bill.  I believe we should all have the right to at least vote on something like this instead of having the stupid republicans tell us what we can and cant do and what is good for our cause.  I also believe that poker (texas hold'em) is a game of skill not not luck which makes it more of a "sport".

 

Id like to hear what other people have to say on this subject. Do you think the way congress passed this bill was fair?  What will become of internet poker?

This is purely an invasion of privacy. It's one thing to advertise on website pages, that is no different than a billboard. And pop ups, spyware, etc. obviously goes to far in terms of trying to make an extra buck. But this new trojan just oversteps these boundaries even further. Any company found to be supporting such methods should be sued promptly.

I'm bewildered and saddened by the idea that spam e-mails must get enough actual customers to be a worthwhile advertising method. Much the same way I feel about telemarketing.

My opinion is very similar to the previous ones.  I grew up using Windows more than Macs.  I am actually an IT Analyst at the company I work at and we are a 100% Windows based deployment of computers.  Windows is much better for the network management standpoint than Macs.  (I doubt you would ever have to deal with any major network management for your personal computer.)  Yes Macs are better on the creative side.  I would say that Windows is very close.  The Adobe Photoshop program is the exact same thing on both platforms.  For the most part the only difference between Mac and Windows is the cost.  Mac gives you a bunch of free photo/video editing with the OS.  With Windows, you get paint and Movie Maker.  But for a cost you can get something just as good as the Mac's stuff.

Someone mentioned earlier that the Macs freeze for no reason occasionally.  I am sure that is true especially on our campus.  I am not sure how many of our current Macs we own are the new style of Macs.  Within the last year Mac computers are now available on the Intel Processors.  This makes this much faster and stable for Macs. 

Right now I only own Windows machines personally.  I am excited for Vista to be available... Q1 of 2007.  But I could see myself buying a Mac for some of the creative features now that it is on Intel... when I do have more money...

 

I think as a college student, Windows will be adequate for you.

A Trojan that installs its own Anti-Virus Scanner to eliminate all other competition to get access to your computer!

An article of this can be found here

That's right, there's a new kind of Trojan developed everyday, but there are not many that rival the complexity of this one. This one seems to even rival most commercial software, utilizing P2P networking the 'SpamThru' Trojan downloads and installs a back-door anti virus scanner to scan for eliminate all other malware except for itself.

"Any other malware found on the system is then set up to be deleted by Windows at the next reboot"

Something like this makes me wonder how far others and corporations are willing to go to make a dollar and gain a new customer. I know competition can be fierce in the industry, but this kind of takes it to a whole new level...

So I suppose my question to you is...

How do you feel about modern online advertising and the methods used to gain new customers or just their information? (ie. pop-ups, banners, malware, spyware, etc.)

How do you think these methods will effect the future of the internet and how its used?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5344884.stm

Maybe it had came to a point in human evolution that we have a 'wealth' gene we don't know about yet.  It seem to me that lately there had been alot suing relating to the topic of computing technology.  This one is not really significant, just a regular use of the email, but it does interest me to wonder why didn't somebody at Starbuck able to realizes that an email can travel very fast and very wide.  It also suggests that the use of computing technogoly had permeated into our culture so vastly that it made most people inconceivably relaxed to use their gray matter.  Is there anything that can not be sued?  Computing might be moving too far ahead that societies are playing the catch-up game, human following the technology.  The increase in convenience and simplicity of computing technology, in this case (and most other), led to the failure of realizing consequences for one and exploitative behaviors for other.  Should we define how and when our feelings regarding the use of computing be relevant to make a civil rights' claim?  How do we apply moral and ethical standards to computing technology without abusing civil liberties?  I find it hard not to think about the notion of deus ex machina.  And it seemed too likely that human, or at least human in societies that are capable of techonological advances, are playing the catch-up game with our inventions.   Evolution[1].jpg   ( i hope i didn't violate any infringement with that picture?!  Ok, i found it on Yahoo, and a little cut and paste of my own, there you go...)   

the person should act a little more responsible before charging children. after adults are administrators of this society and teenagers are mere trainees in the code of conduct one has to follow in order to be a good citizen of the society. now internet is a major part of modern life but it has many negative aspects  too. minors dont have any idea of responsibility and they are more prone to be attracted to negative things undr the conception that its very cool to do so. so there is very little amount of thinking and practical planning behind any action but adults on the other hand should take up the responsibility to makr sure that children do not get attracted to negative aspects of the internet and use it as a tool to success and knowledge , the senior members of this society should educate the minors with discipline and undersatmding about morals and principals rather than charging them accusations when they commit a deed full of  inexperience and devoid of reasoning

Actually, I just read about this on GamePolitics the other day. The judge asked Take Two to give him a demonstration of the game, and he decided that it did not constitute a public nuisance.

Also, I just looked on GP again, and there's an article about Thompson doing a College Debate Tour - http://gamepolitics.com/2006/10/17/jack-thompson-announces-college-tour/

Basically, there isn't a superior system. One's just better at doing certain things than the other.

PC's -

Pros: Lower cost, easier to upgrade, great for programming and business applications as well as video games.

Cons: Prone to viruses/adware, more likely to have bizarre hardware conflicts.

Macs -

Pros: User friendly, nicer looking, great for media work like graphic design, video editing, and music.

Cons: High price, hard to upgrade except for memory, very limited game selection.

In the end, though, it's just about knowing your computer. Windows computers can work just fine for media applications, and it's not difficult to prevent virus attacks. When people say that Macs don't have to worry about viruses, they aren't kidding. You could probably count the number of Mac-based viruses on one hand (it has to do with how the operating system is built). And both types of computers can become plagued with freezes and slowdown if they get clogged up with useless programs.

I would say the biggest issue for the average home user is price. If you can afford an Apple, go for it. Otherwise, Windows computers can work just as well.

I'm also going to be a PC guy all my life. This is partly because I'm so stubborn. I've only used Macs for when I was forced to use them in my high school and here at UNL. That's a negative right there... Macs=Schoolwork. I am also used to the PC. Like Tracy, I grew up with the PC. It's all I've ever known. I'm sure that Macs are better for blocking viruses and stuff like that, but that's why I have Norton on my computer. I think Mac has been trying to make things too "cute." When I scroll over Safari, it bounces like it wants to be played with. I could do without that. Again, like Tracy, I know all of this information doesn't deal with the technicalities, but it deals with what I care about, the practicalities.

I also am pretty biased on this issue. The game being taken to court is not necessarily a bad thing in itself. If this game is really so innocent, then it should pass no problem. I'm glad that they are taking stricter measures for video games. We don't really want another GTA incident, do we? As long as the games are rated properly, however, it is up to the parents to decide what their children can and cannot play. If parents just take a little time out to actually pay attention to their children, they'll find out exactly what their kids are up to. My parents were aware of what types of games I played while I was still at home, and knew that I could handle them. But if games are rated mature, the parent has to buy them anyway. That should be a huge red flag. The games need to be rated properly, but after that, it really is up to the parents. There is no excuse for negligance.

I have also grown up with more of a Windows background.  The set up makes sense to me for the most part.  I don't know a lot of technical jargon in terms of processor speed and how to compare each program's whatever, but practically, Windows just makes more sense to me.

Since arriving to UNL, I have been exposed more to the world of Mac.  There are a few things that I have found I like better about Mac's.  First, is that they are ideal for working with Adope Photoshop, Illustrator, etc.  For creative explorations, Macs are the way to go.  The second thing I love about Macs is that I am able to drag a file over a folder in order to load it into that folder.  There's no intricate process of searching, copying, and saving--just drag.  In ways like this, Mac is more "user friendly."  Echoing the previous posting, Mac is said to be superior in safety and protection against viruses and hackers, which is nice, too.

The worst thing I have discovered so far about a Mac, besides expense, is that it freezes ALL THE TIME for NO reason at all.  Wow--I rarely get so pissed off at a machine. 

These are but practical observations from a non technical gal.  Take what you will.  I'm sticking with my Windows PC.

 

I personally have never owned a mac computer and am very partial to the windows operating system because I have grown up using it and am very familiar with it.

Some pros about Mac's are that they are very reliable, and less susceptible to viruses and other attacks because the majority of viruses were designed with Windows in mind. Mac's also have a smaller learning curve than Window's and are a lot easier to maintain. The newer Mac's evel allow you to have the Mac OS and Windows on the same machine so you can switch back and forth. The main con that I see towards Mac's is the price, especially for the notebooks. Another main con for me would be that I would have to learn the operating system.

Now, I am Quite Biased on the issue, but anyone can see that this is Bullsh*t! For those of you who don't know, Bully is a game where you play as a new student who fights against bullies, stands up for other students and pranks teachers. There is no blood and no excessive violence. This is an infringment on the first amendment. More importantly, the game isn't even out yet and Jack Thompson is crusading against it, for all we know, you can ride unicorns in it.

To Quote Slashdot.org :
"GamePolitics.com reports that a judge in Miami ruled that Take Two Interactive, makers of the controversial title Bully, must hand over a copy of the soon to be released game to the court within 24 hours. Jack Thompson, the plaintiff, called the ruling a 'huge victory against the violent video game industry', although Take Two can still appeal the order. Thompson filed a lawsuit asking the court to label Bully a 'public nuisance' and restrict its October 17 release in Florida." -http://games.slashdot.org/games/06/10/11/2317228.shtml

Someday, I want to get a new computer and have always been interested in Macintosh computers; however, I know little about them and am slightly intimidated by them. I've noticed that people are very polarized on the issue of which is better. What are your opinions on the two platforms...how are they different from each other and what are the pros and what are the cons?

Thank you!
Sarah S.

I do think that actually going so far as the sue the kids that put up the website is over doing it a little.  The assistant principle was probably hurt greatly by it, especially if it got around the school.  No one could now how she feels walking down the halls everyday with the kids snickering at her.  I think it would have done a lot more good for the kids to be suspended from school for a couple days.  For one, it would have taught them a lesson that I bet they wouldn't forget any time soon and also it would have kept her name out of the national news.  These kids are old enough to know that there are consequences for their actions, they may not know how severe those consequences should be but I guess that no matter what happens they will have learned their lesson and maybe next time they will think twice about something before they do it.

The teacher should not sue the kids because they probably made the site up for fun and just for them and their friends to see and no one else. However, even though the teacher did find out about the website made about her, if you know who the students are and all you should kindly asked them to take it down and if they don't then the teacher should consult with the parents and let them know what their child has been doing online. Having to sue over such a little problem is not worth it because in the end you would probably only  get the amount back that you had to pay for an atternory and then what it cost for the court as well meaning you gain nothing from this and teaching a kid a lesson doesn't work when you sue, cause kids at that age are like "ooohhh money got to spend all of it." So basically you don't teach them a lesson by suing yet the teacher can make them do community service or have it put on their record but shouldn't sue cause it wouldn't change anything. Plus the emotional breakdowns probably happened because she said she was going to sue then the news casts got into making up these ridiculous stories and taking one side or the other and not really saying the whole truth. So suing the kids was a mistake on herself and she caused herself to have the breakdowns instead of trying to fix it with the parents and keeping it in private.

I don't think that the principal should sue because it really is a stupid situation. The same number of people would have seen the slander on myspace that would have seen it if the students wrote the same lies in the school neewspaper. The principal is creating her own embarassment by making this a much larger deal than it need be.

I'll be the first to agree that the assistant principle has the right to sue but I just don't think she should. What is a lawsuit really going to accomplish? She may be rewarded finacially by the courts for damages or get a public apology from the children but whatever damage done is over. The public knows it was the kids who made the site, they know shes not a lesbian.  If the idea is to punish the kids they can do that through the school system, bringing the courts in just makes it a bigger than it should be. In my opinion.

I disagree with your position on censoring the internet for 'unethical content'. I feel that it is much too broad and open-ended - who gets to say what is and isn't 'unethical', or 'obscene', or 'vulgar'? My definitions of those words might be completely different from that person's, so why should I be obligated to accept what they deem is inappropriate for me?

This is a huge issue in the videogame industry right now. There has been much debate for years about whether the government should have control over how mature games are sold. There is an industry-controlled ratings system in place now, but some feel that it should be taken a step further, with government enforcement of the ratings rather than just guidelines. While I agree that it is likely detrimental for children to witness certain adult material, I don't think a faceless government should have a part in how I raise my children. I think it is more important that parents are educated on how to make sure they know what their children are getting into, rather than a forced program that essentially protects them from themselves.

the Link:  http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060922/ap_on_re_us/myspace_principal;_ylt=AtzJUhpNUOsU85Er2mL2lvxH2ocA;_ylu=X3oDMTA4dW1uZXIwBHNlYwMyNzQ3

What a coincidence, CSE is not so bad after all?!  Well, in my opinion (based on the news article), these kinds of teenage delinquencies suggest at least a social issue at work.  Furthermore, it is these kind of delinquent activities that could support more go-happy-politicians to render on more "Freedom" Acts.  I think social issues must be delt with socially and not judicially (politically); though judicial (political) process could be of an advantagous aid...  Because I think it is plenty clear that political social reforms do not solve the major problems, it just makes it tolerable and permissive (i.e. poverty, racial issues, affirmitive actions). 

No matter we're on which side of the story, those who access the internet must be educated of the ethical issues and responsibilities.  Activities on the internet are more likely than not, now a day, have significant social consequences.  It had a social life of its own, just like how people would behave in a public setting like a coffee shop.  For, it may be true that all the internet were is just a bunch of 'zeros' and 'one' traveling back and forth, the perception of those '0s' and '1s' do have an impact on people imaginations and behaviors; hence social issues.  While everyone can blame the family and parents for the underage childs' action, the social contexts that affected those teenagers is being ignored altogether.  We are cultured in a way to think that underage childrens' responsiblity belongs exclusively to the roof that housed them, this perception is invalid and ignorant.  In this instance, the principle should use her experience as education for her school and think of a better way to solve the problem than sueing.  She should invest in educating her students how to handle problems before it got out of hand, (i.e.  teach her students how to approach her with issues rather than take her out on 'MySpace').          

This is a good question.

Without having online resources linked (If anyone can confirm these with links, or even better, talking to an ISP!), the money paid for internet access goes to the same place as phone companies. Some examples of services necessary:

(1) Wire maintenance: Phone lines often need to be fixed after severe weather. However, more often, branches from trees need to be trimmed to prevent damage.

(2) Administration: Databases, data entry, help-lines, etc. Lots of people.

(3) Renting wire time: A hidden cost is the fact that each provider owns wiring to particular places. For example, Alltel owns a significant amount of the phone wiring in Lincoln. If the company does not own the wiring, then it needs to buy the bandwidth from other companies. I'm sure this is somehow regulated by the gov't, though I cannot prove it.

I would encourage someone to elaborate this points!!! Most people are not aware of what they are paying for with the internet.... Rather, they think of it as a "black box", and trust the officials who run the "black box" to be fair.

Most information should be available online, however a quick email to your ISP with this question would be a good way to find out what you are being charged for. (Note also: Posting an email reply on this discussion board is a really good way to earn "brownie points" *wink* *wink* *nudge* *nudge*)

I've always wondered why the internet can't be free?  What exactly does our subscription money go to?  With telephone service, I assume that my money goes to paying the cost of electricity and the company.  Is that the same for internet?  Who actually gets our internet subscription money?

So, do you think that if he had stayed at this hotel before and had the password saved in his computer (like you can do with most wireless connections) that would also be ok? Using the money anology, it would be like he had the key to a lockbox once and just kept it. Now he knows the password and will never lose it. Do you think the hotels should change the password every month? What, then, about people who stay at that hotel multiple times? Would that be frustrating for them?

On the other side of it though, if the hotel does not secure the wireless connection with password protection, than it is fair game to anyone who wants to use it. It is the same as leaving a pile of money in a public place and asking people to not steal from it. If it is in a public place than it should be considered a public service. The hotel could easily set up a password system on the wireless connection so people who didn't pay couldn't use it. It was set up like that at the regency hotel I was at in St. Louis, so it can't be too difficult.

this is actually stealing and unworthy use of resources that do not belong to him . wireless internet is a boon as far as mdern electronic wizardry goes and one shoul usethe good aspects of it rather than indulging in the various side-effects which it tags along.

T mobile seems cool actually i dnt exactly know how it works or how expensive it is butif these aspects are kept aside then the kind of  facility the device offers seems very convinient and user-friendly

I guess face book seems to be a very cool way to express urself on the net. you are allowed to put on loads of vital and personal information on the net  but  facebook is however an open service so a lot  of people have access to a particular account in a facebook .Unwanted individuals like teachers parents security personnels can have access to ur facebook account and get hold of private and in some cases embarrasing information which can put you on the wrong foot. the internet can help you be in touch with the world and your friends but i dnt think its necessary to really post your personal information on the net because by doing so you are making yourself more vulnurable by using facebook you are allowing yourself to be screned by people you dny know and in some cases people you dnt want to get your information. i am quite aware of the side effects which tag along the various convinences and enjoyment offered by facebook  so I dnt have an account on facebook I dnt think one needs to post personal information on the net to make friends who are virtual. you need to meet someone in person and converse face to face in order to know more about that individual . It is opinion that you should onlu indulge in internet communication once you are completely sure that you are safe and your personal information will not be misused in doing so.

personal videos should never be aired online because they are after all "personal". They are not for the world to see.There should be some sort of intternet censor service which prohibits the airing of videos or pictures with unethical content online. some people may get hold of a partcular video of people in their private moments and post it on line then not only will the peoplke in the video get embarrased all ends up , the video becomes a medium of cheap and unwanted publicity. there are a lot of social issues which are associated with this sort of public viewing of personal videos . Minors who are not supposed to watch several stuff on the net get access to unethical content through which is highly undesirable as far as parental discipline and guidance are concerned.So modern electronic wizardry like perhaps an Web screening program or internet sensor should be used to keep intact our social values the concept of video piracy or file sharing is a curse to the media industry by indulging in pirscy we are affecting the revenue of the country and thus affecting proper growth of our country so effective measures have to be taken to stop it 

After reading most of the responses to the issue of dissemination of data over the internet, I have come to my own view now on what I believe.  First of all, anything that should cost money and you get it when it doesn't is either "The Price is Right" or stealing, there is no other explaination, no ifs, ands, or buts.  I don't understand why people think since the artisit of the songs are already rich, so they don't need the money.  Why would you say that???  Think about this,you are a business owner and you sell lollipops to people that is the only thing you sell, how would you feel if some came without your knowing about and stole your only profit.  Personally I would be pissed.  Another thing, guess what when artists make money, they pay taxes, right.  It is simple the more money you make the more taxes you pay, the more taxes you pay goes to the goverment and in a big long huge cycle it comes back to you, to spend again.  They call and I know this is goig to come as a surprise to people but a CAPITALIST economy.  If you don't like it, then move.

That is why I feel that Itunes and any other online store that is out there is doing the correct thing by charging for the songs.  If you don't like the cheap .99 cents a song than go buy the album at the store and rip it on your computer for your I Pod or MP3 player.  Makes sense to me and you are not stealing.  I think also with movies and pictures it is the same way.  Unless it is public domain than you shouldn't be taking it without permission.

In the case of The Star Wars Kid, I feel that he was wrong and that he had every right in to sue the people who set him up for depression and put his face on the internet without his permission.  You know this case reminds me of that one video production crew hmmm... let me think, oh yes I remember Girls Gone Wild.  They were just recently in sued because they used a womans image without her permission.  Imagine being posted world wide on the internet and in movies for the rest of your life.  Again I would be pissed.  For the whole story go to http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1434324/posts.  It is the same thing as the Ghyslain Raza's (Star Wars Kid) story. He didn't give consent so it shouldn't be on the internet.  The solution is simple and clear, without the person's permission it should not be allowed to share videos across the web. 

With new technology, most laptops are coming equipped with wireless capabilities. I think this is a great technology, it can also be very un-secure. A friend of mine, whose office is in his van and he spends all of his time traveling, uses wireless internet all the time. He stays in motels a lot and uses wireless internet that doesn't have very good security. I'm wondering how easy it would be for someone to steal information over wireless systems such as these. Also, he has a new "trick." Whenever he is on the road and needs to check his e-mail or get on the internet, he just pulls into the parking lot of a hotel and uses their wireless internet.
What do you guys think? Does that constitute as "stealing," or is it just "using his resources"?

I think it would slow it down a lot because it's like a lot of people in the same house all trying to use the hot water. It's all coming from the same source so its bound to slow down. Granted, with advances in technology moving as quickly as they are it shouldn't be a problem for much longer.

I saw an ad on Facebook advertising a new "Facebook wallet" that you can get for joining a certain group.  Hmm, Facebook's beginning to look more and more corporate and less like an innocent entertainment site.

Now Facebook claims, on the site, that they don't in fact sell the information users put on the website.  They also want to reassure users that only their friends and people in their network can see their profile.  While at the same time they are attempting to expand Facebook so that virtually anyone can use it.  Are they simply giving us false reassurance here or disguising the real issues at hand.  I'm glad that people have begun to raise doubts towards Facebook and question their motives.  Without opposition from their users, Facebook could really get out of hand. 

I dont think that it is right to not hire you for having facebook, but I bet employers will soon be doing that. Even if you don't have anything incriminating on your site they may not want to hire you because you COULD put something incriminating.

I knew about the Facebook related arrests that have occurred, but I have remained oblivious to the potential consequences that the site could have for me.  After Monday's class, I began to think more about this issue.  I have gotten in trouble with Facebook before.  After two worthless music education classes with the same incompetent professor, I felt the urge to tell the whole world about my frustrations.  I made an "anti-stupid MUED class" group.  The professor was on Facebook - the professor is my academic advisor.  Oops.  I know that I have definitely wrecked my image with this professor and am regretful.  I will be looking for a job next year and the thought of a future employer looking at my account is frightening!  I'm torn because I enjoy the site for keeping in touch with old friends and sharing news with them, but I value my privacy and don't want Facebook to be a mark against me on a job application.

A question I'd like to pose is: could even being involved with Facebook make an employer pass you up?  Even if you have nothing incriminating on your page, does it still look immature and unprofessional?

thats a good point, but sometimes those agreements can be really shady. They are always extremely long, and does anyone actually read them anyways? People should be smarter and not put private things online but who knows what else they could have hidden in those agreements.

I agree that anything that you think is private and nobody's business to look at should not be put on the internet in the first place.  I'm sure in the license agreement it was stated that anything you put on your page is viewable to others and that its their site not yours. 

I think that anything that you put on myspace or facebook, you should be willing to have everyone see it. Why would you put it on your site if you weren't wiling to share it with everyone? I think that if people complain about people seeing some things on their site that are personal, then they shouldnt have put it on there in the first place.

I have never attempted a Facebook account.  I did fill out info for a MySpace account awhile ago, however, which lasted maybe a week.  My concerns circled around the privacy and personal issues that surfaced.  The obsessiveness of such sites deters me big time.  The "my space is better than yours" mentality.  More friends, more comments, more skin showing...whatever.  To advertise myself in hopes that people will find my site, my life, be it truth or lies, appealing.  And the number of comments and friends proves myself legit.  Initially, it's an honest motive to connect with old friends who have moved away or to share pics online, but soon the book, the space, is opened 10 times a day, habitually scrolling through the same photos and sites to compare "treasure."  I dropped the account as I began to feel the pull of this insanity.

The other angle was that of security.  Especially as an athlete in the media, people can become a bit obsessive, especially in Nebraska *wink*.  So to have even limited info allowed an easy window for unwanted intrusion or attachment.  Certain teammates have dealt with such problems head on, even having to involve the cops at one point.  Information, no matter how "controlled," can get stretched by strange hands.  I am not paranoid, though I do worry about my teammates and friends sometimes who continue to load their facebooks with all the goods.  I'll tease myself sometimes about reestablishing my myspace account, but as talk of the dangers of such sites thickens with threats to future employment, NCAA suspensions, etc., I decide the drop was worthwhile and necessary. 

 

The new feeds section, kind of makes everything you do is public to anyone who has a friend of you, they will see something like you join a new group or what ever. However, with this say you create a group of something ridiculous but didn't want people to know your part of. With the new feeds it tells whether you or not you enter or leave a group, or when you leave a comment. It annoceses it to everyon instead of you and your friend and it shows what you write as well. So say you make a joke about someone and its an inside joke, and the person the joke is about is friends with who your friend will be able to see it and then get mad at the other person cause he won't know whats its about. It pretty tells everyone your every move on facebook. So what you do on the internet is no longer privacy on facebook!

Facebook is not the only website that offers up your information to third parties, many websites do.  In fact that is how many sites make money. 

Once you put something on Facebook it is there for anyone to see.  If you don't want your information given to third parties than you should not post it in the first place. 

Has anyone seen the new group on Facebook regarding Brody Ruckus.  He has turned into an internet legend in a matter of a week.  In a couple of years how much do you think ole Brody is going to be regretting his decision to create this group?

The latest issue in facebook has been the newsfeed, but i think there's even a greater issue. I am more concerned that facebook can give your information out to thrid parties. I don't think facebook should be able to do this, but unfortunately it can. Under the privacy setttings you can uncheck this feature, but i have a hard time believing that just by unchecking a box will prevent them for giving other people my information. I think facebook will continue to push it's limits when it comes to privacy until people stop using it.

IF you switch over from the cell to the Wi-Fi, does it take away from some of the speed of your internet while you are talking on the phone? I know that from my experiences with Wi-Fi in large public areas with open Wi-Fi access, the connectivity is usually terrible due to the signal being spread out everywhere. Would the same problems occur with this sort of situation?

I think T-mobile kind of got this idea from vonage.  I'm not sure if it works the same way, but it would be great depending on it's affordability.

For example, my friend uses Verizon Wireless and he frequently has poor quality conversations and many dropped calls because he lives in his basement.  With wi-fi, he would be able to have a strong signal regardless of where he was in his house.

"T-Mobile USA, the fourth-largest mobile phone company in the United States, is preparing to launch a service this month that will allow people talking on their cell phones to seamlessly switch between T-mobile's cellular network and their home Wi-Fi networks."

http://news.com.com/Switching+from+cell+to+Wi-Fi%2C+seamlessly/2100-1039_3-6113223.html?tag=nefd.lede

 

Facebook.

Verbatim by the UNL-Career Services warning,

http://www.unl.edu/careers/prepare/facebook.shtml

--------------------------------

"Facebook and similar social network web sites are popular with students, but like anything, wise use is important. It is easy to feel anonymous on the web, but remember the "worldwide" part. Protect your personal information. Cyber smart individuals can use information like your name, birthday, photo, etc. to retrieve information about you to use for identity theft, cyber stalking, physical stalking, harassment, or to embarrass you.

Facebook is not a closed system like Blackboard. Besides students, faculty, staff, and often alumni have access to facebook. Prospective employers may gain access or obtain information from other users. Privacy policies do not prevent other users from re-distributing information, photos, blogs, etc. elsewhere on the internet. Some campuses use evidence posted on these sites in disciplinary action, such as photos of drinking in residence halls. Realize that with picture phones, privacy is tenuous at best. Someone else could post a photo of you on their page.

While you can enjoy sites like Facebook, think twice before posting information that could potentially be seen by your professor, your adviser, college administrators, campus security, prospective employers, your parents, thieves, and the rest of the world. Even posting your class schedule tells someone when you are not at home. Other questions to ask yourself: Do I have real or virtual friends? How much time do I spend on Facebook in a week? The internet can help you stay in touch, but does not replace face to face interaction with peers or professionals."

---------------------

A little closer to home (at least, for Nebraskans and Nebraska football fans), is this particular story/video:

http://khastv.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=6155


Other interesting information from the Facebook privacy policy:

http://www.facebook.com/policy.php

-Facebook may also collect information about you from other sources, such as newspapers, blogs, instant messaging services, and other users of the Facebook service through the operation of the service (e.g., photo tags) in order to provide you with more useful information and a more personalized experience.

-By using Facebook, you are consenting to have your personal data transferred to and processed in the United States.

-We may be required to disclose user information pursuant to lawful requests, such as subpoenas or court orders, or in compliance with applicable laws. We do not reveal information until we have a good faith belief that an information request by law enforcement or private litigants meets applicable legal standards. Additionally, we may share account or other information when we believe it is necessary to comply with law, to protect our interests or property, to prevent fraud or other illegal activity perpetrated through the Facebook service or using the Facebook name, or to prevent imminent bodily harm. This may include sharing information with other companies, lawyers, agents or government agencies.

-Individuals who wish to deactivate their Facebook account may do so on the My Account page. Removed information may persist in backup copies for a reasonable period of time but will not be generally available to members of Facebook... Where you make use of the communication features of the service to share information with other individuals on Facebook, however, (e.g., posting on someone else's Wall) you generally cannot remove such communications.
---------

Do these terms have any "hidden" warnings? How concerned are you about Facebook posts? How concerned do you think other students are?

I totally agree with all of you.  I personally don't care what other people write on your wall and at the same time you shouldn't care what my other friends write on my wall.  Another thing that I really don't like is the fact that when you change your relationship status it tells everyone when they sign into facebook.  If you just broke up with your boyfriend/girlfriend then you would want to change your relationship status but it isn't necessary to have all your friends on facebook know the second that it happens.

I think the Mini Feed on Facebook really was a poor idea. I can understand a person's reasoning behind it thinking, "wouldn't it be cool if you could tell what your friends were doing?" but at the same time it is partially creepy thinking that everyone you know of Facebook knows who you've commented recently, who you're adding as friends, and whether or not you've changed your interests. It is almost guaranteed that Facebook will be makind radical changes to the Mini Feed system due to the tremendous amount of complaints received.

I disagree with Facebook's new News Feed thing, so does 500,000 other people when they signed some petition against it.  I dont really want people to know what i have done in a list view.  The problem is, we have no 'right' to Facebook.  It is simply a free service provided to us, in which we have no say on what happens.  The only way we can give input on what happens and expect them to do something about it is if people stop using Facebook and go somewhere else. 

I agree that this is a huge issue. I use iTunes and agree it can be expensive, but I disagree with Tim on the issue of whether stealing from artists really effects them. If 50% of music listeners downloaded their music for free that would mean that half of the market no longer exsists. That would either cut artists profit in half, or drive the costs for those of us who do pay up to double what they are now to cover the deficit. While it is difficult for the record companies to catch illegal downloading it is not impossible. At one point, I'm not sure what happened with them, there were several legal cases of people being prosecuted by record companies for downloading free music and sharing it. Easy or not it's wrong.

Personally I think the News Feed is ridiculous. I realize that it's not technically an invasion of privacy because everyone can see what we do if they look carefully enough, but I don't think FB has the right to list it out for everyone to see. I am grateful they give us the opportunity to delete the feeds, which I do, but I feel like this is making FB a better resource for stalkers.

How much of what we do on the internet should be common knowledge? How does everybody feel about the new News Feed section?

"It's not illegal if you don't get caught" A friend of mine used to say this when it came to illegal fireworks and the 4th of July. While I do believe downloading music without paying for it is wrong because you are stealing, the likelyhood of getting caught is pretty much zero.  This changes the way people feel about it. Give an equal situation people will do the right thing; however, this is not an equal situation.  Downloading music illegally is just as easy, if not easier than iTunes or other legal services.  No matter how easy or cheap or easy it is to get legal music, free is free. The music industry may just have to change.  Electronic music may just become free. Let the artist make their money by touring and charging more at the gate and the record companies will just increase their cut.  Pandora's Box is open, there's no closing it now.

Is stealing music and sharing files on the internet wrong?  Yes.  However I wouldn't go as far as saying that everyone knows that taking something without permission and without paying for it is wrong.  It is also instilled in many people's childhood years that the internet is a very usefull and helpful tool that can be used for many different reasons.  There is so much fine print these days, that I wouldn't be surprised if there were people out there that actually didn't know it's wrong.  Some might think, "if it's that easy, how can it be wrong?"  Which I believe is a valid question.

I think that everyone can justifyable say that they know they are stealing music when they are not paying for it. At early ages in childhood it is instilled within an individual that taking something without permission and without paying for it is wrong. Regardless of where you are getting the product from, and the fact that a person may never see anyone that will be affected by the loss in financial gain, might make it easier to download music but it still isn't right. It's actually kind of sad that people will actually argue the fact that downloading music without paying for it is right.

Yes iTunes can get very expensive, believe you me I know it can get expensive, but so can buying CDs.  The laws that govern copyrights to music say you are to purchase atleast one copy of the music and you can not duplicate it or redistribute the music to anyone.  I know it may not sound "fair" but that is your view on it.  The record companies and artists loose potential business when someone makes a copy of a CD or downloads the music illegally.  Not all bands are like Rolling Stones where they are living life very easily.  There are many struggling bands out there.  Oh and Tim, I really like your quote, "I know an excuse a lot of people use is the music companie/artists are already rich so who cares and you know what......I agree."  Yes Tim, that is a great legal justification on sharing music.  It is like saying, 'Hey, Wal-Mart is a billion dollar business, If I stole 100 shirts from them the accounting department probably wont even notice and it won't set them back.'  Just because it wont affect them majorily doesnt make it legally or morally just.  I am with you Tim, I would love my music to be free, but a business couldnt survive with giving out it's product for free.  I think we all should come to the realization that you have to pay for cookie, before you reach your hand in the cookie jar.

I agree with John Irons on everything except for his statement on itunes. Yes, it may be better than trying to stop the pirating of music but like Cory said, itunes can be expensive. I know if I had the choice in getting music free or buying it, I'm going to choose getting it free. I don't see any way around this issue for music companies. I know an excuse a lot of people use is the music companie/artists are already rich so who cares and you know what......I agree.

The most important thing John put in his post was "computer people, they always find a work-around given enough time". This is so true and I think always will be true. This pretty much shuts the door on stopping the downloading of illegal music.

In the strictest sense, piracy of anything is ethically wrong. The problem with internet piracy is that its easy, its anonymous, and there are few, if any, repurcussions. However, I think that the entertainment companies are on the wrong track in trying to completely eliminate all piracy. You can't stop mischievious computer people, they always find a work-around given enough time. What the companies should be doing is providing legal alternatives that give us the same benefits as pirated material.

iTunes is a great example. They've given people the ability to get any song from an enormous library, and the ability to put that song on a portable medium for their listening pleasure. Apple has proven itself to be a forward-thinking company which realizes that internet file-sharing is not going away, and is trying to promote it legally rather than stomp it out. I feel that the same idea should be applied to the other mediums mentioned, such as movies, games, and books, (Valve has done an excellent job in the games category).

As for personal home videos, of course they should be allowed online. The problem is making sure that the creator and those featured have given their permission for that to happen. You can't make everyone follow that rule, in the same way that you can't keep everyone from illegally sharing music they didn't create. But in a case like the Star Wars Kid, he was entirely within his rights to sue those involved.

I can't see any benefits that will arise in putting any boundaries on the content of digital data.  The only thing that will be protected from this control is privacy.  In theory,  it would protect privacy of personal footage such as the Star Wars Kid or any other family videos that aren't wanted on the Internet.  The reason I said, 'In theory,' is because there would have to be another level of monitoring which would have to be maintained.  There is no direct way of processing the footage before it is placed on the net.  It doesn't read file type, it is only by content, and I am pretty sure there is no content filter that can read if this is personal or not.  The only way this could be regulated is by enforcing an agreement contract that people have to read before posting the footage that clearly states what is allowed on the Internet.  I'd like to see that happen and work.

I think it is right for companies to copyright software, video games, and music.  Since there is no direct way to establish a control over sharing of these files illegally, all they can do is what they currently do.  They should keep the disclaimer that says it is illegal to do whatever and then enforce the rule when it is broken.  I don't think there is any other way around it without completely locking up the Internet from anything. 

The sharing of files through the internet is something that almost all high school and college students know about. I think there should be rules or laws against downloading copywrited material, such as music and full length videos. The music stores on the internet are nice but expensive, I have an account at the wal-mart music store and have bought one CD from it, but I can do nothing with those songs since they are protected. I like to do projects that use music and pictures some times and when I try to put a song into the video that I got from the music store it wont let me. If there was a store on the internet that sold unprotected songs I dont think I would be the only one that would take advantage of it. But the stealing of personal videos, in my mind, is a big invasion of privacy and needs to be protected by a law.

Summary:

Dissemination of data of different types has become a hot issue recently. Besides the hot topic of MP3 file-sharing (see the Recording Industry Association of America's latest news at http://www.riaa.com/default.asp, where 6 of the top nine stories are associated with music piracy), many other areas are beginning to see the problems with file-sharing. Among them are movies (http://archives.cnn.com/2001/TECH/science/03/01/movie.piracy.t_t/) books (http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/e-books/78353), video games (http://www.smh.com.au/news/Breaking/Campaign-against-video-game-piracy/2005/04/04/1112489386775.html), and software piracy (http://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/stories/2006/07/24/daily21.html).

Besides copyrighted content, issues dealing with a persons right to privacy are now coming to the fore. For example, in recent years, a teenage boy used a video recorder to record himself mimicking moves he saw in a Star Wars movie. This video was found by some of his classmates, who placed the video online. The video became an internet sensation, earning the teenage boy the nickname of "Star Wars Kid", with some fansites devoted to the original video, along with some remakes of the video in which a light-saber was digitally added. A good round-up of this story can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_wars_kid. The teenage boy became depressive because of the humiliation of the Star Wars Kid video, and he sued the classmates who put the video online, and the case was settled out of court.

What are the boundaries that should be set on sharing digital data? Which, if any, of the above applications of file-sharing are ethically wrong? Should personal videos, such as the Star Wars Kid, be allowed online? What other issues are raised by this issue?

Should there be a distinction in the rights to collect and disseminate data depending on the form of the data? That is, should the right to collect and disseminate photographs, audio, or video be the same as the right to collect and disseminate text?