Slashdot Mirror

hi anonymous coward. i'm sorry for what happened. i'm australian and it's hard to believe that some australians are actually buying into this anti-muslim propaganda spouted by the current US and australian governments. this is deliberate, right-wing propaganda designed to incite anger and resentment in the west against muslims in order to boslter support for an extremely unpopular war against iraq for oil.

please please please report your story, just as you've written above, to your local press, and to the the sydney morning herald or the australian. the truth here in australia is that most people are against the war, and against racism, big time. a couple of decades of having every culture and cuisine at our very doorstep have made most people realise what a great thing multiculturalism really is.

i'm sorry for your experience. most of us are really nice people.

sincerely
matt

They are busy with their demands that Verizon
provide the name of a user who may have downloaded some music which may be
copyright and they are busy with their allegations about KaZaA music service,
a company which has the good sense to challenge the operation of the RIAA.

In the same manner it used in the Napster trial,
the RIAA is making wild assertions that gullible media, public and even legal
authorities appear to be accepting as fact. So far at least, it has managed
to give the impression that everyone apart from its members are to blame
for a slump in music sales. It can't be them - it must be those evil people
using the Internet.

No doubt the RIAA was emboldened by the judgment
against Napster and this gives it the feeling it can flex its muscles at
the world at large.

There is little doubt that Napster was guilty
of copyright infringement but only directly in so far as they themselves
copied music; that Napster had knowledge that users were infringing copyright
but only in so far as they could ascertain that copyright applied to certain
tracks; that they were guilty of contributory copyright infringement but
only in so far as they encouraged users to infringe copyright, and that they
were guilty of vicarious copyright only in so far as their income was dependent
on the use of copyrighted material.

That they themselves copied music from CD into
digital form is not clear. That they knew users were making illegal copies
is true, but the means of policing such action was beyond them if they had
no list of copyrighted works or any other means of checking. That they encouraged
others to infringe copyright is also probably true, but again the exact extent
of this and its influence on users is impossible to gauge. That its income
was dependent on copyright infringement is an accepted fact but again the
exact extent of this is impossible to determine.

For the record, Napster did not store music
on its own servers - it simply held the databases of music tracks that could
be accessed from users' own systems. The software they offered for peer-to-peer
copying between systems was also standard, although some minor enhancements
were made to improve the copying of large MP3 files. Providing something
as a legitimate use means it cannot be banned on the basis of possible
illegal use.

Findlaw.com has an archive of documents related to the trial and they
make very interesting reading. Time and time again, there are assertions
that Napster caused a slump in record sales but none of the many witnesses
- and there were many because the RIAA has deep pockets - presented any more
than circumstantial evidence.

How bad were the lies and distortions? The
response by Peter S Fader of the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania
provides an interesting rebuff to many of the witnesses. (You can find it
here.)

For example, one music storeowner near Syracuse
University in New York attributed a steep decline in music sales to the use
of Napster. He forgot to mention that in the time period to which he referred,
he had changed his emphasis from CDs to vinyl records and had moved to a
new store which was outside the main local shopping area. He later reluctantly
agreed that perhaps these were significant factors in his drop in income
and that perhaps he was making an assumption about Napster.

In a survey commissioned by the RIAA, the results
to open-ended questions (i.e. those with no specific choices) were interpreted
with a strong bias towards that association. This survey also concentrated
on college and university students then attempted to generalise the results
and paint a grim picture. More thorough surveys by other researchers indicated
that these "financially challenged" students were not typical Napster users
because more than 50% of users were over 30. Scattered through the various
submissions are all kinds of assertions that Napster was taking large numbers
of customers away from legitimate enterprises. Not one of these submissions
produced any incontrovertible evidence that showed a direct connection between
the use of Napster and a decline in music sales.

Several musicians who had been either ignored
or badly treated by record companies saw Napster as highly beneficial. Some
submissions are included in the Findlaw archive but other such as Janis Ian,
with 25-years in the recording business, chose to make their own public statements.
Janis's two postings can be found here.
She notes that Napster created a lot of interest in her work, far more than
before Napster arrived on the scene.

Other artists also commented on this phenomenon,
a point that dovetails nicely with numerous surveys - including some from
the RIAA itself - that showed consumers used Napster for sampling different
music. A shock horror tale in one pro-RIAA trial submission was that only
25% of the surveyed users went out and bought the CDs for at least 1 in 4
of the tracks they downloaded. Oddly enough, that corresponds well to the
idea of sampling. What a pity the same survey did not ask about deletions
of downloaded music too, because a large number of deletions within a few
days of downloading would further confirm this sampling.

Various surveys also supported these claims.
A survey by Jupiter Communications in July 2000 concluded that Napster users
were 45% more likely to have spent more buying music than non-users. This
survey was of 2200 online music fans and it found that the only people who
were not likely to increase their music purchases were 18 to 24 year old
"cash-strapped, computer-savvy users".

Jupiter Communications was certainly not alone
in these findings. The consensus was that Napster let people listen to music
that they would not otherwise made the effort to consider. As a result, musical
tastes spread. Another report mentioned that it made it easy to rediscover
artists or to find additional material by them. Both cases meant an increase
in sales of CDs and of vinyl records. There were several comments - of course
from people outside the RIAA - that Napster looked far more likely to increase
music sales than diminish them.

Another reason that students used Napster was
that it let them access one or two good tracks on an otherwise forgettable
CD. I am sure that we all have CDs that fall into that category. The attitude
of the RIAA seems to be that consumers must buy the rubbish in order to get
the few small jewels.

The fact that music sales were declining just
as the use of Napster was increasing presented the RIAA with the perfect
scapegoat, so absolving the music industry of blame and saving it the effort
to think there might be other reasons behind the slump.

After Napster died, the RIAA spouted the same
assertions about online music, whether or not such opinions were false, ill-founded
or unrepresentative.

Here's a typical pronouncement published by DC.Internet during February 2002. "The
Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) is blaming online piracy
and CD burning as the major culprits for a 10.3 percent slide in 2001 music
sales. According to RIAA data, total U.S. shipments dropped from 1.08 billion
units shipped in 2000 to 968.58 million in 2001. ... Coinciding with the increase
in copying music, the study found that ownership of CD burners has nearly
tripled since 1999: in 2001, two in five music consumers owned a CD burner
compared to 14 percent who owned one in 1999."

At the same time the RIAA declared the rise
in sales of blank CDs was further proof of music piracy, and that blank CD
sales should be curtailed.

Let's dispose of this whole nonsense about CD
burners and blank CD sales quickly and then move back to the more important
issues.

Computer security is not something that the
RIAA is very familiar with, judging by the number of times its own Web site
has been hacked.

Blank CDs are used to back-up computer data.
When one blank CD costs about the same price as one diskette but stores
about 460 times the amount of data, is faster to record and takes far less
space than the equivalent thousands of diskettes, it would be stupid not
to use CDs for backups. The RIAA was quite adamant that the 10% drop in
CD sales in the USA in 2001 as compared to sales in 2000 was purely due to
music piracy but this assertion has to be very seriously questioned.

Firstly, if the RIAA is correct, it would follow
that the general interest in music was unchanged and that attendances at
concerts would be about the same as previous years. They weren't. According
to MTV's reports on the web, concert attendances dropped off by about 15%
in 2001 and revenues were down. The average ticket price rose by about 7%
during the year but as usual it is difficult to say if this deterred ticket
buyers or generated the best possible revenue in a bad situation.

An article in the Miami Herald of March 2002 provides a more balanced
commentary about the slump in music sales than the RIAA's rants. It attributes
a lot of problems in the industry to the fact that the record companies were
under attack from many directions - the government was threatening investigations
into payola, the companies were suffering the excesses of the technological
boom and bust, costs were rising and recording artists were in revolt about
the terms and conditions of their contracts with the record companies.

The terms and conditions are normally that artists
are contracted to produce a certain number of CDs in a certain time - but
it is the companies which dictate what music is acceptable to be marketed
and the manner in which a CD will or won't be marketed. For all this, the
artists receive 10 to 20 percent of the profits of the sale, but only after
the record companies charge them for promotional and marketing costs. Janis
Ian has in fact described the situation as being like indentured slavery,
and it is therefore no wonder that some artists were very pleased with using
Napster to get their music more widely known.

According to the same Miami Herald report,
sales of Latin music were up by 9% in 2001 but "In Latin America itself,
riddled with economic hardship and rampant piracy, mid-2001 sales fell about
20 percent." At least someone made the connection between personal wealth
and piracy.

For a further commentary about issues within
the music industry that were contributing to its slump, try this article
which also provides a far better analysis of the situation that the RIAA's
allegations. This gives an indication of the tone of the piece: "Given the
slight dip in CD sales despite so many reasons for there to be a much larger
drop, it seems that the effect of downloading, burning, and sharing is one
of the few bright lights helping the music industry with their most loyal
customers. "

One obvious factor that seems to have been ignored
by the RIAA is the nature of the music being released by the record companies.
Let me throw some names at you ... Sex Pistols, Rolling Stones, Pink Floyd,
Rod Stewart, Moody Blues, Brian Ferry, Genesis, Elton John and Cliff Richard.
If you are old enough to remember them you will probably like some of them
but dislike others. That is not the point; the point is that they co-existed
on the music charts in the late 1970s and this kind of variation is a far
cry from the kind of music that has been dominating the charts.

The current number of "revivals" or modern versions
of old songs suggests that the music from the 60s, 70s and 80s had something
that is seriously lacking in modern music. Perhaps the record companies
should spend time figuring out just why this is so.

The RIAA's claims that piracy has caused a worldwide
slump in music sales are questionable. By virtue of its population size,
the figures for the USA distort the total picture. The claims also ignore
the fact that US music sells across the world - so if US music is unappealing,
sales will be down everywhere.

To refute the RIAA's claims, CD sales in the
UK actually increased by 5% in 2001 and in France by a similar amount. (The
BBC News report here has the usual comment about piracy but mentions
this very important point only as a final comment.) I would not be at all
surprised if the influence of US music on the UK and French was somewhat
less than for other countries - or that the locally produced music in 2001
was rather more appealing than US music.

To label all US music as unappealing is quite
unfair. Latin and Country music sales have been quite good - probably because
they offered variety, positive energy and far broader appeal than mainstream
pop.

The possible causes of a decline in music sales
go further than these reasons.

Potential music consumers today have far more
choice in their form of entertainment than just listening to music. They
also have other things on which to spend their money and in many cases, they
have less money to spend than they did a few years ago.

Computer games continue to improve and they
are a big leisure activity. Games cost money that might otherwise be spent
on music. Further, games have audio and there is little point playing a
CD if the game's audio will drown out the music.

DVD sales continue to be good and the availability
of "home cinema" systems with DVD player and high quality audio has made
this a popular pastime. Entertainment has become more visual, at least for
those with time to sit and enjoy it. Music videos themselves have increased
the emphasis on the visual aspect of music.

In the USA the price of movie tickets compared
to CDs shows a dramatic difference, with movie tickets reportedly less than
half the price of a CD. Recent reports also say that movie attendance figures
are very high.

Finally, mobile telephone use is on the increase
especially among teenagers who might otherwise buy music CDs. Music might
be aimed at this demographic but most of them are still reliant on pocket-money
and probably have to pay their own mobile phone charges. Little wonder then
that they cannot also afford CDs when some of them rack up bills equivalent
to the GDP of a small country.

The RIAA is under threat from a number of directions
and it is fighting, on behalf of its members, for continued monopolistic
existence. They are under attack from increasing diversions in entertainment
and for the would-be music buyers' money. And they are also under attack
from a new medium that threatens to drastically change the way that music
is distributed and to reduce their control.

They are also seriously concerned about copyright
law and fear that as copyrights expire they will lose significant profits
and, even more importantly, their control over music distribution.

Since the RIAA started raising a fuss with Napster,
the US copyright laws have been changed and the period for which copyright
applies has been extended. Depending on your source you will find that this
is either the eleventh or fifteenth extension of copyright period in about
forty years. One report also indicated that many of these extensions have
occurred as various Walt Disney characters were nearing the end of their
copyright. (For more details see here).

Those with an interest in extending copyright
are more organised and have much deeper pockets than those opposed to change,
and so can finance a greater amount of pro-extension lobbying than those
who are opposed.

In 1998, an extension to the copyright laws meant
that period would last 70 years after the death of the creator, while works
owned by corporations were extended to 95 years. The RIAA is pleased with
this decision because we would otherwise been nearing the time when certain
music from about the early 1950s - the early days of rock and roll - would
have moved to the public domain. Anyone would have been free to publish
it and equally free to take the profits.

This 1998 extension to copyright period was
challenged but in mid-January of this year (2003) the court upheld the earlier
ruling and the RIAA and its cohorts were able to relax in the comfort that
their various treasure chests would not be released to the public. Don't
forget though, when the RIAA was fighting Napster, this outcome was far from
certain.

Cynics among us look at the notions behind the
copyright law and shake our collective heads. The US law was first introduced
in 1790 for a 14-year period with the aim of encouraging creativity and ensure
that the artists or thinkers could enjoy the profits of that creativity.
Extension of the copyright period is only in the interest of groups like
the RIAA because it means they can rely on older material and can minimise
any efforts to find new talent.

The battle for copyright is not yet over because
European authorities do not kowtow to American interests quite so easily.
EU copyright protection lasts only 50 years, as opposed to 95 in the US,
and so music recordings from the 1950s are becoming public domain in Europe.
The 1950s were a boom in popular music with rock and roll exploding and a
big jump in the number of records being released. Elvis Presley's first
record appeared in 1956 and Chuck Berry's first just two years later.

US music distribution companies have indicated
that they will start to fight CD imports, declaring that the import of European
CDs would be an act of piracy and that customs agents have the authority
to seize these imports.

Make no mistake, the RIAA is under attack from
many different directions, some legislative, some social, some from their
artist "slaves" and others from technology. Loss of control of the music
business would mean a dramatic loss of profit for these companies and it
is for those reasons they are currently embarking on a scare campaign about
music piracy around the world.

Again, European authorities are not impressed
by this blathering. According to a recent BBC report here, the European Commission has only outlawed commercial
(i.e. for profit) piracy but has decided not to criminalise people who download
music from the Internet for their own use. Needless to say the RIAA, and
its international counterpart the IFPI, are up to their normal tactics and
alleging - on no proven basis - that this will cause losses of 4.5 billion
euros annually.

In the bigger picture, these organisations are
out to police everything on the web that just might be somehow related to
the copyrighted works that they jealously guard.

In July 2002 a bill was introduced to the US
House of Representatives to permit the owners of material under copyright
to hack into any computer that accesses or uses a peer-to-peer file transfer
service to see if it was holding any illegal copies of the material. It
was described as vigilante justice in the 21st century. I think I know how
commercial enterprises such as banks would view such intrusions!

It appears that they need no "due cause" which
is what even the various law enforcement agencies require for any similar
search activity.

Using similar wild claims about piracy destroying
their business, the RIAA and IFPI are embarking on what amounts to a marketing
campaign to protect their backsides. Unfortunately the assertions are getting
lots of press attention, and there is a danger of the old problem that if
a lie is repeated often enough it gets accepted as truth.

In their latest moves the RIAA and other are
trying to persuade legal authorities to hold ISPs responsible for any illegal
material that is stored on their servers. (For example, see this report). I am
not certain if the ISPs will be required to call out the rottweilers (i.e.
the RIAA) or to decide if a music file is public domain, copyright but authorised
or copyright and illegal, and then act as judge and jury to decide the form
of punishment.

As I have argued earlier, the ISPs should not
be held responsible because it is not their problem if a user wishes to risk
prosecution for whatever crime. I am waiting for the day when ISP operations
can be fully automated and there is no need for any middle-person who currently
provides a ready and easy target for legal authorities and those who pretend
they are legal authorities.

Already the RIAA has managed to convince a
US court into demanding that Verizon hand out the personal details of a user
who is supposed to have copied music files. I know of no other legal situation
where a middle party has been obliged to provide these details to someone
who believes that they may have been a victim of some crime.

Fortunately Verizon is already objecting to
this demand

This Verizon case was discussed in an Australian
article, which went on to blame music piracy for a drop
in CD sales (yet again) and make the typical kind of claim that we have already
seen from the neo-Luddites. "The finger of blame is pointed at the internet,
as industry officials cite a corresponding increase in broadband adoption
as proof that increasing numbers of people are stealing music and movies."

The truly sad thing is that the RIAA is not
acting in the interests of consumers or even their musical artists. It is
only protecting its members, but a lot of influential people are swallowing
the story hook, line and sinker.

I wonder what this "pixie dust" would do for Kopi Luwak, purportedly the most expensive coffee you can buy?

• "It's kind of with mixed emotions that we get ready to come home," astronaut Michael Anderson told Mission Control late this afternoon.

• "But we have enough fond memories to last us for a lifetime."

Xix.

It doesnt take much time to send off an email to your local federal representative about this otherwise they'll only hear APRA's side of the story.

They may donate $$$, but everybody has to vote.

The Australian had a negative editorial on this proposal, so not all of the media lobby is behind it.

Nah mate, its the truth. I read it in a Murdoch paper.

Recent photo of the Observatory

:(

The Observatory:

http://news.com.au/common/imagedata/0,3600,231203, 00.jpg

Here's a fascinating aerial photo:

http://www.dailytelegraph.news.com.au/common/image data/0,1658,231155,00.jpg

(All those burnt-out houses, and all those unburnt trees. WTF? It's as if the houses themselves were more flammable than the trees that surrounded them.)

As a Sydneysider, my thoughts go out to those in Canberra. The fires weren't far away from Sydney last month.

The Observatory:

http://news.com.au/common/imagedata/0,3600,231203, 00.jpg

Here's a fascinating aerial photo:

http://www.dailytelegraph.news.com.au/common/image data/0,1658,231155,00.jpg

(All those burnt-out houses, and all those unburnt trees. WTF? It's as if the houses themselves were more flammable than the trees that surrounded them.)

As a Sydneysider, my thoughts go out to those in Canberra. The fires weren't far away from Sydney last month.

For those interested, most of the damage was caused not by regular fires, but by a "firestorm", burning embers raining down from the sky. This caused hundreds of spot fires around the suburbs, and in inaccessible areas, gaps between houses and fences, in power poles. This type of fire (this large) has never happened in Australia before.

For those blaming fire services for not being fast enough, some facts:

* The Canberra fire forces are equipped to deal with SIX house fires at the same time.
* Over FOUR HUNDRED homes have been destroyed.
Many more fires have burned and been put out by residents using garden hoses and garden tools.
Even those of you without a calculator can probably see where the problem lies.
Some suburbs have lost access to water completely, with water station pumps burned out.
One power station has been completely razed, residents in that area may be without power for a month or more.
Several fire engines and police cars have been lost, roads are blocked by fallen trees and power lines, some of which are on fire.
Firefighters have been out saving other people's homes while their own burned to the ground.
A fire station itself caught fire, and no engines went to put it out, as people's homes were still in danger.

Give them some credit for putting their lives and homes on the line, to save others.
_______________________
News links:

Residents are posting in a Canberra community at LiveJournal.
Canberra Communtiy

Google news about Canberra:
Google news

Canberra Connect Government Website (sometimes is not loading)
Canberra Connect

ACT Bushfire Status
www.esb.act.gov.au/media/bushfire.htm

Red Cross locating evacuees
www.news.com.au

Make a donation to the Red Cross
RedCross.org.au
_______________________
There's news from Observatory astronomers here
_______________________
http://news.ninemsn.com .au/National/story_45108.asp

Fires destroy Stromlo observatory
Irreplaceable equipment worth millions of dollars was destroyed when the Canberra bushfires ravaged the historic Mount Stromlo Observatory.
Research officer Vince Ford, a 38-year veteran of the observatory, told AAP staff were given 20 minutes' notice to evacuate as a fire storm on Mount Stromlo caught authorities by surprise.
A single road through pine forests links the observatory, established by the Commonwealth in 1924, with suburban Canberra.
"There's no way we could have saved it," Mr Ford said.
The fire storm destroyed all the observatory's telescopes and the original observatory building, which dated back to 1924.
"It's gone, it's all gone," Mr Ford said.
"We've lost all the telescopes, the administration building, which was the original observatory back in 1924.
"The first telescope has actually been there since 1910, it's gone.
"The main research telescopes, the 74-inch and 50-inch, they're gone. I've just seen pictures of it from the air and we don't have a telescope left."
The Australian National University (ANU) facility was one the premier astronomy training and research centres in Australia.
"(It's a huge loss) from a historical point of view, from a cultural point of view, from a scientific point of view," Mr Ford said.
"It's an absolute disaster."
Observatory staff still hope they may be able to salvage some of their research, stored on computers in office buildings that might have escaped the worst of the blaze.
The observatory offices are believed to be standing, but have been water damaged.
"At least we should be able to recover the hard disks from some of the computers, but at this stage we're guessing," Mr Ford said.
"All we know is the observatory is gone."
Some back-up files would also have been stored at the main ANU campus in Canberra.
"But a lot of the work will be at the observatory," Mr Ford said.

"Some of us, being suspicious sods, have stuff at home, but most of it would have been on the computers or in the offices up at the observatory."
ANU vice-chancellor Ian Chubb was due to meet observatory chiefs to be briefed on the extent of the damage. ©AAP 2003

I am very surprised that so many slashdot readers are anti-sms. I wonder how many of these same people get all excited about pervasive computing, wifi connected handhelds and the like? Is there much difference? Really?

These people appear to be missing the appeal of SMS to most people: It's cheap, you've always got your phone with you and you can do other stuff while communicating (listen to music, watch a movie, read a book). SMS is an inexpensive method of non-critical communication. This is/was especially important when prepaid phone services became available, as the call costs were expensive per second, but SMS had a flat rate.

In short, SMS has/had a much better _percieved_value_ than voice calls.

What I really like is the ability to purchase stuff using SMS like Coke or even your parking!

BTW the popularity of prepaid phone and SMS was never predicted by some of the Telcos, especially not here in .au. A Whole Other Story if anyone cares.

fuck with Australia.

Proof: Sony Vs. the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission.

For those too lazy to read it... Sony didn't win.

Just read today that Telstra is also going in for WiLL, and is looking at what the Indians are doing as an example.

"MS is currently trying to become the world's biggest producer of game consoles (or at least a serious competitor), and it doesn't seem to be working very well from what I've heard."

A few years ago people were saying the same thing about WinCE in relation to Palm.

We're now starting to see news indicating PocketPC is outselling Palm in many markets.

If Microsoft feels they can't do well in the market, they'll dump out of it like they did with UltimateTV, Bob, etc. That's one of the key reasons why Microsoft is successful, they'll admit their mistakes frankly and either improve the product or abandon it. Right now MS feels they have a chance with XBox and based on their sales performance I would agree. They're the #2 seller of game consoles right now, which is not a bad position to be in.

This purchase is another piece of IBM's new strategy. It will be interesting to see how Rational's offerings contribute to thier new initiative and what software will remain "as is".

/.
This guy may have had the external vents in the wrong location.

On the other hand the extra heat vented to the outside edges could be a handy deterent to theft, just change from sleep mode to heat mode.

And I'm eager to Evaluate the new George Foreman laptop.

Christopher writes:
"It represents people paying for the privilege of buying things a month earlier than they otherwise would be able to. Whether that's a calculated expenditure or bad planning depends on the person."

I guess you didn't read the article I linked to. Here, let me...

From the article:
"But the RBA reported in December 2001 that three in four card balances incurred interest payments. The credit card companies have strongly opposed the RBA's moves to reform the industry and clip profits."

A full 75% of households didn't pay their cards on time. This means that 75% of people were not merely buying a month in advance as you suggest. Not staying within your means is known in the vernacular as "irrational." Oh, and 75% is known as "chronic."

The article continues:
"The report found the poorest carry the highest proportion of interest- bearing debt, as a percentage of household income."

What? Are you going to suggest that the poor don't age? Do you also shrug off as mere coincidence that the poor are more likely to use television as an entertainment vehicle?

Christopher adds:
"Again, you fail to demonstrate that most income is spent on frivolities."

Ah, the dreaded "impossibility tactic." I'll provide this when you provide me with a list of what qualifies as "frivolous." Fair?

Christopher closes with:
"And without that point, your argument just doesn't hold. Calling me names won't go further towards supporting your argument."

Agreed. But I think there comes a point where you have to look at some people -- those who deny the holocaust, for example -- and realize that their opinion is so utterly out of whack with even the most obvious, empirical of facts that there isn't a single thing you could every possibly say to get them to utter the phrase, "you're right."

I think you've reached that point to such a degree that I can quite comfortably rest my case knowing that nobody reading our exchange could possibly take you seriously. And you're welcome to look through my past replies. I don't think I've ever deigned to rebuke someone this sharply, nevermind in my last 25 posts. I never dismiss someone out-of-hand. But your stupidity has also surpassed virtually anything I see posted on Slashdot.

Hell, goatse.cx-laced replies have more content than this.

Christopher writes:
"Advertising influences _what_ people buy quite strongly (by building brand awareness), but not so much how much they spend on buying things. It represents corporations slugging it out with each other to make sure that the money that will be spent, will be spent on them."

With all due respect, bullshit. There is no other word for it.

While I'm not going to suggest that I, alone, constitute a control group, I can personally attest that since giving up TV in 1996 and radio in 1997 -- and I lived in Boston so no car, thus no billboards -- I now go into stores like Target (generally when someone I'm with goes) and it's, "nope, don't need that, nope, don't need that... All I see when I go, though, is people walking around, aimlessly, picking things up and sticking it in their cart. I used to be more or less just like them. The difference is beyond palpable.

Doesn't affect us? Have you positively lost your mind? Do you truly believe that the abdominizer ads didn't convince a few million people they needed one in the first place? Clearly, the further toward 'utterly frivolous and useless' you get, the less likely a person is to buy it, but there is a huge grey area.

Car rims are a great example. Does anyone really need those new rims? Presumably you don't consider them "necessary," so you must be arguing that they provide a "quality of life" upgrade that warrants the 80 hours you spent working to acquire them? Or are you going to argue that nobody actually buys rims?

Christopher continues:
"The rest of us spend most of it on things that are necessities (rent/mortgage, food) or things that do substantially increase our quality of life (getting a car instead of using public transit, eating a fancy meal, going to a movie)."

And as for the control group, I'm curious; which category does 21B (that's nine zeros) in credit card debt fit into? The "neccessary" or the "increase in quality of life?"

I normally don't take this hardline of a stance but then I rarely see an argument as silly as yours. People regularly drive themselves into massive debt to fulfull this commercial-subsidized vision of what we are supposed to be. Your position is not only ignorant but insulting.

Also, while you might be a nice guy, you're a full-on idiot when it comes to how advertising works, and demonstrably so.

And don't get me going on how generous they are, with MS giving away such small percentages compared to other corporations...

I don't know about MS, but you've managed to confuse and befuddle the distinction between Bill Gates and Microsoft.

Not to mention that his wife's name is Melissa, not Linda.

Or that Bill Gates has donated (or pledged to do so) $45.5B of his ~$98B net worth in the past 5 years.

What have you done? Anything even remotely like that regarding your net worth? Have you promised to give everything to charity (and not to your wife or children) like Bill has?

Didn't think so.

I'm not a Bill Gates fan, but I'm so sick and tired of people attacking the charity work that is being done. It's absolutely sick, and shows just how pathetic zealots can be.

The Gates Foundation has given over $5.5B over the past 8 years, with the majority being in the past 3. I don't know how much Bill and Melissa Gates seeded the foundation with.

But you give more of your net worth to charity? Really? More than 46% of your net worth has been donated to charity?

No. I didn't think so.

I just love the zealots attacking the Gates Foundation. I'm no Bill fan, but the man has stated, repeatedly, that his wife and children will get none of the money and it will all go to charity. And the Gates Foundation is doing a lot of good work, completely unrelated to what Microsoft does. Unless, of course, you think that $50M to Botswana was a wise business investment. Or the several hundred million to fund an HIV/AIDS cure is just to get all those infected people to use MSFT products.

Get off your damn high horse.

Dude you really take this movie seriously. For me it was just a funny flick. Click here.

Maybe 'NSynch singer Lance Bass should have placed the last domino, since his space trip might not work out. This might have given him the needed publicity (for what?).
Indeed, how the mightly have fallen.

This aussie is developing a CD technology that will hold 2500 times the amount of data on CD and 400 times DVD...

Although it's far from noble or anything. Try this one.

Mr Brogan declined to elaborate on why Sendo is severing its software ties with Microsoft but said the Nokia platform will give Sendo more flexibility to customise phones for different operators.

Not that Sendo has an obligation to be noble or anything, but I assume they want the source so they can segment their market in a more fine-grained manner. I hate that crap. It's the only drawback to cell phones.

An article on News.com mentions that "the new working group could have some competition from IBM and Microsoft, which have promoted a separate standard known as SIMPLE". This also has a IETF working group - here's the charter

Meanwhile a group of users in finance industry are pushing for exactly this sort of integrated solution. Called FIMA they "say it is non-partisan, and is open to any company that wishes to promote Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) IM standards and protocols within the financial services community. By endorsing IETF instant-messaging standards, FIMA wants to promote "interoperability and beneficial competition among instant-messaging vendors."

There is an air of enevitability about the integration of protocols - but it may not be based on Jabber.... but SIMPLE doesn't sound all that hot...

People - and I'm particularly calling on all Islamic /.ers - we've got to do something about this.

Well bugamededsedfred. Somebody - the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils did something, according to this story from the Australian IT news. I'll quote it in full to pre-emptively prevent the /. effect :

A SYDNEY-BASED website promoting extreme Islam is to be closed, the peak Australian Federation of Islamic Councils says.
The federation said the Islamic Youth Movement, which runs the Call of Islam web magazine, had agreed to take down the site.
"I personally think it's inciting hatred," the federation's Kuranda Seyit told The Australian. "It's a very sensitive time."
At www.islam.org.au, the site posted interviews with Osama bin Laden and Abdullah Sungkar, an alleged founder of Jemaah Islamiah, the regional terror network suspected of the Bali bomb attack.
Late yesterday, the site was still active and it is understood the youth movement had not complied with previous requests by moderate Muslim leaders that specific articles be removed from the web magazine.
An entry on Call of Islam's homepage notes that articles on the website were last updated on September 6.
The website advocates pursuit of an Islamic state by military struggle, opposition to "international Judeo movements and the Freemasons", and hostility to non-Muslim Australian society.
Mainstream Muslim leaders say the Islamic Youth Movement is a small, unrepresentative group whose extremism is limited to rhetoric.
But an article, "The Sword and the Spear" says the "intellectual superiority" of Islam "must be backed up with a prompt physical defence, and this is the power of the sword".
Terrorism expert Rohan Gunaratna last week said: "I am surprised that the Australian Government is permitting this kind of propaganda to be published."

For the Mainstream of Islam to take notice that the Islamofascists have brought the whole of their religion into disrepute, that's another matter. Good on 'em.

Article taken from here.

*********

Appeal likely in anti-spam case
Caitlin Fitzsimmons
OCTOBER 15, 2002

A DIRECT marketing firm suing an anti-spam activist has vowed to appeal after losing its court case in Perth yesterday.

The Which Company, trading as T3 Direct, had sued internet activist Joey McNicol for allegedly landing the company on a "blacklist" run by anti-spam website SPEWS.org.
SPEWS (spam prevention early-warning system) runs a list of IP addresses believed to be used for spam. Internet service providers (ISPs) or systems administrators can refer to SPEWS and choose to block traffic to and from the blacklisted IP addresses.

Yesterday, the District Court of Western Australia threw T3's claim for more than $80,000 damages out of court, describing it as "speculative" and based on propositions the plaintiff "knew to be incorrect".

But Wayne Mansfield, the owner of T3 Direct, said he would appeal within the next 14 days.

"We will appeal on the basis that we failed to explain the difference between unsolicited email and opt-in lists, between clients and ourselves," Mr Mansfield said.

While he admitted T3 Direct sent unsolicited emails, he said the company also managed opt-in lists on behalf of clients.

Mr Mansfield said the SPEWS blacklisting had blocked IP addresses, which were used to provide legitimate services to his clients and kept separately from the IP addresses used for spam.

He said publicity from the court case had helped his business but it came at a hefty price.

"We've had people screaming down the phone, we've had bricks through windows, it's just beyond comprehension," he said.

In the original case, T3 asserted the SPEWS listing cost more than $40,000, including $14,000 to replace the IP addresses, $4750 to pay technicians to set up an alternative mail delivery system, $5000 for a new server, and $20,000 for lost income while waiting for a new internet connection.

The total damages claim blew out to more than $80,000 when internet providers Swiftel Communications, OzEmail and web hosting firm WebCentral cut service to the company for allegedly breaching anti-spam clauses in their terms and conditions.

The case attracted international attention and concerned internet users, worried that a win by T3 would legitimise spam, contributed more than $10,000 to help cover Mr McNicol's legal costs.

Mr McNicol admitted to publishing details about T3 Direct on his website, but denied contacting SPEWS and argued nothing he did or was accused of doing was illegal.

Yesterday, the District Court of Western Australia found there was no evidence that Mr McNicol had contacted SPEWS and in any case doing so would not be illegal.

The court also rejected T3 Direct's claim that Mr McNicol's complaints about spam were "unfounded", pointing out the company had itself admitted to sending unsolicited emails.

Mr McNicol said he was relieved the court had made such a "strong decision".

"It would have been disastrous if they'd taken away our right to complain," he said.

"It would have rendered email pretty useless - it has got so out of hand already."

T3 Direct says it will appeal the case on the grounds that it sends legitimate opt-in email as well as spam and the blocked IP addresses affected that part of the business too. Full story here.

Australia is vastly different to the USA. Our consitutution guarentees us almost no rights. No freedom of speech, or religion, or of the press. No right to keep and bear arms. No protection aginst unreasonable searches and siezures, or against self incrimination. We have no doctrine of "fair use" under copyright laws, meaning that taping a movie tonight to watch tomorrow is illegal, because our courts never decided we have the right to time-shift anything. We have our own version of the DMCA, with penalties of up to five years jail. Australia is a nice place to visit, but I wouldn't want to live here. Oh wait, I do.

Australia is vastly different to the USA. Our consitutution guarentees us almost no rights. No freedom of speech, or religion, or of the press. No right to keep and bear arms. No protection aginst unreasonable searches and siezures, or against self incrimination. We have no doctrine of "fair use" under copyright laws, meaning that taping a movie tonight to watch tomorrow is illegal, because our courts never decided we have the right to time-shift anything. We have our own version of the DMCA, with penalties of up to five years jail. Australia is a nice place to visit, but I wouldn't want to live here. Oh wait, I do.

This guy. Ex army guy, formally called Charles Haffey, wanted to change his name to "God", got refused, managed to get his name changed to "I Am who I Am" on October 2nd, the day the first shooting was, as I understand it.

Can someone with a reasonable knowledge of US geography tell me if the guy in this article is from around there? From my quick search it seems their both near/in Washington. If so it's an odd coincidence if nothing else..

How about some ex-army dude trying to change his name to God, not to mention he seems a bit of a nutbag.

Are you really sure? Check this out, and panic..

The blind are not only entitled to an easy-to-access website, they should also not be discriminated against becoming air traffic controllers and yes, even pilots!

Australia, along with other socialist paradises like Canada and Europe, are way ahead of us -- just look at the link below!

Daily Telegraph: Blind, disabled 'should be able to fly'

It's about time Australia got its own Bermuda triangle!

Or the people from redhat.au should go pig-hunting with him (At least they should have given him a copy of the movie Dirty Deeds before he came down [review, trailer)

Having just moved to Sunny Queensland, Australia, I have been reading the news (for a change). Last week there were several articles in the local rags about the tax breaks for studios being taken away (See: Small screen shattered over poor tax breaks
) .
This has made the probability of filming series and movies (Including, I think, the new matrix) very low and many productions, including Farscape have pulled the pin altogether.
So, it's not just the studios fault, it's also the Queensland (State) government who have withdrawn support for filming here. Apparently the projects have brought in around 600 million bucks worth of local work in te last ten years but that will probably all dissapear.
Perhaps they will film Farscape in a more dollar friendly place like NZ (mmm.. Xena the farscape ring bearing hobbit princess who likes sheep a lot)

Here is the press release from the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission's investigation into the legality of Sony's region encoding. Here is Sony's response. Here is more info about the ACCC's stance. And Here's what aussies think of it all.

"Scientists believe it is the caffeine in coffee that protects against alzheimers, an incurable disorder that causes disorientation and memory loss."

There is also a article at msnbc.com, saying that alcohol may reduce Alzheimers as well.

"Drinking moderate amounts of alcohol, which has already been shown to help prevent heart disease and strokes, may also cut the risk of Alzheimer's disease by nearly half, a Dutch study found."

I knew I'm on the right track. Can somebody pass me another Vodka Red Bull?

*Caffeine is known for its stimulating effect, clearly noted above all in the circulatory system and in the brain.

Do you really think hardware vendors are SO STUPID as to cripple them all in the processor?

• Recently, business sales of new CPUs have fallen off. Apparently people are running word processors just about as fast as they need to, and so it makes sense to hang onto older, "obsolete" motherboards and "outdated" OSes. This of course threatens the chip makers, since their business model depends on unconstrained growth in demand.
• If Microsoft releases Windows Palladium as advertised, then businesses will feel motivated, if not outright compelled, to buy it, since security is a growing concern. But to run Palladium, you need hardware-level encryption and signing. That means to "upgrade" to Windows Palladium, you need to buy an entire new CPU. At least one more rush of hardware purchases awaits!
• Consider these quotes:
  • Giants chip in for Palladium
    "...INDUSTRY chip giants Intel and Advanced Micro Devices have confirmed they will support Microsoft's plan to improve PC hardware and software security..."
  • Palladium: Safe or Security Flaw?
    "...Microsoft's recently announced R&D project, which includes chipmakers Intel and AMD as partners, aims to combine software and hardware extensions to traditional PC architecture..."

Just a few days ago on /., there was this article which talks about reduced risks of getting Alzheimer if drinking 3 or more coffees a day.

Why would I want to get rid of the ingredient that actually does anything good?

nicotine reduces chance of Alzheimer's

caffeine reduces chance of Alzheimer's

alcohol reduces chance of Alzheimer's ....

Death reduces chance of Alzheimer's.

Universal (supporter of this and the DMCA) is one of the largest music companies in the world and a subsidiary of Vivendi Universal. Vivendi announced this week that it's pretty damn close to total bankruptcy, in fact the news section of its own web site is all about restructuring and a need to raise cash fast due to its stock being lowered to junk bond status. So eventually what goes around comes around.

Incase it escaped anyone's radar Worldcom owns OzEmail, which according to an IT news website is ranked the No. 2 Australian ISP after Telstra. This most likely means that Worldcom will have to sell off OzEmail to recover some assets for it's creditors, but this is not all bad because it means it's original owners could buy it back for far cheaper than they sold it for. There is some more information at this link and this link.

10% ain't bad

• Applets don't work on IE6, nor will they work on any future versions of IE (Microsoft has removed support for Java). Installing the Java2 plugin is cumbersome, complex and requires a 15MB download, compared with XWT's one-click launch and slim 500kb download.

is why this made the front page as a repost but the story about the space shuttles being grounded didn't... between the two stories I'd say that the shuttle fleet being grounded is much higher in importance and pertinence.

..and still nobody has written up the spidergoat story...

SpiderGoats are on the prowl, SpiderGoats scream and howl

During closing arguments, Microsoft lawyer John Warden refused to give any ground.

"We have been through this. We negotiated. We went as far as we can go," Mr Warden said. "That's the deal."

The judge, who had asked both sides to find middle ground, smiled slightly through Mr Warden's statements.

Interesting, the first indicator of personal attitude from KK that I've heard of (You can draw conclusions whichever way you want). I remember an earlier /. post saying that if you wanted to slam MS with a killer verdict, you'd shut up and keep the appearance of impartiality until the end. I'd like to think that's what she's doing :) Just as long as she keeps it subtle and don't do a Jackson.

I know if I were in her position and hearing that from Warden, I'd be blowing raspberries.