Slashdot Mirror

doormat writes "The Las Vegas monorail is finally set to open to the public on July 15th! The project has had some problems - it was originally scheduled to open in March. The first part of the monorail, which uses Bombardier M-VI train vehicles, 'a derivative of the famous Walt Disney World Mark VI trains', is 4 miles long and connects several casinos on the east side of the Las Vegas Strip (see map, QT video), as well as the Las Vegas Convention Center (Home to CES, NAB, Networld+Interop and what was Comdex). Future phases seek to expand the monorail to downtown to the North, the west side of the strip, and eventually the University and the airport (which the taxicab and limo groups fight tooth and nail). I swear it's the strip's only choice... throw up your hands and raise your voice! Monorail, Monorail, Monorail! Mono... D'oh!"

ZeDanimal writes "The Simpsons' pooh-bah Matt Groening said in an NPR interview this week that the Fox News Channel considered legal action against the show for its parody of the station's news ticker. Broadcast, of course, by Fox Entertainment, the episode that raised the ire of the "Fair and Balanced" Fox News crew was Krusty For Congress, which mocked the perceived rightward-leanings of the channel with pseudo-news items such as "Do Democrats cause cancer?" and "Oil slicks found to keep seals young, supple" scrolling across the bottom of the screen. Guess the powers-that-be learned something from the Al Franken affair... or maybe they just feared getting into a popularity contest with the likes of the inanimate carbon rod."

diego001 writes "In the spirit of the T.W.I.N.K.I.E.S. Project, and taking a cue from The Simpsons, someone has apparently come up with a real-life Skittlebrau project - various alcoholic beverages with Skittles inside them. Take a look."

The Terminator movie series offers explosions and cyborgs galore, but you knew that already. Guns too, and cool special effects involving R-rated nude people in electrified spheres, but you probably guessed that too. So you've seen the trailer and are wondering whether "T3: Rise of the Machines" is worth seeing. Short answer: eh, whatever, it's big and dumb. For the long answer, keep reading. (No real spoilers.)

Let me first draw your attention to CNN's review. The CNN reviewer tells you this "darker and slicker" sequel is "worth the wait," gives you the long-form plot setup, shows you the sexy look of the "babe-a-licious" babe, and promises you "emotional weight" with "wit" and a "stunning and thought-provoking" climax. What he doesn't mention is that CNN and the movie's producer/distributor are both owned by AOL Time Warner.

It's been ten years since I watched the first Terminator and maybe I'm remembering it better than it was. But it had an emotional depth, a heart that neither of its sequels matched. T3 is slicker, yes, but darker!? It's light fluff. The nightmare of nuclear destruction in the original was rendered without CG effects, but I'll remember the skeleton clutching the chain-link fence long after I've forgotten this week's pixel-perfect explosions. And the "storm is coming" ending of the original was genuinely thought-provoking, with a chilling resolve that just embarrasses this week's Hollywood ending. Claire Danes is no Linda Hamilton.

The effects are what you'd expect from a modern zillion-dollar action movie, but not groundbreaking the way that T2's were at the time.

I found nothing about it witty. I chuckled through the chase scenes -- it's mostly chase scenes -- because they were so over-the-top and the plot holes were so glaring. Apart from that, there was only one funny line. (I assume everyone else is as bored as I am with the "dry cool wit like that" dialogue.)

Best unintentionally funny line: "I've got enough C-4 to blow up ten supercomputers!"

Best unintentionally funny visual: tie between fumble for the car keys, and offscreen killing sprays blood across photo.

Dumbest joke: gratuitous mocking of effeminate guy.

Best absurd effect: missile blows apart the wall in a small office ten feet from our heroes, they avoid injury by diving to floor. Duck and cover!

Best plot hole: Terminatrix's chronic failure to remember that she can run fast.

Heavy on the exposition, light on brains and heart, forgettable. See it if you really jones for big trucks smashing stuff. If you just have to see a movie, see "28 Days Later" instead. Rated R, not recommended for anyone whose mental age matches their valid ID.

Ant writes "Six lead schools are participating in the STARS Program, actually designing, developing, and flying experiments in space. STARS students get an unforgettable opportunity to work with space scientists, engineers, and astronauts to design and develop their experiments. As lead schools, they are conducting experiments that will be viewed by thousands of people around the world. The experiments will be housed within BioServe's ICM (Isothermal Containment Module). The ICM is a small temperature-controlled facility and will provide the necessary experiment support such as physical containment, lighting, video imaging, and more. Obviously, my favorite one is the U.S.A.'s harvester ants tunneling in algar-based gel experiment for 16 days. I have a discussion on my message board watching this experiment. Now, where's Homer Simpson? ;)"

Peter Wayner writes: "If you're one of the last few who believe that the numbers on your portfolio statement are any more permanent than a spring day, a sun tan, or a wink in a bar, you may want to tune into John Motavalli's new book, Bamboozled At the Revolution: How Big Media Lost Billions in the Battle for the Internet. The book follows the stumbling attempt by the old school in the media to turn their so-called power into dominance over the new domain. Numbers fly back and forth. Executives fret over turf. Dreams of glory float skywards. Yet in the end, it's just as Ecclesiastes warned: 'All are of the dust, and all turn to dust again.'" Read on below. Bamboozled at the Revolution: How Big Media Lost Billions in the Battle for the Internet author John Motavalli pages 334 publisher Viking rating 7.0 reviewer Peter Wayner ISBN 0670899801 summary Stories from the big media boardrooms and their quest to extend their dominance.

The book is an inside tale told by an insider who chronicles the frantic days when the insiders were certain that the Internet was going to change everything. In this case, the insiders were the golden boys at media conglomerates who managed through some mixture of luck, devotion, and talent to control the worlds of cable television, newspapers, magazines, and movies. In the mid 1990's, the Internet threatened to overturn their world when they realized that anyone could set up a website, turn a bedroom into a corner office, and join the media. One minute some Mom in NJ is burning spaghetti sauce, the next minute Madonna is coming over for a chat on her weblog.

Reading the book is an ideal way for Slashdot readers to stick their nose into the exclusive tent filled with media moguls. The book does an ideal job of conveying the NY mindset that the world is made up of billions of sheep just waiting for the media to tell them how to bleat. When the Internet threatens to lure some of the flock, the big guys with the big corner offices start writing checks hoping to find a way to own a piece of it.

The book is played out chronologically and begins with Time-Warner's desire to build a full-service, interactive cable system in 1993. The final epilog was probably written in April and it's already a bit dated because it went to press before the accounting upheaval at AOL. In between, the executives of the big media companies struggle to find an Internet strategy-- something that never really gels for anyone.

Motavalli documents the progression with details that matter to media executives. We learn where people went to college (Haverford, Harvard), where they ate dinner (City Grill, "a gross strip mall" in Vienna, VA that serves great pizza,), the names of their yachts (Highlander), if their offices were big (yes), and if they got along (no). All of the executives in this book are always getting irked, losing confidence, chafing at some new org chart, or jettisoning some division.

Nothing seems to work for these guys. They try merging with each other; they try pop-up ads; and they try building portals. Yet through it all, the value of advertising just keeps dropping. The more time people spend on-line, the more page views they create. That means, more viewers mean lower ad prices. Uh-oh. The law of supply and demand seems to insist that success only begets failure. How are people going to make money on-line? We may never know, because nothing except the severance packages ever work out for the guys in the corner offices. The Internet won't be tamed.

To some extent, the title of the book is a misnomer. There aren't many stories of fast talking Internet guys pulling the wool over the eyes of the old media guys, at least in the way that Lyle Lanley talked the town of Springfield into building a monorail. The media moguls knew that the Internet was going to be big and they knew they only way they could be part of it was to invest. As Bob Pittman says at the beginning of the book, the networks ignored cable channels and then woke up one day to see that the upstarts controlled the new landscape. The old school media magnates knew they had no choice and they spent freely.

The title is also a bit wrong because the bamboozled are usually outright losers, conned completely -- and that certainly hasn't happened to all of the media titans. The list of the top news sites from Jupiter Media Metrix includes plenty of old corporate names . Despite the loss of cash, some of the old media companies were able to dominate the Internet. That doesn't mean they'll stay in the business and it doesn't mean that they're making money, but no one is worrying about the Mom in NJ.

This world view is a bit myopic. It should come as no surprise that web sites like the Drudge Report or Slashdot don't make it into the conversation. This is really a book about the few guys at the top of the New York media empires and their desire to somehow, some way, get a handle on this Internet thing. Truly interactive sites like Slashdot seem to be beyond the understanding of these guys because Motavalli notes that despite the "Letters to the Editors" section, most magazine and newspapers editors don't understand how to interact with readers.

The most telling details may be what didn't make the book. Motavalli spends little time talking about the words and images on the web pages. His subjects liked to use the word "content" as an abstraction for what the little guys serve to the little sheep. No one seemed to wonder whether it was good or bad, noir or funny, juvenile or sophisticated, or anything more than pure content. Aside from an occasional note about some truly lame web site, there's little discussion about what makes a web site good.

This is too bad because a few parts of the book hint that the guys below the big guys were really struggling to find the right voice for the on-line medium. They were asking questions like whether audience liked the ability to pick and choose the video snippets in the evening news. Was an on-line soap opera compelling enough to watch every day? Was there anyone who was willing to camp out by their keyboard to be the first to access some web site? Was buying an MP3 like buying a single or a full album? Did people want one portal or many?

As anyone who's posted to Slashdot in search of karma knows, finding a way to please the crowds is not an easy task. Every artist knows that after all of the hype, all of the press, and all of the marketing, a song, a book, an article, or a Slashdot comment needs to stand alone on the stage, if only for a brief second, and live or die on its merits. Motavalli's book best contribution may be showing us how little the media big wigs cared about these moments. It wasn't about the story or the presentation or even what the sheep seemed to like. It was all about the org chart.

Peter Wayner is a writer, consultant and media mogul himself. If you're one of the sheep reading this far, you might consider consuming his latest content on secure information handling ( Translucent Databases ) or his content on steganography ( Disappearing Cryptography). You can purchase Bamboozled from bn.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.

silentknight writes "According to MSNBC, web-based e-mail providers such as Yahoo and Hotmail may not be a haven for your private e-mail anymore. At least not while you're at work. SpectorSoft is introducing eBlaster, which aims to "secretly forward all e-mail coming and going through such Web-based accounts to a spy's e-mail". Corporations will most likely argue that, because of sites like Internal Memos, companies need to keep a tighter grip on the information that flows in and out of their companies. But attempting to spying on private e-mail?? In the words of Homer J. Simpson: "Butt out, Buttinsky"."

prostoalex writes: "Business Week draws attention to the growth of monitoring and surveillance systems in modern society. Only in Manhattan, as article claims, there are at least 10,000 cameras. Londoners, at the same time, are caught on tape 300 times per day. Is it a necessary measure of pre-caution, or, as Marge Simpson put it, "as long as everybody is videotaping everyone else, justice will be done"?"

Does the Digital Millennium Copyright Act cover electrical religious artifacts? Apparently the Church of Scientology thinks so. eBay has been yanking auctions of e-meters because of complaints by the CoS. In response to queries by a collector, eBay said "the Church of Scientology is giving us Notices of Infringement, which we are legally required to honor. These items are being ended for that reason." Does the DMCA really prohibit the sale of these boxes? (more)

The short answer is: "No" -- as far as I can tell -- I'm not a lawyer. But this is just one more data point in the disturbing trend of the DMCA being used as an all-purpose club to remove material from the Internet.

On hearing of this, my first thought was that perhaps the devices in question are actually licensed somehow, instead of being sold outright. But I spoke to two former members and the spouse of a current member of the CoS, each of whom assured me categorically that the devices were purchased outright, with no license required to be signed. A staffer at the Lisa McPherson Trust found a catalog where anyone can buy an e-meter; the "public price" is a little higher than the price to CoS members, but there are no apparent limitations to the purchase. A credit card is all you'll need.

The device itself is just an electrical mechanism, somewhat like a fancy multimeter or oscilloscope. It's patented, but of course thousands of patented items are sold on eBay every day.

To members of the Church of Scientology, however, it's more than just an electrical device. It's used in "auditing," which apparently helps new members advance in the program. Members of the CoS who have become experienced in this process are licensed by the CoS to audit others (but, again, the purchase of the items themselves is not under license).

Some e-meters apparently have Intel Inside (an 8-bit microprocessor which performs some rudimentary functions). But ever since a 1963 raid in which the FDA took exception to the marketing of the device as medically beneficial, e-meters have carried a disclaimer which begins: "By itself, this meter does nothing. It is solely for the guide of Ministers of the Church in Confessionals and pastoral counselling."

I'd hard-pressed to think of why copyright could apply to a piece of electronic gadgetry which "does nothing." So why is eBay refusing to allow its sale?

Because DMCA is such an effective club.

Rod Keller, a Scientology critic, noticed that e-meter auctions were being taken down, and wrote eBay to ask why. The response was:

Hello,

These items are not prohibited due to their nature, but the Church of Scientology is giving us Notices of Infringement, which we are legally required to honor. These items are being ended for that reason.

Regards,

[...]
eBay Community Watch Supervisor

(Emphasis added.) That explanation, by the way, is a little facile: eBay is "legally required to honor" such notices if it wants to remain lawsuit-proof about the item. They would be well within their legal rights to leave the auctions up. More on this later.

When Mr. Keller expressed surprise at this, the next message went into a little more detail:

Hello,

There is a procedure under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act whereby someone who claims to be an owner of Intellectual property can send a notice sworn under penalty of perjury that an item is infringing. The internet provider must then remove the item. The seller of the item (not a third party) can request and fill out a counter notice. If he/she does so, the complaining party who filled out the original notice has a limited period of time to file suit, or the provider can go ahead and relist the item.

This is set up under the statute so that the interested parties will be the ones doing any litigating.

Regards,

eBay Customer Support

In response to my requests for more detail on exactly how the DMCA was being invoked by the CoS, an eBay representative promised that someone would get in touch with me. Unfortunately, I haven't heard from them by press time.

Here's what I think happened, based on the above -- feel free to follow along in the full text of the DMCA if you like.

The DMCA is an unusual regulation in that it principally protects service providers from litigation and then rigidly defines the steps they must follow to stay under its umbrella. It puts eBay in a position a little bit like Bart Simpson's, when Sideshow Bob announces:

"The following people will not be killed by me: Homer Simpson, Marge Simpson, Lisa Simpson, that little baby Simpson.... That is all."

Title II of the DMCA, otherwise known as the "Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act," is what seems to be relevant. It describes under what conditions a service provider is not liable "for infringement of copyright." My guess is that eBay is looking at section 202(c): "Information Residing On Systems Or Networks At Direction Of Users." The system is ebay.com; the users are the sellers; presumably the information is, in this case, the item being auctioned. Or the text and graphics used to describe the auction? I'm not sure.

Section 202(c)(1)(C) indicates that eBay will not be subject to liability as long as it, "upon notification of claimed infringement as described in paragraph (3), responds expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity."

Paragraph (3) describes the elements which must be present in a notification, including: "A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed."

Based on eBay's statements, the Church of Scientology has sworn under penalty of perjury that it has an "exclusive right" to copyright on the material that was posted in the auction.

To me, that seems obviously wrong. An e-meter is an electrical device, or a religious artifact, depending on how you look at it. Either way, it's sold to customers who may or may not be members of the Church. Once they've bought the items, they should be able to do with them what they wish, including reselling them to whoever they wish.

But to enjoy the protections of the DMCA, service providers must remove any material as soon as they're told it infringes on copyright. Once material has been challenged, the service provider must act "expeditiously" to remove it. Only when the material is gone can the accused user make a case to defend it.

The carrot for service providers becomes a stick for users.

Meanwhile, I'd like to see the statement that the Church of Scientology made, under penalty of perjury, that an auction of an e-meter infringes on their copyright in some way. Any spokespeople for the CoS reading this are welcome to contact me to discuss it.

But, as Declan McCullagh wrote in an unrelated DMCA story yesterday, we are moving toward a two-tier copyright system on the internet -- at least in this country. If you don't host your own content, the DMCA's censor-first, ask-questions-later mandate effectively strips you of your rights.