Slashdot Mirror

DL: We're already able to see isolated cases where Cyc is learning things on its own. Some of the things it learns reflect the incompleteness of its knowledge and are just funny. For example, Cyc at one point concluded that everyone born before 1900 was famous, because all the people that it knew about and who lived in earlier times were famous people. There are similar sorts of errors. But what we're seeing is not so much something that sits quietly on its own and makes discoveries but rather something that uses the knowledge it has to accelerate its own education.

I hate that this lady has been held liable to such an absurd extreme, but these laws do need to exist.

Why do they need to exist? What is being protected by these laws? Who is actually being protected by these laws? Why is an artist legally a work for hire when signing on to most publishers (meaning that said artists actually have zero legal right to the music they produce)? More interestingly, why is this not the case with authors of literature?

And, for me, the most important question of all: Why is this important?

"Fixed cost is the amount it costs to sign artists and record CDs (studio equipment, staff to run that equipment, etc)"

Which the artists themselves pay for. The record companies give them an advance, just as book publishers give some authors an advance, but it must be paid back.

"the recording industry is exposed to a big risk that they have to cover-- most artists flop, only a few are sucessful, but you can't spot this before you record and attempt to sell a CD"

Artists who flop still have to pay back the advances the record company gave them.

"those large fixed costs are entirely absorbed by the record company"

They are actually entirely absorbed by the artists. Check out these links if you doubt this:

http://www.aandronline.com/reading-room/whats_fair .html
http://weeklywire.com/ww/06-22-98/austin_music_fea ture1.html
http://www.arielpublicity.com/ariel_publicity_site /resources/article_suit.html

"Look, the simple economics of it is that if somebody else could do what the big record companies do, and for cheaper, they would be doing it and making a fortune."

Unfortunately, any labels that show signs of popularity immediately get absorbed by the big four, who ended up owning a whole slew of previously independent record companies after progressive consolidation by a series of multinationals (not all of whom previously had any history in the music industry, e.g. Sony and what would come to be known as Vivendi). This continues to happen today, as the labels that came out of the "indie resurgence" of the 1990s get absorbed whenever they show signs of popularity, with some (relatively) recent examples being Sinatra's Reprise Records, Herb Alpert's A&M, and Madonna's Maverick records.

Note also that because these multinationals tend to also own things such as TV and radio networks, print media, and even major performance venues, like the Robber Barons of the 19th century, they can erect artificially high barriers for any companies that aren't part of the cartel, either denying them access to these needed publicity resources entirely, or charging much more for them than they do to each-other.

but that still does not make it a sex scandal.

That should have been "but that still does not make it not a sex scandal".

Also, do you have any sources for you $150 million cost for the Clinton Investigation? From the following two sources http://weeklywire.com/ww/09-21-98/nash_politics2.h tml and http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=145 72 it seems the investigation was more like $40 million which is still a lot of money but is over 3 times less than your $150 million figure. I couldn't find any other sources that said anything but $40 million so I am interested in seeing what you can provide.

I suspect these little quarrels between ICANN, South Africa, and other groups are harbingers of major DNS conflicts in the future. For example, what if Microsoft, instead of South Africa, demanded a particular TLD?
This sounds similar to something that equally evil corporate behemoth Clear Channel attempted / is attempting with the .cc domain. Check an article here.

http://www.weeklywire.com/ww/02-16-98/chicago_cove r2.html
http://www.artscope.net/VAREVIEWS/StampArt0201.htm l
http://www.newcitychicago.com/chicago2/1102.html
http://hotwired.lycos.com/gallery/96/33/jpeg.f.htm l
http://www.badpressbooks.com/mhdl.html

I feel that in large part it comes down to a matter of what Noam Chomsky said in an interview with the Boston Phoenix in 1999... Here's a quote:

"Handing over the digital spectrum, or for that matter the Internet, to private power -- that's a huge blow against democracy. In the case of the Internet, it's a particularly dramatic blow against democracy because this was paid for by the public. How undemocratic can you get? Here is a major instrument, developed by the public -- first part of the Pentagon, and then universities and the National Science Foundation -- handed over in some manner that nobody knows to private corporations who want to turn it into an instrument of control. They want to turn it into a home shopping center. You know, where it will help them convert you into the kind of person they want. Namely, someone who is passive, apathetic, sees their life only as a matter of having more commodities that they don't want. Why give them a powerful weapon to turn you into that kind of a person? Especially after you paid for the weapon? Well, that's what's happening right in front of our eyes."

From: "Who Runs America? Forty Minutes With Noam Chomsky" Interview by Adrian Zupp for the Boston Phoenix: Weekly Wire

--Mark VII

I feel that in large part it comes down to a matter of what Noam Chomsky said in an interview with the Boston Phoenix in 1999... Here's a quote:

"Handing over the digital spectrum, or for that matter the Internet, to private power -- that's a huge blow against democracy. In the case of the Internet, it's a particularly dramatic blow against democracy because this was paid for by the public. How undemocratic can you get? Here is a major instrument, developed by the public -- first part of the Pentagon, and then universities and the National Science Foundation -- handed over in some manner that nobody knows to private corporations who want to turn it into an instrument of control. They want to turn it into a home shopping center. You know, where it will help them convert you into the kind of person they want. Namely, someone who is passive, apathetic, sees their life only as a matter of having more commodities that they don't want. Why give them a powerful weapon to turn you into that kind of a person? Especially after you paid for the weapon? Well, that's what's happening right in front of our eyes."

From: "Who Runs America? Forty Minutes With Noam Chomsky" Interview by Adrian Zupp for the Boston Phoenix: Weekly Wire

--Mark VII

I feel that in large part it comes down to a matter of what Noam Chomsky said in an interview with the Boston Phoenix in 1999... Here's a quote:

"Handing over the digital spectrum, or for that matter the Internet, to private power -- that's a huge blow against democracy. In the case of the Internet, it's a particularly dramatic blow against democracy because this was paid for by the public. How undemocratic can you get? Here is a major instrument, developed by the public -- first part of the Pentagon, and then universities and the National Science Foundation -- handed over in some manner that nobody knows to private corporations who want to turn it into an instrument of control. They want to turn it into a home shopping center. You know, where it will help them convert you into the kind of person they want. Namely, someone who is passive, apathetic, sees their life only as a matter of having more commodities that they don't want. Why give them a powerful weapon to turn you into that kind of a person? Especially after you paid for the weapon? Well, that's what's happening right in front of our eyes."

From: "Who Runs America? Forty Minutes With Noam Chomsky" Interview by Adrian Zupp for the Boston Phoenix: Weekly Wire

--Mark VII

I realize that Bruce needs to structure some sort of narrative around his article, but this "third wave" of "semantic hacking" is hardly new.

The attack on Internet Wire was just an insider abusing the system. It's been going on for quite a while, and shame on Internet Wire for having lax enough security than an ex-employee could abuse the system. Social Engineering has also been a common practice for years: call the helpdesk from the CEO's phone and demand that your password be reset. Easy stuff, old practices. In fact, social engineering, manipulation of the press, and misleading the public are practices that predate the internet by a few thousand years:

"What of this again, that these people are experts in flattery, and will commend the talk of an illiterate, or the beauty of a deformed, friend, and compare the scraggy neck of some weakling to the brawny throat of Hercules when holding up Antaeus[12] high above the earth; or go into ecstasies over a squeaky voice not more melodious than that of a cock when he pecks his spouse the hen? We, no doubt, can praise the same things that they do; but what they say is believed."
- Juvenal's Satires

What's new is that the interconnectedness of the internet community is allowing these practices to migrate to the internet in powerful ways. At least one person believes that this is cause for deep optimism:

"All the bad things we hear about the Web are true. There really are people online who'd like to lure our children into shadows. There really are hucksters who'll steal not only your money but your identity. There really are people who'll take pictures of you in a public bathroom and publish the pictures to the world. Every human vice
we can imagine finds its way onto the Web, which seems to spur the world's most lurid imaginations even further. But the reason for this should be a cause for optimism."

You can check the article out yourself for more, but I agree with the premise. The internet continuing to mirror the "real" world is generally a good thing, and the "forces of good" can harness those powers as well as the "forces of evil".

Noam Chomsky has worried quite a bit about the power of centralized press.

"Chomsky's central belief is that propaganda plays the same role in a democracy as violence plays in a dictatorship.
In the United States, therefore, you need to be less afraid of the National Guard and more afraid of the manipulation of information by governmental, corporate and academic sources. According to Chomsky, the elites who control and benefit from the American political system preserve that system by marginalizing alternative political views, selectively reporting on the consequences of United States foreign policy, and creating political apathy among the general populace by encouraging them to watch professional sports and TV sitcoms rather than actively participate in the political process."

Bruce Schneier should be less worried about manipulation of public news outlets, stock prices, and the economy by hackers, and more worried about the manipulation of public opinion by corporations and governments. Hackers, by showing people how easy it is to have their opinions manipulated, actually serve a positive purpose. I'm not saying I endorse the Internet Wire hack, real people lost money and that's not good. But, creative hacks, the "jam the WTO" movement in Seattle, cool sites like The Onion and Adbusters are all great ways to wake up an uninterested, uninvolved public.

- Twid

This must be how urban legends get started. The story is mostly true, but I got a lot of the particulars wrong. If you want details go to this link.