Slashdot Mirror
Domain: wired.com
Stories and comments across the archive that link to wired.com.
Comments · 12,699
-
Global Village Communication port 80 was itGeekNews MessageBoard - topic: Why Yahoo Sucks Today Why Yahoo Sucks Today
By -X-(209.150.239.51) @ 3:53pm Monday [7/2/2000]Real-time report for www.yahoo.com
[204.71.200.74]
Analysis: IP packets are stopping in network "Global Village Communication" between hops 12 and 13. Connections to HTTP port 80 are being rejected.Some one kick those fools at Global Village Communications and turn port 80 back on..
I posted this yesterday as this problem was happening.. I still don't know if it was a bad router and they are claiming foul play to avoid embaressment.. Wired News does not know either, they have conflicting stories posted!
One thing is for sure, Yahoo did not struggle stock wise because of this...
-X-
-
Hackers or just a router screw-up??
Seems like it may have been just a router problem: see here
-
a news story link, and a thoughtThe Wired story is at http://www.wired.com/news/bu siness/0,1367,34178,00.html.
On another note, consider that there's some confusion as to whether this was actually a denial of service attack, hardware failure, or a misconfigured router. Since a DoS attack is difficult to verify, might "hackers DoSd our website" become the portal/ISP's version of "the dog ate my homework"?
Note: I am not accusing anyone in *this* incident of lying, and I have no inside information on this incident from any possible side
-
DoS or Misconfiguration?
-
DoS or Misconfiguration?
-
DoS or Misconfiguration?
-
Re:Any suspects?
Wired claims in Routers Blamed for Yahoo Outage that it was not a DoS attack; rather, it was a misconfigured router at their ISP. Anonymous source 'n everything.
-
Kids won't search out what they don't want to see
I'm a strong believer that children do not look for things that they do not want to find. A study was done (I forget where) in which children were shown hand drawn sketches of both male and female genitalia. Younger children had no interest. Those at puberty asked questions. It is my belief that censoring is simply an adult's way of not dealing with subjects that *they* are not comfortable. It's interesting. A certain author wrote about an new social contract with children in Wired, about 4 years ago. It's a bit long winded, but I still remember this Jon Katz article well after reading it. Here it is.
-
Proof that the execs just "Don't Get It"
from the Wired Article talking about the huge f_up with copy protected CDs...
"It's a cost-benefit to the company. If copy protection can drive 50 percent more sales, then maybe it's worth it," Hoffman said.
Sweet Mary Mother of Gates! These people actually harbor delusions in their heads 1) that 50 of their stuff is pirated 2) that every pirater, if "forced" would actually BUY the stuff rather than live without it.
How far, exactly, does your head have to be crammed up your ASS to think that you could do 150% more sales if you could somehow just make it harder and more complicated for your customers to use your products to the point that they are unusable?
First - if you anticipate 50% more sales - you have to anticipate that at least 90% of your product is being pirated... because we all know that if these pimple faced WaREz geeks weren't filling up harddrives full of Autodesk 13 and Photoshop, they be lighting cats on fire or some other stupid, useless thing to consume their time.
Is the concept of a person like me (thru the power of his G4/450, in record time, i might add) cranking out entirely LEGAL CD collections of 300+ disks into mp3s ONLY to gain portability and ease of use just _that_ f_ing alien to these people?
These people are more confused than the FBI at a Richard Jewel look-alike contest. They make the Special Olympics look like a fuckin MENSA meeting.
Whackamole, technology supremecy, old-fashioned CP hacking (Go C64!) will force these people to change - since technology alone just doesn't seem to work.
If they took the time and effort into stupid shit like SMID and put it into forming silly things like BUSINESS PLANS on how to sell mp3's over the net, they'd be even MORE rich than they are now.
These guys are real-world Dr. Evils... instead of blowing up the planet, they should just sell the fucking Starbucks. -
Re:SDMI will die the death of DIVX
On the same subject, BMG has withdrawn it's copy protected CD's, Wired has the story.
-
Wired News article....$850 million!?!The Wired News article stating the true value of the deal is available here
What does that work out to per Slashdot reader, I wonder?
-
No no no no no, jeez
I (for some unknown reason) believe that the NSA is working more for the good of our country than for the bad. Althought I believe it would be nice if they would release more information about what they have and have not done I understand why the haven't (and probably wont in the future).
I think some people are going off the deep end with conspiracy theorys. So where is your proof that they are reading YOUR e-mail and intercepting YOUR phone calls. Its all just speculation, and I dont put any stake in speculation.
Try reading the documents at http://www.wired.com/news/pol itics/0,1283,33891,00.html.
(if that url didn't come out correctly go to wired and search for nsa and read the first article that comes up with proof about echelon)
The documents that they guy found support that the echelon isn't as widespread or as bad (for us citizens) as people believe.
enmasse.penguinpowered.com -
x.com [offtopic]Have the rules changed to allow single-letter domains to be registered again, or is this another screw-up? x.com was registered on 20-Oct-1999, around the time those dash-.com problems started. It looks like IANA reserved almost every other single-letter domain on 03-Dec-1999 (except z.com apparently, which was registered on 20-Jan-2000), did they decide to let this one stay registered?
There's also a completely unrelated story about x.com here ("We have become aware that until recently anyone could open an account with the online bank X.com and perform unauthorized funds transfers from any other accounts in the banking system").
-
Re:You miss the point.Remember, though, the politician isn't might not actually be interested in what you have to say, he he might just want you to go away, or if he considers you no threat, to ignore you. So, its easy for politicians who don't want to be bothered with Emails to say, "It's too easy. Besides, there is to much fraud." Instead of what he really think, which is "I'm not going to lose the election because of them." That's the only thing that politicians care about, really, the horror of going back to the private sector (or to it for the first time.) So, if Emails ever become a reliable method of polling the electorate, you can bet politicians will sit up and take notice of Emails. Right now, though, Emails still haven't proven themselves as useful political indicators, the pols don't "get" Email anyway, so they figure it can't safely be ignored. (Telephone, calls, however, have occaisionally been accurate predictors of public opinion.)
Best way to change this? Make sure that if you Email a rep. or Senator and he ignores it that he gets punished for it at the polls.
Oh, and one last point:
then a phone call will get across only what the person listening chooses to write down and understands
Well, that's true, but I wouldn't be surprised if exactly the same thing happens with Email. I'd love to be proven wrong on this, I wouldn't have to waste so much money on stamps!Articles like this one, prevent me from being encouraged about politicians and Email:
-
Someone who disagrees with you...
Market Strategist Abby Joseph Cohen disagrees with you - check this wired story for details.
Ms. Cohen is a very highly respected, and highly influential stock market forecaster, and she says that all tech stocks are undervalued!
Of course, the fact that she makes money off overinflated stocks, and probably isn't the most impartial observer of this, has nothing to do with her views, I'm sure.
I hope when you read the above, you will take it with the amount of sarcasm I intended... while there is someone who disagrees with you, that person certainly isn't me. -
Re:DVD lawyers "spill" secret code
Yes, I'm aware we've already had an article about this. I thought that seeing how one news source interpreted (reported) the events might be informative. Here's a Wired article on the same which even *includes* a link to de-CSS: DVD Lawyers Make Secret Public.
-
Related story (in that "Big Brother" way)
A researcher has found some Echelon documents and made some conclusions that counter those put forth by the online community. Wired story here Please do not moderate down, this has relevance.
-
Here is a no-reg required link:
It was posted here on Tuesday January 25, @05:21PM EST The no-reg wired.com story here.
-
Related: Microsof must ship SUN Java
Wired.com story here.
-
What will BMG do?
Apparently BMG were
on the verge of buying either EMI or Sony Music.
Now that EMI seems to be taken, they may have to talk to Sony. Though if Microsoft is split up, I imagine Sony may be interested in buying one of the Windows companies; as such they may be interested in offloading part or all of their music division to an eager BMG. -
Re:What illegalization?
I also asked the same question, but looking at wired online, i realized what he's talking about. It isn't illegalize, but there is a SMALL possibilty that it may become illegalized. BILLs have been proposed to legislators, but, there is strong opposition to some of the bills. Article at Wired online.
-
Re:What illegalization?
I also asked the same question, but looking at wired online, i realized what he's talking about. It isn't illegalize, but there is a SMALL possibilty that it may become illegalized. BILLs have been proposed to legislators, but, there is strong opposition to some of the bills. Article at Wired online.
-
Re:Let us pray.....
Y'know, this kind of post is just the kind of thing that the DVD CCA used as evidence against the DVD hackers in their testimony.
And let's not forget about the "These are from a bunch of criminals" T-shirts that nearly caused even more trouble in the suit...
Angry words hurt far more than they help.
*sigh* I'm beginning to think Katz may be right about something for a change. -
Re:OSS ScrewedLaugh...
Oh God! This is funny! I've never read a more blatant (and stupid troll).
You think the commercial piracy operations in Thailand, China, Russia and other countries haven't been working on decrypting the pathetic 40-bit encryption for the day when they won't be able to sell videotape through their channels? You think they don't have access to anyone who has a good hacking mind and who they can pay a really good salary?
Oh, incidentally, the point of eliminating fair use, controlling the players, etc. is because they could care less about your DVD collection. They want you to have to buy the same content again... and again and again and again and again. And if they eliminate the idea that you actually own the DVD you bought and have a right to view its content, then they'll be able to do just that.
Oh, and don't assume that every radical dude wearing a Linux T-Shirt is unarmed and hasn't spent time at a firing range... you might be unpleasantly surprised. (At least you won't look stupid by posting poorly written trolls to Slashdot... ever again.)
You know, you lawyers for the DVD CCA are getting really desperate...
-
Another Mirror
DeCSS
Just to put it all in one place; I know it's a tad redundant, but its nice to have it all in once place:
My Mirror of DeCSS
The Wired Article
01.21.00 2600 Served with Federal Injunction
-
Judge clueless?
Check out this story on wired. Can you say judge shopping? Hope EFF is already working on an appeal.
-
Judge clueless?
Check out this story on wired. Can you say judge shopping? Hope EFF is already working on an appeal.
-
The judge was a bit clueless, with an agendaSounds like the judge was on the side of the industry from the beginning, and was also not terribly competent in the technical department. A few quotes from a Wired Article:
"I don't think there's the slightest question that plaintiffs have a very good chance of success," Judge Kaplan said in issuing his decision.
"Now really, Ms. Gross, I think it's a mistake for you to assume you're talking to a moron," said the judge, who pronounced Linux with a long "i" (the correct pronunciation is LIH-nix), and required a short briefing on the concept of linking.
In addition, the judge was exceptionally hard on the EFF lawyers:The judge scoffed at these arguments and others, frequently interrupting Gross and Levy and chiding them for a lack of preparation. On Tuesday, Judge Kaplan had denied a request by the EFF legal team for a postponement.
This article also offers some insight into the way the trial went:Judge Kaplan offered a speedy trial for the suit, "as early as next Tuesday if you want it," he said to MPAA counsel. "I would like this tried as soon as possible. I offer you a runaway train if that's what you want. My schedule is clear for this." Defendants' counsel requested a delay and the judge agreed to accept an application for an alternate date. [SNIP] The order and Judge Kaplan's decision should provide First Amendment advocates with a lot of tough meat to chew on. He seems to have to decided to try to put an end to overuse and abuse of the First Amendment for inappropriate defense of the indefensible, as he put it. He specifically ordered that links to sites which offered DeCSS be prohibited, even though Proskauer tried to get that changed in his order to prohibit only links to download DeCSS itself.
---- -
Slightly OT but...Did you see that the Judge not only chewed out Robin Gross for saying that he needed to learn a little more about the topic? Even better though, he can't pronounce Linux
Read the Wired article...
kwsNI -
Can those T-shirt $$ buy Judge Kaplan a clue?
From the Wired article:
"Now really, Ms. Gross, I think it's a mistake for you to assume you're talking to a moron," said the judge, who pronounced Linux with a hard "i" and required a short briefing on the concept of linking.
The same article also describes the judge complaining about the defendant's lack of preparation, even though he denied their request for a postponement. The 2600 news section bears this out as well, describing how they had just 8 hours to talk to attorneys and prepare their case. This has all the signs of a travesty of justice in the making.
-
Wired storyWired is carrying the story here. This is the part that really scared me: after hearing only three hours of argument, judge Louis A. Kaplan pronounced, "I don't think there's the slightest question that the plaintiffs have a very good chance of success." If we can't count on a judge not to prejudge.....
-
Wired storyWired is carrying the story here. This is the part that really scared me: after hearing only three hours of argument, judge Louis A. Kaplan pronounced, "I don't think there's the slightest question that the plaintiffs have a very good chance of success." If we can't count on a judge not to prejudge.....
-
related stories
CNN Story
Ziff Davis Story
Wired Story
The world is a better place now that Kevin walks free and can tell his story. Best wishes Kevin. I have a feeling that the phrase "Free Kevin" will stand for a lot more than the Kevin Mitnick case and online rights/justice in the future. -
Losing the right to tell Katz to shut up
It often puzzles me why there have been so many "Please Die" postings on Slashdot. You would think that someone that views some of the people who post on Slashdot as "adolescents who are looking for acceptance" as someone valid enough to write about. Perhaps it is because they want to reply to their comments, but want to look mature about it. That could be why there are these innane articles about how if we are rude, or obnoxious, our rights will be taken away..
News Flash: They won't.
We have the right to boo people off stages, to say when something totally sucks. It's not our fault if someone doesn't get this fact. I imagine that the user who wrote "Please Die" actually was just sick of hearing the incessant whining and Wired-esque writing that occurs so often on Slashdot.
So, if we lose the right to say "Please Shut the hell up", then what is the point. If you didn't want to hear feedback, don't read the Slashdot postings, but saying comments like "Please Die" is NOT an abuse of freedom.
-
Of pianos and spread spectrum
Interesting that the Wired article didn't link to an earlier Wired article mostly about George Antheil's masterpiece for the player piano, Ballet mécanique . Although mostly about Antheil, it also contains more information about Lamarr and spread spectrum later in the article. It's a fascinating read about a man's unreachable dreams of a mechanized symphony of player pianos finally coming to life after his death, using modern music technologies.
-
Re:unfair generalizationI concur, the worst Email flames I have ever gotten were from a woman. I was going to go into the whole story here, but since it is an example and not an attempt to single her out I won't. I will say that getting flamed by someone you have become chummy with on Email is a lot worse than being flamed by some anonymous person you don't care about. Incidentally, we all know it is tough to tell who is male and who is female in a truly anonymous environment. However, unless the person I refer to has staged a truly elaborate deception, I've verifyed her gender from multiple sources.
The most difficult thing about flaming is that it is like drunk talk, it makes sense while you are doing it but if you have it played back to you later you get embarrassed. However, people keep talking about it like it is totally seperate from real life. Well, here is an interesting article about it from Jon's old stomping ground, Wired:
I wonder why Jon didn't refer to it? (Maybe he doesn't keep up with Wired or doesn't want to give them the satisfaction.)
The most peculiar thing about this is that Jon seems to be indicated that white, male, teenaged geeks are the source of all that is wrong with the Internet discussion environment. Sigh... here's a point you may not have considered Jon, the Internet is no longer just the stomping ground of geeks. My ungeeky sister has posted some passionate things to the "All My Children" discussion board, my ungeeky brother sends Email letters to the editor to Websites that he likes. These are people who know how to use Internet explorer and have mastered the arcane concept of Internet forms, but neither of them could write code, build a circuit, do Algebra or any other "geeky" activities to save their lives. Heck, if you've ever been to the right college campus (Rutgers springs to mind) you know you don't need a computer to flame... just a bunch of nastly leaflets and a bucket of wallpaper paste.
Some geeks are hostile, but there are also a lot of hostile non-geeks out there who have figured out the rudiments of pressing the "Submit" button.
-
Article in Wired
-
"ownership" in trade of free ideasredundant
The LINX debacle affirms the idea that *reputation*, above and beyond human *attention*, is the chief currency in this idea economy. Clearly LinuxOne is getting attention, but of a bitter sort. (then again, press is often measured by quantity, not quality.)
Maybe Dr. Chiou's LINX will do little damage to Linux' reputation. But if he achieves his purpose, even slightly, many might follow suit. Snowball. After all, the "world domination" market is immense, comprising *billions* of newbies. The barrier to entry, as LINX proves, barely exists. Maybe "world partnership" would have been smarter.
Bernardo Huberman concludes that the bigger a system is, the more individuals within it will poach, simply because they can get away with it. Guilt free. The bigger Linux gets, (the way it's currently being financed), the more it may suffer infestation by parasites.
"Money" wants one thing: to maximize its return with minimal effort, and limited liability. "It goes where it's wanted, and stays where it's cared for." Gold rules. The rich get richer, and the poor get, uh.. motivation to get rich.. (and so on, until we reboot "money")
Meanwhile, how do we use yesterday's money to trade today's free ideas? How does open source get monetized? Are there choices?
Are "property"-centered IPO's and stockholder "ownership" the *ideal* way to finance trade in free ideas? Are they the *fairest* of possible arrangements? Are they the *only* kind of financial relationships imaginable? Maybe not.
Could the Open Source principle of "common ownership" conceivably adapt to the structure of a "business relationship"?
Maybe so. "Common ownership" is a key organizing principle of one of the most successful enterprises in history, which incidentally has plenty to do with software, entrepreneurial freedom, ingenuity, trade, globalization and money itself..
VISA defined "ownership" as a nontransferable *right* to participate, and an *obligation* to abide by community-defined terms. Legally, it was structured as a non-stock, for-profit membership corporation. So it can't be bought, sold, traded or raided. No pump, no dump. VISA has grown 20-50%, compounding annually, for over 30 years, past boom, bubble, bear and bust: $1,400,000,000,000 (trillion) in 1998 sales.
Dee Hock, who founded this semi-choard, believes that if "ownership" had been extended to *all* participants (including merchants and cardholders), then it would be *four times* more successful today. It would be truly chaordic.
(So does "common ownership" always mean "Communism"? Maybe not. Meanwhile, das Capital floods into Linux, which is rooted in the freaking GPL.. wierd. Maybe money follows ingenuity, regardless of ideology..)
Why do open licenses like the GPL so attract that most valuable resource, human ingenuity? Common ownership? Promotion of sharing? Trade rooted in ethics? Relief from pricey legal haggling? Rebellion? Civil disobedience? Cooperative advantage? Creative liberty? Maybe it boils down to freedom from restrictions.
"Freedom"? Are you *free* to scream "fire" in a crowded house or to punch the tip of my nose? Kinda.. Dee Hock (after Lao Tzu) claims that in reality, "everything is its opposite". Freedom is a fruit of self-restraint. By forced sharing, the GPL righteously claims to be more "free" than BSD. BSD rabidly disagrees. Considering the LinuxONE problem at hand, is the "GPV" dispute relevant?
Dr. Chiou and company seem to be breaking an *unwritten* community contract. He's free to do so. Any surprise at all, considering recent capital flows to RHAT and LNUX? To equitably and successfully enable monetized, fair, reputable and trustworthy trade in free ideas, maybe alternative contracts (open licenses) need to be written and tried.
No, not like the SCSL (a legal document that claims to create a "chaord". Dubious. Sun is infected with the "responsibility-to-stockholder" virus, which makes it difficult to truly extend equitable ownership to all participants.)
Who knows? What if, in the beginning, Linus added a few fairness enhancing restrictions to the GPL:- Call this OS anything you want, but please include the name "linux" in whatever you call it.
- Please claim to your free subdomain (reputation) in our community-owned, mother-of-all-intranets at http://our.linux.org/dns (eg: va.linux.org = valinux.com etc)
- Let's chaorganize ourselves to free our idea exchange, while forging a commercial agreement to immunize ourselves from free-riders like Dr. Chiou.. This process might take us a year..
Reputation management? What's in a name? Giving credit where credit is due? Patent and Copyright "properties" may perpetuate outdated economic models of scarcity, but Trademarks? Might they grow more valuable as info gluts?
What if the idea that *no one owns linux* switched to the idea that *we own linux*? What if we agreed to restrict abuse of "our" name, (and the values it represents)? Would [insert project "x", eg "linux"] then be better cared for?
These are just questions from an outsider looking in. Point is, a *truly* chaordic (distributed ownership, equitable rewards) community license to develop/use a free software system might enhance the *trust* between all participants, particularly when money enters the mix.
Maybe such an agreement could not be strictly defined as "Free" or "Open Source", (due to the tradename requirement/url verification), but maybe some resulting immunity to commercial parasites is worth that price. Maybe such an agreement could be called "Open Code" (for software *and* organizational code.)
Whatever.. open principles make better software, and they oughta extend to embrace business structures and practices.. which seems like it could happen with this chaordic stuff.. (chaorganization, coincidentally, requires a fundamental reconception of "ownership")
Why beware of VC money? It typically wants us to "acquire" customers, in hopes that shareholders will want to "own" a piece of us. Don't buy it! Pop that bubble! Customers are not "property", and neither are we.
"Ownership" in the chaordic sense will extend freedom (and *trust*) farther faster.
If that's our purpose, how can we then raise enough cash to incorporate our ideas into legal fictions (businesses) which may serve to help us reputably trade our ingenuity? Savings. Loans. Credit Cards. VC royalty financing. URL Bonds? Membership fees. Service contracts. Ad revenues. "Free" products for sale. Faith. Whatever it takes.. but don't sell off a single limb, not even a single digit. Extend ownership to customers, not stock-holders. Serve people. It will prove more profitable.
chaorganize!
[sources: LINX . "attEnTiOn"-NoT . StiG . BiOnOMiCs . CHaOs-is-G00D . PaRtneRsHiP . FrEELoAdiNG . MoNeY . ComMuNiTy-CuRReNcY . iNteLLeCtuAL-VaLuE . RHaT-IpO . AddApT . CHaRacTeRIStiCs-o-ChaORgAniZATiOn . ViSA . DeE-HoCK . CoMMiE-UniTy? . GpL=BiG-BuCk$?? . MiNDcRaFTiNg . EcOnOmY-oF-iDeAs . ETHiCs-of-iP . ScSL . CoOpeRaTiVe-adVaNtaGe . CHaOrDiC-PrOCeSs . wHaT'sa-NaMe? . CrEdiT-DuE? . OPEN-CoDE . ETHiCs -
"ownership" in trade of free ideasredundant
The LINX debacle affirms the idea that *reputation*, above and beyond human *attention*, is the chief currency in this idea economy. Clearly LinuxOne is getting attention, but of a bitter sort. (then again, press is often measured by quantity, not quality.)
Maybe Dr. Chiou's LINX will do little damage to Linux' reputation. But if he achieves his purpose, even slightly, many might follow suit. Snowball. After all, the "world domination" market is immense, comprising *billions* of newbies. The barrier to entry, as LINX proves, barely exists. Maybe "world partnership" would have been smarter.
Bernardo Huberman concludes that the bigger a system is, the more individuals within it will poach, simply because they can get away with it. Guilt free. The bigger Linux gets, (the way it's currently being financed), the more it may suffer infestation by parasites.
"Money" wants one thing: to maximize its return with minimal effort, and limited liability. "It goes where it's wanted, and stays where it's cared for." Gold rules. The rich get richer, and the poor get, uh.. motivation to get rich.. (and so on, until we reboot "money")
Meanwhile, how do we use yesterday's money to trade today's free ideas? How does open source get monetized? Are there choices?
Are "property"-centered IPO's and stockholder "ownership" the *ideal* way to finance trade in free ideas? Are they the *fairest* of possible arrangements? Are they the *only* kind of financial relationships imaginable? Maybe not.
Could the Open Source principle of "common ownership" conceivably adapt to the structure of a "business relationship"?
Maybe so. "Common ownership" is a key organizing principle of one of the most successful enterprises in history, which incidentally has plenty to do with software, entrepreneurial freedom, ingenuity, trade, globalization and money itself..
VISA defined "ownership" as a nontransferable *right* to participate, and an *obligation* to abide by community-defined terms. Legally, it was structured as a non-stock, for-profit membership corporation. So it can't be bought, sold, traded or raided. No pump, no dump. VISA has grown 20-50%, compounding annually, for over 30 years, past boom, bubble, bear and bust: $1,400,000,000,000 (trillion) in 1998 sales.
Dee Hock, who founded this semi-choard, believes that if "ownership" had been extended to *all* participants (including merchants and cardholders), then it would be *four times* more successful today. It would be truly chaordic.
(So does "common ownership" always mean "Communism"? Maybe not. Meanwhile, das Capital floods into Linux, which is rooted in the freaking GPL.. wierd. Maybe money follows ingenuity, regardless of ideology..)
Why do open licenses like the GPL so attract that most valuable resource, human ingenuity? Common ownership? Promotion of sharing? Trade rooted in ethics? Relief from pricey legal haggling? Rebellion? Civil disobedience? Cooperative advantage? Creative liberty? Maybe it boils down to freedom from restrictions.
"Freedom"? Are you *free* to scream "fire" in a crowded house or to punch the tip of my nose? Kinda.. Dee Hock (after Lao Tzu) claims that in reality, "everything is its opposite". Freedom is a fruit of self-restraint. By forced sharing, the GPL righteously claims to be more "free" than BSD. BSD rabidly disagrees. Considering the LinuxONE problem at hand, is the "GPV" dispute relevant?
Dr. Chiou and company seem to be breaking an *unwritten* community contract. He's free to do so. Any surprise at all, considering recent capital flows to RHAT and LNUX? To equitably and successfully enable monetized, fair, reputable and trustworthy trade in free ideas, maybe alternative contracts (open licenses) need to be written and tried.
No, not like the SCSL (a legal document that claims to create a "chaord". Dubious. Sun is infected with the "responsibility-to-stockholder" virus, which makes it difficult to truly extend equitable ownership to all participants.)
Who knows? What if, in the beginning, Linus added a few fairness enhancing restrictions to the GPL:- Call this OS anything you want, but please include the name "linux" in whatever you call it.
- Please claim to your free subdomain (reputation) in our community-owned, mother-of-all-intranets at http://our.linux.org/dns (eg: va.linux.org = valinux.com etc)
- Let's chaorganize ourselves to free our idea exchange, while forging a commercial agreement to immunize ourselves from free-riders like Dr. Chiou.. This process might take us a year..
Reputation management? What's in a name? Giving credit where credit is due? Patent and Copyright "properties" may perpetuate outdated economic models of scarcity, but Trademarks? Might they grow more valuable as info gluts?
What if the idea that *no one owns linux* switched to the idea that *we own linux*? What if we agreed to restrict abuse of "our" name, (and the values it represents)? Would [insert project "x", eg "linux"] then be better cared for?
These are just questions from an outsider looking in. Point is, a *truly* chaordic (distributed ownership, equitable rewards) community license to develop/use a free software system might enhance the *trust* between all participants, particularly when money enters the mix.
Maybe such an agreement could not be strictly defined as "Free" or "Open Source", (due to the tradename requirement/url verification), but maybe some resulting immunity to commercial parasites is worth that price. Maybe such an agreement could be called "Open Code" (for software *and* organizational code.)
Whatever.. open principles make better software, and they oughta extend to embrace business structures and practices.. which seems like it could happen with this chaordic stuff.. (chaorganization, coincidentally, requires a fundamental reconception of "ownership")
Why beware of VC money? It typically wants us to "acquire" customers, in hopes that shareholders will want to "own" a piece of us. Don't buy it! Pop that bubble! Customers are not "property", and neither are we.
"Ownership" in the chaordic sense will extend freedom (and *trust*) farther faster.
If that's our purpose, how can we then raise enough cash to incorporate our ideas into legal fictions (businesses) which may serve to help us reputably trade our ingenuity? Savings. Loans. Credit Cards. VC royalty financing. URL Bonds? Membership fees. Service contracts. Ad revenues. "Free" products for sale. Faith. Whatever it takes.. but don't sell off a single limb, not even a single digit. Extend ownership to customers, not stock-holders. Serve people. It will prove more profitable.
chaorganize!
[sources: LINX . "attEnTiOn"-NoT . StiG . BiOnOMiCs . CHaOs-is-G00D . PaRtneRsHiP . FrEELoAdiNG . MoNeY . ComMuNiTy-CuRReNcY . iNteLLeCtuAL-VaLuE . RHaT-IpO . AddApT . CHaRacTeRIStiCs-o-ChaORgAniZATiOn . ViSA . DeE-HoCK . CoMMiE-UniTy? . GpL=BiG-BuCk$?? . MiNDcRaFTiNg . EcOnOmY-oF-iDeAs . ETHiCs-of-iP . ScSL . CoOpeRaTiVe-adVaNtaGe . CHaOrDiC-PrOCeSs . wHaT'sa-NaMe? . CrEdiT-DuE? . OPEN-CoDE . ETHiCs -
"ownership" in trade of free ideasredundant
The LINX debacle affirms the idea that *reputation*, above and beyond human *attention*, is the chief currency in this idea economy. Clearly LinuxOne is getting attention, but of a bitter sort. (then again, press is often measured by quantity, not quality.)
Maybe Dr. Chiou's LINX will do little damage to Linux' reputation. But if he achieves his purpose, even slightly, many might follow suit. Snowball. After all, the "world domination" market is immense, comprising *billions* of newbies. The barrier to entry, as LINX proves, barely exists. Maybe "world partnership" would have been smarter.
Bernardo Huberman concludes that the bigger a system is, the more individuals within it will poach, simply because they can get away with it. Guilt free. The bigger Linux gets, (the way it's currently being financed), the more it may suffer infestation by parasites.
"Money" wants one thing: to maximize its return with minimal effort, and limited liability. "It goes where it's wanted, and stays where it's cared for." Gold rules. The rich get richer, and the poor get, uh.. motivation to get rich.. (and so on, until we reboot "money")
Meanwhile, how do we use yesterday's money to trade today's free ideas? How does open source get monetized? Are there choices?
Are "property"-centered IPO's and stockholder "ownership" the *ideal* way to finance trade in free ideas? Are they the *fairest* of possible arrangements? Are they the *only* kind of financial relationships imaginable? Maybe not.
Could the Open Source principle of "common ownership" conceivably adapt to the structure of a "business relationship"?
Maybe so. "Common ownership" is a key organizing principle of one of the most successful enterprises in history, which incidentally has plenty to do with software, entrepreneurial freedom, ingenuity, trade, globalization and money itself..
VISA defined "ownership" as a nontransferable *right* to participate, and an *obligation* to abide by community-defined terms. Legally, it was structured as a non-stock, for-profit membership corporation. So it can't be bought, sold, traded or raided. No pump, no dump. VISA has grown 20-50%, compounding annually, for over 30 years, past boom, bubble, bear and bust: $1,400,000,000,000 (trillion) in 1998 sales.
Dee Hock, who founded this semi-choard, believes that if "ownership" had been extended to *all* participants (including merchants and cardholders), then it would be *four times* more successful today. It would be truly chaordic.
(So does "common ownership" always mean "Communism"? Maybe not. Meanwhile, das Capital floods into Linux, which is rooted in the freaking GPL.. wierd. Maybe money follows ingenuity, regardless of ideology..)
Why do open licenses like the GPL so attract that most valuable resource, human ingenuity? Common ownership? Promotion of sharing? Trade rooted in ethics? Relief from pricey legal haggling? Rebellion? Civil disobedience? Cooperative advantage? Creative liberty? Maybe it boils down to freedom from restrictions.
"Freedom"? Are you *free* to scream "fire" in a crowded house or to punch the tip of my nose? Kinda.. Dee Hock (after Lao Tzu) claims that in reality, "everything is its opposite". Freedom is a fruit of self-restraint. By forced sharing, the GPL righteously claims to be more "free" than BSD. BSD rabidly disagrees. Considering the LinuxONE problem at hand, is the "GPV" dispute relevant?
Dr. Chiou and company seem to be breaking an *unwritten* community contract. He's free to do so. Any surprise at all, considering recent capital flows to RHAT and LNUX? To equitably and successfully enable monetized, fair, reputable and trustworthy trade in free ideas, maybe alternative contracts (open licenses) need to be written and tried.
No, not like the SCSL (a legal document that claims to create a "chaord". Dubious. Sun is infected with the "responsibility-to-stockholder" virus, which makes it difficult to truly extend equitable ownership to all participants.)
Who knows? What if, in the beginning, Linus added a few fairness enhancing restrictions to the GPL:- Call this OS anything you want, but please include the name "linux" in whatever you call it.
- Please claim to your free subdomain (reputation) in our community-owned, mother-of-all-intranets at http://our.linux.org/dns (eg: va.linux.org = valinux.com etc)
- Let's chaorganize ourselves to free our idea exchange, while forging a commercial agreement to immunize ourselves from free-riders like Dr. Chiou.. This process might take us a year..
Reputation management? What's in a name? Giving credit where credit is due? Patent and Copyright "properties" may perpetuate outdated economic models of scarcity, but Trademarks? Might they grow more valuable as info gluts?
What if the idea that *no one owns linux* switched to the idea that *we own linux*? What if we agreed to restrict abuse of "our" name, (and the values it represents)? Would [insert project "x", eg "linux"] then be better cared for?
These are just questions from an outsider looking in. Point is, a *truly* chaordic (distributed ownership, equitable rewards) community license to develop/use a free software system might enhance the *trust* between all participants, particularly when money enters the mix.
Maybe such an agreement could not be strictly defined as "Free" or "Open Source", (due to the tradename requirement/url verification), but maybe some resulting immunity to commercial parasites is worth that price. Maybe such an agreement could be called "Open Code" (for software *and* organizational code.)
Whatever.. open principles make better software, and they oughta extend to embrace business structures and practices.. which seems like it could happen with this chaordic stuff.. (chaorganization, coincidentally, requires a fundamental reconception of "ownership")
Why beware of VC money? It typically wants us to "acquire" customers, in hopes that shareholders will want to "own" a piece of us. Don't buy it! Pop that bubble! Customers are not "property", and neither are we.
"Ownership" in the chaordic sense will extend freedom (and *trust*) farther faster.
If that's our purpose, how can we then raise enough cash to incorporate our ideas into legal fictions (businesses) which may serve to help us reputably trade our ingenuity? Savings. Loans. Credit Cards. VC royalty financing. URL Bonds? Membership fees. Service contracts. Ad revenues. "Free" products for sale. Faith. Whatever it takes.. but don't sell off a single limb, not even a single digit. Extend ownership to customers, not stock-holders. Serve people. It will prove more profitable.
chaorganize!
[sources: LINX . "attEnTiOn"-NoT . StiG . BiOnOMiCs . CHaOs-is-G00D . PaRtneRsHiP . FrEELoAdiNG . MoNeY . ComMuNiTy-CuRReNcY . iNteLLeCtuAL-VaLuE . RHaT-IpO . AddApT . CHaRacTeRIStiCs-o-ChaORgAniZATiOn . ViSA . DeE-HoCK . CoMMiE-UniTy? . GpL=BiG-BuCk$?? . MiNDcRaFTiNg . EcOnOmY-oF-iDeAs . ETHiCs-of-iP . ScSL . CoOpeRaTiVe-adVaNtaGe . CHaOrDiC-PrOCeSs . wHaT'sa-NaMe? . CrEdiT-DuE? . OPEN-CoDE . ETHiCs -
"ownership" in trade of free ideasredundant
The LINX debacle affirms the idea that *reputation*, above and beyond human *attention*, is the chief currency in this idea economy. Clearly LinuxOne is getting attention, but of a bitter sort. (then again, press is often measured by quantity, not quality.)
Maybe Dr. Chiou's LINX will do little damage to Linux' reputation. But if he achieves his purpose, even slightly, many might follow suit. Snowball. After all, the "world domination" market is immense, comprising *billions* of newbies. The barrier to entry, as LINX proves, barely exists. Maybe "world partnership" would have been smarter.
Bernardo Huberman concludes that the bigger a system is, the more individuals within it will poach, simply because they can get away with it. Guilt free. The bigger Linux gets, (the way it's currently being financed), the more it may suffer infestation by parasites.
"Money" wants one thing: to maximize its return with minimal effort, and limited liability. "It goes where it's wanted, and stays where it's cared for." Gold rules. The rich get richer, and the poor get, uh.. motivation to get rich.. (and so on, until we reboot "money")
Meanwhile, how do we use yesterday's money to trade today's free ideas? How does open source get monetized? Are there choices?
Are "property"-centered IPO's and stockholder "ownership" the *ideal* way to finance trade in free ideas? Are they the *fairest* of possible arrangements? Are they the *only* kind of financial relationships imaginable? Maybe not.
Could the Open Source principle of "common ownership" conceivably adapt to the structure of a "business relationship"?
Maybe so. "Common ownership" is a key organizing principle of one of the most successful enterprises in history, which incidentally has plenty to do with software, entrepreneurial freedom, ingenuity, trade, globalization and money itself..
VISA defined "ownership" as a nontransferable *right* to participate, and an *obligation* to abide by community-defined terms. Legally, it was structured as a non-stock, for-profit membership corporation. So it can't be bought, sold, traded or raided. No pump, no dump. VISA has grown 20-50%, compounding annually, for over 30 years, past boom, bubble, bear and bust: $1,400,000,000,000 (trillion) in 1998 sales.
Dee Hock, who founded this semi-choard, believes that if "ownership" had been extended to *all* participants (including merchants and cardholders), then it would be *four times* more successful today. It would be truly chaordic.
(So does "common ownership" always mean "Communism"? Maybe not. Meanwhile, das Capital floods into Linux, which is rooted in the freaking GPL.. wierd. Maybe money follows ingenuity, regardless of ideology..)
Why do open licenses like the GPL so attract that most valuable resource, human ingenuity? Common ownership? Promotion of sharing? Trade rooted in ethics? Relief from pricey legal haggling? Rebellion? Civil disobedience? Cooperative advantage? Creative liberty? Maybe it boils down to freedom from restrictions.
"Freedom"? Are you *free* to scream "fire" in a crowded house or to punch the tip of my nose? Kinda.. Dee Hock (after Lao Tzu) claims that in reality, "everything is its opposite". Freedom is a fruit of self-restraint. By forced sharing, the GPL righteously claims to be more "free" than BSD. BSD rabidly disagrees. Considering the LinuxONE problem at hand, is the "GPV" dispute relevant?
Dr. Chiou and company seem to be breaking an *unwritten* community contract. He's free to do so. Any surprise at all, considering recent capital flows to RHAT and LNUX? To equitably and successfully enable monetized, fair, reputable and trustworthy trade in free ideas, maybe alternative contracts (open licenses) need to be written and tried.
No, not like the SCSL (a legal document that claims to create a "chaord". Dubious. Sun is infected with the "responsibility-to-stockholder" virus, which makes it difficult to truly extend equitable ownership to all participants.)
Who knows? What if, in the beginning, Linus added a few fairness enhancing restrictions to the GPL:- Call this OS anything you want, but please include the name "linux" in whatever you call it.
- Please claim to your free subdomain (reputation) in our community-owned, mother-of-all-intranets at http://our.linux.org/dns (eg: va.linux.org = valinux.com etc)
- Let's chaorganize ourselves to free our idea exchange, while forging a commercial agreement to immunize ourselves from free-riders like Dr. Chiou.. This process might take us a year..
Reputation management? What's in a name? Giving credit where credit is due? Patent and Copyright "properties" may perpetuate outdated economic models of scarcity, but Trademarks? Might they grow more valuable as info gluts?
What if the idea that *no one owns linux* switched to the idea that *we own linux*? What if we agreed to restrict abuse of "our" name, (and the values it represents)? Would [insert project "x", eg "linux"] then be better cared for?
These are just questions from an outsider looking in. Point is, a *truly* chaordic (distributed ownership, equitable rewards) community license to develop/use a free software system might enhance the *trust* between all participants, particularly when money enters the mix.
Maybe such an agreement could not be strictly defined as "Free" or "Open Source", (due to the tradename requirement/url verification), but maybe some resulting immunity to commercial parasites is worth that price. Maybe such an agreement could be called "Open Code" (for software *and* organizational code.)
Whatever.. open principles make better software, and they oughta extend to embrace business structures and practices.. which seems like it could happen with this chaordic stuff.. (chaorganization, coincidentally, requires a fundamental reconception of "ownership")
Why beware of VC money? It typically wants us to "acquire" customers, in hopes that shareholders will want to "own" a piece of us. Don't buy it! Pop that bubble! Customers are not "property", and neither are we.
"Ownership" in the chaordic sense will extend freedom (and *trust*) farther faster.
If that's our purpose, how can we then raise enough cash to incorporate our ideas into legal fictions (businesses) which may serve to help us reputably trade our ingenuity? Savings. Loans. Credit Cards. VC royalty financing. URL Bonds? Membership fees. Service contracts. Ad revenues. "Free" products for sale. Faith. Whatever it takes.. but don't sell off a single limb, not even a single digit. Extend ownership to customers, not stock-holders. Serve people. It will prove more profitable.
chaorganize!
[sources: LINX . "attEnTiOn"-NoT . StiG . BiOnOMiCs . CHaOs-is-G00D . PaRtneRsHiP . FrEELoAdiNG . MoNeY . ComMuNiTy-CuRReNcY . iNteLLeCtuAL-VaLuE . RHaT-IpO . AddApT . CHaRacTeRIStiCs-o-ChaORgAniZATiOn . ViSA . DeE-HoCK . CoMMiE-UniTy? . GpL=BiG-BuCk$?? . MiNDcRaFTiNg . EcOnOmY-oF-iDeAs . ETHiCs-of-iP . ScSL . CoOpeRaTiVe-adVaNtaGe . CHaOrDiC-PrOCeSs . wHaT'sa-NaMe? . CrEdiT-DuE? . OPEN-CoDE . ETHiCs -
No verdict!!?!?!
-
No verdict returned!!
-
The verdict is none!
-
The verdict is no verdict
-
DeCSS Case -- no verdict after 4 hours in court!!!
Check this link out. Wired has scooped everyone including slashdot. Click Me!
-
bob.com was traded for windows2000.com
I just missed out on being able to register bobk.com, having been beaten by a couple of months by Microsoft (remember MS Bob?). As of last month, it's registered to somebody else, and I don't know the story behind it.
Microsoft traded bob.com for windows2000.com. Here's an earlier background story.
-
This isn't going to happen in the future...
According to this story in Wired News, ICANN is now letting registrars take 10-year renewals. Since $350 is just as much a drop in the bucket to a big corp as $35, I'm sure every one will take them up on it. The result will be far fewer cracks like this for some random stranger to fill.
-
A search on Google...A quick search on Google gave me a few useful pointers: Below is Arturo Espinosa Aldama's complete post.
Greetings, beloved GNOME users and developers.
Hope this helpsI work as the proyect leader of the "Scholar Net", a program that aims to bring computers and the net to every elementary and mid-level school in Mexico. We expect to install from 20 to 35 thousand labs per year to a total of 140,000 centers in the next five years.
Due to matters of cost, reliability and configurability, we plan to use GNU/Linux to replace the propietary server options and, now thanks to GNOME, the propietary desktop application options.
We will develop GNOME to a point where we can get a useful and friendly enough desktop for the elementary and high school student. There are some aspects of GNOME, such as uniformity, spanish translation, bug fixing and application development which we will address to achieve this.
At an average of 20 users per machine, and being all of them school children and teachers, GNU/Linux will become, at the long term, a major influence in Mexico. In the short term, GNOME will get an additional impulse from us and those who will contribute following our guidelines, and GNU/Linux will prove to be a real-world option for the end user.
For further information and details on the Scholar Net and, specially for GNOME developers, on how to contribute to GNOME for us to arrive to deployment stage, please contact Arturo Espinosa
Arturo Espinosa Aldama
Proyect Leader
Academic Services Coordination
National Autonomous University of Mexico
The text above may be copied in any way provided that it stays with this parragraph and unmodified.
ms -
Re:Computers Omnipotent?
Where did this idea come from precisely? Maybe i don't read to same books, see the same movies, etc. but I've never seen computer porteyed as all knowing and/or all powerful.
Read some stuff from Ray Kurzweil. The Age of Spiritual Machines might be best. And understand that he's considered a serious author; not just some blabbering idiot. Among others, he's credited with inventing OCR and pioneered text-to-speech synthesizers.
Or, read Bill Joy's essay in Wired on the soon-to-arrive almighty robots.