Slashdot Mirror
Lawsuits Suck
omnifrog writes: "Suck has an interesting view on all of the legal cases that are currently in the geek media. Jokingly, they claim that, '... as galling as the verdicts have been, the judiciary -- with every curt dismissal of every nerd-approved argument -- is doing the plugged-in set an enormous favor. Because if anybody needs a lesson in the way the real world works, it's the geeks.' An interesting point of view." Excellent piece.
For example, one programmer bragging about how much Java helps his bottom line was one-up'ed by another AC claiming that Perl programming had netted him "$5 million" a year.
Another good troll is to point out that the dot-com industry has, for the most part, only actually made money by selling equity -- not products or ads. Immediately a bunch of AC's will come out and say "oh, you're just jealous because you didn't make tons of money like we did."
Fine. I guess I'm the only person who reads Slashdot who doesn't have a couple mil' in the bank and a private jet.
Why, then, with geeks supposedly swimming in cash, is the EFF "underfunded"? I suspect that the "swimming in cash" is just part of the delusions of granduer that the geek community has. Sure, some geeks are loaded, but I think that a lot more are sitting on some stock options that have yet to do anything and even more are just pulling in a decent paycheck and want, desperately, to believe that they'll be millionaires someday, too (clue: no one ever became rich selling their time).
Well, I think Finland is the most internet aware country in the world, at least in terms of homes wired.
Also one of the first countries with a PKI. Yes, I have a cryptocard issued, like a passport, by the government. The specs are public and it's all based on common public tech (no v-chips here!).
And, from the Finnish constitution:
"The secrecy of correspondence, telephony and other confidential communications is inviolable."
I think a better title for your post would be
"The US does stuff, and sane countries do the right thing anyway". I used to live in Australia. Every now and then I look back and shake my head in disbelief...
Coincidentally I am committing "more real action." Downloading as many MP3's as I can.
Seems like too much effort. I've just copied a lot of mp3's to my computer from my CD collection, and set up a script that copies them until they use up all the space. If the record industry is telling the truth (and would they lie?) then I'm costing them a fortune!
Their Legal Claims basically amount to all workplaces will buy a licence from them for any music.
Never underestimate the dark side of the Source
You go to the grocery store and buy some stuff. You slide your saver card across and save 40 cents on toilet paper. Now we know who you are and based on how much toilet paper you bought this week, about how many times you take a dump.
Maybe you pay for your gas with that exxon credit card. Now we know that's the third time you bought gas this week and we have your credit history to dig through too.
Maybe you call someone on your cell phone (Which we see you paid for with your credit card this month.) Now we have your calling record, we know who you're talking to, when and for how long.
We know about all those live goat porn sites you're so fond of browsing from AOL.
We know what songs you download with napster, what movies you rent at blockbuster, what CDs you buy at the music store. We know what kind of car you drive. We know when you buy a latte at starbucks. We know what you watch on cable.
Find a place that doesn't use computers these days. It's next to impossible to stay off our radar.
Seems to me that if we organized and communicated just a bit, we could take over and run the show. Quietly and behind the scenes, we could be Big Brother. Because it ain't Lars out there writing the software that runs all that stuff.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Thank you for saying this. It really needed to be said.
The only thing I would add is that Suck apparantly has no clue about what political influence is. PACs and Associations and campaign donations aren't nearly as effective as personal involvement, especially on the local level. A volunteer who puts just two hours a week into a local campaign office for two months has just given a resource that cannot be measured in dollars. Most campaigns need a sysadmin. Glamourous? No, but your investment of time and effort will help tremendously. And be remembered. If you vote, that will be remembered. Especially which issues you vote on. If you vote based on abortion alone (either direction, then don't complain that your view on DeCSS isn't represented.
Corporations use PACs because they are a substitute for real live volunteers-- who are very hard to find. Money is cheaper than time, work or votes, so that's what they use. But work is more valued. The unions slather their party in volunteers, and evidence is being reported which says that they had the power last election to approve or veto the campaign strategies of their favorite candidates. Tremendous, possibly inappropriate power. Bought with time, not money.
The media wants to talk about PACs because they: 1) buy ads which are aired by the media, 2) are more interesting to report on than the volunteer in the back room, and 3) inflame people's outrage at corruption, causing them to spend more time watching the media to hear about it. But the truth is this: time you put in to candidates you like equals issues you believe in being advocated. You didn't 'buy' that influence. You helped people who agree with you get into a position to advance those issues for you.
Yesterday(?), everybody joined in to kick RMS for being obsessed with the finer details of licenses and for nit-picking over KDE going GPL.
RMS certainly is an odd one, but he's thinking about the law, about copyright and about how to protect OSS freedoms in the real world.
Just being in the right (in your own view), doesn't mean that everyone else is going to agree and lawyers will walk all over you if all you've got is a notion that your side of the argument is "fair".
Also, it's interesting that the author describes geeks as arrogant, self-satisfied and complacent. Makes a change from the persecuted loners Katz keeps on about.
The main thing I have to say (and this goes for everyone here!) is don't get discouraged, nothing important ever happened without a little adversity. Stubborness is a virute.
1. What else can I do?
2. Who could head up an "internet users association" like we need? (possibly someone at the EFF? IEEE? ACM? A friendly lawyer you know?)
I'd say the EFF is the best choice. Let's talk to them about starting local chapters. The person who is most able to create EFFECTIVE ACTION should lead. Don't be afraid to grab the torch, you can always pass it off later.
3. What do we have to do to get this person (or people) to work on our behalf?
Lead by example. Get the message out. They will come.
4. How do we get enough members to join?
Make it fun. Freedom sells itself, so stick to principles. Be inclusive. Be passionate. Be stubborn.
5. Once we get members, how do we become an unstoppable juggernaut lobby like the NRA?
Worry about that later. If we worry about not having the force of the NRA, we'll never have the force of the NRA. People will join if they identify with the principles that we lobby for.
Corporations have battled and gotten overly strong IP protection, ability to enforce licenses that counteract fair use, and nearly to the point of power of policing consumers without gov't interference. Yet consumers, by far the people that the gov't should be most worried about, can't get the gov't to pass decent privacy regulations (instead, the gov't passes it down to a industry committee, just lovely). And all because corporations can easy toss millions to the right ears and get what they want.
I would like to believe the myth that if every constituent writes their rep and tells them they are against a bill, that the rep will vote against the bill. It's probably also a myth that every congressperson is under the thumb of some corporate interest, and listens to one person rather than 1 million people they are supposed to represent. Reality is somewhere in between, but I would suspect it's closer to the latter.
So even if we were given plenty of opportunity to respond to DCMA, I believe that the outcome would have been the same - it would have passed by a voice vote without question. Only rare cases occure where corporate-endorsed laws may get revoked, such as the "work for hire" case, but that's because every famous artist (PEOPLE WITH MONEY) jumped at the cause.
Not to turn this political, but this is why this election is important to me -- I'm voting against special interests. Get rid or limit the ability of special interests to influence the lawmaking ability, and then the constituents have a fair chance of affecting their congressperson's vote.
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
It's the contempt geeks show for the non-computer savy that's at the root of all this. Geeks are going to have an extremely difficult time trying to change anybody's mind about anything with the patronizing elitist attitude that prevails in our community. In our meritocracy, if someone doesn't get it we don't the spend the time to explain it to them in a way that won't leave them with a distaste for us (and therefore our point of view).
And I don't think the Napster contraversy has done anything to help. The rest of the world (that bothers to look at this) sees it pretty clearly. It's copyright infringement. And you know what? It is. Just because you think it's in the best interest of the Music Industry to embrace the technology, doesn't mean you can force them to do it.
It's more than our lack of action that has lead us here, it's our attitude and our treatment of other people both in and out of our community.
dynamo
Perspectrum - The spectrum of all different perspectives
Jon Katz can't because: a) he can't write. b) noone has heard of him except for slashdot people (who he has only a little credibility with). c) he doesn't agree with the views of most /. readers. d) He can't work with many politicians. A good leader will work with anyone to get the job done-- not dragging in other issues that aren't related to your group.
Finally, I really don't think that most slashdot readers would actually rally behind anyone except someone who courted them to the exclusion of everyone else.But let's try a test. Who wants to support Orin Hatch? Anyone, anyone? He's fought for fair use protection in copyright law, and as chairman of the Judiciary committee is able to get stuff done. His opponents in the committee are opposed to fair use protections. He was worried about MS before most people. Any takers? No? Why not?
If people on slashdot reward him with thank you emails, and if Utah slashdotters volunteer for him, it will be a sign that this can work. But most computer people I've talked to don't like Hatch. And do you know what? THEY DON'T KNOW WHY! Read up on him. And if you still don't like him, at least admit that some other issue is more important to you than IP law.
If you are apathetic, don't defend it with a lengthy chain of justifications and false fanaticism. Just admit that you aren't doing anything.
If you are involved, I'll apologize to you in person next time I see you. It isn't like there are that many of us.
According to the Suck.com essay template: That car crash I was in two years ago was the best thing for me. It taught me a lesson, it did. And getting beaten up every day in eighth grade- character building.
When suck goes under, we'll say that it was good for them and the cause of open-source internet humor.
I get my smarmy rants from a more pure source... www.ridiculopathy.com
the saddest part is that te US, by far the most Internetr aware country sets such a poor example. And this leads the rest of the countries to follow suit. For example, till recently the Eu treated software as math algos, but now the new rule they r trying to implement is 'Patent everything'. Countries as diverse as Australia (censor everything), India (spy on eveything) and france (u r liable for everything) are implementing bone head rules trying to regulate freedom. The US had a golden oppurtunity to spread true freedom all over the world, but sadly missed it. I am putting my neck out quite a bit but at the zenith of a nations powers lie the seeds of its decadence. The US is taking away from its citizens the very thing that empowered the nation - freedom. and naturally the world follows suit
A crank is a little thing that makes revolutions
Our thanks to everyone who is responding by joining EFF. It's heartwarming to see the slashdot community rally to our support; we have been processing memberships all morning. The NY DVD litigation has cost us $1 million so far--a major strain on our small organization. We really need and appreciate your help. FYI, for anyone who joins at the $65 level or higher, we'll send you a 10th anniversary T-shirt as a small token of our appreciation. Thanks again! Shari Steele, Executive Director, Electronic Frontier Foundation, http://www.eff.org/join
she was amazed that the underappreciated, downtrodden nerd didn't associate with other underappreciated downtrodden people, like minorities, environmentalists, labor, etc. but rather associated with big business.
I'm sorry. At my school, the labor and environmentalist activists were partying and getting all the girls. They were the cool crowd. The professors liked them, and the administration lavished them with money. How anyone can say that being a leftist activist in college is not cool is beyond me.
Everyone like that who I knew in HS went to college and majored in English, New Media or Political Science. They are now Cool Kids and Trendy Activists for a living. Despite my 'downtrodden' status, I still haven't dated any of them.
Corporations like Transmeta, VA Linux, Red Hat, etc.-- now THEY hate geeks. Sure. They aren't just in favor of us. They ARE us. They own the server this comment is posted on. They made the computer many of you read this with. They fund the trade shows that other corporations pay to send us to so we can hang out.
With enemies like that, who needs friends?
From the suck article:
"But the decisions are no less legally binding for being silly..."
This is why the article is right. This is what the point is: Being morally right, being technically correct, having half a clue; none of these things will overcome determination, money, big business, and organisation. In othwr words, You're not going to win just because you're right!"
This is the way the world works. Deal with it, or get dirty and change it--really change it--but don't bother ranting and vandalising web sites.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
Ah, the futile plaintive cry of an individual fighting historic inevitability. Fesh, I think you're right. The Internet should be thought of as physical space, as in a "place of our own". But, given that premise, you need to look at how physical space is populated. I don't know how often the point has been made, but once you get thinking along those lines you have to start contemplating Turner's thesis. Rather than a cause for despair for a lost techie Eden, I think Turner would make some interesting points about the values of the frontier/Internet informing popular values in the oh-so-messy analog world. Let's say we accept a comparison between cyberspace and the frontier as Turner knew it when he wrote before the War. Yes, it begins as empty geography and its wildness inculcates values such as democracy, freedom of speech and even lawlessness. Pioneers rough out their existence, preferably growing a little more prosperous, a little fatter, on the unpopulated plains and farms by the new land's shore. Those who came first, however, are forced to move West as the next wave of settlers comes in to populate and build on the rudiments of society as built by the first pioneers. In our discussion, let's pretend "West" is a metaphor for an increasingly sophisticated technology which bars all but the most savvy from joining. That second wave of pioneers, however, learns from those who went before. They continue to have rudimentary dealings with the wave which went West. Their values are informed by the libertarian priorities of those who built the first institutions, and they pass those values on to the third wave of pioneers before they themselves go West in search of more space and freedom. Those first institutions - rough houses, saloons, banks and law - are roughly analogous to the development of the Internet as you (single-handedly by the tone of your post) built. Simple connections between individual computers became more sophisticated with the development of bulletin-boards, browsers, IRC, Hotline and Napster. I'm not tech-savvy, and presume the truly "l33t" are trading kiddie porn far from the prying eyes of technologically stunted lawmen and lawwomen by using a protocol or platform most of us have never heard of - yet. In Turner's thesis, America is a democratic nation which values liberty and the pursuit of, blah blah blah, because those who built its government were influenced by the values of the frontier (my apologies for the over-simplification, Australians and Canadians please note that I'm leaving an entire anti-Turner historiography out of my post for no reason other than brevity). Is the loss of the Internet as purely geek-inhabited space a cause for the gnashing of teeth you demonstrated in your post? Probably not. Values in the analog world are being changed by the ideas created west of the digital Appalacians. The world's media, its governments, and the most important financial and cultural institutions are online - populating the "civilized" portion left empty long ago by the geeks forced to move further west in a search for space. The non-digital world most of us inhabit today is changing quickly because the values of the Internet pioneer are changing institutions. Our politicians understand that peer-to-peer relationships, no matter who the peer is, will win elections. Our banks are quick-changing into responsive, collaborative institutions as they come to understand their physical presence is an anachronism in a world of purely imaginative money. The way the Internet has changed the analog world would please Turner, who would see developments as proof he was right in 1911. The physical frontier was declared closed by the Bureau of the Census in 1901, but the same forces Turner explored are at play one hundred years later in cyberspace. No, geeks don't deserve any recognition for building the Internet, unless we count the geek-as-Jebediah Springfield monument in the digital town square a mark of gratitude for those who tilled the first pastures. The values which sprung up in unpopulated and wild cyberspace were predictable, as has been the subsequent development of the Army Of Lamers and the snake-oil salesmen selling us streaming video as a necessary complement to the 500-channel TV universe. The Internet's builders have played the same role as telephone repairmen 20 years ago and barrel-makers in the nineteenth century. They are technicians with no special claims to special values. The forces which shape frontier development are at the root of our Wild West perception of the Internet. Geeks have played the valuable role of railroad tie-layers on the first digital highways, but their behaviour and beliefs are no different from those which have existed in every generation of Westward-looking sons and daughters
I know that's why I started dialing BBS's back in the 80's. You could find discussions that DIDN'T revolve around real world issues. I could talk to people about writing software or about how this new protocol called zmodem was the fastest transfer available. I mean, it wasn't cool to be a computer geek back then, but that's why we liked the 'net' (if you can call a bunch of 300-2400 baud modems a net).
I think a main problem with the net is that it has become way to chic, people seem to forget who and what was originally on it.
trb
Reading through the posts here, I see more criticisms of this article than praises. Did everyone read the article? Or was the first paragraph and every subsequent negative thing read? He's exactly right, he hit it dead on the nail. Our freedoms are being swept out from our feet every day and those who even realize this can't make a coherent movement to stop it. The best we can do is scream and accuse and flame and make stupid posts like virtually every one to this story so far.
We do need a lesson... a lesson in putting on your game face and getting results. Bitching and moaning is going to get you ignored, or worse, targetted. Exactly as the suck article says, we need to play their game. Whether you like it or not, bite the bullet, face reality, and deal with it. The rest of the world deals with it every day, or at least the part that isn't having its freedoms stripped away...
I've returned to the U.S. for the first time in a year and I'm freaked out. Part of it, I suppose, is the craziness of election year. Part of it is genuine culture shock. I know living overseas that its boomtime for the economy and so on, but that didn't prepare me for how confused and despondent and cynical and unhappy everyone seems.
In the culture as a whole, all it seems there is to do is shop. The Net offered us freedom from that. But no longer. It's over. It's a big strip mall. We lost. When Britney Fucking Spears is singing about her email lover you know that ubiquity won out and what made us geeks special is lost forever. So we adapt or die. What we have to fight to preserve now are essential freedoms. It's the falling action, the final movement. At least some of us might get it together now. You know, for all the talk of Napster blah blah blah, this week was a real eye opener about another side to the whole fucking story. My friend's in a band in Seattle. Recently Paul Schell, the idiot who fucked up the WTO situation, vetoed a law approved 7:1 by the city council to change laws regarding all ages shows so that they would retain the protection and safety that club owners need while lifting age restrictions so that young people could take part in a culture, a scene, a lifestyle - something other than going to the fucking mall.
My friends in a band were playing the Bumbershoot festival and called up Paul Schell in front of 700 audience members and got everyone to let him know what his chances of getting their votes are. It was great. In one coordinated moment it was made clear Mr. Schell had lost 700 votes. Audience was instructed to meet with people passing out fliers to learn about more constructive ways they can help.
This was real action on a micro level that could extend out, was active, was real, had consequences and reality to it. Unlike the bitching and moaning us creative typists who clog bandwidth with our universally fleeting opinions that register for about a nanosecond in the constantly updating Net, where things are to be forgotten as soon as possible.
And this band, who have NOT sold out, who have refused corporate sponsorship and money and even deals that would extend creative autonomny with corporate money - just out of passion and experience with their culture of music - they will barely make the poverty line in income off of their album this year. Most of them work full time in a non profit center shipping anti violence pamphlets to schools to make a living. Despite being "successful", with albums sold across the US, sold out shows, and real media coverage. So how many of their tracks can I find on Napster? Plenty.
What I find distressing about the current geek climate is that there has been no change in our culture to reflect the changes in society and politics. What I find is a bizzare generation of mostly male zealots who believe themselves to be the front runners for a massive change in civilization, entirely conservative at their core in their political beliefs as far as it extends to protecting their ability to make money and save on taxes - yet when it comes to the "liberty" of being able to rip off some other culture for their own enjoyment and because they can, the greed comes out in spades.
Seeing what I did in Seattle this week taught me that. We're completely adrift and need to wake up and change what's important and agree on major things as a whole, determine what's really fucking important instead of whining forever and forever until we are treated like a grown up AV club.
** http://www.nkhumanrights.or.kr/ ** Human rights in North Korea. 1 million estimated dead from starvation.
The article is probably the best i've seen with respect to what is going on in the intersection between the law and the net, but it misses two key points (which are actually probably related).
(1) The people who post in discussion fora such as these are a distinctly *different* group than the average web user. We (mostly) work on computers, and (again mostly) view the net as an essential part of our day-to-day lives. The average web user, however, is just looking for (a) information about some specific topic; (b) entertainment; (c) the ability to purchase things online rather than in a store. These people *don't care* about the theoretical arguments we're involved in. They don't understand the technical arguments, and they fail to see why the same rules that apply to the people already providing what they want from the net shouldn't apply to people on the net as well.
(b) Effective political action depends on the confluence of *three* things: the number of people who care about an issue, the intensity with which they care, and the amount of money they have to throw at the issue. The 'online community' is having problems with all three of those.
Take, for example, the deCSS case. The number of people who actually care *in either direction* is fairly small; most people outside of the two industries involved haven't even heard of it. For all that some advocates of free computing are really passionate about this issue, *in general*, the intensity with which the MPAA cares is much higher --- in their viewpoint, it's literally a life-or-death fight. Partly as a result of the lack of intensity, the MPAA is able to throw more money at the problem than the geeks are; it is almost inevitably going to win.
The same balance of forces exists in almost every part of the law where geeks are currently losing: the number of people who care is small, the other side cares more intensely, and the other side can throw more money at the problem.
In order to fix this *at the political level* (because the politicians can change the law, this is where the battle really needs to take place), at least two of those three need to change. But that's a difficult proposition *until the law accidentally steps on the toes of non-geeks*, for reasons explained under (1) above.
I think that eventually that will happen: the courts will issue a ruling which accidentally broadens the number of people who care and deepens the intensity with which they care. But *until* that happens, I doubt there's anything that can be done which will actually be effective in reshaping the law in ways that make more sense from the point of view of the technology crowd.
This is exactly the type of thing Borsook was talking about in her book--she was amazed that the underappreciated, downtrodden nerd didn't associate with other underappreciated downtrodden people, like minorities, environmentalists, labor, etc. but rather associated with big business.
Now we're learning that big business isn't the nerd's friend any more than big government is; and the difference is that it's actually possible to get big government to be on your side through the democratic/lobbying/activism process, where big business will always only be on the side of profit, which may or may not be in the nerds' best interest.
And it's always a good bet that small government (i.e. local, or all those other downtrodden minorities) can be on the nerd's side if a little activism takes place.
So support the EFF and ACLU, and build coalitions with other activists, as is starting to happen at the coalition demonstrations like those in Seattle, Philly, and LA. Prague's coming up!
Note that the demonstrations, while valuable and important, are less effective than lobbying and working with the system, especially since we're talking about national law-making, not local problems (like police violence) or global problems (like the World Bank), though there are plently of local and global considerations.
--
Make mine methylphenidate.
OK, this will have zero effect. Why? Because slashdot people don't vote. And when they do vote, they vote for third parties that have no chance of winning. And when they do vote for major party candidates, it is based on abortion, or human rights in Uzbekistan, etc. Or more likely, who the media told them is the 'hip' candidate.
Slashdot people also refuse to volunteer in campaigns. They also refuse to help local candidates in local elections. They love watching, and writing about, the media COVERAGE of politics, but have no interest in the political process.
The chickens are coming home to roost. Support third parties; don't vote; don't get involved and volunteer; don't write even a simple letter your congressman; ignore local elections. Oops! No wonder political leaders don't listen to you. YOU HAVEN'T SAID ANYTHING TO THEM YET. You've told the Slashdot moderators a lot. But in terms of actual opinions stated, backed by the willingness to work, you've done ZERO. Note that I haven't talked money yet. Donating money is great, but peanuts compared to actual involvement.
Do you think hiring a PAC will make a difference? PACs are important because they represent voters-- individually, their contribution limits prevent any one PAC from being too influential. Politicians have learned the hard way that Slashdot people don't vote for them, no matter how hard they try to court them.
I'm sorry. I am not accustomed to flaming all of Slashdot, but you all win this year's oscar for unfounded bitching. I have been involved in politics for three years, half of which were spent volunteering on and off. I've never worked with or joined a special interest group (unless /. counts as a special interest) and I have never given a dime of money-- just time and work.
I know lobbyists, politicians, campaign operatives, Very Important People, and congressional staffers. I can guarantee you that in my three years I have seen exactly one slashdot regular. ONE. He's doing his part. I'm doing mine. Are you doing yours?
I have worked ceaselessly to promote issues important to us. And while I've made some tiny progress, I am alone. The EFF, which is our PAC, is alone. The labor unions can rally millions of voters to the polls. They gave Ralph Nader a shred of a chance, then took it away. How? With votes-- the basic unit of political influence.
Every plan for an Association will fail based on the critical insight that Slashdot people won't Associate. They might put some money, but they certainly won't vote based on these issues. Except possibly for President-- one vote in four years isn't too much to ask for. But then again, most civil libertarians are voting for Harry Browne, so why would the major party candidates care?
I guess I'm mad because I've put the last few years of my life and some damn hard work into politics. I have gotten real, measurable results. And the rest of you, instead of helping, complain ceaselessly on slashdot about stuff that you get DEAD WRONG, and wonder why things don't go your way. If you can't participate, personally, in the process, then don't complain that it doesn't go your way. Democracy's great strength is feature, but it is also a user requirement.
I have suggested that people read Heinlein's Take Back Your Government . Someone once called me naive for thinking that that is how things work in the Real World. As a registered member of the Real World, I can assure you that I have personal experience that Heinlein is right, rather than the experience of watching pundit shows on TV.
Democracy is participated in, not purchased. It isn't what people who sell advertisements to fund their news shows say, but it is true.
Frankly, you're full of it.
I vote. I vote for third party candidates. So what if they "don't have a chance of winning"? This is an election, not a horse race. The two major candidates are, IMHO, slime. Why vote for one or the other? That's what they want you to do.
If I vote for a third-party candidate, and one of the big two win, I get a slime officer. If I vote for one of the big two, and he or she wins, I get a slime officer; same difference. If one slimer needs one more vote to win, I stop him whether I vote for the other slimer or the third party candidate. You don't need more votes than anybody else, you need over 50% of the vote, period.
But if enough votes go to third party candidates, then a couple of things can happen. First, the slimers can see the lost votes and try to get us back. Secondly, if they fail, other voters see the third parties, believe they can make a difference, vote them in, and you get third-party officers. Self-fulfilling prophecy.
Democrats and republicans want you to believe that they are the only choices. Since they're both slime, that causes apathy, and an apathetic population is easier to control. Prove them wrong at the ballot box. It may take several elections, but it will work.
--The basis of all love is respect
"Why? Because slashdot people don't vote. And when they do vote, they vote for third parties that have no chance of winning."
You, sir, are a complete dumbass.
Are you so disillusioned with third parties that you feel the Republicans and Democrats are the only choices out there? It's not like I can't vote for Nader, Browne, Buchanan, or anyone else, right? To insinuate that voting for a third party is a wasted vote is pure arrogance on your behalf. Yes, Nader, Browne, and Buchanan don't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning the election. That doesn't mean that we can't stick it to the Big Two with a vote for a third party candidate, which says "We're sick of politics as usual, if you don't want to listen to us, we'll find a candidate who will." Eventually, the Big Two will look behind them, and see just how close those third parties are catching up. It's not going to happen today, tomorrow, next week, or even next year, but it will happen.
The elections aren't like a horse race. I'm not going to vote for Joe Candidate just because I think he'll win, I'm going to vote for Joe Candidate based on the issues. Take a look at Minnesota. Dear God, some third party professional wrestler is the governor over there! Those idiots who voted for him wasted their votes! They should've voted Republican or Democrat! Hmmmm, I guess those people voted on the issues. I know, I know...to you, it's a new concept, but it's a cool concept! You can say that Jesse Ventura got elected just because of his past with Hollywood and the WWF, but something lit a fire underneath the collective asses of Minnesota voters that got them to say "Go Ventura!" Say what you will about the guy, but he is an effective politician who's getting the job done, and he's not afraid to speak his mind on anything. Oh oh, wait...Reform Party...third party...wasted vote.
You think that voting for a third party is a wasted vote? Here's a wasted vote: voting for someone "just because." And I have a feeling that's how you vote.
--
--
The real Raunchola isn't cool enough to have any imposters
For one, I'm not a US citizen, but have been following all this very closely.
/. and don't exclude someone just because they are not a "Linux" zelot, but if they feel the same way as you on most political issues, welcome them.
That out of the way, the solution is painfully obvious, yet might be difficult.
Organize an association of Internet users and like minded people. Call yourselves "Internet users of America" or something along those lines. Gather ACTUAL names and addresses, attract new members, vote on a platform, elect a leader...then LOBBY!!!!
Easier said than done is the big problem. You might be able to start with Slashdot and K5 active members, then expand to other web based gathering sites. The EGO thing will also be hard to overcome, but if someone credible, and a name you all recognize starts it, and at least gets a buy in from editors, it might actually work.
How can you fight the "Motion Picture ASSOCIATION of America" and the "Recording Industry ASSOCIATION of America" with being an asociation or special interest group yourself?
The article on Suck had some very good points, defacing a web page for kicks is not going to accomplish ANYTHING except irritate John Q. Public.
Not to belittle the monumental hurtles and battles of the African Americans in the last century, but if all Martin Luther King did was spray paint graffiti on a few walls, would anything have been accomplished?
For simplicitys sake, and to avoid fractures, start here, start on
Consider this a CALL TO ACTION for someone (for legal purposes...someone of voting age) to carry the torch and start something, hell.....even Jon Katz could do this. You may not like what he has to say, but he has credibility in the real world. and in an association he HAS to listen to the active voting members.
Like it or not, this is quickly becoming a battle of the most organized, not the most technical.
The one about young men skipping college to go into techie jobs. Not that a broader education is necessarily a cure for tunnelvision, but perhaps if more geeks had studied history, political science, economics, etc., there would be a greater number of technical folks able to do more than flame.
One important question is how to bring some of this "News for Nerds" to the attention of the masses, in a way that they can understand. The vast majority of people are not technically savvy, yet making them understand that their rights are being eroded is essential to stopping and even reversing these dangerous and often ill-considered rulings.
--meredith
--meredith
--meredith
Sometimes a scream is better than a thesis
Did you read the article? Wake up and smell the roses, pal. The corps and lawyers don't think they rule the 'Net, but they're taking steps to make sure that they will do.
/. had faxed their mps then we would quite like have got a far better deal out of RIP. But we didn't.
Oh i'm sorry I forgot when the lawyers stand up there and argue their cases that that isn't what they really believe... my mistake.
Napster does piss me off a bit too but i'm not really bothered by the copyright issues and couldn't give a flying f**K if napster go out of business - I do care about the issue that service providers and software engineers can be held liable for what their product is used for.
DeCSS is a particularly good example since the work to complete it was done in norway - which should be out of the reach of greedy american lawyers... wrong again.
And then there's the mdma anti-proliferation bill in the us - trying to make it illegal to spread information about ecstasy. It's not about drugs it's about control, and yet the media aren't having a big outcry about free speech because this government mock war on drugs is more important.
As for the RIP act in my own country. I'm nothing short of appalled. I've written to my member of parliament but to no avail - didn't even acknowledge me. The problem is of course that one individual or even 50 individuals make no difference. If the entire UK readership of
The lesson we need to learn is that we should stand up and make ourselves and our opinions known.
I graduated, got a job, and joined the EFF. Follow the articles advice and join up. Every $10, $25, $50 or $500 helps. Let's /. the EFF membership!
Nice analogy about how geeks are a big tuna and the sharks (lawyers) are eating them.
:)
Well one way of getting people in "power" to do what you want is to write protest letters. Stupid right? What happens when a politician gets 500 pounds of mail telling him he sucks? Now imagine organizing a dedicated effort that tracks down ALL IPs and email addresses that politicians use and buries them under personal complaints, thereby cutting off the politicians access to the web untill he does something constructive.
Well maybe it would be too hard to explain the technical aspects of this correctly. The key is to make it impossible for the politician to do business(web or real life) until he deals with the collective concerns of everyone who knows how to click a mouse button. Clicking a button should cause them much grief! Empower us oh technical people!
One other alternative is that we take the water away from the sharks. We don't use them to make decisions for us. This would require WANTING to do this.
We could also teach ourselves to never use information from mass information outlets.
This would require realizing that if we want to get "the best" we don't have to go to ONE place in the WORLD, we just have to go someplace "LOCAL"
(geographically or otherwise)
In any case util you AND your associates are AFFECTED and MOTIVATED to do something and actually DO something, then you don't have the right to an OPINION (much less the right of complaining). If you can't make yourself or your friends do something then why are you talking about it at all?
The first step is cuting taxes. And the zeroth step is raising taxes to educate kids so they will know to cut taxes
Take this personaility test.
When we achieve our rightful place as rulers of the world, we will seek out people who don't agree with those values, and put them in re-education camps until they become Geekishly Correct.
--
send all spam to theotherwhitemeat@ropine.com