Slashdot Mirror
The Internet Backlash
An AC wrote to say that "telepolis has an article telling you why the DMCA and the companies who pushed it forward are doomed to fail. It's nothing new but a good summary of the neverending copyright discussion." The author's summary is good but I disagree with the conclusion -- there's no reason to believe that some deus ex machina is suddenly going to save net users from a police state.
Aww.. Dude.. I was totally counting on that tho'.. Are you sure?
Actually, if anything will save users from a police state it's going to have to be the users themselves.. The main problem I see right now is that most users are overwhelmed with the flood of new technology.. Many people are just amazed that it's possible to do so many things with a computer.. They're in the process of getting used to that ability now.
The flood of new tech right now is faster than law, and that lets people try new methods of communicating working and sharing.. Once these are ingrained it's going to be much harder for anyone to take these tools away from the masses.
air and light and time and space
The word is "losing", not "loosing". I don't have a lot of confidence in anything that can't even make it through its subtitle without getting a word wrong.
is the reasonable state. As heise (the company publishing telepolis) reported today, the german government will use provisions in the european version of the DMCA to allow private copies of copyrighted materials. Thus Copy Control Mechanisms will HAVE to aloow the user to make limited copies (the article talks of aboput 3 or 4) before kicking in. Apart from the fact i dont know of a copy control scheme in existance wich can do this and that this would be the death sentence to the upcoming copy protected cds (whee) i dont think that anxyone will be able to create such a system in a reasonably secure way.
-- never underestimate someone who overestimates himself
New distribution models have to be developed that balance the various interests more adequately under the conditions of open communication networks ... Once new models are found, even the largest legal teams will no longer protect from the simple truth of evolution: adapt or die.
Wait a sec, the answer to the current copyright embroglio is more distribution models? How do you figure?
Perhaps MojoNation , which combines peer-to-peer technologies with micropayment
Oh, he means like adding micropayments to existing technologies. I like a guy so optomistic that the thousands of failed micropayment schemes that the Internet has seen doesn't discourage him. Though to call this a "new" mechanism is a bit inaccurate. It's more like late-80s.
Invisible Agent
This post is a mirror; when a monkey stares in, no hacker gazes out.
The backlash against the DMCA is coming because people are realizing what it's about. It was pushed through back when hardly anyone outside a small community knew or cared. Now, thanks to the net's growth, a lot more people know and care.
If we refuse to put up with it, it won't happen. If we lie back and wait for someone else to save us, we'll all wind up as indentured servants to the MPAA.
InstaPundit! Ahead of the Curve Since 30 Minutes Ago
The story's been slashdotted, so I haven't read the author's perspective, but do you want to know the real reason the DMCA will fail?
The ingenuity of the geeks.
Information may not really want to be free (as in speech), but if people with the right skills want it to be free (as in beer), it will be.
Copyright law -- and by extension the DMCA -- is merely state sanctioned censorship: they allow the holder of the copyright to censor anyone who wants to copy it.
And, as was said back in the pre-web days, the internet treats censorship as damage and routes around it.
There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
OK, so, hypothetically, I download some content I don't have a license to read. Other than a silly piece of paper in Washington, what's to stop me from reverse engineering the software and creating a non-authenticating version? Or hacking the authentication out of the existing software? Or plugging in my audio out into line in and re-recording it into another format? Or pointing authentication.riaa.com at 127.0.0.1 and running my own daemon? I'm honestly interested to hear how/if these things can be stopped.
Last I check a computer followed instructions of its user, regardless of legality, moral issues, etc. The way I see it, until that absolute control is pried from my hands, I can get content for free.
There's also no reason to assume that the Evil Corporations are going to turn the world into a police state if we don't rise up against them.
The truth is, there's a good reason for believing both points of view. We're talking future events here. The reason for believing the police state will happen is simple; that's where we've headed over the past few years. But the good reason for believing we won't is also obvious -- this has happened before in the past, and it was defeated then, too.
For some reason, this made me think of Army of Darkness. Hordes of evil undead creatures besieging a castle, with Jack Valenti and Hilary Rosen commanding the legions of the damned.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
If we refuse to put up with it, it won't happen. If we lie back and wait for someone else to save us, we'll all wind up as indentured servants to the MPAA.
And there lies the problem. We can scream and moan and protest all we want, but it won't matter one damn bit unless we become politically active. Why do the corporations so often get their way? Because they make huge campaign contributions? Why do issues involving senior citizens, such as Social Security and Medicare, get constant attention? Because senior citizens vote. Yes, friends, they vote, they vote in large numbers, they care about these issues, and they make absolutely sure the politicians know it.
It seems odd that Net users, who are often the most well-connected people out there, haven't come together to defend themselves against political persecution and scapegoating. Still, that unity hasn't developed, but it had better happen soon. If we were to become a force that could change the outcome of elections, things would change, but until that happens, we'll continue to be on the losing end of laws like the DMCA. So, until people begin to get organized and flex some political muscle, nothing will change.
Anyone care to form an Internet-based political advocacy group? Slashdot would probably be an excellent place from which to draw some initial members. And a name even comes to mind: OpenSociety.
That light you see at the end of the tunnel might be from an oncoming train.
Does anybody know where I can find full list of the copy protected CDs? I recently purchased the Afro-Celt Sound System : Volume 3, and found that my cd-rom drive could not access it at all. I'm wondering whether this defect is accidental or purpuseful....
Yes. Go to http://www.baen.com.
They're selling digital books over the Internet, at approximately $2.50 each, way less than the paperback version.
I've had a RocketReader since they first came out. However, I never purchased any books for the device. I didn't want to deal with the hassle of re-licensing books if my reader ever bit the dust (which is likely considering how many times I've dropped it already). Too much like Divx (the failed DVD format) for my tastes.
In contrast, Baen sells books unencrypted, in formats like RTF and HTML. I feel safe buying these books, because I know I'll always have software available to read the format. This is a very good thing.
There's a very good essays on their site explaining their philosophy, and why they think it works. Jim Baen clearly sees which way things are going because of advances in technology. He gets it. Which shouldn't be too suprising since he's a SF publisher...
> I keep on hearing people say over and over how these big content companies need to find a "new business model" that will work on the Internet. That may well be true, but can YOU think of a business model that'll work for books, music, and movies on the 'net?
As I said once before, the problem is that big content companies (and the legislators they 0wn) all think they have an entitlement to make it big on the internet, and since they can't think of a business plan that will actually work, they are trying to legislate that entitlement into reality, civil right be damned in the process.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Dude, there are already plenty of worthy organisations to join. The EFF springs to mind. Rather than do exactly what you've just said is a bad thing, form yet another group, why not support one that has been active for years and does some great stuff?
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're NOT after you.
> "Instead of trying to figure out how to restrict access, why don't you focus on how to make money off this new technology?"
That seems to be a facet of a more general problem for internet business wannabes. People (MBAs?) seem to see it as a gold rush instead of a business opportunity. Companies seem more interested in getting that precious domain name and spying on their visitors than they are in obvious things like, say, selling something now and then.
And of course, the reason the internet has turned into a huge IP war zone is because there's no tangible property to be 0wned (beyond the fiber optics and the Cisco routers).
And if there's one thing that MBAs and governments can't stand, it's something that isn't 0wned.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
And there lies the problem. We can scream and moan and protest all we want, but it won't matter one damn bit unless we become politically active. Why do the corporations so often get their way? Because they make huge campaign contributions?
:-)
Yes, that is exactly why. Afterall, corporations don't vote. Statistics, which I can't find right now but I'm sure someone else has a link to, indicate that most elections are decided by a very small portion of the populace which are not party loyal in any sence of the word and which are easily swayed by ads, debates, images, etc. So money is and will (for the forseeable future) the be one of if not THE determining factor in our nations elections.
Why do issues involving senior citizens, such as Social Security and Medicare, get constant attention? Because senior citizens vote.
Well... yes and no. You need to differentiate the AARP (interest group) from RBOC (Regional Bell Operating Companies -- a Political Action Committie).
Point being, some issues are pertinant to large numbers of voters (social security) and thus can easily be backed by an interest group (uses voting power to sway congress). Other issues aren't important to lots of people, but they are important to either rich or powerfull (or both) people. These people don't constitute a useful voting block, but their money can sway that important small percent I was taking about earlier. Thus, they use their money to buy congressional influence.
Point being (yes, there is a point) Slashdot and the OpenSociety movement (as you call it) is uniquly poised to do BOTH. Sure, we're not as large a voting block as the AARP, but we are large. On the flip side, most people with the degree of technical literacy that visits and actualy grasps Slashdot regualary are in a position to demand a heafty salary. Both of these represent political capital which can be turned to our advantage. Of course, this requires that someone actualy stop typing and do something about all this, which I for one am not about to do, primarily because I have a pirated DVD to watch
[Note to any law enforcement types or corporate flunkies reading this, the above sentence is a joke. Please don't send the SWAT teams after me and impound my POS 486]
Killfile(TGK)
No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
I agree, but I wasn't thinking so much in terms of groups like the EFF. I'm thinking of something more overtly political, a group whose primary mission is to apply political pressure to make sure Net users' interests are respected. Certainly, its views would fit nicely with those of the EFF, but it would be more focused on either pressuring incumbent politicians or developing its own slate of candidates, not unlike the tactics of, dare I say it, the Christian Coallition. Obviously, what I'm contemplating would have absolutely nothing in common with them in terms of philosophy, but no one can deny that they exemplify the power of grass-roots organization with their voter guides. Love 'em or hate 'em, they often get results for their supporters. I think the Net could likewise benefit from a damn-the-torpedoes political action group. Let groups like the EFF, CDT, and EPIC continue to do what they do, and rely on them to formulate well-thought-out policy issues, then use whatever political action group you have to ram these issues through Congress and the state legislatures using good old-fashioned political muscle, since that's often the only language politicians understand.
That light you see at the end of the tunnel might be from an oncoming train.
You are exactly right.
I think it's also important to remember that turnout for elections in this country is often low. It's nearly miraculous to get more than 50% of registered voters to show up at the polls. And that's registered voters. I often wonder what the percentage would be if we also counted people who were eligible to register to vote but who aren't even registered. What this all means is that elections are decided by a relatively small number of people. One could argue that this apathy works to the advantage of corporations because they have to sway smaller numbers of people and because an apathetic electorate, if it votes at all, is more likely to take the easy way out and vote for the incumbent or the candidate who had the most ads, often the same person, and almost always the one backed by powerful special interests. However, low voter turnout can also benefit grass-roots groups because they can have more of an effect on elections in such a situation, especially if they have an active and cohesive membership.
The trick is to build that membership and hold it together. The Internet provides a deceptive unity, I think. You're connected with all these people, but you often never see their faces and often don't even know their names. The problem comes in that you can have an impassioned discussion of an issue, then get up from your keyboard and forget about it. Lots of it has to do with the fact that many of the people around you often don't even know about the issues that you're so passionate about online. Education is part of the problem, but I think the old-school politicians--the ones who knocked on doors, held rallies, and kissed every baby within reach--had it right. Personal contact is a strong unifying force, if for no other reason than you see these people on a regular basis, and they see you, and you reinforce each other's viewpoints and determination to take action. What I'm getting to here is that any kind of Internet advocacy groups has to utilize a mixture of personal contact along with Internet-based communication. My guess is that this would be easiest to do initially in places like Silicon Valley, the Bay Area, and New York. From there, it would hopefully spread as it gained momentum.
Just my $.02 worth, anyway.
That light you see at the end of the tunnel might be from an oncoming train.
Yep, they did. Adobe didn't back off because they felt bad about what they did. One could certainly argue that they could back off and let the feds take the heat and accomplish the same thing, but the fact remains that they took plenty of heat themselves, and I imagine they didn't like it.
That light you see at the end of the tunnel might be from an oncoming train.
Second, imagine what happens when a new technology comes along that allows these groups to communicate with each other, not so much directly via voice, but communicate stuff like "I've got something I'm willing to part with, which someone else might want" and "I could sure use something I'm thinking about, does anyone know where I can find something like that".
Except, the big thing about this "new technology" is that this form of communication is primarily about abstracting these communications in a way that makes obstacles formerly difficult to surmount -- such as knowing lots of details about a local group before communicating with it -- nearly completely disappear.
And, this technology, while it supports "Peer-to-peer" communication, is most effective because it supports arbitrary many-to-many communications at this level.
That is, a person in group A doesn't have to know much of anything about a person in group B to communicate these kinds of statements, queries, requests, offers, etc., nor do those two people have to rendezvous to communicate, using this new technology, in a fashion that automatically excludes either of them from communicating with other people in other groups.
But, there's a problem. There are entities -- let's call them "interests" -- that depend, they believe anyway, on the difficulty of communication between groups in this manner. They believe they have to keep these groups effectively separate, so they can be the "intermediaries" through which these groups do most, ideally all, of their communication.
And these interests become very alarmed at the prospect of the groups of humans communicating so easily and openly, that they try to shut down the new technology.
But, guess what! The new technology almost automatically "routes around" any blatant roadblocks set up to restrict it, because if communication is shut down directly between group X and group Y, it'll naturally, with only a little extra effort, flow indirectly via other groups.
Even in cases where specific groups, or collections of groups, are "successfully" shut off from the outside world, this new technology allows people within the isolated groups to communicate effectively, even in "hiding" if necessary, enough so they yearn, more and more every day, for the opportunity to communicate freely with all those other groups out there, with whom they now communicate only sporadically and at great risk.
So, these "interests" inevitably try yet another tack.
For one thing, they try to convince enough people in each group that, somehow, people in their group who communicate the most, and gain the most from the communication, benefit unfairly from the new technology.
They also start setting up beauracracies to try to centralize, or channel, these communications, and encourage more and more people to consider any communications outside of these channels to be, somehow, immoral or unethical.
Oh, sure, at first these beauracracies are designed to "smooth the flow" of communications, to "enable" them for "newbies" who don't know the system all that well, so as to protect them from themselves, so to speak.
But, inevitably, these beauracracies do almost nothing but grow, and not by simply participating, like everyone else, as equals, in this communications system -- no, they have to use force to interfere with, and maybe "skim off of", communications that would ordinarily happen just fine without them. Only by reducing the natural flow of communications can they really grow the way their proponents dream they should.
And the irony is that they've convinced so many people of the necessity of this, that even people who haven't yet even begun to really use and understand this wonderful new technology are educated, or indoctrinated, to believe that it is, in fact, evil, or at least enables a great deal of evil, and that, in the long run, it should be shut down, by force if not voluntarily by its users, to return to a "simpler time", before the technology became available, or at least to a time when it wasn't so widely and effectively used by individual people as they saw fit.
After all, the beauracracy, by controlling communication, is able to emit a constant stream of "examples" of "horrible things" that happen when communication happens freely. They get better and better at focusing people's attention on those comparatively rare examples, successfully hiding the fact that the vast majority of uses of this new technology are benign, if not obviously beneficial to society as a whole, as well as the individuals engaging in them.
Yet, as anyone who pays attention knows, wherever the anti-technology interests succeed in "roping off" several groups for awhile, those "horrible things" happen so much more often. They don't publicize that, of course, and a whole cottage industry arises to defend, and mislead regarding, those roped-off areas, even after the ropes have been overrun by the people within them. These areas are, therefore, regarded by many as "safe" areas, potential utopias where the constant access to worldwide communication is reduced to a pleasant, nearly noiseless, trickle by the beneficent dictators who decide exactly who communicates with whom, when, and how.
Sure, these interests, in trying to achieve these results, occasionally overreach, provoking harsh reactions from a (usually small) segment of the overall population.
But, with rare exception, there are never enough people in any given group that truly see the threat these artificial impediments to this form of communication, imposed on behalf of the "interests", represents to the body of humanity as a whole.
The divide-and-conquer strategy thus appears to work, and work well. Over time, as more and more people begin to define their well-being based on how much they communicate with the beauracracy, rather than freely with other groups, people who might otherwise fight against the whole idea of such a beauracracy resort instead to fighting in favor of just this or that specific form of beauracratic interference with how this new technology would naturally work, so as to ensure that the beauracracy becomes more firmly entrenched between groups that would otherwise communicate freely, so people already depending (at least somewhat) on the beauracracy for their communications will have more to enjoy, safe in the knowledge that their friendly beauracracy provides them a "safe", "reliable" connection to the outside world.
For example, notions of "fairness" arise that, while simply and directly handled in an unfettered system, seem to require yet more beauracracy to balance things out. Instead of someone who spots such an unfairness simply offering their ability to communicate on behalf of the disadvantaged, they're encouraged to call on the beauracracy to explicitly disadvantage those who are seen as, comparatively, advantaged. The result is that the widespread urge to do good for one's neighbor in need is replaced by a widespread urge to call on the use of force to make someone else "do good" for that neighbor.
The only thing that could dismantle such a beauracracy is if a substantial number of citizens made it their goal to dispel not just with the beauracracy, but with the whole notion that it's ever necessary to intervene between two or more people communicating using this new technology.
But that's not likely to happen, because the "interests" ultimately end up controlling the media and educational establishments, making even openly discussing reducing the interference something that must be done in whispers.
Now, if you think I'm talking about the Internet/WWW as the "new technology", and the "interests" as corporate and governmental bodies using tactics like the DMCA, the CDA, and other things (like the French government banning certain materials on Yahoo), you're only partly right.
Because, in reality, I'm mostly describing a system of communication between humans that's nearly language-independent (it works well even between people who do not share the same spoken or written language), "agnostic" (it doesn't care about the race, religion, gender, or other attributes of the people involved in the communication), nearly instantaneous (information about each communication almost naturally communicates itself to everyone else using the same system, almost like being in a chat room), and, most interestingly of all, that's probably over 10,000 years old.
That system of communication?
It's called the "price system".
That's right, I'm talking about the free market, the "place" where two or more people can go, communicate effectively regarding their needs and wants to conduct a transaction, often without the need to know much of anything about each other, and communicate almost perfectly compressed information on the transaction to everyone else in the same market.
And who are the interests that oppose or seek to fetter this communication?
They're the people who brought you Collectivism, Communism, Socialism, Taxes, Levies, Fees, all the largely involuntary means by which communications via this system are either impinged upon or forced to occur.
And, just as decreasing the ability of people to freely exchange "data" on the Internet is easily seen by "geeks" as having an overall detrimental effect on the ability of society to function in an ideal way, these fetters on the free market have nearly the exact same effect on humanity, multiplied by several orders of magnitude or so.
For example, laws restricting naturally-free trade across international borders prevent important information from flowing between them -- information on inefficiencies on one side or the other -- just as laws restricting discussing security or performance flaws in software prevent information on those flaws from freely flowing.
In both cases, the Powers That Be, or that want to be anyway, claim there's insufficient need for such freely-flowing information, compared to the "damage" it'd do to one side or the other.
But, those of us who already understand the importance of a truly free market, and have confidence that it's the humanity of individual humans, not the individual wills of a comparatively small elite with a great deal of gunpower, that'll, in the long run, best guide humanity to the highest uses of these technologies, consider what's happening to the Internet today, including the DMCA, the encroachment of national borders on this supposedly "borderless" territory, as merely a modest replaying of the gradual neutering of a bit player (compared to the free market, anyway).
Sadly, even though the Internet is not necessary for the price system, or free market, to flourish, it is impossible for the Internet to truly flourish without the price system or free market. No government that infringes on the free market will ever permit a free Internet to flourish, because, in many important ways, they're the same thing, or just different manifestations of the same fundamental urge all humans have to communicate with each other in all sorts of ways regarding their needs, wants, hopes, desires, abilities, energy, and so on.
And, as long as our children are indoctrinated in the schools, via the media, and by our own laws to view the market as some sort of enemy to be constantly tamed by the use, or at least the threat, of force (aka government intervention), they'll inevitably, directly or indirectly, view the Internet in just the same way, especially once they "get over" the "newness" of it.
Those of us who've been "online" long enough already recognized the symptoms years ago, such as, people claiming the Internet isn't "fair" because not everyone has identical access, bandwidth, etc.
So, I don't see how DMCA can end up being anything but a short stop -- perhaps a temporarily-overreaching one -- on a long march towards the same degree of restrictions on free communication of "digital" data that we already have -- AND WITH A GREAT DEAL OF SUPPORT FROM THESE SUPPOSEDLY "BRILLIANT" INTERNET "GEEKS" -- imposed on the free market.
Oh, the new restrictions will have to be better-packaged than the DMCA and CDA, to be sure. And the Supreme Court and legislatures will have to be "taught", just as FDR taught them, to view the U.S. Constitution as requiring governmental intervention in Internet communication (a la the free market) instead of preventing it. (But this issue transcends the Constitution of one nation anyway, of course.)
So, you can complain about the DMCA all you want now, but just you wait.
In another 20-40 years, tax rates for most anybody working for a living in the "free market" will start at around 70%, the Internet as we know it will have been replaced by a network that allows "free" access for its citizens to communicate efficiently only with corporate and governmental sites (the former paying high taxes, perhaps in the form of bandwidth and content) and very limited, low-bandwidth access to truly free intercommunication between arbitrary people...
In summary: if you want to fight infringements on your freedoms, it's about time you figured out that it's your freedom to communicate, including discussing and exchanging price information (of which an actual monetary exchange for goods and services is a crucial component), that's the basis for most practical aspects of all the other freedoms you do seem to care about right now.
But as long as you take up the banner against the free exchange of price information, as so many of you "geeks" do, your efforts to repeal things like the DMCA will be nothing more than temporary successes for the benefit of a limited audience that'll, sooner or later, look to even more governmental limitations on freedoms formerly enjoyed widely by users of the Internet.
Practice random senselessness and act kind of beautiful.
No, that's exactly the problem. All the moaning in the world will get you a grand total of squat unless it's backed by political action. Yes, you need communications infrastructure in place so people can share ideas, and mailing lists and Web-based forums work quite nicely for that, up to a point, but they don't substitute for face-to-face contact. And no amount of discussion will substitute for action. In the end, you have to be ready, willing, and able to deliver the goods (votes) or bust some heads (end political careers, or at least seriously damage them), or both, whichever is necessary. When you're able to do these things, you get attention and respect, and things suddenly start to go your way.
That light you see at the end of the tunnel might be from an oncoming train.
Usually, when I see a great idea on Slashdot, someone else says "It's already been done - go here".
So, come on - speak up - I would join one of these in a second.
This is one of the best articles I've seen on the whole IP/copyright/DMCA issue. It basically mirrors most of my opinions on the matter. I recently realized some things, though, which both give me some hope and make me fear for the future.
First, the part that makes me fear for the future. The laws in our country generally reflect the "will of the people". Stop. Think about this. Sure, there are the odd examples where something gets slipped in almost as an afterthought and people don't realize it until it's too late (e.g. the CDA, remember that?, also to a lesser extent the DMCA). In general, though, the laws don't get passed unless a decent number of people think they should be.
Notice that I didn't mention the Constitution anywhere in the preceding paragraph. This is one of the things I realized: Most people in the US DON'T CARE about the Constitution. You may argue with me and say that I'm making sweeping judgments without any fact (but then, hey, this is Slashdot). You may say that the Constitution and human rights are important to everyone in the country. To which I reply: Native Americans. Slavery. Imperialism. Manifest Destiny. McCarthyism.
People here care about the Constitution for just as far is is suits THEM. Not anyone else. Not some pinko kike nigger who wants to be able to raise a family and maybe live in peace. Face it; most people in this country (including many judges, prosecutors, policemen) don't really care about the "intent" behind the Constitution. In fact, if you were able to convince them of what the intent actually was, they'd probably try to get the damned thing changed, and fast.
Then another thought occured to me. This is what the Supreme Court is for. It may take them forever to reach a real conclusion on any case that really affects society, and they may take a middle-ground stance on many issues we think are hugely important. By and large, though, they succeed in taking overzealous prosecutors, executives, legislators, and even judges to task on things that most people don't care about (the whole constitution thing).
However, they are damned slow. So if we want things to change now we're going to have to fight a social battle. Why are these laws bad for the economy? Why are they bad for national security? Why do they stop academic researchers from discussing topics which will affect Joe Consumer in a couple years, long after he has any ability to stop them? Okay, now explain it to Joe Consumer. If you talk to him the right way, you will persuade him. The vilified large media conglomerates and multinational corps have been very talented at talking to Joe; they have practice. Start talking about his wallet. Start talking about his kids. He will listen. The NYT and other major publications' pieces are a step in the right direction. This is a PR battle. If you stop this law, another will come along until public opinion changes.
Quite off the subject, I thought the design of heise.de/tp/ was exceptional. I like the little identifier symbols next to the links to tell you whether they were local or off-site. I liked the clean, easy to read sidebars, with pull downs that make sense. The download and forum icons were also very intuitive. Great design.
"He's more machine now than man, twisted and evil."
That very well may be true. I certainly hope not because if it is true, we might as well clear a space on the wall for the telescreen.
That light you see at the end of the tunnel might be from an oncoming train.
Yes, except when I'm paying for an unlimited connection, so allowing passers-by to use my 802.11b while I'm not at home doesn't concern me in the least, and doesn't cost me any more than what I'm already paying...
If God gave us curiosity
...without grammatical errors too numerous to mention then I'll have some vanishingly small interest in what you have to say. As it is, grammar and spelling Nazis like yourself contribute even less to this site than the endless series of "first post" and goats.cx posts those of us moderating at -1 are forced to endure, particularly when you point your oh-so-self-righteous I-can-spell-better-than-you-can-nya-nya finger at someone who isn't a native speaker of English and who has, despite that, written an article of eloquence and quality to which you can only longingly aspire.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy