Slashdot Mirror


CNET Interviews John Perry Barlow

slothdog writes: "CNET has published an interview with John Perry Barlow. He talks about the evils of corporate totalitarianism (Microsoft, et al), the tech industry implosion, and the DMCA."

158 comments

  1. Microsoft Evil? by El+Camino+SS · · Score: 1, Troll


    Corporate evilness? Microsoft market controlled corporate state evilness?

    Could someone please take the Captain America comics out of the hands of the /. articles crew?

    Thank You.

    1. Re:Microsoft Evil? by Stripsurge · · Score: 1

      Damn that was quick. You beat me to it.

      So, what d'you figure? M$ will sue for defimation of Corporate character?

    2. Re:Microsoft Evil? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what part of ruthless meglomaniac do you not understand?

    3. Re:Microsoft Evil? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And while you're at it, do the same for that chimp you call a president. Evil-doers/Axis of evil, for shame.

      Signed,
      The rest of the world.

    4. Re:Microsoft Evil? by CaptainMunchies · · Score: 1
      --
      Spam removed for the Internet's pleasure ...
    5. Re:Microsoft Evil? by ScepticalTech · · Score: 1

      The part where, for some reason, the photograph was taken, and Larry Ellison wasn't in the frame anywhere.

    6. Re:Microsoft Evil? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So your rhetorical ploy is to hold up the
      thought that "microsoft is evil" as something
      that is just so obviously over the top, extremist, that the rest of what they have to say is equally suspect.

      Only one small problem.

      Microsoft is evil.
      Very evil actually.

      Deal with it.

    7. Re:Microsoft Evil? by El+Camino+SS · · Score: 2


      Well, we need to calm his ass down sometimes...

      After all, he's from Texas. He can't help it.

      In US talk that means he was practically born with a pistol and a big hat. The phrase, "son-of-a-bitch was beggin' to be shot" is an acceptable legal defense for murder in Texas. Justice usually involves the death penalty in Texas.

      For all of you people that don't know much US culture, Texas looks and acts exactly like a cowboy movie, without the horses. So you see, he was just talking the way he was trained to, before he shoots someone. Hell, they're happy to kill someone who 'deserves it.'

      Once again, its a Texas thing. Desert justice. BLAM BLAM BLAM.

  2. Cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    never had a first post before!

    1. Re:Cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      too bad you still don't ;-)

  3. Articles need to try harder to hit mainstream by spaten-optimator · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I was fascinated by this article, as I like to hear anyone's opinion and gather further fodder in my ongoing anti-M$ (et al.) quest.

    But when article writers repeatedly use loaded words like "totalitarianism," which we as savvy minds comprehend to be the same as "virtual monopoly by way of market cornering," they are limiting their column to a small demographic (the savvy people listed above). It is equivalent to writing in some form of geek-code that only other geeks understand.

    Basically, you limit the scope of your audience by your use of vocabulary. (IE, you will only reach other geeks by speaking in lingo.)

    I'm just wondering who benefits from an article of this type - the nerds all know it, the non-nerds won't even understand it.

    --

    --
    Disclaimer: The above statement probably includes half-truths, because real truth is too complicated.
    1. Re:Articles need to try harder to hit mainstream by leviramsey · · Score: 0, Redundant
      I'm just wondering who benefits from an article of this type - the nerds all know it, the non-nerds won't even understand it.

      I think you've hit the nail on the head. Visitors to Slashdot are pretty uniformly in the techie category. Hell, probably less than 5% of techies (which I'll define loosely as employed in a high-tech field, or pursuing an education in such a field) read Slashdot on any regular basis. ZDNet and CNet might have higher readership, but what percentage of Americans have visted CNet during the past 12 months? Not many.

      Chalk this up as a side effect of the media revolution of the past twenty years: lack of universal media. This is a side-effect of decentralization. With narrowcasting the norm combined with a finite amount of time, the overlap in media consumption between two random people in the USA is apt to be near nil.

      While there is something to be said for the Internet media revolution, I feel sort of wary in trumpeting this as one of them.

    2. Re:Articles need to try harder to hit mainstream by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I was fascinated by this article, as I like to hear anyone's opinion and gather further fodder in my ongoing anti-M$ (et al.) quest.

      Wow! You're on a quest! You stud you. MS better look out!

    3. Re:Articles need to try harder to hit mainstream by yomegaman · · Score: 1

      Plenty of non-geeks know what totalitarianism is, and they also know damned well that it has nothing to do with Microsoft. On the other hand, if by "geek lingo" you are referring to Slashdot-style over-the-top hyperbole then I guess I agree with you.

      --
      ...wearing a skin-tight topless leather jumpsuit, with cutaway buttocks and transparent crotch panel.
  4. Oh, the fallacy of this arguement by Jailbrekr · · Score: 2, Insightful

    To quote:

    Presumably, you'll do more and more purchases online, and presumably, Microsoft will make it more inconvenient for you--unless you provide your consumer data to Passport (the company's database of customer information). At some point, are you going to cave and provide Microsoft your credit card and other data?

    I don't know. (Long pause. Heavy sigh.)

    I'm really worried about this, and I keep praying for guidance. These are really dark times. On practically every front that I care about, the voices of the foes are winning. I have a beleaguered optimism that this isn't going to continue to be the case, but this is a time to have your faith tested, that's for sure.


    The solution is simple. Turn off your computer, and do your shopping and socializing the old fashioned way. The Internet is only popular while we, the collective, see it as a required part of our life. This is a lie that we have told ourselves repeatedly.

    If you wish to have your life revolve around the computer, or around the media, then you choose to be a part of this 'mass hallucination'.

    My grandmother taught me a valuable lesson: Believe none of what you hear, half of what you read, and all of what you see.

    Oh, I forgot. Conspiracy theories are the in thing in this new Millenium......

    --
    Feed the need: Digitaladdiction.net
    1. Re:Oh, the fallacy of this arguement by ASyndicate · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Then you become a passive citizen.

      Where would we be now had it not been for monopolistic labor unions fighting standard oil et al. in the late 1800's?

      --
      This page left intentionally blank.
    2. Re:Oh, the fallacy of this arguement by DevNull+Ogre · · Score: 1

      The solution is simple. Turn off your computer, and do your shopping and socializing the old fashioned way. The Internet is only popular while we, the collective, see it as a required part of our life. This is a lie that we have told ourselves repeatedly.

      If you wish to have your life revolve around the computer, or around the media, then you choose to be a part of this 'mass hallucination'.

      The Internet is not the problem. The problem is Microsoft (or anybody else) having centralized control of everybody's information. The choice should not be use Passport or become one of the cash-only hippies living up in Humbolt County. We should be able to use the Internet in a free (as in speech), open (as in standards and availability), and private (as in we get to choose who gets our information) manner.

      There is no fallacy. Be a bit more discerning and try not to have such a dichotomous view of the world.

  5. Maybe I'm just tired... by Xenopax · · Score: 3, Insightful

    but it seems to me that a lot of sites are running many stories that slashdot can get hyped about. Linux on the desktop, microsoft is evil, DMCA is drawn and quartered in court. In a previous thread someone said that slashdot was played for fools and that the linux desktop thing was to get more ad impressions, I'm beginning to think he was right.

    Of course all this insane, conspiracy bumbling I'm doing might just be alcohol induced paranoia. Maybe I should goto bed.

    1. Re:Maybe I'm just tired... by spaten-optimator · · Score: 1

      I think that's a sound theory, the only problem is that, if you look at the number of posts which are never accepted (how many times have you tried?), it would be a true art-form to properly /.-snipe. (That is, create a good enough story to garner /. attention.)

      So, it is an interesting idea, but in reality, it would be too time-intensive to tailor a story in the hopes that it will be /.-posted, just to earn a couple of ad bucks.

      Then again, some people will stop at nothing to make a friggin buck.

      --

      --
      Disclaimer: The above statement probably includes half-truths, because real truth is too complicated.
    2. Re:Maybe I'm just tired... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And it's great; why should we complain when the media swings our way? It's nice to know that the small minority (Slashdot readers) can have enough pull to at least get more news marketed to them, rather than the sensationalist crap that usually passes for news 'round these parts.

    3. Re:Maybe I'm just tired... by sheldon · · Score: 2

      Time intensive?

      Pretty easy, mention Microsoft is evil and you shouldn't buy their product...

      instant hits!

    4. Re:Maybe I'm just tired... by Paul+Komarek · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Suppose it is economically helpful to manipulate your stories for the purpose of attracting slashdot eyes. This would mean that slashdot's readership is manipulating the press. But there's more.

      Eventually, non-slashdot readers would find themselves innundated by exactly the material that slashdot readers wanted to see. I expect the result would be the majority of these non-slashdot readers aligning their opinion with the slashdot faction (if it's said/written enough times, it must be true!).

      This seems pretty far-fetched, but maybe the computer/technical world is 1) cliquish enough and 2) so sheep-like that it could happen. However, I expect that editors don't conciously try to create stories which attract slashdot readers. I think publishing firms prefer to take their bribes up front.

      -Paul Komarek

    5. Re:Maybe I'm just tired... by quintessent · · Score: 3, Funny

      all this insane, conspiracy bumbling I'm doing might just be alcohol induced paranoia.

      You ought to consider submitting a few stories yourself.

    6. Re:Maybe I'm just tired... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Suppose it is economically helpful to manipulate your stories for the purpose of attracting slashdot eyes. This would mean that slashdot's readership is manipulating the press. But there's more.

      Others sites routinely craft articles just to generate ad views from the same crowd that follows Slashdot. And the Slashdot editors routinely take the bait because it generates ad views here on Slashdot too. It's a symbiotic relationship between content providers (like ZDNet) and content filters / portals (like Slashdot).

      Eventually, non-slashdot readers would find themselves innundated by exactly the material that slashdot readers wanted to see.

      No, because those readers won't be drawn to the same articles that Slashdot readers are drawn to. Sites like ZDNet produce tons of content, and you only see a fraction of it. Different types of content are marketed to different types of readers. If Slashdot is your portal, then you only see the stuff that ZDNet has aimed at the Slashdot crowd, and only if the Slashdot editors think so too. Non-Slashdot readers find their way to ZDNet content through other filter/portal sites that serve a different demographic, so they generally see different content.

    7. Re:Maybe I'm just tired... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      In a previous thread someone said that slashdot was played for fools and that the linux desktop thing was to get more ad impressions, I'm beginning to think he was right.

      Of course it was crafted to get more ad impressions. It's their job to create content that generates ad impressions. That's how they get paid. This happens all the time - it's practically the foundation of commercial internet media.

      However, Slashdot was not played for fools. The Slashdot staff makes its living off of ad impressions too, so they love to post this kind of stuff. The only people who are being played for fools are readers who are naive enough to take the media at face value.

    8. Re:Maybe I'm just tired... by Paul+Komarek · · Score: 2

      Good points. And to add the coup de grace: which content is viewed doesn't matter to ZD Net, so long as Doubleclick registers it.

      -Paul Komarek

  6. Check this by syzxys · · Score: 1

    Q. To play devil's advocate, isn't Microsoft simply selling a product that millions of people are willing to purchase at their own will?

    A. <snip> In fact, it's become totally diabolical.

    Q. If Windows is so bad, why does Apple have a meager 4 percent market share?

    A. Four? Really? Jesus.

    Hmm... Who said religion and computer science don't mix? :-)

    ---
    Celebrate "crash Windows XP with printf" week here.
  7. Barlow is pretty much on the money by fluxrad · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I think Barlow has alot of it slated down pretty well. The internet is becoming less free and more commercialized. Ads are worse than ever, and we're seeing a return to something I think we left off in the 80's. It's not who you are, but what you buy.

    I especially hope that people will start to reflect a bit more on theiropinions of the music industry now that JPB has said it. Royalties are bullshit. Pay for the performance, not the music.

    All in all, an excellent review. I just hope this reaches more eyes than the /. community.

    --
    "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
  8. {?}What do you call it when.... by chrispycreeme · · Score: 1

    You say "Igotta report this to /. , oh, wait, that's where i found it."{?]

    c-

    1. Re:{?}What do you call it when.... by __past__ · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Michael?

  9. eh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    who is john perry barlow? michael's gay lover?

  10. As a long time fan of his by martissimo · · Score: 2

    I spent many years as a dead head, though a somewhat mainstream one (IE. i maintained a job but had a fair bit of time to tour with em as well). And then a big part of the EFF...

    i mean there is no way i couldn't like or support him, you would think...

    But frankly he looks like he is gettin just a little exxagerated with his claims now, i love what he stands for and all, but you will never appeal to a broad audience making such off the wall claims (even if there is some basis for a bit of it). He could serve his position much better by making very rational points supported with good fact, rather than just saying all the things he speculates could *possibly* happen someday

  11. Like far Out, Man! by nickynicky9doors · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Ok it's good. It's linked to the Dead and if we all do acid and chant real loud the rain will go away.
    But the reality is that first big business had to garnter the economic forces able to put the goods and services in place to create the PC/Apple and net cultures. Not to forget that *in the beginng* the military, government, big business and academica made the WWW. So try as we do not to be overwhelmed by the immensity of the entities we create to produce such things as the net and space exploration it is possible we cannot do without them.

    --

    heuristic algorithm seeks stochastic relationship
    1. Re:Like far Out, Man! by sjames · · Score: 2

      So try as we do not to be overwhelmed by the immensity of the entities we create to produce such things as the net and space exploration it is possible we cannot do without them.

      If those entities weren't there at all, the net wouldn't have needed them. It's not as if the BBS scene never thought of massively connected networks. Perhaps if the phone system had been run as a forward thinking public good rather than a protected monopoly, FIDOnet might have considered going from nightly exchanges to always-on connectivity and become 'the net'

      Some things do require large entities to accomplish, such as space exploration. That doesn't mean that those entities need to be the ethically challenged abominations we have now.

    2. Re:Like far Out, Man! by nickynicky9doors · · Score: 1

      Agreed and the fight to effect such changes is, ah well, noble truly; but we have only just emerged from the grip of 19th century industrialism when robber barrons did indeed haggle over the world. The newest catchwords in progressive democracies are government "efficiency" and government "tranparency". We're nowhere near having institutions consistently exhibiting these characteristics but then too we have only just brought information online in an unprecedented way. It may be our new found ability to gather, analysis and disseminate information at heretofore incredible rates that is generating the frustration with social artifacts like pork barrel politics and BIG business.

      --

      heuristic algorithm seeks stochastic relationship
  12. We're the com in com.com by cobar · · Score: 3, Funny

    Since when did CNet buy com.com. I can see it now - "We're the com in com.com"

    1. Re:We're the com in com.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you actually click on the link, smart guy? :) It would seem CNet does own the com in com.com after all.

      whois com.com
      ...
      NS.CNET.COM 64.124.237.71
      NS2.CNET.COM 128.11.40.194

  13. Straight up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm commercializing the internet any chance I can get though because that means money :) Money means you get to eat.

    The system isn't set up to be productive so much to make sure there are elitists around... Otherwise government would be playing in the economy.

    Intellectual property vs Science.

    Steel mills + National defense vs Free Markets.

    Out of control corporation in our nation vs out of control corporation paying taxes in someone else's.

    Selling drugs for diseases vs curing them.

    Its really alot of world issues coming up where money isn't the optimal answer. We're not living in blacksmithville anymore.

    Got a few years and want to code true AI:
    www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~sager

    1. Re:Straight up by kiwipeso · · Score: 0

      If you bothered to read JPB, you'd know where the money is going to be.
      The internet is just the transport system, you don't make money by shipping stuff about.
      You make money by processing resources before the transport hub.

      Example: a Japanese company is leasing a New Zealand pine forest for 30 years.
      They harvest a block in 5 years, trucking out timber after a row is cut. The trucks go to a depot by a rural railway station.
      The timber dries out over a few months in the warehouse, then is railroaded to a processing centre at the harbour.
      The real value is in the planks, not the bark or the branches. They are only good for playgrounds and fireplaces.

      The real value is in the logs and planks being shipped to japan, where they pay several times more than we would for building materials.
      And that's the reason the Log Carrier that got stranded off Gisbourne, NZ was such a disaster. Millions of dollars of timber stuck offshore costing the company more than the cost of diesel cleanup fees.

      --
      - Kaos games and encryption systems developer
  14. Bush has met his match by WildBeast · · Score: 2

    This guy mentions the word "evil" as much as president Bush does :)

    The only smart quote that I noticed in the interview was : "To have a whole bunch of money at a really young age and see how completely useless it is--it trains a lot of folks in the real value of things."

    The rest is not worth reading.

    1. Re:Bush has met his match by Catbeller · · Score: 5, Insightful

      After 20 years of watching the ongoing corporatization and the creation of a conservative media hegemony, I think the word "evil" applies.

      Bush has had a revelation from God. He believes that he has been charged with eliminating evil-doers from the planet -- not a joke --by God Himself. If you read what he says, he is on a holy war. Any formerly Commie country, except China of course, is evil. Anything that embarassed his daddy was evil. Anything Clinton did... never mind. Saudi Arabia was the source of the terrorists for the most part, but curiously our oil sources don't seem to be evil.

      Barlow, on the other hand, sees a real evil: the almost absolute monopolization, coming Real Soon Now, of all news media outlets by mega-giga-corps, leading to the pasteurization of human thought on the planet. Dead real truth. Current forerunner of such: the almost complete adoration of the current president, and the complete lack of criticism of his past, his current policies, or his actual words. This is a top-down move from the highest levels of the corporations such as AOL-TW and GE and Disney. And across the country, in many city papers, editors and reporters that aren't toeing the line are being canned. Think about it: how many reporters and editors were fired for critizing Clinton? Interesting dynamic there, dontcha think?

      Barlow is right, as should be obvious. We're being sewn up into a certalized corporatocracy by the day, and no one is noticing. MS will use .Net to own everyone's transactions. And maybe BillG doesn't care about your private life, but what about future BillGs twenty years from now, or forty? Absolute power is being channeled into boardrooms that have no government oversight of their actions. Enron shows us how intertwined the power/money brokers are with the government. They've become inseparable. And these characters are going to decide what we see and hear on the net and any other channel of info?

      Listen to Barlow.

    2. Re:Bush has met his match by the+gnat · · Score: 2

      Don't get carried away here, cowboy. When government-supported death squads show up to rape your wife and butcher your kids because you've been running Linux, then we've got a real comparison. Take a look at the actions of US oil companies in, say, Nigeria or Myannmar, and then tell me that AOL or MS is "evil". Even these are nothing in comparison with the "Axis of Evil". I realize living in one of the most liberal countries on earth makes some of us forget what real oppression is, but it's hard to compare media conglomeration with the gassing of minority civilians. As far as China- it's now what, 1.2 billion? I'm graduating from college in three months, and would rather not be drafted to fight the Red Army.

      Your comments on conservative media are interesting. The New York Times, one of the most widely respected news sources, has regularly ripped into Bush on the editorial page. I don't have to look hard to find views opposing the administration's actions. Do you live in the Deep South or something?

      Finally, *mainstream* writers have been predicting the rise of fascism in the US for a century- Jack London and Sinclair Lewis come to mind. The fact that so far none of this has come to pass would be indication to most sensible Americans that although continued vigilance against possible tyranny is important, our system is generally both resistant and resilient. We've survived worse in the past.

    3. Re:Bush has met his match by nathanm · · Score: 2
      After 20 years of watching the ongoing corporatization and the creation of a conservative media hegemony, I think the word "evil" applies.
      I agree that corporatization is a huge problem, but the media are anything but conservative. Most of the larger media companies are liberally biased.

      Current forerunner of such: the almost complete adoration of the current president, and the complete lack of criticism of his past, his current policies, or his actual words.
      I don't know what media you've been reading, but I see plenty of criticism of Bush. Some of it well deserved, some not.

      This is a top-down move from the highest levels of the corporations such as AOL-TW and GE and Disney.
      Do you have any evidence of this grand conspiracy you're suggesting? Some source inside these companies with access to "the highest levels" as you put it?

      And across the country, in many city papers, editors and reporters that aren't toeing the line are being canned. Think about it: how many reporters and editors were fired for critizing Clinton?
      All across the country, huh? Do you have any evidence for this?
    4. Re:Bush has met his match by sjames · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Take a look at the actions of US oil companies in, say, Nigeria or Myannmar, and then tell me that AOL or MS is "evil".

      Perhaps if the major media spent more time pointing out those atrocities, not to mention the fact that Bin Laden and co. would be nothing without money and weapons from the west (mostly from selling oil and being strategically valuable because of that same oil), the people might force change.

      Who do you suppose is managing to consistantly fail to report on corperations slowly but surely becoming a law unto themselves but never missing a good car crash or apartment fire?

      If MS and AOL get their way, all hope of peolpe waking up to these evils may go away.

    5. Re:Bush has met his match by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are paranoid idiot who seems to think that any threat to our freedom can only come from the right.
      So far, in the last 100 years more suffering was inflicted on people by various radicals of the left and not "evil corporations".
      Corporations don't kill but governments do.

    6. Re:Bush has met his match by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is a top-down move from the highest levels of the corporations such as AOL-TW and GE and Disney. And across the country, in many city papers, editors and reporters that aren't toeing the line are being canned.

      The noose is tightening. Our necks are in it. But, keep partying kiddies... once the whole country is like a scene from Max Headroom, you'll at least have your memories.

    7. Re:Bush has met his match by Bodrius · · Score: 2

      The news media outlets are controlled by Bush and the far... RIGHT? Why don't they tell me when they change the conspiracy theories around here?

      The US media has been for a long time biased to the left. Of course, only in the controlled, sanitized, topperware-packaged way that you can see every morning on the Benneton ads you pass by. This has little to do with a right-wing conspiracy (or left-wing conspiracy, for that matter) and a lot to do with the actual nature of their left-wing bias: a matter of aesthetics that shifts, but does not shape, business.

      The main reasons they're giving G.W.Bush a break are two:
      - A national emergency (the terrorist attacks, not the war) means support the national leader.
      - The President's lack of depth is not big news. Clinton was a regular scandal factory.

      Even so, criticism of Bush and the Republican Party abounds. It's just not as entertaining as Clinton, and there are better, juicier things to put in the front-page.

      --
      Freedom is the freedom to say 2+2=4, everything else follows...
    8. Re:Bush has met his match by cosmosis · · Score: 2

      The US media has been for a long time biased to the left

      Really? Give me one example. Calling the media left is the great lie of the right. They figure if they keep calling the media liberal enough times people like you will believe it. Sure enough they were right (pun intended).

      By calling the media liberal over and over again, what inevitably begins to happen is the media becomes more and more right than it already was in the first place. Now the media is nothing but a mouthpiece of the "evil" corporatized hegonomy. And with recent consolidation being made possible by Powell's son, this will only get worse.

      ASk yourself this question, "If the media has been so liberal - where are all the pro-marijuanna commercials?".

    9. Re:Bush has met his match by Bodrius · · Score: 2

      The pro-marijuana commercials do not fit into the pasteurized liberalism the media represents. Really, read my complete comment.

      --
      Freedom is the freedom to say 2+2=4, everything else follows...
    10. Re:Bush has met his match by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I remember from my one year at a baptist elementary school:

      Revalation says, someone will come in gods name and start the war to end all wars. And it would happen around the year 2000.

      So I guess Bush is that devil?

      I hate it when my they're right.

    11. Re:Bush has met his match by cosmosis · · Score: 2

      Ok, perhaps we agree. The difference between institutionalized liberalism and conservatism is cosmetic at best, while they both promote a pastuerization of the mediascape.

      Cheers.

    12. Re:Bush has met his match by Cinematique · · Score: 1

      AOL and Microsoft will always have competition.

      So what if AOL owns CNN. Or that Microsoft has a stake in MSNBC. News still gets out through independent sources. Not to mention FOX News.

      The Slate has been somewhat critical of Microsoft, in fact. And they're owned by Microsoft!

    13. Re:Bush has met his match by sjames · · Score: 2

      AOL and Microsoft will always have competition.

      Less and less, it seems. At one time, every single newspaper was independant, as was every radio station (and they all had news). Given that, without even having to think hard I can justify a claim of an order of magnitude less diversity than there once was.

      Of those that are left, most seem to have been tamed by the corperates they used to watch.

      For a good view on the quality of news these days, catch 2 or 3 different news broadcasts in a couple of hours (local news seems to be the scariest). At least here in Atlanta, I have seen the 5,5:30 and 6P.M. news on different channels unable to even agree on a person being alive or dead (dead at 5, in critical condition by 6!)

      It's not just the consolidation that's a problem, but the slow transition from hard news to 'infotainment'.

  15. The destruction of the human race by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's a very interesting interview, and I agree with Barlow on many points. But he really needs to take a step back and put things in perspective. Microsoft is not an evil empire. They are just a greedy company made up of a bunch of nerds in Seattle. They don't want to take over your mind and soul, they just want your money. If you don't like it, go outside and play. Find a hobby that isn't infested with broken standards, misleading hype, monopolies, and frustration. It will keep you from going insane.

    1. Re:The destruction of the human race by DevNull+Ogre · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They don't want to take over your mind and soul, they just want your money.

      I absolutely agree that the pursuit of money is Microsoft's motivating force. But what difference does that make? The problem is that they're more than happy to take over your mind and soul to get your money. Whatever the motivation, our minds and souls are still in danger. (Well, not literally our souls--I hope. But certainly our freedoms.)
    2. Re:The destruction of the human race by raelitycheckbounced · · Score: 0
      evil emipre, greedy empire, evil company, greedy company...

      Since greed = evil, and huge mutinational company = empire I dont agree with you.

      Sure the bulk of microsoft employees probably are nerds, but I doubt that the upper managemnt arent affraid to use strong arm tactics to keep their power. For all we know they could be just as bad as the Enron crew were.

    3. Re:The destruction of the human race by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Greed isn't evil. Letting greed overcome basic respect for your customers' and competitors' rights to self-determination is evil. Systematically sabotaging the very mechanism our society uses to allocate essential resources is evil.

    4. Re:The destruction of the human race by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They want more than money. They want to stop you from doing business with anyone else, and they want control over how you use your systems once you've bought them.

      And don't blame Seattle for them--Redmond is a soulless strip mall miles away from here, politically more like Houston (money makes might makes right, nonconformists deserve whatever happens to them) without the spirit of independence.

  16. Perhaps he now want *more* Government intervention by mrgrumpy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    As a self confessed libertarian, it's odd now that he's talking about the dangers of a free market economy. A place where corporations can run rampant, free of the restrictions of legislation.

    Maybe he's come to realise that, yes, we do need Government. We do need a protector of our basic rights. It's a shame George W. doesn't look like the man to do it.

    --
    -- Huh, what?
  17. DMCA by WickedClean · · Score: 1

    Someone should make a theme song about the DMCA. Call themselves the Shire Persons and do stupid gay dances while singing it. Dress up like various Tolkien characters. Yeah.

    Ever notice how Mr. Barlow looks like Jonathan Frakes (Star Trek TNG's 'Number One') is gonna look in about 20 years?

    --
    ...All I can say is that my life is pretty strange...
  18. John Perry Barlow by Sivar · · Score: 1

    It isn't paranoia if these companies really are trying to 'take over the world', but still, I think that Mr. Barlow could have chosen some more conservative wording to avoid looking like a member of the archetype "paranoid anticorporate radicalist." Hopefully his many, many accomplishments and reputation will help the more skeptical to realize that there is some real meat to what is being said.

    --
    Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes. --E. W. Dijkstra
    1. Re:John Perry Barlow by Catbeller · · Score: 2

      He's understating the problem, if anything else. It illustrates what he is saying: any point of view not held by the majority, such as his, are "paranoid anticorporate radical", and will be discounted, marginalized, and eventually, erased from mainstream media entirely. He is right in all he is saying, but the rather patronizing representative of the conservative majority interviewing him practically giggles at him.

  19. He seems like a smart good guy and all, but... by leviramsey · · Score: 1
    From the article...
    What dissenting stories aren't getting published? [in reference to the corporate mass media]

    Yeah, and CNet is a local non-profit collective.

    1. Re:He seems like a smart good guy and all, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Back to the BASICS, now aren't we?

    2. Re:He seems like a smart good guy and all, but... by Catbeller · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The tone of the article was aloof and slightly patronizing. The quote:

      "the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), a 1998 agreement that banned online distribution of companies' intellectual property"
      tells you which side CNET is on.

      When he passes from the intellectual scene, there will be no more dissenting voices in his league left to interview. And so his observation is correct: eventually, given the arch questions in the article by the reporter, CNET and similar corporate-owned outlets will not interview such "flakes" as he. His (accurate) observations will no longer be part of public discussion, and one tone, one philosophy will prevail: corporate absolutism, with one or two conservative behemoths owning all the news media that matter.

    3. Re:He seems like a smart good guy and all, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ha, you so fucked up that you fail to notice that your every post is a definition of patronizing.

    4. Re:He seems like a smart good guy and all, but... by llywrch · · Score: 2

      You forgot Barlow's answer:

      > That's just it: We don't know. We've reached a point where the
      > media are so owned by the large corporations and they live in this
      > tight loop where practically all they can convey is what is already
      > believed.

      While I believe corporations have more power in US life more than the Federal & local governments (the later are too easily compromised by the former), Barlow is overstating the influence of corporations on the Internet.

      A quick google on the topics ``white power" brought up over 3 million hits; one on ``us labor party" brought up over a million -- & none on the first page mentioned Lyndon Larouche's fringe group.

      Anyone can put up a web site, or contribute to Usenet - that's a freedom that I haven't heard has been compromised, although there have been a few cases. (And Barlow should have mentioned these cases & why they may pose a dangerous precedent.) The problem is getting people to read these websites with divergent points of view.

      Google helps to bring visibility to these websites, & the commnities associated with them. But a better tool would be for more people to cease relying on Microsoft or Time-Warner to advertise these communities, & for them to talk to each other, to create their own links amongst themselves.

      Geoff

      --
      I think I see a trend here. Maybe for them it really would be easier to muzzle the entire internet than to produce p
  20. Gross oversimplification by andaru · · Score: 2
    From the article: "the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), a 1998 agreement that banned online distribution of companies' intellectual property"

    How's that for oversimplification?

    I guess it's better than the constantly repeated line, "the utilities are facing bankruptcy due to California's failed energy deregulation experiment." The deregulation experiment (crafted by the utilities) was a total success. They wanted to see if they could rob CA blind, and they did. Nothing failed about that experiment. If you live in CA then you heard that quote approximately 1.2 billion times.

    There is also the one you always hear to the effect that the judge invalidating Thomas Penfield Jackson's remedies found that MS should not be broken up. I don't think that this is true. I believe that the judge found that the circumstances rendered the judgement invalid, and the remedies had to be decided in an unbiased manner, but never said that they were the wrong remedies.

    And one more disturbing collapse of journalistic integrity - keep an eye on the bold quotes in the sidelines of BBC online articles. They will "quote" someone (no brackets to indicate paraphrase or elipses to indicate omissions), but when you read the quote in the article it it slightly different. I haven't seen any that twist the meaning, but a quote is a quote - you said it or you didn't. It prevents you from using it as a source for exactly what someone said.

    Sorry to rant, but it pisses me off when journalists act like idiots.

    --

    Why is Grand Theft Auto a much more serious crime than Reckless Driving?

    1. Re:Gross oversimplification by leviramsey · · Score: 1
      I guess it's better than the constantly repeated line, "the utilities are facing bankruptcy due to California's failed energy deregulation experiment ." The deregulation experiment (crafted by the utilities) was a total success. They wanted to see if they could rob CA blind, and they did. Nothing failed about that experiment. If you live in CA then you heard that quote approximately 1.2 billion times.

      California deregulated the wrong end of the business (or they should have dereg'd the whole shebang). And then the increase in demand while there was a steady refusal to increase supply... what else could be expected?

      And one more disturbing collapse of journalistic integrity - keep an eye on the bold quotes in the sidelines of BBC online articles. They will "quote" someone (no brackets to indicate paraphrase or elipses to indicate omissions), but when you read the quote in the article it it slightly different. I haven't seen any that twist the meaning, but a quote is a quote - you said it or you didn't. It prevents you from using it as a source for exactly what someone said.

      That's more of an editorial function. The quotes get your attention. Since the goal of any writer who is writing for others to read is to get your attention so you read they're writing, this tactic has been used since the dawn of print. Pick up any magazine and you'll see quotes from people and tidbits from the article emphasized off to the side.

      Is it dishonest? In most cases, I think not. As long as the meaning is not changed, it's a side effect of the human desire to be heard, imo. YMMV.

  21. Not quite... by Danse · · Score: 1

    I know I've had submissions that were along those lines get rejected, even though they were better than some of the crap that gets posted.

    --
    It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
  22. grateful dead by Partisan01 · · Score: 1

    Not to bad had some really good comments, OTOH some of his ideas should have died with garcia though....

    --
    ahh, the egg in the basket..
  23. Who is "John Perry Barlow"? by Tony.Tang · · Score: 3, Informative
    1. Re:Who is "John Perry Barlow"? by digital_b · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      he is a piece of shit pompous ass. everyone who achieves nothing and bitches about those who do is as lame as this pussy. anyone who goes by 3 names is an egomaniacal loser douche bag. or a writer. there is not net elite. the electronic frontier foundation is a bunch of whiny white liberal done-nothing a-holes. and thats being nice.

      --
      yeah yeah yeah, of course you're right. now shut it then.
    2. Re:Who is "John Perry Barlow"? by WildBeast · · Score: 1

      I totally agree with you. Finally a smart post.

  24. Re:Perhaps he now want *more* Government intervent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mod parent up. Apparently, even trolls are capable of posting good comments.

  25. Re:Slashdot will have to shut down because of you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    ...Peter Csonka, principal administrator at the Council of Europe...

    Does he have a brother named Larry?

  26. FYI by fluxrad · · Score: 1

    It's "Believe none of what you hear and only half of what you see"

    ;-)

    --
    "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
  27. hey John Perry Barlow: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I heard you speak once, for pay, at a corporate-whore conference.

    You are a dumbass.

    Anyone who reads you is a dumbass.

    Anyone who believes you is a dumbass.

    Anyone who posts to this thread is a dumbass.

    So, to all of you: FUCK OFF!! FUCK OFF!!! SUCK THE SHIT RIGHT OUT OF MY ASS!!!!!

    Oh, and fuck off, thx.

  28. Re:Perhaps he now want *more* Government intervent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apparently, even trolls are capable of posting good comments.

    If this surprises you, you must not read at -1 too often. The crazy shit they say *every day, 24/7* is what makes this site worthwhile! I think they're the smartest people on /.

  29. Re:Perhaps he now want *more* Government intervent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Maybe he's come to realise that, yes, we do need Government. We do need a protector of our basic rights. It's a shame George W. doesn't look like the man to do it.

    I think you are ready to apply for Understatement Of The Year Award -and feel pretty good about your chances.

  30. What San Francisco is HE living in? by andaru · · Score: 4, Informative
    "San Francisco is one of the most pathological cities on earth. The people who live here lost their sense of human connection (in the '90s). The city was completely emptied of diversity at a certain point, and the entire population that came in were suburban kids who had never lived in any city or town or community in their whole lives. They had no sense of community. It's now a place where if you give eye contact, you get maced.

    Wow, that sure is totally off-base from my perspective. I have a great community of neighbors (who are adults who have mostly lived here for a while). They bring over fresh vegetables. We give each other copies of our house keys in case we get locked out. People watch out for potential break-ins at each other's houses.

    Our neighborhood has great diversity. There are many ethnic families around who have been in the neighborhood for more than a decade. I recently read a report which demonstrated (and yes, maybe the report is BS) that the decrease in diversity was grossly overestimated. From what I can see with my own eyes, this appears to be true.

    I make eye contact with people all of the time, all over the city, and often end up talking with strangers and making new friends (I got a free painting this way). I have never had the slightest problem here resulting from making eye contact (except maybe downtown, sometimes the tourists think you are going to rob them if you make eye contact - but notably, the business and financial people (who live here, as opposed to the tourists) don't seem to respond that way).

    "But I really don't like the society that has grown up around the dot-communists, who are all products of suburbia and television."

    There was a big problem with the manners and morality of a lot of "dot commers". People who had lots of money, but no concept of tipping were threatening to drive the cappucino-makers out of the city. It was really getting to the point where the "dot commers" were going to have to make their own cup of coffee, because no one working at a coffee shop could afford to live here without tips hat they weren't getting. I know of one group of individuals who went to the local shop every morning and often had meetings there. They would each get a beverage and breakfast and leave no tip whatsoever.

    On the other hand, I spent a short time as a San Francisco "dot commer" myself, and I do not own a television, never mind cable TV. The majority of the professionals I worked with were intelligent, critical thinkers who, although they read the CNN website, didn't mindlessly believe everything that they read. They were not frivolously spending on the latest stupid gadget that the media told them to buy. They were polite and mature, and had insightfull views about the world.

    My point is that saying that all "dot commers" are evil is totally false and prejudicial. Just think of all of the statements that have been made about all hippies. This guy should know better than to criticize based on stereotype.

    --

    Why is Grand Theft Auto a much more serious crime than Reckless Driving?

    1. Re:What San Francisco is HE living in? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0



      He's living in a San Francisco... a country for that matter... that has changed a lot since he/we first knew it. The change has been frightening, but you've have to have been there to see it.

    2. Re:What San Francisco is HE living in? by Pinball+Wizard · · Score: 2

      hmm...From what I understand it San Francisco is unlivable(ie way too expensive) for average working citizens - teachers, government employees, cab drivers, etc. So it must be a place where the people who live there are served by a lower class that can't even afford to live in the city they work in and must commute to serve the elite that lives there.

      Compare that to the SF of the late 60s where it was a bohemian paradise and had real culture there.

      --

      No, Thursday's out. How about never - is never good for you?

    3. Re:What San Francisco is HE living in? by rustman · · Score: 1

      I've lived in San Francisco since 1994. I grew up in white bred (and bread) Orange County. When I was 5, my conservative parents took me to San Francisco (they had never been there, and fisherman's warf sounded fun to them). I remember driving with them through the city, the tenderloin, south of market, and embarcadero (which was really, really different then). I was fascinated by it. I came back once or twice with them while growing up, and every time loved the city. The contrasts, the strangeness, the acceptance. I got it in my head that I would like to live there some day. 8 years ago, I made the move, and I love it here.

      Which is not to say that the city is without problems. But one thing about this city - here there is a chance of SOLVING those problems. Unlike southern california - many people (not all) are very accepting of people. It's like the homeless thing. SF has far more homeless than Southern California because we (often reluctantly) tolerate them and even support them. In LA, they're thrown out of town or into jail or whatever it takes to get them off the street. Sometimes, they're confined to one or two blocks in a run down section of downtown that no one except the lost and the adventerous drive through.

      Yes, things are more fucked up now, but they're starting to change for the better. Prices are starting to come down again. There is a massive glut of commercial real estate out there and landlords are starting to get desperate to rent it. If you want to live in a warehouse, it's easy to do it now. (Forget the whole live/work space scandal, that was just a way for our corrupt mayor's friends to get rich quick and bypass the planning process.) You can't "live" in your warehouse, but you can have a kitchen, a bathroom, tub/shower. You can have 24 hour access, you can sleep there. Just don't tell anyone you're *living there* and you'll be fine.

      This city has cycles, ask old timers and they'll tell you that. Half of my neighbors have lived on our street for 25 years or more. The woman across the street has lived in her house for almost 50 years. Our neighbors talk to each other, we watch out for each other and MOST OF ALL we're tolerant of each other.

      Here's where part of the problem lies: in the late 90s, during the dotcom boom, the carpetbaggers arrived looking for the big bucks.

      It's getting better. Real estate prices are getting normal. Greedy landlords are thinking twice after seeing lots of their greedy peers get fucked by dead dotcoms. You can go to a nice place to eat now for $10-15 a person. Artists can actually afford to live here agaom. (And some were savvy enough to not piss off the dotcom carpetbaggers but instead turn them into customers. Exploit the evil yuppies! Corrupt them! Drag them to an underground party and dose them and change their worldview.)

      But I'm rambling. I'm sick of the "San Francisco Sucks" mentality. What sucked were a bunch of people who came here with a get rich scheme and nothing else. But they're going now. They're chasing the dollar someplace else. Really. Look around, look deep.

  31. About the "4 percent" thing by Catbeller · · Score: 2

    Apple may have four percent of the desktop market, but here Barlow is not thinking logically. But to be fair, few people think this out.

    Apple is NOT shrinking or losing by having a four percent market share. Think about it: they sell far more PCs to far more people than they ever have. They are a raging success.

    What happened here is that the number of PC owners has grown by orders of magnitude since the eighties. Wintel grew, Apple grew. Both paradigms are successful.

    By its very nature, Apple cannot succeed in the corporate world. It's about flair, being original, being artistic, being different. Since most of you do work corporate office jobs, you you that anyone showing such traits are not going to make it big -- conformity in large groups is essential to avoid conflict.

    Yeah, a Mac is just a PC, but the idea is what counts. Try dropping an iMac into a Wintel office. Not conforming, not goodnik.

    So before Barlow goes religious, he out to think of numbers of Macs used, not the proportion of the total PC base.

    1. Re:About the "4 percent" thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Wintel grew, Apple grew. Both paradigms are successful."

      Bullshit.
      Apple used to have around 50% of the market.
      Wintel grew to the point where they own 95% of the market.
      Apple has lost this battle and is trying to survive serving niche market.

      "By its very nature, Apple cannot succeed in the corporate world. It's about flair, being original, being artistic, being different."

      Whoa ?
      You are so fucking simplistic ...
      Apple is NO DIFFERENT than any other corporation.
      They would love to own 100% of the market.

      "Try dropping an iMac into a Wintel office. Not conforming, not goodnik."

      Simplistic, naive and now just plain paranoid.

    2. Re:About the "4 percent" thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple marketing is about being "artistic" and "different". The only value Apple Computer management really stand for is exclusive control over maintenance of systems that rightfully belong to their customers.

  32. Calm Down Hilary.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Look, Ms Rosen if you continue to use language like that we're gonna have to ask you to leave......

  33. Re:Perhaps he now want *more* Government intervent by Commienst · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Well said. That guy was full of shit. I bet he will never find out how Rand and Nozick and Co. hijacked the term Libertarian.

    The corporate oligarchic republics like America hand the people a few shreds of rights they call freedoms. They do this to get idiots like mrgrumpy, focused on a narrow plane of thought and stuck in reformism. He gets righteous about freedoms, when he should be after freedom.

    You will never obtain liberty under any government, all governments in history have existed to protect an opulent minority from the majority. Whenever this minority feels threatened or gets rapacious you will see your so called guaranteed rights go away real quick.

    Mod Roto-Rooter Man up.

    --

    I am into the copy and paste.
  34. Journalistic integrity by andaru · · Score: 2
    PG&E restructured itself just to take advantage of the loopholes which they had written into deregulation. They knew what was going to happen the whole time. It was a total scam. Also, the increase in demand was mostly an illusion created by the manipulation of supply.

    My point about the quote is that they modify it without notation. The quotes in the sidebar have always been there, but usually they match up with the actual quote or else there is notation to indicate paraphrase or omission. The BBC is just modifying the quotes with no indication that they are not really quotes. This means that if I say, person X said, "blah," and you say, no they actually said, "foo," we can both go to BBC online and find evidence for the accuracy of our version of the quote. This means that you can't verify what someone really said, which is important.

    The other issue is that people have a right not to be misrepresented. Changing quotes like this amounts to putting words into someone's mouth, potentially diluting or changing their meaning. They would be justified to react with total outrage - "that's not what I said!" The journalist may not understand the subtleties of the quote, and may destroy the meaning inadvertently. At least with a real quote you can go back to it and say, "this is what he said exactly - make your own judgement about what it means."

    --

    Why is Grand Theft Auto a much more serious crime than Reckless Driving?

    1. Re:Journalistic integrity by leviramsey · · Score: 1
      My point about the quote is that they modify it without notation. The quotes in the sidebar have always been there, but usually they match up with the actual quote or else there is notation to indicate paraphrase or omission. The BBC is just modifying the quotes with no indication that they are not really quotes. This means that if I say, person X said, "blah," and you say, no they actually said, "foo," we can both go to BBC online and find evidence for the accuracy of our version of the quote. This means that you can't verify what someone really said, which is important.

      Generally in print, ellipses and other means of indicating editing of the quote aren't included in those excerpt/quote boxes that pepper the layouts. Hell, the New York Times does this. PC Mag does it to Dvorak. The fact is that journalists are very similar to trolls (at least most journalists are). They go for shock. Why? It gets you to read them. If they can post a quote like "We knew about the security flaw." off to the side, it gets your attention. I'm not saying it's a great thing to do, and it does raise a lot of questions (such as what editing went on), but it's a journalistic fact of life. And it happens in non-profit publications, so it's not a profit thing. It's most likely a desire to be heard.

      Caveat lector!

    2. Re:Journalistic integrity by andaru · · Score: 2
      I agree, I just think that it is a very, very bad thing to do which they are taking very lightly from a journalistic point of view. Whatever their intentions (and I agree that sensationalism is a big cause) they are actually lying by misquoting this way.

      I will also say that I see ellipses and brackets in those side boxes all of the time.

      --

      Why is Grand Theft Auto a much more serious crime than Reckless Driving?

  35. Stupid correction by andaru · · Score: 1
    IE is internet exploder.

    Being a confessed MS hater, you should use "i.e."

    Sorry to be anal, but "IE" being in caps, I translated it out of the corner of my eye, before I had even read most of the post, as a reference to the crappiest "browser/integral operating system component" that I know of.

    Again, sorry to be anal.

    --

    Why is Grand Theft Auto a much more serious crime than Reckless Driving?

  36. Alt Universe: No cars - they're not necessary by matt_maggard · · Score: 1

    That's like saying that if early car manufacturers had totally ruined the car industry through their antics that we could say - "oh well, you can always walk."

    While this statemenet is true, the benefit of the automobile to society at large is great enough that it should continue to exist. Same with the internet. It is true that you don't need it but it could become something positve in life. Especially in the future - who knows what the internet could enable in 50 years.

    I think the crowd that says that the internet is not a basic right and fundementally unnecessary are simultaneously correct and short-sighted.

  37. Stupid correction: IE is Internet Exploder by andaru · · Score: 2

    Just clarifying the subject...

    --

    Why is Grand Theft Auto a much more serious crime than Reckless Driving?

  38. There is a limit to this by andaru · · Score: 2
    To a certain extent, I agree.

    On the other hand, I never used to have a credit card. I never wanted one because I consider it to be a borrowing tool, and I have never been in the position where I needed to buy something which I could not afford (not that I am rich, I just don't buy it if I don't have the money).

    There are two major problems with not having a credit card: 1.) I live in SF, and my family lives in MA. In order to buy plane tickets, I need a credit card (or else I have to borrow a friend's credit card). 2.) Since I never borrowed money, I had no credit record whatsoever. This could eventually prevent me from being able to buy a house that I could afford. It made it very difficult for me to get a credit card in the first place. They offer credit cards to students (worst case: mom and dad will pay), people with good credit (they will get their money back), and people with bad credit (they will get lots of money in interest payments).

    So the problem arises when they make things that you really "need" contingent on participation.

    --

    Why is Grand Theft Auto a much more serious crime than Reckless Driving?

  39. Same stupid correction: IE is Internet Exploder by andaru · · Score: 2
    Sorry to be anal, but IE is a crappy MS browser.

    What you mean is "i.e."

    Unfortunately, IE in caps sticks out off of the page and looks like an MS product out of the corner of your eye.

    --

    Why is Grand Theft Auto a much more serious crime than Reckless Driving?

    1. Re:Same stupid correction: IE is Internet Exploder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Sorry to be anal, but IE is a crappy MS browser.

      What's crappy about it? It's considerably faster than Mozilla, or any other browser around, with the possible exception of Opera.

  40. BMW 4% market share, apple 4% market share by kiwipeso · · Score: 0

    So if car maker does better than the bulk of the market and is more profitible as a status car, why is apple being berated for 4% ?
    Think about it, is it better to be in the top 4% of a market or the bottom 90 % ?
    If there was more money to be made in bulk production of junk, then america would have more factories than china.

    --
    - Kaos games and encryption systems developer
    1. Re:BMW 4% market share, apple 4% market share by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apples have even worse bang/buck than Compaqs or Dells, but not so shockingly bad as to convey the same "I don't even care how much money I wasted" impression that sells BMWs.

      And compatibility isn't an issue with cars. I drive a Saturn, but traffic doesn't go any more smoothly if everyone near me also drives a Saturn.

    2. Re:BMW 4% market share, apple 4% market share by kiwipeso · · Score: 0

      Maybe on your planet, but my Dual G4 goes a lot faster than my neigbour's dual AMD.

      As for compatibility, do you want a BMW with leather seats and a good stereo or a ordinary car with standard vinyl seats and a japanese AM radio?

      I'd rather take the hydrogen fuel cell BMW with 500 Km tank and better acceleration than a cheap car that costs more to run.

      --
      - Kaos games and encryption systems developer
    3. Re:BMW 4% market share, apple 4% market share by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How big a stack of beige AMDs could they have gotten for the price of your Mac?

      Trim and accessories have nothing to do with compatibility. A proprietary computer with 4% market share is relatively less valuable than it could be because it's more difficult to interop with other computer owners--that's not a problem you have when your car only has 4% market share. Besides, BMW isn't the only auto maker who offers leather seats, and those don't even have to be factory installed, and I wouldn't spend much money on anything short of an MP3 changer.

    4. Re:BMW 4% market share, apple 4% market share by kiwipeso · · Score: 0

      1 and 1/4 AMDs for the cost of my Mac when I got it 18 months ago. If my Mac was the current top of the line, they could get 2 dual AMDs.
      They would still run that crappy windows 2000 and come round to my place if they wanted fast internet.

      My point is the internals are better made than any generic junk and the total cost of ownership makes the more expensive brand a better buy than the generic junk.
      I've only had one thing fail on my Mac and that was cheap PC memory. My neighbour has had to replace his video card, network card and memory just to get enough performance for games and microsoft office.

      --
      - Kaos games and encryption systems developer
  41. Great Article by t_allardyce · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I agreed with everything that article said, its nice to know that other people can see the light. The only problem i had with it is that he didn't come across too well. To me it sounded fine, but to others, i think he would probably sound like just-another-nutcase-conspiracy-theorist.

    I especially liked the Microsoft theory - that they would try something stupid, it tied in with the whole raw-sockets thing, where MS would prove that the internet is not strong enough, and would try and implement its own closed system. The internet is definately closing - Flash, Passport, non-W3C compatable web pages. But he sounds way too confident that the corporations will loose.

    IMHO, unless the mass public is very well educated about these issues, freedom will die. (no, slashdot is not the mass public, more like 0.00000001%)

    --
    This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
    1. Re:Great Article by namespan · · Score: 2

      Flash,

      Flash, as I understand it, is actually a totally open format called SWF. It's true that Macromedia's product called Flash isn't open, but they seem to have taken the strategy that they'll make money by creating the best tool for making SWF files, but leave the format open. PHP, among other languages, has a facility for generating SWF.

      --
      Libertarianism is rich wolves and poor sheep playing gambler's ruin for dinner.
  42. Nick Berners Lee made the WWW. by kiwipeso · · Score: 0

    The military, government, big business had nothing to do with WWW. Cern needed a way to link to databases of academic interest.

    Economics is merely a form of opinion as to why things make money. It is no more relevant than astrology is.

    --
    - Kaos games and encryption systems developer
    1. Re:Nick Berners Lee made the WWW. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you mean Tim Berners-Lee.

  43. "They really blew that one." by xeniten · · Score: 1
    If Windows is so bad, why does Apple have a meager 4 percent market share?

    Four? Really? Jesus. They really blew that one.

    Allow me to put John's remarks into a little greater perspective...

    John isn't just a Mac user, he's an Applemaster.

    --
    Romana: "How did you know?" Doctor Who: "Ah, well, knowing is easy. Everyone does THAT ad nauseum. I just sort of hope"
    1. Re:"They really blew that one." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      more like a Steve Jobs ass kisser

  44. Re:Perhaps he now want *more* Government intervent by kiwipeso · · Score: 0

    So you claim that Liberty is a left wing concept? Funny, I think you'll find Liberty is closest to anarchism.

    If you want a revolution, don't get rid of capitalism, get rid of corporate control.
    Do you really think america would be getting worse if the rules were changed to make the maximum market share of media companies less than 20% ?
    Of course not, you need competition between private media, corporate media, government media to get those pieces of truth out there.

    If you want liberty, you have to provide it yourself to ensure your freedoms are kept.

    --
    - Kaos games and encryption systems developer
  45. Re:Doobie Brother... by netik · · Score: 1

    No shit. Do we really need to hear any more crap from this sold out, ex-eff motherfucker?

    I mean, if I hear about the Well or Echo one more god damn time, I'm going to throw my computer out the fucking window. I'm so sick of hearing about two bit 'visionaries' like JPB. God.

  46. Re:Perhaps he now want *more* Government intervent by Commienst · · Score: 1

    You bloke I never said anything about liberty being a left wing concept. I was just talking about how the Libertarians hijacked the term libertarian. As an anarchist, I get pissed when I hear all of these Libertarian party tools hijack the word.

    I know very well that the term libertarian refered to the anarchist tradition of Socialism long before Ayn Rand and other hacks were born.

    --

    I am into the copy and paste.
  47. [Offtopic]: What San Francisco is HE living in? by kiwipeso · · Score: 0

    You think diversity is ethnic neighbours who've been there for just 10 years?
    In my town (Wellington, New Zealand) diversity is ethnic neighbours who were there at least a decade before you got there.
    I ussually give tourists directions, the only weird ones are the americans.
    American tourists always act like you're about to take their wallet or beat them up. I laugh when I see them try to find their way from the maps.

    New Zealand doesn't have tipping, we never ask for tips (I was a waiter for a while when I was a student) and nobody pays so little you need tips to live with your wages.
    As far as coffee is concerned, Wellington has more cafes and restaurents per capita than New York City. We even have a few starbucks for tourists who want the taste of american culture.

    --
    - Kaos games and encryption systems developer
  48. Re:Perhaps he now want *more* Government intervent by kiwipeso · · Score: 0

    Anarchism has nothing to do with socialism, which is what your nickname implies is your belief.

    I'm an anarchist but am totally opposed to socialism. It's possible to want anarchism without socialism.
    The only Marx I accept as the truth was written by Groucho.

    --
    - Kaos games and encryption systems developer
  49. Service vs. Property by ScottBrady · · Score: 2, Insightful


    Royalties are things that get paid to organizations and institutions that have thieved royalties from human beings. The idea that royalties need to be there to "incentivize" creativity is pretty abstract these days.

    What you get paid for is the delivery of service. If you're talking about services, it's best not to view what is being served as a form of property.

    Wow, that has to be by far the most intelligent quote I've seen in a while on the state of IP. I don't necessarily agree with everything he said in the article but the above quote is dead-on target.

    --

    --
    Scott Brady

  50. Re:Perhaps he now want *more* Government intervent by Commienst · · Score: 1

    Let me guess, anarcho-capitalist?

    --

    I am into the copy and paste.
  51. Re:Perhaps he now want *more* Government intervent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    free market means it should be free of government control. What you're saying will make it more of a controlled market. Supply-Siders believe in less controll=better economy, which for the most part is true.

  52. Re:Perhaps he now want *more* Government intervent by WildBeast · · Score: 2

    Or maybe, just maybe, he's an hypocrite. he'll only support government intervention if he can use it to his advantage.

  53. Who is John Perry Barlow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I really despise these links to interviews with people, with no foundation as to who they are, or why they rank being interviewed, or why their interview ranks thinking about.

    I think /. needs to change its tag line to "Inflamatory Blurbs to Get you Started".

    There is no news content here. If we wanted to read this article, we could just go pick up any one of the Jon Katz features. Not to mention that the related links section for this story should have a direct link to www.slashdot.org.

    I think most of us are in agreement that MS is "evil", and a bad product, and Linux is the bright shining star of the future (at least that is what all the articles linked here say, and have for the last several years).

    Those that aren't in agreement get shouted down.

    The fact of the matter is that none of this matters to nerds. They already know the score, they already have an opinion. These articles, interviews, and rants don't enlighten anyone.

    Slashdot has become like any other media outlet. They for go real journalism for inciteful impertinant crap that draws the lowest common denomenator to sell more ad space.

    Lets get some integrity back into the news media, and start here.

  54. Re:Doobie Brother... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hear, hear. Barlow is the consumate self promoter. I decided years ago his driving motivation was to stay in the public eye. You may all safely ignore JPB.

  55. Mod back up! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Though imcomplete, it is still a good post.

  56. Re:Perhaps he now want *more* Government intervent by Bodrius · · Score: 2

    There are many interpretations of the word "Libertarian", with the greatest variance found among the interpretations of those who use it to label themselves.

    Some libertarians believe in a place for government. Some do not.

    Some libertarians fear a corporation acting as government (a monopoly regulating the market, as Microsoft has done with their OEM contracts, for example). Others are willing to give corporations the same trust they deny the government.

    --
    Freedom is the freedom to say 2+2=4, everything else follows...
  57. Some people just shouldn't be interviewed by zzyzx · · Score: 1

    Ok first, as a Deadhead - and someone who likes SCI for that matter - the statement, "I'm writing now for String Cheese Incident, which is like Grateful Dead 2.0..." is just ridiculous. I don't think the most diehard SCI fan would agree with that. SCI is a fun little jamband, the Dead was the focus of many people's lives. They're not in the same league at all.

    Having said that, the problem with John Barlow is that he can't answer any questions. The interviewer was extremely friendly, led him a lot, and he still couldn't make many points.

    It's easy to say now that Microsoft will be able to keep doing well because of their market share, but how did they get that in the first place? Barlow has no answer. "[Apple] blew that one," is not much of a response.

    I like the guy. I like some of his ideas. Interviews like that though, only harm his cause.

  58. Corporations are not people by phr2 · · Score: 2, Insightful
    and giving them the same rights and freedoms as human beings was a mistake made by the government in 1886 in a Supreme Court decision called Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad. Had that mistake not been made, we would have a totally different society today. For more info, check adbusters article on "The Corporate I".

    Libertarianism talks about the rights and freedoms of humans. Nothing about it says that abstract constructs like corporations should get the same rights. Wanting to curb corporate power is entirely consistent with libertarianism, as far as I can tell.

  59. Barlow's World by Brett+Glass · · Score: 1
    I've encountered Mr. Barlow many times over the years, and his rhetoric is, alas, long on sound bites but lacking in practicality. His call for populism certainly fits with the Zeitgeist as we enter a new Gilded Age. However, most of the measures which Barlow proposes to stop a "corporatocracy" -- e.g. the total elimination of copyright -- would in fact hurt the little guy far more than they would corporations. While inflicting minor wounds on the giants, his proposals would wipe out the small artist, programmer, and author. In short, he (like others) has identified some real threats, but is aiming his blunderbuss so badly that his ideas threaten to kill, via friendly fire, those whom he claims to be defending.

    In my conversations with Barlow, I've found it difficult -- in fact, impossible -- to break through and explain to him that reality, for ordinary, mortal non-celebrities, isn't at all like what he experiences. Barlow is able to champion the abrogation of intellectual property because -- having been the exponent of a wealthy ranching family and graced by the sheer good luck of falling in with the Grateful Dead via a high school acquaintance -- he has never had to struggle to earn a living. He hobnobs with "big names" (such as the Kennedy family) to whom few others have access. And he has never wanted for attention, popularity or adulation.... Wherever he goes, Deadheads fall at his feet, begging him to autograph T-shirts and other objects. He is thus utterly unable to understand the artist who struggles mightily -- and perhaps produces much better work that Barlow ever has or will -- but was not struck by fortuitous lightning. Barlow has plenty of money in the bank, and is paid outrageous sums to write articles and give speeches which are barely original (most merely repeat the same things he's said before, and/or borrow shamelessly, and often without attribution, from the work of others). Never having truly worked in his life, he finds it easy to say that artists should work for "tips." In short, he's out of touch with reality, and probably wouldn't find it pleasant if he had to contend with it.

    John Perry Barlow is at times entertaining. But his sweeping, ex cathedra pronouncements should be interpreted with these things in mind, and taken -- by the critical reader -- with a few tons of NaCl.

    --Brett Glass

    1. Re:Barlow's World by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not talk about specifically why his ideas are not realistic instead of attacking him for being successful (which is kind of weird anyway, I mean you make being successful and kind seem like it's a bad thing).

      Just because he hangs out with the Kennedies doesn't make his ideas more or less correct. Funny how you attack him for giving fluff answers, by attacking him in a fluffy way.

    2. Re:Barlow's World by Brett+Glass · · Score: 1
      An anonymous coward blurts:

      Why not talk about specifically why his ideas are not realistic instead of attacking him for being successful (which is kind of weird anyway, I mean you make being successful and kind seem like it's a bad thing).

      My purpose here was not to refute Barlow's many questionable assertions (only a few of which appeared in the interview; he's made many more in other venues such as Wired). Finding the many inconsistencies and flaws in Barlow's arguments isn't difficult; they've already been covered in many other messages here. (I've tried to discuss them with Barlow himself, but he rarely deigns to answer e-mail even when he promises that he'll do so.)

      The purpose of my posting was to describe, in general terms, where Barlow's many odd and flawed arguments are coming from. I'm not attacking Barlow for being "successful" (if, indeed, he can be considered to be successful. He didn't have to try to get where he is today. The world -- together with an inexhaustible supply of adoring groupies -- was handed to him on a silver platter). Rather, I'm pointing out that people should not accept Barlow's odd viewpoints as holy writ handed down from on high by a demigod. Instead, they should instead see them as the byproducts of his extremely unusual experience of the world.

      --Brett Glass

  60. Absolute, centralized power in any form is BAD by smagruder · · Score: 3, Interesting
    "Absolute power is being channeled into boardrooms that have no government oversight of their actions."

    This is precisely correct. Any group or person with absolute (or close to absolute), centralizing power must be democratically accountable to the people. However, simultaneously, we have to beware a centralized government that becomes too big, and thus too resistant to the voices of the people. A new check-and-balance needs to be created.

    I favor the creation of a _third_ power force in the US and around the world: An augmenting governance mechanism coming straight from the people, using Internet technologies as a catalyst and ballot initatives as a basis. A deliberative, meritocratic assembly of the people who continuously make nonpartisan, legally binding decisions based solely on the merits of individual issues (but also don't trample individual freedom) is what's called for.

    While this form of "more direct" democracy would appear to serve only as a check on our elected representatives, it also serves as a check on the overextending of corporate interests. For example, an assembly of citizens can very well decide to deliberate and vote on a resolution to boycott a company's products and then execute that without creating law, as boycotting is already a derivative right of all citizens in a free society.

    The bottom line is that the people themselves have to start taking more direct action (either individually or collectively) against the centralized forces that menace them. Yes, it may seem to make more sense for the government to solve all or most of these issues. But if we allow government alone to work to protect us from corporatist control, then we end up with a government that's too big to not only be ineffective in protecting us, but also becomes a nasty, over-taxing, repressive bully itself.

    --
    Steve Magruder, Metro Foodist
  61. Re:Perhaps he now want *more* Government intervent by bnenning · · Score: 2
    As a self confessed libertarian, it's odd now that he's talking about the dangers of a free market economy.


    Right, and he slightly misses the point. He talks about totalitarianism being caused by "corporate capitalism in a completely unregulated environment", but excessive regulation is precisely the problem. Without government guns enforcing the DMCA, the Sonny Bono Infinite Copyright Act, UCITA, and other consumer-hostile legislation, these corporations would not anywhere near as much a threat to liberty as they are.

    --
    How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
  62. Jesus H. Christ... by Marcos+the+Jackle · · Score: 0

    I think JPB has listened to too much Greatful Dead. "Corprate Totalitarianism?" Gimme a friggn break. I'm so sick of this slashdot reader conspiracy Microsoft is Big Brother Orwellian 1984 Linus is a God and fear the penguin elitist hate speech. Damn hippies. Where are my scissors...

    Q: What did the Dead Head say when the LSD wore off?
    A: "This music sucks!"

    Have a day.

  63. Re:Perhaps he now want *more* Government intervent by kiwipeso · · Score: 0

    Not just anarcho-capitalist, I'm also a bit green. But I'm not impressed with most socialist greens.

    --
    - Kaos games and encryption systems developer
  64. Re:Perhaps he now want *more* Government intervent by Commienst · · Score: 1

    Blind me! Anarcho-capitalism[sic]. You cannot get more ultra right wing than that. Anarchism is against all forms of domination, not just the state, this would extend even to Capital. This precludes anarcho-capitalism from the greater anarchist tradition.

    --

    I am into the copy and paste.
  65. Isn't it fun... by Perianwyr+Stormcrow · · Score: 2

    ...to be able to define words?

    --

    What we call folk wisdom is often no more than a kind of expedient stupidity.-Edward Abbey

  66. Re:Perhaps he now want *more* Government intervent by kiwipeso · · Score: 0

    Not really, I'm in favor of capitalism yet against corporatism. I believe that capitalism works better when it isn't hindered by mismanagement.
    This means "first thing we do is kill all the lawyers", ban MBAs, prohibit the training of new accountants, lawyers, MBAs and all the other non productive management jobs.

    If that's not anarchism, then nothing is.
    The problem is not capital, it's corporate domination.
    Who do you think is responsible for DMCA, WIPO, genetically modified food, global warming ?
    It's the corruption of pure capitalism by multi national corporations that causes these problems. Not small businesses.

    --
    - Kaos games and encryption systems developer
  67. Tim Berners Lee made the WWW. by kiwipeso · · Score: 0

    Sorry, I was up late. For some reason I was thinking about knickers.
    I guess it's the Loaded magazine calendar by my computer.

    --
    - Kaos games and encryption systems developer
  68. HOLY COW! by Yankovic · · Score: 1

    Holy cow, as a believer in many things free, let me just say i believe he not only does not represent many people in the EFF, but he may actually alienate a fair amount of them with the hard line he does take. Obviously, it's his right, but i don't put MS anywhere near the totalitarian regime he describes, and I do not place them in the AOL/TW, Vivendi, Newscorp group at all. For better or worse, MS does not have the capability to influence the message in the world (barring some simplistic alterations of the message based on the browser). AOL/TW has the power to make news go away. MS is just a software company, they don't control any kind of reporting.

    Though I prefer avoiding using labels, he seems a lot more communist/socialist than I feel comfortable with, and it annoys me when movements get painted with the views of some of their more extreme members. My $0.02.

  69. retard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're retarded. You've obviously never been to Texas.

  70. Oops by Smegma4U · · Score: 1

    "Which companies or organizations constitute this totalitarian regime?"

    When I read this I thought it said prostitute instead of constitute. I laughed to myself over my error until I realized that prostitute was probably a more accurate word to use in this case...

    --
    If it's supposed to move and doesn't, use WD-40. If it moves and it shouldn't, use duct tape.