Slashdot Mirror
Slashback: Spolsky, Mandrake, Geography
Update: not everyone agrees on everything. ipoverscsi writes: "SoftwareMarketSolution has a followup interview with Joel Spolsky comprised mainly of rebuttals from the comments section of an older article on Slashdot. A quote I found interesting regarding re-writing software: 'Don't even talk to me about spending money replacing something that works. The only question that is relevant is -- what does it cost to fix it if it doesn't work?'"
'First' seems to be relative. MattJ writes: "A week or two ago, Gavni Menzies' theory about Chinese explorations preceding Columbus were mentioned on Slashdot. He has now made his presentation to the Royal Geographical Society. According to MSNBC, the response from historians who saw it was somewhat muted. They say they need to wait for his book to come out to treat the theory fairly, but right now it looks like a tower of suppositions."
"Or, to vote for 'irresponsible disclosure,' please press No ...". juliao writes: "The IETF has dropped the draft proposal for responsible disclosure of bugs."
Fax early and often. jd142 writes: "A follow up to Friday's CBDTPA story. Electronic petitions and e-mail are unlikely to sway a Senator. Dead trees do. Luckily you can easily have a message faxed to your Senators. Letters are good too, so send both. This is a case where the more paper we can swamp them with, the better chance we have of killing this. And take the time to personalize your faxes and letters."
A matter of phrasing? I mentioned that StarOffice 6.0 was due for retail release in April; Jacques Le Marois from Mandrakesoft (among many others) wrote to point out that "MandrakeClub is the first and only place in the world where you can get StarOffice 6.0 currently!" They've worked out an OEM deal with Sun to let those who've paid for a "Silver" membership to MandrakeClub ($120 annually) download the software.
Exactly which MandrakeClub members were eligible for the payware StarOffice was the cause of some contention. "We also answer to your previous post about the ZDNet controversy. It's an interesting case of mis-information spread."
I've got a better idea. I'll e-mail my senator a picture of me in my backyard wacking trees with my chainsaw!
After reviewing CBDTPA http://cryptome.org/broadbandits.htm I found that the bill makes the following statements:
"13) Consumers receive content such as video or programming in analog form."
First off we all not this is not entirely true for everybody. Maybe this statement means sum content.
"(14) When protected digital content is converted to analog for consumers, it is no longer protected and is subject to conversion into unprotected digital form that can in turn be copied or redistribute illegally."
So now analog should be illegal? I believe audio gurus will still tell you that analog can be better in quality compared to digital. I am not saying digital is bad, as I prefer it, but I know many people who would not want to give up analog audio.
These are just some of the weird things in this bill. And on top of that there are several early statements which contradict this:
"(10) Today, cable and satellite have a competitive advantage over digital television because the closed nature of cable and satellite systems permit encryption, which provides some protection for digital content. " So wait analog is safe?
Of course the entire nature of this bill is wrong, but there are many small things that are wrong with this bill including a lot of contradictions and facts that are not true.
My 2 cents
Boy that letter really sucks. See my other post about this. Let me take it point by point:
The Hollings bill will restrict my personal use rights. Congress and the courts have traditionally upheld my right to freely use content that I have legally acquired. But the Hollings bill takes away most of those rights and leaves me with virtually none. Until my fair use rights are ensured, any further encroachment on them must not occur.
Flat out wrong, at least as far as the Senators will see it. The bill in question specifically addresses fair use rights.
The Hollings bill will inevitably prevent innovation because it is the most sweeping regulation of the information technology sector in its history. The bill will give content companies the ability to veto devices like the VCR and the digital Walkman.
This really doesn't say anything, and sounds reactionary.
The Hollings bill is the wrong approach to solving the problem of piracy. A government-mandated standard will never be able to adapt to the rapidly changing digital world. The new "anti-piracy" measures will only harm law-abiding consumers. Every copy protection measure will be defeated by dedicated foreign pirates who sell the stolen goods illicitly. Copy protection will only defeat fair use.
Once again, this sounds reactionary and ill-informed. It might be true in some ways, but it doesn't really address any real issues. The industry knows that they don't have to defeat "foreign pirates", they only have to stop the average consumer.
The content companies said that the DMCA would allow them to deliver great broadband content. Yet four years later, the only outcome of the DMCA has been lawsuits against innovative companies and threats against consumers. We have no reason to believe that the Hollings bill will be any different.
Unfortunately, this is completely irrelevent. The point of this bill is not to provide broadband content, it's to stop piracy.
Once again I have to say: Laws are generally written to solve problems, not just to irritate you. Understand why this law is being written, and attack it based on the fact that the cure will create more problems that it solves. Places to attack: making devices more expensive for law-abiding citizens, privacy (will registration be required for music?), etc.
I particularly liked one of the follow-ups to my original post, where he complained that the music industry is attempting to shift the enforcement of copyright from their own lawyers (where it belongs) to the tech sector. If the music industry wants to attack copyright infringement, then let them go out and start identifying piraters. It's their problem, not the tech industry's problem. I think this would be an excellent point to make in a letter.
But that whiny letter is worse than useless. I recommend against using it.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
What I've heard from ex-interns:
You want to make it look like you put effort into it. Anything is better than nothing. Customization is better than sending the zillionth copy of a form. Envelopes are better than email. Handwriting is better than a printout.
Think of it from the point of view of the legislator. If you received a thousand messages a day, which would you think came from voters with a serious concern about the issue?
I also write a lot of letters and rarely receive even a form letter back. It's still worthwhile, probably. There's a lot of people out there (at least in the US) and it's important to vote and write and be a statistic, because it's those statistics that determine representation and policy.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
So include a $5 bill in your letter saying
"Here's $5 to vote against this bill. If you
don't want to vote against the bill, kindly
return the $5 in the enclosed SASE."
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-
When will people get it through their thick skulls that petitions dont work.
Lets look at DMCA, did petitions stop it? Hell no.
Lets look at Napster, did petitions save Napster? Hell no.
Why isnt marijuana legal? People have been petitioning for it by the millions for 20 years or more now.
Face it, Petitions have never solved a thing.
Tabacco was made Legal because people didnt obey the laws, civil disobedience by the millions, and there arent enough jails to enforce it, alcohol? Alcohol was illegal once, it took the mafia and illegal activities, corruption and control of the government through the mafia, essentially terrorism tactics to make alcohol legal.
SSSCA, you arent going to stop this unless you fight, you dont have to be violent to fight, you can fight with your intelligence, programmers should write unstopable programs like freenet, rich people should support lobby groups on our side, people who are good writers should write books, articles, editorials, and give as much media attention as possible to this, public speakers should host rallies along with musicians at local colleges where other intelligent people are. Contact churches, libaries, civil rights groups, and convince them how important it is to protect our rights. Contact patriotic groups, anti government groups, and anarchist groups and explain to them how the government is trying to control them not just offline but online as well.
Contact the elderly, contact teachers, and highschool students, explain to all of these groups whats going on, hang posters in front of highschools, near libraries, near sam goody and HMV, Blockbuster and other stores which tell people about the SSSCA, use clever images, such as comparing the SSSCA to Nazism, Explain how unfair it is, use images of jail and rich CEOs, show images of locks on their computer.
If all of the people reading this did this in their towns seperately, meaning true activism on a LARGE scale, Well its simple to break it down into parts.
INFORM --- Tell the public what the SSSCA is!
Explain ---- Tell the public whats wrong with the SSSCA
Results ---- Tell them what will happen if the SSSCA passes, and what kinda society it will lead to if the trend continues
Solution ---- Tell them how to stop the SSSCA, tell them a msg similar to what I'm telling you, explain to them not to just stop the SSSCA, but to promote absolute freedom of speech online, meaning no one can control what you do with your computer, if the RIAA and MPAA does not want us to pirate stuff, they should make it impossible to pirate or undesirable to do so, if this means lowering the price so its not worth buying a CD or DVD burner, or if this means locking the DVD up, they have options, what they shouldnt do is take away our freedoms, its like saying you cant use your hands to draw a copy of a picture you like.
And PLEASE post this on slashback to replace that other lame msg.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Err...you missed his point. He's refering to the fact that Word contains so many features because different people use different features.
For example, it is often said that 99% of people only use 5% of the features. However, each person uses a different 5%. Thus, if you only include 5% of the features, not that many people will want to use your product.
The official Chinese history, taught in schools, show that the Ming Dynasty's fleets did reach Southeast and South Asia, Arabia and East Africa, but that was as far as they went. There is no doubt that the Ming had the technology to go to West Africa or even "discovered" Western Europe for China, but going across an ocean like the Pacific or the Atlantic may be questionable. (Note the Ming routes were mainly along coasts known to the Chinese people)
See http://www.chinapage.com/zhenghe.html (near the middle of the page) for a map of the Ming voyage based on China's historical records.
It would be great that China discovered America, but the Chinese people do not claim something that cannot be supported. And remember, it is a Englishman, not a Chinese, who makes this claim.
Free Software: the software by the people, of the people and for the people. Develop! Share! Enhance! Enjoy!
I am writing to urge you to reject the Hollings copy protection bill, also known as
the Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act (CBDTPA). I
strongly oppose the bill for the following reason:
Every technical measure that "protects" a piece of data from some uses (such as
illegal copying) but not from others (such as legal viewing) must do so by making
the data accessible only to some programs and not to others. But as there is no
technical way to determine the intentions of a computer program, the decision
must be made by some controlling human authority (the DVD-CCA being an
example of such an authority). Moreover, since that authority cannot be present
at every computer in the world, it must somehow "sign" or "authorize" the devices
which it has chosen to grant access. Furthermore, that signature or authorization
must be somehow rendered secret so that malicious or simply curious people are
not able to duplicate the authorization on unauthorized devices.
The simple implication, then, is that every electronic device, or at least some piece
of software on every electronic device, must be secret from its user. In effect,
knowing how a computer works must be made impossible or illegal or both in order
to implement the provisions of this bill.
The would effectively destroy the general-purpose computer by making all of its
means of input, storage, and output subject to such protected secrecy. If
implemented at the hardware level, it would render illegal the development of
electronic devices by amateurs and hobbyists; if implemented at the software level
it would render illegal all amateur or collaborative software development.
Additionally, since the majority of copyright "piracy" takes place outside of the
United States and thus beyond the reach of this or any other law, the measure
would be of little actual help to the media companies which have lobbied for this
measure.
It would be an understatement to say that this would harm the technology industry.
It would destroy the technology industry in the United States, while drastically
expanding the industry in technology-friendly nations like India and China. It would
compromise the mainstay of the US economy and at the same time doing
irreparable damage to our global leadership and national security. Already,
prominent software developers are declining to visit the United States for fear that
the software they have written might run afoul of the existing Digital Millennium
Copyright Act (DMCA); the CBDTPA will exacerbate this problem exponentially.
As a software engineer, I have seen co-workers making preparations to emigrate
or seek expatriate assignments if this bill is enacted. "I will need to consult a lawyer
every time I write a line of code," quipped one of my co-workers; the remark is not
far from the truth.
If you really wish to protect American media companies from revenues lost to
copyright violations, I urge you to support stronger enforcement of the well-tested,
well-understood, and legally and constitutionally sound laws already on the books.
Contrary to the language of many supporters of digital content control, copyright
infringement is already illegal, and needs no additional laws to make it more so.
The proposed measure, like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) before it,
takes a "shotgun" approach to a small and well-defined crime, and will cause
tremendous injury to American technological leadership and one of the fastest-
growing segments of our economy for very little compensating benefit.
I am severely disappointed in your support of the Hollings bill, and respectfully
request that you remove yourself as a co-sponsor.
Helpful links:
(An identical letter was sent to Sen. John Kerry.)
If you say "I'll probably get modded down for this..." then I will mod you down.