Slashdot Mirror
Slashback: Salon, Privacy, Pricedrops
Circumventing the upsell, but not all of it. Responding to the recent post about cable service a la carte, alta writes "I got a response from Jane Black (who wrote the original article) and she said slashdot jumped the gun. You can not pick and choose which channel you want. You can just choose to get basic limited and premium without getting the 2 steps in between. Here's the actual piece of law:
"Buy-through of other tiers prohibited - A cable operator may not require the subscription to any tier other than the basic service tier required by paragraph (7) as a condition of access to video programming offered on a per channel or per program basis. A cable operator may not discriminate between subscribers to the basic service tier and other subscribers with regard to the rates charged for video programming offered on a per channel or per program basis.Read it all here. Here's what Jane said:
'But please make sure you understand the rule (Slashdot's headline was misleading indeed.) You can't just choose which channels you want. The new rule says that you can get basic (the network and cspan etc) plus HBO/Starz/Showtime *without* having to buy the standard package as well. If you want AMC, Lifetime, whatever, you still need to buy the whole package. Make sense?'If you still need it, you can find more about the law here. Just type 543 in the "Section" field. The citation is: Section 623(b)(8) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. Found at volume 47 of the US Code Section 543(b)(8)"
The Salon dilemma. A Slashdot post last week reported that Salon was in serious financial trouble, and had dropped its premium section and instituted giant ads. Salon has now moved to over-the-counter trading. "While we valued the prestige of a NASDAQ listing, this move to the OTC market should not affect our core business," says Salon's president and CEO in the story. Update: 11/26 00:42 GMT by J : One correction: Salon has not dropped its premium section.
Dole, or Hormel? MacAndrew writes "As briefly discussed in slashdot a few weeks ago, Senator-elect Elizabeth Dole has been sued by a constituent who received eight unsolicited emails from her. He claims $100 damages including "emotional distress for having received spam from someone who should know better." Salon has now published an article focusing on the critical political versus commercial speech aspect of the case. Courts have recognized political speech as the innermost circle of free speech protection, and groups such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation believe spam laws that interfere with it may be not just unwise but unconstitutional."
Surely, someone's wallet will end up fat. In reaction to the recent story about provisions of the DMCA being used to prevent the posting of post-Thanksgiving sales prices from large retailers, Brian McWilliams writes "I finished up my story about FatWallet after you posted that link on Slashdot. Might help explain some stuff."
Well, we thought this here panopticon would be a nice idea ... McLuhanesque writes "DARPA has posted the architecture for their Total Information Awareness Systems , the uber-database that purports to suck in every scrap of electronic information about everyone, mix in some Human ID at a Distance technology, among other stuff, and profile ... well, just about everyone. More of their proposed fun and games are listed here." And Declan McCullagh writes: "Just posted the transcript of the Pentagon news briefing (worth a read) on Politech. Note this is on the TIA program, not 'eDNA.'
$10,000 is nothing to sneeze at. The idea of buying code into the world of Free software (aka code Ransom, as mentioned on Slashdot a few days ago) is drawing interest. waxed writes "FreePepper is an effort to collect enough money to purchase the source code for the multiplatform text editor Pepper from its author, Maarten Hekkelman, who has ceased development of it and re-release it under a BSD-style license. Donations may be made via PayPal or cheque."
'nuff said...
$10,000 sounds like a lot of money for Pepper. Maybe the money would be better spent on other projects?
[insert] token reference to donating money to EFF here [/insert]
just a thought...
People, even though I'm called a bit "cruel" or "callous" by others, I strongly believe in Darwinism in all aspects of life.
Whether one's talking about social situations or, as in this case, Web site profit margins, Darwin always applies. I don't feel that people deserve handouts, Salon.com included. They already have a subscription model for their site, yet they still cannot seem to move into the black from the red.
There once was a small site called Slashdot where all kinds of computer fanatics would propagate to every morning at work. It was also very popular with computer science majors at colleges. It began to have its own atmosphere, and many inside jokes were traded and laughed at amongst members. Essentially, Slashdot became a very valuable entity, and as such, other profit-making companies became interested in it. One day, a software company made an offer to Rob Malda that he couldn't refuse.
The rest is history, people. Rob and Co. are doing great now and control the site in every aspect, while still bringing home nearly six figure salaries each fiscal year.
And Slashdot isn't the only successful site. Many other sites, such as Yahoo!, make a ton of profit because they're smart and employ low-cost solutions (FreeBSD on all servers, which means they only pay for hardware and bandwidth). This is the future. Darwin is alive and breathing in all aspects, both in nature and on the World Wide Web.
While I admire donations, I say this to Salon: If you can't beat 'em, join 'em (merge with another company) or go home (auction away your assets and hope to not lose everything).
If you celebrate Xmas, befriend me (538
My nagging problem with TIA is not that they want to be efficient about analyzing the info they have but that it implies an unholy collaberation between the military and, well, everyone.
My question: Did I miss some law change that requires all banks, credit-card processors, ISPs, video rental stores, libraries, stores, etc. to funnel all their transaction and customer information to the military?
The scope and implications of this project terrify me but I want to be rational as well. Without data, all the analytical capability in the world is useless.
~~~~~~~
"You are not remembered for doing what is expected of you." - Atul Chitnis
If political speech is exempt from SPAM laws where do we draw the line? Are only senators allowed? What about local authorities. What about if you're a generic citizen who is organising a political group?
It's nothing to do with commercial, IMO, it's about the harm done, and that it can render email useless. It's more about the economics of email (that it's so cheap) than anything. If all political speech is exempt from spam laws then 4 emails is only the start. Expect hundreds and hundreds from every "political" cause.
--Giving to trolls for the benefit of us all
It may not be "UCE", but it is definitely spam. The same arguments used against unsolicited commecial email are just as valid for unsolicited political email. (Primarily, that you are wasting the reciever's time and money .) I don't see any reason why it should be treated differently -- mass political mailings should be subject to the same restrictions as commercial mailings.
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
I dunno about this guy. He seems annoyed that he got some email he wasn't expecting. If Dole or someone sends me email, I would just block their address.
/etc/mail/access and added the from address, along with a custom message saying "550..please unsubscribe". No problem.
What gets me most about the (real) spammers is, they LIE about their address, their web pages, their names, everything. They go out of their way to NOT honor people's requests.
Recently I started receiving some leftist political newsletter. I don't know how exactly I got on the list (I think my address was pulled from a Cc: list that had me in it). I didn't sue anybody, I just edited
Let's worry more about the spammers who hide their identities and send mail through korean servers, etc. Yeah it's a fine line, but I think mass-mailing voters with your (noncommercial) campaign message is acceptable, provided you don't lie about your address or identity, or otherwise interfere with my ability to block you, and follow other guidelines like honoring remove requests, and not sending more than one message a month, etc.
As pointed out elsewhere in this thread, Darwinism is survival of the fittest, where the "fittest" is defined as "that most inclined to survive." Kind of a self-validating description.
In any event, so long as Salon is around, it is more fit for survival than those other online mags that are fosselising somewhere deep in the Wayback machine's directory structure. Perhaps someday we'll be drilling for them as a fuel. Hmm.
That reminds me, I gotta go subscribe to Salon...
//rant
So what if it's free speech? It's not free as in beer - and that is exactly the problem here.
You can say whatever the you want, political or otherwise, but I'll be damned if I'll roll over and happily pay for it! It's my bandwidth, my system resources, MY MONEY.
Be my guest and snail mail me your propaganda - at your own cost. But don't you dare try to hide behind the free/political speech shield when all you want to do is spread your propaganda on my dime. (I do realize that it wasn't "you" who sent said messages)
By your reasoning I should be able to say to NBC, ABC, CNN, FOX, etc, that I want 10minutes of airtime to express my political views. Do you really think they'd give it to me for free? Didn't think so. Someone has to pay. Why should *I* pay for someone else's message?
As for your assertion that is isn't really spam:
From MAPS: ( http://mail-abuse.org/standard.html )
An electronic message is "spam" IF:
(1) the recipient's personal identity and context are irrelevant because the message is equally applicable to many other potential recipients; AND
(2) the recipient has not verifiably granted deliberate, explicit, and still-revocable permission for it to be sent; AND
(3) the transmission and reception of the message appears to the recipient to give a disproportionate benefit to the sender.
Political E-Mail meets #1 no problem. #2 is no problem either - unless I asked for it, don't send it! Finally, #3, getting someone I don't support elected is absolutely in their interest more than mine.
The law is an easy one. It need not strangle free speech, political discussion or otherwise. Simply make bulk E-Mailing to address, who have not specifically (and verifiably) opted into such mailing, prohibited - regardless of content.
//end rant
"They do not preach that their god will rouse them, a little before the Nuts work loose." Kipling, 'The Sons of Martha'
Hell, I used to be an avid Byte subscriber twenty years or more ago -- but somehow there's something wrong with the transition from print to web.
Print publications (in this industry anyway) are always 6-8 weeks out of date -- and that's a long, long time in the IT/Net fields.
Online publications however, just don't seem to represent the same tangible "substance" as a lump of dead tree does. I suspect this is one of the reasons that few online publications have successfully migrated to the subscription model.
Perhaps it's because reading an online publication simply isn't as convenient as reading a highly portable, high contrast, full color, no batteries required, lightweight, foldable, near infinite transfer-rate printed magazine.
We all *know* the value is in the information -- but somewhere, deep inside our heads, we're thinking "how can something that we can't touch, feel or taste be of any value?"
The crazy thing is that we're still happy to pay $39 a month for cable or satellite TV when all we're getting is "information" in the form of entertainment that is equally as "virtual" as an online magazine.
Perhaps we do this because we know that a single edition of an online publication may cost as much as $100K to produce but a single episode of Enterprise or Farscape probably costs 5-15 times that much.
So what can a publisher do?
But get this, the city I live near, Wilmington, wants all residents to register their guns. The "conservatives" are screaming against it.
So, I can buy a gun anonymously (between private individuals) in Delaware legally, not have to report it, and have the full support of the same congressional persons that voted for this homeland defense bill. But if I buy an issue of 2600 with my credit card, I'll be put on someone's list...
Now, let's not let this degenerate to a flame about 2nd ammendment crap. I'm pointing out hypocracy here, not making a stand for mandatory gun registration... I'm making a stand against mandatory kleenex registration.
I'd chip in for a ransom on BeOS. Am I going to be modded off-topic now?
Do you really think that out of 250 million people the feds will care that you took $90 out of the ATM or rented Ishtar? Get real.
.220 ammunition about three months ago, right before the sniper shootings with .220 ammunition started right here in Virginia. They might cross-reference that with my recent purchase of several books on the Muslim faith, and determine that I fit their model of the sniper. I, obviously, am not the sniper (of course, two excellent suspects are in custody now), but I would have had a hell of an experience trying to prove that to the FBI. This database would make exactly that sort of tracking not just possible, but the standard.
No, but they might care that I purchase ammunition. (I target shoot.) They might have found it real interesting that I purchased
You're going to lead one hell of a life without a checkbook or cellphone.
I really don't think it will be a problem. You'll be surprised to note that billions of humans managed to survive for untold centuries without either of these things. You'll no doubt be shocked -- shocked -- that billions continue to function without these things. Why, did you know that in America today, there are still millions of people without cellular phones! It's boggling, I know!
Is using a land line phone any more secure? Didn't think so.
Much, much more secure. The use of a cellphone allows my location to be tracked. Currently, it can be tracked within a few miles. Soon, by a new FCC regulation ostensibly for E911 purposes, my location will be tracked within a few yards. My phone need not even be in use -- all of my movements can be tracked and databased, such that a permanent record of my every movement can be established. With a landline...um...not so much.
Christ, McFly, you do think before you reply, don't you? Looking at your posting history, though, it appears that I've answered my own question.
-Waldo Jaquith
I agree completely, but give me a break. The Democrats would've tripped all over themselves trying to implement this too, and the Republicans then would've made some fake gestures at not liking it.
The only things the Democrats protested against was protecting vaccine manufacturers from being sued, because the trial lawyers donate millions to the democrats every year.
There is no significant difference between democrats and republicans anymore, if there ever was.
Before the Fatwallet story this week, I had never heard of them, but now I'll probably visit the site regularly. That kind of publicity is golden, especially on the net where gaining unique visitors is so competitive. Now that wired has an article, Fatwallet must be getting tons of hits. Good for them. There's no such thing as bad publicity.