Good Bad Attitude

Except Animals are more likely to be right. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-19 13:01 · Score: 5, Interesting

Hackers are as likely to be wrong as they are to be right. In their case it isn't an accute sense, but chronic pessimism.

Re:Except Animals are more likely to be right. by QuantumFTL · 2004-10-19 15:11 · Score: 4, Interesting

I'm a hacker, and I'm a little idealistic and somewhat optimistic. But I'm also rather good at seeing structures, and getting a feel for emerging patterns. That's a large part of what hacking is about.

That's exactly the problem, though - humans are so good at detecting patterns that we often detect patterns when they don't exist. The need to rationalize the often irrational world around us is one of the reasons that I feel that a lot of otherwise intelligent people tend to gather at the conspiracy/tinfoil hat fringe - because to them it's better to have an explaination (even a scary one) than to feel that they can't understand all of the crazy stuff going on around them. Random sequences often don't look random, and with the sheer number of events happenning in the world every day, strange coincidences are to be expected. And hey, isn't it nice to have something/one ("the Man"/Ashcroft/whatever) to blame for the woes of society?

I'm not saying that there isn't trouble brewing or that hackers aren't necessarily better at seeing this than others, its just like all the hackers that predicted the death of the internet for the last few decades... They saw change and picked up a pattern that turned out not to be there.

I'm a little concerned by the attitude on slashdot that the sky is falling when in reality, we're dealing with the same kinds of political problems we've always had - presidents being elected without a popular majority and decided by someone other than the people (1824 election), our rights being eroded/Patriot act (Sedition Act, McCarthyism during Red Scare), and a general distrust of politicians (even our founding fathers distrusted politicians!) I really don't think any of this is new, or that we're doomed. This country has had our dark moments and our bright ones, but has survived many things and will continue to survive. Maybe it will not be the same, but this "slippery slope" falicy that so many people call upon when they look at the compramises that are made in our name will not be our end. As long as we're alive, there's hope that things will get better, and there is always something we can do, even if it's small, to make the world a better place.

Now, of course that might be just a bit optimistic on my part, but I feel that those who have power tend to want to keep things nice and stable so they can keep it, and part of that means keeping the masses happy, so we're probably OK.

Cheers,
Justin
Re:Except Animals are more likely to be right. by QuantumFTL · 2004-10-19 17:00 · Score: 2, Interesting

One of the things that make good hackers better at spotting trends is that they rely on evidence rather than suspicion and speculation. One of my good friends used to LART people constantly in meetings with 'Don't speculate - profile!'

The problem with this is that many hackers, while quite well versed in topics related to computers etc, have most likely not done any form of sociolical or economic field research. There is a lot that goes into analysis of trends and statistical information, as well as specific individual experiences etc. Combine that with a lack of law, economics, or politics education, and honestly I don't understand how it's anything but speculation. I mean, that's not to say that an intelligent person can't pick up a few things about those subjects without a formal education, however one really needs to have actual scientific research background to fully appreciate the difficulties associated with culling meaningful patterns out of the rediculously huge amount of events going on out there. Many of the supposed "warning signs" that we hear about are statistical anomolies, or things that are naturally corrected by the checks iand balances in our various political, social, and economic systems.

And now onto the grammar trolling (or related) part of your post. Yes, I'm that bored tonight. Enjoy a free english lesson.

I'm not saying that there isn't trouble brewing or that hackers aren't necessarily better at seeing this than others, its just like all the hackers that predicted the death of the internet for the last few decades...

1) 'All the hackers' is a hopelessly ambiguous modifier. Do you mean 'the majority'? I don't think so, based on context. Do you really mean 'many'? If so, how many? Who?

"that predicted ... " is known as a restrictive clause. It reduces the set of possible meanings of the subject "All the hackers" from the set of all hackers, to the set of all hackers that predicted the death of the internet. It does not imply that these two sets are the same, nor is it ambiguous. I was referring to a subset of all hackers. As for how many of them, well, that's part of the problem here: given a simple question "how many hackers predicted the death of the internet, which did not occur" it is very difficult to quantify this without extensive research. Given that this is difficult, imagine how hard it would be for a hacker type person to form an accurate prediction about the socioeconomic/political future of the world, or even teh united states, over any long term, using only what they hear on the news or on places like slashdot (or maybe read in books). Without extensive research, the hard numbers just aren't there. And this "gut feeling" nonsense is exactly that - nonsense. It's utterly unscientific and until someone can prove this effect, or even create a decent hypothesis, I'm not going to believe it to be any more than wishful thinking on their part.

2) 'Predicted the death of the Internet' is another useless phrase. I can predict the death of the Internet with certainty. Watch: Some time before the heat death of the Universe, what we now know as the Internet will cease to exist. See? That was easy. 8^)

I'm nearly finished with my degree in physics, and the first thing you learn in physics is that theories change. The heat death of the universe is certain in theory but these very theories have massive holes in them. We really don't know how far things will expand etc. If the universe remains for an infinite amount of time, and eventually stops expanding, then the universe can (and will) spontaneously reorganize to lower entropy states - like resetting the clock. And if it collapses to a point and big-bangs again, it's possible that information could survive this (maybe by jumping ahead in time, or a wormhole through another universe or some other such theoretical nonsense involving string theory that we can't currently test). The heat death of
Re:Except Animals are more likely to be right. by QuantumFTL · 2004-10-19 17:11 · Score: 2, Interesting

Reading your post, what sprung to my mind is the quote 'they who know history are doomed to see it repeated'. Just because something bad has happened before is no reason to sit idly by as a different form of the same happens again. The whole point of civilisation is to /not/ repeat past mistakes.

Wow, I'd hate to see how bad our score is then, considering that that seems to be about all we're capable of (repeating the mistakes of yesterday, but with new spiffy technology to amplify it)

Quick example: real hackers (or anyone who bothered to do some (just a tiny amount) research) knew y2k was not something which would bring disaster, only mild discomfort if not dealt with.

That drives me nuts when people say that. The amazing amount of effort that was put into fixing the Y2K problem was not imaginary! There was a very real problem, and while yes some did blow it wildly out of proportion, if no one had fixed it, there would have been a *LOT* of bad things happenning. And the problem is that in a complex system like our society, there's serious issues with cascade failures (with interdependent subsystems, all it takes is one important thing like power or phone to fail, and a ton of other things fail as well, and those dependent on them, etc). When there's a large blackout, it causes a lot of problems, even if it's just for a day. I took a tour of a local power station just before Y2K and saw all of their auditing - there is a lot of equipment, some of which was actually affected by the bug. If that hadn't been fixed, bad things would have happenned. Y2K was blown out of proportion but just like any problem, let go too long, and it could have had a real nasty impact.

And anyone with a knowledge of history would have compared this to any other 'the world is going to end' craze of the past millenia (and there have been a few) and pretty much known that y2k wouldn't be as bad as it was made out to be. And hackers who know history? They'd have known /that/ the craze would happen and have some insight as to why.

Are you kidding? The fact that the world hasn't ended yet is no proof that it won't end - that doesn't even make sense! Lets say you drive a car 100 times on really icy roads and don't have an accident, that does not in any way prove that the 101st time, or 102nd time you won't have one. All it takes is for the world to end once. And unlike 1000 years ago, we have this nice little devices that can destroy EVERYTHING ON THE SURFACE OF THE PLANET. Sounds pretty final to me.

And then there is stuff like the greenhouse effect, which is not in the above catagory for two reasons: nothing like it has happened before (ice-ages and the like don't count/compare with all the stuff humanity is putting up there) and it is scientific fact (just ask any scientist), against which we don't have any prevention/circumvention tools.

Oh geez... of course the greenhouse effect is a scientific fact... it was here long before man. Its effects, however, cannot currently be accurately modelled due the high nonlinearity of the system. It's possible we've already done a ton of damage, it's possible that we have little to do with global warming (a lot has to do with ocean currents and solar radiation flux, thigns that we don't really control). Hell we can't even come up with a model that can accurately predict past climates based on first principles and the same data we have today!

But I do agree that we shouldn't sit idly by... it's just that I think tinfoil hats and spreading FUD about the future just because the government does some things we don't agree with is the answer. Voting is a great way to start... after that, the sky's the limit! Maybe we need a hacker running for office? Well I guess Badnarik is the closest we'll get, since he was a software engineer.

Cheers,
Justin

From the Slashdot random quotes file... by LostCluster · 2004-10-19 13:09 · Score: 4, Interesting

This showed up at the bottom of the page while reading this thread...

We question most of the mantras around here periodically, in case you hadn't noticed. :-) -- Larry Wall in

I think that sums this one up.

I'd put more money on the animals... by Jay9333 · 2004-10-19 13:10 · Score: 3, Interesting

Another quote, "...Authoritarian countries become corrupt; corrupt countries become poor; and poor countries are weak."

True... but the fact is the animals (in the headlined quote from story) are much more keen and aware then many "hackers" out there. The problem is that many people posing as hackers are really just cheap and are trying to deprive legitimate and earnest copyright holders of the money due them. Hack all you damn want, just don't break copyright or patent law, that's what I say.

This country has been so innovative because of its encouragement through patents and copyright law. I'm not saying our patent system doesn't need reform... it most certainly does. But I'm tired of people who want to throw the baby out with the bathwater... who actually are just cheap bastards in disguise.

jay

Re:Now if hackers could just learn to hack the gov by sh1ftay · 2004-10-19 13:21 · Score: 1, Interesting

Right... Luddism was not a rejection of anything. The luddits were merely frustrated with their situation. They had no problem with the technology, their problem was with how it was used. If you truly read Chompsky you would know this. Now, this is very similar to what the article is saying about 'hackers'. It says nothing about their beef with the idea of government, but a rejection of how it is currently implemented.

Re:Now if hackers could just learn to hack the gov by billbaggins · 2004-10-19 13:25 · Score: 5, Interesting

Government is a tool that can be hacked to work for you, just as a computer can be hacked to work for you.

There's just one problem with your analogy - I hack my computer to make it work for me, but most other people would find it more or less unusable. That's fine, because they have their own computers. A government, we have to share. And we don't have root on it. So while we're trying, in our small ways, to hack the gov't to do X, other people are working, oftentimes much harder, to make it do not-X.

Which is not to say that we shouldn't try to make it better, because we should. Just that it's going to be many many orders of magnitude harder to get anything useful accomplished.

--
"The best argument against democracy is a five minute chat with the average voter."
--Winston Churchill

Re:Now if hackers could just learn to hack the gov by the_meager · 2004-10-19 13:26 · Score: 5, Interesting

You completely neglected to mention the FACT that the wealthy use government to deter competition and maintain their control.

Limited government and free markets undermine that entire system.

(And seriously... if you're going to say that we should use tools to get back at the wealthy, why stop at government? Why not expand into physical coercion with guns, like government seems to?)

--
Speckpot?

Re:Hackers, tell us when it will get here by smclean · 2004-10-19 13:31 · Score: 2, Interesting

I agree that the article has a little bit of a paranoid tone, but also I think it makes a valid point, and that the governments' willingness to bow to corporate interests because they have conslidated power in the form of money, whereas the consumers do not, is a good indications of the destabilizing of the integrity of the government.

The threat to governments always lives in the gray, not the black or the white. Any destabilization of government takes the form of choices in the gray area, choices which are made for reasons which are in a perceived auxilliary environment to morality, and then leads to the polarization which destroys said government.

--

"'Yrch!' said Legolas, falling into his own tongue."

Re:Now if hackers could just learn to hack the gov by GoofyBoy · 2004-10-19 13:36 · Score: 2, Interesting

>A government, we have to share. And we don't have root on it. So while we're trying, in our small ways, to hack the gov't to do X, other people are working, oftentimes much harder, to make it do not-X.

Great! So now you've defined what to hack and its unique problems. Sort of like getting your PC and its strange sound card to work with Linux AND have it dual boot so other members of your family can use it too.

Nothing you have pointed out makes it impossible to hack. Is it hard to hack? Sure, but no one is implying that it isn't.

--
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.

It's You by serutan · 2004-10-19 13:38 · Score: 5, Interesting

Is it just me or is this one of the more ridiculous sounding things you've heard in a while?

It's you. I thought the thunderstorm was a nice metaphor. Here's another good line:

"A society in which people can do and say what they want will also tend to be one in which the most efficient solutions win, rather than those sponsored by the most influential people."

But here in the Rush Limbaugh era, we place as much value on making fun of something as on making an actual point. Oh well, too bad for us.

Re:It's You by NichG · 2004-10-19 16:36 · Score: 2, Interesting

Well, I could justify that with other analogies, but it wouldn't really be a good argument.

Instead, I'll propose that perhaps what happens is that people who interact meaningfully with humans come to equilibrium with the rest of society much more quickly. So if there's some process by which people are being made to believe that certain infractions of their rights are okay, or even desireable, people who interact strongly with society will be more susceptible to picking up the same reasoning than people who are isolated from it.

To put it another way, people who feel that they need to sustain themselves independantly from society will be more concerned with their personal freedoms than society's goals, whereas people who feel they draw more support from society will be less concerned with the freedom to act in a way perpendicular to the majority of society, but will be more concerned with how society as a whole behaves. So someone who defines the important thing in their life to be how they interact with society won't necessarily care as much if the particular form of the interaction changes (you can do this and that, but not the other thing) so long as the interaction itself remains.
On the other hand, someone isolated from society will care more about the specific nature of actions, rather than doing said actions in groups.

Given how abstract the preceeding paragraphs were, maybe I should've stuck with analogies: 'It's easier to spot the shape of a forest from the outside than from the inside'.

Re:Old school hackers vs. new school hackers. by networkBoy · 2004-10-19 13:53 · Score: 4, Interesting

I'd add to that:
Grey-beards and those who are gainfully employed in the non-IT segment of high tech.

I work with a couple of fellow hackers and we always get miffed with our co-workers wo e-mule this and kazza that . . .
I'm only 28 and yet I find myself in a position which is very conservative when compared to my peers.
On the IT note, I don't know quite why it is but those who are in IT positions vs. those like myself who may perform the occasional IT function as part of a larger job scope tend to have remarkably different attitudes. . . good or bad I don't know, but different, yes.

-nB

--
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump

Re:Now if hackers could just learn to hack the gov by qopax · 2004-10-19 14:07 · Score: 2, Interesting

I think you might be dividing the classes too greatly. Why must a hacker not want to get the food on the table, buy a new SUV, and get a holiday week off to a tropical island? Some hackers aren't that different from "the common man", I'd even say most of them aren't. Of course you might be talking about the "common american idiot", but I don't think there are many of even those left...

--
I pwn this comment. "The Fine Print" says so.

Graham's Essays by cthlptlk · 2004-10-19 14:27 · Score: 5, Interesting

By now, I should know better than to read the Paul Graham essays when they're posted on slashdot, but I can't help myself. I think it's my sick obsession with lisp.

Now that I've read a few in the space of a few weeks, I think I'm able to pin down what bothers me. Graham is really good at a certain rhetorical style: he talks at length about a topic that really isn't the topic at hand, until you start to wonder if you're really reading the essay that you thought you were reading, and suddenly the focus shifts to the target. "Maori customs are really a metaphor/synedoche for the perl philosophy!" or whatever. The change is so dizzying (because it is unexpected but not completly random) and such changes come so fast that the reader doesn't stop to evaluate the correctness of Graham's assertions or the depth of what he's saying. It's like a cheesy magic show...the magician distracts you by waving the wand around, so that you don't see that he's actually pulling the rabbit out of his sleeve, rather than out of the hat. To his credit, I think Graham does this trick really well, and it's hard to do.

The thing is, I can appreciate cheesy-magic-show writing, but at some point, I would like to take away an actual idea from what I'm reading. And what are Graham's ideas? Lisp is really l33t! Hackers are really l33t! Graham's ideas are really that simple; they're not refinements or unexpected corrollaries of ideas that were first trotted out ten or twenty years ago. After a few essays, it becomes apparent that all of these ideas really reduce to I, Paul Graham, am really l33t because I like this l33t stuff! I don't fault Graham in the slightest for thinking this, or even about writing it, but since I'm not Paul Graham, it's not a very interesting idea to me.

Re:Graham's Essays by zsau · 2004-10-19 17:13 · Score: 2, Interesting

Actually, I've started reading it as: These things are leet because I like them, which makes me leet...

Somewhen I think Graham said something like he and Stallman and so forth were great men because they weren't afraid to say they were great. I think Graham's gone a bit too far down that path; I still respect RMS.

--
Look out!
Re:Graham's Essays by bugbear · 2004-10-20 03:13 · Score: 2, Interesting

Lisp is really l33t! Hackers are really l33t! Graham's ideas are really that simple

Really? It seems to me that I go into great detail. For example, in the third paragraph of this latest essay I explain the connection between the two senses of "hack." That's a substantial point, and new too, as far as I know. At least, it was news to me when I realized it.

Other quite specific points: that hackers get in trouble because authorities don't understand one of their biggest motives (curiosity); that young hackers deliberately fake eccentricities; that copy protection mechanisms, because they're mechanisms, tend to attract rather than deter hackers; that new technology often isn't developed by the people who are supposed to be developing it; that the kind of attitude that existed during the Manahttan Project is hard to imagine existing in Germany at that time; etc, etc.

Surely this is a lot more than just saying that hackers are great. (And where exactly do I say that, by the way?)

GNP and freedom by Dr.Syshalt · 2004-10-19 14:55 · Score: 2, Interesting

Their interdependency is not as clear as author insists. They rather both depend on how much recources a nation has to spend on wars and military preparations. US developed in a situation where they didn't have any serious military competition nearby - nothing like Europe (until lately), Russia, China, Middle East or Africa. If US would have to constantly fight for a couple of centuries with, let's say, Canada for territories and resources, the situation would be completely different now. Again, if US would get a serious threat right on their borders, the situation with freedoms and economical prosperity would change pretty soon. Just look at how things have changed after 9/11 - two big buildings destroyed by an enemy. Now imagine the same on the scale of the hole country, with millions of casualties and whole cities in ruins - that's the real war on your territory. Do you get the picture now?

Re:Old school hackers vs. new school hackers. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-19 15:13 · Score: 5, Interesting

The distinction seems fairly clear to me.

IT folks are consumers of software. Fairly empowered consumers, but still consumers at heart. Whereas the guys with the "larger job scope" are likely to be, at some level or another, producers as well.

Stealing software suddenly seems alot less cool when it might be your software that's being stolen.

They are NOT property rights by argoff · 2004-10-19 15:35 · Score: 2, Interesting

However, it can also be argues that the amount of protection of the individual's right to personal property (intellectual and physical) is also proportional

You're working on the assumption that intellectual "property" (copyright and patnet monopolies) are a property right. That's like saying slavey was a property right - no it wasn't! It was a form of controll over other people, and so is this.

Just because a bunch of people scream very loudly that something is a right doesn't mean that it is. Just because they scream that it's a property right doesn't mean that it is either.

Re:Old school hackers vs. new school hackers. by bcrowell · 2004-10-19 16:20 · Score: 4, Interesting

I think I'd say that, generally, old-school hackers are more respectful of intellectual property than new-school hackers. For example, most grey-beards that I know don't really favor the idea of p2p being used to share files against the wishes of the author.
I think what you're seeing is the way a person changes with age. If you go back 20 or 30 years, those same grey-beards might have had different attitudes.

Consider the picture at the top of Graham's essay. It shows two guys who are now grey-bearded hackers (Jobs and Wozniak) messing with a blue box (a device for making free phone calls, illegally).

When I was a college student in the 80's, I routinely taped my roommates' albums if I liked them. Now I'm older, I have a real job, and I can afford to buy my music, so naturally I disapprove of my students when they trade MP3's :-)

There's also something about having kids that makes you become a lot more cautious...

If you control for age, I think there might be a trend in the opposite direction of what you're suggesting, toward radicalism. The open-source movement has caused some hackers to reconsider some of the basic institutions of our society (like property laws), and organize to resist them. Hacking as a critique of society didn't even exist 20 years ago.

--
Find free books.

He gives a great counterexample in his article by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-19 16:22 · Score: 1, Interesting

"moving away from Euclidean geometry".
The modern move away from Euclidean was done by Gauss and mainly Riemann, both Germans in the very repressive 19th century Germany.

If Graham had some decent education he would know this. But wait, he is from the US.

Paul is amazingly correct by Almost-Retired · 2004-10-19 16:47 · Score: 2, Interesting

I scanned on down the list to see what sort of replies I might find, thinking if someone has said it, why should I repeat and bore.

Unforch, in about the first 75 or so posts, I didn't see a reply that even indicated the poster had actually read the article!

Color me an old fool maybe, but Paul has hit the nail of the problem square on the head, and his essay should be required reading for every congress-critter on the face of the planet, the american ones in particular. They are not just stiffling innovation, the innovation that made america what it was in the first 2/3rds of the past century, they are choking it to death and will not be satisfied until even the reflexive heaving of the chest, long after the heart has stopped, has itself stopped. Only when it is well and truely inspected by the attending physician and declared dead will the likes of Jack Valanti be happy.

I don't know how to make it any clearer to our senators and representatives, the damage they have done in the last 25 years, than to make Pauls essay required reading, and to have them say in public that they have read it and agree with Paul, and will work to revert these onerous laws, and do it before they get our votes on Nov 2nd. If they don't, then don't re-elect the incumbent, its that simple. We need a thorough house (senate too) cleaning that breaks the chain of $$$ command between hollywood, congress and yes, even the Supremes. If we don't do it now, by the next time election day rolls around, the disneys and the diebolds will have total control of the country, to rape and pillage as they please instead of undercover like they are doing now. Most of the Bill of Rights will either be ignored, or legislated out of existence. I give you the so-called Patriot Act as the worst example, but don't worry, they'll think up even worse ones given another 2, 4 or 6 years.

When that day comes, and if I'm still around, you'll recognize the likes of me, we'll be the ancient ones saying "I told you so". We remember when america stood for freedom, freedom to go out and make a million if you had a better idea, not spend the rest of your life and all your income in court trying to prove prior art against some copycat. We'll also have plenty of ammo loaded for when it gets noisy, and if it gets noisy before the message is heard, it will be a lot noisier than the Boston Tea Party was. We were relatively few then, but not anymore.

No Cheers this time, Gene

amoral doesn't mean illegal. by TWX · 2004-10-19 17:39 · Score: 3, Interesting

"Kazaa is amoral. What people choose to do with it may or may not be moral."

This is the exact logic that has allowed Betamax (and other analog devices capable of duplication) to exist. If the device has a legitimate use then the device is legitimate. If the maker or marketter of the device or service specifically argues an illegal purpose then the service should be shut down or the specific marketter or seller should be targetted, but that does not mean that the users should be targetted unless it can be demonstrated that they are breaking the law.

Companies that sold multifunction card readers and writers, as well as blank cards were marketting these with the claim that it allows one to watch Cable or Satellite TV for free. This marketting strategy is illegal, and businesses advocating the illegal activity are subject to prosecution. The devices, however, have legitimate uses beyond TV, as the subscription TV industry risked using an industry standard card rather than developing their own technology. Subsequently I feel that prosecution solely based on the purchase of such equipment from one of the aforementioned retailers is wrong. If they can prove that the customer is actually using the devices for illegal purposes then they have grounds, otherwise posession is not a crime. Since posession is not a crime, there is no justification for even a search warrant to examine the customer's equipment. If the customer then has turned around and started selling copied key cards and the TV subscription company can prove this though obtaining one then they can make a case.

If I and a bunch of associates had such equipment and were all served, I wouldn't hesitate to find a lawyer with experience for this and counter with racketeering and extortion claims as a group, and to attempt to convince the local attorney general to criminally pursue the matter.

Portions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act related to devices capable of copying or playing copies need to be re-evaluated and repealed, for the logic that copying can be done legally of material not protected by copyright, therefore DMCA is restrictive.

--
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.

Re:Missed it by that much... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-19 19:51 · Score: 1, Interesting

Everything is an art. There's an art to walking.

Anything invloving more than one if...then is an art to some people.

Re:Old school hackers vs. new school hackers. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-19 19:55 · Score: 1, Interesting

Or better yet, turn off the radio (it's a prmotional tool *for* the industry, after all), and realize that you don't need these things in the first place. People *want* them. The price of a CD becomes irrelevent when you don't subject yourself to that kind of covetous self-victimization. The users are the reason the prices are so high. They were willing to pay for it up until someone invented a way for them to steal it conviently and anonymously (so they think). Now they use industry price gouging to excuse themselves as digital age Robin Hoods. Only Robin was credited with with stealing from the rich to give to the poor, while P2Pers are just stealing for thier own self interest.

Re:Old school hackers vs. new school hackers. by sosume · 2004-10-19 21:43 · Score: 4, Interesting

Just don't let your exclusive mindset make it impossible for others to share their work for free.. that is called fundamentalism. Your way or the highway. If you're so focused on making money, you should take an 80-hours job instead of hoping to make a song or painting that will support all your habits for a lifetime. That is just ridiculous.

Exactly by Mark_MF-WN · 2004-10-19 22:09 · Score: 4, Interesting

You hit the nail on the head there. I remember the last time I was able to work, I purchased quite a number of albums, and more than a few video games.

When I'm a student, or too sick to do anything, I certainly can't afford to buy DVDs or CDs. I still buy the odd used game, but $10 for a game that will provide twenty to fifty hours of entertainment is within ANY budget.

But whenever I have dinner with my aunt and uncle, he regales me with stories of all the free software he downloads. It kind of disgusts me since he can obviously afford to purchase it legit. I switched to Linux precisely to get away from having to pirate software. I always encourage people to switch, so that they can benefit from truly a free operating system and office suite. I've gotten quite a few people to switch to OpenOffice.

Re:Personally, I blame... by Cili · 2004-10-19 22:34 · Score: 2, Interesting

Quote:

The government - by which I mean society's minders as codified in law and the law enforcement that makes those laws a concrete social force - creates, maintains, modifies, and destroys all the rights you have. There are no other rights. Anything else is wishful thinking. If you want that to change, you'll need a revolution. There are no natural rights. Wants, certainly. Needs too. Desires. Itches, even. But not rights.

No,no,no
You naturally have any right possible to think of. It's the laws and law-enforcement that limits your rights. Laws are like this:

You are not allowed to do the following (read:You don't have the right to do) :that(1), that(2) and that(3) because these actions harm the society. Should you do such actions, law enforcement will punish you. You may do anything that is not on the list. New actions that harm society will be put on this list next time the list is updated(by passing laws to regulate it).

Note that anything that is not on the *not allowed to* list is allowed.

That is completely different from:

You are allowed to do that(1), that(2) and that(3) because only these actions are good to the society. Should you do something not on this list, law enforcement will punish you.

Now that's completely fucked up and I hope no states that work by such laws exist in reality.

Re:Old school hackers vs. new school hackers. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-19 23:04 · Score: 1, Interesting

I have no respect whatsoever for people who try to limit my freedom in order to "make money".

And I have no respect whatsoever for little brats who think they're somehow morally justified in taking what I've produced simply because they can.

So the downloader doesn't respect the artist, and the artist doesn't respect the downloader.
What this "artist" is forgetting, is that you have to respect the downloader because it's his potential client.
The downloader doesn't have anything to lose from the artists disrespect.

Re:Old school hackers vs. new school hackers. by networkBoy · 2004-10-20 01:48 · Score: 2, Interesting

I am gainfully employed, but of my income half my take-home (minus $60) goes to rent. I am curerntly supporting a wife and a kid and my wife is a full time student at a UC school. Per quarter books average $200+ Tuition is $$$$ per quarter (not semester). I have so little disposable income that it would make your head spin.
The website in my sig? The money I make from that pays for my DSL line and the excess will be paying for Halo2 (already pre-ordered). I'm as broke as you, yet I don't pirate. . . go figure.
-nB

--
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump

Re:Old school hackers vs. new school hackers. by networkBoy · 2004-10-20 01:53 · Score: 2, Interesting

Have you visited my site?
If you have you will no-where find tools or instructions for piracy of games. I have two open letters to M$ about homebrew content on their console. I have received numerous visits from M$ IP addresses three DMCA notices, though I post no (C) IP on my site. I understand the double standard that is apparent and I see plenty of irony. The difference is that homebrew does not take money away from the game studios, piracy does; same for ripping and distributing movies.
-nB

--
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump

Re:Old school hackers vs. new school hackers. by Dyolf+Knip · 2004-10-21 03:47 · Score: 3, Interesting

Sell them cheaply. Make it cheap, convenient, and reliable enough that it's simply not worth the time and effort and exasperation to go through the P2P networks. I'm thinking an absolute maximum of $.50 per track, depending on size. They should really strive for less, so an entire album would cost $2 or $3.

Add value that P2P can't match. Allow for purchase of miscellanceous artwork, interviews with the band, behind-the-scenes, crap like that. Keep a well organized discography database with links to similar artists. Allow downloads or mailing of the CD insert and stick-on labels so the customer can make their own CD's (Ha! Have a service that will create CD labels for custom mix CDs. Just specify the bands and/or albums and they'll send you a label with a montage of all the requested artwork). Allow downloads or streaming for free in crap-quality 48kbps MP3 and sell in a multitude of popular formats (MP3, OGG, lossy, lossless, whatever) and bitrates. Allow downloading of entire albums at once. Give promotionals for things like posters and concert tickets and t-shirts when you buy the album. And for the love of god, do not cripple it all with DRM shit that doesn't work!

Have the customer keep a PayPal-type debit account, so they can deposit a few bucks periodically and then just buy whatever song or album they want with a simple one-click purchase system.

Will the songs end up on P2P networks? Absolutely. But so what? They'll _never_ stamp it out; there will always be files available for free. The RIAA members need to have this fact drilled into their skulls. But this way they could at least compete with it. Look how will iTunes did, and that was expensive, limited, and had nothing I couldn't get from P2P. With a system like this in place, they could sweep illicit music trading under the rug almost at once and make even more money than they are now. I mean, there's almost no distribution costs apart from bandwidth. No middle-men, it's all profit.

But, no. Instead they declare war on the people who give them money. That's much better.

--
Dyolf Knip

34 of 653 comments (clear)