I agree. We should try to "analyze" where technology is headed. And we should try and stay aware of the downside of "ill-informed" deployments of technologies with hidden social consequences. That said, I wonder whose record is better, the decisions of scientists and engineers who seek to improve social conditions (i.e., the green revolution, anti-biotics, anti-cancer treatments, etc.), or those of self-appointed "analysts" of scientific and technological change? Such as your signature-mate Mr. Nader...
I leave it to the reader to evaluate what they think their "answer" is.
Do you understand the implications of restricting the free-flow of ideas in a democratic society? If the principal means of distributing knowledge are restricted, you have your first step (a big one) on the road to the creation of a self-perpetuating oligarchy -- with high and criminal-law protected -- barriers to entry. And what about the ability of individuals (this is America isn't it) to self-educate from easily affordable and readily available sources of information. What about the World Wide Web?!
On the other hand, maybe ubiquitously available napster type applications, plus faster bandwidth availability, and wide-spread dissemination of dvd-encryption busting tools will leave these fascistic proposals on the scrap heap of history.
To all but Katz such statements border on the self-serving and reflect unpardonable amnesia.
Is there anyone who doubts that the economic interests of the United States (and of other countries) haven't consistently influenced their foreign and domestic policies? From the rationales for British imperialism in the 19th century, to the arguments *for* slavery by southern plantation owners in the 19th century US, politics has always reflected the economic interests, and supporting morals and mores, of the ascendant economic elite.
I don't mean that *everything* in politics has been derived from an economic imperative (an invisible hand?!), but most big decisions have. Academic institutions have helped, in the past, to reproduce knowledge and social institutions that supported existing hierarchies of power and privilege. Rather than being apart from economic and globalizing trends they are a critical enabler of them.
Where is it written that a review of a book that is basically a loosely and poorly edited tirade against the supposedly selfish denizens of the information technology "elite" needs to get top billing from Slashdot. How "news and nerd-worthy" is this.
I am not a Katz hater, but this one is really over the top.
Get a clue Katz. The idea that anyone who has withdrawn from what they consider a corrupt and immoral public sphere is somehow selfish could only come from you.
Cheers to all of the selfish among us. They have given "us" the longest economic boom in American history, and created more wealth for the "redistributors" to wring their hands over.
Truly disgusting.
Re:You are the selfish person the article refers t
on
Selfish Society
·
· Score: 1
As a relatively "late convert" to the computer/IT world, I have to say I totally agree with this last post.
Who says that the "OUTCOMES" of a meritocratic system have to be equal. I am all for helping those who are under-privileged, but not at the expense of punishing hard - work, or dumming down the cutting edge for sake of lazy dullards who can't or won't work hard enough to understand.
Now this is an interesting wrinkle on the whole Napster game. I wonder what "the free market" would say a fair price is for a single song on MP3? Especially given that the ISP charges/transmittal costs are cycling towards zero (on the margin anyway).
I note that in all of the euphoria that follows this announcement no one seems to have noticed the following piece of the press release:
> Sun will retain copyright to the source code and > Sun's ongoing engineering work on StarOffice > software will be done as part of OpenOffice.org
What is the relationship of this assertion of copyright ownership of code (my reading), and the free use and modification of code allowed/promoted under the GPL? Does this allow Sun to claim copyright control over contributed code once the office.org site is up?
What is with the Javascript site ads in the middle of a theme? Tell me that we aren't going to have to tolerate commercial "announcements" in the middle of Slashdot threads. Yee Gods!!
I don't think anyone has viewed microsoft as a "warm and fuzzy" company for a while. The entire case has been a commercial and public relations disaster for microsoft -- and all of its knee-jerk allies.
My concern with this entire case is the extent to which the judicial system, and the Department of Justice, have now chosen to place themselves above the public and the marketplace as arbiters of the "likely future" of innovation and product success in the most dynamic marketplace ever created.
How are we to consider a decision which refers to competing operating systems under the broad label "Fringe Operating Systems?" Under this label are discussed Be, Linux, the BSDs, and any other OSs not used by the majority of consumers.
The rapidly increasing number of people adopting open source alternatives, and the rapidity of innovation in non-pc technologies capable of accessing the internet shows the dynamism of the environment, and the time-bound nature of any "findings of fact" that focus narrowly on a web browser to the exclusion of all else.
To my fellow slashdotters I ask the following: If you are worried about microsoft products constraining your choices, do you trust the government to act on your behalf and increase *your* available choices?
Isn't the increasing success and attractiveness of open source alternatives testimony to a paradigm shift in personal computing and the internet which undermines microsoft's power? Isn't this a better outcome than allowing the government to set artificial "market opening" conditions for the computer industry?
And what of the remedies available to judge? Does anyone trust this judge to draft an economically sensible solution to microsoft's admitted misbehavior? Is breaking up microsoft really an appropriate solution, relative to a number of alternatives?
How about enjoining microsoft from acquiring equity stakes in whole areas of market growth? I think that this is far more likely than any precipitous decision to fragment the company. Other ways of restricting microsoft include forcing divestiture of key elements (equity shares in new technology companies)in order to renew competition in those areas, or forced sale of intellectual property.
Of course such a measure would reduce (marginally I admit) capital available to new startups, probably injuring at least some software innovators. But still, anti-trust law is not setup to protect competitors, it is supposed to protect consumers. It seems clear to me that the principal beneficiaries of any harsh action against microsoft will be its competitors -- companies such as Sun, Oracle, and other "open-minded" companies with a great record of non-monopolistic behavior (I am being sarcastic here).
Maybe the most appropriate result/remedy would be a combination of an extremely large fine (hundreds of millions, used to endow a fund to foster software innovation in competing OSs). Apple and other competing OSs could draw from the fund in order to "level the playing field" with microsoft's waning platform dominance.
A fine and some market-restrictive rules may be the "least harmful outcome". Anyway, it is an outcome that would usefully minimize the interference from government in an industry that continues to thrive without official "assistance".
I have come to loathe some of Katz's long diatribes. I consider this one particularly obnoxious because it repeats some time-honored (if I can use that word) charges that technology is ruining our lives and making us all more confused and insecure.
My response is two-fold. First, why is it that those who refuse to make the effort to organize themselves using the new technology are allowed to drown the rest of us in their shameless meanderings. Get a life! Organizers and information flow can be managed *USING* the new technology.
It is possible to disconnect oneself from this technology with an off switch, or with the skillful use of the tools that technology has given us. The dumbing down of society that is gathering momentum -- especially in this country -- argues that anything that takes a little initial effort is bad. Instead everything has to be easy -- removing any challenging decisions from the individual other than those of exterior colors of appliances and type face size for the "dummies" books used to inform the masses.
I would say secondly that technology is viewed by those who take the time to think and use it as a radically liberating force able to transform economies (see the current economic boom in the U.S and elsewhere) and increase the opportunities available to the smart.
As a result this revolution has done more to empower the meritocratic parts of modern society than any number of decades worth of blather about the "confusion" of the terminally confused (or the intellectually bankrupt).
I am on the verge of filtering out any more of Katz's uninformed mental meanderings. Please Rob, or anyone else who controls the idea base from which he grazes -- insist that his contributions add rigor and creativity to the debates on slashdot.
AS an African American with a "tech" education I can say that racism is diminishing in America. It has not, however, disappeared entirely. As far as white Americans being around "violence prone" people, I think that it is instructive that this summer of hate violence (e.g., Columbine, Atlanta, Los Angeles, etc.) have all been perpetrated by white male racists. I wonder what their neighbors think about living next to so many potential "hot heads".
Most of the upwardly mobile (in economic terms) blacks that I know just want to be rewarded appropriately for their contributions, and wish to avoid the weird racist fantasies of people like you who see a potential black mugger everytime they see a non-white face.
As far as computers for minorities and the poor are concerned, I agree with many of the other poster. Economics is a shrinking barrier to computer and internet access. Anyone with access to an old 486 can get on the net. Free software is an additional enabler in this area, but it really just further reduces an access cost that is already dimishing every day.
Donate your old computers if you like. Make sure schools have at least minimum access to computers. Then make sure that teachers know how to use computers in their curricula.
Most don't, and all the computers in the world won't save you from a bad teacher.
Much as I am not really much of a fan of Bill, Steve Jobs, or the rest of this bunch, they do not deserve to have their property stolen from them and distributed to another bunch of people who have done nothing to earn it.
Let's avoid the socialist rants, and allow *some* people to keep some part of what they earn.
Incidentally, wealth resulting from the stock valuations is hardly "income" in the traditional sense. Are you suggesting that their stock should be "seized"? How would you do that?
Truly ridiculous suggestions.
D.
Re:Dead, was it ever alive?
on
DIVX is dead
·
· Score: 1
Other than Disney and a few other DIVX holdouts, most new movies head to DVD within a few weeks of tape release. Get with it.
Even the X Files movie came out on DVD -- albeit with no fanfare at all.
The Death of DIVX. Proof that the Technology Gods are watching over us.
I agree that talking about an internet war is a ridiculous mixing of apples and oranges. There is one thing, however, that adds a shade of difference. Check the latest issue of Aviation Week and Space Technology. There is the best public source discussion of the US' use of offensive information warfare to suppress the air defense missiles of the Yugoslav Armed Forces. Penetration of microwave nets and deliberate implantation of viruses figure prominently, as does the deliberate impairment of air defense missile radars to prevent them from achieving a lock up on NATO aircraft. This is certainly an offensive information warfare conflict, even if the Internet content of it is minimal.
If you think that mapping the distribution and trajectories of masses in our solar system (asteroid detection to avoid near-earth interaction or collision) is a good idea (and I agree), why not organize a public project using an open source-designed algorithm to analyze the data. I would certainly assign two of my four pcs to the task. Maybe all of them if someone really tried to convince me!
Carping about SETI@Home is not the answer.
There are enough idle pcs out there to do both jobs.
Slashdot Mirror
>Twofish, RC6, Mars, etc were basically all ego-gratification projects intended to maintain corporate visibility in the cryptography market
This is, to be polite, bs. Different cryptographic approaches merely reflect different "scientific" schools or preferences.
Pluses and minuses can exist in different proposals without the them being easily attributable to gratuitous drivel from the peanut gallery.
At last. A comment to end this Lanier lunacy.
I think, Rob, that you should moderate this comment up to 1000, and archive the former material. Let's move on.
As quickly as possible.
I think that one of Jason Lanier's "analysts of scientific veracity" must have decided that it was against the public interest to see it.
I agree. We should try to "analyze" where technology is headed. And we should try and stay aware of the downside of "ill-informed" deployments of technologies with hidden social consequences. That said, I wonder whose record is better, the decisions of scientists and engineers who seek to improve social conditions (i.e., the green revolution, anti-biotics, anti-cancer treatments, etc.), or those of self-appointed "analysts" of scientific and technological change? Such as your signature-mate Mr. Nader...
I leave it to the reader to evaluate what they think their "answer" is.
Do you understand the implications of restricting the free-flow of ideas in a democratic society? If the principal means of distributing knowledge are restricted, you have your first step (a big one) on the road to the creation of a self-perpetuating oligarchy -- with high and criminal-law protected -- barriers to entry. And what about the ability of individuals (this is America isn't it) to self-educate from easily affordable and readily available sources of information. What about the World Wide Web?!
On the other hand, maybe ubiquitously available napster type applications, plus faster bandwidth availability, and wide-spread dissemination of dvd-encryption busting tools will leave these fascistic proposals on the scrap heap of history.
Here's Hoping.
To all but Katz such statements border on the self-serving and reflect unpardonable amnesia.
Is there anyone who doubts that the economic interests of the United States (and of other countries) haven't consistently influenced their foreign and domestic policies? From the rationales for British imperialism in the 19th century, to the arguments *for* slavery by southern plantation owners in the 19th century US, politics has always reflected the economic interests, and supporting morals and mores, of the ascendant economic elite.
I don't mean that *everything* in politics has been derived from an economic imperative (an invisible hand?!), but most big decisions have. Academic institutions have helped, in the past, to reproduce knowledge and social institutions that supported existing hierarchies of power and privilege. Rather than being apart from economic and globalizing trends they are a critical enabler of them.
Where is it written that a review of a book that is basically a loosely and poorly edited tirade against the supposedly selfish denizens of the information technology "elite" needs to get top billing from Slashdot. How "news and nerd-worthy" is this.
I am not a Katz hater, but this one is really over the top.
Get a clue Katz. The idea that anyone who has withdrawn from what they consider a corrupt and immoral public sphere is somehow selfish could only come from you.
Cheers to all of the selfish among us. They have given "us" the longest economic boom in American history, and created more wealth for the "redistributors" to wring their hands over.
Truly disgusting.
As a relatively "late convert" to the computer/IT world, I have to say I totally agree with this last post.
Who says that the "OUTCOMES" of a meritocratic system have to be equal. I am all for helping those who are under-privileged, but not at the expense of punishing hard - work, or dumming down the cutting edge for sake of lazy dullards who can't or won't work hard enough to understand.
There. I feel much better now.
Sure.
And then just hold your breath to get over that "oxygen addiction" that you have.
Better suggestions please.
:)
I believe the Wall Street Journal .Com Web site also makes money.
Just trying to help.
:)
Same to you, shithead,
Now this is an interesting wrinkle on the whole Napster game. I wonder what "the free market" would say a fair price is for a single song on MP3? Especially given that the ISP charges/transmittal costs are cycling towards zero (on the margin anyway).
Just a thought from an errant economist.
/history trivia on/>
It's true, and it took place during the War of 1812. "Canada" was not really "Canada" yet, however, as it was known as British North America.
Actually, isn't this the only war in US history where the congress declared war over presidential objections?!!
>/history trivia off/
I note that in all of the euphoria that follows this announcement no one seems to have noticed the following piece of the press release:
> Sun will retain copyright to the source code and > Sun's ongoing engineering work on StarOffice > software will be done as part of OpenOffice.org
What is the relationship of this assertion of copyright ownership of code (my reading), and the free use and modification of code allowed/promoted under the GPL? Does this allow Sun to claim copyright control over contributed code once the office.org site is up?
I agree with this, but wanted to ask a not entirely rhetorical question?
What do Windows reviewers get in return for "positive" reviews?
D
What is with the Javascript site ads in the middle of a theme? Tell me that we aren't going to have to tolerate commercial "announcements" in the middle of Slashdot threads. Yee Gods!!
Get a life guy. IBM, Oracle, and a host of other companies have recognized the real value that open source software development brings to the scene.
You, apparently, think that it is still for "closed source wannabes".
Enjoy your isolated little world.
Jerk
I don't think anyone has viewed microsoft as a "warm and fuzzy" company for a while. The entire case has been a commercial and public relations disaster for microsoft -- and all of its knee-jerk allies.
My concern with this entire case is the extent to which the judicial system, and the Department of Justice, have now chosen to place themselves above the public and the marketplace as arbiters of the "likely future" of innovation and product success in the most dynamic marketplace ever created.
How are we to consider a decision which refers to competing operating systems under the broad label "Fringe Operating Systems?" Under this label are discussed Be, Linux, the BSDs, and any other OSs not used by the majority of consumers.
The rapidly increasing number of people adopting open source alternatives, and the rapidity of innovation in non-pc technologies capable of accessing the internet shows the dynamism of the environment, and the time-bound nature of any "findings of fact" that focus narrowly on a web browser to the exclusion of all else.
To my fellow slashdotters I ask the following: If you are worried about microsoft products constraining your choices, do you trust the government to act on your behalf and increase *your* available choices?
Isn't the increasing success and attractiveness of open source alternatives testimony to a paradigm shift in personal computing and the internet which undermines microsoft's power? Isn't this a better outcome than allowing the government to set artificial "market opening" conditions for the computer industry?
And what of the remedies available to judge? Does anyone trust this judge to draft an economically sensible solution to microsoft's admitted misbehavior? Is breaking up microsoft really an appropriate solution, relative to a number of alternatives?
How about enjoining microsoft from acquiring equity stakes in whole areas of market growth? I think that this is far more likely than any precipitous decision to fragment the company. Other ways of restricting microsoft include forcing divestiture of key elements (equity shares in new technology companies)in order to renew competition in those areas, or forced sale of intellectual property.
Of course such a measure would reduce (marginally I admit) capital available to new startups, probably injuring at least some software innovators. But still, anti-trust law is not setup to protect competitors, it is supposed to protect consumers. It seems clear to me that the principal beneficiaries of any harsh action against microsoft will be its competitors -- companies such as Sun, Oracle, and other "open-minded" companies with a great record of non-monopolistic behavior (I am being sarcastic here).
Maybe the most appropriate result/remedy would be a combination of an extremely large fine (hundreds of millions, used to endow a fund to foster software innovation in competing OSs). Apple and other competing OSs could draw from the fund in order to "level the playing field" with microsoft's waning platform dominance.
A fine and some market-restrictive rules may be the "least harmful outcome". Anyway, it is an outcome that would usefully minimize the interference from government in an industry that continues to thrive without official "assistance".
D.
I whole-heartedly agree. This guy is a buffoon, and should be bounced from Slashdot forthwith.
How about moderators for article authors in the first 24 hours of their presentation on here?
Posters are already checked. Fair is fair, and this stuff is using up potentially valuable slashdot attention spans.
D.
I have come to loathe some of Katz's long diatribes. I consider this one particularly obnoxious because it repeats some time-honored (if I can use that word) charges that technology is ruining our lives and making us all more confused and insecure.
My response is two-fold. First, why is it that those who refuse to make the effort to organize themselves using the new technology are allowed to drown the rest of us in their shameless meanderings. Get a life! Organizers and information flow can be managed *USING* the new technology.
It is possible to disconnect oneself from this technology with an off switch, or with the skillful use of the tools that technology has given us. The dumbing down of society that is gathering momentum -- especially in this country -- argues that anything that takes a little initial effort is bad. Instead everything has to be easy -- removing any challenging decisions from the individual other than those of exterior colors of appliances and type face size for the "dummies" books used to inform the masses.
I would say secondly that technology is viewed by those who take the time to think and use it as a radically liberating force able to transform economies (see the current economic boom in the U.S and elsewhere) and increase the opportunities available to the smart.
As a result this revolution has done more to empower the meritocratic parts of modern society than any number of decades worth of blather about the "confusion" of the terminally confused (or the intellectually bankrupt).
I am on the verge of filtering out any more of Katz's uninformed mental meanderings. Please Rob, or anyone else who controls the idea base from which he grazes -- insist that his contributions add rigor and creativity to the debates on slashdot.
AS an African American with a "tech" education I can say that racism is diminishing in America. It has not, however, disappeared entirely. As far as white Americans being around "violence prone" people, I think that it is instructive that this summer of hate violence (e.g., Columbine, Atlanta, Los Angeles, etc.) have all been perpetrated by white male racists. I wonder what their neighbors think about living next to so many potential "hot heads".
Most of the upwardly mobile (in economic terms) blacks that I know just want to be rewarded appropriately for their contributions, and wish to avoid the weird racist fantasies of people like you who see a potential black mugger everytime they see a non-white face.
As far as computers for minorities and the poor are concerned, I agree with many of the other poster. Economics is a shrinking barrier to computer and internet access. Anyone with access to an old 486 can get on the net. Free software is an additional enabler in this area, but it really just further reduces an access cost that is already dimishing every day.
Donate your old computers if you like. Make sure schools have at least minimum access to computers. Then make sure that teachers know how to use computers in their curricula.
Most don't, and all the computers in the world won't save you from a bad teacher.
Much as I am not really much of a fan of Bill, Steve Jobs, or the rest of this bunch, they do not deserve to have their property stolen from them and distributed to another bunch of people who have done nothing to earn it.
Let's avoid the socialist rants, and allow *some* people to keep some part of what they earn.
Incidentally, wealth resulting from the stock valuations is hardly "income" in the traditional sense. Are you suggesting that their stock should be "seized"? How would you do that?
Truly ridiculous suggestions.
D.
Other than Disney and a few other DIVX holdouts, most new movies head to DVD within a few weeks of tape release. Get with it.
Even the X Files movie came out on DVD -- albeit with no fanfare at all.
The Death of DIVX. Proof that the Technology Gods are watching over us.
D.
I agree that talking about an internet war is a ridiculous mixing of apples and oranges. There is one thing, however, that adds a shade of difference. Check the latest issue of Aviation Week and Space Technology. There is the best public source discussion of the US' use of offensive information warfare to suppress the air defense missiles of the Yugoslav Armed Forces. Penetration of microwave nets and deliberate implantation of viruses figure prominently, as does the deliberate impairment of air defense missile radars to prevent them from achieving a lock up on NATO aircraft. This is certainly an offensive information warfare conflict, even if the Internet content of it is minimal.
If you think that mapping the distribution and trajectories of masses in our solar system (asteroid detection to avoid near-earth interaction or collision) is a good idea (and I agree), why not organize a public project using an open source-designed algorithm to analyze the data. I would certainly assign two of my four pcs to the task. Maybe all of them if someone really tried to convince me!
Carping about SETI@Home is not the answer.
There are enough idle pcs out there to do both jobs.