I was thinking to myself: maybe this guy is right, maybe the digital revolution isn't so amazing.
Then I realized I was reading the NY Times, for free. I've never bought a copy of the NY Times, and yet, because of the Internet, I can read it.
And I realized as I typed this message that if there was a word I didn't know how to spell, I could find the correct spelling in seconds, on my computer spell checker.
And I realized that I had just finished reading detailed platform positions for Ralph Nader, which I'd probably never have seen if not for the Internet.
And I realized that when I get done typing this, and go do something else, my computer will start analyzing data collected at Arecibo Observatory, looking for signs of extra-terrestrial life.
And I realized that I'll be reading books like "Cryptonomicon" and "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance", which I'd never have read if they hadn't been recommended to me by people on the Internet.
I pretty much agree with this. I download tons of songs with Napster, but before I had it I'd only bought one CD, ever. If I didn't have Napster, it's not like I'd have bought those songs.
It's like Photoshop. Adobe could claim that they've lost however many hundreds of millions of dollars from pirating of PS, but it's BS. 99% of the people who pirate it wouldn't ever have paid $700 for it. And since they're not stealing a physical object, Adobe isn't losing anything, really.
I mean, legally, it's still theft, but I actually don't think it's that bad from an ethical POV. I'd say as long as you know, for yourself, that you'd never have paid for the product, so that the company didn't lose any money, it isn't so bad.
I mean, really, why is theft wrong in the first place? If I steal your car, that's wrong because now you won't get to use it any more. If I steal a car from a dealer, that's wrong because now the dealer will lose money. But let's think hypothetically: what if you were the last person left alive on Earth. Would it be wrong to "steal" a car? Even if the car didn't belong to you, is it really wrong to take it?
An example more grounded in reality might be this: a few years back, I wanted desperately to get the game Civilization. I'd played it on a friend's computer, and loved it. However, when I went to CompUSA, they said they didn't have it. I went on the Internet, and eventually found out that Microprose wasn't producing any more copies, so I couldn't buy it anywhere(this was for Mac, maybe they still sold it for Windows). So I went on IRC, begged around, and someone sent me a copy. I played it for hours on end, thoroughly enjoying it. Yet, technically, that would be stealing. Was it ethically wrong? IMO, not at all.
Here's what you have to realize: that book was written back in 1996. Stopping the ISS program now might sound stupid, but back then they were much further from completion.
Remember, this program is going to cost a total of $60+ billion.
Now let me be clear: I totally support ISS, as long as ISS doesn't kill a Mars mission. I don't think having both in the budget is unreasonable. However, if I had to choose, I'd take the cheaper Mars mission any day.
Actually, the original mission would've cost somewhere around $450 billion. And when NASA analyzed and changed Zubrin's idea a little. they came up with a figure of $40-$50 billion. Still reasonable, IMO.
If they can develop products fast enough, maybe they could have "Nike Trinity's" as a product tie-in by the time the sequel is out. It'd let you run around on walls just like in the movie(add your own slow motion though, and good luck getting off).
As Jackson says in his ruling, Microsoft still doesn't admit a damn thing. It's is just so maddening that they are still practicing business as usual with PDAs and what not. I imagine the judge finds it contemptuous.
But MS has made it very clear that anything short of a breakup will be useless, because they'll never change their behavior. They're the repeat offender who finally keeps getting in trouble, because no matter what the punishment, he just won't change. This time the key gets thrown away. Bye, bye MS, I hardly knew ye.
Allowing the police/school to do this would absolutely crush free speech on the net.
There is a very blurry line between what this kid did, and just simple criticism. Throwing someone in jail for criticizing government officials is downright scary. I think we should always err on the side of freedom in these cases.
Something like this is especially troubling for me, because I run a website(Free PHS) criticizing my own school administration, and at times I get downright vitriolic. And yet, I don't think anything I'm doing is illegal. If criticizing the government is not protected by the First Amendment, then what is?
Anyway, I think that there are a lot of people who don't understand the internet and are therefore much more scared of sites on the net than they would be of other forms of speech. It's important to ask yourself, in all these cases, whether you'd treat the student any differently if, instead of publishing on the net, he had said the same thing to some friends(or put it in an underground newspaper)
BTW, a good book on this topic is "Sex, Laws and Cyberspace", by Jonathan Wallace(who also runs The Ethical Spectacle)
What I'm talking about has nothing to do with the book. Say I buy a piece of land, and all the air over it, and then make a big pile of tires on it and burn it. Say my piece of land is right next to your house.
I say I have a right to burn my tires, you say the acrid smoke from the fire is going to give you cancer.
Or can I buy a big piece of land and set off a nuclear bomb on it? What if there's some wind and the fallout blows over to your land?
Or with an ocean: can I dump toxic waste in my part of the ocean, even if it's going to drift into yours?
Or how about fish? What if I put a lot of fish food in my part, so all the fish from everywhere else in the ocean swim off your part?
Many free-market advocates are fans of strict liability which would internalize those externalities. The process is not hard -- just remove the tragedy of the commons incentives through privitization.
There's a quote, I don't have it on hand, and I don't remember who said it, but he was imagining complete privatization of everything, and saying that if any planes flew over his house, he'd shoot them down with a SAM.
It just makes no sense. You'd have to privatize oceans, air, everything. And how do you privatize oceans or air, when what I do in my part of the air or ocean can easily get into your part? It's laughably stupid.
I think the interesting question with more countries coming online in greater ideas is going to be language.
Babelfish sucks, and I don't know of anything much better.
So people are going to need to be able to read pages in the language they were written. As I see it, this is either going to mean seeing the net split along language boundries(i.e. Russians will only go to Russian sites because that's all they can read, etc. - most sites, unlike Yahoo, can't have different versions for each language)....or, most people on the net switch to one language. Clearly, at this point, that language would be English. If China ever got a large % of their people online, they might be able to make a run for the top too.
But does anyone see any evidence of either of these two scenarios occuring? Have you or anyone you know learned English just to be able to use the internet?
in fall 1997, Apple released 233 and 266 MHz G3s. Since then, they've gone up by less than 300MHz. I think the first 300MHz G3s were released in March 1998.
I have no idea what Microsoft was trying to accomplish here. I mean, the story about this was already old, probably not many people visiting it, or downloading the illegal text. Then MS boldly takes the anti-freedom, pro-censorship position, which results in two things: 1) more people hating Microsoft 2) more people viewing and downloading the illegal text than ever would have if they'd just let it die
I mean, did Microsoft just feel it had to stand it's ground in the fight against freedom, even if it was defeating their supposed purpose of stopping the spread of this material?
Even if MS wins, it will be a very Pyrrhic Victory. What bozos.
And if a mere 15 years from now and using technology that's lapping on the safe side of fringedom
Current Year: 2000 Year of launch: 2010
Good Math.
I also think it's interesting that it'll pass Voyager in 2018. It's like starting a computing problem that will take 6 years to complete. If you start it today, it'll be done in 2006. If you start it 2 years from now, and computers are twice as fast, it'll be done in 2005.
Anyway, thank God NASA is doing something like this. People talk about privatizing the space industry and what not, but there are still things that only NASA can do.
Can't imagine the framers of the US constitution sitting around saying, hey we had better give them the chance to shoot us if we get a bit uppity.
I can:
"... God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.... And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." - Thomas Jefferson
My prediction, and no, I can't back it up, is that if this had happened a year ago, Slashdot would have stood it's ground. But now, I don't think it will.
Malda has always said that he has complete control over the content on Slashdot, but what about this? My guess is that Andover gets to make the decision, and that they aren't going to want to risk getting sued. So if Malda says keep them and Andover says delete them, I bet Andover wins.
When thinking about this, I remember Al Pacino in "The Insider": "Are you a businessman, or are you a newsman?" Slashdot/Andover is going to have to make a similar decision: money or principle. I'm not too hopeful.
Well I think the best thing to do would be for the artists to sell their albums online for maybe 80-$1.00. You could also get individual songs for maybe 10.(their contracts may forbid this - if so, they need to get new ones)
If an artist did that, I'd consider paying. As is, all the for-sale music online costs the same as a real CD. WTF, it costs them about $0.00 to distribute it over the net, so they should sell it cheap or not be surprised when no one pays.
I think it would perhaps be more constructive to try to get Slashdot to just link to the story with the partners.nytimes......(or www10.nytimes.com - what I use), rather than getting a couple Karma points every time a nytimes story is posted.
OTOH, if tons of people start using these links, they might close the loophole.
Slashdot Mirror
http://www. space.com/missionlaunches/missions/beagle_lander_0 00522.html
strange, isn't it?
I was thinking to myself: maybe this guy is right, maybe the digital revolution isn't so amazing.
Then I realized I was reading the NY Times, for free. I've never bought a copy of the NY Times, and yet, because of the Internet, I can read it.
And I realized as I typed this message that if there was a word I didn't know how to spell, I could find the correct spelling in seconds, on my computer spell checker.
And I realized that I had just finished reading detailed platform positions for Ralph Nader, which I'd probably never have seen if not for the Internet.
And I realized that when I get done typing this, and go do something else, my computer will start analyzing data collected at Arecibo Observatory, looking for signs of extra-terrestrial life.
And I realized that I'll be reading books like "Cryptonomicon" and "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance", which I'd never have read if they hadn't been recommended to me by people on the Internet.
And then, then I realized that this guy is wrong.
I pretty much agree with this. I download tons of songs with Napster, but before I had it I'd only bought one CD, ever. If I didn't have Napster, it's not like I'd have bought those songs.
It's like Photoshop. Adobe could claim that they've lost however many hundreds of millions of dollars from pirating of PS, but it's BS. 99% of the people who pirate it wouldn't ever have paid $700 for it. And since they're not stealing a physical object, Adobe isn't losing anything, really.
I mean, legally, it's still theft, but I actually don't think it's that bad from an ethical POV. I'd say as long as you know, for yourself, that you'd never have paid for the product, so that the company didn't lose any money, it isn't so bad.
I mean, really, why is theft wrong in the first place? If I steal your car, that's wrong because now you won't get to use it any more. If I steal a car from a dealer, that's wrong because now the dealer will lose money. But let's think hypothetically: what if you were the last person left alive on Earth. Would it be wrong to "steal" a car? Even if the car didn't belong to you, is it really wrong to take it?
An example more grounded in reality might be this: a few years back, I wanted desperately to get the game Civilization. I'd played it on a friend's computer, and loved it. However, when I went to CompUSA, they said they didn't have it. I went on the Internet, and eventually found out that Microprose wasn't producing any more copies, so I couldn't buy it anywhere(this was for Mac, maybe they still sold it for Windows). So I went on IRC, begged around, and someone sent me a copy. I played it for hours on end, thoroughly enjoying it. Yet, technically, that would be stealing. Was it ethically wrong? IMO, not at all.
I already created 575. I'm working on making an intelligent one now though.
Here's what you have to realize: that book was written back in 1996. Stopping the ISS program now might sound stupid, but back then they were much further from completion.
Remember, this program is going to cost a total of $60+ billion.
Now let me be clear: I totally support ISS, as long as ISS doesn't kill a Mars mission. I don't think having both in the budget is unreasonable. However, if I had to choose, I'd take the cheaper Mars mission any day.
Actually, the original mission would've cost somewhere around $450 billion. And when NASA analyzed and changed Zubrin's idea a little. they came up with a figure of $40-$50 billion. Still reasonable, IMO.
you also misspelled "money", a bit more embarassing error :)
If they can develop products fast enough, maybe they could have "Nike Trinity's" as a product tie-in by the time the sequel is out. It'd let you run around on walls just like in the movie(add your own slow motion though, and good luck getting off).
As Jackson says in his ruling, Microsoft still doesn't admit a damn thing. It's is just so maddening that they are still practicing business as usual with PDAs and what not. I imagine the judge finds it contemptuous.
But MS has made it very clear that anything short of a breakup will be useless, because they'll never change their behavior. They're the repeat offender who finally keeps getting in trouble, because no matter what the punishment, he just won't change. This time the key gets thrown away. Bye, bye MS, I hardly knew ye.
Allowing the police/school to do this would absolutely crush free speech on the net.
There is a very blurry line between what this kid did, and just simple criticism. Throwing someone in jail for criticizing government officials is downright scary. I think we should always err on the side of freedom in these cases.
Something like this is especially troubling for me, because I run a website(Free PHS) criticizing my own school administration, and at times I get downright vitriolic. And yet, I don't think anything I'm doing is illegal. If criticizing the government is not protected by the First Amendment, then what is?
Anyway, I think that there are a lot of people who don't understand the internet and are therefore much more scared of sites on the net than they would be of other forms of speech. It's important to ask yourself, in all these cases, whether you'd treat the student any differently if, instead of publishing on the net, he had said the same thing to some friends(or put it in an underground newspaper)
BTW, a good book on this topic is "Sex, Laws and Cyberspace", by Jonathan Wallace(who also runs The Ethical Spectacle)
What I'm talking about has nothing to do with the book. Say I buy a piece of land, and all the air over it, and then make a big pile of tires on it and burn it. Say my piece of land is right next to your house.
I say I have a right to burn my tires, you say the acrid smoke from the fire is going to give you cancer.
Or can I buy a big piece of land and set off a nuclear bomb on it? What if there's some wind and the fallout blows over to your land?
Or with an ocean: can I dump toxic waste in my part of the ocean, even if it's going to drift into yours?
Or how about fish? What if I put a lot of fish food in my part, so all the fish from everywhere else in the ocean swim off your part?
Many free-market advocates are fans of strict liability which would internalize those externalities. The process is not hard -- just remove the tragedy of the commons incentives through privitization.
There's a quote, I don't have it on hand, and I don't remember who said it, but he was imagining complete privatization of everything, and saying that if any planes flew over his house, he'd shoot them down with a SAM.
It just makes no sense. You'd have to privatize oceans, air, everything. And how do you privatize oceans or air, when what I do in my part of the air or ocean can easily get into your part? It's laughably stupid.
I think the interesting question with more countries coming online in greater ideas is going to be language.
Babelfish sucks, and I don't know of anything much better.
So people are going to need to be able to read pages in the language they were written. As I see it, this is either going to mean seeing the net split along language boundries(i.e. Russians will only go to Russian sites because that's all they can read, etc. - most sites, unlike Yahoo, can't have different versions for each language)....or, most people on the net switch to one language. Clearly, at this point, that language would be English. If China ever got a large % of their people online, they might be able to make a run for the top too.
But does anyone see any evidence of either of these two scenarios occuring? Have you or anyone you know learned English just to be able to use the internet?
lets see, that was what, like 6-7-6. whatever
Your Haiku's: not funny
Waste of moderator points
Negative one, they should be
Look! It's a bird, it's a plane, it's sarcasm flying right over your head!
in fall 1997, Apple released 233 and 266 MHz G3s. Since then, they've gone up by less than 300MHz. I think the first 300MHz G3s were released in March 1998.
I have no idea what Microsoft was trying to accomplish here. I mean, the story about this was already old, probably not many people visiting it, or downloading the illegal text. Then MS boldly takes the anti-freedom, pro-censorship position, which results in two things:
1) more people hating Microsoft
2) more people viewing and downloading the illegal text than ever would have if they'd just let it die
I mean, did Microsoft just feel it had to stand it's ground in the fight against freedom, even if it was defeating their supposed purpose of stopping the spread of this material?
Even if MS wins, it will be a very Pyrrhic Victory. What bozos.
And if a mere 15 years from now and using technology that's lapping on the safe side of fringedom
Current Year: 2000
Year of launch: 2010
Good Math.
I also think it's interesting that it'll pass Voyager in 2018. It's like starting a computing problem that will take 6 years to complete. If you start it today, it'll be done in 2006. If you start it 2 years from now, and computers are twice as fast, it'll be done in 2005.
Anyway, thank God NASA is doing something like this. People talk about privatizing the space industry and what not, but there are still things that only NASA can do.
Can't imagine the framers of the US constitution sitting around saying, hey we had better give them the chance to shoot us if we get a bit uppity.
... And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." - Thomas Jefferson
I can:
"... God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.
My prediction, and no, I can't back it up, is that if this had happened a year ago, Slashdot would have stood it's ground. But now, I don't think it will.
Malda has always said that he has complete control over the content on Slashdot, but what about this? My guess is that Andover gets to make the decision, and that they aren't going to want to risk getting sued. So if Malda says keep them and Andover says delete them, I bet Andover wins.
When thinking about this, I remember Al Pacino in "The Insider": "Are you a businessman, or are you a newsman?" Slashdot/Andover is going to have to make a similar decision: money or principle. I'm not too hopeful.
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/pictures/kleopatra/
Well I think the best thing to do would be for the artists to sell their albums online for maybe 80-$1.00. You could also get individual songs for maybe 10.(their contracts may forbid this - if so, they need to get new ones)
If an artist did that, I'd consider paying. As is, all the for-sale music online costs the same as a real CD. WTF, it costs them about $0.00 to distribute it over the net, so they should sell it cheap or not be surprised when no one pays.
I think it would perhaps be more constructive to try to get Slashdot to just link to the story with the partners.nytimes......(or www10.nytimes.com - what I use), rather than getting a couple Karma points every time a nytimes story is posted.
OTOH, if tons of people start using these links, they might close the loophole.
"First they came for the Jews,
But I did not speak out,
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists,
And I did not speak out,
Because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade-unionists,
And I did not speak out,
Because I was not a trade-unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics,
And I did not speak out,
Because I was not a Catholic.
Then they came for me,
And there was no one left to speak out for me."
- Pastor Niemller (Anti-Nazi Resistance Movement)
Or how about just:
"We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately."
- Ben Franklin