So if the economists argue a "free rider problem", what that suggests to me is that the solution is not anti-competitive agreements on fixed pricing, but rather we need "look and feel" shops that serve as a front to internet only ordering.
Picture it: you walk downtown or to the (disgusting) strip mall, and you enter a "shop" (in which you either pay a nominal fee [say $5 in 2007 dollars], or the store is subsidized by corporate sponsorship). The shop contains a dynamic and broad array of products waiting you to try out. Provided are free internet terminals, as well as pads of pen and paper. When you have "window shopped" you are encouraged to go home and order on the internet for the cheapest price.
Personally, I think a *lot* of consumers would go hog wild over an outlet like this: I'm somewhat surprised it hasn't already happened....
Do you trust the DOJ??? Seriously, it aggravates me because people's lives have been apart because of the legislation and accompanying anti-arab paranoia.
Or does it seem like a big waste of taxpayer money to drag out federal law enforcement officials and court time and god knows what other costs to basically arrest a rowdy user of a web site??? I mean jeez, I know people don't like spam, but seriously guys... There are not only bigger problems to worry about, but also if you really cared about spam that federal money would be best served fixing up sploits that allow for spam... Instead of ruining the lives of obviuosly smart 18 years olds!
Isn't there a terrorist or some other bigger target of anger these people should be taking care of?
I'm surprised the RIAA didn't think of this earlier. An effective anti pirating technique, rather than pay 10s of millions to lawyers... Develop a "background inaudible noise" algorithm on CDs/wavs that would throw off mp3 compression making music file trading just too bandwidth costly. Kind of like a watermark, but far more annoying.
I read this article in Sci Am a couple of weeks ago, and it got me thinking of an alternate experiment (which I should probably email the people who did the experiment in the first place to see if they thought of it).
In the game in the experiment, users are allowed to punish freeloaders by paying a tax. This system obviously sucks for a variety of reasons if implemented on a network of a large scale.
What I was wondering is what happens when you play the same game, except instead of punishing, you allow people to pay a tax to *reward* the people who are fronting up money? The results would probably vary wildly depending on how high the reward was...
The web is not the Internet. As much the online experience has become synonymous in grandma's and marketriod's vocabulary as "clicking through the net", the Web (as one must recall) is just one interface (and not a particularly versatile one at that) of the potential of the Internet. Back in the day, when the average user was expected to be familiar with a variety of applications residing on top of the network- telnet, FTP, usenet, IRC, ICB, MUDs, MUCKs, etc. etc.
The WWW quickly reached a hegemony in the interface mindshare of humanity because of it's ease of use, ease of creation, and simple to grasp architecture. However, due to the very nature of the web, we are quite limited in our capabilities of computing and indeed in some senses have taken several steps back as information and computational systems of all types are attempted to be stuffed into the browser paradigm.
From a computational paradigm, we can at best emulate a finite state automata through the web experience, and at worst, a static graph through server space. This is not to say that the web is a bad thing (quite the contrary). While much of the functionality of a standalone computer can be duplicated through the web, the standards engineering required to acheive the synergetic applications gained by distributed computing have yet to be acheived on such a scale as hypertext.
What are some of the distributed applictions? Agents to broker transactions, internet-wide computation, digital cash, massively parallel gaming environments, virtual reality, remote experience processing, ubiquitous computation and augmented environments... The list can go on and on. Some of the above have been attempted and are working quite well on a small scale. However, no matter how hard you attempt to push it, technologies such as browser plug-ins, Java, server side processing, etc. is just not going to catch on enough for any of the above to have an impact on society. Some of the emerging standards, such as XML- and broker systems such as.net and espeak are a step in the correct direction, but have been unfortunately weighed down in bureacracy and corporate greed to really qualify as engineering success stories.
However, it is only a matter of time before a more flexible series of standards and user interfaces catch on. If and when they do catch on, the planet will continue in exponential transformation.
The Web is the training wheels for humanity- it is an interface that allows the old generation to participate in the current technologies, while building infrastructure for the real change that is yet to come with the (more computer savvy) generation in the next 10-15 years. Remember, all the Internet is is a patchwork of computers that all run on IP! The intelligence is in the application, not the protocol! You can't make a judgement on the future of the network based on one application.
As far as arguements for broadband not taking hold, and.commerce peaking out- give it time. The *real* applications are not in things like server side streaming media for movies and crap (leave that to television)- it's in the ability for people to put up their own servers and have the bandwidth to do make their own sociological and technological experiments. Speaking as a developer, the applications have onlys started to be developed, because broadband has only been around cheaply in markets outside of the Bay Area for about a year at most.
Finally, the real commercial prospects of the Internet have not even begun to be touched- but will in the next year. Why? Because of the expiration of patents on Diffie-Hellman key exchange, and more recently, RSA public key algorithm. These incredibly useful algorithms allow for what is actually the real revolution waiting to happen- its not B2C, B2B or even P2P- its consumer to business and consumer to consumer. So far, online transactions have had chokepoints muddled down with credit card agencies, governments, and other nasty no-goodniks. When the common public realizes that they have the ability to securely conduct their own contracts, transactions, and money exchange- *especially* if that exchange is untaxable- then the web and the economy is going to be due to an overhaul at unprecedented levels since our experience will be more and more realtime and more and more "frictionless". The traditional.com model, again, is just training wheels for the "end-user's" of the economy (so to speak) to gain much more configurability.
And in the end, THAT is the promised revolution. It is not interactive television, or just another tool for the passively bored and yuppified consumer. Television is dead, and let it's control structure and mind manipulation be dead. The promised revolution is the ability for the individual to act on a global scale and to have control, self-governing, and creativity on a scale that has not yet been realized. The Internet is all about freedom- so much of humanity has lived without it for so long, we have difficulty imagining the applications when it comes along.
Don't forget the executive ordered COINTELPRO operations- responsible for systematic harrasement, and in some cases murder, of activists in 60's and 70s coordinated by the FBI and local police departments...
Then there was ARTICHOKE/MKULTRA in the 70's which kidnapped American citizens for the purpose of investigating mind control...
Of course, in the 80's the drug war sped full steam on, causing a situation with minority and poor communities that rivals the gulags: spiraling incarceration rates in the U.S. to some of the highest in the nation...
In the 90's, we have a re-emergence of activism, and subsequent demonization of citizen militias, involving takedown after takedown of any dissident in the U.S. We also have a demonization of the teenage hacker misfit, causing witchhunts on the nations own children, all spearheaded by the like of the FBI, MJTF, etc.
Remember that history usually isnt revealed or accepted until much after the incident. In America, everyone *thinks* they are free... When in reality, groups like the FBI ranks right up with the SS, KGB, etc.
Of course, we dont have people mysteriously disappearing in large quantities, yet.
At times, I'm glad the government is so incompetent that it slit's it own throat
In an age where most companies embrace chat/irc/etc. for communication for their employees, the spooks take it 10 steps back and go on a witch hunt for people using IRC!
As far as disabling "shadow", you know that it was
as simple as simple as killing the process that
ran automatically on their NT desktop computers:-). Yeah, real brilliant.
DARE has many fundamental problems with it which
are inextricably linked with the moronic attitude
of the drug war.
The first is that "drugs" is ill-defined and is
equated with the irrational schedule policies of
the DEA/FDA. Everything you ingest is a drug. Every lipid, amino acid, carbohydrate, tryptamine, amphetamine, etc. etc. all have effects on your body and your brain- whether it be LSD or L-Tyrosine. To promote a healthy attitude in the populace, one needs to show the reality of cause and effect of everything you ingest. It is hypocritical of schools to be having anti-marijuana campaigns through DARE when such things are funded by PepsiCola or Mcdonalds- just as if not more deleterious to one's body as some "hard" drugs. Don't beleive me? Check out the increasing rates of hypoglycemia and diabetes among the youth generation, and compare that with the rates of, say, methamphetamine addiction (you'll find the former is much higher). The rational approach is a holistic approach- advocating the ability to regain bio and mental homeostasis even after extreme conditions (stress, drugs, lack of exercise)- which leaves the decision in the hands of well-informed youth, and not in horribly misinformed disempowered generation.
That said, there are positive effects to many illicit substances- enhancements in creativity, insight in self, stress relief, etc. Just like there are positive effects to eating a fatty and heavy meal, or taking medication to treat a disease. Ideally, one can avoid doing all of the above. Practically, its not going to happen- and teaching strategies for one to effectively using a state of homeostasis (sobriety) to get through life is critical, and is severly lacking in our bass-ackwards society.
The second problem is not only is a bad philosophy being taught, but misinformation is freewheelingly handed out, which not only destroys the credibility of the program, but also endangers the lives of many youth who may not have access to reliable information when drugs come their way. Yes, methamphetamine and heroin are not good- Ive had many a friends have their lives disrupted by it. On the same token, marijuana and and LSD dont kill- Ive taken them and am probably much more of a productive member of society than most, regardless. The harm prevention comes down to situations like: "When I am in a club scene, how much water should I drink, and what activity level should I have to prevent injury?" or "What dosages can cocaine have addictive effects?". Thanks to not having full factual disclosure, DARE has resulted not in the decline of drugs, but rather, the irresponsible use of drugs. In fact, I would go so far to say that the advent of the internet and sites like hyperreal, erowid and groups like rec.drugs have saved tens of thousands of lives in drug situations thanks to factual accounts.
The third problem, is by introducing police (and other legal strongarm elements in to the situation), DARE has created an antagonistic relationship with legal system and the youth right off. Youth immediately become part of a criminal class- a class which is suspect of being "bad" under any circumstances. At best, As everyone in the 10-25 age group knows, this mentality has blossomed into the "crucify the different" mentality with all the anti-geek, anti-punk, etc. crusades occuring after Columbine regardless of the productivity or general goodness of the kids involved (its a total lack of philosophy, thinking, and humanity on the part of the administrations). At worst, kids who may have bad lives and chemical dependency problems are physically abused, tortured, and shipped off to the gulag, where they descend further and further into complete alienation from the positive aspects of society. The police involvement in the DARE program in it's current use makes police into nothing more than at best a gestapo, and at worst into just another really violent gang of thugs, given license to brutality by society. What happened to "officer friendly"? If you are going to have legeal intervention, it should be for the positive, and not by blindly treating all kids who use drugs, or happen to associate with a particular group as cockroaches- needing to be wiped out from society.
All of what I say is coming from growing up in the American Public School system in the time of the drug war, and having been in all sorts of different social roles (as math/computer whiz kid, a disgruntled political student, an illicit substance user, teacher's pet, etc. etc.). My suggestion for DARE managers, and people who want to stop seeing substance abuse is to Stop the Madness- stop buying the bullshit about crime and drugs. Stop thinking of drugs as an evil force. Stop thinking of black and white. Realize that substance ingestment is a lifestyle and health issue- a holistic issue that cannot and should not be treated as something that is an ethical or moral issue, any more than the decision to be a couch potato or having promiscous sex. It is an issue that cannot be improved without realizing that drug use and drug abuse is inevitable within a population, and what needs to be aimed for is harm reduction through rational, factual information!
Of course, I'm probably typing all of this for naught, since the blindness of the legislation and the brutality of the uneducated folks working in the educationa and police systems right now, refuse to even recognize the existence of the content of what I am saying, much less consider a different approach.
..."Here Kids- here's a free voucher for a Big Mac and Coke since you've sat here listening to us preach for the past hour."... Yeah, great policy (*sarcasm intended*)
I'm *very* happy with the status of the North American and European ICANN elections. Get the lawyers off the Net, and the let the Normals, Regulatory Factions, and Mediocritins drown in their filth of their own Conspiracy-backed GreyFaced Boring Decay and thier illusions of sensibility and order.
This is the Internet, and it was built on certain values- values of Freedom, Chaos, Crassness, and Anarchy- and there is no better (european) rep for these values than someone from the CCC!:-)
Eris does not have a different connotation in Europe. This guy is speaking of the same discordian you and I both know and love. Check out the Chaos Computer Club's faq.
The amendment you proposed, IMHO is an excellent idea, and is something that the U.S. government is definately lacking in general.
Our current society is ruled by a lot of implicit and unstated contracts, such as the Uniform Commercial Code. This would not only prevent misuse of licenses and contracts by corporations, but by the government itself.
My Defcon notes: Defcon 8 was lamer and cooler than previous years. Of course, a lame Defcon is still a kick ass event to goto, so shame on the list members that missed out because of some prissy excuse like "my job wouldnt give me time off". Pshaw.
High points: - noise's nervously delivered speech on anon remailers turned out to be pretty informative, and spurred a whole bunch of people to at least think about setting up their own remailers (and enlightened people on topics such as MixMaster). - An incredibly well put together lecture on buffer overflows, which IMHO was useful for just about everyone at the 'Con, even people who look for such things, just because of his preparedness. -... which was topped off by gandhi's lecture aftwards (yay to 505!), in which he actually demonstrates on his solaris laptop dropping into arootshell after coding up a relatively simple script to overflow a random unix utility that the audience picked. Can we say "no system is safe"? - Copious amounts of mind-alterers -... Which was spent on having a blast on the Las Vegas strip - More diverse crowd! It looks like female and minority hackers are finally starting to pop up. - Best content yet for defcon!
Low Points: - Diversity in the wrong way. This year, Defcon should have been called "Invasion of the SuitKiddies". The suitkiddiez make script kiddiez look like Gods. I'm guessing now that the majority of the jockboyz were left over from BlackHat (which their companies sent them too). Worse thanthe Feds, they were like the annoying greasy teenagers you see, but fit into society enough that people have never told them to fuck off. As many on the list can attest to, not only were these people annoying in that they would insult you to your face, in that unknowing pink way that they dont even realize, but they also get really drunk and start accosting and really badly picking up on the women hackers that were with me in that way that frat boys do. On top of that, they weren't really friendly at all, and made the 'con really boring to goto, as the flooded all the cool people out of the hotel. On top of that, they have *bad* fashion sense- the goth/punk/raver/hippie/geek/freak/anything goes show of Defcon got replaced with lots of people in Polo Shirts and Corporate logos. Ugh. Did I mention that they knew far less and were stupider than script kiddiez?
I suppose I should qualify this by saying that a lot of them were admin's from their workplace, and Defcon/Blackhat is probably the place to go if you are going to go learn about security, but can't they suck less? - The con was way overcrowded, almost impossible to get into what you wanted to go to see due to the suit kiddiez. - A lot of the Vendors seemed to have dropped out this year. Only a couple of booths, mostly from Loompanics, and a couple of major t-shirt vendors. Nothing particuarly interesting. - Vegas heat was way high this year... - My biggest beef: Spirit of togetherness seemed to be replaced with a spirit of antagonism- no one was talking to anyone outside of their cliques this year, with the exception of desperate jock lamers who were neither intelligent, fun, or amusing.
All in all, this year's Con was waaaay mellower than the previous ones I have attended. But also way more informative. Anybody else have any similar experiences.
Being a data haven makes your customer list target #1 for intelligence agencies all throughout the world. Do you have any method of assuring you have not been infiltrated by said agencies? Further, do you have an infrastructure (PKI or otherwise) which will allow anonyminity of your clients?
The piracy question is an interesting issue. But I still think its important for organizations like this to exist- it makes it all the easier for the rest of us.
The mafia in terms of a Sicilian crime family may no longer be so influential in the underworld- rather than being dismantled, they have for the most part merged made themselves "legitmate" (real estate, police, etc.) and now simply use the law as a method of harrsement. This also applies to the Triad, CIA, etc.
Its class warfare, just as its always been dude. Its just not so obvious to the masses since theyve mostly been brainwashed.
Have you tried to change the laws recently? As an activist, I can assure you, there are forces at work that most definately not working in your interest, and are making sure it stays that way.
Wake up dude. The laws dont work, and for the most part, exist for the personal gain of the people who buy the laws (Read: Mafia, Multinational Corps, etc.). Further, there is no method (at least in the States) to change the laws that deter individualism, safety, and free enterprise. If this is not painfully obvious to you buy now, Im afraid you are probably being swindled.
I for one, am glad to see at least someone is trying to do something about this. It's about time the market started working for the good of the public and not the good of corrupt thieves such as the MPAA and Christian Coalition.
I view computing as a tool and not an end in itself. Hence, my programming goals are more or less determined by what my broader implementation goals are:
For future employability: Learn more about embedded systems with Java, Object Oriented Databases, etc.
For the collapse of world governments: PKI and effective integration with XML and B2B procedures like EDI
For large research projects like protein folding and nanoassembly: Distributed computing security and the ability to parallelize problems
For getting dirty work done that no one else wants to do: garbage collection routines, packet routing, etc.
For planetary conciousness elevation: Continue hacking with Perl until we see the Net::Telepathy and ET::Teleport modules on CPAN.
Metallica has accused Napster of commodification of art to the detriment of the artists. The reality of the situation is that most artists in the music industry following record labels usually wind up broke or in debt- royalties with major record labels work out to at much less than $1 per album sold (compared to a $14 profit for the publisher). Ownership of the songs is nearly almost always exclusively licensed to the publisher. Effectively, through current U.S. IP law, both the artist AND fan base will always get screwed if she wants to be distributed: fans cannot listen to the music without paying up the nose, and the artist never sees any of that money.
Even though Metallica may be profiting off of the current situation, 99% of the other bands are not. Indeed, distribution of MP3's will only bolster sales of the bands that are not the top.1% of the pop-chart barrell. As more and more technology comes out, and more and more anti-independent artist laws (ala, the DMCA, WIPO, etc.), the recording industry will have a very scary monopolistic future, where the consumer will pay per song listening licenses, of which nearly all profits will go to the publisher- who will in turn control content and artistic control over the music. The trend in regulation may eventually turn out like the movie industry- artists are effectively not allowed to create and profit off of their work without having the hands of the publisher and government involved "protecting" the rights of the artist.
My question for Metallica is, while your suit against Napster may be good for your profits in the short term- how can you justify the long term deleterious effects of the such a lawsuit on not only the indie artist scene, but to bands such as yourself, trying to recoup any profits that have been previously taken away by the middlemen (publishers)?
I hate to say it, Metallica, but as far as I can see, you are slitting your own throats, and taking everyone else down with you.
Be very afraid folks... Time Warner/Ted Turner/AOL not only owns the outlets listed in the article, but also well over half of all television, newspaper, magazine, movie outlets, and a huge chunk of the backbones on the net. This is the mouthpiece of the "Conspiracy", pumping out distorted information in order to push the 90% of the dupes in the country to give all fork over all their money to various nasty causes... AOL is NOT your, or anyone else's friend!
India is probably the leader in not only the less developed world, but also most of Asia for getting net technology out on the streets- they have some problems like a severely overregulated telecom industry however, bascially crippling the infrastructure (they keep saying this will change in a few years, but I have not seen any real progress).
Socially speaking, the uneducated and to a large extent, the older generation in any country will take a very long time to derive the full benefits or realize the full impacts of (liberating) technology- this is as true in the U.S. where the dribbling milksop masses are still thinking of the net as a replacement for the Home Shopping Network. The same holds true for much of India- the majority of the middle and upper class think of computers and the internet as something for their young.
On the other token, where it has caught on, it has caught on like wildfire- Bangalore (India's equivalent of Silicon Valley) is a good example of it. Bangalore used to be a smallish dusty town in South India. It has now expanded into an economic tiger, with streets lined with Indian intelligentsia, and internet cafes and hardware shops crammed in nooks and crannies in slum-ridden alleys in a expanding radius around M.G. road (Bangalore's equivalent of El Camino Real, or the Chelsea district in Silicon Alley). It is now one of India's more progessive cities in terms of attitudes towards women, religion, inebriants, etc. On the same token, the increase in wealth has caused questionable materialism to popup- the only American style malls in India (last I visited).
On a large scale, the net effect in the current economic situation is kind of a hyper-globalization: You can see this by the amount of American influence in Bangalore and the Indian influence in say, Santa Clara or Cupertino in Silicon Valley.
This globalization is kind of a new Cambrian explosion of memes that are not geographically centralized- its unlike colonialism or imperialism in which there is a controlling authority and a predominant meme, but rather, many similar attitudes on what was previously on the "fringe" of a culture (in terms of sexuality, religion, politics) now pop up in disparate regions. In other words: A San Francisco geek probably has a lot more in common with an Calcutta geek than a San Francisco geek has in common with a Kansas City non-geek. Whether this is good or bad- whether our global diversity level is declining or whether there is an explosion in individual choice- has yet to be seen IMHO. One thing I can say for sure is that the phenomena of people who are wired breaking political, cultural, and economic boundaries is not an American phenomena (all the more reason we need to fight tooth an nail to keep expanding our freedoms).
Economically, India is experiencing an upsurge due o the expansion of technology in its borders. This is leading towards a burgeoning middle class, and a general hope for the next generation.
All in all, the impact of tech on India is straight out of a William Gibson novel- its a country in which 5000 years of history is not going to go away, but instead is marrying the the modern world, and producing something truly weird. It is definately a trip hanging out in a net cafe in New Delhi, when you see several cows wandering by the window, alongside the beggars, sanyasis, businessmen, all choking in the same haze caused by the coal driven smokestack power plants in the center of the city.
The parental units in India are enthusiastic for their children- they see the Internet as a way for their children to start getting out of poverty. The government is taking the same attitude. This is probably unusual for most third world countries at large, since India has always had a high degree of respect and tolerance for diversity and complexity (things that the internet bring along with it), and generally has an anarchistic attitude on life.
I am definately interested in hearing what other people have observed so far in this process- in particular with religion: How are strict Hindhu, Christians, and Muslims handling the internet and its open views on the world? This question applies particularly to more closed off countries like Pakistan and Myannamar.
I used to work at a legal software company, and my main clientele were lawyers of all sorts- Divorce, Intellectual Property, Criminal, etc. I also used to work with them very closely in issues of their network and their technologies- many times with Partners (the core lawyers in a firm) themselves if it was a small firm.
Dont kid yourself- lawyers, all in all, tend to be not only the scum of the earth, but also some of the most unintelligent (in the grand scope of things) life forms on earth. This is not true for all, granted, but for the most part, the only talent that it takes to be a lawyer is having a mouth, especially trial lawyers. I am not exaggerating this.
Apply Dilbert's Rule, and you will realize that the most incompetent and corrupt lawyers will be promoted to being judges. If you look at actual cases, and the amount of corruption involved by favoritsm, bribes, etc., the U.S. legal system is only slightly better than a third world country (the only difference is that the bribes are higher in price). Anyone who has dealt with law in situations involving traffic, drugs, taxation etc. extensively, know this quite well. Im sure there is no difference for IP/cracking cases.
Now take the most stupid of the stupid, and most corrupt of the corrupt, and you make them the lawmakers. So what you have is a circus dictated not by logic or justice, but by rule of idiocy. If you are lucky, you are able to toss enough money into the court to sway it into your favor. On top of that, US law itself is a self-contradictory system.
Oh, and forget about all that stuff you see on TV or movies about the ability to argue based on technicalities or minor points- that only works if you have the money to push it through.
Do 95% of the lawyers understand anything about technology, much less the way it can even possibly impact the society? Hell no. I guarantee it. The judges know even less, the lawmakers know even less.
Anyone remember the days of BBS'ing? Remember how the provider was held accountable for all discussions and material on the board, even private email? Ludicrous! Insane to anyone who knew the model of BBSs. The same mentality still holds today.
Again, Im not saying that ALL lawyers are like this. I am pointing out that this is how the system is run. An attorney will not try to argue whether your invention violates IP law because of various technical differences, or whether telnetting to port 25 is not really a violation of security. Rather, they will try to push paper in the most advantageous way possible- go for plea bargaining, file the appropriate motions to persuade the judge out of annoyance of legal hangups.
The contradictions in US law and the different levels of precedence lead to basically the following outcomes:
Lawmakers- bought off by the highest bidder, passing laws in favor of the highest bidder.
Judges- are a lot like cops in that they follow one of three paths usually: 1) Arbitrate the court with the least amount of work on their part (the more they have to think or confront issues or question the system, the worse it is). 2) Judge based on the amount of money or favors the party has. This is either direct, by means of bribes, or by the amount of money a party can throw at the system, to do things which will make the judges look bad (mistrial/appeals/etc.) 3) The judge will rule on what they think is right. Judges are seriously out of touch with any semblance of reality, BTW. 4) Whatever will get them votes in the next election. You all know what that means...
Attorneys- unless they are a public defender, they will of course be motivated by money- its their business! This is not a bad thing, but as a result, attorneys will try to hack the system in a way that is most likely to be beneficial for you and you only, and will almost never ever look at the larger impacts a case like yours can make.
Again, anyone who has ever been to court on issues involving technology, or for that matter, anything beyond divorce law will understand this very clearly. The system is screwed, and the people in it are even more screwed.
So what does this mean for the us techies?
It means that time after time, especially after the liberal generation of judges from the sixties retires [and is replaced by moronic fratboy types] the US judicial system will favor: - Monitoring over privacy: Since they can't ban the technology thats out of control (that would be cutting into profits), they'll simply configure the legal system in such a way that transactions are monitored (usually, "for the good of the children"). - Intellectual Property in favor of the parties that have more money. The only reason Microsoft is in court is because Sun and AOL are equally powerful players. - Draconian "punitive" measure for anyone who gets even slightly caught up in these matters. - Maximal amount of trade restrictions: Dont be surprised to have filters set up between say South Asia and the US, in the interest of protectionism. - regulation of ideas, starting from the younger generation (we are already seeing this with the entire post-columbine witchhunts).
Is all of the short-sighted? Are the lawyers slitting their own throats, and all of their children's throats? Cutting into their own future profits? You betcha! I said they were stupid, not rational, remember?
Its ironic how many well-meaning people place their trust in the judicial system, and how they think the laws will help the marginalized, when in reality, it only strains the marginalization.
Its come back down to the rules of the street again, thanks to the idiocy in the legal system: a) Do what thou wilt b) Dont get caught.
1) Richard Feynmann- Kind of an All-American Hacker... Pioneered Quantum ElectroDynamics, was one the first to outline quantum computing (and pointed out that reversible computation had no thermodynamic effects), hence having large impacts on not only Quantum Computing, but Nanotech, etc. This work alone will change the way we think of Reality. He was also one of the first computer hackers in the sense we think of them today.
2) Alan Turing- You gotta admit, it takes a pretty bizarre mind to come up with shit like a UTM when there were no computers around.
3) Marie Curie- not only opened up the world to radioactivity (and hence Quantum Mechanics, etc.), but had to overcome being female in very backwards time.
4) Nikola Tesla- On of the fathers of the modern world of electric power. His so called "wacko" experiments are currently leading the way in research of ionospheric energy and information transfer, and effects of weather control (can anyone say "HAARP"?)
5) Robert Anton Wilson- In my view, his philosophical writings (which are really a coalesence of many marginalized voices) has had a huge impact on the "underground" and any type of out-of-the-box thinking that is driving the latter half of the 20th century
6) Ivan Stang- founder of the Church of Subgenius. Praise "Bob"! 'nuff said.
7) Gregor Mendel - formalized breeding patterns of recessive/dominant genes. Although, from what I understand he massively fudged his numbers:-)
8) Robert Oppenheimer- Father of the A-Bomb, radical populist who was eventually blacklisted. Kind of a sucky position to be in...
9) Adam Smith- for better or worse, outlined all modern economic thought in "The Wealth of Nations"...
10) Richard Stallman - This choice may seem rather idolistic, but his work and ideas form the fundamental undercurrents of current Geek thought.
Slashdot Mirror
So if the economists argue a "free rider problem", what that suggests to me is that the solution is not anti-competitive agreements on fixed pricing, but rather we need "look and feel" shops that serve as a front to internet only ordering.
Picture it: you walk downtown or to the (disgusting) strip mall, and you enter a "shop" (in which you either pay a nominal fee [say $5 in 2007 dollars], or the store is subsidized by corporate sponsorship). The shop contains a dynamic and broad array of products waiting you to try out. Provided are free internet terminals, as well as pads of pen and paper. When you have "window shopped" you are encouraged to go home and order on the internet for the cheapest price.
Personally, I think a *lot* of consumers would go hog wild over an outlet like this: I'm somewhat surprised it hasn't already happened....
What about "the Abu Ghairab of Brooklyn?"
c .html m ain564189.shtml
- day-feb04.htm
http://nydailynews.com/front/story/282716p-242172
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/21/attack/
What about the mass roundups of immigrants that occured in 2002?
http://www.notinourname.net/detentions/solidarity
These are just to name a few...
Do you trust the DOJ??? Seriously, it aggravates me because people's lives have been apart because of the legislation and accompanying anti-arab paranoia.
There *is* however journalistic shield in the California constitution where this trial is being held:
d oc id=970761780+0+0+0&waisaction=retrieve
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?wais
Section 2b
Or does it seem like a big waste of taxpayer money to drag out federal law enforcement officials and court time and god knows what other costs to basically arrest a rowdy user of a web site??? I mean jeez, I know people don't like spam, but seriously guys... There are not only bigger problems to worry about, but also if you really cared about spam that federal money would be best served fixing up sploits that allow for spam... Instead of ruining the lives of obviuosly smart 18 years olds!
Isn't there a terrorist or some other bigger target of anger these people should be taking care of?
I'm surprised the RIAA didn't think of this earlier. An effective anti pirating technique, rather than pay 10s of millions to lawyers... Develop a "background inaudible noise" algorithm on CDs/wavs that would throw off mp3 compression making music file trading just too bandwidth costly. Kind of like a watermark, but far more annoying.
I read this article in Sci Am a couple of weeks ago, and it got me thinking of an alternate experiment (which I should probably email the people who did the experiment in the first place to see if they thought of it).
In the game in the experiment, users are allowed to punish freeloaders by paying a tax. This system obviously sucks for a variety of reasons if implemented on a network of a large scale.
What I was wondering is what happens when you play the same game, except instead of punishing, you allow people to pay a tax to *reward* the people who are fronting up money? The results would probably vary wildly depending on how high the reward was...
The web is not the Internet. As much the online experience has become synonymous in grandma's and marketriod's vocabulary as "clicking through the net", the Web (as one must recall) is just one interface (and not a particularly versatile one at that) of the potential of the Internet. Back in the day, when the average user was expected to be familiar with a variety of applications residing on top of the network- telnet, FTP, usenet, IRC, ICB, MUDs, MUCKs, etc. etc.
.net and espeak are a step in the correct direction, but have been unfortunately weighed down in bureacracy and corporate greed to really qualify as engineering success stories.
.commerce peaking out- give it time. The *real* applications are not in things like server side streaming media for movies and crap (leave that to television)- it's in the ability for people to put up their own servers and have the bandwidth to do make their own sociological and technological experiments. Speaking as a developer, the applications have onlys started to be developed, because broadband has only been around cheaply in markets outside of the Bay Area for about a year at most.
.com model, again, is just training wheels for the "end-user's" of the economy (so to speak) to gain much more configurability.
The WWW quickly reached a hegemony in the interface mindshare of humanity because of it's ease of use, ease of creation, and simple to grasp architecture. However, due to the very nature of the web, we are quite limited in our capabilities of computing and indeed in some senses have taken several steps back as information and computational systems of all types are attempted to be stuffed into the browser paradigm.
From a computational paradigm, we can at best emulate a finite state automata through the web experience, and at worst, a static graph through server space. This is not to say that the web is a bad thing (quite the contrary). While much of the functionality of a standalone computer can be duplicated through the web, the standards engineering required to acheive the synergetic applications gained by distributed computing have yet to be acheived on such a scale as hypertext.
What are some of the distributed applictions? Agents to broker transactions, internet-wide computation, digital cash, massively parallel gaming environments, virtual reality, remote experience processing, ubiquitous computation and augmented environments... The list can go on and on. Some of the above have been attempted and are working quite well on a small scale. However, no matter how hard you attempt to push it, technologies such as browser plug-ins, Java, server side processing, etc. is just not going to catch on enough for any of the above to have an impact on society. Some of the emerging standards, such as XML- and broker systems such as
However, it is only a matter of time before a more flexible series of standards and user interfaces catch on. If and when they do catch on, the planet will continue in exponential transformation.
The Web is the training wheels for humanity- it is an interface that allows the old generation to participate in the current technologies, while building infrastructure for the real change that is yet to come with the (more computer savvy) generation in the next 10-15 years. Remember, all the Internet is is a patchwork of computers that all run on IP! The intelligence is in the application, not the protocol! You can't make a judgement on the future of the network based on one application.
As far as arguements for broadband not taking hold, and
Finally, the real commercial prospects of the Internet have not even begun to be touched- but will in the next year. Why? Because of the expiration of patents on Diffie-Hellman key exchange, and more recently, RSA public key algorithm. These incredibly useful algorithms allow for what is actually the real revolution waiting to happen- its not B2C, B2B or even P2P- its consumer to business and consumer to consumer. So far, online transactions have had chokepoints muddled down with credit card agencies, governments, and other nasty no-goodniks. When the common public realizes that they have the ability to securely conduct their own contracts, transactions, and money exchange- *especially* if that exchange is untaxable- then the web and the economy is going to be due to an overhaul at unprecedented levels since our experience will be more and more realtime and more and more "frictionless". The traditional
And in the end, THAT is the promised revolution. It is not interactive television, or just another tool for the passively bored and yuppified consumer. Television is dead, and let it's control structure and mind manipulation be dead. The promised revolution is the ability for the individual to act on a global scale and to have control, self-governing, and creativity on a scale that has not yet been realized. The Internet is all about freedom- so much of humanity has lived without it for so long, we have difficulty imagining the applications when it comes along.
Don't forget the executive ordered COINTELPRO operations- responsible for systematic harrasement, and in some cases murder, of activists in 60's and 70s coordinated by the FBI and local police departments...
Then there was ARTICHOKE/MKULTRA in the 70's which kidnapped American citizens for the purpose of investigating mind control...
Of course, in the 80's the drug war sped full steam on, causing a situation with minority and poor communities that rivals the gulags: spiraling incarceration rates in the U.S. to some of the highest in the nation...
In the 90's, we have a re-emergence of activism, and subsequent demonization of citizen militias, involving takedown after takedown of any dissident in the U.S. We also have a demonization of the teenage hacker misfit, causing witchhunts on the nations own children, all spearheaded by the like of the FBI, MJTF, etc.
Remember that history usually isnt revealed or accepted until much after the incident. In America, everyone *thinks* they are free... When in reality, groups like the FBI ranks right up with the SS, KGB, etc.
Of course, we dont have people mysteriously disappearing in large quantities, yet.
At times, I'm glad the government is so incompetent that it slit's it own throat
:-). Yeah, real brilliant.
In an age where most companies embrace chat/irc/etc. for communication for their employees, the spooks take it 10 steps back and go on a witch hunt for people using IRC!
As far as disabling "shadow", you know that it was
as simple as simple as killing the process that
ran automatically on their NT desktop computers
DARE has many fundamental problems with it which are inextricably linked with the moronic attitude of the drug war.
..."Here Kids- here's a free voucher for a Big Mac and Coke since you've sat here listening to us preach for the past hour."... Yeah, great policy (*sarcasm intended*)
The first is that "drugs" is ill-defined and is equated with the irrational schedule policies of the DEA/FDA. Everything you ingest is a drug. Every lipid, amino acid, carbohydrate, tryptamine, amphetamine, etc. etc. all have effects on your body and your brain- whether it be LSD or L-Tyrosine. To promote a healthy attitude in the populace, one needs to show the reality of cause and effect of everything you ingest. It is hypocritical of schools to be having anti-marijuana campaigns through DARE when such things are funded by PepsiCola or Mcdonalds- just as if not more deleterious to one's body as some "hard" drugs. Don't beleive me? Check out the increasing rates of hypoglycemia and diabetes among the youth generation, and compare that with the rates of, say, methamphetamine addiction (you'll find the former is much higher). The rational approach is a holistic approach- advocating the ability to regain bio and mental homeostasis even after extreme conditions (stress, drugs, lack of exercise)- which leaves the decision in the hands of well-informed youth, and not in horribly misinformed disempowered generation.
That said, there are positive effects to many illicit substances- enhancements in creativity, insight in self, stress relief, etc. Just like there are positive effects to eating a fatty and heavy meal, or taking medication to treat a disease. Ideally, one can avoid doing all of the above. Practically, its not going to happen- and teaching strategies for one to effectively using a state of homeostasis (sobriety) to get through life is critical, and is severly lacking in our bass-ackwards society.
The second problem is not only is a bad philosophy being taught, but misinformation is freewheelingly handed out, which not only destroys the credibility of the program, but also endangers the lives of many youth who may not have access to reliable information when drugs come their way. Yes, methamphetamine and heroin are not good- Ive had many a friends have their lives disrupted by it. On the same token, marijuana and and LSD dont kill- Ive taken them and am probably much more of a productive member of society than most, regardless. The harm prevention comes down to situations like: "When I am in a club scene, how much water should I drink, and what activity level should I have to prevent injury?" or "What dosages can cocaine have addictive effects?". Thanks to not having full factual disclosure, DARE has resulted not in the decline of drugs, but rather, the irresponsible use of drugs. In fact, I would go so far to say that the advent of the internet and sites like hyperreal, erowid and groups like rec.drugs have saved tens of thousands of lives in drug situations thanks to factual accounts.
The third problem, is by introducing police (and other legal strongarm elements in to the situation), DARE has created an antagonistic relationship with legal system and the youth right off. Youth immediately become part of a criminal class- a class which is suspect of being "bad" under any circumstances. At best, As everyone in the 10-25 age group knows, this mentality has blossomed into the "crucify the different" mentality with all the anti-geek, anti-punk, etc. crusades occuring after Columbine regardless of the productivity or general goodness of the kids involved (its a total lack of philosophy, thinking, and humanity on the part of the administrations). At worst, kids who may have bad lives and chemical dependency problems are physically abused, tortured, and shipped off to the gulag, where they descend further and further into complete alienation from the positive aspects of society. The police involvement in the DARE program in it's current use makes police into nothing more than at best a gestapo, and at worst into just another really violent gang of thugs, given license to brutality by society. What happened to "officer friendly"? If you are going to have legeal intervention, it should be for the positive, and not by blindly treating all kids who use drugs, or happen to associate with a particular group as cockroaches- needing to be wiped out from society.
All of what I say is coming from growing up in the American Public School system in the time of the drug war, and having been in all sorts of different social roles (as math/computer whiz kid, a disgruntled political student, an illicit substance user, teacher's pet, etc. etc.). My suggestion for DARE managers, and people who want to stop seeing substance abuse is to Stop the Madness- stop buying the bullshit about crime and drugs. Stop thinking of drugs as an evil force. Stop thinking of black and white. Realize that substance ingestment is a lifestyle and health issue- a holistic issue that cannot and should not be treated as something that is an ethical or moral issue, any more than the decision to be a couch potato or having promiscous sex. It is an issue that cannot be improved without realizing that drug use and drug abuse is inevitable within a population, and what needs to be aimed for is harm reduction through rational, factual information!
Of course, I'm probably typing all of this for naught, since the blindness of the legislation and the brutality of the uneducated folks working in the educationa and police systems right now, refuse to even recognize the existence of the content of what I am saying, much less consider a different approach.
Hail Eris and Pass the Ammo!
:-)
I'm *very* happy with the status of the North American and European ICANN elections. Get the lawyers off the Net, and the let the Normals, Regulatory Factions, and Mediocritins drown in their filth of their own Conspiracy-backed GreyFaced Boring Decay and thier illusions of sensibility and order.
This is the Internet, and it was built on certain values- values of Freedom, Chaos, Crassness, and Anarchy- and there is no better (european) rep for these values than someone from the CCC!
Gobble Gobble!
Eris does not have a different connotation in Europe. This guy is speaking of the same discordian you and I both know and love. Check out the Chaos Computer Club's faq.
Our current society is ruled by a lot of implicit and unstated contracts, such as the Uniform Commercial Code. This would not only prevent misuse of licenses and contracts by corporations, but by the government itself.
Defcon 8 was lamer and cooler than previous years. Of course, a lame Defcon is still a kick ass event to goto, so shame on the list members that missed out because of some prissy excuse like "my job wouldnt give me time off". Pshaw.
High points: - noise's nervously delivered speech on anon remailers turned out to be pretty informative, and spurred a whole bunch of people to at least think about setting up their own remailers (and enlightened people on topics such as MixMaster). ... which was topped off by gandhi's lecture aftwards (yay to 505!), in which he actually demonstrates on his solaris laptop dropping into arootshell after coding up a relatively simple script to overflow a random unix utility that the audience picked. Can we say "no system is safe"? ... Which was spent on having a blast on the Las Vegas strip - More diverse crowd! It looks like female and minority hackers are finally starting to pop up.
- An incredibly well put together lecture on buffer overflows, which IMHO was useful for just about everyone at the 'Con, even people who look for such things, just because of his preparedness.
-
- Copious amounts of mind-alterers
-
- Best content yet for defcon!
Low Points:
- Diversity in the wrong way. This year, Defcon should have been called "Invasion of the SuitKiddies". The suitkiddiez make script kiddiez look like Gods. I'm guessing now that the majority of the jockboyz were left over from BlackHat (which their companies sent them too). Worse thanthe Feds, they were like the annoying greasy teenagers you see, but fit into society enough that people have never told them to fuck off. As many on the list can attest to, not only were these people annoying in that they would insult you to your face, in that unknowing pink way that they dont even realize, but they also get really drunk and start accosting and really badly picking up on the women hackers that were with me in that way that frat boys do. On top of that, they weren't really friendly at all, and made the 'con really boring to goto, as the flooded all the cool people out of the hotel. On top of that, they have *bad* fashion sense- the goth/punk/raver/hippie/geek/freak/anything goes show of Defcon got replaced with lots of people in Polo Shirts and Corporate logos. Ugh. Did I mention that they knew far less and were stupider than script kiddiez?
I suppose I should qualify this by saying that a lot of them were admin's from their workplace, and Defcon/Blackhat is probably the place to go if you are going to go learn about security, but can't they suck less?
- The con was way overcrowded, almost impossible to get into what you wanted to go to see due to the suit kiddiez.
- A lot of the Vendors seemed to have dropped out this year. Only a couple of booths, mostly from Loompanics, and a couple of major t-shirt vendors. Nothing particuarly interesting.
- Vegas heat was way high this year...
- My biggest beef: Spirit of togetherness seemed to be replaced with a spirit of antagonism- no one was talking to anyone outside of their cliques this year, with the exception of desperate jock lamers who were neither intelligent, fun, or amusing.
All in all, this year's Con was waaaay mellower than the previous ones I have attended. But also way more informative.
Anybody else have any similar experiences.
(not that any corporate boot-lickers would admit it...)
Being a data haven makes your customer list target #1 for intelligence agencies all throughout the world. Do you have any method of assuring you
have not been infiltrated by said agencies? Further, do you have an infrastructure (PKI or otherwise) which will allow anonyminity of your clients?
The mafia in terms of a Sicilian crime family may no longer be so influential in the underworld- rather than being dismantled, they have for the most part merged made themselves "legitmate" (real estate, police, etc.) and now simply use the law as a method of harrsement. This also applies to the Triad, CIA, etc.
Its class warfare, just as its always been dude. Its just not so obvious to the masses since theyve mostly been brainwashed.
Have you tried to change the laws recently? As an activist, I can assure you, there are forces at work that most definately not working in your interest, and are making sure it stays that way.
I for one, am glad to see at least someone is trying to do something about this. It's about time the market started working for the good of the public and not the good of corrupt thieves such as the MPAA and Christian Coalition.
Just some thoughts...
Even though Metallica may be profiting off of the current situation, 99% of the other bands are not. Indeed, distribution of MP3's will only bolster sales of the bands that are not the top .1% of the pop-chart barrell. As more and more technology comes out, and more and more anti-independent artist laws (ala, the DMCA, WIPO, etc.), the recording industry will have a very scary monopolistic future, where the consumer will pay per song listening licenses, of which nearly all profits will go to the publisher- who will in turn control content and artistic control over the music. The trend in regulation may eventually turn out like the movie industry- artists are effectively not allowed to create and profit off of their work without having the hands of the publisher and government involved "protecting" the rights of the artist.
My question for Metallica is, while your suit against Napster may be good for your profits in the short term- how can you justify the long term deleterious effects of the such a lawsuit on not only the indie artist scene, but to bands such as yourself, trying to recoup any profits that have been previously taken away by the middlemen (publishers)?
I hate to say it, Metallica, but as far as I can see, you are slitting your own throats, and taking everyone else down with you.
Be very afraid folks... Time Warner/Ted Turner/AOL not only owns the outlets listed in the article, but also well over half of all television, newspaper, magazine, movie outlets, and a huge chunk of the backbones on the net. This is the mouthpiece of the "Conspiracy", pumping out distorted information in order to push the 90% of the dupes in the country to give all fork over all their money to various nasty causes... AOL is NOT your, or anyone else's friend!
India is probably the leader in not only the less
developed world, but also most of Asia for getting
net technology out on the streets- they have some problems like a severely overregulated telecom industry however, bascially crippling the infrastructure (they keep saying this will change in a few years, but I have not seen any real progress).
Socially speaking, the uneducated and to a large extent, the older generation in any country
will take a very long time to derive the full benefits or realize the full impacts of (liberating) technology- this is as true in the U.S. where the dribbling milksop masses are still thinking of the net as a replacement for the Home Shopping Network. The same holds true for much of India- the majority of the middle and upper class think of computers and the internet as something for their young.
On the other token, where it has caught on, it has caught on like wildfire- Bangalore (India's equivalent of Silicon Valley) is a good example of it. Bangalore used to be a smallish dusty town in South India. It has now expanded into an economic tiger, with streets lined with Indian intelligentsia, and internet cafes and hardware shops crammed in nooks and crannies in slum-ridden alleys in a expanding radius around M.G. road (Bangalore's equivalent of El Camino Real, or the Chelsea district in Silicon Alley). It is now one of India's more progessive cities in terms of attitudes towards women, religion, inebriants, etc. On the same token, the increase in wealth has caused questionable materialism to popup- the only American style malls in India (last I visited).
On a large scale, the net effect in the current economic situation is kind of a hyper-globalization: You can see this by the amount of American influence in Bangalore and the Indian influence in say, Santa Clara or Cupertino in Silicon Valley.
This globalization is kind of a new Cambrian explosion of memes that are not geographically centralized- its unlike colonialism or imperialism in which there is a controlling authority and a predominant meme, but rather, many similar attitudes on what was previously on the "fringe" of a culture (in terms of sexuality, religion, politics) now pop up in disparate regions. In other words: A San Francisco geek probably has a lot more in common with an Calcutta geek than a San Francisco geek has in common with a Kansas City non-geek. Whether this is good or bad- whether our global diversity level is declining or whether there is an explosion in individual choice- has yet to be seen IMHO. One thing I can say for sure is that the phenomena of people who are wired breaking political, cultural, and economic boundaries is not an American phenomena (all the more reason we need to fight tooth an nail to keep expanding our freedoms).
Economically, India is experiencing an upsurge due o the expansion of technology in its borders. This is leading towards a burgeoning middle class, and a general hope for the next generation.
All in all, the impact of tech on India is straight out of a William Gibson novel- its a country in which 5000 years of history is not going to go away, but instead is marrying the the modern world, and producing something truly weird. It is definately a trip hanging out in a net cafe in New Delhi, when you see several cows wandering by the window, alongside the beggars, sanyasis, businessmen, all choking in the same haze caused by the coal driven smokestack power plants in the center of the city.
The parental units in India are enthusiastic for their children- they see the Internet as a way for their children to start getting out of poverty. The government is taking the same attitude. This is probably unusual for most third world countries at large, since India has always had a high degree of respect and tolerance for diversity and complexity (things that the internet bring along with it), and generally has an anarchistic attitude on life.
I am definately interested in hearing what other people have observed so far in this process- in particular with religion: How are strict Hindhu, Christians, and Muslims handling the internet and its open views on the world? This question applies particularly to more closed off countries like Pakistan and Myannamar.
... Just some random thoughts.
http://www.swcp.com/~ampere
I used to work at a legal software company, and my main clientele were lawyers of all sorts- Divorce, Intellectual Property, Criminal, etc. I also used to work with them very closely in issues of their network and their technologies- many times with Partners (the core lawyers in a firm) themselves if it was a small firm.
Dont kid yourself- lawyers, all in all, tend to be not only the scum of the earth, but also some of the most unintelligent (in the grand scope of things) life forms on earth. This is not true for all, granted, but for the most part, the only talent that it takes to be a lawyer is having a mouth, especially trial lawyers. I am not exaggerating this.
Apply Dilbert's Rule, and you will realize that the most incompetent and corrupt lawyers will be promoted to being judges. If you look at actual cases, and the amount of corruption involved by favoritsm, bribes, etc., the U.S. legal system is only slightly better than a third world country (the only difference is that the bribes are higher in price). Anyone who has dealt with law in situations involving traffic, drugs, taxation etc. extensively, know this quite well. Im sure there is no difference for IP/cracking cases.
Now take the most stupid of the stupid, and most corrupt of the corrupt, and you make them the lawmakers. So what you have is a circus dictated not by logic or justice, but by rule of idiocy.
If you are lucky, you are able to toss enough money into the court to sway it into your favor.
On top of that, US law itself is a self-contradictory system.
Oh, and forget about all that stuff you see on TV or movies about the ability to argue based on technicalities or minor points- that only works if you have the money to push it through.
Do 95% of the lawyers understand anything about technology, much less the way it can even possibly impact the society? Hell no. I guarantee it. The judges know even less, the lawmakers know even less.
Anyone remember the days of BBS'ing? Remember how the provider was held accountable for all discussions and material on the board, even private email? Ludicrous! Insane to anyone who knew the model of BBSs. The same mentality still holds today.
Again, Im not saying that ALL lawyers are like this. I am pointing out that this is how the system is run. An attorney will not try to argue whether your invention violates IP law because of various technical differences, or whether telnetting to port 25 is not really a violation of security. Rather, they will try to push paper in the most advantageous way possible- go for plea bargaining, file the appropriate motions to persuade the judge out of annoyance of legal hangups.
The contradictions in US law and the different levels of precedence lead to basically the following outcomes:
Lawmakers- bought off by the highest bidder, passing laws in favor of the highest bidder.
Judges- are a lot like cops in that they follow one of three paths usually:
1) Arbitrate the court with the least amount of work on their part (the more they have to think or confront issues or question the system, the worse it is).
2) Judge based on the amount of money or favors the party has. This is either direct, by means of bribes, or by the amount of money a party can throw at the system, to do things which will make the judges look bad (mistrial/appeals/etc.)
3) The judge will rule on what they think is right. Judges are seriously out of touch with any semblance of reality, BTW.
4) Whatever will get them votes in the next election. You all know what that means...
Attorneys- unless they are a public defender, they will of course be motivated by money- its their business! This is not a bad thing, but as a result, attorneys will try to hack the system in a way that is most likely to be beneficial for you and you only, and will almost never ever look at the larger impacts a case like yours can make.
Again, anyone who has ever been to court on issues involving technology, or for that matter, anything beyond divorce law will understand this very clearly. The system is screwed, and the people in it are even more screwed.
So what does this mean for the us techies?
It means that time after time, especially after the liberal generation of judges from the sixties retires [and is replaced by moronic fratboy types] the US judicial system will favor:
- Monitoring over privacy: Since they can't ban the technology thats out of control (that would be cutting into profits), they'll simply configure the legal system in such a way that transactions are monitored (usually, "for the good of the children").
- Intellectual Property in favor of the parties that have more money. The only reason Microsoft is in court is because Sun and AOL are equally powerful players.
- Draconian "punitive" measure for anyone who gets even slightly caught up in these matters.
- Maximal amount of trade restrictions: Dont be surprised to have filters set up between say South Asia and the US, in the interest of protectionism.
- regulation of ideas, starting from the younger generation (we are already seeing this with the entire post-columbine witchhunts).
Is all of the short-sighted? Are the lawyers slitting their own throats, and all of their children's throats? Cutting into their own future profits? You betcha! I said they were stupid, not rational, remember?
Its ironic how many well-meaning people place their trust in the judicial system, and how they think the laws will help the marginalized, when in reality, it only strains the marginalization.
Its come back down to the rules of the street again, thanks to the idiocy in the legal system:
a) Do what thou wilt
b) Dont get caught.
Or kill me.
1) Richard Feynmann- Kind of an All-American Hacker... Pioneered Quantum ElectroDynamics, was one the first to outline quantum computing (and pointed out that reversible computation had no thermodynamic effects), hence having large impacts on not only Quantum Computing, but Nanotech, etc. This work alone will change the way we think of Reality. He was also one of the first computer hackers in the sense we think of them today.
:-)
2) Alan Turing- You gotta admit, it takes a pretty bizarre mind to come up with shit like a UTM when there were no computers around.
3) Marie Curie- not only opened up the world to radioactivity (and hence Quantum Mechanics, etc.), but had to overcome being female in very backwards time.
4) Nikola Tesla- On of the fathers of the modern world of electric power. His so called "wacko" experiments are currently leading the way in research of ionospheric energy and information transfer, and effects of weather control (can anyone say "HAARP"?)
5) Robert Anton Wilson- In my view, his philosophical writings (which are really a coalesence of many marginalized voices) has had a huge impact on the "underground" and any type of out-of-the-box thinking that is driving the latter half of the 20th century
6) Ivan Stang- founder of the Church of Subgenius. Praise "Bob"! 'nuff said.
7) Gregor Mendel - formalized breeding patterns of recessive/dominant genes. Although, from what I understand he massively fudged his numbers
8) Robert Oppenheimer- Father of the A-Bomb, radical populist who was eventually blacklisted. Kind of a sucky position to be in...
9) Adam Smith- for better or worse, outlined all modern economic thought in "The Wealth of Nations"...
10) Richard Stallman - This choice may seem rather idolistic, but his work and ideas form the fundamental undercurrents of current Geek thought.