My post (the parent) was modded once up (interesting), then once down, with "overrated".
Meta-mods will see the final score and often won't be able to decide if the moderation was fair or not.
In this particular case I think that the "overrated" moderation was equivalent to simply disagreeing with the "interesting" moderation, which is very different to the guideline which states that "sometimes modderators will mod up a post without seeing that it was already modded up, resulting in an overrated post"
In general, I have already been modded "overrated" in the past and often felt that it was used as a convinient way not to give any reasons for modding down (of course, that is subjective; but it is a fact that someone will have the possibility to mod this way, which is not intended to happen).
The "overrated" option should only be available for posts of score 4 or 5, they should be limited to one per mod (only one of your 5 points could be used for "overrated"). Statistics should be made on the precentage of demoting done using "overrate", and should they be too high, the feature should be completly removed. At the very least, meta-mods should be able to see the original score when judging an "overrated" moderation.
I would very much like to see the difference in use between "overrated" and "underrated", as I suspect many more people feel like hiding their reasons for demoting than for promoting.
And if this is offtopic, pray tell me where I should say that.
Okay, I was afraid of making that mistake; (and actually I'm from France, where the tax exists).
Still, here I don't see people complaining about that flat fee just because they don't watch all channels, or because they don't watch them all the time. And of course that's in part because that tax is pretty low, just as the music fee could be (for example, if it was the avarage money spent spent by customer on music per month, or even better, the avarage actually given to artist; plus probably some money for marketing).
Maybe a better example would be Disneyland: you pay to enter, and that pays for the haunted mansion, even if you never go there.
Or a second example: buying a swiss army knife with a can openner, even if you never use it. Of course from your point of veiw it would be logical not to get a can openner, but as a global system it is more economic to "force" everyone to get the can opener, so that price get lower by volume.
Of course this doesn't solve the problem of deciding what artist gets what amount of that money, but it still is a system that economicaly makes sense; charging 99cents on itune for every song does not.
You do realise that you already do that when watching TV, right?
Because the flat tax you pay for it and that helps fun programs is exactly the same as this one (okay, more advertisement contributes to it, and it's not only for music; but still).
That Warner is pushing for that license is a complete change in the major's strategy; I can still remember when they heavily (and illegaly) lobbied against the exact same thing in France a couple years ago.
Of course, this wont be a perfect system, especially if they are the one pushing it; the amount of the fee still has to be debated, and they obviously intend to keep the lion's share in that money. (Even if digital distribution specifically means that they are not needed in the loop anymore (okay, except for marketing; but that should be done through youtube and blogs now)).
But actually, I think that's the best part in this move: even the worst case scenario (the one pushed by the majors:) is acknowledging that:
1) Paying a flat rate is how the internet works (no per unit cost == illogic to have a per unit price), so now everyone can have all the music for the price that they more or less already pay.
2) ISP acting on the content is stupid on many levels. The major's interests are actually opposed to the ISP's on this one, I'm glad that they finaly saw it (let them fight against each other!).
Okay, I Am Not An Iso-standard Expert (IANAIE ?), but that must be the most counter-intuitive argumentation I've heard this month.
He invoques the need to have a formal definition of some features (formula definitions and legacy stuff) as benifiting ODF if OOXML pass, so this raises the questions:
1) Aren't these already included to some extend in what was submitted for iso acceptation?
2) Wasn't this specification part of what EU's justice were asking Microsoft anyways?
3) Is it that hard to reverse-ingeneer that kind of spec?
That might be the science fiction fan in me speaking, but isn't this exactly the "war between robots" that we've been wishing for, were the only casualities are mechanical (or here, software)?
(Of course, I'm not speaking of the killing of tibetans.) If hacking becomes like economic warfare, a way for countries to gain influence that doesn't involve sending people shooting each other, I say it's a good thing.
I thought that China had that covered by offering "bullet proof server" services with -allegdely- the ok from authorities to hack from there. They can then blame hacking from China-ip on users of that service, in a kind or tor-like denyability ( "it's not my traffic, my computer is an exit node" won't hold in court, except if you're a country). To be honest, I heard this on slashdot; if someone can find the post or the poster elaborate, that would be great.
Anyways, I was assamed of that lame first post, so I tried to make it better with some recursive humor. I guess that will be my "I've got karma to burn" day.
He, I also removed my sig to see how many people will not notice I made the "mod parent down" post, and mod it down.
Mod parent down; he's unapropriate (think of the Godwin laws!), completly fails to nail that pathetic pun he might have been aiming for ("owning a piece of history..." would have definitly been better), is unfunny, and most of all he STOLE MY FIRST POST!
Given that it has marketshare that is a fraction of OS X, I don't think Microsoft is exactly reeling at the 'rise of ubuntu' right now. Its a blip on the radar. I'm not that sure about that; linux's market share right now is low, but I think there are definitely people at Microsoft worrying that it would get bigger; and the big difference with OS X is that it's not led by the same logic: people who've tried linux will stay for the price, and the complete absence of lock-in.
The X0 and eeePC threats are: 1) People might hear about linux in mainstream medias, and not as some computer-freak oriented gimmick, but as something targeted at kids (and in the case of the eeePC, sentences like "simple to use tabbed base interface, integrating skype and firefox" were everywhere). They might also notice that it doesn't cost anything. 2) Poorer countries have entered the market for computers; we're speaking many times the current market. If they get millions of linux boxes right now, it might become the de facto standard there.
To address this, Microsoft has already: 1) Tolerated widespread piracy of windows in China, and admited to do so: http://labnol.blogspot.com/2007/07/we-love-microsoft-software-piracy-in.html 2) Made IE7 work even if wga doesn't pass, (because you want to punish pirates, but not to incite them try firefox): http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2007/10/04/internet-explorer-7-update.aspx 3) Tweaked XP (IIRC) to make it work on the eeePC. I saw an eeePC on display the other day, and people were gathering around it; I thought "hey, a linux box is getting some hype, great!", but you could see the XP wallpaper on it. 4) Did everything they could to reduce the amount of linux machines bought by Brasil for schools and such.
No. They really simply didn't care. You can get 2GB of desktop ram for ~$45 now. They didn't care that it takes like 12GB to install either, for the same reason. Not if the eeePC is the start of a "race to the bottom". And with people realising that web surfing and text editing only takes 300$ of hardware, 45$ could well be too much, even in rich country. Plus you've got handheld devices: I don't think there will be a shortage of devices with less than 512m of RAM in the near future (and don't forget wiis, modems, smart tvs...).
and by planning to release it one year early. I think that's more marketing than anything else. I don't remeber the details, but it seems to me that Vista was many time pushed to a later release date, not the contrary; it seems to me that they really spend a lot of energy to get it early this time. But I agree that it's not done yet.
Not that I disagree with everything you said (especially the part about virtualisation), but I think you focused too much on US companies, as opposed to the now-worldwide market for OSs.
I agree, but we must prepare ourselves for the fact that the next version of windows will probably be much better; and I'm sure that Microsoft'intention is to push the last XP users directly to it.
When they started developing Vista, they could not imagine the rise of Ubuntu's success or the coming of the XO PC and, eeePC, which is why they thought they'd give a hand to their friends the computer vendors by making 2G of RAM a requirement. (I would check the dates if was not in a hurry).
It looks like they understood this now, and reacted by making that "minimal kernel" stuff on the next windows (even a non graphic server version), and by planning to release it one year early.
What I'm saying is: we (linux evangelists) have a huge opportunity right now, but it might not last. So let's make the most of it.
the **AA always use that point, but everybody knows that theyare the only one who are going to lose in the new system (or in this case, the publishers are).
They only sell a centralised organisation to distribute content. And there is nothing they could invent to preserve the same insane margins that they had in the old system (well, publishers may not do as much money as Universal, but still).
On the contray, authors can find inventive new ways to reach the public and leverage the increased audiance and ease of use to get as much or more revenues.
Maybe some authors won't do as much money anymore; maybe some won't even make a living and will have to find an other job. But I don't think that there will be that many of them; and by definition, they won't be missed very much.
And if you don't beleive that the new system can reward authors, look at blogs: millions of authors getting advertising money, which is based directly on their success, and will either make them some extra cash or push them to make blogging their day job.
Ok, look at it this way: what if the next time nitendo or sony decides to make a console, they made a software that turns your existing PC in a console?
That is, porting the playstation's firmware to the PC. Ok, you would have the drivers issue, but someone with money to invest could easily get hardware manufacturer to make him some drivers. Even if they have to publish a list of the compatible hardware.
Then you'll see that there is not ONE positive point of the console you dont have this way (except maybe the price for the first time you buy such a 'console'). On the contrary you have loads of bonuses, mainly that you can keep the hardware for something else than playing games, or to play other "console's" games.
Of course console makers try to avoid exactly that.
Selling console is like selling "media centers": it makes you buy a fully fonctionnal PC again (after all, they're hardware sellers). How many idle fully fonctional machines do you have right now?
PS: by the way, do you really spend money every month on antiviruses? I use linux to surf the web (and everything but games,actually).
Not that I have any faith either in that guy, but sure would love PC gaming to win over consoles.
I mean, consoles really are like cell-phone: a product line whose whole logic is consumer lock-in. They sell the console without a profit (like cell phone are sometimes sold for zero), and make up future on expenses which you are forced to make to the same company (through the license cost on the games).
What do you get in exchange for that? A PC (complete with hard drive, internet connection, support for usb, etc), excpet you can't use it like a PC. If the same games where made for PC directly, you would simply win on all fronts (even on the price; it's true that you save on the console, but you lose that by the lack of competition on games).
The hardware design of the PS3 could be sold as CPUs and GPUs (6 cores, why not if some games support it?). I shouldn't have to wait for an extra year for GTA4 to be available for PC, only to inevitably find that it's a laggy on recent hardware, being a port. People who get locked up with a console, only to buy games made for 4 different consoles and thus completly unoptimised are being ripped off.
The other 95% have lost no revenue. Except for those heavily-advertised CDs that you would have bought if you hadn't have a chance to hear how bad they were.
My guess is that's exactly why the record labels are against downloading: they simply fear losing that safe investment that the nth album of Britney is, pretty much like a block-buster movie (lot's of advertising, direct relation between budget and revenue, low visibility of inventive competition).
Artists at large have everything to gain of a system where people listen to a hundred time more music.
You had the energy to read the pdf three times, and you sound pretty sure that you found a problem in the current version of the Wikileak page, based on factual and verifiable information... that's the perfect oportunity to edit that article!
If you're not sure, "be bold" (a wikipedia guideline: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Be_bold): edit it anyway, but add some explanations to the discussion thread (actually, your slashdot post would be perfect for that).
Remember, a wiki is that cool thing were a spotted mistake is a corrected one!
I absolutly agree about the fact that this information was interesting, and deserved awareness.
I am just saying that, if what they did boils down to finding the obscure *public* document or webpage which described that service, then they acted just as boinboing when it finds some cool looking roadsing in Japan: intersting, but not a leak.
And by acting as a news website, *even* as a stellarly good one, they would not be fullfying the role they claimed they would. Which is a problem because what they claimed they would do is the only thing that serves to provide accountability to a service which GREATLY needs it.
Don't take me wrong; I think WIkileak is a wonderful thing; but because it is the embodiment of openess of information. Not because they are good at finding cool stuff
Well, I for one find it interesting, because we don't have a very clear idea yet of what are the priorities, goals, and roles of Wikileaks. Remember that it's an anonymously run website: you can't base yourself on the track record of it's founders.
In fact, some of the early critics were even wondering if Wikileaks was not some honey-pot set by the CIA. Conspiration theory aside, it just means that you can't judge them but by what they do.
So seeing that they still post relevant information and that no major debunking occured is (almost) news.
The 10b5-1 loophole itself apparently consist of making a "plan" to sell your action, and then, when you would have used your insider information, cancel or go with the plan.
It really sounds so obvious like this, that you wonder how the lawmakers could miss it. One hint for them: start compiling with "-Wall".
It should be stressed that this leak is not, in fact, revealling illegal activity. I even doubt that Wikileaks made it public; I mean, they must have some kind of advertisment or at least a publicly available description of this service, no?
If it was already public, then it's interesting for the process of defining the role of Wikileaks: here, it's role would be to raise awareness rather than reveal, which means acting like a news site.
Personaly, I think that Wikileak should not stride from it's original goal: when you're run anonymously, you must keep close to your original description; it's the only kind of accountability you offer.
First point: it's hard to be certain of what is needed or sufficient to lead to democracy, because the subject is so important (as in: used to justify invasions of middle east countries, etc)
(That said, I *do* think that an educated enough middle class is the top factor to make a democratic revolution succesful. It is different from actually starting the revolution: for the french revolution food shortage made the whole population angry enough to act.)
Second point: It's hard to judge China: the situation is very different from all countries and systems we are used to judge (the soviet union didn't focus on economic growth of citizens, and most of the others were not superpowers, or were ages ago). You need to define criterias before judging.
Personaly, I always place freedom first, meaning the power of people to affect their lives (still not perfectly well defined). The links with poverty are:
- in Africa, poverty can't be stoped without freedom, because foreign companies and governments support dictators to keep the trade inbalanced;
- Without basic security, enough to eat and to send kids to school, people can't start to think clearly about politics, and will make short term decisions (see Iraq for security), so no freedom or democracy.
Now, back to the topic: Personaly, I think that the way China acts IS the best way to provide material gain to their population, and that they have been stellarly good at it if you compare to any poor country.
BUT, this does not necessarly means freedom will come for chinese citizens, because the government is far more organised and efficient at controlling it's population that other historical examples (where we had economic growth -> democracy).
AND they are so big (superpower) that they impact the whole world, and escape some checks and balances historical example could have. A worst case scenario would be that they take the place of the US as biggest power, then apply their method of control to a great number of "sattelite states".
So no, I wouldn't agree with those of the chinese residents to justify the action of their government.
The way they "just don't support it anymore" looks a lot like doing everything they can to discourage anyone from tinkering with their device.
Which, by the way, is coherent with their whole DRM/iTune/exclusive_deals strategy of leveraging their control over their customer to limit competition.
In France, the best ISP, http://free.fr/ , gives you a modem that actually runs a trimed down version of linux, acts as a tivo, and even uses a custom version of vlc to stream videos (TV or VOD) to your PC or TV! People have tinkered a lot with it, to add youtube support and the like. So excuse me for having high standards:)
Slashdot Mirror
My post (the parent) was modded once up (interesting), then once down, with "overrated".
Meta-mods will see the final score and often won't be able to decide if the moderation was fair or not.
In this particular case I think that the "overrated" moderation was equivalent to simply disagreeing with the "interesting" moderation, which is very different to the guideline which states that "sometimes modderators will mod up a post without seeing that it was already modded up, resulting in an overrated post"
In general, I have already been modded "overrated" in the past and often felt that it was used as a convinient way not to give any reasons for modding down (of course, that is subjective; but it is a fact that someone will have the possibility to mod this way, which is not intended to happen).
The "overrated" option should only be available for posts of score 4 or 5, they should be limited to one per mod (only one of your 5 points could be used for "overrated").
Statistics should be made on the precentage of demoting done using "overrate", and should they be too high, the feature should be completly removed.
At the very least, meta-mods should be able to see the original score when judging an "overrated" moderation.
I would very much like to see the difference in use between "overrated" and "underrated", as I suspect many more people feel like hiding their reasons for demoting than for promoting.
And if this is offtopic, pray tell me where I should say that.
Okay, I was afraid of making that mistake; (and actually I'm from France, where the tax exists).
Still, here I don't see people complaining about that flat fee just because they don't watch all channels, or because they don't watch them all the time. And of course that's in part because that tax is pretty low, just as the music fee could be (for example, if it was the avarage money spent spent by customer on music per month, or even better, the avarage actually given to artist; plus probably some money for marketing).
Maybe a better example would be Disneyland: you pay to enter, and that pays for the haunted mansion, even if you never go there.
Or a second example: buying a swiss army knife with a can openner, even if you never use it. Of course from your point of veiw it would be logical not to get a can openner, but as a global system it is more economic to "force" everyone to get the can opener, so that price get lower by volume.
Of course this doesn't solve the problem of deciding what artist gets what amount of that money, but it still is a system that economicaly makes sense; charging 99cents on itune for every song does not.
You do realise that you already do that when watching TV, right?
Because the flat tax you pay for it and that helps fun programs is exactly the same as this one (okay, more advertisement contributes to it, and it's not only for music; but still).
Would you consider that forced buying?
That Warner is pushing for that license is a complete change in the major's strategy; I can still remember when they heavily (and illegaly) lobbied against the exact same thing in France a couple years ago.
:) is acknowledging that:
Of course, this wont be a perfect system, especially if they are the one pushing it; the amount of the fee still has to be debated, and they obviously intend to keep the lion's share in that money. (Even if digital distribution specifically means that they are not needed in the loop anymore (okay, except for marketing; but that should be done through youtube and blogs now)).
But actually, I think that's the best part in this move: even the worst case scenario (the one pushed by the majors
1) Paying a flat rate is how the internet works (no per unit cost == illogic to have a per unit price), so now everyone can have all the music for the price that they more or less already pay.
2) ISP acting on the content is stupid on many levels. The major's interests are actually opposed to the ISP's on this one, I'm glad that they finaly saw it (let them fight against each other!).
Okay, I Am Not An Iso-standard Expert (IANAIE ?), but that must be the most counter-intuitive argumentation I've heard this month.
He invoques the need to have a formal definition of some features (formula definitions and legacy stuff) as benifiting ODF if OOXML pass, so this raises the questions:
1) Aren't these already included to some extend in what was submitted for iso acceptation?
2) Wasn't this specification part of what EU's justice were asking Microsoft anyways?
3) Is it that hard to reverse-ingeneer that kind of spec?
Asking in good faith, as I really hav no clue.
To the guy who modded the parent as troll:
;)
Congrat, you've one upped me in reccursiv humor! Seriously, that was really funny. Now it's up to the meta-mods to sort our mess
That might be the science fiction fan in me speaking, but isn't this exactly the "war between robots" that we've been wishing for, were the only casualities are mechanical (or here, software)?
(Of course, I'm not speaking of the killing of tibetans.) If hacking becomes like economic warfare, a way for countries to gain influence that doesn't involve sending people shooting each other, I say it's a good thing.
I thought that China had that covered by offering "bullet proof server" services with -allegdely- the ok from authorities to hack from there. They can then blame hacking from China-ip on users of that service, in a kind or tor-like denyability ( "it's not my traffic, my computer is an exit node" won't hold in court, except if you're a country).
To be honest, I heard this on slashdot; if someone can find the post or the poster elaborate, that would be great.
I think you missed the joke.
Anyways, I was assamed of that lame first post, so I tried to make it better with some recursive humor. I guess that will be my "I've got karma to burn" day.
He, I also removed my sig to see how many people will not notice I made the "mod parent down" post, and mod it down.
.
.
.
slow day.
Mod parent down; he's unapropriate (think of the Godwin laws!), completly fails to nail that pathetic pun he might have been aiming for ("owning a piece of history..." would have definitly been better), is unfunny, and most of all he STOLE MY FIRST POST!
A piece of history has never been so heavy.
The X0 and eeePC threats are:
1) People might hear about linux in mainstream medias, and not as some computer-freak oriented gimmick, but as something targeted at kids (and in the case of the eeePC, sentences like "simple to use tabbed base interface, integrating skype and firefox" were everywhere). They might also notice that it doesn't cost anything.
2) Poorer countries have entered the market for computers; we're speaking many times the current market. If they get millions of linux boxes right now, it might become the de facto standard there.
To address this, Microsoft has already:
1) Tolerated widespread piracy of windows in China, and admited to do so:
http://labnol.blogspot.com/2007/07/we-love-microsoft-software-piracy-in.html
2) Made IE7 work even if wga doesn't pass, (because you want to punish pirates, but not to incite them try firefox):
http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2007/10/04/internet-explorer-7-update.aspx
3) Tweaked XP (IIRC) to make it work on the eeePC. I saw an eeePC on display the other day, and people were gathering around it; I thought "hey, a linux box is getting some hype, great!", but you could see the XP wallpaper on it.
4) Did everything they could to reduce the amount of linux machines bought by Brasil for schools and such. No. They really simply didn't care. You can get 2GB of desktop ram for ~$45 now. They didn't care that it takes like 12GB to install either, for the same reason. Not if the eeePC is the start of a "race to the bottom". And with people realising that web surfing and text editing only takes 300$ of hardware, 45$ could well be too much, even in rich country. Plus you've got handheld devices: I don't think there will be a shortage of devices with less than 512m of RAM in the near future (and don't forget wiis, modems, smart tvs...). and by planning to release it one year early.
I think that's more marketing than anything else. I don't remeber the details, but it seems to me that Vista was many time pushed to a later release date, not the contrary; it seems to me that they really spend a lot of energy to get it early this time. But I agree that it's not done yet.
Not that I disagree with everything you said (especially the part about virtualisation), but I think you focused too much on US companies, as opposed to the now-worldwide market for OSs.
I agree, but we must prepare ourselves for the fact that the next version of windows will probably be much better; and I'm sure that Microsoft'intention is to push the last XP users directly to it.
When they started developing Vista, they could not imagine the rise of Ubuntu's success or the coming of the XO PC and, eeePC, which is why they thought they'd give a hand to their friends the computer vendors by making 2G of RAM a requirement. (I would check the dates if was not in a hurry).
It looks like they understood this now, and reacted by making that "minimal kernel" stuff on the next windows (even a non graphic server version), and by planning to release it one year early.
What I'm saying is: we (linux evangelists) have a huge opportunity right now, but it might not last. So let's make the most of it.
Oh, please.
the **AA always use that point, but everybody knows that theyare the only one who are going to lose in the new system (or in this case, the publishers are).
They only sell a centralised organisation to distribute content. And there is nothing they could invent to preserve the same insane margins that they had in the old system (well, publishers may not do as much money as Universal, but still).
On the contray, authors can find inventive new ways to reach the public and leverage the increased audiance and ease of use to get as much or more revenues.
Maybe some authors won't do as much money anymore; maybe some won't even make a living and will have to find an other job. But I don't think that there will be that many of them; and by definition, they won't be missed very much.
And if you don't beleive that the new system can reward authors, look at blogs: millions of authors getting advertising money, which is based directly on their success, and will either make them some extra cash or push them to make blogging their day job.
Ok, look at it this way: what if the next time nitendo or sony decides to make a console, they made a software that turns your existing PC in a console?
That is, porting the playstation's firmware to the PC. Ok, you would have the drivers issue, but someone with money to invest could easily get hardware manufacturer to make him some drivers. Even if they have to publish a list of the compatible hardware.
Then you'll see that there is not ONE positive point of the console you dont have this way (except maybe the price for the first time you buy such a 'console').
On the contrary you have loads of bonuses, mainly that you can keep the hardware for something else than playing games, or to play other "console's" games.
Of course console makers try to avoid exactly that.
Selling console is like selling "media centers": it makes you buy a fully fonctionnal PC again (after all, they're hardware sellers). How many idle fully fonctional machines do you have right now?
PS: by the way, do you really spend money every month on antiviruses? I use linux to surf the web (and everything but games,actually).
Not that I have any faith either in that guy, but sure would love PC gaming to win over consoles.
I mean, consoles really are like cell-phone: a product line whose whole logic is consumer lock-in. They sell the console without a profit (like cell phone are sometimes sold for zero), and make up future on expenses which you are forced to make to the same company (through the license cost on the games).
What do you get in exchange for that? A PC (complete with hard drive, internet connection, support for usb, etc), excpet you can't use it like a PC. If the same games where made for PC directly, you would simply win on all fronts (even on the price; it's true that you save on the console, but you lose that by the lack of competition on games).
The hardware design of the PS3 could be sold as CPUs and GPUs (6 cores, why not if some games support it?).
I shouldn't have to wait for an extra year for GTA4 to be available for PC, only to inevitably find that it's a laggy on recent hardware, being a port.
People who get locked up with a console, only to buy games made for 4 different consoles and thus completly unoptimised are being ripped off.
My guess is that's exactly why the record labels are against downloading: they simply fear losing that safe investment that the nth album of Britney is, pretty much like a block-buster movie (lot's of advertising, direct relation between budget and revenue, low visibility of inventive competition).
Artists at large have everything to gain of a system where people listen to a hundred time more music.
If I may...
You had the energy to read the pdf three times, and you sound pretty sure that you found a problem in the current version of the Wikileak page, based on factual and verifiable information... that's the perfect oportunity to edit that article!
If you're not sure, "be bold" (a wikipedia guideline: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Be_bold): edit it anyway, but add some explanations to the discussion thread (actually, your slashdot post would be perfect for that).
Remember, a wiki is that cool thing were a spotted mistake is a corrected one!
A vital precision about my last post: I meant "cool looking roadsign" not roadsing. Damn that obnoxious giant flashing "submit" button.
I absolutly agree about the fact that this information was interesting, and deserved awareness.
I am just saying that, if what they did boils down to finding the obscure *public* document or webpage which described that service, then they acted just as boinboing when it finds some cool looking roadsing in Japan: intersting, but not a leak.
And by acting as a news website, *even* as a stellarly good one, they would not be fullfying the role they claimed they would.
Which is a problem because what they claimed they would do is the only thing that serves to provide accountability to a service which GREATLY needs it.
Don't take me wrong; I think WIkileak is a wonderful thing; but because it is the embodiment of openess of information. Not because they are good at finding cool stuff
Well, I for one find it interesting, because we don't have a very clear idea yet of what are the priorities, goals, and roles of Wikileaks. Remember that it's an anonymously run website: you can't base yourself on the track record of it's founders.
In fact, some of the early critics were even wondering if Wikileaks was not some honey-pot set by the CIA. Conspiration theory aside, it just means that you can't judge them but by what they do.
So seeing that they still post relevant information and that no major debunking occured is (almost) news.
The 10b5-1 loophole itself apparently consist of making a "plan" to sell your action, and then, when you would have used your insider information, cancel or go with the plan.
It really sounds so obvious like this, that you wonder how the lawmakers could miss it. One hint for them: start compiling with "-Wall".
It should be stressed that this leak is not, in fact, revealling illegal activity. I even doubt that Wikileaks made it public; I mean, they must have some kind of advertisment or at least a publicly available description of this service, no?
If it was already public, then it's interesting for the process of defining the role of Wikileaks: here, it's role would be to raise awareness rather than reveal, which means acting like a news site.
Personaly, I think that Wikileak should not stride from it's original goal: when you're run anonymously, you must keep close to your original description; it's the only kind of accountability you offer.
First point: it's hard to be certain of what is needed or sufficient to lead to democracy, because the subject is so important (as in: used to justify invasions of middle east countries, etc)
(That said, I *do* think that an educated enough middle class is the top factor to make a democratic revolution succesful. It is different from actually starting the revolution: for the french revolution food shortage made the whole population angry enough to act.)
Second point: It's hard to judge China: the situation is very different from all countries and systems we are used to judge (the soviet union didn't focus on economic growth of citizens, and most of the others were not superpowers, or were ages ago). You need to define criterias before judging.
Personaly, I always place freedom first, meaning the power of people to affect their lives (still not perfectly well defined). The links with poverty are:
- in Africa, poverty can't be stoped without freedom, because foreign companies and governments support dictators to keep the trade inbalanced;
- Without basic security, enough to eat and to send kids to school, people can't start to think clearly about politics, and will make short term decisions (see Iraq for security), so no freedom or democracy.
Now, back to the topic:
Personaly, I think that the way China acts IS the best way to provide material gain to their population, and that they have been stellarly good at it if you compare to any poor country.
BUT, this does not necessarly means freedom will come for chinese citizens, because the government is far more organised and efficient at controlling it's population that other historical examples (where we had economic growth -> democracy).
AND they are so big (superpower) that they impact the whole world, and escape some checks and balances historical example could have. A worst case scenario would be that they take the place of the US as biggest power, then apply their method of control to a great number of "sattelite states".
So no, I wouldn't agree with those of the chinese residents to justify the action of their government.
The way they "just don't support it anymore" looks a lot like doing everything they can to discourage anyone from tinkering with their device.
:)
Which, by the way, is coherent with their whole DRM/iTune/exclusive_deals strategy of leveraging their control over their customer to limit competition.
In France, the best ISP, http://free.fr/ , gives you a modem that actually runs a trimed down version of linux, acts as a tivo, and even uses a custom version of vlc to stream videos (TV or VOD) to your PC or TV! People have tinkered a lot with it, to add youtube support and the like.
So excuse me for having high standards