Usually, it seems foolish to criticize a book, a waste of everybody's time. If it's no good, why bother to review it at all?
Because that's part of the function of a reviewer, to tell people which books are worth reading and which are wastes of time/money, and to give reasons for that judgment.
How do you expect readers to make informed judgments based on your recommendations if all you ever print are positive reviews?
Re:Oh great, another resource for man to rape
on
On Asteroid Mining
·
· Score: 1
Think back to real Star Trek and the horta, perhaps horta's live there and we;re about to destroy their habitat.
And believe me, you don't want PETH on your backs...
The poster was making the more specific statement that Tonga is undemocratic, corrupt, and imprisons dissenters.
I'd rather have some more information before labling Tonga corrupt on that basis alone. What form did this dissent take? Were they peaceful protests or pampheteering, or were they something more? Who, if anyone, outside the country was backing them and for what purpose?
To say nothing of what the imprisonment entails. That's a loaded term for us westerners, who conjure up images of roach and rat infested cells in banana republics, or frozen gulags. It may be that the conditions are much more humane and amount more to "detainment" than "imprisonment".
./ers may not be aware that Tonga still has a autocratic monarchy, with a parliament with a majority of seats guaranteed to noble families. Tongans who want a democratic system tend to find themselves in jail. Looks to me like Autogen has cynically found a jurisdiction with a compliant and corrupt ruling clique. Shame on them.
Typical bias. Hate to tell you this but monarchy != corrupt regime. The worst criticism of the Tongan system I've been able to find by searching is their refusal to accept a UN report on free speech violations. But big deal, the United States of America does that and worse on a regular basis. For instance, their refusal to live up the UN charter of rights with respect to natives and other issues.
But this is the same old US-centric view we see over and over here on/. If it isn't a democracy, if someone doesn't hold Free Speech up as a religion, if it's got to do with anyone else in any way, it's demonized.
This is precisely the reason many claim that members of other countries should have a say. A basic tenet of democracy is that those who are governed should have the chance to select who they would have govern them.
Yet with the US' already substantial (and growing) influence on other nations, and their self-appointed role as "Policeman of the World" (a role which Dubya's family is firmly in favour of), this basic tenet is being lost. People in a great many countries are directly and dramatically affected by US policy, yet they have no opportunity to choose the people setting the policy that impacts them directly.
Arrogance there is, but I wouldn't pin it on some German newscaster.
"How will other countries view US and how will change their dealing with US in case Bush (Gore) will get elected?"
This ties in with one worry I've had recently.
Bush supporters have made much of the "If I don't know something, I've got a lot of advisors I can ask" riff he's been playing. But where does that get him in cases where doing so is considered a sign of indecision and weakness.
I'm pretty certain that the parties in Isreal and Palestine won't retain a lot of respect for that sort of President, and the US' role in the peace process, and as a result the process itself, will suffer badly for it.
But they don't have to pay attention to what you say. If they don't now, what will make them any more likely to after the election?
Why do I feel like I'm feeding a particularly dense troll?
They would be likely to listen because it would be ammunition for their political enemies and the press, that's why. And it's something that the independents can use as ammunition in campaigns in the future, which none of the candidates wants to happen. That's why.
I can't believe I have to explain boneheaded stuff like this.
Perhaps November will be more meaningful if large numbers of Americans deliberately choose not to participate in this election, and make their reasons known, rather than shrugging and ignoring it. Perhaps then, the Beltway might really buckle a bit.
And you think that voters staying away in droves will somehow differentiate itself from business as usual in what way?
Perhaps you didn't bother to read what you quoted. The difference here is that not only would people be staying away, but they'd have an effective manner of communicating why they stayed away.
Much of the advantage to politicians is the opportunity to blame low voter turnout on apathy or bland acceptance. If there were some way for the non-voters to communicate their reasons, that advantage disappears. If it is known that a significant portion of the electorate chose not to vote due to an extreme dislike of both candidates, for instance, or in protest of the corporate nature of the campaigns, then the politicians can no longer effectively claim the "will of the people" due to a less-than-50% turnout. And the media would love it.
Of course, like most ideals I don't expect it to happen. But it would be nice.
My, that looked a whole lot better when I hit "Preview". Somewhere between the preview and the submit I seem to have lot a few words (not to mention a tag). Hungry gremlins?
So I'd say that he's on the mark with the content idea, and the web itself is a powerful distributor of knowledge and information. But the most concentrated since the Roman Empire? Almost. That's still the press/media.
I wonder if that's the sense he meant it in. From reading the interview, I took his phrase to mean not that this is the most powerful group in the world (although that is still possible as many of these companies have off-line influence in spades as well), but that it is the most concentrated group. Television media, for instance, may rightfully be considered more powerful culturally, but it's also more distributed when viewed by number of "hits". These top ten sites, OTOH, are more concentrated in a small area.
The analogy to rome in that sense is a good one, since most of the true power during the Empire's peak was concentrated in a very small area. Unfortunately, the idea of these small number of companies having equivalent power to the Empire is unfortunately untenable.
He says it's impossible to imagine any Japanese organization reporting 7% alienated employees, much less 50%.
Based on this kind of reporting, it's a wonder that any of the book's stats are reliable.
So what if less Japanese feel "disconnected" than Americans? That in itself says very little, since there's a significant difference culturally beyond the confines of corporate life. A rough analogy would be:
"It's considered possible that a far greater percentage of Star Wars fans are familiar with Jabba the Hut than an equivalent group of Gone With the Wind buffs."
Japanese culture has a much stronger bias toward group membership, whereas the US is much more concerned with individuality as an ideal. This goes for school, social interaction and any number of other aspects of daily life. But I wouldn't say that this differeence is the some reason why more Americans feel disconnected, nor would I say that the different percentage proves anything beyond the author's proven ability to type the numbers "7" and 50".
The fact that the author uses meaningless stats like these to support what seems to be a pretty empty concept in the first place indicates that this is more an effort to sell books than to actually say something worth listening to.
Will there be a contingent of ~20 people running into the Auditoruim to try and claim first seat?
Funny, I always thought you had to audition for First Chair...
The opinions of committees, experts and common sense often make little difference on policy, particularly if the corporate manipulators are doing their jobs.
A similar situation happened with respect to pornography during the Nixon administration. A Presidential Commission failed to find any evidence that pornography was actually harmful, and in fact advocated more sex education at an earlier age.
However, due to the public perception that pornography was "bad" and the growing power of anti-pr0n lobby groups, an attempt was made to discredit the report and policy was made as if it didn't exist.
Later, the Regan administration had a similar experience, but the response there was to simply start a second commission to get the "right" answers this time.
Truth has little effect on policy when spin is involved. I trust everyone can see the parallels between these examples and Carnivore, DeCSS and the Napster case.
I'm a little confused by one aspect of the story. According to the story, the campus police busted the guy and confiscated his computer via a search warrent obtained as a result of the RIAA's letter to the University.
Now, as a result of reading the discussion, I'm unclear on two things.
First of all, is copyright infringement an arrestable offence in his state?
Secondly, a lot of/. posters have commented on how the fellow was arrested. Do the Campus Police at that university have arrest authority, or did the real civil police come into it at any point?
I'm not really certain what the revelation here is. After all, like the Open Source Bazaar model, Romanticism and the Enlightenment both rose out of creative culture's need to "scratch an itch". Many of the creeds involved were simply logical extensions of the underlying European social context, when applied in a positive fashion.
Is it any wonder that "geek culture" and the internet in general, still primarily influenced by European and European-based (North American) cultures, should share many of those same logical extensions when it tries to focus its ideals positively?
That being said, though, it is nice to see the subject analyzed in a serious way. Had I the cash, I'd be happy to check out the book, but alas my romanticism shall have to settle for its on-line manifestations.
Why should I have to buy a lock in the first place? Punishment must be strong enough to discourge the behavior in the first place
I'm assuming this means you're in favour of television/movie/internet censorship by legislation, then? After all, why should a parent have to monitor their children when punishment could be strong enough to discourage producers of violence/sex/thoughtcrimes from producing objectionable material in the first place.
The moral flaws in your argument alone astound me.
Somebody who has hacked into your computer is hardly as physically dangerous (unless they've hacked into something controlling a life support system!) as if they're standing in your house ready to brain you with a crowbar.
I must admit, you are right. B&E is only a good description of most hacking actions. The remainder fall into the similar, but different, category of trespassing.
The two are quite analagous. Hackers who break into someone's commercial site, or a government site, or something similar, are essentially B&E's. But hackers who break into someone's personal machine, or wander around (but do nothing else) are more similar to some idiot scrambling over your back fence and hanging out in your backyard for a while. Much less severe, but no less invasive. Regardless, both are crimes.
Hacking into a system is a crime. Anything you do while you are there may be another.
I agree heartily. There are few ways to describe (in the current, rather than classic, sense of the word) hacking as anything other than breaking into someone's "property" without leave. Often, the door is left open by doing so, which presents a present danger, so a hacker bragging to others about his/her methods is very much analagous to committing a B&E and leaving the door open when you leave.
If Granholm had wanted to draw a parallel to reality, she really should have thought about the analogy she used.
How on earth do website defacements (in the Jesse Salens case) constitute monetary damages?
I note that with the upcoming changes, all hacking will be considered a felony, regardless of damages. I wonder how many corporations are jumping for joy at the concept of no longer having to prove that attacks actually cost them anything.
Of course, they still have to do so for civil litigation, but for having the hackers criminally charged and serve as a lesson to others must be a powerful control high.
Perhaps despite having worked for lawyers for several years I still don't have an astute legal mind, but Granholm's contention that regardless of damage, hacking should (and will) be considered a felony is a bit odd, considering that she then compares it to vandalism, which definitely does depend on the amount of damage involved.
Yet another case of saying the net is like the real world as a justification for not treating it like the real world, I guess.
Slashdot Mirror
Usually, it seems foolish to criticize a book, a waste of everybody's time. If it's no good, why bother to review it at all?
Because that's part of the function of a reviewer, to tell people which books are worth reading and which are wastes of time/money, and to give reasons for that judgment.
How do you expect readers to make informed judgments based on your recommendations if all you ever print are positive reviews?
Think back to real Star Trek and the horta, perhaps horta's live there and we;re about to destroy their habitat.
And believe me, you don't want PETH on your backs...
The poster was making the more specific statement that Tonga is undemocratic, corrupt, and imprisons dissenters.
I'd rather have some more information before labling Tonga corrupt on that basis alone. What form did this dissent take? Were they peaceful protests or pampheteering, or were they something more? Who, if anyone, outside the country was backing them and for what purpose?
To say nothing of what the imprisonment entails. That's a loaded term for us westerners, who conjure up images of roach and rat infested cells in banana republics, or frozen gulags. It may be that the conditions are much more humane and amount more to "detainment" than "imprisonment".
Snap judgments are uninformed judgments.
Typical bias. Hate to tell you this but monarchy != corrupt regime. The worst criticism of the Tongan system I've been able to find by searching is their refusal to accept a UN report on free speech violations. But big deal, the United States of America does that and worse on a regular basis. For instance, their refusal to live up the UN charter of rights with respect to natives and other issues.
But this is the same old US-centric view we see over and over here on /. If it isn't a democracy, if someone doesn't hold Free Speech up as a religion, if it's got to do with anyone else in any way, it's demonized.
Feh. I'm sick of it.
Consensus on /. was that this would never work right and the company was a bottom feeder trying to scam money out of scared parents and republicans.
Looks like the consensus was right, too. The company's site is a seething mass of "Under Construction" notices and 404 errors.
Right now, the Shrub is ahead. Does this mean we're going to be getting a run on the Canadian border by all the smart people in America?
We choose the president to govern us.
This is precisely the reason many claim that members of other countries should have a say. A basic tenet of democracy is that those who are governed should have the chance to select who they would have govern them.
Yet with the US' already substantial (and growing) influence on other nations, and their self-appointed role as "Policeman of the World" (a role which Dubya's family is firmly in favour of), this basic tenet is being lost. People in a great many countries are directly and dramatically affected by US policy, yet they have no opportunity to choose the people setting the policy that impacts them directly.
Arrogance there is, but I wouldn't pin it on some German newscaster.
"How will other countries view US and how will change their dealing with US in case Bush (Gore) will get elected?"
This ties in with one worry I've had recently.
Bush supporters have made much of the "If I don't know something, I've got a lot of advisors I can ask" riff he's been playing. But where does that get him in cases where doing so is considered a sign of indecision and weakness.
I'm pretty certain that the parties in Isreal and Palestine won't retain a lot of respect for that sort of President, and the US' role in the peace process, and as a result the process itself, will suffer badly for it.
But they don't have to pay attention to what you say. If they don't now, what will make them any more likely to after the election?
Why do I feel like I'm feeding a particularly dense troll?
They would be likely to listen because it would be ammunition for their political enemies and the press, that's why. And it's something that the independents can use as ammunition in campaigns in the future, which none of the candidates wants to happen. That's why.
I can't believe I have to explain boneheaded stuff like this.
Perhaps November will be more meaningful if large numbers of Americans deliberately choose not to participate in this election, and make their reasons known, rather than shrugging and ignoring it. Perhaps then, the Beltway might really buckle a bit.
And you think that voters staying away in droves will somehow differentiate itself from business as usual in what way?
Perhaps you didn't bother to read what you quoted. The difference here is that not only would people be staying away, but they'd have an effective manner of communicating why they stayed away.
Much of the advantage to politicians is the opportunity to blame low voter turnout on apathy or bland acceptance. If there were some way for the non-voters to communicate their reasons, that advantage disappears. If it is known that a significant portion of the electorate chose not to vote due to an extreme dislike of both candidates, for instance, or in protest of the corporate nature of the campaigns, then the politicians can no longer effectively claim the "will of the people" due to a less-than-50% turnout. And the media would love it.
Of course, like most ideals I don't expect it to happen. But it would be nice.
My, that looked a whole lot better when I hit "Preview". Somewhere between the preview and the submit I seem to have lot a few words (not to mention a tag). Hungry gremlins?
Yes, where oh where As fond as I am of redundancy, to say nothing of repetition, that horse ain't gonna get any deader.
Does this mean I've got to start routing my spam to /dev/gore ?
Do you have a citation for this
It's the entire narration for an anti-commercial produced by the Media Foundation, which can be found here.
I wonder if that's the sense he meant it in. From reading the interview, I took his phrase to mean not that this is the most powerful group in the world (although that is still possible as many of these companies have off-line influence in spades as well), but that it is the most concentrated group. Television media, for instance, may rightfully be considered more powerful culturally, but it's also more distributed when viewed by number of "hits". These top ten sites, OTOH, are more concentrated in a small area.
The analogy to rome in that sense is a good one, since most of the true power during the Empire's peak was concentrated in a very small area. Unfortunately, the idea of these small number of companies having equivalent power to the Empire is unfortunately untenable.
Based on this kind of reporting, it's a wonder that any of the book's stats are reliable.
So what if less Japanese feel "disconnected" than Americans? That in itself says very little, since there's a significant difference culturally beyond the confines of corporate life. A rough analogy would be:
"It's considered possible that a far greater percentage of Star Wars fans are familiar with Jabba the Hut than an equivalent group of Gone With the Wind buffs."
Japanese culture has a much stronger bias toward group membership, whereas the US is much more concerned with individuality as an ideal. This goes for school, social interaction and any number of other aspects of daily life. But I wouldn't say that this differeence is the some reason why more Americans feel disconnected, nor would I say that the different percentage proves anything beyond the author's proven ability to type the numbers "7" and 50".
The fact that the author uses meaningless stats like these to support what seems to be a pretty empty concept in the first place indicates that this is more an effort to sell books than to actually say something worth listening to.
Will there be a contingent of ~20 people running into the Auditoruim to try and claim first seat? Funny, I always thought you had to audition for First Chair...
A similar situation happened with respect to pornography during the Nixon administration. A Presidential Commission failed to find any evidence that pornography was actually harmful, and in fact advocated more sex education at an earlier age.
However, due to the public perception that pornography was "bad" and the growing power of anti-pr0n lobby groups, an attempt was made to discredit the report and policy was made as if it didn't exist.
Later, the Regan administration had a similar experience, but the response there was to simply start a second commission to get the "right" answers this time.
Truth has little effect on policy when spin is involved. I trust everyone can see the parallels between these examples and Carnivore, DeCSS and the Napster case.
Now, as a result of reading the discussion, I'm unclear on two things.
First of all, is copyright infringement an arrestable offence in his state?
Secondly, a lot of /. posters have commented on how the fellow was arrested. Do the Campus Police at that university have arrest authority, or did the real civil police come into it at any point?
I'd be interested in knowing.
Is it any wonder that "geek culture" and the internet in general, still primarily influenced by European and European-based (North American) cultures, should share many of those same logical extensions when it tries to focus its ideals positively?
That being said, though, it is nice to see the subject analyzed in a serious way. Had I the cash, I'd be happy to check out the book, but alas my romanticism shall have to settle for its on-line manifestations.
I'm assuming this means you're in favour of television/movie/internet censorship by legislation, then? After all, why should a parent have to monitor their children when punishment could be strong enough to discourage producers of violence/sex/thoughtcrimes from producing objectionable material in the first place.
The moral flaws in your argument alone astound me.
I must admit, you are right. B&E is only a good description of most hacking actions. The remainder fall into the similar, but different, category of trespassing.
The two are quite analagous. Hackers who break into someone's commercial site, or a government site, or something similar, are essentially B&E's. But hackers who break into someone's personal machine, or wander around (but do nothing else) are more similar to some idiot scrambling over your back fence and hanging out in your backyard for a while. Much less severe, but no less invasive. Regardless, both are crimes.
I agree heartily. There are few ways to describe (in the current, rather than classic, sense of the word) hacking as anything other than breaking into someone's "property" without leave. Often, the door is left open by doing so, which presents a present danger, so a hacker bragging to others about his/her methods is very much analagous to committing a B&E and leaving the door open when you leave.
If Granholm had wanted to draw a parallel to reality, she really should have thought about the analogy she used.
I note that with the upcoming changes, all hacking will be considered a felony, regardless of damages. I wonder how many corporations are jumping for joy at the concept of no longer having to prove that attacks actually cost them anything.
Of course, they still have to do so for civil litigation, but for having the hackers criminally charged and serve as a lesson to others must be a powerful control high.
Yet another case of saying the net is like the real world as a justification for not treating it like the real world, I guess.