The hammer analogy isn't bad, but GAs have more 'creative input' or something along those lines. If you tell the smarthammer(tm) how to build the house, and it does all of the work, is it your work or the hammer's? How about if you tell it how the house should look, and it decides how to go about the building of it? What if you say, "build me a three-bedroom house" and it does all of the work from design to construction? How about saying, "do something with this land" and the hammer (hardly a hammer at this point!) decides that housing is in order, based on the fact that the land will support it, and you don't have a house?
The point of the article (which I thought was surprisingly well written) is that we're starting a long slide towards computers that can break down problems on their own, and may eventually be able to ask questions on their own.
Where do you draw the line? When do you say that the creative impetus for a given idea or solution belongs to the "tool" rather than the "user?"
Unfortunately, the law (in most countries, at least) is fairly clear on this point--it doesn't matter. If you, as an intelligent, thinking being come up with a brilliant idea and/or research, while under the employ of a company, the company (generally) owns the idea, lock stock and barrel. If (when?) computers get to that point, their ideas will still be owned by the company that owns/operates them.
Regardless of access, I only listen to two radio stations, watch essentially no TV, read books that interest me (in general, and at a given moment), listen to music that I've chosen, and wander through a tiny interesting portion of the 'net. Maybe 5% of my 'internal resources' are used up in filtering out the >98% of everything that's crap.
It's when you take whatever you're given that you truly get overloaded, and usually overloaded with the very worst.
Absolutely right. Until the web can offer me tactile response, I'll do all of my shopping in person. (except where I can't get something locally) Pictures ain't the same as picking something up, asking the clerk questions, listening to a stereo, and so forth.
Which isn't to imply that the malls have nothing to fear. In most cities, they've vastly overextended themselves, and will probably find that they'll have to close half of their malls eventually. Tough. Around here there are only two companies that own all of the 20+ malls, and they'll survive just fine when they close down.
Despite being a (moderately) avid flight sim fan, I have no idea what company you're talking about. Why? Because just about every sim I can remember in recent history has been hyped as 'just like flying a plane' etc. etc., and as someone who has flown a plane, none of 'em are even close.[1]
So much noise that the message gets ignored? Marketing types, in general, don't seem to understand that concept.
[1] Oh, except maybe the original Flight Unlimited. Damned fine sim! Even there, you don't bank in your computer chair, though.
I know we all love to be free and rightous, but has anyone considered that the FBI might be in the right here?
I mean, what if they had just come in, shackled the artist, and slapped him with "Disemmination of false and inflammatory information," libel, etc.? Sure stuff like this is shown in movies and on TV all the time, but if you read the credits, they always have a disclaimer of, "this is a work of fiction, blah blah."
Do you get it? If he's implying that this is real footage, then he's leaving himself open too all sorts of perfectly legal and arguably justifiable action.
I'm not a fan of government crackdowns, but I'm also not a fan of people using "free speech" to mess with someone else's freedom from persecution.
As usual, JonKatz's subject has little to do with his article, regardless of how interesting the article is.
But there are some gaps in the article. For instance, there is a
fundamental
difference between legislation of technology, and legislation of content. AOL lobbying for access to lines has nothing to do with government 'parent protection' ideas.
Also, these types of legislation will only substantially affect the state of the art. All of the "free and unfettered" things will continue to be so. usenet, email, BBSes (in one form or another) will still be unregulatable.
One of the most insidious aspects, though, is that new technology and apps will be developed to comply with whatever laws are in effect at the time. If, for example, restrictions on cryptography are in effect, then products won't be developed with strong cryptography. (and to tie into the previous paragraph, this still won't make PGP and so forth go away)
If you see my other post on this subject, I've given some hints. People are really different. My dad has been working 8+hr/day in questionable computing environments, and doesn't suffer from it. (his monitor at home is about 40 degrees away from his body/keyboard line!) I can deal with a monitor that's at almost any height, as long as it's _exactly_ in front of me. My fiancee has to have the middle of the monitor at eye-level, or her neck will seize up in fairly short order. You happen to be lucky (and maybe unconsciously correcting for potential problems) in these regards.
Hope you lead a long and pain-free life. I really don't suffer that badly, and take steps to avoid injuring myself. However, if we can eliminate say 60% of the RSIs out there by design, then the consequences should (happily!) be more people like you.
Interesting stuff, and to some extent, long overdue. However, there are some serious complications implied.
Ergonomics is an odd and 'fluid' science, which is still pretty young. People are too variable. There is no magic formula that relates desk, chair, keyboard, and monitor heights (and distances) to a person's size and shape. Two 180cm guys, both weighing 77kg, and having the same inseam length, may still have different ergonomic requirements, based on things as indirect as how they walk, and whether they cross country ski.
Also, consider that no environment, no matter how ergonomic, will be a good solution for someone sitting for ten hours without taking a break. In fact one of the current ergonomic theories is based on the idea that, "your best position is your next one." In other words, staying in one position will ultimately cause problems.
So the question is, who decides what is or isn't ergonomically correct? If you have an assembly line that changes in height from one end to the other, and someone is placed at what should be the "correct" place along it for their height, is the company liable for them developing back problems because their hips are sloped inwards? Is a company responsible for an employee who developed RSI, when records show that they didn't take their appointed coffee breaks?
None of which, of course, should take away frmo the point of the law--to eliminate universally _bad_ ergonomics from the workplace.
A former scientist turned sysadmin geek? A beer lover? HELLO!!! It's a good thing I'm engaged, or I'd probably be asking for your phone number.:-)
Seriously, I can relate--I somehow fell into sysadmin after many years of organic chemistry. Seeing stuff like this whets my interest, and I wish I could get more details, but I've accepted that online information is generally crap. (exceptions, of course, abound)
On that beer note, now I have to go figure out a recipe for a Steam beer. I'm having definite flashbacks to a certain User Friendly cartoon here...
I don't have a problem with the question of whether computers pray or not (it's a very intriguing philosophical question) but this woman sounds like a first class twit. On the one hand, by pointing to the mindlessly areligious churchgoers as an example, she's claiming to have reached some level of Catholicism. (Note: Couldn't be any OTHER religion, of course--there's only the One True Faith(tm))
Also, she states, "It may even be necessary to evangelize to them, she says, before computers decide to choose their own religion."
Hell, if computers develop souls and religion, why not let them figure it out on their own--they might get it right, unlike millennia of human fumbling.
Take home lesson of the day: If you're going to do something controversial and interesting, try not to be quite so shallow as this woman appears.
Fair enough. There are a few reasons why they don't go into huge details, though. Your 'grants, secrecy, etc.' point is vaid. Also, consider just how long the article would have had to be to explain things acceptably. Three times as long? Five times? Maybe more. Good science is generally pretty cryptic to those outside of the specific field. Regardless, the linked article simply isn't geared at the hardcore nanotech reader.
If you really want to know the whys and hows of this (or any) research technology, the unfortunate solution is to dig through the literature and read read read.
Hit your local library and check out this week's issue of Science--it's not only one of the most prestigious journals out there, it's one of the most readable and interesting.
OK, a serious followup to a serious followup to a post made in jest. This is getting far too serious!:-)
However... The Kama Sutra of Vatsayana is a LOT more than an old (and overhyped) Joy of Sex. It's a long (LONG) book on choosing partners, marrying, living, and getting along. More of a guide to spiritual life than just sex. (although some of the positions that are in there are...difficult)
Taxes, copyrights, piracy, and paying the artists
on
Easy MP3 Distribution
·
· Score: 3
OK, somewhere between all of the rhetoric on both extremes lies the truth.
The theoretical purpose of copyright is to protect and reward the owner of the intellectual property, i.e. the music (in this case). The practical results of copyright is leaning more and more towards protecting the companies behind the artists.
Furthermore, the recording industry has stated in no uncertain terms that All Unsanctioned Recording Is Illegal. In Canada, Bill C-32 will impose a substantial tax (Digital media, such as CD-R or DAT: 50 cents per 15 minutes of playing time) on _all_ recordable audio media, to "remunerate creators for private copying of their musical works." In other words, all blank media is used for piracy, and all puchasers of said media are pirates. This includes:
1) People who distribute Linux, etc. 2) People who make compilation tapes/CDs of their own *purchased* music! 3) Companies who backup to CDR or DAT. And very worst of all... 4) Independent musicians, who don't go through a major recording agency!!!
In other words, this bill taxes musicians and consumers, and passes the money on to the corporations.
On the other hand, being found guilty of piracy, we are at least free to pirate music. Specifically; 'In exchange for the levy, section 80 provides that copying of music works for "private use" will no longer be considered infringement.' Oh joy.
Personally, since I'm apparently a criminal (despite the fact that I have no pirated music), I'm tempted to interpret "private use" as meaning copying for free (or the cost of the media) any music for my friends private use. (however, see below)
Of course, this is in Canada, as I said. I don't know the details as well, but the US does have a similar act in place.
One person asked (quite astutely) why the RIAA should give us any respect if we refuse to respect them. The problem is that they are: 1) Preemptively labelling ALL of us as criminals. 2) Behaving like the proverbial "Jack-booted thugs." 3) Benefiting themselves and the industry, rather than the artists.
More than anything, point #3 make this an organisation not worthy of respect. Consider this snipped from their own website (copied freely under the 'fair use' act) --- Our members are the companies that comprise the most vibrant national music industry in the world.
Our mission is to foster a business and legal climate that supports and promotes our members' creative and financial vitality around the world. ---
See anything about the artists in there?
Quite honestly, the industry itself is promoting piracy. Period. They get what they deserve.
However, the artists _do_ deserve to be paid, and they do need some kind of (financial) incentive to keep recording. If music were 100% free, then professional musicians wouldn't exist (by definition).
So after all of this rambling, I would ask this of you/.ers: Pay for the indies (always!), and if you copy other music, send the artists themselves five bucks or so. If a popular artist got five hundred $5 bills, they might realise that they could market and sell the album without the use of a greedy, corrupt organisation.
And don't stop fighting!
Colin (who has exactly one burned CD, which will be replaced by a purchased copy as soon as I can find it)
Of course, this comes as no surprise. The other day I posted a rant (yes, I'll proudly admit it) about the threats of legal action against the authors of DeCSS.
This is pretty typical behaviour, unfortunately. Take the example of the OnLine Guitar Archive. Here were a bunch of musicians manually transcribing music off of records (and CDs, etc.) and sharing the tabulature with each other, so we could learn to play songs for our own, non-commercial purposes. The Harry Fox Agency decided they didn't like this, and threatened legal action. OLGA has quit distributing to their mirror sites as a result. Keep in mind that these are HAND-TRANSCRIBED BY-EAR works that HFA is claiming copyright infringement over.
The real problem, I think, is that the industry is fat, lazy, powerful, and rich. They don't like people playing instruments because it'll cut into their album sales. (Although in a pinch, they'll sell you the sheet music for a good profit.) They don't like people writing DVD code, because they don't want us to play DVDs how and where we want. They REALLY don't like MP3s, because they give artists too much control over their own music. (Even more than, say, Ani DiFranco)
This is the crux: The industry (RIAA, agencies, and production companies) has utter control over 90% of the music, books, movies, and TV shows that get made; and as a consequence, over the artists and audiences. They don't want to lose that control, and they'll fight in any dirty manner they can to keep it.
Sure, great idea. Put another two or three up there. Given that much of the research has been done, the cost for new scopes would be greatly reduced. Not only that, but we've learned enough from Hubble to make new scopes truly 'next generation' in terms of usefulness, reliability, and so forth.
So, um....you gonna pay for it?
Unfortunately, the HST has received a fair bit of bad press, and the public isn't going to be keen about coughing up more money for another potentially buggy scope. Let's face it, science funding is bloody hard to get out of taxpayers anywhere. Also, there's a huge 'fiscal responsiblity for government,' 'cut taxes' surge across North America (probably worse here in Canada due to our higher taxation), and that's REALLY going to hurt anyone's attempts to launch more 'scopes.
Which is a damned shame. We need more research done. Ultimately, it saves money, time, and lives. Too bad politicians are too scared to take a stand against the shortsightedness of the populace, mostly brought on by the media.
Sounds about right. After playing Wolf3D, I waited for months, haunting the newsgroups and so forth, for DOOM to be released. I still think that Episode I (i.e. the first ten levels) was the best pure FPS in terms of sheer fun.
Quake was somewhat redundant. QuakeII was the game Quake should have been in the first place. While I had fun with them, I have to say that I'm not rushing out to download (and/or buy) them, now that I've got the computing capability.
Now System Shock 2, THERE's an original (and fun, and SPOOKY!) game. Definitely shows off creativity instead of just pretty pictures.
Good points, all of them. However, we have to keep in mind that, mindcraft or not, it's not simply MS vs. Open Source. In fact, it's not MS vs. Open Source at all. It's a matter of using the OS, application, or hardware appropriate for your needs in a given instance. What about HP-UX or AIX? Which is the better computer, a monsterously fast single CPU, or a massively parallel array? The answer, of course, is that it depends on what you're using it for! Amazing that we can't apply the same logic to OSes.
That said, I have to admit that I have NT on my desktop at work and despise it with a passion.:-)
Seriously, as someone doing Unix y2k stuff professionally right now, I would say that...
a) There won't be any major disasters, nuclear meltdowns, etc. b) There will be some minor widespread problems. c) Canada is on the whole _more_ ready than the US for y2k. (gotta throw that in) d) The countries that are least prepared for it are the countries that are least reliant on computers. How much of a difference would it make to the populace of bangladesh if their computer systems went offline? Tonga?
But what bugs me the most, is that by doing my job well and fixing the problems before they crash systems, people will point at me in January and scream, "Charlatan! Fear-monger!" In other words, the better job we do, the more abuse we'll get from the lunatics.
Part of the problem is that idealism doesn't sell, and idealists don't make good marketers. Selling people what they need is doomed. Selling people what they want is tricky. Selling people what YOU want to sell them is modern business. This is why I fear for linux--selflessness (i.e. OSS) makes it hard to achieve market penetration, and selfishness (i.e. marketing, big money, etc.) tends to warp the product being sold into something that can be easily packaged and written up in a press release.
This is only _specifically_ relevant to technology inasmuch as society is primarily concerned with technology over more traditional markets/values/objects. Let's face it, our society today is almost a technology unto itself.
Before doing any writing, though, you have to read "The Real World of Technology," by Ursula Franklin. Ms. Franklin is a physics prof who gave a series of lectures on the good, bad, and neutral facets of technology and how they are used in (and are affected by) the real day-to-day world. Fascinating and informative reading.
The Real World of Technology: http://search.borders.com/fcgi-cin/db2www/search /search.d2w/Details?&mediaType=Book&prodID =51468039
So the motion picture industry is threatening geeks now. Surprise, surprise.
Let's see here; Between 1/2" mag tape, cassettes, VCRs, CD-R(W), MP3s, and now hacking DVDs, the entire entertainment industry must be on the verge of bankruptcy! The poor execs!!!
Oh, wait a minute--they're _not_ broke? Now howinthehell did THAT happen?
The industry knows full well that VCRs, despite the problems of piracy, have made more money for them than anything else ever has. They also know that, like with CDs (mostly) replacing records, they'll be able to jack up the price of DVDs and make a _larger_ profit. There is no question of them losing money to pirates on this glitch.
So why are they threatening programmers? Three reasons:
1) Because they can. (power) 2) Because they want to. (greed and powerlust) 3) Because they do. (force of habit)
Both music and movie industries have consistently taken the myopic view of technology, and have ended up hurting themselves every time. It's clear that they won't learn any better. However, it's really starting to piss me off, and I'll be making a point of illegally copying movies when I can, the same way that the industry convinced me to copy CDs of major artists. (indies and the like always get my money--they need it!)
The sadist in me is rubbing his hands together with glee--they'll hurt themselves more this time than they have yet.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes and...no.
The hammer analogy isn't bad, but GAs have more 'creative input' or something along those lines. If you tell the smarthammer(tm) how to build the house, and it does all of the work, is it your work or the hammer's? How about if you tell it how the house should look, and it decides how to go about the building of it? What if you say, "build me a three-bedroom house" and it does all of the work from design to construction? How about saying, "do something with this land" and the hammer (hardly a hammer at this point!) decides that housing is in order, based on the fact that the land will support it, and you don't have a house?
The point of the article (which I thought was surprisingly well written) is that we're starting a long slide towards computers that can break down problems on their own, and may eventually be able to ask questions on their own.
Where do you draw the line? When do you say that the creative impetus for a given idea or solution belongs to the "tool" rather than the "user?"
Unfortunately, the law (in most countries, at least) is fairly clear on this point--it doesn't matter. If you, as an intelligent, thinking being come up with a brilliant idea and/or research, while under the employ of a company, the company (generally) owns the idea, lock stock and barrel. If (when?) computers get to that point, their ideas will still be owned by the company that owns/operates them.
Now if computers gain legal independence...
Heh. True 'nuff.
Regardless of access, I only listen to two radio stations, watch essentially no TV, read books that interest me (in general, and at a given moment), listen to music that I've chosen, and wander through a tiny interesting portion of the 'net. Maybe 5% of my 'internal resources' are used up in filtering out the >98% of everything that's crap.
It's when you take whatever you're given that you truly get overloaded, and usually overloaded with the very worst.
Absolutely right. Until the web can offer me tactile response, I'll do all of my shopping in person. (except where I can't get something locally) Pictures ain't the same as picking something up, asking the clerk questions, listening to a stereo, and so forth.
Which isn't to imply that the malls have nothing to fear. In most cities, they've vastly overextended themselves, and will probably find that they'll have to close half of their malls eventually. Tough. Around here there are only two companies that own all of the 20+ malls, and they'll survive just fine when they close down.
Here's a sad state of affairs.
Despite being a (moderately) avid flight sim fan, I have no idea what company you're talking about. Why? Because just about every sim I can remember in recent history has been hyped as 'just like flying a plane' etc. etc., and as someone who has flown a plane, none of 'em are even close.[1]
So much noise that the message gets ignored? Marketing types, in general, don't seem to understand that concept.
[1] Oh, except maybe the original Flight Unlimited. Damned fine sim! Even there, you don't bank in your computer chair, though.
I know we all love to be free and rightous, but has anyone considered that the FBI might be in the right here?
I mean, what if they had just come in, shackled the artist, and slapped him with "Disemmination of false and inflammatory information," libel, etc.? Sure stuff like this is shown in movies and on TV all the time, but if you read the credits, they always have a disclaimer of, "this is a work of fiction, blah blah."
Do you get it? If he's implying that this is real footage, then he's leaving himself open too all sorts of perfectly legal and arguably justifiable action.
I'm not a fan of government crackdowns, but I'm also not a fan of people using "free speech" to mess with someone else's freedom from persecution.
But there are some gaps in the article. For instance, there is a
- fundamental
difference between legislation of technology, and legislation of content. AOL lobbying for access to lines has nothing to do with government 'parent protection' ideas.Also, these types of legislation will only substantially affect the state of the art. All of the "free and unfettered" things will continue to be so. usenet, email, BBSes (in one form or another) will still be unregulatable.
One of the most insidious aspects, though, is that new technology and apps will be developed to comply with whatever laws are in effect at the time. If, for example, restrictions on cryptography are in effect, then products won't be developed with strong cryptography. (and to tie into the previous paragraph, this still won't make PGP and so forth go away)
If you see my other post on this subject, I've given some hints. People are really different. My dad has been working 8+hr/day in questionable computing environments, and doesn't suffer from it. (his monitor at home is about 40 degrees away from his body/keyboard line!) I can deal with a monitor that's at almost any height, as long as it's _exactly_ in front of me. My fiancee has to have the middle of the monitor at eye-level, or her neck will seize up in fairly short order. You happen to be lucky (and maybe unconsciously correcting for potential problems) in these regards.
Hope you lead a long and pain-free life. I really don't suffer that badly, and take steps to avoid injuring myself. However, if we can eliminate say 60% of the RSIs out there by design, then the consequences should (happily!) be more people like you.
Interesting stuff, and to some extent, long overdue. However, there are some serious complications implied.
Ergonomics is an odd and 'fluid' science, which is still pretty young. People are too variable. There is no magic formula that relates desk, chair, keyboard, and monitor heights (and distances) to a person's size and shape. Two 180cm guys, both weighing 77kg, and having the same inseam length, may still have different ergonomic requirements, based on things as indirect as how they walk, and whether they cross country ski.
Also, consider that no environment, no matter how ergonomic, will be a good solution for someone sitting for ten hours without taking a break. In fact one of the current ergonomic theories is based on the idea that, "your best position is your next one." In other words, staying in one position will ultimately cause problems.
So the question is, who decides what is or isn't ergonomically correct? If you have an assembly line that changes in height from one end to the other, and someone is placed at what should be the "correct" place along it for their height, is the company liable for them developing back problems because their hips are sloped inwards? Is a company responsible for an employee who developed RSI, when records show that they didn't take their appointed coffee breaks?
None of which, of course, should take away frmo the point of the law--to eliminate universally _bad_ ergonomics from the workplace.
A former scientist turned sysadmin geek? A beer lover? HELLO!!! It's a good thing I'm engaged, or I'd probably be asking for your phone number. :-)
Seriously, I can relate--I somehow fell into sysadmin after many years of organic chemistry. Seeing stuff like this whets my interest, and I wish I could get more details, but I've accepted that online information is generally crap. (exceptions, of course, abound)
On that beer note, now I have to go figure out a recipe for a Steam beer. I'm having definite flashbacks to a certain User Friendly cartoon here...
Oh, give me a break.
I don't have a problem with the question of whether computers pray or not (it's a very intriguing philosophical question) but this woman sounds like a first class twit. On the one hand, by pointing to the mindlessly areligious churchgoers as an example, she's claiming to have reached some level of Catholicism. (Note: Couldn't be any OTHER religion, of course--there's only the One True Faith(tm))
Also, she states, "It may even be necessary to evangelize to them, she says, before computers decide to choose their own religion."
Hell, if computers develop souls and religion, why not let them figure it out on their own--they might get it right, unlike millennia of human fumbling.
Take home lesson of the day: If you're going to do something controversial and interesting, try not to be quite so shallow as this woman appears.
Fair enough. There are a few reasons why they don't go into huge details, though. Your 'grants, secrecy, etc.' point is vaid. Also, consider just how long the article would have had to be to explain things acceptably. Three times as long? Five times? Maybe more. Good science is generally pretty cryptic to those outside of the specific field. Regardless, the linked article simply isn't geared at the hardcore nanotech reader.
If you really want to know the whys and hows of this (or any) research technology, the unfortunate solution is to dig through the literature and read read read.
Hit your local library and check out this week's issue of Science--it's not only one of the most prestigious journals out there, it's one of the most readable and interesting.
OK, a serious followup to a serious followup to a post made in jest. This is getting far too serious! :-)
However...
The Kama Sutra of Vatsayana is a LOT more than an old (and overhyped) Joy of Sex. It's a long (LONG) book on choosing partners, marrying, living, and getting along. More of a guide to spiritual life than just sex. (although some of the positions that are in there are...difficult)
OK, somewhere between all of the rhetoric on both extremes lies the truth.
/.ers: Pay for the indies (always!), and if you copy other music, send the artists themselves five bucks or so. If a popular artist got five hundred $5 bills, they might realise that they could market and sell the album without the use of a greedy, corrupt organisation.
The theoretical purpose of copyright is to protect and reward the owner of the intellectual property, i.e. the music (in this case). The practical results of copyright is leaning more and more towards protecting the companies behind the artists.
Furthermore, the recording industry has stated in no uncertain terms that All Unsanctioned Recording Is Illegal. In Canada, Bill C-32 will impose a substantial tax (Digital media, such as CD-R or DAT: 50 cents per 15 minutes of playing time) on _all_ recordable audio media, to "remunerate creators for private copying of their musical works." In other words, all blank media is used for piracy, and all puchasers of said media are pirates. This includes:
1) People who distribute Linux, etc.
2) People who make compilation tapes/CDs of their own *purchased* music!
3) Companies who backup to CDR or DAT.
And very worst of all...
4) Independent musicians, who don't go through a major recording agency!!!
In other words, this bill taxes musicians and consumers, and passes the money on to the corporations.
On the other hand, being found guilty of piracy, we are at least free to pirate music. Specifically; 'In exchange for the levy, section 80 provides that copying of music works for "private use" will no longer be considered infringement.' Oh joy.
Personally, since I'm apparently a criminal (despite the fact that I have no pirated music), I'm tempted to interpret "private use" as meaning copying for free (or the cost of the media) any music for my friends private use. (however, see below)
Of course, this is in Canada, as I said. I don't know the details as well, but the US does have a similar act in place.
One person asked (quite astutely) why the RIAA should give us any respect if we refuse to respect them. The problem is that they are:
1) Preemptively labelling ALL of us as criminals.
2) Behaving like the proverbial "Jack-booted thugs."
3) Benefiting themselves and the industry, rather than the artists.
More than anything, point #3 make this an organisation not worthy of respect. Consider this snipped from their own website (copied freely under the 'fair use' act)
---
Our members are the companies that comprise the most vibrant national music industry in the world.
Our mission is to foster a business and legal climate that supports and promotes our members' creative and financial vitality around the world.
---
See anything about the artists in there?
Quite honestly, the industry itself is promoting piracy. Period. They get what they deserve.
However, the artists _do_ deserve to be paid, and they do need some kind of (financial) incentive to keep recording. If music were 100% free, then professional musicians wouldn't exist (by definition).
So after all of this rambling, I would ask this of you
And don't stop fighting!
Colin
(who has exactly one burned CD, which will be replaced by a purchased copy as soon as I can find it)
Actually, random people off the street can email CR as well. Go to this page.
I encourage everyone else to send in your (rational, calm, concise) comments about CR recommending Trust-E.
Of course, this comes as no surprise. The other day I posted a rant (yes, I'll proudly admit it) about the threats of legal action against the authors of DeCSS.
This is pretty typical behaviour, unfortunately. Take the example of the OnLine Guitar Archive. Here were a bunch of musicians manually transcribing music off of records (and CDs, etc.) and sharing the tabulature with each other, so we could learn to play songs for our own, non-commercial purposes. The Harry Fox Agency decided they didn't like this, and threatened legal action. OLGA has quit distributing to their mirror sites as a result. Keep in mind that these are HAND-TRANSCRIBED BY-EAR works that HFA is claiming copyright infringement over.
The real problem, I think, is that the industry is fat, lazy, powerful, and rich. They don't like people playing instruments because it'll cut into their album sales. (Although in a pinch, they'll sell you the sheet music for a good profit.) They don't like people writing DVD code, because they don't want us to play DVDs how and where we want. They REALLY don't like MP3s, because they give artists too much control over their own music. (Even more than, say, Ani DiFranco)
This is the crux: The industry (RIAA, agencies, and production companies) has utter control over 90% of the music, books, movies, and TV shows that get made; and as a consequence, over the artists and audiences. They don't want to lose that control, and they'll fight in any dirty manner they can to keep it.
Our job is to not let them.
Sure, great idea. Put another two or three up there. Given that much of the research has been done, the cost for new scopes would be greatly reduced. Not only that, but we've learned enough from Hubble to make new scopes truly 'next generation' in terms of usefulness, reliability, and so forth.
So, um....you gonna pay for it?
Unfortunately, the HST has received a fair bit of bad press, and the public isn't going to be keen about coughing up more money for another potentially buggy scope. Let's face it, science funding is bloody hard to get out of taxpayers anywhere. Also, there's a huge 'fiscal responsiblity for government,' 'cut taxes' surge across North America (probably worse here in Canada due to our higher taxation), and that's REALLY going to hurt anyone's attempts to launch more 'scopes.
Which is a damned shame. We need more research done. Ultimately, it saves money, time, and lives. Too bad politicians are too scared to take a stand against the shortsightedness of the populace, mostly brought on by the media.
Sounds about right. After playing Wolf3D, I waited for months, haunting the newsgroups and so forth, for DOOM to be released. I still think that Episode I (i.e. the first ten levels) was the best pure FPS in terms of sheer fun.
Quake was somewhat redundant. QuakeII was the game Quake should have been in the first place. While I had fun with them, I have to say that I'm not rushing out to download (and/or buy) them, now that I've got the computing capability.
Now System Shock 2, THERE's an original (and fun, and SPOOKY!) game. Definitely shows off creativity instead of just pretty pictures.
What, a rational point of view on /.??!
:-)
Good points, all of them. However, we have to keep in mind that, mindcraft or not, it's not simply MS vs. Open Source. In fact, it's not MS vs. Open Source at all. It's a matter of using the OS, application, or hardware appropriate for your needs in a given instance. What about HP-UX or AIX? Which is the better computer, a monsterously fast single CPU, or a massively parallel array? The answer, of course, is that it depends on what you're using it for! Amazing that we can't apply the same logic to OSes.
That said, I have to admit that I have NT on my desktop at work and despise it with a passion.
Colin
Because I've already fixed it all!
Seriously, as someone doing Unix y2k stuff professionally right now, I would say that...
a) There won't be any major disasters, nuclear meltdowns, etc.
b) There will be some minor widespread problems.
c) Canada is on the whole _more_ ready than the US for y2k. (gotta throw that in)
d) The countries that are least prepared for it are the countries that are least reliant on computers. How much of a difference would it make to the populace of bangladesh if their computer systems went offline? Tonga?
But what bugs me the most, is that by doing my job well and fixing the problems before they crash systems, people will point at me in January and scream, "Charlatan! Fear-monger!" In other words, the better job we do, the more abuse we'll get from the lunatics.
*sigh*
Interesting subject you'ev got to play with!
h /search.d2w/Details?&mediaType=Book&prodID =51468039
Part of the problem is that idealism doesn't sell, and idealists don't make good marketers. Selling people what they need is doomed. Selling people what they want is tricky. Selling people what YOU want to sell them is modern business. This is why I fear for linux--selflessness (i.e. OSS) makes it hard to achieve market penetration, and selfishness (i.e. marketing, big money, etc.) tends to warp the product being sold into something that can be easily packaged and written up in a press release.
This is only _specifically_ relevant to technology inasmuch as society is primarily concerned with technology over more traditional markets/values/objects. Let's face it, our society today is almost a technology unto itself.
Before doing any writing, though, you have to read "The Real World of Technology," by Ursula Franklin. Ms. Franklin is a physics prof who gave a series of lectures on the good, bad, and neutral facets of technology and how they are used in (and are affected by) the real day-to-day world. Fascinating and informative reading.
The Real World of Technology:
http://search.borders.com/fcgi-cin/db2www/searc
So the motion picture industry is threatening geeks now. Surprise, surprise.
Let's see here; Between 1/2" mag tape, cassettes, VCRs, CD-R(W), MP3s, and now hacking DVDs, the entire entertainment industry must be on the verge of bankruptcy! The poor execs!!!
Oh, wait a minute--they're _not_ broke? Now howinthehell did THAT happen?
The industry knows full well that VCRs, despite the problems of piracy, have made more money for them than anything else ever has. They also know that, like with CDs (mostly) replacing records, they'll be able to jack up the price of DVDs and make a _larger_ profit. There is no question of them losing money to pirates on this glitch.
So why are they threatening programmers? Three reasons:
1) Because they can. (power)
2) Because they want to. (greed and powerlust)
3) Because they do. (force of habit)
Both music and movie industries have consistently taken the myopic view of technology, and have ended up hurting themselves every time. It's clear that they won't learn any better. However, it's really starting to piss me off, and I'll be making a point of illegally copying movies when I can, the same way that the industry convinced me to copy CDs of major artists. (indies and the like always get my money--they need it!)
The sadist in me is rubbing his hands together with glee--they'll hurt themselves more this time than they have yet.