Maybe we'll actually get the internet back. Remember what it was before AOL made the leap? The ones that will be left are the ones that know HOW to protect themselves from this junk, so it won't be much of an issue. The signal-to-noise maybe very well go UP for once, and it may generally become a more productive/enjoyable experience.
is a universal OFF button for car stereos. They are FAR more annoying, and entail FAR more of an encroachment on the rights of others. The icing on the cake would be a universal Self-Destruct button- because that's probably what it would take for the little queens that drive these cars to get the message.
As far as the TV goes, I remember working out at the local gym - there was this gaggle of women that would often show up at the same time. If the TV was off, one of them would make sure to turn it on. If it was on, one of them would make sure to turn up the volume. If that wasn't enough, they'd spend their workout practically yelling back and forth across the room above the noise from the TV. Oh how I would have loved something like this.
BOUGHT. Why not either a) have the government give each qualified candidate a designated amount they can spend on their campaign, or b) flat out limit the amount they can spend? People might cry that it's not fair, that why should be able to buy^H^H^H donate as much as they want, and that a candidate should be able to spend as much as he/she sees fit, However, this, at least in my opinion, skews the process so incredibly in favor of those with more money, competency notwithstanding,
Every election year it's the same, tired, crap, where each politician makes the same promises they did the prior election. The one who gets elected is often the one that can drill their promises into the minds of prospective voters more effectively than the others - which translates into more ads, which of course, requires more money. That's about it - politicians bought and paid for by the U.S political system.
Of course, greed is nothing new, but "IP" is just a way for companies to milk something that isn't really there. To be fair, I do believe there is some innovative effort that deserves protection, but the key word here is "innovative". Amazon's "one-click" patent, for example, is in NO WAY innovative. Most of the patent applications coming from the software industry aren't innovative, they're just attempts to steal empowerment from the public at large.
I was thinking about this the other day - software is the only industry I know where an individual or company has the right to own common methods. What if, for example, I went to the hardware store to buy some lumber, nails, and a hammer so that I could build something that would add value to my life? What if I also had to consult a patent attorney before doing so, fearing that the method I use to construct this item might be covered by someone's patent? The idea is ludicrous, but this is the very situation that we now face in the software industry. Every time a developer puts an idea into code, there is a very real possibility that a patent violation is in the works - not intentional, not maliscious, but by mere virtue of the fact that the developer has the ability to empower both him/herself and others by what they produce. Any alleged infractions exist only because someone also had the same idea, and was greedy enough to claim ownership.
Let's face it - this isn't about IP. It's about greed, lockout, and theft of empowerment.
Not in the U.S. What you're advocating, though very worthwhile, is something that requires a certain degree of personal integrity and general fortitude. Unfortunately, there aren't many politicians willing to slam the cookie jar shut. After all, today's placated lobbyist could easily lead to tomorrow's high-paying consulting gig.
There may not be that much "new" about open source, but that's not necessarily due to a lack of innovative desire. It's due to the fact that the market knows that's already there (Microsoft), and in order to gain any respectable degree of adoption, open source needs to be able to offer an environment that is very familiar- that is, very much in line mith Microsoft's own lack of innovation. Otherwise, it will alienate all but the die-hard linux hobbyists.
I see no reason why a cornerstone of our society should be commoditized to the point that lawyers (those who are the interface between our system of law, and the people to whom the law applies), should receive compensation in excess of a certain amount. The fact that an attorney can claim hourly rates of $500+, and significant percentages of large awards, provides what I believe is a very strong incentive screw around with the court system. Cap the rates, and I think you will see a big change- hopefully starting with a rapid departure of all the scumbag attorneys who are only in it for the money and the power.
Aren't they as much to blame? If I decide that MCI/Worldcomm is a scumbag corporation, but I also knew that if I bought x number of shares today, with a high prospect of being worth considerably more in the future, and buy these shares based on that assumption, haven't I just helped to perpetuate this kind of behavior?
It's not only the greed of corporate executives, it's our own greed as well. We all want to make money, and few of us are willing to sacrifice profit for punitive action. Many "investors" these days are institutions (like various funds), thus making the whole process somewhat removed from any kind of moral judgement- it certainly doesn't help.
I was made privy to a similar type of case, where a class action suit was filed against AMEX with respect to their shoddy practices involving their travel insurance. The proposed settlement? ONE cardholder gets about $10K, one gets about $4K, the law firm gets $4 million, and everyone else that got screwed, got nothing. I don't know how this ultimately turned out, but this is absurd. The vast majority of any award should go to the parties that are injured, NOT THE DAMN LAWYERS!
I say PR. If it were an act of generosity, Gates would have encouraged them to come up with a more creative name. Nothing like the ego of someone with too much money, too much power, or just a delusional state of having either.
At least where I live, it's not competively priced at all. I can pay x number of dollars to my cable company and get 3.0 Mbps, ISP services included. The telcos, for whatever reason, think it's cute to unbundle everything- they advertise that you can get a 1.5 Mbs DSL connection for $29.99 a month, and you can - but this does NOT include an ISP. Once you add that in, you're close the price of cable, and at half the speed.
I was talking to my telco the other day, trying to get some charges removed that were initiated by a third party. At the end of the conversation, the guy told me that they could give me more options on my business line, AND reduce my rate by about 30%. If anything, the competition will help- at least in the short run.
Spectrum is intangible the way the physical space is intangible. They exist, but they are not easily quantifiable. Yet we all depend on their availabiltiy in one way or another. Waves passing from one point to another can have all manner of implications: who has access to them, are they interfering with anyone else's use (or enjoyment), etc. So maybe, when we talk about things like spectrum ownership, it's not ownership per se, but a limited right to exclusive utilization.
I don't have a problem with regulated use of a common element. I do, however, have a problem with the notion of hijacking, or usurping a common element, where the benefit is limited solely to the offending parties. I think a reasonably person could argue that the former case might very well be beneficial to society as a whole, while the latter could easily lead to decay.
So, it's not a question of ownership, really, as it is one of making the best use of a particular commone element, while benefitting the greatest number of people.
That day happened about four years ago for me. I haven't bought, rented, downloaded, or copied anything. No movies, no DvDs, no VHS, no CDs. Nothing. It hasn't been that hard. really. In fact, I'd call it a non-event. Life goes on, except that I'm not shelling out my money to the greedy media companies- that's really the only difference. People have to got over the idea that they'll suffer some immense hardship if they aren't constantly pre-occupying themselves with the latest releases.
I applaud this move. The sooner all this nonsense becomes unbearable, the sooner (educated) consumers will tell the media companies to take their DRM and shove it.
Whether or not you would have bought it is irrelevent. Whether or not you derive benefit from the illegal use or possession of someone else's property without paying for it, is what's at issue here. You play, you pay. Simple as that.
It has become my opinion that a four-year degree says very little about someone's willingness to "work at something" for four years. Often, college is little more than an excuse to regress 10 years before actually growing up (some never even make it). How does your degree reflect just how much work you've done? Does it reflect whether or not you've cheated (and many do)? Does it say anything about your actual commitment to the educational process (i.e. how many classes did you actually attend?) Does it say anything about your desire to turn in an assignments done well because you wanted to do them well, or assignments that were routinely put off until the last minute and then hurriedly thrown together just to get them out of the way? Does a degree say whether or not you were there to get an education, or simply because it will help you further your objectives (which, ironically, may have nothing to do with education)?
What does that little piece of paper really mean, anyway?
I absolutely agree. Despite having cute little icons, mice, menus, windows, and whatever, typing is still one of the most salient means by which people interact with a computer.
Registration is the "price" you pay for full access to the online newspaper. Is that too much? Fine, then don't read it... but don't adopt some holier-than-thou attitude just because the newspaper (gasp) asks for something back before it hands over its content.
Unfortunately, when you register, you're handing over a LOT more than the value of the content. You're handing them information which indentifies you. It's information they can use to track what you read, and then sold to other parties, who then also have your information. This also becomes information which can be subpoenaed in a court of law, as well as information that can end up as yet one more item to add to a growing list of ways you can be profiled.
When you compare this to the cost of going down to a newsstand and paying $.50, the newsstand option suddenly looks MUCH more attractive.
It's pretty much a certainty that it will be abused. Ever wonder why your personal information is so freely available, and hence, why identity theft is such a problem?
So claiming this black box will stop you or at least catch you at breaking the law IS EXACTLY THE REASON THEY ARE TRYING TO INTRODUCE IT.
First, you break the law. THEN you are accused of breaking said law, tried in a court of law, and either convicted, or deemed innocent, either by a judge or jury of your peers. You are presumed innocent until you are proven guilty. That's how it works.
What we are seeing is an increasing number of systems being put into place which presume guilt, and simply supply the appropriate data to law enforcement agencies when it happens. When this happens, the whole notion of due process is relegated to a mere formality.
...that ultimately, no legislation passed by the government can surpass the influence that consumers have with respect to how they choose to spend their money.
Media is another form of crack. Once people learn to shed their dependence and actually restrain themselves from acquiring everything that Media, Inc. pumps out, the resulting (hopefully significant) drop in revenue will send a clear message that either the rules of the game will change, or Media, Inc. will just have to settle for what it can scrape together from the smoking pile of wreckage that was one a thriving industry.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe we'll actually get the internet back. Remember what it was before AOL made the leap? The ones that will be left are the ones that know HOW to protect themselves from this junk, so it won't be much of an issue. The signal-to-noise maybe very well go UP for once, and it may generally become a more productive/enjoyable experience.
is a universal OFF button for car stereos. They are FAR more annoying, and entail FAR more of an encroachment on the rights of others. The icing on the cake would be a universal Self-Destruct button- because that's probably what it would take for the little queens that drive these cars to get the message.
As far as the TV goes, I remember working out at the local gym - there was this gaggle of women that would often show up at the same time. If the TV was off, one of them would make sure to turn it on. If it was on, one of them would make sure to turn up the volume. If that wasn't enough, they'd spend their workout practically yelling back and forth across the room above the noise from the TV. Oh how I would have loved something like this.
And this brings me to an interesting question...how many ways can you implement "one click"?
BOUGHT. Why not either a) have the government give each qualified candidate a designated amount they can spend on their campaign, or b) flat out limit the amount they can spend? People might cry that it's not fair, that why should be able to buy^H^H^H donate as much as they want, and that a candidate should be able to spend as much as he/she sees fit, However, this, at least in my opinion, skews the process so incredibly in favor of those with more money, competency notwithstanding,
Every election year it's the same, tired, crap, where each politician makes the same promises they did the prior election. The one who gets elected is often the one that can drill their promises into the minds of prospective voters more effectively than the others - which translates into more ads, which of course, requires more money. That's about it - politicians bought and paid for by the U.S political system.
Of course, greed is nothing new, but "IP" is just a way for companies to milk something that isn't really there. To be fair, I do believe there is some innovative effort that deserves protection, but the key word here is "innovative". Amazon's "one-click" patent, for example, is in NO WAY innovative. Most of the patent applications coming from the software industry aren't innovative, they're just attempts to steal empowerment from the public at large.
I was thinking about this the other day - software is the only industry I know where an individual or company has the right to own common methods. What if, for example, I went to the hardware store to buy some lumber, nails, and a hammer so that I could build something that would add value to my life? What if I also had to consult a patent attorney before doing so, fearing that the method I use to construct this item might be covered by someone's patent? The idea is ludicrous, but this is the very situation that we now face in the software industry. Every time a developer puts an idea into code, there is a very real possibility that a patent violation is in the works - not intentional, not maliscious, but by mere virtue of the fact that the developer has the ability to empower both him/herself and others by what they produce. Any alleged infractions exist only because someone also had the same idea, and was greedy enough to claim ownership.
Let's face it - this isn't about IP. It's about greed, lockout, and theft of empowerment.
Not in the U.S. What you're advocating, though very worthwhile, is something that requires a certain degree of personal integrity and general fortitude. Unfortunately, there aren't many politicians willing to slam the cookie jar shut. After all, today's placated lobbyist could easily lead to tomorrow's high-paying consulting gig.
There may not be that much "new" about open source, but that's not necessarily due to a lack of innovative desire. It's due to the fact that the market knows that's already there (Microsoft), and in order to gain any respectable degree of adoption, open source needs to be able to offer an environment that is very familiar- that is, very much in line mith Microsoft's own lack of innovation. Otherwise, it will alienate all but the die-hard linux hobbyists.
I see no reason why a cornerstone of our society should be commoditized to the point that lawyers (those who are the interface between our system of law, and the people to whom the law applies), should receive compensation in excess of a certain amount. The fact that an attorney can claim hourly rates of $500+, and significant percentages of large awards, provides what I believe is a very strong incentive screw around with the court system. Cap the rates, and I think you will see a big change- hopefully starting with a rapid departure of all the scumbag attorneys who are only in it for the money and the power.
Aren't they as much to blame? If I decide that MCI/Worldcomm is a scumbag corporation, but I also knew that if I bought x number of shares today, with a high prospect of being worth considerably more in the future, and buy these shares based on that assumption, haven't I just helped to perpetuate this kind of behavior?
It's not only the greed of corporate executives, it's our own greed as well. We all want to make money, and few of us are willing to sacrifice profit for punitive action. Many "investors" these days are institutions (like various funds), thus making the whole process somewhat removed from any kind of moral judgement- it certainly doesn't help.
I was made privy to a similar type of case, where a class action suit was filed against AMEX with respect to their shoddy practices involving their travel insurance. The proposed settlement? ONE cardholder gets about $10K, one gets about $4K, the law firm gets $4 million, and everyone else that got screwed, got nothing. I don't know how this ultimately turned out, but this is absurd. The vast majority of any award should go to the parties that are injured, NOT THE DAMN LAWYERS!
I say PR. If it were an act of generosity, Gates would have encouraged them to come up with a more creative name. Nothing like the ego of someone with too much money, too much power, or just a delusional state of having either.
At least where I live, it's not competively priced at all. I can pay x number of dollars to my cable company and get 3.0 Mbps, ISP services included. The telcos, for whatever reason, think it's cute to unbundle everything- they advertise that you can get a 1.5 Mbs DSL connection for $29.99 a month, and you can - but this does NOT include an ISP. Once you add that in, you're close the price of cable, and at half the speed.
I was talking to my telco the other day, trying to get some charges removed that were initiated by a third party. At the end of the conversation, the guy told me that they could give me more options on my business line, AND reduce my rate by about 30%. If anything, the competition will help- at least in the short run.
Spectrum is intangible the way the physical space is intangible. They exist, but they are not easily quantifiable. Yet we all depend on their availabiltiy in one way or another. Waves passing from one point to another can have all manner of implications: who has access to them, are they interfering with anyone else's use (or enjoyment), etc. So maybe, when we talk about things like spectrum ownership, it's not ownership per se, but a limited right to exclusive utilization.
I don't have a problem with regulated use of a common element. I do, however, have a problem with the notion of hijacking, or usurping a common element, where the benefit is limited solely to the offending parties. I think a reasonably person could argue that the former case might very well be beneficial to society as a whole, while the latter could easily lead to decay.
So, it's not a question of ownership, really, as it is one of making the best use of a particular commone element, while benefitting the greatest number of people.
If a company is going to invest time and money into an employee there is no better test of the person's integrity than that of a college diploma...
I hope you're kidding. What do integrity and a college diploma have to do with one another?
That day happened about four years ago for me. I haven't bought, rented, downloaded, or copied anything. No movies, no DvDs, no VHS, no CDs. Nothing. It hasn't been that hard. really. In fact, I'd call it a non-event. Life goes on, except that I'm not shelling out my money to the greedy media companies- that's really the only difference. People have to got over the idea that they'll suffer some immense hardship if they aren't constantly pre-occupying themselves with the latest releases.
I applaud this move. The sooner all this nonsense becomes unbearable, the sooner (educated) consumers will tell the media companies to take their DRM and shove it.
Whether or not you would have bought it is irrelevent. Whether or not you derive benefit from the illegal use or possession of someone else's property without paying for it, is what's at issue here. You play, you pay. Simple as that.
It has become my opinion that a four-year degree says very little about someone's willingness to "work at something" for four years. Often, college is little more than an excuse to regress 10 years before actually growing up (some never even make it). How does your degree reflect just how much work you've done? Does it reflect whether or not you've cheated (and many do)? Does it say anything about your actual commitment to the educational process (i.e. how many classes did you actually attend?) Does it say anything about your desire to turn in an assignments done well because you wanted to do them well, or assignments that were routinely put off until the last minute and then hurriedly thrown together just to get them out of the way? Does a degree say whether or not you were there to get an education, or simply because it will help you further your objectives (which, ironically, may have nothing to do with education)?
What does that little piece of paper really mean, anyway?
I absolutely agree. Despite having cute little icons, mice, menus, windows, and whatever, typing is still one of the most salient means by which people interact with a computer.
Registration is the "price" you pay for full access to the online newspaper. Is that too much? Fine, then don't read it... but don't adopt some holier-than-thou attitude just because the newspaper (gasp) asks for something back before it hands over its content.
Unfortunately, when you register, you're handing over a LOT more than the value of the content. You're handing them information which indentifies you. It's information they can use to track what you read, and then sold to other parties, who then also have your information. This also becomes information which can be subpoenaed in a court of law, as well as information that can end up as yet one more item to add to a growing list of ways you can be profiled.
When you compare this to the cost of going down to a newsstand and paying $.50, the newsstand option suddenly looks MUCH more attractive.
I am certain it can be abused in so many ways.
It's pretty much a certainty that it will be abused. Ever wonder why your personal information is so freely available, and hence, why identity theft is such a problem?
So claiming this black box will stop you or at least catch you at breaking the law IS EXACTLY THE REASON THEY ARE TRYING TO INTRODUCE IT.
First, you break the law. THEN you are accused of breaking said law, tried in a court of law, and either convicted, or deemed innocent, either by a judge or jury of your peers. You are presumed innocent until you are proven guilty. That's how it works.
What we are seeing is an increasing number of systems being put into place which presume guilt, and simply supply the appropriate data to law enforcement agencies when it happens. When this happens, the whole notion of due process is relegated to a mere formality.
Media is another form of crack. Once people learn to shed their dependence and actually restrain themselves from acquiring everything that Media, Inc. pumps out, the resulting (hopefully significant) drop in revenue will send a clear message that either the rules of the game will change, or Media, Inc. will just have to settle for what it can scrape together from the smoking pile of wreckage that was one a thriving industry.