That may apply on certain lefty college campuses in the US, but not in the country as a whole.
This IS true, if by "the country as a whole" you are including the sadly uninformed and apathetic general populace. The Federal Government, on the other hand, is definitely showing signs of heading in this general direction.
The trends of giving up (or having given up FOR you) personal rights, priviledges, and freedoms (fair use? works entering the public domain after a "limited" period of time? Due Process for alleged "cyber-crimes"? Privacy?) to a national government for the benefit of that government and the promise (and what is a politician's promise WORTH these days if you're not a wealthy campaign donor?) of a little more 'security' from an evil empire of terrorists, drug traffickers, and video pirates (to the benefit of corporate entities and governmental agencies) sounds like it fits the definition you list reasonably well.
"centralized autocratic government"? While arguably there won't be any single individual in the federal government of the US any time soon with personal dictatorial power, certainly having dictatorial power in a handful of federal-level agencies isn't too far from that.
"Severe economic regimentation"? When was the last time you noticed how much it costs to hire a lawyer to defend you against a bad law or false accusation? Or, for that matter, pay for each and every use of a work of "intellectual property" (granted, this isn't yet the usual case, but can anyone really deny that's the direction current law and corporate policies seem to be headed steadily?) Or to lobby for laws (or repeal thereof) that are favorable to YOUR rights? Sounds like pretty severe economic regimentation to me...
"Social regimentation" may be a bit of a stretch...but then again - "consumers"? "hackers"? "corporate entities"? Lately, these seem to be distinct groups when referred to by media outlets and, sadly, a lot of individuals. They've been seeming pretty 'regimented' to me lately - I don't recall seeing any hints that a "hacker" might also be a "consumer" (or, for that matter, a corporate entity such as Microsoft), or vice versa.
"Forcible suppression of opposition"? When an organized group of armed government-appointed people can secretly tap your communications, easily obtain permission from other government-appointed people to kick down your door, confiscate your possessions, and require you to submit to incarceration on pain of death (how easy might it be to get shot while "resisting arrest"?) and require payment of large fines AND legal fees for "copyright violations" or violation of Federal Law (e.g. DMCA) because you made a backup of a DVD to watch on your Linux laptop...well, sounds like "forcible suppression" to me, even if there usually aren't tanks involved.
So, in short, while we may not YET be a LITERAL fascist state, it does seem to be the direction the US Federal Government is slowly but surely moving lately. No, things are "not so bad" yet, but I'd rather not wait until they are to worry about them and try to stop things from getting there, because then it will be too late.
It's kind of interesting the way that in a story about corporate abuses, we see a lot of "Unlike the US, MY country isn't wholly owned by giant corporations", but in a story about government abuses like this, we sometimes see "but MY government does something like this and it doesn't seem so bad..."
Put the two together and perhaps those of the latter camp will see the potential problem - the US DOES seem to allow large corporations to have a dangerous amount of influence over governmental policy. Giving the US Federal Gov't, Inc, a power potentially makes that power available to giant corporate entities as well...
Not to mention that the fees for "upgrades and maintenance" of the database go to an already-giant corporation (Oracle) in Ellison's proposal, and effectively 'lock' the Federal government into Oracle as the database vendor for the forseeable future...
When was the last time you heard of any US citizen being able to do much without presenting their social security number?
How long before Feinstein sells (ahem, I mean, "legislates") access to this database to major publishers and media conglomerates? After all, with all the talk of encryption crippling and government-mandated copy-prevention lately, perhaps the mysterious terrorists are financing their operations by selling bootleg DVDs (perhaps even with secret terrorist messages steganographically embedded in the signal! Gasp!) and using hacked no-back-door versions of commercial encryption software, so, just in case, we should probably let MPAA and BSA use the database to correlate with any 'suspicious' activity they might notice...
You know, as recent as a year or so ago, the above would have sounded like paranoid ranting to me. It worries me that it no longer does...
However, lately, it seems like the US government are those who, indirectly, are creating monopoly situations for companies.
Sadly, this isn't a matter of "lately" - this has been the case since the late 1800's, as I recall.
Don't forget that a "corporation" is a government-created entity, granted rights and powers by government, who at least ORIGINALLY made them stick to their corporate charters. I don't think I've ever heard of any corporation having its charter revoked even for the most egregious acts, at least not in the last century or so...
I'm the unfortunate owner of one of their low-end "Fun! Flash 640SE" cameras.
My complaint with it has nothing to do with the low quality of the images (which look as though they are merely "interpolated" to 640x480 rather than actually BEING 640x480 as advertised) nor the cheap construction - I rather expected both for a ~$80 digital camera.
My complaint is their horrendous support for it. In my specific case, I'd emailed to them asking about protocol specs so that the gPhoto project might be able to put together a working driver. Now, the fact that they would give no useful information is, sadly, not all that unusual, but the form of the response was rather unimpressive. Over a month after sending the email, I got back a medium-sized email in reply. ALL BUT ONE LINE of that email was form-letter "thank you for contacting polaroid blah blah blah". The very first line was the only unique one. It said "that information is not available."
Given that Xirlink actually made the camera core, and there APPEARS to be some sort of business-stifling "Intellectual Property" agreement between Polaroid's digital division and that "ArcSoft" company that makes the obnoxious 'pretty bird' program (I forget the name of the windows 9x-only software - its mascot is a clown-colored bird...) that is supposed to keep it such that only the Polaroid/ArcSoft drivers are able to get to the camera, so I wrote back asking if they meant that they didn't HAVE the information (i.e. that I should contact Xirlink or ArcSoft instead) or that they were not allowed to release it. Over a week later, another one-terse-line-plus-formletter-crap response - "We do not make that information available." (which is not only somewhat rude but as before doesn't even answer the question.)
It was then that I figured they were screwed...if they had no interest in AT LEAST being polite to potential new markets, let alone actually encouraging their development, it seemed pretty obvious that other digital camera companies would roll over them, and, as others have already pointed out in this vein, considering how expensive and low quality their other "instant photograph" products were, that digital cameras would slowly devour that market as they got cheaper, and polaroid would have nothing to fall back on. Nice going, Polaroid.
(On the plus side, last I heard there was some progress in getting recognizeable images from the Polaroid "Fun!" cameras, so maybe I'll be able to actually use mine eventually...More info about the cameras here and, more currently, here.)
what they did on Sept. 11 and continue to do with the Anthrax scare.
This implies that the "they" that destroyed the world trade center buildings is the same "they" that are causing the anthrax scare...
Do you mean to say that the US News media destroyed the world trade center?...
Seriously - I saw the CNN article on the New York case of skin-borne anthrax (not the far more dangerous inhaled infection). The article starts off describing how an employee at NBC received an envelope with white powder in it and later tested positive for anthrax. Deeper in the article, they mention that the "white powder" tested negative for anthrax....so why even mention it?
Makes me wonder if the patient in question didn't get it from some petting zoo somewhere or something of the sort. (You DO know that anthrax exists in the wild, not just in bioterror laboratories, right?)
(that said, I tend to agree with what you're saying - while I *DO* think US foreign policy has played a key role in stirring up trouble for us, saying that horrible terrorist acts are our fault is a bit like saying "Shucks, it sure is horrible the way that guy killed your family, broke your legs, and raped your dog like that, but that's what you get for toilet-papering his house...")
So you didn't give up your freedom to own a nuclear weapon
Well, no, we didn't - those freedoms were denied from us right from the beginning...though admittedly, even if we had them, the few people wealthy enough to get their own nuke probably wouldn't be smart enough to arm them - there'd be nuclear warheads in living rooms all over the US blinking "12:00" in time with the VCR...
Interestingly enough - I once heard someone express the viewpoint that the meaning of the 2nd amendment was "it doesn't mean you should be allowed to own a machine gun, but it DOES mean that Arkansas should be allowed to have its own [i.e. owned by the State and not the Fed] nukes..."
Uh oh....are you saying that The Flag(tm) has been DESECRATED???
(And what are we to make of "burn all gifs day" when it comes to this particular.gif?...)
I was just poking around on the house roll call vote site today and noticed that, apparently, the constitutional amendment allowing congress to criminalize "desecration" of that flag has PASSED THE HOUSE!...way back on the 17th of July. I'm a bit surprised that I hadn't heard about this before now (or am I misinterpreting this?)
On the plus side, if I'm reading this correctly:
It now has to pass the Senate
It THEN has to be ratified by 2/3's of the states
and even then, it only ALLOWS congress to criminalize flag "desecration", it doesn't make the criminality of it part of the constitution.
Still...I find it disturbing not to have heard that it'd passed the house...
ban junk snail mail[...]Oh yeah, throw in electronic spam while you're at it.
You know, I was just thinking about this...
Can I, as a system administrator, consider a persistent spammer (and companies that allow them to operate without hinderance) to be 'trespassing' on my computer? The wired article has a mention of: Right now, the USA Act says that system administrators should be able to monitor anyone they deem a "computer trespasser."
Does this mean I'm allowed to "monitor" the "tom lee designs" bastard who's been spamming me senseless with junk email I can't even read (Big5 encoded) and hinet.net who have gleefully allowed him to continue despite many repeated forwardings of the spam to abuse@hinet.net and, in desperation, support@hinet.net?
Does "monitoring" include port scanning, perhaps?....
campaign finance reform, which among other things bans soft money
Part of the problem here, though, is that banning "soft money" only benefits "big party" candidates and incumbents.
Limiting the value of individual contributions or the ability to "pool" donations to support a single candidate is intended to prevent less-known challengers from competing. A "big party" candidate doesn't really have a lot of difficulty getting a large number of people together to each contribute the maximum amount allowed, but a not-so-famous "small party" candidate has no such hope (the only way to become well known is advertising, which costs money of course). The only chance for a "small party" candidate to compete is to try to find one or more sympathetic generous donors to fund his or her campaigns, at least until the candidate is as well known and understood as a typical "big party" candidate...which current proposed campaign finance limits would prohibit.
I don't think I'd be much against, say, an absolute limit on total spending for a campaign, though I don't know that it'd be feasible to enforce such a rule (If I, of my own free will, pay for some advertising for a candidate, while that candidate has already spent his or her limit, are they now over? Or can some "big party" candidate, or his minions, in turn encourage his followers to do the same thing?
Banning campaign advertising on television, unfortunately, has a similar problem. The mainstream media effectively ONLY reports on the the "big party" candidates, and there is at least SOME bias, in total, towards the slightly-left mainstream party and away from the slightly-right mainstream party (compare to the very-left "Peace and Freedom" party and the very-right "American Independent" party...). Basically, banning television advertising gives up all advertising to whatever politicians that the news reporters like to talk about for free...
My personal theory is that they (Loki) are desperate for a game with "guaranteed" sales. Their marketing on the press release and website seems to imply that the whole reason for buying the game would be to support freedom of speech, or if you just like "realistic" violence with plenty of suffering while dying. I suspect there's a small hard core of people who will definitely buy this port based on one or both of these two reasons. There won't be many of them (at least, I don't THINK there will be), but there would seem to be a definite guarantee that there will be SOME sales. If Loki didn't pay too much to license this, then this is a very low risk investment (though with only a small return compared to what they MIGHT get on a less certain, better [and more tasteful] game that would cost them more to port.)
It may be that they just NEED to be able to say to the next prospect "See, we said it'd sell, and it did, and now we're saying YOUR game will sell, so let us port it please."
How about a "commercial-quality" emulator for an existing game platform, such as the Playstation2? No artwork or sound effects needed, but I'll bet it'd sell at least as well as any individual game is right now...
Heck, if you did that, and needed more individual games, perhaps Loki could then later license popular titles for the emulator and create enhanced Linux versions by adding new features (better network play, etc?) without having to recreate the whole thing from scratch.
Just a thought.
Gosh, I guess Linux IS just for fringe whackos...
on
Loki Goes Postal
·
· Score: 2
Not a flame (nor even my actual opinion) - it's just that I just looked at the press release. A choice quote from it:
"There's something just plain sick and wrong about Linux users," said Vince Desi, Running With Scissors' tetanus-tempered edge. "That's why we`re so excited to be able to bring these gaming misfits a Linux version of POSTAL - They're our kind of people!"
Gee, thanks. I'm sure this'll do WONDERS for the image of Linux users. We've been fighting against this "fringe whacko lawbreaking rebel misfit" image, all this time I guess that's what we were anyway...
No, I don't actually think the game should be banned, nor should Loki be forbidden from porting it, nor should Running With Scissors be forbidden to SAY such things, nor should Loki be forbidden to agree with it and reprint it...but I DO think it's a BAD decision...
(The implication that a game where the main character is, effectively, a "terrorist without a cause" is perfect for "our kind of people" downright disturbs me...)
everything I've heard about the game tells me that it will disgust me.
I have little problem, myself, with violence in games (hey, I actually think the characters in Heretic II, for example, are kind of funny as they run around with their arms cut off as if puzzled about why their weapons aren't working...), but I played the demo of Postal for about 10-15 minutes long, long ago when it first came out...
The problem, as I see it anyway, is that the violence in Postal is...tasteless. The focus isn't on pretty graphics or gameplay, but on 'realistic' suffering and dying of the wounded. This is the ONLY game I can recall ever playing that actually somewhat digusted me (and I've been playing for a while - I still vaguely recall a driving game on my old C-64 where you scored points by running over puppies and little old ladies...)
And, somehow, I just can't imagine that in the current anti-terrorism frenzy the world is in that this game is going to do anything but (ahem) bomb completely in the market when Loki re-releases it, unless maybe they replace all of the original levels with "shoot the terrorists, spare the civilians" levels set in Palestine, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc...and even then it'll only sell until the frenzy dies down...
Re:this is neither healthy nor a sign of life
on
Loki Goes Postal
·
· Score: 2
I think this stems from the fact that in the gaming world, PC games are at the bottom of the heap.
Actually, where I think Loki would do best would be to build, say, a Playstation or Playstation2 emulator port for Linux. I'd pay a reasonable chunk of money to get access to the comparatively huge library of games (both purchase AND rental) on my Linux box.
"Postal" seems like a bad choice for Loki, to me. Glad I got my copy of Kohan now, while Loki's still in business. If they're spending their precious money on "Postal" I can't say that I'm real confident their next few offerings are likely to be popular enough to pull them out of their slump...
Speaking of IP law and legislators - which hot-button 'issues', key phrases and buzzwords, etc, do legislators seem to respond most favorably to in the area of IP law, that might be used in communications with them to help them understand better what's going on?
I have every right to wish that Mickey[...]should be in the public domain.
This brings up a simple (and probably naive) question from me - what factors have made "intellectual property" law so convoluted?
In this case, my first thought is that "Mickey Mouse(tm)" and the various representations thereof, are, taken together, one form of "intellectual property" called a trademark. Personally, I DON'T have a problem with TRADEMARKS being owned by a company for as long as they are in use (after all, should Microsoft be allowed, for example, to call some future version of Windows "Windows LINUX" even if it has nothing to do with Linux, just because the trademark on Linux expired?).
On the other hand, "Steamboat Willy" (as I recall, the very first Mickey Mouse cartoon from sometime in the late 1920's(?)), as a specific work, ought to definitely have entered the public domain years ago [but for good old Sonny Bono and his 'Mickey Mouse Copyright Extension Act' (as I heard one IP lawyer call it), as it falls under "copyright" and not "Trademark."
'course, this then gets complex - if it were in the public domain as it should be, you would be legally allowed to make as many copies of it as you liked, create derivative works, etc...but you still couldn't take an individual image of Mickey from it and use it as a "label" since that would infringe on the Trademark....
And, of course, if we throw the DMCA into the mix, if Disney Corp releases "Steamboat Willy" on an encrypted DVD, even if Disney misses a payment to the legislators and Steamboat Willy is finally allowed to hit public domain, we'll still be flung in jail if we try to GET the public domain copy of Steamboat Willy from it...
So, in short, my question is - who's fault is it that the simple principle of "don't make unfair use of someone else's work" has resulted in this mess of rights-restricting and near-incomprehensible mass known as "intellectual property law"?
Just got done watching. Not bad. My biggest complaint were the less-than-stellar technicians operating the equipment. The non-functioning (or just misplaced?) microphones, and the camera operator stubbornly focussing on the podium while the activity takes place elsewhere (e.g. the slideshow...)
Did I hear that right? "Stalinworld"???? (the IgNobel Peace Prize winner...)
Maybe it's buried in there and I just didn't see it yet, but while the document does indeed say they are looking for comments, I don't see anything saying where to send the comments in question...
Perhaps the FCC has "Opted-out" of public commentary...
Arsenic in drinking water vs. ability of companies to make more money? No contest.[...]Has there been ANY decision that the Bush administration has made that hasn't come down on that corporate side of things?
If you think about it, if GB was REALLY interested in windfalls for corporations, he'd have gone right ahead with the tighter regulations on arsenic in drinking water.
As I recall, most (all?) public water supplies are government run. Imposing harsher restrictions on the water quality means local governments having to PAY corporations to test the water, upgrade the water processing facilities, etc. etc. (You didn't think that there was a government facility somewhere injecting arsenic into the water intentionally, and the new regulation just commanded them to inject less, did you? I don't have a great deal of trust for the US Government, but I'm not THAT paranoid...)
How is it that you worry more about a company making money than about the fact mentioned that the companies, from the sound of it, handed over personal information to government agencies AND other corporations (no indication in the article that this was done in exchange for payment, either [from the article - "Since then, many companies have been sharing their consumer data with law enforcement agencies and each other" in a fishing expedition for suspicious activity]? Essentially - "We know we promised we wouldn't share your private information, but this is important, since you might be a terrorist, so we don't care WHAT our privacy policy said...")
Fact: The Bush Administration gave the Taliban ~$43 million only four months ago to "curtail opium production".
I'd be quite interested in the details of this. If that's accurate, not only would the legislators who voted for it be supporting a terrorist state, but it would also demonstrate the funny-yet-sad possibility that the hysteria of the "War on Drugs(tm)" has been working AGAINST the "War on Terrorism(tm)(Pat.Pending)"...
The specific sections of "computer crime" law that appear to be reclassified as "terrorist acts" appear to be only:
1030(a)(1), (a)(4), (a)(5)(A), or (a)(7) (relating to protection of computers)
Which are:
(a) Whoever -
(1) having knowingly accessed a computer without authorization or exceeding authorized access, and by means of such conduct having obtained information that has been determined by the United States Government pursuant to an Executive order or statute to require protection against unauthorized disclosure for reasons of national defense or foreign relations, or any
restricted data, as defined in paragraph y. of section 11 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, with reason to believe that such information so obtained could be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation willfully communicates, delivers, transmits, or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it;[...]
(4) knowingly and with intent to defraud, accesses a protected computer without authorization, or exceeds authorized access, and by means of such conduct furthers the intended fraud and obtains anything of value, unless the object of the fraud and the thing obtained consists only of the use of the computer and the value of such use is not more than $5,000 in any 1-year period;
(5)
(A) knowingly causes the transmission of a program, information, code, or command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally causes damage without authorization, to a protected
computer;
(Interestingly, they don't seem to include B and C under this act as "terrorism", which are similar to section A, and are almost identical to each other - I have no idea why they have them. "B" says "(B) intentionally accesses a protected computer without authorization, and as a result of such conduct, recklessly causes damage;". C is word-for-word the same, except without the word "recklessly". ANy idea why they have them both?)
(7) with intent to extort from any person, firm, association, educational institution, financial institution, government entity, or other legal entity, any money or other thing of value, transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to cause damage to a protected computer; shall be punished as provided in subsection (c) of this section.
In short, the only "computer crimes" listed as "terrorism" by this act are stealing US Gov't, Inc secrets by computer, maliciously hacking into a system with intent to steal valuables (aside from CPU cycles), and using threats of malicious computer hacking to extort.
The only one that concerns me very much here is 5A - it seems like high-paid corporate lawyers could easy "prove" that for example, if 1337D00D@scriptkiddy.com maliciously hacks into www.microsoft.com and puts a link to his website on the index page, that he's obtained at least $5000 worth of advertisement...
Come to think of it, I'm a little leery of the "or exceeds authorized access" bit in (4) - if one "accesses" a computer to purchase and legally download some proprietary "protected" piece of music or video, and finds a way to convert it to a nonproprietary format for personal use, has one "exceeded authorized access" and is therefore not merely a DMCA Criminal but a full-fledged DMCA Terrorist? It's a bit of a stretch, but I think a wealthy corporation can buy enough lawyer-approved powerpoint slides "proving" this to a non-technical jury...
My current theory is that Microsoft, as a whole, doesn't really push stuff like this. My theory is that it's SPECIFICALLY the software divisions that are desparately trying to justify their budgets to the corporation as a whole (who, from what I've heard, makes much more money as an investment bank than as a software company). As their software slowly dwindles from competition, they take more and more desperate measures to try to prop up their short-term income figures and continue their budgets and salaries.
My optimistic prediction is that sometime in the future (I have no idea how many years this would take, but...) the software division will be scaled back quite a bit in Microsoft Inc as a whole, and poor Mr. Ballmer will have to dance for his wealth in a different context.
Microsoft will likely stay wealthy and powerful, but no longer through client-side software at some point.
Slashdot Mirror
This IS true, if by "the country as a whole" you are including the sadly uninformed and apathetic general populace. The Federal Government, on the other hand, is definitely showing signs of heading in this general direction.
The trends of giving up (or having given up FOR you) personal rights, priviledges, and freedoms (fair use? works entering the public domain after a "limited" period of time? Due Process for alleged "cyber-crimes"? Privacy?) to a national government for the benefit of that government and the promise (and what is a politician's promise WORTH these days if you're not a wealthy campaign donor?) of a little more 'security' from an evil empire of terrorists, drug traffickers, and video pirates (to the benefit of corporate entities and governmental agencies) sounds like it fits the definition you list reasonably well.
"centralized autocratic government"? While arguably there won't be any single individual in the federal government of the US any time soon with personal dictatorial power, certainly having dictatorial power in a handful of federal-level agencies isn't too far from that.
"Severe economic regimentation"? When was the last time you noticed how much it costs to hire a lawyer to defend you against a bad law or false accusation? Or, for that matter, pay for each and every use of a work of "intellectual property" (granted, this isn't yet the usual case, but can anyone really deny that's the direction current law and corporate policies seem to be headed steadily?) Or to lobby for laws (or repeal thereof) that are favorable to YOUR rights? Sounds like pretty severe economic regimentation to me...
"Social regimentation" may be a bit of a stretch...but then again - "consumers"? "hackers"? "corporate entities"? Lately, these seem to be distinct groups when referred to by media outlets and, sadly, a lot of individuals. They've been seeming pretty 'regimented' to me lately - I don't recall seeing any hints that a "hacker" might also be a "consumer" (or, for that matter, a corporate entity such as Microsoft), or vice versa.
"Forcible suppression of opposition"? When an organized group of armed government-appointed people can secretly tap your communications, easily obtain permission from other government-appointed people to kick down your door, confiscate your possessions, and require you to submit to incarceration on pain of death (how easy might it be to get shot while "resisting arrest"?) and require payment of large fines AND legal fees for "copyright violations" or violation of Federal Law (e.g. DMCA) because you made a backup of a DVD to watch on your Linux laptop...well, sounds like "forcible suppression" to me, even if there usually aren't tanks involved.
So, in short, while we may not YET be a LITERAL fascist state, it does seem to be the direction the US Federal Government is slowly but surely moving lately. No, things are "not so bad" yet, but I'd rather not wait until they are to worry about them and try to stop things from getting there, because then it will be too late.
It's kind of interesting the way that in a story about corporate abuses, we see a lot of "Unlike the US, MY country isn't wholly owned by giant corporations", but in a story about government abuses like this, we sometimes see "but MY government does something like this and it doesn't seem so bad..."
Put the two together and perhaps those of the latter camp will see the potential problem - the US DOES seem to allow large corporations to have a dangerous amount of influence over governmental policy. Giving the US Federal Gov't, Inc, a power potentially makes that power available to giant corporate entities as well...
Not to mention that the fees for "upgrades and maintenance" of the database go to an already-giant corporation (Oracle) in Ellison's proposal, and effectively 'lock' the Federal government into Oracle as the database vendor for the forseeable future...
When was the last time you heard of any US citizen being able to do much without presenting their social security number?
How long before Feinstein sells (ahem, I mean, "legislates") access to this database to major publishers and media conglomerates? After all, with all the talk of encryption crippling and government-mandated copy-prevention lately, perhaps the mysterious terrorists are financing their operations by selling bootleg DVDs (perhaps even with secret terrorist messages steganographically embedded in the signal! Gasp!) and using hacked no-back-door versions of commercial encryption software, so, just in case, we should probably let MPAA and BSA use the database to correlate with any 'suspicious' activity they might notice...
You know, as recent as a year or so ago, the above would have sounded like paranoid ranting to me. It worries me that it no longer does...
Sadly, this isn't a matter of "lately" - this has been the case since the late 1800's, as I recall.
Don't forget that a "corporation" is a government-created entity, granted rights and powers by government, who at least ORIGINALLY made them stick to their corporate charters. I don't think I've ever heard of any corporation having its charter revoked even for the most egregious acts, at least not in the last century or so...
I'm the unfortunate owner of one of their low-end "Fun! Flash 640SE" cameras.
My complaint with it has nothing to do with the low quality of the images (which look as though they are merely "interpolated" to 640x480 rather than actually BEING 640x480 as advertised) nor the cheap construction - I rather expected both for a ~$80 digital camera.
My complaint is their horrendous support for it. In my specific case, I'd emailed to them asking about protocol specs so that the gPhoto project might be able to put together a working driver. Now, the fact that they would give no useful information is, sadly, not all that unusual, but the form of the response was rather unimpressive. Over a month after sending the email, I got back a medium-sized email in reply. ALL BUT ONE LINE of that email was form-letter "thank you for contacting polaroid blah blah blah". The very first line was the only unique one. It said "that information is not available."
Given that Xirlink actually made the camera core, and there APPEARS to be some sort of business-stifling "Intellectual Property" agreement between Polaroid's digital division and that "ArcSoft" company that makes the obnoxious 'pretty bird' program (I forget the name of the windows 9x-only software - its mascot is a clown-colored bird...) that is supposed to keep it such that only the Polaroid/ArcSoft drivers are able to get to the camera, so I wrote back asking if they meant that they didn't HAVE the information (i.e. that I should contact Xirlink or ArcSoft instead) or that they were not allowed to release it. Over a week later, another one-terse-line-plus-formletter-crap response - "We do not make that information available." (which is not only somewhat rude but as before doesn't even answer the question.)
It was then that I figured they were screwed...if they had no interest in AT LEAST being polite to potential new markets, let alone actually encouraging their development, it seemed pretty obvious that other digital camera companies would roll over them, and, as others have already pointed out in this vein, considering how expensive and low quality their other "instant photograph" products were, that digital cameras would slowly devour that market as they got cheaper, and polaroid would have nothing to fall back on. Nice going, Polaroid.
(On the plus side, last I heard there was some progress in getting recognizeable images from the Polaroid "Fun!" cameras, so maybe I'll be able to actually use mine eventually...More info about the cameras here and, more currently, here.)
This implies that the "they" that destroyed the world trade center buildings is the same "they" that are causing the anthrax scare...
Do you mean to say that the US News media destroyed the world trade center?...
Seriously - I saw the CNN article on the New York case of skin-borne anthrax (not the far more dangerous inhaled infection). The article starts off describing how an employee at NBC received an envelope with white powder in it and later tested positive for anthrax. Deeper in the article, they mention that the "white powder" tested negative for anthrax....so why even mention it?
Makes me wonder if the patient in question didn't get it from some petting zoo somewhere or something of the sort. (You DO know that anthrax exists in the wild, not just in bioterror laboratories, right?)
(that said, I tend to agree with what you're saying - while I *DO* think US foreign policy has played a key role in stirring up trouble for us, saying that horrible terrorist acts are our fault is a bit like saying "Shucks, it sure is horrible the way that guy killed your family, broke your legs, and raped your dog like that, but that's what you get for toilet-papering his house...")
Well, no, we didn't - those freedoms were denied from us right from the beginning...though admittedly, even if we had them, the few people wealthy enough to get their own nuke probably wouldn't be smart enough to arm them - there'd be nuclear warheads in living rooms all over the US blinking "12:00" in time with the VCR...
Interestingly enough - I once heard someone express the viewpoint that the meaning of the 2nd amendment was "it doesn't mean you should be allowed to own a machine gun, but it DOES mean that Arkansas should be allowed to have its own [i.e. owned by the State and not the Fed] nukes..."
Uh oh....are you saying that The Flag(tm) has been DESECRATED???
(And what are we to make of "burn all gifs day" when it comes to this particular .gif?...)
I was just poking around on the house roll call vote site today and noticed that, apparently, the constitutional amendment allowing congress to criminalize "desecration" of that flag has PASSED THE HOUSE!...way back on the 17th of July. I'm a bit surprised that I hadn't heard about this before now (or am I misinterpreting this?)
On the plus side, if I'm reading this correctly:
- It now has to pass the Senate
- It THEN has to be ratified by 2/3's of the states
- and even then, it only ALLOWS congress to criminalize flag "desecration", it doesn't make the criminality of it part of the constitution.
Still...I find it disturbing not to have heard that it'd passed the house...It doesn't even seem to have to "ensure", just "imply"...
Why do I feel like the US is metaphorically running to Stalin to stop the abuses of a Czar?...
You know, I was just thinking about this...
Can I, as a system administrator, consider a persistent spammer (and companies that allow them to operate without hinderance) to be 'trespassing' on my computer? The wired article has a mention of:
Right now, the USA Act says that system administrators should be able to monitor anyone they deem a "computer trespasser."
Does this mean I'm allowed to "monitor" the "tom lee designs" bastard who's been spamming me senseless with junk email I can't even read (Big5 encoded) and hinet.net who have gleefully allowed him to continue despite many repeated forwardings of the spam to abuse@hinet.net and, in desperation, support@hinet.net?
Does "monitoring" include port scanning, perhaps?....
Just a thought...
campaign finance reform, which among other things bans soft money
Part of the problem here, though, is that banning "soft money" only benefits "big party" candidates and incumbents.
Limiting the value of individual contributions or the ability to "pool" donations to support a single candidate is intended to prevent less-known challengers from competing. A "big party" candidate doesn't really have a lot of difficulty getting a large number of people together to each contribute the maximum amount allowed, but a not-so-famous "small party" candidate has no such hope (the only way to become well known is advertising, which costs money of course). The only chance for a "small party" candidate to compete is to try to find one or more sympathetic generous donors to fund his or her campaigns, at least until the candidate is as well known and understood as a typical "big party" candidate...which current proposed campaign finance limits would prohibit.
I don't think I'd be much against, say, an absolute limit on total spending for a campaign, though I don't know that it'd be feasible to enforce such a rule (If I, of my own free will, pay for some advertising for a candidate, while that candidate has already spent his or her limit, are they now over? Or can some "big party" candidate, or his minions, in turn encourage his followers to do the same thing?
Banning campaign advertising on television, unfortunately, has a similar problem. The mainstream media effectively ONLY reports on the the "big party" candidates, and there is at least SOME bias, in total, towards the slightly-left mainstream party and away from the slightly-right mainstream party (compare to the very-left "Peace and Freedom" party and the very-right "American Independent" party...). Basically, banning television advertising gives up all advertising to whatever politicians that the news reporters like to talk about for free...
My personal theory is that they (Loki) are desperate for a game with "guaranteed" sales. Their marketing on the press release and website seems to imply that the whole reason for buying the game would be to support freedom of speech, or if you just like "realistic" violence with plenty of suffering while dying. I suspect there's a small hard core of people who will definitely buy this port based on one or both of these two reasons. There won't be many of them (at least, I don't THINK there will be), but there would seem to be a definite guarantee that there will be SOME sales. If Loki didn't pay too much to license this, then this is a very low risk investment (though with only a small return compared to what they MIGHT get on a less certain, better [and more tasteful] game that would cost them more to port.)
It may be that they just NEED to be able to say to the next prospect "See, we said it'd sell, and it did, and now we're saying YOUR game will sell, so let us port it please."
How about a "commercial-quality" emulator for an existing game platform, such as the Playstation2? No artwork or sound effects needed, but I'll bet it'd sell at least as well as any individual game is right now...
Heck, if you did that, and needed more individual games, perhaps Loki could then later license popular titles for the emulator and create enhanced Linux versions by adding new features (better network play, etc?) without having to recreate the whole thing from scratch.
Just a thought.
Not a flame (nor even my actual opinion) - it's just that I just looked at the press release. A choice quote from it:
"There's something just plain sick and wrong about Linux users," said Vince Desi, Running With Scissors' tetanus-tempered edge. "That's why we`re so excited to be able to bring these gaming misfits a Linux version of POSTAL - They're our kind of people!"Gee, thanks. I'm sure this'll do WONDERS for the image of Linux users. We've been fighting against this "fringe whacko lawbreaking rebel misfit" image, all this time I guess that's what we were anyway...
No, I don't actually think the game should be banned, nor should Loki be forbidden from porting it, nor should Running With Scissors be forbidden to SAY such things, nor should Loki be forbidden to agree with it and reprint it...but I DO think it's a BAD decision...
(The implication that a game where the main character is, effectively, a "terrorist without a cause" is perfect for "our kind of people" downright disturbs me...)
I have little problem, myself, with violence in games (hey, I actually think the characters in Heretic II, for example, are kind of funny as they run around with their arms cut off as if puzzled about why their weapons aren't working...), but I played the demo of Postal for about 10-15 minutes long, long ago when it first came out...
The problem, as I see it anyway, is that the violence in Postal is...tasteless. The focus isn't on pretty graphics or gameplay, but on 'realistic' suffering and dying of the wounded. This is the ONLY game I can recall ever playing that actually somewhat digusted me (and I've been playing for a while - I still vaguely recall a driving game on my old C-64 where you scored points by running over puppies and little old ladies...)
And, somehow, I just can't imagine that in the current anti-terrorism frenzy the world is in that this game is going to do anything but (ahem) bomb completely in the market when Loki re-releases it, unless maybe they replace all of the original levels with "shoot the terrorists, spare the civilians" levels set in Palestine, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc...and even then it'll only sell until the frenzy dies down...
Actually, where I think Loki would do best would be to build, say, a Playstation or Playstation2 emulator port for Linux. I'd pay a reasonable chunk of money to get access to the comparatively huge library of games (both purchase AND rental) on my Linux box.
"Postal" seems like a bad choice for Loki, to me. Glad I got my copy of Kohan now, while Loki's still in business. If they're spending their precious money on "Postal" I can't say that I'm real confident their next few offerings are likely to be popular enough to pull them out of their slump...
Speaking of IP law and legislators - which hot-button 'issues', key phrases and buzzwords, etc, do legislators seem to respond most favorably to in the area of IP law, that might be used in communications with them to help them understand better what's going on?
This brings up a simple (and probably naive) question from me - what factors have made "intellectual property" law so convoluted?
In this case, my first thought is that "Mickey Mouse(tm)" and the various representations thereof, are, taken together, one form of "intellectual property" called a trademark. Personally, I DON'T have a problem with TRADEMARKS being owned by a company for as long as they are in use (after all, should Microsoft be allowed, for example, to call some future version of Windows "Windows LINUX" even if it has nothing to do with Linux, just because the trademark on Linux expired?).
On the other hand, "Steamboat Willy" (as I recall, the very first Mickey Mouse cartoon from sometime in the late 1920's(?)), as a specific work, ought to definitely have entered the public domain years ago [but for good old Sonny Bono and his 'Mickey Mouse Copyright Extension Act' (as I heard one IP lawyer call it), as it falls under "copyright" and not "Trademark."
'course, this then gets complex - if it were in the public domain as it should be, you would be legally allowed to make as many copies of it as you liked, create derivative works, etc...but you still couldn't take an individual image of Mickey from it and use it as a "label" since that would infringe on the Trademark....
And, of course, if we throw the DMCA into the mix, if Disney Corp releases "Steamboat Willy" on an encrypted DVD, even if Disney misses a payment to the legislators and Steamboat Willy is finally allowed to hit public domain, we'll still be flung in jail if we try to GET the public domain copy of Steamboat Willy from it...
So, in short, my question is - who's fault is it that the simple principle of "don't make unfair use of someone else's work" has resulted in this mess of rights-restricting and near-incomprehensible mass known as "intellectual property law"?
Just got done watching. Not bad. My biggest complaint were the less-than-stellar technicians operating the equipment. The non-functioning (or just misplaced?) microphones, and the camera operator stubbornly focussing on the podium while the activity takes place elsewhere (e.g. the slideshow...)
Did I hear that right? "Stalinworld"???? (the IgNobel Peace Prize winner...)
Maybe it's buried in there and I just didn't see it yet, but while the document does indeed say they are looking for comments, I don't see anything saying where to send the comments in question...
Perhaps the FCC has "Opted-out" of public commentary...
If you think about it, if GB was REALLY interested in windfalls for corporations, he'd have gone right ahead with the tighter regulations on arsenic in drinking water.
As I recall, most (all?) public water supplies are government run. Imposing harsher restrictions on the water quality means local governments having to PAY corporations to test the water, upgrade the water processing facilities, etc. etc. (You didn't think that there was a government facility somewhere injecting arsenic into the water intentionally, and the new regulation just commanded them to inject less, did you? I don't have a great deal of trust for the US Government, but I'm not THAT paranoid...)
How is it that you worry more about a company making money than about the fact mentioned that the companies, from the sound of it, handed over personal information to government agencies AND other corporations (no indication in the article that this was done in exchange for payment, either [from the article - "Since then, many companies have been sharing their consumer data with law enforcement agencies and each other" in a fishing expedition for suspicious activity]? Essentially - "We know we promised we wouldn't share your private information, but this is important, since you might be a terrorist, so we don't care WHAT our privacy policy said...")
I'd be quite interested in the details of this. If that's accurate, not only would the legislators who voted for it be supporting a terrorist state, but it would also demonstrate the funny-yet-sad possibility that the hysteria of the "War on Drugs(tm)" has been working AGAINST the "War on Terrorism(tm)(Pat.Pending)"...
The specific sections of "computer crime" law that appear to be reclassified as "terrorist acts" appear to be only:
1030(a)(1), (a)(4), (a)(5)(A), or (a)(7) (relating to protection of computers)
Which are:
- (a) Whoever -
- (4) knowingly and with intent to defraud, accesses a protected computer without authorization, or exceeds authorized access, and by means of such conduct furthers the intended fraud and obtains anything of value, unless the object of the fraud and the thing obtained consists only of the use of the computer and the value of such use is not more than $5,000 in any 1-year period;
- (5)
- (Interestingly, they don't seem to include B and C under this act as "terrorism", which are similar to section A, and are almost identical to each other - I have no idea why they have them. "B" says "(B) intentionally accesses a protected computer without authorization, and as a result of such conduct, recklessly causes damage;". C is word-for-word the same, except without the word "recklessly". ANy idea why they have them both?)
- (7) with intent to extort from any person, firm, association, educational institution, financial institution, government entity, or other legal entity, any money or other thing of value, transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to cause damage to a protected computer; shall be punished as provided in subsection (c) of this section.
In short, the only "computer crimes" listed as "terrorism" by this act are stealing US Gov't, Inc secrets by computer, maliciously hacking into a system with intent to steal valuables (aside from CPU cycles), and using threats of malicious computer hacking to extort.(1) having knowingly accessed a computer without authorization or exceeding authorized access, and by means of such conduct having obtained information that has been determined by the United States Government pursuant to an Executive order or statute to require protection against unauthorized disclosure for reasons of national defense or foreign relations, or any restricted data, as defined in paragraph y. of section 11 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, with reason to believe that such information so obtained could be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation willfully communicates, delivers, transmits, or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it;[...]
(A) knowingly causes the transmission of a program, information, code, or command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally causes damage without authorization, to a protected computer;
The only one that concerns me very much here is 5A - it seems like high-paid corporate lawyers could easy "prove" that for example, if 1337D00D@scriptkiddy.com maliciously hacks into www.microsoft.com and puts a link to his website on the index page, that he's obtained at least $5000 worth of advertisement...
Come to think of it, I'm a little leery of the "or exceeds authorized access" bit in (4) - if one "accesses" a computer to purchase and legally download some proprietary "protected" piece of music or video, and finds a way to convert it to a nonproprietary format for personal use, has one "exceeded authorized access" and is therefore not merely a DMCA Criminal but a full-fledged DMCA Terrorist? It's a bit of a stretch, but I think a wealthy corporation can buy enough lawyer-approved powerpoint slides "proving" this to a non-technical jury...
TweedleRep and TweedleDem...
My current theory is that Microsoft, as a whole, doesn't really push stuff like this. My theory is that it's SPECIFICALLY the software divisions that are desparately trying to justify their budgets to the corporation as a whole (who, from what I've heard, makes much more money as an investment bank than as a software company). As their software slowly dwindles from competition, they take more and more desperate measures to try to prop up their short-term income figures and continue their budgets and salaries.
My optimistic prediction is that sometime in the future (I have no idea how many years this would take, but...) the software division will be scaled back quite a bit in Microsoft Inc as a whole, and poor Mr. Ballmer will have to dance for his wealth in a different context.
Microsoft will likely stay wealthy and powerful, but no longer through client-side software at some point.
My crackpot theory, anyway.