I'm not sure, but i have the following theories that may see me modded to oblivion:
1) A smaller number of IT people need the gov't safety net. New poll, how many IT people have been on food stamps or used free clinics?
2) IT people have a do-it-yourself attitude, and tend to view things from that level. As such, they aren't going to really notice when work/research/individuals had minor gov't support to succeed--the thing they notice is that someone DID something with their own DIY energy and not as part of a corporate behemoth.
3) (and this is the mod to oblivion one). IT people are frequently more isolated physically and communication wise--they are stuck in cubes and in technical worlds. As such, on average they have a more limited interaction with street level policy and governance. And they have, on average, a lower understanding of political rhetoric. For example, when Ron Paul says he is against regulation of the internet, a lot of people don't understand what it means; he doesn't want gov't involvement, and that means private sector control. Tiered pricing, etc--whatever the market comes up with.
We can all pick what level of involvement we think is appropriate (and there are different theories of gov't behavior), but sometimes I think IT folks are more likely to be so isolated that they dont see ANY legitimate use for govt. Perhaps this is due to working with hardware and code all day...maybe your interfaces make more sense than the ones i've seen. But I tend to view government/private/non-profit as just another OS with three quirky modules. To me, each has obvious strengths and weaknesses. but i am a MPA. and no, i dont work for the gov.
I did read the speech, and what I read was a candidate _mainstreaming_ a severe outlier (wright) to save his ass. He did a disservice to the UCC and to modern ministers by not denouncing and rejecting wright. So all those 18-26 year olds have a leader they respect implying that a) wright is somewhat common and thus a decent start for racial discussion (he is not common), b) that it's just like his typical grandmother and geraldine ferraro (which is beyond the pale, no pun intended), c) that we should work to address a) and b). Since a) and b) are horribly incorrect, this speech is historic for the amount of misinformation presented in relation to the size of the ass saved.
I've read his speech, and I can say, without a doubt that I will not vote for him. He is a politician pretending to be a movement--equating his grandmother and geraldine ferraro with an antiquated minister. And lets be clear that minister is a serious outlier--he does a disservice to black churches and the UCC to let people think otherwise.
Personally, I would have privately commented on and then separated from my mother's church if such a situation continued--in any situation where there was repeated racism, sexism, homophobia, divisiveness. And you can bet that people (lay leaders) talked about such issues. I cannot support Obama for that huge failure of judgment, for his campaigns racebaiting of bill clinton (they even circulated a memo implying he was racist for saying he wanted hillary by his side, despite knowing people like mandela, and pressured the media to take racialized views of soundbites). And because he has basically the same ratings by the NAACP, ACLU, and national criminal justice folks as Hillary Clinton. The campaign has always been about racism, sexism, and blind optimism vs pragmatism.
So how can I support a man that perpetuates antiquated notions of race (that black churches like wright's are common)? How can I support a man that exploits and expands the racial divide to push a 40+% grab of clinton's black vote (which was earned through a record of service and speeches on black and low income issues)? How can I support a man who uses rhetoric and topic-changing in a campaign about "change"? On character, I cannot vote barack obama. And yes, part of that can be blamed on the media racializing issues and the 24 hr news cycle, but his campaign and its affiliated leaders were heavily involved in branding the clintons racist.
Also, my view of democracy requires an educated public, not an elitist system, and Obama's faith/hope/unity is a slip backwards from the details of clinton and edwards. Where is the sacrifice? Where is the dissent that occurs when allocating limited resources? Clinton is a politician, as is mccain, why is obama pretending to be better when he must ultimately act like one (and already has). On philosophy I cannot vote barack obama...though I admire his campaign, the movement is a wee bit weak on substance. If he'd thrown in empowering an educated democracy and cut some of the fluff (conceit), he might have had my vote.
And on electability? I said last month that all he had was a downside--high numbers for speeches but no vetting. So I don't know if he's hit bottom yet, but he's a hell of a risk--especially since the media has been playing the race issue exclusively for his side since early january. All clinton has is an upside -- her record can regain the black vote and I think some of the sexism sent her way will dissipate, and she can stand toe to toe with mccain.
I'm voting for Hillary, or not voting for Obama. I cannot elect someone to office that builds a campaign on racial FUD and that is a politician pretending to be a movement.
Because rape, HIV, and Hepatitis aren't cruel and unusual punishment in your book? Or is that just the line you toss out to get out of jury duty?
Your comedic take is about as funny as the drunk guy I saw yesterday that said "Ooops, you just knocked over your home" when he walked past a homeless guy that dropped a cardboard box yesterday.
This patent probably came from their youtube purchase, because youtube already does this in videos, or did at one point. I never really go there anymore due to the poor quality videos.
He didn't upload it till after he got Digged I think. Definitely should have planned for that in the first place and offered a torrent, but I suspect he was trying to collect data on who came back for the full album. i'd certainly be curious...
unfortunately the economics of this (user time vs cash) is currently that it's more cost efficient AND less frustrating to grab the torrent because the distribution infrastructure/store isn't robust enough yet.
This is actually his second attempt at this process (did it with saul williams in Nov)
And i'm not sure why this made slashdot, but I go in the store once a month just because all the creative work is amazing. The one in San Fran is a pirate themed store filled with stories about a pathetic pirate that wants to be feared.
I also love the informational signs about "Have you got scurvy?" Thought about putting that beside the breast cancer awareness one in my shower, but didn't think my housemates would approve.
Offers multiple formats, and multi packages, and a free sampler (the free one which includes 9 tracks) so he can get a better idea of what's going on and also make money (the full download is 5 dollars).
A lot of people downloaded In Rainbows without paying because they didn't know or actually like radiohead, not just because they were free riders. Trent set the price low enough and provided enough options that he'll have a better idea of who likes his music and what they want -- people not familiar with him will sample and move on, but those that like the work will have to choose between waiting for bittorrent or paying a cheap 5$.
It's not just the scientific community that undercuts the risk (and in some cases the scientific community is quite clear). I'm biased because I'm an MPA, but I view the problem as being with any domain where you have asymmetric information and are relying on someone else (a risky thing to do, as you've stated). However, people may expect a credit card company to mislead them, but not a credit fixing non-profit OR a health clinic.
In this case, the CDC or a gov't website is worried as much about costs as helping people. And yes, some of it is simply not understanding what the reports and caveats said and some of it is the scientists not doing their job. But CDC and clinic personnel tend to only look at high risk people as requiring their attention because of cost issues and because they repeatedly see positive tests for high risk people.
This becomes ingrained in cultural and organizational mentality and eventually leads to them not telling people about PEP and scoffing at genuinely worried folks who haven't done the ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ risky behaviors they ask about. I'd bet money that they don't even mention PEP in many cases, especially if you're a heterosexual male.
---------
Bottom line, i agree completely. Whether it's STDs or a reverse mortgage when you're 80, having quality information is important if you don't want to get screwed in life...so err on the side of caution. Personally I think a rhetoric class should be required in High School that covers basic policy, business, and research information. My theory being that a lot of risky behavior is the result of not understanding risk (or being misled) and thus caving in to pressure. Although in certain areas I think it's simply not caring enough about yourself and others.
-------- As to oral sex, that's about as big a blooper as nonoxynol-9. Of course the straight community is mostly afraid of condoms for oral sex, due to the fear of tasting n-9 or because the woman assumes he's high risk...i'm not sure. I think the thought process might be "why else would you be interested in anything other than preventing pregnancy" or "why would he offer to use a flavored condom? that never happens." sigh.
I'd say that statistics are the most dangerous in the 1 in X million cases, because people really really think it's okay. And that changes behavior and increases risk imho.
With the 1 in 500(0) case, I can see how that gives a false sense of security to a young person. It may also gives a false sense of security to people in a major city (after all, depending on how the research was done, city rates may be much higher). However, the statistics are important because when someone has a condom break or a drunken one nighter they have to decide if they want to spend $1k and be sick for a couple months by taking a course of drugs to block a possible infection. That's why if a nurse gets a cut/blood from a patient, there's an immediate HIV test request. Ideally, such information would be better presented--many people don't know about the immediate drug therapy process (i even forget the name).
---
Anyway, the only reason I was really responding was because there was FUD about condoms being iffy. They aren't when used correctly and consistently. And of all those statistics, the only ones remotely solid to me are the 2%/12% with an HIV+ partner and 2%/15% for pregnancy. Even the HIV test may be weak, because it doesn't cover other methods of transmission.
---
As to where it's got me, well the other guy accused me of justifying my own behavior and you seem to imply I'm so as well, but considering I'm posting on slashdot I obviously haven't gotten laid in a while. Besides, I'm also looking for an LTR.
The real world is more complicated than the assumption that people only defend their own interests.
Your response has managed to improve and worsen versus your original post.
Your response remains misleading by your use of the word _perfect_ which hides that the problem is believed to be _consistent_ and _correct_ use. The condom is arguably not at fault in the average case which is 15% +/- some margin of error. The fault lies with users not consistently or correctly using condoms. You _were_ talking about condom failure, weren't you?
Furthermore your response is dead wrong in the HIV case--the HIV tests are on positive/negative couples and found that couples with 1 person with HIV and one person without had a 2% rate with consistent and correct use, and 12% with inconsistent/incorrect use.
---- Admit it, you should have actually looked up some facts for the original post instead of trying to one-up my for not quoting the entire study.
Seriously, be a prude all you want but don't spread FUD. The odds are 1 in 50 million if you're in a low risk group. This statistic has probably dropped as HIV spread, though not by much. And there's a good reason why:
If you know your partner has HIV, the odds of getting HIV with a condom is 1 in 5000 sexual acts.
These are real statistics from the JAMA and widely quoted by the CDC which fields thousands of calls about OMG A CONDOM BROKE WITH MY ONE NIGHT STAND. ODDS: ~1 in 1000 for high risk groups.
And for the record: 1 time unprotected sex with an HIV+ partner is 1 in 500 odds.
Of course, more accurate risk analysis would point out that women and receptors of anal sex are more likely to contract HIV.
And finally, with consistent condom use there is a 2 percent chance of a couple getting pregnant in a year's time.
i'm glad you said it, i'd get modded to oblivion as flamebait. It surprises me just how completely ignorant of policy and basic economics slashdot posters tend to be. But I suppose it shouldn't--slashdot is a highly technical bunch with little knowledge about domestic policy (social safety nets and infrastructure investment) because they are middle class or better (they have the privilege of not needing to understand). In addition, they generally don't seem to understand business and government (perhaps because it's mostly a younger demographic that doesn't remember renting their phones from AT&T). Any specialist group has weaknesses when it steps outside its domain.
But overall, I think that any mostly homogeneous group of people (similar economic/training background) is more likely to behave idiotically than a diverse group (management schools figured this out years ago). To borrow geekily from the andromeda series: "Inanimate objects and sentient beings obey the laws of nature. Without discrimination. Environment is their only conscience."
I could care less that slashdot readers aren't aware of certain domains, but what really scares me is when any group is whipped into a frenzy over something against their own interest. A certain candidate that is against internet regulation (READ: for corporate control) received significant play on slashdot and was given a pass by the slashdot interview process. That sort of failure scares me at least as much as China fear mongering. After all, we're not gonna go to war just cause news cycles whip up fear about another country. Oh wait...
I read the patent law blog, and it seems a HUGE stretch to suggest the courts "may" revisit their ruling--there are multiple avenues for them to go down with regard to the case in question and thus it's a very, very, weak "may". Especially since the case is about an overly vague application involving trading based on risk.
I'm afraid someone overhyped a blog entry and then posted it on slashdot. But I think you're right too: the overall topic is definitely worthy of discussion.
It is to increase the time (read:cost) required to obtain unlicensed copies of works. As such, it encourages people (that can afford to) to buy copies instead of spending their time searching for them (or waiting for cracks). Basic economic theory. DRM is supposed to keep normal consumers purchasing products -- it's not simply targeted at people pirating.
In addition, IF copyright were to disappear today some of its uses would be replaced by DRM, different format qualities, different packages, etc. Regulation is just one way to control distribution. There are business and regulatory solutions for many market situations.
It's like suing someone for driving a bus full of people to the bank and handing them keys to all the vaults. Whatever your opinion about IP/copyright, the facts of this matter are clear:
The site is called the goddamn PIRATE bay. It was not meant to be on the legal linux sharing side of things.
The vast majority of people using it have never and will never pay the artists for their work. And considering the number of small release work on there (non-big name games and movies), and direct to DVD movies that are leaked (like Stargate), the pirate bay and other sites probably have a significant impact on fair compensation (and thus decisions to produce).
And lastly, the PIRATE bay is clearly abetting the taking of income from individuals in a legally questionable (it's only legal in sweden, yay o_O) and clearly amoral manner...and they are profiting from it at the expense of others (like pirates). Note: Only the rich and popular can sue, I'm more concerned about those that can't.
The real enemy here is copyright law that protects corporations more than artists, and freedom from DRM (corporations _will_ replace/enhance copyright with DRM technologies). But the point, the point is that the Pirate Bay is not one of the good guys just because you can get something for nothing.
It has a nice name "internet freedom," but i would bet money it was supported or even written by the the communications industry. Why? Because they are scared $hitle$$ of regulation that will prevent them from creating a tiered internet (like cable, your cell phone features, etc). With a democratic president and congress a possibility, they have good reason to push something light through now.
Companies have to hedge their bets about what congress and what the public will do--when will people get pissed off enough to be less "disposed to suffer"? Or more accurately, when will a senator decide that s/he can get some major press by going against the communication companies? Or _pretending_ to go against them (as in this case)? It's all a game based on risk and reward, and this bill is a move by and/or for the telcos.
agreed, which singles out anyone that understands morality and actually thinks about it. it will "catch" anyone with morals and anyone that associates it with the preceding sex question.
it effectively helps screen out the exact opposite of what they are looking for:)
Slashdot Mirror
i hope the meta mods catch this, 2 obama fans modding a rebuttal flamebait/overrated.
but don't take my word for it, take the words of the leader of the NY civil rights commission:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oew-meyers20mar20,0,3898931.story
I'm not sure, but i have the following theories that may see me modded to oblivion:
1) A smaller number of IT people need the gov't safety net. New poll, how many IT people have been on food stamps or used free clinics?
2) IT people have a do-it-yourself attitude, and tend to view things from that level. As such, they aren't going to really notice when work/research/individuals had minor gov't support to succeed--the thing they notice is that someone DID something with their own DIY energy and not as part of a corporate behemoth.
3) (and this is the mod to oblivion one). IT people are frequently more isolated physically and communication wise--they are stuck in cubes and in technical worlds. As such, on average they have a more limited interaction with street level policy and governance. And they have, on average, a lower understanding of political rhetoric. For example, when Ron Paul says he is against regulation of the internet, a lot of people don't understand what it means; he doesn't want gov't involvement, and that means private sector control. Tiered pricing, etc--whatever the market comes up with.
We can all pick what level of involvement we think is appropriate (and there are different theories of gov't behavior), but sometimes I think IT folks are more likely to be so isolated that they dont see ANY legitimate use for govt. Perhaps this is due to working with hardware and code all day...maybe your interfaces make more sense than the ones i've seen. But I tend to view government/private/non-profit as just another OS with three quirky modules. To me, each has obvious strengths and weaknesses. but i am a MPA. and no, i dont work for the gov.
I did read the speech, and what I read was a candidate _mainstreaming_ a severe outlier (wright) to save his ass. He did a disservice to the UCC and to modern ministers by not denouncing and rejecting wright. So all those 18-26 year olds have a leader they respect implying that a) wright is somewhat common and thus a decent start for racial discussion (he is not common), b) that it's just like his typical grandmother and geraldine ferraro (which is beyond the pale, no pun intended), c) that we should work to address a) and b). Since a) and b) are horribly incorrect, this speech is historic for the amount of misinformation presented in relation to the size of the ass saved.
I've read his speech, and I can say, without a doubt that I will not vote for him. He is a politician pretending to be a movement--equating his grandmother and geraldine ferraro with an antiquated minister. And lets be clear that minister is a serious outlier--he does a disservice to black churches and the UCC to let people think otherwise.
Personally, I would have privately commented on and then separated from my mother's church if such a situation continued--in any situation where there was repeated racism, sexism, homophobia, divisiveness. And you can bet that people (lay leaders) talked about such issues. I cannot support Obama for that huge failure of judgment, for his campaigns racebaiting of bill clinton (they even circulated a memo implying he was racist for saying he wanted hillary by his side, despite knowing people like mandela, and pressured the media to take racialized views of soundbites). And because he has basically the same ratings by the NAACP, ACLU, and national criminal justice folks as Hillary Clinton. The campaign has always been about racism, sexism, and blind optimism vs pragmatism.
So how can I support a man that perpetuates antiquated notions of race (that black churches like wright's are common)? How can I support a man that exploits and expands the racial divide to push a 40+% grab of clinton's black vote (which was earned through a record of service and speeches on black and low income issues)? How can I support a man who uses rhetoric and topic-changing in a campaign about "change"?
On character, I cannot vote barack obama. And yes, part of that can be blamed on the media racializing issues and the 24 hr news cycle, but his campaign and its affiliated leaders were heavily involved in branding the clintons racist.
Also, my view of democracy requires an educated public, not an elitist system, and Obama's faith/hope/unity is a slip backwards from the details of clinton and edwards. Where is the sacrifice? Where is the dissent that occurs when allocating limited resources? Clinton is a politician, as is mccain, why is obama pretending to be better when he must ultimately act like one (and already has).
On philosophy I cannot vote barack obama...though I admire his campaign, the movement is a wee bit weak on substance. If he'd thrown in empowering an educated democracy and cut some of the fluff (conceit), he might have had my vote.
And on electability? I said last month that all he had was a downside--high numbers for speeches but no vetting. So I don't know if he's hit bottom yet, but he's a hell of a risk--especially since the media has been playing the race issue exclusively for his side since early january. All clinton has is an upside -- her record can regain the black vote and I think some of the sexism sent her way will dissipate, and she can stand toe to toe with mccain.
I'm voting for Hillary, or not voting for Obama. I cannot elect someone to office that builds a campaign on racial FUD and that is a politician pretending to be a movement.
You have one serious foot fetish.
Because rape, HIV, and Hepatitis aren't cruel and unusual punishment in your book? Or is that just the line you toss out to get out of jury duty?
Your comedic take is about as funny as the drunk guy I saw yesterday that said "Ooops, you just knocked over your home" when he walked past a homeless guy that dropped a cardboard box yesterday.
This patent probably came from their youtube purchase, because youtube already does this in videos, or did at one point. I never really go there anymore due to the poor quality videos.
He didn't upload it till after he got Digged I think. Definitely should have planned for that in the first place and offered a torrent, but I suspect he was trying to collect data on who came back for the full album. i'd certainly be curious...
unfortunately the economics of this (user time vs cash) is currently that it's more cost efficient AND less frustrating to grab the torrent because the distribution infrastructure /store isn't robust enough yet.
This is actually his second attempt at this process (did it with saul williams in Nov)
And i'm not sure why this made slashdot, but I go in the store once a month just because all the creative work is amazing. The one in San Fran is a pirate themed store filled with stories about a pathetic pirate that wants to be feared.
I also love the informational signs about "Have you got scurvy?" Thought about putting that beside the breast cancer awareness one in my shower, but didn't think my housemates would approve.
And the encourage mopping people...ahhh hahaha.
http://www.826valencia.org/store/iambeingmopped.html
they tested this out last year with a free/5$ setup
interesting that they moved to sample/5$
He actually did torrent the free as in beer sampler (9 tracks). Please don't slashdot the site if you just want to check the sampler out.
http://thepiratebay.org/tor/4059158/Nine_Inch_Nails_-_Ghosts_I_(2008)
The full 36 tracks are 5$. And are licensed under creativecommons for non-commercial copy/share/perform.
torrent the free sampler?
Offers multiple formats, and multi packages, and a free sampler (the free one which includes 9 tracks) so he can get a better idea of what's going on and also make money (the full download is 5 dollars).
A lot of people downloaded In Rainbows without paying because they didn't know or actually like radiohead, not just because they were free riders. Trent set the price low enough and provided enough options that he'll have a better idea of who likes his music and what they want -- people not familiar with him will sample and move on, but those that like the work will have to choose between waiting for bittorrent or paying a cheap 5$.
It's not just the scientific community that undercuts the risk (and in some cases the scientific community is quite clear). I'm biased because I'm an MPA, but I view the problem as being with any domain where you have asymmetric information and are relying on someone else (a risky thing to do, as you've stated). However, people may expect a credit card company to mislead them, but not a credit fixing non-profit OR a health clinic.
In this case, the CDC or a gov't website is worried as much about costs as helping people. And yes, some of it is simply not understanding what the reports and caveats said and some of it is the scientists not doing their job. But CDC and clinic personnel tend to only look at high risk people as requiring their attention because of cost issues and because they repeatedly see positive tests for high risk people.
This becomes ingrained in cultural and organizational mentality and eventually leads to them not telling people about PEP and scoffing at genuinely worried folks who haven't done the ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ risky behaviors they ask about. I'd bet money that they don't even mention PEP in many cases, especially if you're a heterosexual male.
---------
Bottom line, i agree completely. Whether it's STDs or a reverse mortgage when you're 80, having quality information is important if you don't want to get screwed in life...so err on the side of caution. Personally I think a rhetoric class should be required in High School that covers basic policy, business, and research information. My theory being that a lot of risky behavior is the result of not understanding risk (or being misled) and thus caving in to pressure. Although in certain areas I think it's simply not caring enough about yourself and others.
--------
As to oral sex, that's about as big a blooper as nonoxynol-9. Of course the straight community is mostly afraid of condoms for oral sex, due to the fear of tasting n-9 or because the woman assumes he's high risk...i'm not sure. I think the thought process might be "why else would you be interested in anything other than preventing pregnancy" or "why would he offer to use a flavored condom? that never happens." sigh.
I'd say that statistics are the most dangerous in the 1 in X million cases, because people really really think it's okay. And that changes behavior and increases risk imho.
With the 1 in 500(0) case, I can see how that gives a false sense of security to a young person. It may also gives a false sense of security to people in a major city (after all, depending on how the research was done, city rates may be much higher). However, the statistics are important because when someone has a condom break or a drunken one nighter they have to decide if they want to spend $1k and be sick for a couple months by taking a course of drugs to block a possible infection. That's why if a nurse gets a cut/blood from a patient, there's an immediate HIV test request. Ideally, such information would be better presented--many people don't know about the immediate drug therapy process (i even forget the name).
---
Anyway, the only reason I was really responding was because there was FUD about condoms being iffy. They aren't when used correctly and consistently. And of all those statistics, the only ones remotely solid to me are the 2%/12% with an HIV+ partner and 2%/15% for pregnancy. Even the HIV test may be weak, because it doesn't cover other methods of transmission.
---
As to where it's got me, well the other guy accused me of justifying my own behavior and you seem to imply I'm so as well, but considering I'm posting on slashdot I obviously haven't gotten laid in a while. Besides, I'm also looking for an LTR.
The real world is more complicated than the assumption that people only defend their own interests.
Your response has managed to improve and worsen versus your original post.
Your response remains misleading by your use of the word _perfect_ which hides that the problem is believed to be _consistent_ and _correct_ use.
The condom is arguably not at fault in the average case which is 15% +/- some margin of error. The fault lies with users not consistently or correctly using condoms. You _were_ talking about condom failure, weren't you?
Furthermore your response is dead wrong in the HIV case--the HIV tests are on positive/negative couples and found that couples with 1 person with HIV and one person without had a 2% rate with consistent and correct use, and 12% with inconsistent/incorrect use.
----
Admit it, you should have actually looked up some facts for the original post instead of trying to one-up my for not quoting the entire study.
Good luck with that truth thing.
Seriously, be a prude all you want but don't spread FUD. The odds are 1 in 50 million if you're in a low risk group. This statistic has probably dropped as HIV spread, though not by much. And there's a good reason why:
If you know your partner has HIV, the odds of getting HIV with a condom is 1 in 5000 sexual acts.
These are real statistics from the JAMA and widely quoted by the CDC which fields thousands of calls about OMG A CONDOM BROKE WITH MY ONE NIGHT STAND. ODDS: ~1 in 1000 for high risk groups.
And for the record: 1 time unprotected sex with an HIV+ partner is 1 in 500 odds.
Of course, more accurate risk analysis would point out that women and receptors of anal sex are more likely to contract HIV.
And finally, with consistent condom use there is a 2 percent chance of a couple getting pregnant in a year's time.
i'm glad you said it, i'd get modded to oblivion as flamebait. It surprises me just how completely ignorant of policy and basic economics slashdot posters tend to be. But I suppose it shouldn't--slashdot is a highly technical bunch with little knowledge about domestic policy (social safety nets and infrastructure investment) because they are middle class or better (they have the privilege of not needing to understand). In addition, they generally don't seem to understand business and government (perhaps because it's mostly a younger demographic that doesn't remember renting their phones from AT&T). Any specialist group has weaknesses when it steps outside its domain.
But overall, I think that any mostly homogeneous group of people (similar economic/training background) is more likely to behave idiotically than a diverse group (management schools figured this out years ago). To borrow geekily from the andromeda series: "Inanimate objects and sentient beings obey the laws of nature. Without discrimination. Environment is their only conscience."
I could care less that slashdot readers aren't aware of certain domains, but what really scares me is when any group is whipped into a frenzy over something against their own interest. A certain candidate that is against internet regulation (READ: for corporate control) received significant play on slashdot and was given a pass by the slashdot interview process. That sort of failure scares me at least as much as China fear mongering. After all, we're not gonna go to war just cause news cycles whip up fear about another country. Oh wait...
I read the patent law blog, and it seems a HUGE stretch to suggest the courts "may" revisit their ruling--there are multiple avenues for them to go down with regard to the case in question and thus it's a very, very, weak "may". Especially since the case is about an overly vague application involving trading based on risk.
I'm afraid someone overhyped a blog entry and then posted it on slashdot. But I think you're right too: the overall topic is definitely worthy of discussion.
It is to increase the time (read:cost) required to obtain unlicensed copies of works. As such, it encourages people (that can afford to) to buy copies instead of spending their time searching for them (or waiting for cracks). Basic economic theory. DRM is supposed to keep normal consumers purchasing products -- it's not simply targeted at people pirating.
In addition, IF copyright were to disappear today some of its uses would be replaced by DRM, different format qualities, different packages, etc. Regulation is just one way to control distribution. There are business and regulatory solutions for many market situations.
It's like suing someone for driving a bus full of people to the bank and handing them keys to all the vaults. Whatever your opinion about IP/copyright, the facts of this matter are clear:
The site is called the goddamn PIRATE bay. It was not meant to be on the legal linux sharing side of things.
The vast majority of people using it have never and will never pay the artists for their work. And considering the number of small release work on there (non-big name games and movies), and direct to DVD movies that are leaked (like Stargate), the pirate bay and other sites probably have a significant impact on fair compensation (and thus decisions to produce).
And lastly, the PIRATE bay is clearly abetting the taking of income from individuals in a legally questionable (it's only legal in sweden, yay o_O) and clearly amoral manner...and they are profiting from it at the expense of others (like pirates). Note: Only the rich and popular can sue, I'm more concerned about those that can't.
The real enemy here is copyright law that protects corporations more than artists, and freedom from DRM (corporations _will_ replace/enhance copyright with DRM technologies). But the point, the point is that the Pirate Bay is not one of the good guys just because you can get something for nothing.
You and ron paul supporters have a lot in common. /taunt
-b
It has a nice name "internet freedom," but i would bet money it was supported or even written by the the communications industry. Why? Because they are scared $hitle$$ of regulation that will prevent them from creating a tiered internet (like cable, your cell phone features, etc). With a democratic president and congress a possibility, they have good reason to push something light through now.
Companies have to hedge their bets about what congress and what the public will do--when will people get pissed off enough to be less "disposed to suffer"? Or more accurately, when will a senator decide that s/he can get some major press by going against the communication companies? Or _pretending_ to go against them (as in this case)? It's all a game based on risk and reward, and this bill is a move by and/or for the telcos.
agreed, which singles out anyone that understands morality and actually thinks about it. it will "catch" anyone with morals and anyone that associates it with the preceding sex question.
:)
it effectively helps screen out the exact opposite of what they are looking for