An EXTERNAL hard drive you could (maybe with some hacking) connect to another TiVo and -- gasp -- SHARE VIDEO?!?!?! Not that it's not an absolutely fabulous (and completely logical) idea. But can you hear the RIAA and Co...? Man oh man...:-)
People also don't associate gun-related violence with the need for outlawing certain kinds of guns, or gun control in general. Go figure.:-)
Long-term versus Short-term incentives
on
Making It Personal
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
I think this boils down to the issue of whether a company is thinking long-term or short-term. If the former, the company will logically be led to the strategy from the book, because the idea will be to create a loyal customer relationship. A short-term get-rich-quick strategy will often lead to the misuse of personal information because it's a way to make a one-time buck. I think we already see this in much of the corporate world. Big serious companies who know we can take our business elsewhere (which doesn't include nice monopolists like Qwest) are far less fragrant violators of our privacy than fly-by-night immature 'net businesses, whose basic revenue model is often dependent upon that misuse.
These rulings may not be quite so awful. They're both a little chilling on speech, but you'll note that in both the cases cited the former employees went to extreme lengths to announce to the world their opinions. In the first case, the judge specifically noted that they "acted with malice". This does not prevent anyone from criticizing a former employer, or probably even putting up a publically-accessible website. But spewing messages across USENET or spamming the email accounts of one's former (or soon-to-be-former) employer are way out of line.
Perhaps one should consider communication media other than email.:-) Most companies have a link to a 'corporate' area of their website. Just call their press line.:-)
Um... the only way to regulate email is to place burdens on the sender. And this is exactly what we all want! This doesn't get in the way of people with whom we have established relationships, because their emails aren't covered by the law. But it puts an enormous obstacle in front of spammers, which was exactly the goal. I think the government found an excellent way of NOT screwing with email too much. They didn't implement a bunch of technical mumbo-jumbo that the legislators couldn't understand (see: DMCA). And you REALLY need to remember to say "IANAL". The bit about compelled speech is absurd. Don't you think there's a reason that perfectly competent lawyers didn't bring it up?
Actually, the US government does currently have an artists' fund. It's called the National Endowment for the Arts. I wonder if anyone has ever thought of applying to them for a grant to develop free software. It'd be a great experiment, and if well-publicized, possibly a nice attention-getter for the cause.
I don't think the point was that this molecule could only factor 15 (well, maybe, but read on). The point is that they needed to make a molecule with 7 atoms that could interact in a certain way. To do bigger problems, they will need to design a molecular structure that fits many more atoms together. However, that structure will be able to solve *any* problems possible within its capacity.
Totally depends on what state you're in. Deleware charges like $10 or something... half the more mysterious-looking junk mail I get has a DE return address because it's so cheap to register a corporation there.
What does it say about the open source model that a lack of interest from any single developer can be such a punch to the gut for a project, especially when it's something this widely used (and therefore, I assume, developed)? I'm not a troll trying to say "open source sucks" or anything, but this weakness might be one of the things that contributes to corporate heebie-jeebies about Free software. I guess perhaps I think open-source mavens don't acknowledge this readily enough, or have a good way to deal with it.
IANAL by any means, but I know that through many decades of precedent there are very logical and reasonable standards by which a court decides if someone is acting as a journalist. For example, does someone derive (or attempt to derive) regular income from their work? Any lawyers are free to elaborate...:-)
A truly workable solution?
on
Why ADCo?
·
· Score: 2
I don't think the problem is only "trying to do too much at once"; it's also "building a huge network costs a ton of money". And while there is the example of the robots stringing fiber in pre-dug tunnels, that's a VERY unique case that isn't possible elsewhere. Under normal circumstances, I'd guess that the cost of building one's own network is so high that you HAVE to provide a wide range of services because you can't build enough revenue off a single product.
I agree that doing it all on one's own is the best way to go -- MCI (and later, Sprint) are doing ok because they have their own networks and don't just sell time from AT& to their long-distance customers -- but the costs are still probably way too high to justify it anytime soon. You'd need a much higher demand for service to make it feasible.
I cannot imagine what kind of nightmare this will be when it comes to issues like non-technical hardware failure and theft. Does the state buy a big equipment insurance policy? Do you suddenly demand that every kid's parents become liable for a $1200 laptop, even if they haven't requested the item? I think this is going to cost Maine big-time when it comes to replacement of broken and missing equipment. And if you think libraries are under fire to protect internet-using kids from everything not-so-sanitary... hoo boy. You know those lame "perfect attendance" awards and whatnot they give out at the end of the year? Maine middle schools will have to add a few more:
- First kid to destroy his laptop while beating up another kid and get a free replacement.
- First kid to lose his laptop and get a free replacement.
- First kid to realize he/she can fence his/her laptop and get a free replacement.
- First kid to organize the use of 38,600 state-owned laptops to launch a DoS attack.
- Kid who maintains the most heavily-trafficked node on the private gnutella network (can you imagine the sheeite 7th-graders would send around?).
- First kid who gets the FBI coming to a school because he/she lent his/her laptop to a l33t older sibling.
Um... no. If it was too complicated for you ("that gave me a huge headache") please don't try to summarize it for others.;-P His main point was that the particular attitudes and priorities of those holding power in the crypto game -- M$ geeks and the spooks -- have managed to bore the public and run the whole thing into a dead end. He seems to think that cryptography actually has a whole bunch of practical uses that could make a substantive difference in our lives, but that's gotten lost thanks to misplaced priorities. The crypto issue, however, is just a representative example of how the dominant players in certain industries have detoured our huge push of technological progress off a bridge. (And, as is true with most any issue, the absolutists on either end of the spectrum are out of their minds.)
Such devices, the suit contends, deprive the networks of revenue and reduce their incentive to produce new shows.
Translation: "Our business model is antiquated, and instead of trying to find a new way we're just going to sue anyone who takes advantage of it." Methinks the networks want immunity from the darwinian aspect of capitalism. As I'm sure has been said on/. before, perhaps it's just time to find a better way.
"Interconnection". That's all globalism/globalization is. Everything else is circumstantial, meaning it depends on the particular implementation or course of history or time-space continuum you happen to live in or whatever.;-) So no, it is by no means inevitable. Presumably, one could find an island (physical or metaphorical) that allows total isolation from the rest of humanity. It is, however, worthwhile to note that known human history shows a trend vastly in the opposite direction.
Ok, Slashdot gets it wrong on the iPod again. Here's the deal, as can be found on MacFixIt. The iPod has two basic modes, the automatic music management system that syncs with iTunes, and a more manual sort of management method. It will only auto-sync with one "setup" of iTunes, meaning that you can't go to another computer and have it automatically copy all the music that the iPod has but the HD doesn't to the computer. However, you can manually transfer music files back and forth between the iPod and any compatible computer. This all, of course, totally ignores the other major functionality of the device as a plain-jane Firewire HD, which can be used to copy whatever you want between computers.
To what extent should a product be supported? I think the fact that someone can seriously ask that question makes a statement about the mindset of the computer industry when it comes to backing up their products. This has been said time and time again; in no other industry do people accept such high product failure rates! I think it's really that simple. That something is expensive doesn't mean it shouldn't be expected to work almost perfectly (perhaps just the opposite). Companies must take whatever steps are necessary to completely alleviate problems with their products within any time period they've specified. If a laptop has a 1-year warranty and the customer has a problem in that year which the company can't get figured out in a week, they shouldn't be able to say "replacing the motherboard is too expensive so we can't help you." And if they're having a lot of problems like that crop up and they're losing money because they have to replace so many motherboards, they shouldn't be allowed to screw customers; it's their suppliers' fault, sue them. Bottom line: there is no accountability for lousy products in the computer industry, and that needs to change.
I can't imagine a better example of anti-competitive practices. MS is going to force people who never selected them as an ISP to use MS software in a manner that does not at all aid "anti-spam initiatives" and, as the post pointed out, will almost certainly make related problems even worse. How on earth does *anything* related to what client is used to access a POP3 server effect spam??? SMTP would at least seem in the ballpark, but POP?
I'm not sure if I can answer your question correctly, since IANAL. However, as all of us at/. know, that never prevents anyone from trying.;-) I would think that through their particular licensing scheme they can in fact 1) withdraw it from future versions of WINE, and 2) not allow any further work to be distributed that relies on their code. In essence, no, it's impossible to suck all the distributed copies of work done so far off the 'net, but it's possible to legally prevent anyone from doing further work using the code for anything except personal uses.
In the end, I'm not sure how much difference there is between totally Free software and this company's idea from the consumer side. What game theory and economist types call the freeloader problem is when a few people get stuck shouldering the burden for what is really a common good. This company seems to just up the ante, since only a small portion of the user base will have to take on the job of supporting the programmers. It does at least give the option of allowing users to 'rotate' -- people can pay for only one year's subscription, then let someone else take their spot when it runs out. But it's anyone's guess whether this will actually happen. I forsee the company having to regularly reissue a big threat to withdraw their software unless a few thousand people send them some money, which may or may not work. Because the company's finances and subscription rolls won't be open to the public, any statistics the company offers about the number of subscribers will be treated as suspect, allowing worries about extortion and broken promises.
To be honest, I think the underlying philosophy of their idea is pretty damn cool. It's sort of like the board of a small church or a neighborhood association, in that members of the community take turns assuming responsibility for the entire group. But without the same level of information on both sides of the relationship -- in a church, everyone knows who has taken their turn, because it's done publicly -- I think it may be doomed to fail.
This is one of the more extreme examples of ridiculous predictions over how life will change in the US after 9/11. The tons of reasons people have used actual written/printed communication in the past continue to exist, and will not easily be supplanted by *anything* electronic. (Think about all the documents we use that require witness signatures or notarizing and then are kept in archives for decades.)
In other words, this article is just one big troll.
For some reason Slashdot gets a lot of submissions of wacko energy concepts - power from nothing, power from sand, power from a black box, engines that get 500 miles to the gallon...
It's the ultimate intersection between conspiracy theories and nerd-dom. OF COURSE they come pouring in.;-)
I did similar work, and what this person neglected to mention is that for 'issues of the moment' the general balance of responses can have an effect on the official's position/vote. No, when someone writes in about an issue that just isn't already a priority, unless it REALLY catches a staffer's fancy (as in, they see a golden political opportunity), a form response is all there is time for. But when an issue is up for public debate, and an office gets a flood of correspondence from their constituents with a certain view that can make a difference. How do you think the NRA has been so effective? They've established a track record with huge public response campaigns, and officials know to expect it.
Um... would there EVER be any confusion between "Apple Computer" and "Apple Records"? They obviously had no intention of producing competing products, so it's questionable whether there was any trademark dilution anyway. Though part of the rational of the suit Apple Records filed -- if I recall correctly -- was that Apple Computer was infringing on its territory because it had sound capabilities built in. And you people bitch about A.C.'s lawyers?!
Slashdot Mirror
An EXTERNAL hard drive you could (maybe with some hacking) connect to another TiVo and -- gasp -- SHARE VIDEO?!?!?! Not that it's not an absolutely fabulous (and completely logical) idea. But can you hear the RIAA and Co...? Man oh man... :-)
People also don't associate gun-related violence with the need for outlawing certain kinds of guns, or gun control in general. Go figure. :-)
I think this boils down to the issue of whether a company is thinking long-term or short-term. If the former, the company will logically be led to the strategy from the book, because the idea will be to create a loyal customer relationship. A short-term get-rich-quick strategy will often lead to the misuse of personal information because it's a way to make a one-time buck. I think we already see this in much of the corporate world. Big serious companies who know we can take our business elsewhere (which doesn't include nice monopolists like Qwest) are far less fragrant violators of our privacy than fly-by-night immature 'net businesses, whose basic revenue model is often dependent upon that misuse.
These rulings may not be quite so awful. They're both a little chilling on speech, but you'll note that in both the cases cited the former employees went to extreme lengths to announce to the world their opinions. In the first case, the judge specifically noted that they "acted with malice". This does not prevent anyone from criticizing a former employer, or probably even putting up a publically-accessible website. But spewing messages across USENET or spamming the email accounts of one's former (or soon-to-be-former) employer are way out of line.
Perhaps one should consider communication media other than email. :-) Most companies have a link to a 'corporate' area of their website. Just call their press line. :-)
Um... the only way to regulate email is to place burdens on the sender. And this is exactly what we all want! This doesn't get in the way of people with whom we have established relationships, because their emails aren't covered by the law. But it puts an enormous obstacle in front of spammers, which was exactly the goal. I think the government found an excellent way of NOT screwing with email too much. They didn't implement a bunch of technical mumbo-jumbo that the legislators couldn't understand (see: DMCA). And you REALLY need to remember to say "IANAL". The bit about compelled speech is absurd. Don't you think there's a reason that perfectly competent lawyers didn't bring it up?
Actually, the US government does currently have an artists' fund. It's called the National Endowment for the Arts. I wonder if anyone has ever thought of applying to them for a grant to develop free software. It'd be a great experiment, and if well-publicized, possibly a nice attention-getter for the cause.
I don't think the point was that this molecule could only factor 15 (well, maybe, but read on). The point is that they needed to make a molecule with 7 atoms that could interact in a certain way. To do bigger problems, they will need to design a molecular structure that fits many more atoms together. However, that structure will be able to solve *any* problems possible within its capacity.
Totally depends on what state you're in. Deleware charges like $10 or something... half the more mysterious-looking junk mail I get has a DE return address because it's so cheap to register a corporation there.
What does it say about the open source model that a lack of interest from any single developer can be such a punch to the gut for a project, especially when it's something this widely used (and therefore, I assume, developed)? I'm not a troll trying to say "open source sucks" or anything, but this weakness might be one of the things that contributes to corporate heebie-jeebies about Free software. I guess perhaps I think open-source mavens don't acknowledge this readily enough, or have a good way to deal with it.
IANAL by any means, but I know that through many decades of precedent there are very logical and reasonable standards by which a court decides if someone is acting as a journalist. For example, does someone derive (or attempt to derive) regular income from their work? Any lawyers are free to elaborate... :-)
I don't think the problem is only "trying to do too much at once"; it's also "building a huge network costs a ton of money". And while there is the example of the robots stringing fiber in pre-dug tunnels, that's a VERY unique case that isn't possible elsewhere. Under normal circumstances, I'd guess that the cost of building one's own network is so high that you HAVE to provide a wide range of services because you can't build enough revenue off a single product.
I agree that doing it all on one's own is the best way to go -- MCI (and later, Sprint) are doing ok because they have their own networks and don't just sell time from AT& to their long-distance customers -- but the costs are still probably way too high to justify it anytime soon. You'd need a much higher demand for service to make it feasible.
I cannot imagine what kind of nightmare this will be when it comes to issues like non-technical hardware failure and theft. Does the state buy a big equipment insurance policy? Do you suddenly demand that every kid's parents become liable for a $1200 laptop, even if they haven't requested the item? I think this is going to cost Maine big-time when it comes to replacement of broken and missing equipment. And if you think libraries are under fire to protect internet-using kids from everything not-so-sanitary... hoo boy. You know those lame "perfect attendance" awards and whatnot they give out at the end of the year? Maine middle schools will have to add a few more:
- First kid to destroy his laptop while beating up another kid and get a free replacement.
- First kid to lose his laptop and get a free replacement.
- First kid to realize he/she can fence his/her laptop and get a free replacement.
- First kid to organize the use of 38,600 state-owned laptops to launch a DoS attack.
- Kid who maintains the most heavily-trafficked node on the private gnutella network (can you imagine the sheeite 7th-graders would send around?).
- First kid who gets the FBI coming to a school because he/she lent his/her laptop to a l33t older sibling.
Any other suggestions?
Um... no. If it was too complicated for you ("that gave me a huge headache") please don't try to summarize it for others. ;-P His main point was that the particular attitudes and priorities of those holding power in the crypto game -- M$ geeks and the spooks -- have managed to bore the public and run the whole thing into a dead end. He seems to think that cryptography actually has a whole bunch of practical uses that could make a substantive difference in our lives, but that's gotten lost thanks to misplaced priorities. The crypto issue, however, is just a representative example of how the dominant players in certain industries have detoured our huge push of technological progress off a bridge. (And, as is true with most any issue, the absolutists on either end of the spectrum are out of their minds.)
Also, Sealand is stupid.
Translation: "Our business model is antiquated, and instead of trying to find a new way we're just going to sue anyone who takes advantage of it." Methinks the networks want immunity from the darwinian aspect of capitalism. As I'm sure has been said on /. before, perhaps it's just time to find a better way.
"Interconnection". That's all globalism/globalization is. Everything else is circumstantial, meaning it depends on the particular implementation or course of history or time-space continuum you happen to live in or whatever. ;-) So no, it is by no means inevitable. Presumably, one could find an island (physical or metaphorical) that allows total isolation from the rest of humanity. It is, however, worthwhile to note that known human history shows a trend vastly in the opposite direction.
Ok, Slashdot gets it wrong on the iPod again. Here's the deal, as can be found on MacFixIt. The iPod has two basic modes, the automatic music management system that syncs with iTunes, and a more manual sort of management method. It will only auto-sync with one "setup" of iTunes, meaning that you can't go to another computer and have it automatically copy all the music that the iPod has but the HD doesn't to the computer. However, you can manually transfer music files back and forth between the iPod and any compatible computer. This all, of course, totally ignores the other major functionality of the device as a plain-jane Firewire HD, which can be used to copy whatever you want between computers.
To what extent should a product be supported? I think the fact that someone can seriously ask that question makes a statement about the mindset of the computer industry when it comes to backing up their products. This has been said time and time again; in no other industry do people accept such high product failure rates! I think it's really that simple. That something is expensive doesn't mean it shouldn't be expected to work almost perfectly (perhaps just the opposite). Companies must take whatever steps are necessary to completely alleviate problems with their products within any time period they've specified. If a laptop has a 1-year warranty and the customer has a problem in that year which the company can't get figured out in a week, they shouldn't be able to say "replacing the motherboard is too expensive so we can't help you." And if they're having a lot of problems like that crop up and they're losing money because they have to replace so many motherboards, they shouldn't be allowed to screw customers; it's their suppliers' fault, sue them. Bottom line: there is no accountability for lousy products in the computer industry, and that needs to change.
I can't imagine a better example of anti-competitive practices. MS is going to force people who never selected them as an ISP to use MS software in a manner that does not at all aid "anti-spam initiatives" and, as the post pointed out, will almost certainly make related problems even worse. How on earth does *anything* related to what client is used to access a POP3 server effect spam??? SMTP would at least seem in the ballpark, but POP?
I'm not sure if I can answer your question correctly, since IANAL. However, as all of us at /. know, that never prevents anyone from trying. ;-) I would think that through their particular licensing scheme they can in fact 1) withdraw it from future versions of WINE, and 2) not allow any further work to be distributed that relies on their code. In essence, no, it's impossible to suck all the distributed copies of work done so far off the 'net, but it's possible to legally prevent anyone from doing further work using the code for anything except personal uses.
In the end, I'm not sure how much difference there is between totally Free software and this company's idea from the consumer side. What game theory and economist types call the freeloader problem is when a few people get stuck shouldering the burden for what is really a common good. This company seems to just up the ante, since only a small portion of the user base will have to take on the job of supporting the programmers. It does at least give the option of allowing users to 'rotate' -- people can pay for only one year's subscription, then let someone else take their spot when it runs out. But it's anyone's guess whether this will actually happen. I forsee the company having to regularly reissue a big threat to withdraw their software unless a few thousand people send them some money, which may or may not work. Because the company's finances and subscription rolls won't be open to the public, any statistics the company offers about the number of subscribers will be treated as suspect, allowing worries about extortion and broken promises.
To be honest, I think the underlying philosophy of their idea is pretty damn cool. It's sort of like the board of a small church or a neighborhood association, in that members of the community take turns assuming responsibility for the entire group. But without the same level of information on both sides of the relationship -- in a church, everyone knows who has taken their turn, because it's done publicly -- I think it may be doomed to fail.
This is one of the more extreme examples of ridiculous predictions over how life will change in the US after 9/11. The tons of reasons people have used actual written/printed communication in the past continue to exist, and will not easily be supplanted by *anything* electronic. (Think about all the documents we use that require witness signatures or notarizing and then are kept in archives for decades.)
In other words, this article is just one big troll.
It's the ultimate intersection between conspiracy theories and nerd-dom. OF COURSE they come pouring in. ;-)
I did similar work, and what this person neglected to mention is that for 'issues of the moment' the general balance of responses can have an effect on the official's position/vote. No, when someone writes in about an issue that just isn't already a priority, unless it REALLY catches a staffer's fancy (as in, they see a golden political opportunity), a form response is all there is time for. But when an issue is up for public debate, and an office gets a flood of correspondence from their constituents with a certain view that can make a difference. How do you think the NRA has been so effective? They've established a track record with huge public response campaigns, and officials know to expect it.
Um... would there EVER be any confusion between "Apple Computer" and "Apple Records"? They obviously had no intention of producing competing products, so it's questionable whether there was any trademark dilution anyway. Though part of the rational of the suit Apple Records filed -- if I recall correctly -- was that Apple Computer was infringing on its territory because it had sound capabilities built in. And you people bitch about A.C.'s lawyers?!