Brin's idea is certainly interesting, and this is a good place to bring it up (I haven't seen it mentioned for a couple months now). I still haven't worked out all the implications for myself yet, but I do have one knee-jerk response:
OK, David Brin, if the transparent society is such a good idea, where's all your personal info for me to peruse?
I know that's just me being a knee-jerk again, but on some level I find it a compelling argument -- if the transparent society really is such a good idea, then Brin ought to be taking the first steps toward it. He ought to be demonstrating his allegiance to the idea by becoming the first wholly "transparent" person.
. . . or maybe it's not such a good idea after all? I'd argue that a fully transparent society is impossible. Someone will always be able to hide more than someone else, leaving one of those two people in a slightly more powerful position.
Mind you, I did say that this was a knee-jerk response on my part . . . .
"But I can imagine new programs trying to compete for my attention by flashing . .."
Aaaaiiiiieeeee!!! *cough*
Unfortunately, I think you're spot-on -- the net result of "attentional" interfaces will be programs that cannot be ignored. Just like banner ads run amok. The average corporate exec CANNOT ignore (heh) the advertising potential in this technology.
There's another down-side -- your boss will be able to tell, down to the second, how much time you spent paying attention to your work. I guarantee you'll have "EmployeeMaster 2000 Advanced Server Edition" in no time at all. They already try to do that sort of monitoring; an attentional UI would make their job about a million times easier.
"OR IT CAN ACT AS A SWITCH. If we ever hear a proposal from the FBI in which it plans to install Carnivores at all 6000 ISPs in the U.S., we'll be giving the government the power to do something it can't do right now.
Shut the Internet down."
Of course, that doesn't mean that the *goal* of the FBI is to turn off the Internet. But that's not really the point, is it?
Cringley (sp?) suggests that the FBI wants the power to shut down the Internet.
Why would they want to do that? There's no real reason that I can think of, unless they want to destroy the U.S. economy in one fell stroke.
Instead, I suggest that they're using Carnivore as the thin edge of a very big wedge. Sure, they could sniff email traffic without a big black box. But by using a box, they get access to ISP premises every time they get a wiretap order.
With big ISPs, they'll probably be installing those things several times a year. Eventually they'll be able to say "hey, why don't you just let us leave this thing plugged in?".
Then, rather than having to go and plug in their big black box every time they get a wiretap order, they'll have the boxes all plugged in all the time.
And that's when we'll find out that those boxes can do stateful packet inspection if asked. Next thing you know, they'll be able to physically prevent you from seeing "unauthorized" data on offshore servers. Kiss that data-haven goodbye.
From my perspective as a heavy FrameMaker user, Adobe is going downhill. FrameMaker 6 was a colossal disappointment (basically just a bugfix), so I wouldn't be surprised if Photoshop 6 suffers the same fate.
I don't know what the hell is going on over at Adobe, but they're getting harder and harder to deal with -- they're taking longer to fix bugs, they're ignoring some really serious bugs, and they're just generally letting their products lag.
My own suspicion is that they've become so obsessed with killing Quark that they've implicitly decided to let their own product line die in order to concentrate on InDesign.
. . . but then, as a Framemaker guy, I'm probably biased. So, to make a long story short, I believe that Adobe is suing MacNN out of spite, because MacNN has revealed that Photoshop 6 is going to be a pointless upgrade.
I mean, hell, how often do you get the chance to go down in history? Where's your sense of adventure?
It's not like my life is so fabulous anyway . . . worst case scenario is that I get killed. Best case scenario is that I end up doing a Good Deed. Since I can get myself killed just crossing the street, I don't see a problem here.
Screenshots are worthless when it comes to WM's. All they do is show you what one fraction of a second looked like -- they don't tell you a damn thing about actual usability.
The proof is in the *using*, so there's really no point in arguing back and forth about the "usability" or "innovation" of something that NONE of us have used!
. . . until we can actually use the code, there's nothing to be said. Anything we DO say will be purely speculative and will reflect nothing other than our own biases.
Yep, electronic stuff should pay less or nothing
on
EU Web Tax Proposed
·
· Score: 1
I agree generally -- that taxation is a good thing. I like having roads, for example (toll roads are another matter, and are evil).
However, things that don't have any physical representation (like software that's downloaded across the net) shouldn't have any VAT or GST.
Why? Because they're not using the infrastructure that VAT or GST pay for. The only infrastructure they're using is the telecom wire, which I ALREADY pay for with my monthly telecom bill. I don't want to be charged twice, and I certainly don't want to be charged for infrastructure and "value-add" that my purchase didn't use.
And that's my problem with this piece of legislation -- it's aimed at intangibles that oughtn't be taxed in the same way as a piece of metal.
Although I'm not happy to see the come, I guess that I'm not wholly opposed to online sales taxes. I guess I'm mostly worried about every damn jurisdiction tacking on their own special tax -- you know darn well that states will start trying to levy taxes on any transaction that passes through wires that travel across their jurisdiction. *shudder*
But, although I can understand sales taxes on physical objects, I am incorrigibly opposed to sales taxes on intangibles.
I'm not sure why I'm opposed -- it's sort of an instinctive opposition. I guess I feel that if I'm not getting any THING, then I shouldn't be taxed on it -- it wasn't shipped over roads that need repairs, it wasn't handled by people that need health insurance, and the actual transmission was paid for by my monthly telecom bill.
What about other countries??
on
Copyrant
·
· Score: 1
There have got to be some jurisdictions under which this "media-less" distribution mechanism is illegal.
If MS wants to sell software in those countries, they'll have to provide the normal, full-fledged CDs.
. . . then all we need is a couple of enterprising resellers to base themselves in that protected jurisdiction, and we're set to go. The magic of the Internet strikes again.
So, does anyone have any candidates? Some place with really strong consumer protections (Oz, maybe?)
If MS stock drops even a bit, buy it! If it drops below $60, buy as much as you can!
Why? Well, if MS wins on appeal, you'll make a fortune when the stock pops up to above $100. And if MS loses the appeal, you'll have stock in two very powerful companies.
I'm serious -- buy MS stock, especially if the daytraders dump it tomorrow.
As another poster has already suggested, Fuji should have sent a letter saying "hey, we noticed you really like our show, perhaps you'd consider signing this agreement that says you've licensed our content for a percentage of profits (in this case, zero)?"
That way Fuji retains their trademarks, and the fansites get to be legit. Everybody's happy.
But nooooo, instead we get corporate lawyers and PHBs trying to show each other how big their dicks are by tromping all over the "little people". This is why I believe that a sizable minority of businesspeople are frickin morons that waste space and ought to be savagely beaten with iron bars until they learn how to "walk softly and carry a big stick" rather than walking loudly and swinging your stick in every direction.
First, try traditional publishers. You need to reach these guys first, because they have all kinds of licensing and contractual restrictions. If your book is all over the internet before you even mail a copy to these guys, they'll just turn you down unless you're God.
If you get a deal with a traditional publisher (that's a big IF) then you play by their rules. If they don't want the book online, it won't be.
Next, if your publisher allows it or if you didn't get a deal, put your book online using an existing online distributor (like that FatBrain subsidiary whose name escapes me). These guys will normally handle for-pay stuff, so your file will be an encrypted PDF or the like. This file should have a TOC, an index, be nicely typeset and paginated for easy printing.
Then put your book online as a raw textfile, with no pagination, no index, no TOC and no typesetting. This file will be available for free, and coincidentally covers your cross-platform requirement.
This way, people that want to check your stuff out have a free text file that's a nightmare to read but easily available. People that decide to read you in-depth have a for-pay file that's easy on the eyes, and generally approachable. You could also make a regular postscript or DVI available on request for people who already bought the PDF -- that way you're cross-platform, and you still get paid.
But remember: all of this hinges on whether or not you get a deal with a traditional publisher. If you do, you MUST play by their rules or they'll ruin you.
Even in the "shooter" genre there are a few existing and upcoming games that move past the usual "run though tunnels killing things" motif.
Tribes, for example. Team-based, mostly outdoors (the maps seem to be at least a kilometer across), and reasonably tactical (winning has nothing to do with how many times you kill or get killed, even though you'll do lots of both).
As far as upcoming games go, there's always Halo, although there'll probably be lots of shooting in that one too, so maybe it's not such a great example.
. . . but then there's the various massively-multiplayer games, which I personally haven't played (paying $50 for a game, and then another $10/month for the privilege of continuing to play strikes me as somewhat offensive, even if I do understand the financial argument behind it). I'm led to believe that it's possible to have a grand old time just wandering around and meeting people, but I could be wrong on that.
Of course, if we set aside the entire genre of "shooters" then there's all sorts of bizarro gaming available -- 3D Trophy Bass Fishing, anyone? Lots of racing/sports games, and plenty of puzzlers too.
However, you do make a good point -- much of the innovation in the shooter market is simply upping the graphics requirements. But don't forget, there are other genres available . . .
Well, I'm not sure if I really have a point here, except to say that there's lots of variety, even in the shooter market.
Go check www.dslreports.com before you get Telocity.
As with any DSL provider, some people have problems and other people have great experiences. But Telocity has had their approval ratings take a nosedive over the past couple weeks so I think something might be going on . . .
Well, once every *five years* ought not be too onerous. I mean, if it IS then maybe you ought to be doing something else with your time . . .
But seriously, I'm not especially attached to the actual price level -- I just tossed out the first figure that came to mind.
Instead, what about a percentage of revenue (in your case, a percentage of zero, thus zero) or a multiple of the current selling price (in your case, a multiple of zero, thus zero).
Alternatively, the law could specify that any nonprofit is automatically exempt from the renewal fee but not exempt from the need to renew. Thus if you signed your copyright over to the FSF (or became a nonprofit yourself) then nobody would need to pay to keep your stuff free.
Well, one way of (possibly) balancing the public vs. private requirements would be to make copyright last only five years.
Subject to renewal.
In other words, if I create a copyrighted work, it's only legally protected for five years. When the five year deadline arrives, I have to renew my legal protection.
If I fail to renew the copyright, then my work is automatically placed in the public domain.
If we then place a cost (say $100) on the renewal process, we force companies to think about whether or not they really want to renew that copyright. The renewal fee is low enough that a regular person can afford it, but high enough that gigantic corporations with thousands of items under copyright protection will want to think twice before just blindly renewing everything they own.
If you don't need your privacy, please post the following pieces of information:
Your social security number, or other national equivalent determined by your residency.
Your passport number.
Your drivers license number or equivalent.
The maiden name of your mother.
The account numbers of all bank accounts you own.
The type, size, and location of the most expensive objects you possess. I'm especially interested in easily-portable objects like rings, watches, necklaces, etc.
The names, ages, locations and favorite toys of any family members under the age of twelve.
The location and type of any firearm you own.
Your current street address, along with the location and type of all windows or other entrances into your home.
Does your home have a dog? If so, what is it's favorite food? I'll need to sedate it.
The brand and model number of any security devices in your home.
Now then, if you really "don't need your privacy" you'll honestly and truthfully supply all of the above information. If you don't answer these questions, consider yourself a hypocrite.
. . . or perhaps you really DO need some privacy after all.
Or at least that's the only thing I can think of. IBM doesn't want people to throw away MVS just because Linux has arrived on the scene.
Instead, they want an ISP to buy a 390 and pop a couple hundred Linux "servers" on it, each with their own wad of hosting accounts.
This might actually make sense, as if you're running a truly gigantic hosting farm then you're probably getting bit by MTBF on a regular basis. Using the 390 would significantly reduce your exposure to outages etc.
Now, since each Linux image would be a "real" server, even if it didn't exist in the physical world, the ISP could use their normal admins etc. -- they'd just need to hire somebody to run VM for them.
This way they can run monster hosting farms on reliable hardware, probably save a fortune in power requirements (one 390 vs. 300 PC-level boxen), and they don't have to all start learning VM or MVS.
It's obviously not for everyone, but I really do think it might be useful for lots of companies that wouldn't otherwise even think about mainframes.
This Linux port is not, generally speaking, intended for day-to-day JCL stuff. Nope. IBM wants ISPs to buy a single S/390 to run their server farms.
Your basic S/390 can run 200-300 Linux server images under VM. Taking the usual uptime and hardware failure figures into consideration, these 200 Linux "servers" will be VASTLY more reliable than the equivalent "real" Linux servers. In any large hosting environment, you've got machines crashing hard every week -- the MTBF really comes back to bite you when you're dealing with hundreds of physical units.
IBM doesn't think anybody in the world will go replace MVS with Linux. They're trying to grab the hosting market. Don't forget, when we talk about running 200 Linux servers, they're not talking about 200 hosting accounts -- they're talking about the equivalent of 200 actual servers, each of which would have bunches of hosting accounts on it.
Nobody is going to switch their bank transaction stuff over to Linux. IBM's just aiming for Sun. Besides which, I'm sure they're thinking about eventual transitions, etc.
BoA probably *wanted* to get the publicity. They *want* to stomp around looking like a frickin' dinosaur, because they think that it will scare everybody else and keep us in line. They're definitely stupid, but I'd bet $$ that they knew what they were doing when they went after rinkworks.
Simply setting a DENY rule wouldn't get them any press. This whole thing is a temper tantrum. Someone has to see it for it to be effective.
Of course, BoA is still chock full of morons, and arguably their entire legal staff should be dragged away to my Alaskan Labor Camps.
I'm just glad they're not my bank. And now, they never will be.
Slashdot Mirror
The YOPY runs Linux. The ROM is flashable. Write your own interface if you think Samsung dropped the ball. That's what OSS is for . . .
I know that's just me being a knee-jerk again, but on some level I find it a compelling argument -- if the transparent society really is such a good idea, then Brin ought to be taking the first steps toward it. He ought to be demonstrating his allegiance to the idea by becoming the first wholly "transparent" person.
. . . or maybe it's not such a good idea after all? I'd argue that a fully transparent society is impossible. Someone will always be able to hide more than someone else, leaving one of those two people in a slightly more powerful position.
Mind you, I did say that this was a knee-jerk response on my part . . . .
*cough*
Unfortunately, I think you're spot-on -- the net result of "attentional" interfaces will be programs that cannot be ignored. Just like banner ads run amok. The average corporate exec CANNOT ignore (heh) the advertising potential in this technology.
There's another down-side -- your boss will be able to tell, down to the second, how much time you spent paying attention to your work. I guarantee you'll have "EmployeeMaster 2000 Advanced Server Edition" in no time at all. They already try to do that sort of monitoring; an attentional UI would make their job about a million times easier.
Argh
Why would they want to do that? There's no real reason that I can think of, unless they want to destroy the U.S. economy in one fell stroke.
Instead, I suggest that they're using Carnivore as the thin edge of a very big wedge. Sure, they could sniff email traffic without a big black box. But by using a box, they get access to ISP premises every time they get a wiretap order.
With big ISPs, they'll probably be installing those things several times a year. Eventually they'll be able to say "hey, why don't you just let us leave this thing plugged in?".
Then, rather than having to go and plug in their big black box every time they get a wiretap order, they'll have the boxes all plugged in all the time.
And that's when we'll find out that those boxes can do stateful packet inspection if asked. Next thing you know, they'll be able to physically prevent you from seeing "unauthorized" data on offshore servers. Kiss that data-haven goodbye.
. . . but then again, I'm feeling paranoid today.
I don't know what the hell is going on over at Adobe, but they're getting harder and harder to deal with -- they're taking longer to fix bugs, they're ignoring some really serious bugs, and they're just generally letting their products lag.
My own suspicion is that they've become so obsessed with killing Quark that they've implicitly decided to let their own product line die in order to concentrate on InDesign.
. . . but then, as a Framemaker guy, I'm probably biased. So, to make a long story short, I believe that Adobe is suing MacNN out of spite, because MacNN has revealed that Photoshop 6 is going to be a pointless upgrade.
It's not like my life is so fabulous anyway . . . worst case scenario is that I get killed. Best case scenario is that I end up doing a Good Deed. Since I can get myself killed just crossing the street, I don't see a problem here.
The proof is in the *using*, so there's really no point in arguing back and forth about the "usability" or "innovation" of something that NONE of us have used!
. . . until we can actually use the code, there's nothing to be said. Anything we DO say will be purely speculative and will reflect nothing other than our own biases.
However, things that don't have any physical representation (like software that's downloaded across the net) shouldn't have any VAT or GST.
Why? Because they're not using the infrastructure that VAT or GST pay for. The only infrastructure they're using is the telecom wire, which I ALREADY pay for with my monthly telecom bill. I don't want to be charged twice, and I certainly don't want to be charged for infrastructure and "value-add" that my purchase didn't use.
And that's my problem with this piece of legislation -- it's aimed at intangibles that oughtn't be taxed in the same way as a piece of metal.
But, although I can understand sales taxes on physical objects, I am incorrigibly opposed to sales taxes on intangibles.
I'm not sure why I'm opposed -- it's sort of an instinctive opposition. I guess I feel that if I'm not getting any THING, then I shouldn't be taxed on it -- it wasn't shipped over roads that need repairs, it wasn't handled by people that need health insurance, and the actual transmission was paid for by my monthly telecom bill.
If MS wants to sell software in those countries, they'll have to provide the normal, full-fledged CDs.
. . . then all we need is a couple of enterprising resellers to base themselves in that protected jurisdiction, and we're set to go. The magic of the Internet strikes again.
So, does anyone have any candidates? Some place with really strong consumer protections (Oz, maybe?)
Why? Well, if MS wins on appeal, you'll make a fortune when the stock pops up to above $100. And if MS loses the appeal, you'll have stock in two very powerful companies.
I'm serious -- buy MS stock, especially if the daytraders dump it tomorrow.
http://source.bungie.org/index.html
Write them and politely suggest that they try to be more friendly in the future.
That way Fuji retains their trademarks, and the fansites get to be legit. Everybody's happy.
But nooooo, instead we get corporate lawyers and PHBs trying to show each other how big their dicks are by tromping all over the "little people". This is why I believe that a sizable minority of businesspeople are frickin morons that waste space and ought to be savagely beaten with iron bars until they learn how to "walk softly and carry a big stick" rather than walking loudly and swinging your stick in every direction.
. . . and I say that as a businessperson myself.
If you get a deal with a traditional publisher (that's a big IF) then you play by their rules. If they don't want the book online, it won't be.
Next, if your publisher allows it or if you didn't get a deal, put your book online using an existing online distributor (like that FatBrain subsidiary whose name escapes me). These guys will normally handle for-pay stuff, so your file will be an encrypted PDF or the like. This file should have a TOC, an index, be nicely typeset and paginated for easy printing.
Then put your book online as a raw textfile, with no pagination, no index, no TOC and no typesetting. This file will be available for free, and coincidentally covers your cross-platform requirement.
This way, people that want to check your stuff out have a free text file that's a nightmare to read but easily available. People that decide to read you in-depth have a for-pay file that's easy on the eyes, and generally approachable. You could also make a regular postscript or DVI available on request for people who already bought the PDF -- that way you're cross-platform, and you still get paid.
But remember: all of this hinges on whether or not you get a deal with a traditional publisher. If you do, you MUST play by their rules or they'll ruin you.
. . . of course, I could be wrong.
Tribes, for example. Team-based, mostly outdoors (the maps seem to be at least a kilometer across), and reasonably tactical (winning has nothing to do with how many times you kill or get killed, even though you'll do lots of both).
As far as upcoming games go, there's always Halo, although there'll probably be lots of shooting in that one too, so maybe it's not such a great example.
. . . but then there's the various massively-multiplayer games, which I personally haven't played (paying $50 for a game, and then another $10/month for the privilege of continuing to play strikes me as somewhat offensive, even if I do understand the financial argument behind it). I'm led to believe that it's possible to have a grand old time just wandering around and meeting people, but I could be wrong on that.
Of course, if we set aside the entire genre of "shooters" then there's all sorts of bizarro gaming available -- 3D Trophy Bass Fishing, anyone? Lots of racing/sports games, and plenty of puzzlers too.
However, you do make a good point -- much of the innovation in the shooter market is simply upping the graphics requirements. But don't forget, there are other genres available . . .
Well, I'm not sure if I really have a point here, except to say that there's lots of variety, even in the shooter market.
As with any DSL provider, some people have problems and other people have great experiences. But Telocity has had their approval ratings take a nosedive over the past couple weeks so I think something might be going on . . .
Then again, I could be wrong.
But seriously, I'm not especially attached to the actual price level -- I just tossed out the first figure that came to mind.
Instead, what about a percentage of revenue (in your case, a percentage of zero, thus zero) or a multiple of the current selling price (in your case, a multiple of zero, thus zero).
Alternatively, the law could specify that any nonprofit is automatically exempt from the renewal fee but not exempt from the need to renew. Thus if you signed your copyright over to the FSF (or became a nonprofit yourself) then nobody would need to pay to keep your stuff free.
Subject to renewal.
In other words, if I create a copyrighted work, it's only legally protected for five years. When the five year deadline arrives, I have to renew my legal protection.
If I fail to renew the copyright, then my work is automatically placed in the public domain.
If we then place a cost (say $100) on the renewal process, we force companies to think about whether or not they really want to renew that copyright. The renewal fee is low enough that a regular person can afford it, but high enough that gigantic corporations with thousands of items under copyright protection will want to think twice before just blindly renewing everything they own.
. . . or at least that would be the theory.
- Your social security number, or other national equivalent determined by your residency.
- Your passport number.
- Your drivers license number or equivalent.
- The maiden name of your mother.
- The account numbers of all bank accounts you own.
- The type, size, and location of the most expensive objects you possess. I'm especially interested in easily-portable objects like rings, watches, necklaces, etc.
- The names, ages, locations and favorite toys of any family members under the age of twelve.
- The location and type of any firearm you own.
- Your current street address, along with the location and type of all windows or other entrances into your home.
- Does your home have a dog? If so, what is it's favorite food? I'll need to sedate it.
- The brand and model number of any security devices in your home.
Now then, if you really "don't need your privacy" you'll honestly and truthfully supply all of the above information. If you don't answer these questions, consider yourself a hypocrite.. . . or perhaps you really DO need some privacy after all.
Instead, they want an ISP to buy a 390 and pop a couple hundred Linux "servers" on it, each with their own wad of hosting accounts.
This might actually make sense, as if you're running a truly gigantic hosting farm then you're probably getting bit by MTBF on a regular basis. Using the 390 would significantly reduce your exposure to outages etc.
Now, since each Linux image would be a "real" server, even if it didn't exist in the physical world, the ISP could use their normal admins etc. -- they'd just need to hire somebody to run VM for them.
This way they can run monster hosting farms on reliable hardware, probably save a fortune in power requirements (one 390 vs. 300 PC-level boxen), and they don't have to all start learning VM or MVS.
It's obviously not for everyone, but I really do think it might be useful for lots of companies that wouldn't otherwise even think about mainframes.
Your basic S/390 can run 200-300 Linux server images under VM. Taking the usual uptime and hardware failure figures into consideration, these 200 Linux "servers" will be VASTLY more reliable than the equivalent "real" Linux servers. In any large hosting environment, you've got machines crashing hard every week -- the MTBF really comes back to bite you when you're dealing with hundreds of physical units.
IBM doesn't think anybody in the world will go replace MVS with Linux. They're trying to grab the hosting market. Don't forget, when we talk about running 200 Linux servers, they're not talking about 200 hosting accounts -- they're talking about the equivalent of 200 actual servers, each of which would have bunches of hosting accounts on it.
Nobody is going to switch their bank transaction stuff over to Linux. IBM's just aiming for Sun. Besides which, I'm sure they're thinking about eventual transitions, etc.
. . . of course I could be wrong.
Simply setting a DENY rule wouldn't get them any press. This whole thing is a temper tantrum. Someone has to see it for it to be effective.
Of course, BoA is still chock full of morons, and arguably their entire legal staff should be dragged away to my Alaskan Labor Camps.
I'm just glad they're not my bank. And now, they never will be.