I think any sort of digital alteration of an image should be seriously examined on an ethical basis. Altering an image in the manner of adding the first down line to a football game is fine. That improves the image for the viewer without removing anything. But the *removal* of images, even if it's just a logo, and presenting it as unaltered right then is fraudulent. Even if you go back and later say "Oh, we did that", you still defrauded your viewers who depend on journalistic coverage to convey the truth without having to guess what is real and what isn't.
Digital alteration needs to be regulated. If the government doesn't do it soon, then what you will have is a legal battle. Something like NBC suing CBS, which will make the whole public take notice. I'm sure we're not the only ones who would be outraged to hear the news was being altered and presented as truth.
I was referring to driving, not travelling. But you've brought up another interesting analogy along those lines. The Internet is becoming more like travelling. With so many web-based services out there now, it's almost impossible to totally isolate someone from the Net. There's web-based mail, newsgroups, chats...nearly everything now has a web-based equivalent. I should know this since my access at work is limited to http only, so I know what I can do from a simple web access terminal.
Unless you lock someone up and take away their computer, it's impossible to completely isolate a particular person from the Internet. At the ABSOLUTE extreme, you can always go to the airport or an internet cafe and pay to surf the web *evilgrin*
That aside, what is a privilege is the convenience that a particular ISP provides. Abuse that privilege by using the ISP's services in an inappropriate manner, and it can be revoked. Of course, you can always get another ISP, or resort to the methods above. That's how spammers keep at it. They've been kicked off so many ISPs, so they find other ways to get on...and they keep succeeding.
The CEO is always the one named in press releases, so this just seems to be a way for Gates to get out of the spotlight some. As for setting himself up to lead a Baby Bill, well that would have happened anyway. It doesn't matter what title he has, you know Gates will find a way to end up in what he sees as the most profitable position after the breakup (which I don't see how a breakup will hurt the monopoly, but that's just me).
If I was Ballmer, I sure wouldn't want to be in the CEO spot when everything hits anyway. It's always a slim possibility that something might happen, and he becomes...ahem...dispensable as many CEOs seem to be in the tech world. Gates did a smart thing getting himself out of the hot seat, and probably he sold it real well to Ballmer
"Hey look, Steve, you can have the celebrity and spotlight. It's all good, and I promise you'll have a good spot after the breakup...what? No, I wasn't laughing under my breath. You must be hearing things."
At the risk of being beat down for being redundant, let me point out the flaws in your argument in a logical, rational fashion.
First off, your rights to read or even post to Usenet have not been abridged. What has been done is that the other Usenet server admins have chosen to ignore anything coming from your domain. You can still post stuff, but only @Home and those not participating in the VOLUNTARY boycott will see it.
Secondly, this is not a case of elitism or bias. The UDP is a response to repeated abuses coming from a source. The abuses were reported and action on them was requested. Because @Home did not take appropriate action to stop the spam after multiple requests, the UDP was threatened. To borrow your "club" analogy, this is similar to the patrons asking someone to tone down their behavior when their being a twit. If the person insists on acting out, the club staff have the right to toss him out on his ear.
Thirdly, realize this. A UDP is put into place because a particular ISP refused to respond to complaints. It is in no way a slight against you or any other users (unless of course you're one of the spammers). The question you should be asking yourself is "what did @Home do to deserve this", for they did do SOMETHING. UDP's aren't given out lightly. They are usually because the ISP was apathetic to complaints...something you might want to keep in mind when subscribing or resubscribing to them.
In closing, the biggest flaw in your last argument is you assume being on the Internet is a right. It is not. It is a privilege. Abuse the privilege, and it can be taken away...just like a driver's license. @Home abused their privilege to be a part of Usenet, and they were punished for it. If you personally abuse your Net privilege, you think @Home won't hesitate to wipe your account? It's simple logic, but too many people think they're entitled to things they are not. Trust me, it's easy to ged rid of a disruptive influence and back it up in court.
You have the right to be heard, but not be an arse. Others have the right to choose to listen or not.
My bet is that AOL-TW won't do a THING to Microsoft for now. Remember that without Windows, AOL doesn't work. Until the AOL-TW megacorp finds a way to make AOL it's own operating system, they have to keep Microsoft alive in that field. They've already established themselves in a good place to keep Microsoft out of every other field (browsers, media players, instant messaging), but they HAVE to have the OS. So, they'll keep MS crippled, but they won't kill them off.
Not to mention a UDP doesn't stop incoming messages to @Home...it just doesn't allow you to post out. You can still READ Usenet, you just can't contribute until the UDP is lifted
--Quote begins-- give everybody access to bandwidth and things go wrong --Quote ends--
As I've said before, it's the issue of broad access that makes many of the big commercial services an incomplete Internet experience. You get so many people who act up that it ruins it for everyone. A friend of mine left AOL because he's an avid IRC person, and aol.com is k-lined on most servers. AOL was convenient, but the stigma ended up being too much and they lost another customer...one who honestly wasn't an AOLamer.
Usenet kill files, IRC server k-lines, Spam filters...all over people lock out entire companies because they're sick of the garbage. You can't really have a complete Net experience with them. The big companies don't take the time to police what's going on, and often don't bother to respond to complaints. It takes something like a UDP to wake them up, and that's only because the UDP usually gets in the news. My advice remains, if you can find a local ISP with good service, stick with them and avoid the corps. The BS you have to put up with because of the other lamers who get on big companies like AOL and @Home isn't worth it.
Well, as far as I know, the UDP doesn't stop you from reading stuff on Usenet. It just means that anything you post won't be received by any other servers that are honoring the UDP. In short, you can hear and speak, but others may not hear you. As MANY MANY others have already posted, complain to @Home sales and support. Let them know how you feel, and with any luck the UDP will be resolved soon. Otherwise, you'll have to resort to using a web based service like these:
http://www.deja.com http://www.remarq.com
The thing to seriously keep in mind is that the UDP should not be permanent. Most major companies realize the scope of the thing and take steps to resolve it promptly. If @Home is halfway decent, they'll do it. Otherwise, I'd suggest a change of ISP.
Hmm...how is client and server setup elite? That's classic networking protocol. You'd just as soon argue that the Web is elite, since you have to have a browser and get to the server.
The content on a news server is entirely up to the news admin's whims. Some have all the groups, others filter out the high noise groups. If you don't like what your ISP news server has, you find a public server or you get another ISP. Example, the one I'm on has their server with a selection of groups and access to a full group server if you ask for it. You just have to look for what services you best. Some people want full access, others don't.
Spam in email != Spam in Usenet. Spam in Usenet is semi-permanent and echoes across all the servers. It can't be deleted, merely ignored or cancelled before it gets there (and cancellation requires yet another message be sent, eating up more bandwidth). Spam in the mailbox can be deleted easily, in comparison. It's because of the way spam wastes Usenet server space that it's viewed as a beast.
Please learn the facts before posting off half-cocked.
There is nothing illegal about a UDP, as has been proven over and over again. @Home's users can still post to Usenet. What will happen is that they will be the only ones to read their own messages. The other servers aren't saying home.net can't post, they are simply choosing not to carry any messages from them. It's their right to do so, as the data resides on THEIR private property. If they actually went in and stopped @Home from posting, then it would be a Denial of Service.
@Home was repeatedly asked to do something about the spam problem, and nothing was done. The activation of a UDP is a last resort to protect the servers from overload of junk. It's not an action to destroy a company, but an effort to protect a larger community from a company's blatant disregard or disrespect.
A final thought...I normally have my threshold on 1 (I made an exception this time). This is not to deny anyone their right to post, but to filter off a majority of garbage posts that I don't have the time to read. Do you think I'm actually after anyone for it? No, I do it for my OWN well being. I'm not abridging free speech, I'm choosing what I wish to see. Same rule applies to the news server admins, who have the right to pick and choose what abides on their servers.
This sounds like a fundamentalist power play, with the advantage of technical ignorance on their side. How many of the people who will vote on this topic actually get on the Web on a regular basis? My guess is that many who vote won't know much about the real issue beyond the spin the AFA puts on it. They've basically got a captive audience, especially with the vote going on the ballot.
My prediction on the outcome is the AFA will win this first round. Then the issue will come to the attention of the ALCU, who will raise a big ruckus as they are prone to doing. They will throw the federal ruling in the face of the AFA, and Holland will become big in the news. Then, after a lengthy court battle, it will again be ruled unconstitutional and the whole thing will be for naught.
It sounds like the library is already doing plenty to control what the Internet users are doing. I wonder what the library staff thinks of all this. I sure wouldn't want my library to be in the middle of this obviously political showdown that can only end up in a bad way.
Along those lines, then, it's probably safe to say that Salon wasn't fair to pigeonhole geeks that way. From experience, any job that is mentally demanding and long hours will strip all social life from someone, regardless of if it's in computers or not. When I was in college, we used to feel bad for the poor architecture students. Hours of classes followed by hours and hours in the lab...sometimes all night. They had no social life, but it wasn't because of regressed social skills. They simply were dedicated to their studies, and they didn't have time. Once the projects were done, they came out of hiding and became part of the social scene again.
Methinks Salon was simply trying to get the attention of geeks everywhere and say "Look, we've noticed you have no social lives, so we're gonna make up some BS about why." That would explain all the psuedo-code...a normal person would just think the page was messed up. It was aimed at computer people, and somehow that just comes off as distasteful.
But I digress. Point is, it has nothing to do with Silicon Valley or computers. It has to do with having a life that doesn't center around sex, but around work. That happens everywhere, in every occupation. It's not just computer people. Maybe next week Salon will do an article about web-zine authors not getting any:)
And if prices go too high, people will look for a cheaper alternative. Especially if Windows remains as unstable as it has been. Linux, or something else, may finally have the chance to wipe out the OS monopoly.
Hmmm...interesting hypothesis. Windows falls, but Office remains intact. MS Office for Linux? Now there's an unholy idea:)
Exactly my point. They waited until there was money and publicity to be gained. Litigation under those kind of circumstances should always be scrutinized heavily.
That's one of the things that drives the copyright people absolutely batty. Thanks to the Internet, once something is out there it's almost impossible to get rid of. You might be able to drive it out of the general public's eye (eliminate it from normal search engines and the Web), but it never goes away completely (ftp servers, IRC, newsgroups). That's probably why they resorted to suing in the first place, because they knew they could never undo the "damage".
Of course, with all the non-pirating uses for this software, I can just see this suit sinking like the Titanic. It's too hard to prove that everyone involved was specifically interested in illegal activities. If they were smart, the lawyers would have went after the ones responsible, Xing. If Xing had encrypted their stuff properly, we wouldn't be having this discussion now:)
Final note, if Slashdot's to blame for DVD piracy, then we need to sue every news outlet in America for telling people where to get guns without background checks. That's right, the networks and every local station promoted the illegal acquisition of guns by telling everyone where it happens. After all, if you're responsible for the behavior because you reported it, then... (huge-evil-grin).
What You See Ain't What You Get
on
Live or Memorex?
·
· Score: 1
You assume what you see is true, otherwise you have to go around questioning everything you see. Most people don't think twice but to believe what's on the TV. It was that way years ago with radio (think War of the Worlds). If the media is allowed, unregulated, to alter the images they transmit in a fashion as to make the alteration undetectable, then we are in serious trouble. The whole idea of removing a competitor's ads especially bothers me. Companies pay good money to put their signs up only to have them deleted out because the network has a deal with a competitor? That stinks of unfair business practice. I won't even get into the whole journalistic alteration debate.
If the general public doesn't take a stand, the government will have to. That will lead to a whole new round of free speech debates that will ultimately lead to a few hand slaps. However, it won't happen until some network gets carried away and creates a case of "digital libel" by altering an image.
It's as simple as that. The thought that anyone out there could get a hold of any information they want, regardless of age or intent, scares almost everyone. Everyone is looking for a fix for the "Internet plague" of hate and porn and all sorts of illegal stuff (which is overrated and overblown, of course). Naturally, this is a great bandwagon for politicians, both local and federal, to jump on. Everyone wants to be the one to say "We fixed it!" It's nice to see our politicians so concerned about our children's welfare, and I think McCain is on the money that the parents should be deeply involved. It also impresses me that he wants a serious study on media violence. However, on the topic of content, filtering is not the way to go. Monitor the users, go the way of the corporations and watch who's online and who's doing what. Stay away from the filtering software until you're sure you're not suppressing someone's right to be heard on the Internet.
Those libraries that are defying the courts may find themselves in a world of legal hurt. They are going against the First Amendment, and it doesn't matter how just they think their cause is. Lawyers and the ACLU love situations like this, and in the end the public will suffer when the libraries are dealt a serious blow.
Thank you for such the colorful reply, and anonymous too.
Now, I don't know about you, but I prefer to NOT have my Internet experience dictated to me by the powers that be of a major corporation. That is what AOL does. For the masses used to being force fed content on TV and radio, that's all well and good. However, for those who don't like that like me, we choose to go elsewhere.
The Internet used to be a place where the possibilities were limitless. Now, thanks to things like AOL, it's becoming more mass-media driven. The innovation that was once prevalent is slowly being pushed to the back corners of the Net. It is truly becoming two worlds, as I said. On the front, there is the slick, pre-packaged world of AOL. Then, if you have the gumption to dig beyond that, you find the world of the Net as it used to be.
I've been on the Internet since 1991. I speak not from ignorance, but from observation. The Internet climate has changed, and it is not for the better. It is my humble opinion that AOL is in a large part responsible for that. I criticize not the users as people, but the movement in general. Not to put a fine point on it, AOL promotes a dumbed down Internet, and the more power it gains the worse the Internet as a whole will be.
This is of course, my opinion. Take it or leave it. It's a free country, after all, and we are here to have free discussion.
The Palm and related devices has been out for how long? And this suit is just now coming up? Ok, I might be missing something, but it really irks me when a company waits several years to push a patent...just when the supposed infringement is making money. It reeks. There's no interest in protecting intellectual property, it's purely a matter of money. If Graffiti had died off, Xerox wouldn't care. But, nope, it's part of a hugely successful product, so NOW they get interested in defending their patent. If I was the one or part of a team who invented Unistroke, I'd be insulted that the patent was brought up earlier.
a separated Internet. In one world we have the AOLers and their dumbed-down, force-fed version of content. Happy in their ignorance, blissfully unaware of the other possibilities, and only accepting what Case and cohorts feed them. They never realize what they're missing, thinking the world revolves around them solely. Their numbers grow as more and more "log on" to the conforming, mindnumbing AOL-TW world. Sadly, this is representative of the majority of Internet users, thanks to the intensive media blitz. On the other, we have the rest of the Internet. They are free and liberated, using local ISPs and their pick of software. Sick and tired of spam and other assorted nonsense from AOL, they have separated themselves from it through judicious use of filters. To them, AOL doesn't exist or is a place to escape from as soon as one becomes enlightened. On this plane free speech and innovation continues, although the majority don't know it because they're too busy with "you've got mail" and all the pretty BS that AOL feeds them. No, wait...this has already happened. Let me see a show of hands on how many have aol.com on permanent filter in mail/usenet/IRC.:) That's what I thought. See, we already have a splintered Internet. AOL will continue to get the Net novices, and hopefully out of those novices some will move away from mass-media controlled content. Most won't, but in some cases it may lead to increasing the population of our part of the net.
Slashdot Mirror
I think any sort of digital alteration of an image should be seriously examined on an ethical basis. Altering an image in the manner of adding the first down line to a football game is fine. That improves the image for the viewer without removing anything. But the *removal* of images, even if it's just a logo, and presenting it as unaltered right then is fraudulent. Even if you go back and later say "Oh, we did that", you still defrauded your viewers who depend on journalistic coverage to convey the truth without having to guess what is real and what isn't.
Digital alteration needs to be regulated. If the government doesn't do it soon, then what you will have is a legal battle. Something like NBC suing CBS, which will make the whole public take notice. I'm sure we're not the only ones who would be outraged to hear the news was being altered and presented as truth.
*grin*
I was referring to driving, not travelling. But you've brought up another interesting analogy along those lines. The Internet is becoming more like travelling. With so many web-based services out there now, it's almost impossible to totally isolate someone from the Net. There's web-based mail, newsgroups, chats...nearly everything now has a web-based equivalent. I should know this since my access at work is limited to http only, so I know what I can do from a simple web access terminal.
Unless you lock someone up and take away their computer, it's impossible to completely isolate a particular person from the Internet. At the ABSOLUTE extreme, you can always go to the airport or an internet cafe and pay to surf the web *evilgrin*
That aside, what is a privilege is the convenience that a particular ISP provides. Abuse that privilege by using the ISP's services in an inappropriate manner, and it can be revoked. Of course, you can always get another ISP, or resort to the methods above. That's how spammers keep at it. They've been kicked off so many ISPs, so they find other ways to get on...and they keep succeeding.
The CEO is always the one named in press releases, so this just seems to be a way for Gates to get out of the spotlight some. As for setting himself up to lead a Baby Bill, well that would have happened anyway. It doesn't matter what title he has, you know Gates will find a way to end up in what he sees as the most profitable position after the breakup (which I don't see how a breakup will hurt the monopoly, but that's just me).
If I was Ballmer, I sure wouldn't want to be in the CEO spot when everything hits anyway. It's always a slim possibility that something might happen, and he becomes...ahem...dispensable as many CEOs seem to be in the tech world. Gates did a smart thing getting himself out of the hot seat, and probably he sold it real well to Ballmer
"Hey look, Steve, you can have the celebrity and spotlight. It's all good, and I promise you'll have a good spot after the breakup...what? No, I wasn't laughing under my breath. You must be hearing things."
At the risk of being beat down for being redundant, let me point out the flaws in your argument in a logical, rational fashion.
First off, your rights to read or even post to Usenet have not been abridged. What has been done is that the other Usenet server admins have chosen to ignore anything coming from your domain. You can still post stuff, but only @Home and those not participating in the VOLUNTARY boycott will see it.
Secondly, this is not a case of elitism or bias. The UDP is a response to repeated abuses coming from a source. The abuses were reported and action on them was requested. Because @Home did not take appropriate action to stop the spam after multiple requests, the UDP was threatened. To borrow your "club" analogy, this is similar to the patrons asking someone to tone down their behavior when their being a twit. If the person insists on acting out, the club staff have the right to toss him out on his ear.
Thirdly, realize this. A UDP is put into place because a particular ISP refused to respond to complaints. It is in no way a slight against you or any other users (unless of course you're one of the spammers). The question you should be asking yourself is "what did @Home do to deserve this", for they did do SOMETHING. UDP's aren't given out lightly. They are usually because the ISP was apathetic to complaints...something you might want to keep in mind when subscribing or resubscribing to them.
In closing, the biggest flaw in your last argument is you assume being on the Internet is a right. It is not. It is a privilege. Abuse the privilege, and it can be taken away...just like a driver's license. @Home abused their privilege to be a part of Usenet, and they were punished for it. If you personally abuse your Net privilege, you think @Home won't hesitate to wipe your account? It's simple logic, but too many people think they're entitled to things they are not. Trust me, it's easy to ged rid of a disruptive influence and back it up in court.
You have the right to be heard, but not be an arse. Others have the right to choose to listen or not.
My bet is that AOL-TW won't do a THING to Microsoft for now. Remember that without Windows, AOL doesn't work. Until the AOL-TW megacorp finds a way to make AOL it's own operating system, they have to keep Microsoft alive in that field. They've already established themselves in a good place to keep Microsoft out of every other field (browsers, media players, instant messaging), but they HAVE to have the OS. So, they'll keep MS crippled, but they won't kill them off.
Not to mention a UDP doesn't stop incoming messages to @Home...it just doesn't allow you to post out. You can still READ Usenet, you just can't contribute until the UDP is lifted
--Quote begins--
give everybody access to bandwidth and things go wrong
--Quote ends--
As I've said before, it's the issue of broad access that makes many of the big commercial services an incomplete Internet experience. You get so many people who act up that it ruins it for everyone. A friend of mine left AOL because he's an avid IRC person, and aol.com is k-lined on most servers. AOL was convenient, but the stigma ended up being too much and they lost another customer...one who honestly wasn't an AOLamer.
Usenet kill files, IRC server k-lines, Spam filters...all over people lock out entire companies because they're sick of the garbage. You can't really have a complete Net experience with them. The big companies don't take the time to police what's going on, and often don't bother to respond to complaints. It takes something like a UDP to wake them up, and that's only because the UDP usually gets in the news. My advice remains, if you can find a local ISP with good service, stick with them and avoid the corps. The BS you have to put up with because of the other lamers who get on big companies like AOL and @Home isn't worth it.
My opinion, of course.
Well, as far as I know, the UDP doesn't stop you from reading stuff on Usenet. It just means that anything you post won't be received by any other servers that are honoring the UDP. In short, you can hear and speak, but others may not hear you. As MANY MANY others have already posted, complain to @Home sales and support. Let them know how you feel, and with any luck the UDP will be resolved soon. Otherwise, you'll have to resort to using a web based service like these:
http://www.deja.com
http://www.remarq.com
The thing to seriously keep in mind is that the UDP should not be permanent. Most major companies realize the scope of the thing and take steps to resolve it promptly. If @Home is halfway decent, they'll do it. Otherwise, I'd suggest a change of ISP.
Hmm...how is client and server setup elite? That's classic networking protocol. You'd just as soon argue that the Web is elite, since you have to have a browser and get to the server.
The content on a news server is entirely up to the news admin's whims. Some have all the groups, others filter out the high noise groups. If you don't like what your ISP news server has, you find a public server or you get another ISP. Example, the one I'm on has their server with a selection of groups and access to a full group server if you ask for it. You just have to look for what services you best. Some people want full access, others don't.
Spam in email != Spam in Usenet. Spam in Usenet is semi-permanent and echoes across all the servers. It can't be deleted, merely ignored or cancelled before it gets there (and cancellation requires yet another message be sent, eating up more bandwidth). Spam in the mailbox can be deleted easily, in comparison. It's because of the way spam wastes Usenet server space that it's viewed as a beast.
Please learn the facts before posting off half-cocked.
There is nothing illegal about a UDP, as has been proven over and over again. @Home's users can still post to Usenet. What will happen is that they will be the only ones to read their own messages. The other servers aren't saying home.net can't post, they are simply choosing not to carry any messages from them. It's their right to do so, as the data resides on THEIR private property. If they actually went in and stopped @Home from posting, then it would be a Denial of Service.
@Home was repeatedly asked to do something about the spam problem, and nothing was done. The activation of a UDP is a last resort to protect the servers from overload of junk. It's not an action to destroy a company, but an effort to protect a larger community from a company's blatant disregard or disrespect.
A final thought...I normally have my threshold on 1 (I made an exception this time). This is not to deny anyone their right to post, but to filter off a majority of garbage posts that I don't have the time to read. Do you think I'm actually after anyone for it? No, I do it for my OWN well being. I'm not abridging free speech, I'm choosing what I wish to see. Same rule applies to the news server admins, who have the right to pick and choose what abides on their servers.
This sounds like a fundamentalist power play, with the advantage of technical ignorance on their side. How many of the people who will vote on this topic actually get on the Web on a regular basis? My guess is that many who vote won't know much about the real issue beyond the spin the AFA puts on it. They've basically got a captive audience, especially with the vote going on the ballot.
My prediction on the outcome is the AFA will win this first round. Then the issue will come to the attention of the ALCU, who will raise a big ruckus as they are prone to doing. They will throw the federal ruling in the face of the AFA, and Holland will become big in the news. Then, after a lengthy court battle, it will again be ruled unconstitutional and the whole thing will be for naught.
It sounds like the library is already doing plenty to control what the Internet users are doing. I wonder what the library staff thinks of all this. I sure wouldn't want my library to be in the middle of this obviously political showdown that can only end up in a bad way.
Along those lines, then, it's probably safe to say that Salon wasn't fair to pigeonhole geeks that way. From experience, any job that is mentally demanding and long hours will strip all social life from someone, regardless of if it's in computers or not. When I was in college, we used to feel bad for the poor architecture students. Hours of classes followed by hours and hours in the lab ...sometimes all night. They had no social life, but it wasn't because of regressed social skills. They simply were dedicated to their studies, and they didn't have time. Once the projects were done, they came out of hiding and became part of the social scene again.
:)
Methinks Salon was simply trying to get the attention of geeks everywhere and say "Look, we've noticed you have no social lives, so we're gonna make up some BS about why." That would explain all the psuedo-code...a normal person would just think the page was messed up. It was aimed at computer people, and somehow that just comes off as distasteful.
But I digress. Point is, it has nothing to do with Silicon Valley or computers. It has to do with having a life that doesn't center around sex, but around work. That happens everywhere, in every occupation. It's not just computer people. Maybe next week Salon will do an article about web-zine authors not getting any
And if prices go too high, people will look for a cheaper alternative. Especially if Windows remains as unstable as it has been. Linux, or something else, may finally have the chance to wipe out the OS monopoly.
:)
Hmmm...interesting hypothesis. Windows falls, but Office remains intact. MS Office for Linux? Now there's an unholy idea
So it was, so it was. The only delay was in the courts :(
Never let it be said that I'm not one to retract when I'm in the wrong. My apologies. Next time I'll read my articles closer
Exactly my point. They waited until there was money and publicity to be gained. Litigation under those kind of circumstances should always be scrutinized heavily.
That's one of the things that drives the copyright people absolutely batty. Thanks to the Internet, once something is out there it's almost impossible to get rid of. You might be able to drive it out of the general public's eye (eliminate it from normal search engines and the Web), but it never goes away completely (ftp servers, IRC, newsgroups). That's probably why they resorted to suing in the first place, because they knew they could never undo the "damage".
:)
... (huge-evil-grin).
Of course, with all the non-pirating uses for this software, I can just see this suit sinking like the Titanic. It's too hard to prove that everyone involved was specifically interested in illegal activities. If they were smart, the lawyers would have went after the ones responsible, Xing. If Xing had encrypted their stuff properly, we wouldn't be having this discussion now
Final note, if Slashdot's to blame for DVD piracy, then we need to sue every news outlet in America for telling people where to get guns without background checks. That's right, the networks and every local station promoted the illegal acquisition of guns by telling everyone where it happens. After all, if you're responsible for the behavior because you reported it, then
You assume what you see is true, otherwise you have to go around questioning everything you see. Most people don't think twice but to believe what's on the TV. It was that way years ago with radio (think War of the Worlds). If the media is allowed, unregulated, to alter the images they transmit in a fashion as to make the alteration undetectable, then we are in serious trouble. The whole idea of removing a competitor's ads especially bothers me. Companies pay good money to put their signs up only to have them deleted out because the network has a deal with a competitor? That stinks of unfair business practice. I won't even get into the whole journalistic alteration debate.
If the general public doesn't take a stand, the government will have to. That will lead to a whole new round of free speech debates that will ultimately lead to a few hand slaps. However, it won't happen until some network gets carried away and creates a case of "digital libel" by altering an image.
That is, if anyone notices...
It's as simple as that. The thought that anyone out there could get a hold of any information they want, regardless of age or intent, scares almost everyone. Everyone is looking for a fix for the "Internet plague" of hate and porn and all sorts of illegal stuff (which is overrated and overblown, of course). Naturally, this is a great bandwagon for politicians, both local and federal, to jump on. Everyone wants to be the one to say "We fixed it!" It's nice to see our politicians so concerned about our children's welfare, and I think McCain is on the money that the parents should be deeply involved. It also impresses me that he wants a serious study on media violence. However, on the topic of content, filtering is not the way to go. Monitor the users, go the way of the corporations and watch who's online and who's doing what. Stay away from the filtering software until you're sure you're not suppressing someone's right to be heard on the Internet.
Those libraries that are defying the courts may find themselves in a world of legal hurt. They are going against the First Amendment, and it doesn't matter how just they think their cause is. Lawyers and the ACLU love situations like this, and in the end the public will suffer when the libraries are dealt a serious blow.
Thank you for such the colorful reply, and anonymous too.
Now, I don't know about you, but I prefer to NOT have my Internet experience dictated to me by the powers that be of a major corporation. That is what AOL does. For the masses used to being force fed content on TV and radio, that's all well and good. However, for those who don't like that like me, we choose to go elsewhere.
The Internet used to be a place where the possibilities were limitless. Now, thanks to things like AOL, it's becoming more mass-media driven. The innovation that was once prevalent is slowly being pushed to the back corners of the Net. It is truly becoming two worlds, as I said. On the front, there is the slick, pre-packaged world of AOL. Then, if you have the gumption to dig beyond that, you find the world of the Net as it used to be.
I've been on the Internet since 1991. I speak not from ignorance, but from observation. The Internet climate has changed, and it is not for the better. It is my humble opinion that AOL is in a large part responsible for that. I criticize not the users as people, but the movement in general. Not to put a fine point on it, AOL promotes a dumbed down Internet, and the more power it gains the worse the Internet as a whole will be.
This is of course, my opinion. Take it or leave it. It's a free country, after all, and we are here to have free discussion.
The Palm and related devices has been out for how long? And this suit is just now coming up? Ok, I might be missing something, but it really irks me when a company waits several years to push a patent...just when the supposed infringement is making money. It reeks. There's no interest in protecting intellectual property, it's purely a matter of money. If Graffiti had died off, Xerox wouldn't care. But, nope, it's part of a hugely successful product, so NOW they get interested in defending their patent. If I was the one or part of a team who invented Unistroke, I'd be insulted that the patent was brought up earlier.
a separated Internet. In one world we have the AOLers and their dumbed-down, force-fed version of content. Happy in their ignorance, blissfully unaware of the other possibilities, and only accepting what Case and cohorts feed them. They never realize what they're missing, thinking the world revolves around them solely. Their numbers grow as more and more "log on" to the conforming, mindnumbing AOL-TW world. Sadly, this is representative of the majority of Internet users, thanks to the intensive media blitz. On the other, we have the rest of the Internet. They are free and liberated, using local ISPs and their pick of software. Sick and tired of spam and other assorted nonsense from AOL, they have separated themselves from it through judicious use of filters. To them, AOL doesn't exist or is a place to escape from as soon as one becomes enlightened. On this plane free speech and innovation continues, although the majority don't know it because they're too busy with "you've got mail" and all the pretty BS that AOL feeds them. No, wait...this has already happened. Let me see a show of hands on how many have aol.com on permanent filter in mail/usenet/IRC. :) That's what I thought. See, we already have a splintered Internet. AOL will continue to get the Net novices, and hopefully out of those novices some will move away from mass-media controlled content. Most won't, but in some cases it may lead to increasing the population of our part of the net.