Does anyone remember when this thing we cal the net was a free exchange of information? You know, before the whole censorship thing began running rampant. I understand that some people can be offended by this auction, and I understand every reason why. But, simply becaue your offended by something doesn't mean I can enjoy it. If you dont like Yahoo because it is offering Nazi Memorabellia, then for gods sake, go to Ebay, or any one of several other online auctions. Or maybe, just maybe, go read a book and realize that the items up for auction here are from a time when a group of people decided to tell everyone else what they could and couldn't do-say-think-beleive.
censoring a nazi..... kinda hypocrital dontcha think?
But you also gotta ask why in the world would FRANCE care about Nazi auctions? I could see Israel making a big deal about it, but why in the world France???
just pointing out the obvious here, but Nazi Germany occupied most of France durring WWII
Giving someone the opportunity to do wrong, should not be wrong. We have the abilty and the knowlege to chose right or wrong, we shouldn't limit our freedoms, because they could be used for wrong. i beleive this is called aiding and abeding (lord i spelled that wronge). The point is, giving someone the opportunity to do wrong IS wonge. remember the snake, the apple, and eve?
Should you sue Ford or Budweiser or the City, because a drunk driver using their car, beer, and roads, hit them?
the answer here is, YES if there product is designed to assist in drunk driving. I agree with the over all point you are trying to make, but the arguments need some work. I think this is the number one problem with napster, and linux, and open-source. too many people fail to make the right points and end up making the argument look bad.
just posting here a letter I sent Rob. feel free to flame as you see fit. --------------------------------------
hiya rob, I am reading through the story on the House proposal to hold hearings on Napster http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/05/22/133321 4&mode=flat And wanted to write to you with a possible Idea that you are free to run with as you see fit. Now I'm sure you are aware of the fact that the best way to fight something like this is by making sure that congress hears all the voices. Despite what people think, most congressmen still want to protect the rights of the people. The problem is that when there is a dispute over right, they don't always agree on whose rights are more important. The solution is, of course, to make them aware. Now, to that end, I am proposing is that you chooose the best 20-30 posts on this story and submit them to members of congress. The goal is to choose enough to make the variosu points while not choosing so many that it never gets read. Now by best posts, I of course refere to the ones that point out things like the following. 1) The overagressive nature of the DMCA. 2) The way the RIAAI has been suing everyone in site that they percieved to be a threat. 3) The fact that the previous two points only make for a more closed internet which is a direct contradiction to the point of the internet. 4) The value of napster in letting people hear music so they can judge it before they buy it.
one great sample post is here http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=00/05/22/13332 14&cid=507
I think this really sums up myself and most other napster users I know.
You may choose to make other points, or leave some of these out. But, the fact is this is an issue that is only going to get worse until congress and the courts finally realize that people had had enough of large business taking away their rights so they can simply charge more money. I have said for a long time now that the threat to privacy isnt the government but business. Well, I leave this in your hands, and Im not going to give you a lecture about how you have to do it. You don't. But I am asking because the simultanious submission of several voices can cary far more wieght than any one voice.
Well, have fun what ever you do.
-Blast
ps
any thoughts to this http://www.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=00/05/22/1 333214&cid=514
I have a hard time believing that anybody who sets out inflict this worm/virus on the world would put personal info in the header of the script. Makes no sense.
They want the credit with people they know. So, they put a few personal facts in it so their close friends will know that they really did do it. Besides, why elsedo soemthing like this than to be able to say "Hey I did it."
considering all your PRO-Micro$oft stance, I am not suprosed to see you make such a post. What would suprise me less is if you are one of the AC's throwing out all the troll bait.
Now, why is Linux such a big theme on/. Well, if you would stop throwing out troll bait you would see that Slashdot's motto is "news for nerds stuff that matters" Nerds like tech stuff we can play with. Linux is open source we get to tinker with it therefore, it is important Microsoft isn't open source we dont get to tinker with it so it doesnt matter to us
And yes, I know it doens't aply to all/.ers out there, but it does fit into the category of "news for nerds"
Now why does a VA stock drop not make news here? well, probably, if this was Slashdot: "news for investors, stuff that matters" then it would. but it's not so it doesn't.
Finaly (to the trolls), if you really want to impress me, then use a few less of those lovely adverbs and a few more valid arguements. But, acting like a total idiot is only going to get me to reat you like a total idiot.
It sounds and looks good and all. But, I have to worry about security. I mean how hard is it intercept a signal here. It happens all the time with cell phones and god knows how many people are getting free Satelite TV service. So, how difficult would it be to point my satilate dish at my neighbors house and intercept everything they are sending out (passwords, cc numbers. etc.... etc...) I know it isnt *that* easy, but again..... it can't be that impossible either.
ON the other hand, I suppose DoS attacks would be harder to carry out against a 2mps conections.
Actually, if you had taken the time to read the whole post and not been a hurry to throw up your little tirade, you would have noticed the "rules" I was speaking of were of a business nature and not legal. However, everyone seems to think that runing a website means suing someone else over the content of theirs, and its gotten ind of rediculas. Originaly, (and if you had done YOUR research, you might have known all of this) the Internet was originally established as a means of sharing information, nothing else. The problem is that a lot of companies are all hopping on the DOT COM bandwagon while at the same time trying to apply traditional business practices. The chief among these is that they continue to think they can horde information that had been easily availble before and only give (sell?) it out to a select few of their customers. In short, this is a direct contradiction to why the net was greated to begin with. A prime example of this is when the NY TIMES decided that they weren't going to allow BarnesNNoble.Com to post the NY TIMES TOP TEN BEST SELLERS LIST because Amazon.Com had paid the NY TIMES a fee for the sole rights to post the list on their site. Now prior to this it had never been a problem for BNN to post this information in their stores, but suddenly they weren't allowed toto put it on their website because Amazon.Com was willing to pay for it.
This suit with Ticketmaster.com is of a similar nature. I mean you can currently pick up your news paper and flip to the Entertainment Section and Ticketmaster (as well as others) all have ads advertising their prices. All tickets.com is doing is basically the same thing by allowing people to search for tickets faster and easier. If Ticketmaster wants to compete, then they need to have their website set up in a competitive way and not simply go out and file law suits to force other companies to make their sites less easy to use.
There are differences in the way business is done between traditional business and online business. The problem is that they are subtle and easily missed by people who are too busy having their lawyers passing motions in a court somehere. There are a lot of companies out there looking to do business, the ones that can give the consumer what they want the fastest and the easiest is the one that is going to survive. But, nothing is gained by but hiding information deep within your website and then trying to sue other companies out of business. I had assumed that the average/. reader could have understood what the previous post, i just forgot that there are those out there that are less than average.
''They are an open site and are a member of the free Internet community,'' Tickets.com attorney Daniel Harris said of Ticketmaster. ''They have to live by the rules of that community as it has grown up.''
If you cant do business here on the pre established ground rules, then dont do busines here. It's quiet annoying to see business always whinying because they started a website and now they arent making a billion dolars a day like they thought. So, their first response seems to be blame the other web site for cheating. DOn't buy into the hype of the internet because there just isnt enogh reality to that hype. Do your reserch, then do some more research, then start working on your idea, then do a little more research. But, for god's sakes, stop suing everybody because you didn't get rich and they did.
Of course, I have to wonder if the suit wasn't jsut an excuse to by tickmaster to drive tickets.com out of business.
Here is what concerns me. Almost everytime there is some kind of really desturbing crime (mass murder, random shooting etc.) The person repsonsible is usually describbed as nice, quiet, kept to himself-- Didn't talk alot. Also, it is usually describbed as un detectible with more than one person claiming they "never would have suspected."
So with that said, how is the average person (student, teacher, anybody) gogin to be able to oint their finger and say "yea, he's the one. that's the guy thats about to shot up the school."
I think this whole thing is about as clear of an example of FUD as I have ever seen. My biggest concern with this entire affair is the exploitability factor. I mean, what controls are in place to make sure that kids aren't just turning in kids they dont like. I am also deeply concerned about privacy issues. I mean you go for a job one day and you would be boss finds out that someone reported you to this thing once back in highscool. oh humm
I agre with a lot of this. However, it can happen in a positive way or a bad way.
The good way is for business to regulate themselves and spend a few bucks working to prevent themselves from being riped off instead of spending a lot of bucks lobbying congressmen and other legislators. An example of this is would be like with napster or decss. Instead of trying to sue everyone who has anything to do with the software why not give people an incentive to go buy the movies / albums? Why not make it easy for everyone to watch DVD's on their computers? Wouldnt the money spent on this lawsuit be better spent developing software to do this very thing? And if a 17 (?) year olf guy in norway can do it, how hardwould it be for techs at Sony?
As far as music goes, why not lower the price of CD's? I mena i cant think of an album out there right now that's woth 16-18 bucks when i really only want one song. Of course Im gonna fire up Napster and go get that one song. Of course Im stilll tryign to figure out why downloadign a song from napster is bad and yet recording it from the radio is ok.
Of course the only way to ensure this happens in a positive way is to speak out. And posing at/. is barely a start. The key is to talk about these issues to others in an intelligent manner. and by Intelligent, I mean using reason and not a loud voice and a bunch of four letter words. Even i get sick of hearing things like "fucking big business is screwing us again." They're not realy out to screw anyone, they just trying to make a bunch of money, and the only way to make sure they dont do this at our expense is to stand up against them in a resonable manner and with *lots* of people behind you. And, the only way to get people behind you is to reason with them and explain all the facts in a clear mannner.
After all, aren't the best decisions made when people have the best information in front of them.
Ok, first GPL isnt an actual contract between two people, rather a stipulation attached to the release of software. Anyone can download the source code, modify it, repackage it, and re-release it without ever having talked to the original creator.
Now, supose a judge was to rule in favor of John Carmack, and says that GPL is legal and that software vendors have the right to place stipulations on their software. Does anyone supose this could make UCITA a legal defacto.
I know that GPL is actually a granting of rights where as UCITA is a striping of rights, but stranger things have happened.
I think this applies to a lot of post aimed at linux here on slashdot. There's a kind of Elitist attitude where a lot of people want linux to be only what they "think" Linux should be. Remember, one of the biggest seeling points of Linux is it's adapatability.
::::sigh::::
So is the new slogan, "Total World Dominiation (execept for Mac's)"
The lawyers claim to be suing on behalf of 8 million users and for a thousand bucks each. Actually I'm pretty sure the lawyers who innitated this thing are hoping to get $1000.00 per hour they spend hassling AOl users into going along with this suit. This should be relatively easy because AOl has been built by offering EASY internet access for those who dont know much about computers. And, since these tend to be the same people who are quick to blame the sofware for their mistakes, then im sure they are very sue- happy right about now. I guess I could maybe see the point of the suite if I knew i wasn't all going to go to the same lawyers would just as easily turn around and file a similare suit against various Linux organazations (and companies) on behalf of all the kids who have screwed up their computers trying to install Linux just so they could be cool. "Mr. Tux, could you please raise you're right wing."
The inherent flaw with this seems to be (as usual) in the Wetware. Aol simply asked a Y/N question that the average Aol user just isn't knowledgable enough to answere. I have actaully heard many people say things to the effect of "i don't use the internet, I have AOL." Now how are these people to even comprehend what "deafault dial up" means.
Of course, maybe we could find out what Aol 5.0 was "really" up to if it was opened source.:o) (yea, like that's gonna happen)
I see lots of post talking about how this could start a space race, and how that is good. And, an compitetion is good. It keeps everyone honest (ok not totally, not ever, but still). It also provides motivation to keep people invovled.
It's been said that "we see the world in out own image and there are as many views of the waorld as there are people" This only proves the point. The more space exploration there is, and the more people invovled, then that only means that more viewpoints are brought to the discussion and in the end, it is a tremendous addition to the sum of human knowledge.
And to those making all those cute little "red" jokes, consider one thing. We in the States have always had an "adventurous" (conquering) streak in us. And, since (as stated above) we see the world in our own image, then we in the States have always seen space in that light. Its a place to be conquered. Now the Chinese have, for a long time (since at least the mid 1800's), had a more guarded (protective) nature. Perhaps the will see their exploration of space in that light and better recognize some of the inherant dangers in space. Perhaps they will see something else. Or, perhaps they will see it exactly as we do. The point is, this is a win-win situation.
This talk of competition also caries over to other debates/forums on/. as well.
The biggest problem with this entire thing is that those who have the most to gain, also have the easiest means to make the law come about. consider these premises:
1) The people actually passing the laws (congressmen, legislators) know very little about computers, and so in an odd (ironic) way they really don't have a way to know the benifits/dangers from this law.
2)The lawmakers are going to try and become informed about this, but will turn to the very software makers that benefit most from this law for that information.
3) Money buys influence in Washington. (how much could Micro$oft "contribute").
Conclusion: So, the Law Makers are going to have a financial stake in being influenced by those who benefit
Now think about this pemise:
1) In many people's minds "open software"="freesoftware"=cheap bastards. That is to say that a lot of people see the open source movement being led by people who just don't want to have to pay for what someone else worked hard to make.
2) Again, in many people's minds "opensoftware"=hacking=criminals. I could ad to this, but I think we've all seen enough mainstream news stories about "criminal hackers" and not enough about "hackers as programs who give away their source code.
3) The Opensource/Freesoftware Community isn't the richest community out there, and there isn't a lot for "campaign contributions".
conclusion: The large corporations can portray the opensource community to the uneducated (in these matters) law makers as whinny criminals who bring nothing to the table.
Im not trying to say its all about money here, but Money at least buys access to talk to these guys. And, perceptions are important. And, the Legislators really don't know enough yet about this issue to vote yet. Just think about this. Go out and read all the news stories in the mainstream press (the ones these legislators read) and see what they say about opensource and about the DVD issue. Now you think what they WILL think.
The best way to counter this is with "clear information" This means sending polite and informative emails to legislators with links to news stories, even news posts about this issue.
It's our world now. But how can we really say that if we don't speak up once in a while.
I think Heisenberg answered this question best. Ultimately, simply designing a test effects it's outcome. If a University wants to design a test to allow more of a given group in, they will do so. Likewise, if they want to design a test to prohibit a certain group they can just as easily do so.
One has to wonder if the application of a universal test (such as the SAT) to a group of diverse individuals with diverse goals is wise. It sounds like a single standard in a world full of varibles. For example, suppose an individual wanted to get a degree in programming and he got an 1150 on the SAT. How many would say he was qualified? Not many, right? Now supose he got that 1150 with a score of 750 in math and 400 in English. Suddenly, it takes on new meaning. His math/logic skills are certainly there, and even his lacking English abilities, can serve to an advantage in a world where normal English grammer doesnt apply.
In the end, the world is created to our design and we will continue to perform test to prove so.
Actually, the Slashdot posters appear to be damaging the case. Read the Linux World Interview. quote: Jon Johansen: I did actually read on Slashdot where the plaintiffs had actually read from Slashdot debates. LinuxWorld: Exactly. And they picked out only the ones which were saying things like "fuck the law." And so they picked those out on purpose and they said, "Look at these people. They don't want to play back movies. They are saying 'fuck the law.'" So do you have anything to say to people about that? Jon Johansen: Well, that's really sad that they can't behave, because they should have known that the plaintiffs would have used something like that against us. They should stop doing things like that and help inform the media that this has nothing to do with copying but [rather has to do with] with playback.
He already Answered this one in the LinuxWorld interview Direct Quote: "Jon Johansen: They are currently investigating, and I still haven't received my computers back. So I have ordered a new one today, which I will be receiving on Friday. Which is a bit too late, because ABC News is coming tomorrow, and I was supposed to demonstrate DVD playback under Linux. So I'm going to call some people now and try to get hold of a computer with a DVD-ROM and get Linux installed on it. You can Find the whole Interview: here.
I noticed three seperate online job finders with ads. Kinda strange since basically everyone who wants a job has one or can get one right now. I think it shows just how far these companies are wil to go in order to get their e-foot through my e-door. Irony here is that they spend so much money advertising on 50 year old technology (TV). I guess the more things change, the more they stay the same.
Slashdot Mirror
the tarball is here
ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2. 4/
Does anyone remember when this thing we cal the net was a free exchange of information? You know, before the whole censorship thing began running rampant. I understand that some people can be offended by this auction, and I understand every reason why. But, simply becaue your offended by something doesn't mean I can enjoy it. If you dont like Yahoo because it is offering Nazi Memorabellia, then for gods sake, go to Ebay, or any one of several other online auctions. Or maybe, just maybe, go read a book and realize that the items up for auction here are from a time when a group of people decided to tell everyone else what they could and couldn't do-say-think-beleive.
censoring a nazi..... kinda hypocrital dontcha think?
But you also gotta ask why in the world would FRANCE care about Nazi auctions? I could see Israel making a big deal about it, but why in the world France???
just pointing out the obvious here, but Nazi Germany occupied most of France durring WWII
Giving someone the opportunity to do wrong, should not be wrong. We have the abilty and the knowlege to chose right or wrong, we shouldn't limit our freedoms, because they could be used for wrong.
i beleive this is called aiding and abeding (lord i spelled that wronge). The point is, giving someone the opportunity to do wrong IS wonge. remember the snake, the apple, and eve?
Should you sue Ford or Budweiser or the City, because a drunk driver using their car, beer, and roads, hit them?
the answer here is, YES if there product is designed to assist in drunk driving.
I agree with the over all point you are trying to make, but the arguments need some work. I think this is the number one problem with napster, and linux, and open-source. too many people fail to make the right points and end up making the argument look bad.
just posting here a letter I sent Rob. feel free to flame as you see fit.
1 4&mode=flat
2 14&cid=507
1 333214&cid=514
--------------------------------------
hiya rob,
I am reading through the story on the House proposal to hold hearings on Napster
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/05/22/13332
And wanted to write to you with a possible Idea that you are free to run with as you see fit. Now I'm sure you are aware of the fact that the best way to fight something like this is by making sure that congress hears all the voices. Despite what people think, most congressmen still want to protect the rights of the people. The problem is that when there is a dispute over right, they don't always agree on whose rights are more important. The solution is, of course, to make them aware. Now, to that end, I am proposing is that you chooose the best 20-30 posts on this story and submit them to members of congress. The goal is to choose enough to make the variosu points while not choosing so many that it never gets read. Now by best posts, I of course refere to the ones that point out things like the following.
1) The overagressive nature of the DMCA.
2) The way the RIAAI has been suing everyone in site that they percieved to be a threat.
3) The fact that the previous two points only make for a more closed internet which is a direct contradiction to the point of the internet.
4) The value of napster in letting people hear music so they can judge it before they buy it.
one great sample post is here http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=00/05/22/1333
I think this really sums up myself and most other napster users I know.
You may choose to make other points, or leave some of these out. But, the fact is this is an issue that is only going to get worse until congress and the courts finally realize that people had had enough of large business taking away their rights so they can simply charge more money. I have said for a long time now that the threat to privacy isnt the government but business. Well, I leave this in your hands, and Im not going to give you a lecture about how you have to do it. You don't. But I am asking because the simultanious submission of several voices can cary far more wieght than any one voice.
Well, have fun what ever you do.
-Blast
ps
any thoughts to this http://www.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=00/05/22/
I have a hard time believing that anybody who sets out inflict this worm/virus on the world would put personal info in the header of the script. Makes no sense.
They want the credit with people they know. So, they put a few personal facts in it so their close friends will know that they really did do it. Besides, why elsedo soemthing like this than to be able to say "Hey I did it."
considering all your PRO-Micro$oft stance, I am not suprosed to see you make such a post. What would suprise me less is if you are one of the AC's throwing out all the troll bait.
/.
/.ers out there, but it does fit into the category of "news for nerds"
Now, why is Linux such a big theme on
Well, if you would stop throwing out troll bait you would see that Slashdot's motto is "news for nerds stuff that matters"
Nerds like tech stuff we can play with.
Linux is open source
we get to tinker with it
therefore, it is important
Microsoft isn't open source
we dont get to tinker with it
so it doesnt matter to us
And yes, I know it doens't aply to all
Now why does a VA stock drop not make news here?
well, probably, if this was Slashdot: "news for investors, stuff that matters" then it would.
but it's not so it doesn't.
Finaly (to the trolls), if you really want to impress me, then use a few less of those lovely adverbs and a few more valid arguements. But, acting like a total idiot is only going to get me to reat you like a total idiot.
just my $.02
It sounds and looks good and all. But, I have to worry about security. I mean how hard is it intercept a signal here. It happens all the time with cell phones and god knows how many people are getting free Satelite TV service. So, how difficult would it be to point my satilate dish at my neighbors house and intercept everything they are sending out (passwords, cc numbers. etc.... etc...) I know it isnt *that* easy, but again..... it can't be that impossible either.
ON the other hand, I suppose DoS attacks would be harder to carry out against a 2mps conections.
jsut some questions Im wondering here.. oh hummm
Actually, if you had taken the time to read the whole post and not been a hurry to throw up your little tirade, you would have noticed the "rules" I was speaking of were of a business nature and not legal. However, everyone seems to think that runing a website means suing someone else over the content of theirs, and its gotten ind of rediculas.
/. reader could have understood what the previous post, i just forgot that there are those out there that are less than average.
Originaly, (and if you had done YOUR research, you might have known all of this) the Internet was originally established as a means of sharing information, nothing else. The problem is that a lot of companies are all hopping on the DOT COM bandwagon while at the same time trying to apply traditional business practices. The chief among these is that they continue to think they can horde information that had been easily availble before and only give (sell?) it out to a select few of their customers. In short, this is a direct contradiction to why the net was greated to begin with.
A prime example of this is when the NY TIMES decided that they weren't going to allow BarnesNNoble.Com to post the NY TIMES TOP TEN BEST SELLERS LIST because Amazon.Com had paid the NY TIMES a fee for the sole rights to post the list on their site. Now prior to this it had never been a problem for BNN to post this information in their stores, but suddenly they weren't allowed toto put it on their website because Amazon.Com was willing to pay for it.
This suit with Ticketmaster.com is of a similar nature. I mean you can currently pick up your news paper and flip to the Entertainment Section and Ticketmaster (as well as others) all have ads advertising their prices. All tickets.com is doing is basically the same thing by allowing people to search for tickets faster and easier. If Ticketmaster wants to compete, then they need to have their website set up in a competitive way and not simply go out and file law suits to force other companies to make their sites less easy to use.
There are differences in the way business is done between traditional business and online business. The problem is that they are subtle and easily missed by people who are too busy having their lawyers passing motions in a court somehere.
There are a lot of companies out there looking to do business, the ones that can give the consumer what they want the fastest and the easiest is the one that is going to survive. But, nothing is gained by but hiding information deep within your website and then trying to sue other companies out of business.
I had assumed that the average
I loved this quote from the tickets.com lawyer.
''They are an open site and are a member of the free Internet community,'' Tickets.com attorney Daniel Harris said of Ticketmaster. ''They have to live by the rules of that community as it has grown up.''
If you cant do business here on the pre established ground rules, then dont do busines here. It's quiet annoying to see business always whinying because they started a website and now they arent making a billion dolars a day like they thought. So, their first response seems to be blame the other web site for cheating. DOn't buy into the hype of the internet because there just isnt enogh reality to that hype. Do your reserch, then do some more research, then start working on your idea, then do a little more research. But, for god's sakes, stop suing everybody because you didn't get rich and they did.
Of course, I have to wonder if the suit wasn't jsut an excuse to by tickmaster to drive tickets.com out of business.
Here is what concerns me. Almost everytime there is some kind of really desturbing crime (mass murder, random shooting etc.) The person repsonsible is usually describbed as nice, quiet, kept to himself-- Didn't talk alot.
Also, it is usually describbed as un detectible with more than one person claiming they "never would have suspected."
So with that said, how is the average person (student, teacher, anybody) gogin to be able to oint their finger and say "yea, he's the one. that's the guy thats about to shot up the school."
I think this whole thing is about as clear of an example of FUD as I have ever seen. My biggest concern with this entire affair is the exploitability factor. I mean, what controls are in place to make sure that kids aren't just turning in kids they dont like. I am also deeply concerned about privacy issues. I mean you go for a job one day and you would be boss finds out that someone reported you to this thing once back in highscool. oh humm
I agre with a lot of this. However, it can happen in a positive way or a bad way.
/. is barely a start. The key is to talk about these issues to others in an intelligent manner. and by Intelligent, I mean using reason and not a loud voice and a bunch of four letter words. Even i get sick of hearing things like "fucking big business is screwing us again."
The good way is for business to regulate themselves and spend a few bucks working to prevent themselves from being riped off instead of spending a lot of bucks lobbying congressmen and other legislators. An example of this is would be like with napster or decss. Instead of trying to sue everyone who has anything to do with the software why not give people an incentive to go buy the movies / albums? Why not make it easy for everyone to watch DVD's on their computers? Wouldnt the money spent on this lawsuit be better spent developing software to do this very thing? And if a 17 (?) year olf guy in norway can do it, how hardwould it be for techs at Sony?
As far as music goes, why not lower the price of CD's? I mena i cant think of an album out there right now that's woth 16-18 bucks when i really only want one song. Of course Im gonna fire up Napster and go get that one song. Of course Im stilll tryign to figure out why downloadign a song from napster is bad and yet recording it from the radio is ok.
Of course the only way to ensure this happens in a positive way is to speak out. And posing at
They're not realy out to screw anyone, they just trying to make a bunch of money, and the only way to make sure they dont do this at our expense is to stand up against them in a resonable manner and with *lots* of people behind you. And, the only way to get people behind you is to reason with them and explain all the facts in a clear mannner.
After all, aren't the best decisions made when people have the best information in front of them.
Something to ponder here.
Ok, first GPL isnt an actual contract between two people, rather a stipulation attached to the release of software. Anyone can download the source code, modify it, repackage it, and re-release it without ever having talked to the original creator.
Now, supose a judge was to rule in favor of John Carmack, and says that GPL is legal and that software vendors have the right to place stipulations on their software. Does anyone supose this could make UCITA a legal defacto.
I know that GPL is actually a granting of rights where as UCITA is a striping of rights, but stranger things have happened.
I think this applies to a lot of post aimed at linux here on slashdot. There's a kind of Elitist attitude where a lot of people want linux to be only what they "think" Linux should be. Remember, one of the biggest seeling points of Linux is it's adapatability.
::::sigh::::
So is the new slogan, "Total World Dominiation (execept for Mac's)"
I wonder just how baught and paid for it was ifthey could only get 63 percent. I mean, if they paid for that much then they are screwed.
The lawyers claim to be suing on behalf of 8 million users and for a thousand bucks each. Actually I'm pretty sure the lawyers who innitated this thing are hoping to get $1000.00 per hour they spend hassling AOl users into going along with this suit. This should be relatively easy because AOl has been built by offering EASY internet access for those who dont know much about computers. And, since these tend to be the same people who are quick to blame the sofware for their mistakes, then im sure they are very sue- happy right about now. I guess I could maybe see the point of the suite if I knew i wasn't all going to go to the same lawyers would just as easily turn around and file a similare suit against various Linux organazations (and companies) on behalf of all the kids who have screwed up their computers trying to install Linux just so they could be cool. "Mr. Tux, could you please raise you're right wing."
:o) (yea, like that's gonna happen)
The inherent flaw with this seems to be (as usual) in the Wetware. Aol simply asked a Y/N question that the average Aol user just isn't knowledgable enough to answere. I have actaully heard many people say things to the effect of "i don't use the internet, I have AOL." Now how are these people to even comprehend what "deafault dial up" means.
Of course, maybe we could find out what Aol 5.0 was "really" up to if it was opened source.
how do they know 8 million people were affected?
I see lots of post talking about how this could start a space race, and how that is good. And, an compitetion is good. It keeps everyone honest (ok not totally, not ever, but still). It also provides motivation to keep people invovled.
/. as well.
It's been said that "we see the world in out own image and there are as many views of the waorld as there are people" This only proves the point. The more space exploration there is, and the more people invovled, then that only means that more viewpoints are brought to the discussion and in the end, it is a tremendous addition to the sum of human knowledge.
And to those making all those cute little "red" jokes, consider one thing. We in the States have always had an "adventurous" (conquering) streak in us. And, since (as stated above) we see the world in our own image, then we in the States have always seen space in that light. Its a place to be conquered. Now the Chinese have, for a long time (since at least the mid 1800's), had a more guarded (protective) nature. Perhaps the will see their exploration of space in that light and better recognize some of the inherant dangers in space. Perhaps they will see something else. Or, perhaps they will see it exactly as we do.
The point is, this is a win-win situation.
This talk of competition also caries over to other debates/forums on
I always thought Racism and Stupidity Kinda went hand in hand.
And as far as the lego examine, well these guy probably couldnt deal with the multi coloured pieces. (bright objects confuse them)
Although, now that you mention it, consider a techno coloured lego space station. Now that would be cool (and plastic so its recyclable).
The biggest problem with this entire thing is that those who have the most to gain, also have the easiest means to make the law come about. consider these premises:
1) The people actually passing the laws (congressmen, legislators) know very little about computers, and so in an odd (ironic) way they really don't have a way to know the benifits/dangers from this law.
2)The lawmakers are going to try and become informed about this, but will turn to the very software makers that benefit most from this law for that information.
3) Money buys influence in Washington. (how much could Micro$oft "contribute").
Conclusion: So, the Law Makers are going to have a financial stake in being influenced by those who benefit
Now think about this pemise:
1) In many people's minds "open software"="freesoftware"=cheap bastards. That is to say that a lot of people see the open source movement being led by people who just don't want to have to pay for what someone else worked hard to make.
2) Again, in many people's minds "opensoftware"=hacking=criminals. I could ad to this, but I think we've all seen enough mainstream news stories about "criminal hackers" and not enough about "hackers as programs who give away their source code.
3) The Opensource/Freesoftware Community isn't the richest community out there, and there isn't a lot for "campaign contributions".
conclusion: The large corporations can portray the opensource community to the uneducated (in these matters) law makers as whinny criminals who bring nothing to the table.
Im not trying to say its all about money here, but Money at least buys access to talk to these guys. And, perceptions are important. And, the Legislators really don't know enough yet about this issue to vote yet. Just think about this. Go out and read all the news stories in the mainstream press (the ones these legislators read) and see what they say about opensource and about the DVD issue. Now you think what they WILL think.
The best way to counter this is with "clear information" This means sending polite and informative emails to legislators with links to news stories, even news posts about this issue.
It's our world now. But how can we really say that if we don't speak up once in a while.
I think Heisenberg answered this question best. Ultimately, simply designing a test effects it's outcome. If a University wants to design a test to allow more of a given group in, they will do so. Likewise, if they want to design a test to prohibit a certain group they can just as easily do so.
One has to wonder if the application of a universal test (such as the SAT) to a group of diverse individuals with diverse goals is wise. It sounds like a single standard in a world full of varibles. For example, suppose an individual wanted to get a degree in programming and he got an 1150 on the SAT. How many would say he was qualified? Not many, right? Now supose he got that 1150 with a score of 750 in math and 400 in English. Suddenly, it takes on new meaning. His math/logic skills are certainly there, and even his lacking English abilities, can serve to an advantage in a world where normal English grammer doesnt apply.
In the end, the world is created to our design and we will continue to perform test to prove so.
oh yes
i've got to get me one of those. sighs, only 334 days till christmas. I guess by then it'll be obsolete.
oh hummmm
Actually, the Slashdot posters appear to be damaging the case. Read the Linux World Interview.
quote:
Jon Johansen: I did actually read on Slashdot where the plaintiffs had actually read from Slashdot debates.
LinuxWorld: Exactly. And they picked out only the ones which were saying things like "fuck the law." And so they picked those out on purpose and they said, "Look at these people. They don't want to play back movies. They are saying 'fuck the law.'" So do you have anything to say to people about that?
Jon Johansen: Well, that's really sad that they can't behave, because they should have known that the plaintiffs would have used something like that against us. They should stop doing things like that and help inform the media that this has nothing to do with copying but [rather has to do with] with playback.
He already Answered this one in the LinuxWorld interview
Direct Quote:
"Jon Johansen: They are currently investigating, and I still haven't received my computers back. So I have ordered a new one today, which I will be receiving on Friday. Which is a bit too late, because ABC News is coming tomorrow, and I was supposed to demonstrate DVD playback under Linux. So I'm going to call some people now and try to get hold of a computer with a DVD-ROM and get Linux installed on it.
You can Find the whole Interview: here.
I noticed three seperate online job finders with ads. Kinda strange since basically everyone who wants a job has one or can get one right now. I think it shows just how far these companies are wil to go in order to get their e-foot through my e-door. Irony here is that they spend so much money advertising on 50 year old technology (TV). I guess the more things change, the more they stay the same.