3) Infinite amount of choice. Public interest spots/equal time are not needed, since there is not a limited amount of channel space. So, each individual can select whatever his/her pleasure may be.
So how do you reconcile that with the fact that the vast amount of streams are being provided by a relatively small number of large corporations, or by companies owned by those corporations?
By creating my own, and publicizing it. It's not hard:)
When a particular minority with very special interests gets an overwhelming amount of mindspace, the public needs special protective measures against the corps abusing their power.
But how will licensing protect the individual? I see it only as a means by which the largest folks can stick their hands in and deny others the ability to broadcast. Surely you would prefer a world in which everyone has the right to broadcast whatever they like? The key is that I am limited in my choices by physical difficulty in radio/TV. On the Internet, the only thing limiting me is how hard I'm willing to look.
Now you could say "but no one is willing to make the effort to inform themselves!" This is true. But current regulations involving conventional broadcasting do nothing to assist this. They only make sure that Channel A isn't stepping on Channel B's frequency. At best, they affect political campaigning, which essentially results in everyone getting their 10 seconds at the end of the evening news. Not terribly effective. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink it.
Go to Yahoo Full Coverage, and see the streams they provide. Very rarely you'll see a link to some non big media stream. Certainly, "other" streams are more than a click away.
Surely, these portals are not the alpha and omega of the Internet! To a new user, they are a beginning- but the nature of the medium is to expand the user's informational horizons.
These efforts are best pursued in conventional broadcasting, where the space is severely limited and only a few specific individuals have control of nearly everything.
the fact of the matter is that they are exceedingly easy to ignore on the Internet, if you're so inclined.
The best thing our government could do is to gather a panel of educational experts, and charge them with the task of teaching our children to think critically.
1) Infinite amount of channels. Having government licensing/regulation over this is unnecessary. It is a layer of bureaucracy where there need be none (especially since streaming media is highly decentralized.)
2) Since there is an infinite amount of channel space, it is also extremely hard for a child to stumble onto truly inappropriate media. So, the government doesn't need to get in on this, either.
3) Infinite amount of choice. Public interest spots/equal time are not needed, since there is not a limited amount of channel space. So, each individual can select whatever his/her pleasure may be. Is one stream too biased? Check out another, just a click away!
In short, streaming media is egalitarian enough- I can make a stream exactly as good as anything Mr. Murdoch puts out. All I need to do is score the capacity, and off I go. In the real world, I need frequency licenses to operate- but on the Internet, there are no frequencies.
...I've supported due to MP3. Let's name the ones I've supported in the last month (see if you've heard of them!) Electric Hellfire Club Apoptygma Berzerk Funker Vogt (those from shoutcast radio- been listening to lots of new goth/industrial lately, as opposed to old goth/industrial that I already have) Loreena McKennitt Yasunori Mitsuda (this one was expensive! but I love Xenogears CREID! to death!) Einsturzende Neubauten Wesley Willis I think everyone gets the fucking obvious point now. Why must the record companies insist on attempting to keep me from buying their things?
I don't see any problem with employers monitoring their employees' Internet connection-after all, they are at work!
What I do have a problem with is it being done secretly. If your employer is not cool with you reading the Stile Project at work, then he should damn well say so. He shouldn't just go and watch you with a snooper and then come to fire you. That just isn't playing fair.
Regrettably, not too many people learned to play fair in business school:(
If slashdot2 concentrates on trying to take the devil's advocate side on slashdot issues, I think we may have an extremely valuable information gathering combination here:)
I do hope Andover doesn't sue them. If done right, this could be highly beneficial to Slashdot itself.
the concept of civil disobedience in no way makes you exempt from the consequences of that law. It simply means that you are deliberately protesting the existence of said law, with your own self-sacrifice.
Would you be willing to spend time in jail to defend your right to encryption? Something tells me that most people posting here probably wouldn't.
That's what is most frustrating to me: if you want to fight the rise of a police state, let's actually fight it- let's analyze the system that lets the FBI get these warrants under circumstances we consider questionable- not simply fight the technologies that we *find out about through the media*, and are probably not even half of the whole story. Vote for professional gadflies. Become one yourself.
But don't just be the moral equivalent of a me too poster, vulnerable to Slashdot Privacy Hysteria.
At least governments have, in name, some sort of guiding principle that can be called upon.
Corporations have no such thing, and it's quickly becoming clear that the real threat to your privacy nowadays is corporate, and is aimed at your quality of life.
This is not to say that the government doesn't put its fingers where they don't belong- indeed, I'm sure we are abused far more than we know in this regard, simply because it is so easy to do so- but I worry far more about individuals and companies stealing my information than I do a government agency. A few reasons:
1) The government agency probably already has a stupefying amount of data on me, and I probably give little motivation for it to collect more. I don't overestimate my own importance here- surveillance takes real man-hours- and I'd be inclined to think I'm not worth it at the moment. This does not stop me from using PGP/Hushmail simply because I feel like it, though.
2) Businesses can make a lot of money with just a little personal information. Defending against long-term, incremental profiling is extremely difficult, and companies likes Doubleclick have been dragging little bits of info out of me long before I even knew they existed, and easily assembling them into a whole, I'm sure. Contrast this with government surveillance, which must be more intensive and longer-term to gain anything meaningful.
Basically, the government needs to work harder to invade your privacy, and you probably aren't worth it. On the other hand, invading the fringes of your privacy is very profitable for business.
The vast majority of new end-user firewall stuff coming out lately is software, and per-machine. All that's necessary is the spreading of the Good News about firewalls (which is sure to happen after we get another solid DDoS involving clients on cable modems) and we're set.
OH NO! They're going to actually limit my bandwidth based on *HOW MUCH I SHOULD BE USING*! Fuck. Call Cletus and tell him to bring the AK's, it's gonna be a long standoff. Seriously, though- I'm beginning to doubt that anyone actually reads the articles that this supposed weblog brings to our attention. All any SD editor has to do is couch an article in "THE GOVERNMENT IS COMING TO KICK OUR ASS AND THEY ARE ALL OUT OF GUM" rhetoric, and suddenly everyone comes out of the woodwork screaming. Excuse me, but I actually thought the stuff in that article was good for the networks involved. It confronts the technical issue that is beyond the copyright- for what purpose are these students sucking up 1000 times the bandwidth they really should be? The admins mentioned don't care about the copyright issue. They just want a network that can be used for something other than Napster. If people leave trash in the park and piss all over the monuments whenever you let them in, you start looking a little more carefully at the entrance after a while. And if people can't keep their Napster use in check for a network that isn't specifically for that, then they shouldn't be using it! I have no compunction about using such entertainment-based services from my home, but I eschew them from the T1 in my warehouse nowadays, simply because there are other real people on that network that have real work to do, and I'm not going to shit on them because I want some Autechre remix that I have at home already. I love MP3s, and I have a warm, lovely place in my heart for piracy, but geez! Have some perspective, it's free!
You're always gambling on idiots from the Hill, no matter what you do. I say get your agenda out there, take safety in numbers, and always make them think there are women and children with you so you can escape without being bombed:)
Considering it's going to be very hard to be without a I-brow/I-opener/some other similar thing pretty soon, it's not a terrible idea to start the initiatives now.
If anything, they can put them in government offices, and people can still walk up and do their business ten times more quickly.
Arizona's been working with IBM for a while now to handle as much of the workaday business of government online... IBM gets 2% of the take from fees. Not fucking shabby at all...
It isn't amazing that this is happening- but that it hasn't happened until now, what with all the money that's in it for the lucky corporate partner!
All four people who choose to do this will be equally recognizable:) I've found that people who share their collections are like anyone else- they're proud of their collections, and can't bear corruption. And they far outnumber the saboteurs- who, while they are amusing, are unlikely to gain full share.
That hasn't stopped Microsoft, has it? What will happen is one of two things: 1) The machine comes with super-conservative security settings (the best overall choice) 2) The machine comes badly configured and in six months we hear about yet another DDoS coming from these guys. Either is equally probable.
This seems to me to be a pretty logical idea (although I'd prefer they just kick the domain name back out into freespace instead of auctioning it off.)
If you aren't paying for a domain, why should you be allowed to hang onto it?
One area that Jon fails to truly address in his article is the fact that running a website is cheap only to a point.
It's divinely cheap as long as you get 200 hits a day. Perhaps even at 2000 hits a day. What happens when you get popular enough that you outstrip your bandwidth quotas, and your site becomes the equivalent of a denial of service attack on your ISP? Well, that's easy- your ISP tells you to turn your site into a "commercial" site, or you have to bugger off and go elsewhere.
...be its legality? MP3 is a nice compressed audio format that is well suited to personal libraries. I'm in the process of converting my own 150+ cd library to 192kbps MP3, so I can push the "shuffle" button in Winamp and get a random song from my FULL library. MP3 is practical, and won't die until someone thinks of something that is smaller and sounds better.
Slashdot Mirror
3) Infinite amount of choice. Public interest spots/equal time are not needed, since there is not a limited amount of channel space. So, each individual can select whatever his/her pleasure may be.
So how do you reconcile that with the fact that the vast amount of streams are being provided by a relatively small number of large corporations, or by companies owned by those corporations?
By creating my own, and publicizing it. It's not hard
When a particular minority with very special interests gets an overwhelming amount of mindspace, the public needs special protective measures against the corps abusing their power.
But how will licensing protect the individual? I see it only as a means by which the largest folks can stick their hands in and deny others the ability to broadcast. Surely you would prefer a world in which everyone has the right to broadcast whatever they like? The key is that I am limited in my choices by physical difficulty in radio/TV. On the Internet, the only thing limiting me is how hard I'm willing to look.
Now you could say "but no one is willing to make the effort to inform themselves!" This is true. But current regulations involving conventional broadcasting do nothing to assist this. They only make sure that Channel A isn't stepping on Channel B's frequency. At best, they affect political campaigning, which essentially results in everyone getting their 10 seconds at the end of the evening news. Not terribly effective. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink it.
Go to Yahoo Full Coverage, and see the streams they provide. Very rarely you'll see a link to some non big media stream. Certainly, "other" streams are more than a click away.
Surely, these portals are not the alpha and omega of the Internet! To a new user, they are a beginning- but the nature of the medium is to expand the user's informational horizons.
These efforts are best pursued in conventional broadcasting, where the space is severely limited and only a few specific individuals have control of nearly everything.
--Perianwyr Stormcrow
the fact of the matter is that they are exceedingly easy to ignore on the Internet, if you're so inclined.
The best thing our government could do is to gather a panel of educational experts, and charge them with the task of teaching our children to think critically.
Then such problems will solve themselves.
--Perianwyr Stormcrow
...broadcasting for a few reasons:
1) Infinite amount of channels. Having government licensing/regulation over this is unnecessary. It is a layer of bureaucracy where there need be none (especially since streaming media is highly decentralized.)
2) Since there is an infinite amount of channel space, it is also extremely hard for a child to stumble onto truly inappropriate media. So, the government doesn't need to get in on this, either.
3) Infinite amount of choice. Public interest spots/equal time are not needed, since there is not a limited amount of channel space. So, each individual can select whatever his/her pleasure may be. Is one stream too biased? Check out another, just a click away!
In short, streaming media is egalitarian enough- I can make a stream exactly as good as anything Mr. Murdoch puts out. All I need to do is score the capacity, and off I go. In the real world, I need frequency licenses to operate- but on the Internet, there are no frequencies.
--Perianwyr Stormcrow
...I've supported due to MP3. Let's name the ones I've supported in the last month (see if you've heard of them!) Electric Hellfire Club
Apoptygma Berzerk
Funker Vogt (those from shoutcast radio- been listening to lots of new goth/industrial lately, as opposed to old goth/industrial that I already have)
Loreena McKennitt
Yasunori Mitsuda (this one was expensive! but I love Xenogears CREID! to death!)
Einsturzende Neubauten
Wesley Willis
I think everyone gets the fucking obvious point now. Why must the record companies insist on attempting to keep me from buying their things?
--Perianwyr Stormcrow
I don't see any problem with employers monitoring their employees' Internet connection-after all, they are at work!
:(
What I do have a problem with is it being done secretly. If your employer is not cool with you reading the Stile Project at work, then he should damn well say so. He shouldn't just go and watch you with a snooper and then come to fire you. That just isn't playing fair.
Regrettably, not too many people learned to play fair in business school
--Perianwyr Stormcrow
If slashdot2 concentrates on trying to take the devil's advocate side on slashdot issues, I think we may have an extremely valuable information gathering combination here :)
I do hope Andover doesn't sue them. If done right, this could be highly beneficial to Slashdot itself.
--Perianwyr Stormcrow
You can like something in principle without having to love its implementation.
Slashdot folks tend to be pro-freedom, albeit often too far into the free-beer camp than is healthy (and certainly more than we'll admit, at times...)
--Perianwyr Stormcrow
the concept of civil disobedience in no way makes you exempt from the consequences of that law. It simply means that you are deliberately protesting the existence of said law, with your own self-sacrifice.
Would you be willing to spend time in jail to defend your right to encryption? Something tells me that most people posting here probably wouldn't.
That's what is most frustrating to me: if you want to fight the rise of a police state, let's actually fight it- let's analyze the system that lets the FBI get these warrants under circumstances we consider questionable- not simply fight the technologies that we *find out about through the media*, and are probably not even half of the whole story. Vote for professional gadflies. Become one yourself.
But don't just be the moral equivalent of a me too poster, vulnerable to Slashdot Privacy Hysteria.
--Perianwyr Stormcrow
At least governments have, in name, some sort of guiding principle that can be called upon.
Corporations have no such thing, and it's quickly becoming clear that the real threat to your privacy nowadays is corporate, and is aimed at your quality of life.
This is not to say that the government doesn't put its fingers where they don't belong- indeed, I'm sure we are abused far more than we know in this regard, simply because it is so easy to do so- but I worry far more about individuals and companies stealing my information than I do a government agency. A few reasons:
1) The government agency probably already has a stupefying amount of data on me, and I probably give little motivation for it to collect more. I don't overestimate my own importance here- surveillance takes real man-hours- and I'd be inclined to think I'm not worth it at the moment. This does not stop me from using PGP/Hushmail simply because I feel like it, though.
2) Businesses can make a lot of money with just a little personal information. Defending against long-term, incremental profiling is extremely difficult, and companies likes Doubleclick have been dragging little bits of info out of me long before I even knew they existed, and easily assembling them into a whole, I'm sure. Contrast this with government surveillance, which must be more intensive and longer-term to gain anything meaningful.
Basically, the government needs to work harder to invade your privacy, and you probably aren't worth it. On the other hand, invading the fringes of your privacy is very profitable for business.
--Perianwyr Stormcrow
I was just debating this the other day. I was right, but it's still not much fun to have the mystery gone like that :)
--Perianwyr Stormcrow
The vast majority of new end-user firewall stuff coming out lately is software, and per-machine. All that's necessary is the spreading of the Good News about firewalls (which is sure to happen after we get another solid DDoS involving clients on cable modems) and we're set.
--Perianwyr Stormcrow
is that just as I read this post, MDFMK's "Stare at the Sun" started. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha....
--Perianwyr Stormcrow
I once concluded that my life was an absurdist fable, but tomato potato gerbil apropos.
--Perianwyr Stormcrow
OH NO! They're going to actually limit my bandwidth based on *HOW MUCH I SHOULD BE USING*! Fuck. Call Cletus and tell him to bring the AK's, it's gonna be a long standoff. Seriously, though- I'm beginning to doubt that anyone actually reads the articles that this supposed weblog brings to our attention. All any SD editor has to do is couch an article in "THE GOVERNMENT IS COMING TO KICK OUR ASS AND THEY ARE ALL OUT OF GUM" rhetoric, and suddenly everyone comes out of the woodwork screaming. Excuse me, but I actually thought the stuff in that article was good for the networks involved. It confronts the technical issue that is beyond the copyright- for what purpose are these students sucking up 1000 times the bandwidth they really should be? The admins mentioned don't care about the copyright issue. They just want a network that can be used for something other than Napster. If people leave trash in the park and piss all over the monuments whenever you let them in, you start looking a little more carefully at the entrance after a while. And if people can't keep their Napster use in check for a network that isn't specifically for that, then they shouldn't be using it! I have no compunction about using such entertainment-based services from my home, but I eschew them from the T1 in my warehouse nowadays, simply because there are other real people on that network that have real work to do, and I'm not going to shit on them because I want some Autechre remix that I have at home already. I love MP3s, and I have a warm, lovely place in my heart for piracy, but geez! Have some perspective, it's free!
You're always gambling on idiots from the Hill, no matter what you do. I say get your agenda out there, take safety in numbers, and always make them think there are women and children with you so you can escape without being bombed :)
Considering it's going to be very hard to be without a I-brow/I-opener/some other similar thing pretty soon, it's not a terrible idea to start the initiatives now.
If anything, they can put them in government offices, and people can still walk up and do their business ten times more quickly.
Partnerships with private businesses.
Arizona's been working with IBM for a while now to handle as much of the workaday business of government online... IBM gets 2% of the take from fees. Not fucking shabby at all...
It isn't amazing that this is happening- but that it hasn't happened until now, what with all the money that's in it for the lucky corporate partner!
All four people who choose to do this will be equally recognizable :) I've found that people who share their collections are like anyone else- they're proud of their collections, and can't bear corruption. And they far outnumber the saboteurs- who, while they are amusing, are unlikely to gain full share.
Now I've got to go out and get a digital recorder- then walk around sampling interesting sounds I hear.
That hasn't stopped Microsoft, has it? What will happen is one of two things: 1) The machine comes with super-conservative security settings (the best overall choice) 2) The machine comes badly configured and in six months we hear about yet another DDoS coming from these guys. Either is equally probable.
This seems to me to be a pretty logical idea (although I'd prefer they just kick the domain name back out into freespace instead of auctioning it off.)
If you aren't paying for a domain, why should you be allowed to hang onto it?
One area that Jon fails to truly address in his article is the fact that running a website is cheap only to a point.
It's divinely cheap as long as you get 200 hits a day. Perhaps even at 2000 hits a day. What happens when you get popular enough that you outstrip your bandwidth quotas, and your site becomes the equivalent of a denial of service attack on your ISP? Well, that's easy- your ISP tells you to turn your site into a "commercial" site, or you have to bugger off and go elsewhere.
256kbps MP3 is nearly indistinguishable from CD audio, even on high grade equipment- you're thinking of 96-128 kbps 22khz Napster-traded junk.
...be its legality? MP3 is a nice compressed audio format that is well suited to personal libraries. I'm in the process of converting my own 150+ cd library to 192kbps MP3, so I can push the "shuffle" button in Winamp and get a random song from my FULL library. MP3 is practical, and won't die until someone thinks of something that is smaller and sounds better.
What in the name of Fork does this have to do with peta.org? I'd hardly call PETA a tool of big money and big business :)