Yes, that's true, Netappliance is selling them at a loss (as far as I know), with the intention of making it up in ISP charges. And so it is perfectly reasonable for them to realize that people can take advantage of this, and change their plan and product to be less easily exploitable.
-however-
That still isn't an excuse for false or misleading advertisement. And before we get TOO sympathetic to netappliance, they DID make a mistake, by not realizing what would happen. Companies that make mistakes often take losses. That's the way capitolism works. I don't think anyone can really get too upset that they realized their mistakes and took steps to correct it. The point that makes most people angry is how they chose to fix their mistake: By changing their policy without telling people, so that people did not know what they were buying at the time. So what they did is not only immoral, but (hopefully, since IANAL) illegal as well. And for that, yes, they did something wrong. And so I have no problem with getting angry at them for that.
If the code is out there, then it might not matter if they settled or not. It could end up another DeCSS, where no matter what they do to the original code writer, the code is now OUT THERE. And like pandora's box, once it's out, then it's extremely dificult to bottle it up again.
Even if the code project stopped, can't someone still do something to Matel? I seem to remember a fairly good idea someone had last time this topic came up on/. which was to slap Matel with a class action law suit for libel/slander for all the sites that they claimed were "pornographic". Does anyone know if this is possible? I guess I just feel like something bad should happen to Matel for the @#$% they pulled...
Case in point, Java Virtual Machines are seldom as fast as native code... And smalltalk and Lisp are both languages that are slow enough/memory intensive enough (especially LISP, the recursion master) that it's only relativly recently (last decade or so) that we have had computers fast/powerful enough to actually do much with them on a practical level.
Your point about the distinction between runtime morphing and emulation is well taken, however.
I'm afraid I have to agree with the anonymous coward, he's right, and the... er... anonymous coward is wrong. Hmm, the problem with anonymous postings.
Ok, I'll simplify. Here is what I disagree with:
The 1st says "Congress shall make no law..." That is to say, "No new law shall be passed..." Nowhere does the 1st say "the common law torts of libel and slander are hereby repealed"
As far as I know, the common law of libel and slander only apply to exactly that: libel and slander. For which the legal definitions are something like "Untrue facts circulated about a person by print (libel) or word of mouth (slander)"
So even though IANAL, I'd have to say that libel and slander do not apply to opinions. I can voice any opinions that I want to. So can anyone else. Thats why various hate groups still hold (perfectly legal) marches occasionally, and make people feel uncomfortable. People may not like their message, but as long as it is stated as an opinion they have a right to express it. That web site was stating opinions. Even if it never explicitly stated it, reviews by students can basically be assumed by everyone reading the site to be opinions. That's what a review is. Your (or whoever's) opinion on how they did. So I think that this site still falls under the jurisdiction of the first amendment.
I don't think that anyone who knows the field can really claim that genetic algorithms or genetic programming produces anything that has a soul, or is spiritual.
Yes, genetic algorithms can produce programs that behave "sorta like" ecosystems, but that is about as far as it goes. And artificial intellegence at this point is largely glorified tree searching.
So far mankind has yet to figure out how to simulate life, let alone sentience. And the biggest reason why, is that so far, (feel free to correct me, if you think you have an answer) no one has been able to define "life" or "sentience" in terms that are basic enough that we can write computer programs to emulate them.
So I'd have to say that this whole thing might be a little premature... Until we can figure out what life or conciousness IS, we can't really create programs that exhibit it. So it's probably a little bit early to start worrying about whether or not computer programs we write will be smarter than us.
But then you've lost your mech. All the bad guys would have to do is create a burst of static long enough for the comunications to time-out and sudenly your entire army has shut itself down. You going to send some guy out there to do a hard reboot on all of them?
Actually, if I were an evil overlord being attacked by such a robo-army, I think my solution would be to create a burst of static, etc, as outlined above. But instead of waiting for Tom the Repair Guy to come hit all the "Reboot" buttons... Why not take'em? Free robot army! Just laying around! Then I could reprogram them at my leisure in my secret base deep benieth the Atlantic!
The moral of this story is that you probably would want at least SOMETHING inside capable of going "boom", otherwise someone will just come along and take it.
Of course, you also don't want it going boom TOO easily, or Mr. evil overlord could just send a burst of static, and watch the legions of "Justice-Droids" pop like grapes in a microwave.
If artists arn't happy with big compaines.... And consumers arn't happy with big companies...
If we could figure out some way of making sure that artists get paid, but can still distribute on the web, (and the above artical has several promising ones), and if we could convince enough artists that it was safe, then the other artists would probably eventually follow, and we could all just quietly move away from big companies, thus making everyone happy. (Except the big companies)
of course, they're the ones with the cash, and so they probably wouldn't go down quietly, (I think they already sense that the end is near, hence DMCA and it's friends) but if enough artists and consumers simply walked away.... then the big companies would just quietly curl up and vanish.
This is kinda spooky, not just for what they're doing, but for the aditude behind it... It's sort of saying "yes, our product is supposed to be to keep the internet safe, but we don't mind using it as a tool to enforce our edicts, either." Just imagine what would happen if this program were even MORE widely used... People willingly letting others censor what they can and can't see, without even knowing it.
This is obviously one that is going to be hard to fight online. Since the people who most need to be informed are the ones Matel is making sure to keep least informed. And sadly most slashdot readers don't have the time or money to launch nation wide public service anouncements on TV...
Of *course* Big Companies don't like embarassment! And while the alien and sedition acts are no longer for the US government to enforce, they're obviously OK for big companies, since they have $$. So remember, don't say anything hasbro or fisher price doesn't like, or the nerf gestapo will break into your house in the middle of the night with nerf rifles, and drag you off!
I have to say, I most definatly agree with the "ideas should be free" notion. (after all, if all those swell fellows like Jefferson liked it, I must as well! PEER PRESSURE!! PEER PRESSURE!!!)
However, I can see at least some of the other side, as well. If I'm a starving artist, (or even a not-so-starving one) and people can freely download my music, rather than buying it, I'm not going to look too kindly on the "We're just trying it out to see if we want it" idea. To the artist, selling CDs = Guaranteed profit, while mp3s = profit that MIGHT occur. Yes, I know that all of you out there are doubtlessly the "I only try it out" people, and you all "buy all the CDs that you really like...". Well, even if that ideal situation were true, there are still quite a few people who DON'T download it for every person who does. Yada yada yada, yes, I know this is just a rehash of old arguments from both sides.
Ok then, here's the thing: Ideas should be free. It is good for the "scene", if you will, to have music bouncing around the internet, where other artists can hear it, and be inspired by it, or whatever. This has been demonstrated fairly well by opensource; if you get a bunch of people connected and improving on each other's work, cool stuff happens. So music should be free to be on the internet.
-BUT-
There is another important piece that is required for fairness: Artists and the like should have some incentive to continue producing wonderful stuff. And while it's enough for us attention starved programmers to merely have our stuff shown to the world, not all starving artists have that luxury. So there also needs to be some way that the community pays back the artist for what they do.
This is the main problem, as I see it. MP3s end up having the same buisness strategy as NPR pledge drives: You are welcome to send in money if you want to, but in reality, most people do not.
Quite a few good points about TrustE, but I'm not sure I agree with the conclusion. I definatly would like to think that I have ethics enough (particularly computing ones) that I wouldn't be doing the same in their situation. But about their buisness problems, I'm not sure that those are inevitable. Right now, (espeically in light of Salon's article) the TrustE seal is less of a promise, and more of a vanity plate for web sites.
TrustE is a really well-entrenched brand name.
TrustE is in business to make money. Hopefully not too much of a focus, since they are a non-profit organization. But realistically, yes, most likely true.
TrustE makes that money selling the essentially one-time process of certifying sites' privacy policy, for hundreds to thousands of dollars a pop. Again, hopefully not. According to their web site, it costs somewhere between $300 and $5000 per year of certification, so review of a site probably [hopefully] takes place once a year.
TrustE relies on a QUANTITY of business to keep them afloat.
Since TrustE has an enormous amount of customers(sites) they've certified, to properly police all of them (protect the integrity of their seal) would cost far more than the revenue generated from the initial process.
Thus, the certification is symbolic at best.
The cost point is probably valid. It almost certainly costs more than $5000 to hire qualified people to ensure a web site as "privacy ok" for a year. This is mistake #1, and it was made on the part of TrustE. They should charge more for their services, which are valuble enough to the consumer that they would probably offset the cost of aquiring them. (Especially if they became widespread enough that the number of major sites that had them outnumbered the sites that didn't.)
However, a second mistake was made, which was probably more dangerous. And it wasn't made by TrustE, it was made by you and me, and others. We naively assumed what TrustE ensured, without actually going to the site and reading their license agreements and requirements. By their own rules, RealJukebox was outside their jurisdiction because it's not a web page. The same thing with the Intel Pentium III ID chip. And in these cases, we have no one to blame but ourselves, for not reading the fine print, and for taking TrustE at face value as "a certification of privacy". So yes, I blame TrustE for preying on the paranoia that most users have about privacy [and probably rightly so]. And yes, I blame them for selling out to some extent, by writing a set of requirements that enabled them to leave loopholes for large companies (their primary buisness target). But mostly I blame myself for not reading those rules beforehand. Trust no one indeed. Especially not people giving you the "brief" rundown on what a company/service "does".
So this brings up the question, was this intentional, or accidental? Is this an intentional easter egg left in by free thinking programmers who suppor justice and anti-region codes? Or is this a leftover debugging tool, or just some bizare chance set of circumstances that reset things? I prefer to think it is cool programmers, but I don't know if I have enough faith left in the coolness of the rest of the world to wholeheartedly believe this... Can anyone who's tried it offer any info either way?
...we do not need Office to *legitimize* linux in anyone's eyes.
Linux is now a very *legitimate* force on the OS playing-field, even in MS' eyes.
Of course Linux is legitimate in MS's eyes, and in the eyes of nearly everyone associated with the computer industy. The people who it is NOT as legitimate with, yet, are the very people Microsoft is doing their best to keep in the dark about it: Average consumers, home users, etc. THEY are the real targets of the microsoft "fact [ha!] sheets", and articals on Linux vs Windows. Of course the people who do much work with it will realize that they are full of !@#. But you see, it doesn't matter, as long as Joe consumer doesn't figure out. And as long as Joe consumer still uses Windows, the rest of us, even those of us who would rather not, will have to deal with it, to some extent, just because it is what the majority of PCs are running right now. And that is why these are the people who most need education, since most of them either
a) Have never heard of Linux b) Think it is inferior to windows, thanks to MS's propaganda campaign. c) Think it is just "something that nerds/geeks/whatever use" or is "just a passing fad".
If MS were to actually acknowledge Linux as viable enough to produce software for, then quite a few people would begin to look at it in a different light. And quite possibly switch OSs, after Linux's virtues became more aparent to Joe Public. Which is probably why MS won't. But it's nice to think about, at least...
It does seem kind of bizare. If Linux had MS Office support, it would get Linux a lot of converts.
I program for a small buisness, and just a month ago, the prez was looking into switching his (rather computer intensive) buisness over to Linux. He almost did, too. The only thing that stopped him was that there weren't enough good office tools for Linux yet, that he could trust the rest of the office staff with. (read as: the people who DON'T program[gasp!]) If Linux had MS Office, then he would probably make the switch in an instant. And I'm guessing that he's not the only small buisness president who looks longingly at Linux's impressive stability record. I think that if MS supported it, it would sort of "legitamize" linux for a lot of people who have heard of it, but dismiss it as "a passing fad", or "something that only true computer geeks can use".
...Which makes it extremely interesting that there are rumors that microsoft might do exactly that. But hey, they put office on the Mac, so who knows.
Or better yet, quit whining, and start lobbying. That's been the biggest problem with this whole thing; the whole online community seems to be more oriented towards passive resistance. This is a war of laws. It's a whole different arena. (and one in which corperations are much more experienced in fighting than we are) I apologize if this sounds melodramatic, but if we continue to rest on our laurels, then the corperations will simply waltz on up, and regulate the internet in ways that are best for them. (which always seem to be worst for us, strangly enough) We got suckerpunched once. Let's not make the same mistake twice!
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, that's true, Netappliance is selling them at a loss (as far as I know), with the intention of making it up in ISP charges. And so it is perfectly reasonable for them to realize that people can take advantage of this, and change their plan and product to be less easily exploitable.
-however-
That still isn't an excuse for false or misleading advertisement. And before we get TOO sympathetic to netappliance, they DID make a mistake, by not realizing what would happen. Companies that make mistakes often take losses. That's the way capitolism works. I don't think anyone can really get too upset that they realized their mistakes and took steps to correct it. The point that makes most people angry is how they chose to fix their mistake: By changing their policy without telling people, so that people did not know what they were buying at the time. So what they did is not only immoral, but (hopefully, since IANAL) illegal as well. And for that, yes, they did something wrong. And so I have no problem with getting angry at them for that.
If the code is out there, then it might not matter if they settled or not. It could end up another DeCSS, where no matter what they do to the original code writer, the code is now OUT THERE. And like pandora's box, once it's out, then it's extremely dificult to bottle it up again.
/. which was to slap Matel with a class action law suit for libel/slander for all the sites that they claimed were "pornographic". Does anyone know if this is possible? I guess I just feel like something bad should happen to Matel for the @#$% they pulled...
Even if the code project stopped, can't someone still do something to Matel? I seem to remember a fairly good idea someone had last time this topic came up on
Case in point, Java Virtual Machines are seldom as fast as native code... And smalltalk and Lisp are both languages that are slow enough/memory intensive enough (especially LISP, the recursion master) that it's only relativly recently (last decade or so) that we have had computers fast/powerful enough to actually do much with them on a practical level.
Your point about the distinction between runtime morphing and emulation is well taken, however.
I'm afraid I have to agree with the anonymous coward, he's right, and the ... er... anonymous coward is wrong. Hmm, the problem with anonymous postings.
..." That is to say, "No new law shall be passed ..." Nowhere does the 1st say "the common law torts of libel and slander are hereby repealed"
Ok, I'll simplify. Here is what I disagree with:
The 1st says "Congress shall make no law
As far as I know, the common law of libel and slander only apply to exactly that: libel and slander. For which the legal definitions are something like "Untrue facts circulated about a person by print (libel) or word of mouth (slander)"
So even though IANAL, I'd have to say that libel and slander do not apply to opinions. I can voice any opinions that I want to. So can anyone else. Thats why various hate groups still hold (perfectly legal) marches occasionally, and make people feel uncomfortable. People may not like their message, but as long as it is stated as an opinion they have a right to express it. That web site was stating opinions. Even if it never explicitly stated it, reviews by students can basically be assumed by everyone reading the site to be opinions. That's what a review is. Your (or whoever's) opinion on how they did. So I think that this site still falls under the jurisdiction of the first amendment.
I don't think that anyone who knows the field can really claim that genetic algorithms or genetic programming produces anything that has a soul, or is spiritual.
Yes, genetic algorithms can produce programs that behave "sorta like" ecosystems, but that is about as far as it goes. And artificial intellegence at this point is largely glorified tree searching.
So far mankind has yet to figure out how to simulate life, let alone sentience. And the biggest reason why, is that so far, (feel free to correct me, if you think you have an answer) no one has been able to define "life" or "sentience" in terms that are basic enough that we can write computer programs to emulate them.
So I'd have to say that this whole thing might be a little premature... Until we can figure out what life or conciousness IS, we can't really create programs that exhibit it. So it's probably a little bit early to start worrying about whether or not computer programs we write will be smarter than us.
But then you've lost your mech. All the bad guys would have to do is create a burst of static long enough for the comunications to time-out and sudenly your entire army has shut itself down. You going to send some guy out there to do a hard reboot on all of them?
Actually, if I were an evil overlord being attacked by such a robo-army, I think my solution would be to create a burst of static, etc, as outlined above. But instead of waiting for Tom the Repair Guy to come hit all the "Reboot" buttons... Why not take'em? Free robot army! Just laying around! Then I could reprogram them at my leisure in my secret base deep benieth the Atlantic!
The moral of this story is that you probably would want at least SOMETHING inside capable of going "boom", otherwise someone will just come along and take it.
Of course, you also don't want it going boom TOO easily, or Mr. evil overlord could just send a burst of static, and watch the legions of "Justice-Droids" pop like grapes in a microwave.
If artists arn't happy with big compaines.... And consumers arn't happy with big companies...
If we could figure out some way of making sure that artists get paid, but can still distribute on the web, (and the above artical has several promising ones), and if we could convince enough artists that it was safe, then the other artists would probably eventually follow, and we could all just quietly move away from big companies, thus making everyone happy. (Except the big companies)
of course, they're the ones with the cash, and so they probably wouldn't go down quietly, (I think they already sense that the end is near, hence DMCA and it's friends) but if enough artists and consumers simply walked away.... then the big companies would just quietly curl up and vanish.
Wouldn't that be nice.
Or does that fall more into the catagory of emulation?
(Which, of course, has almost always been notoriously slow)
This is kinda spooky, not just for what they're doing, but for the aditude behind it... It's sort of saying "yes, our product is supposed to be to keep the internet safe, but we don't mind using it as a tool to enforce our edicts, either." Just imagine what would happen if this program were even MORE widely used... People willingly letting others censor what they can and can't see, without even knowing it.
This is obviously one that is going to be hard to fight online. Since the people who most need to be informed are the ones Matel is making sure to keep least informed. And sadly most slashdot readers don't have the time or money to launch nation wide public service anouncements on TV...
Oh well, back to word of mouth, I suppose.
Of *course* Big Companies don't like embarassment! And while the alien and sedition acts are no longer for the US government to enforce, they're obviously OK for big companies, since they have $$. So remember, don't say anything hasbro or fisher price doesn't like, or the nerf gestapo will break into your house in the middle of the night with nerf rifles, and drag you off!
I have to say, I most definatly agree with the "ideas should be free" notion. (after all, if all those swell fellows like Jefferson liked it, I must as well! PEER PRESSURE!! PEER PRESSURE!!!)
:P
However, I can see at least some of the other side, as well. If I'm a starving artist, (or even a not-so-starving one) and people can freely download my music, rather than buying it, I'm not going to look too kindly on the "We're just trying it out to see if we want it" idea. To the artist, selling CDs = Guaranteed profit, while mp3s = profit that MIGHT occur. Yes, I know that all of you out there are doubtlessly the "I only try it out" people, and you all "buy all the CDs that you really like...". Well, even if that ideal situation were true, there are still quite a few people who DON'T download it for every person who does. Yada yada yada, yes, I know this is just a rehash of old arguments from both sides.
Ok then, here's the thing: Ideas should be free. It is good for the "scene", if you will, to have music bouncing around the internet, where other artists can hear it, and be inspired by it, or whatever. This has been demonstrated fairly well by opensource; if you get a bunch of people connected and improving on each other's work, cool stuff happens. So music should be free to be on the internet.
-BUT-
There is another important piece that is required for fairness: Artists and the like should have some incentive to continue producing wonderful stuff. And while it's enough for us attention starved programmers to merely have our stuff shown to the world, not all starving artists have that luxury. So there also needs to be some way that the community pays back the artist for what they do.
This is the main problem, as I see it. MP3s end up having the same buisness strategy as NPR pledge drives: You are welcome to send in money if you want to, but in reality, most people do not.
So what is the solution? Who knows.
Government subsidization?
Quite a few good points about TrustE, but I'm not sure I agree with the conclusion. I definatly would like to think that I have ethics enough (particularly computing ones) that I wouldn't be doing the same in their situation. But about their buisness problems, I'm not sure that those are inevitable. Right now, (espeically in light of Salon's article) the TrustE seal is less of a promise, and more of a vanity plate for web sites.
TrustE is a really well-entrenched brand name.
TrustE is in business to make money.
Hopefully not too much of a focus, since they are a non-profit organization. But realistically, yes, most likely true.
TrustE makes that money selling the essentially one-time process of certifying sites' privacy policy, for hundreds to thousands of dollars a pop.
Again, hopefully not. According to their web site, it costs somewhere between $300 and $5000 per year of certification, so review of a site probably [hopefully] takes place once a year.
TrustE relies on a QUANTITY of business to keep them afloat.
Since TrustE has an enormous amount of customers(sites) they've certified, to properly police all of them (protect the integrity of their seal) would cost far more than the revenue generated from the initial process.
Thus, the certification is symbolic at best.
The cost point is probably valid. It almost certainly costs more than $5000 to hire qualified people to ensure a web site as "privacy ok" for a year. This is mistake #1, and it was made on the part of TrustE. They should charge more for their services, which are valuble enough to the consumer that they would probably offset the cost of aquiring them. (Especially if they became widespread enough that the number of major sites that had them outnumbered the sites that didn't.)
However, a second mistake was made, which was probably more dangerous. And it wasn't made by TrustE, it was made by you and me, and others. We naively assumed what TrustE ensured, without actually going to the site and reading their license agreements and requirements. By their own rules, RealJukebox was outside their jurisdiction because it's not a web page. The same thing with the Intel Pentium III ID chip. And in these cases, we have no one to blame but ourselves, for not reading the fine print, and for taking TrustE at face value as "a certification of privacy". So yes, I blame TrustE for preying on the paranoia that most users have about privacy [and probably rightly so]. And yes, I blame them for selling out to some extent, by writing a set of requirements that enabled them to leave loopholes for large companies (their primary buisness target). But mostly I blame myself for not reading those rules beforehand. Trust no one indeed. Especially not people giving you the "brief" rundown on what a company/service "does".
I dunno about the futile bit... MPAA seems to be playing a pretty good first round with the DMCA and all, and their scare tactics.
So this brings up the question, was this intentional, or accidental? Is this an intentional easter egg left in by free thinking programmers who suppor justice and anti-region codes? Or is this a leftover debugging tool, or just some bizare chance set of circumstances that reset things? I prefer to think it is cool programmers, but I don't know if I have enough faith left in the coolness of the rest of the world to wholeheartedly believe this... Can anyone who's tried it offer any info either way?
...we do not need Office to *legitimize* linux in anyone's eyes.
Linux is now a very *legitimate* force on the OS playing-field, even in MS' eyes.
Of course Linux is legitimate in MS's eyes, and in the eyes of nearly everyone associated with the computer industy. The people who it is NOT as legitimate with, yet, are the very people Microsoft is doing their best to keep in the dark about it: Average consumers, home users, etc. THEY are the real targets of the microsoft "fact [ha!] sheets", and articals on Linux vs Windows. Of course the people who do much work with it will realize that they are full of !@#. But you see, it doesn't matter, as long as Joe consumer doesn't figure out. And as long as Joe consumer still uses Windows, the rest of us, even those of us who would rather not, will have to deal with it, to some extent, just because it is what the majority of PCs are running right now. And that is why these are the people who most need education, since most of them either
a) Have never heard of Linux
b) Think it is inferior to windows, thanks to MS's propaganda campaign.
c) Think it is just "something that nerds/geeks/whatever use" or is "just a passing fad".
If MS were to actually acknowledge Linux as viable enough to produce software for, then quite a few people would begin to look at it in a different light. And quite possibly switch OSs, after Linux's virtues became more aparent to Joe Public. Which is probably why MS won't. But it's nice to think about, at least...
It does seem kind of bizare. If Linux had MS Office support, it would get Linux a lot of converts.
...Which makes it extremely interesting that there are rumors that microsoft might do exactly that. But hey, they put office on the Mac, so who knows.
I program for a small buisness, and just a month ago, the prez was looking into switching his (rather computer intensive) buisness over to Linux. He almost did, too. The only thing that stopped him was that there weren't enough good office tools for Linux yet, that he could trust the rest of the office staff with. (read as: the people who DON'T program[gasp!]) If Linux had MS Office, then he would probably make the switch in an instant. And I'm guessing that he's not the only small buisness president who looks longingly at Linux's impressive stability record. I think that if MS supported it, it would sort of "legitamize" linux for a lot of people who have heard of it, but dismiss it as "a passing fad", or "something that only true computer geeks can use".
Or better yet, quit whining, and start lobbying. That's been the biggest problem with this whole thing; the whole online community seems to be more oriented towards passive resistance. This is a war of laws. It's a whole different arena. (and one in which corperations are much more experienced in fighting than we are) I apologize if this sounds melodramatic, but if we continue to rest on our laurels, then the corperations will simply waltz on up, and regulate the internet in ways that are best for them. (which always seem to be worst for us, strangly enough) We got suckerpunched once. Let's not make the same mistake twice!
Write your congressman today!