Damn...and I thought I did some wierd shit when I lived in Taylor Tower... Somehow hanging up 100 paper plate smiley faces all over the building at 4 AM pales in comparison to this...
Maybe "fascist" was the wrong word to use, but I meant more that people in America seem to be more willing now to sacrifice some of their freedoms and liberties in order to gain security. I know this is a reaction out of fear (which I can understand, even if I tend to disagree with some of it), but it really makes me nervous that disagreeing with the government is now seen as unpatriotic and inappropriate. I think the anti-terrorism legislation that has been enacted, or is pending, is overly broad and gives the government too many powers normally associated with police states (detention of foreigners without trial, expanded wiretapping, etc). The fact that congress seems to be simply rubber stamping them (since when has Cogress passed laws unanimously, or with only one dissenting vote?) is simply ominous...
I digress, but the point was that the United States seems to be running headlong towards becoming a police state (a noted hallmark of fascist regimes). I don't think we'll see a dictator in the White House anytime soon.
All this hype around terrorism is bringing some really disturbing changes in this country. People are embracing fascism in a way I'd never thought America capable of. How is sacrficing our liberty, freedom, and personal security to a bunch of shadowy government agencies and courts which can kick in our doors in the middle of the night and haul us off to jail in any way a victory over the forces of terrorism? One of the reasons we're a target is because of the freedoms we have, and our response is to become a repressive police state, like the ones that sponsor the terrorists in the first place? Every time I hear about "The Office of Homeland Security" I hear echos of "The Fatherland" and "Motherland" of Nazi Germany and Communist Russia, respectively. This is not what I want to think of when I think of "The Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave." We might lose the war against freedom in the process of winning the battle against terrorism. I'm afraid for the future. Canada's looking better and better...
This could be more effective than banner ads (not that that would be real hard...). I have banners disabled through my browser, and when I don't I just ignore them anyway. But I would actually see the text ads. Whether I followed them or not would be a whole different question though. At least the text loads quicker than a banner ad.
Most of the comments so far seem to be of the opinion that other countries (Germany and China seem to be favorite targets) will attempt to use this to enforce their laws against US citizens in the US. I think it's more likely that the US (or more specifically, US corporations) will use this to harass/arrest/attack people in other countries, especially considering that they've already done it. Or am I the only one who remembers the MPAA-sponsored arrest of a certain Norwegian programmer?
"The first concept of modern jurisprudence to have arrived in Cyberspace
seems to have been Zero Tolerance."
I don't think that this idea should come as a surprise to anyone, nor should it surprise anyone that this attitude persists among law enforcement/corporate interests (the division between the two is a whole other rant I'll leave alone) with respect to the Internet. No matter how much lip service a government (esp. its police and law enforcement forces) give to the idea of freedom, the corrupt and erode it every chance they get. Our freedom is not in the best interest of the police. We view our freedom as the right to do whatever we want, unless it can be proven that we are harming someone. Police (in my experience) tend to look at it from the more authoritarian perspective that we should be allowed to do only what they approve. This is the fundamental difference in approach that is at the ehart of so many of these conflicts. I think that the constitution of the United States (and especially the Bill of Rights) were written with the first, more Libertarian approach in mind. The government naturally would disagree, since this runs counter to their best interest. Therefore, with every new medium, every new frontier, they attempt to use the ambiguity of the new situation to crush their authoritarian views on the people. And the people fight back. It's the way it's always been (especially in the United States). This struggle will continue forever, but as long as it's stil going on there's still hope...we haven't lost our voice.
"It might be stored on that node after you requested it, but it would be silly to blame someone for having some data on their computer that you put there. That would be akin to planting drugs on someone before arresting them."
Suzanna Markow, I.P. specialist of Markow, Ladley & Associates, said of the issuance, "This is a defining moment in the history of intellectual property law. To extend official registration to an emoticon, one who's common usage predated the existence of the trademark holder by several years, defies common sense and establishes a dangerous precedent."
1) reminds me of the etoy vs EToy dispute. It's funny that a satire page figured that out but a court couldn't.
and 2) How the hell did Taco not get that that was satire? It was dripping with sarcasm. And people filing lawsuits don't normally say things like "Jeff has proven to be a true innovator. He's really inspired a new movement in the dotcom universe- frivolous, destructive intellectual property lawsuits. I couldn't be happier to be a part of the revolution." Oh well, at least he corrected himself.
No. I have my browser set up to change my referrer info so that it looks like I'm coming from the site I'm going to (my user agent is also set to YourMom ver 0.1, but that's another story), and I get the same error. So, your paranoia isn't justified this time. But sorry, I don't have a mirror.
sounds way too familiar...except much better than the place I worked:
"Stay on a call longer than thirty minutes and your name goes into a log." We got 6 minutes for tier one, 10 for tier two by the time I quit.
"Sit in Wrap (the time between calls) for longer than three minutes, your name goes in a log." Three minutes? We got three seconds.
"Take a Health break for longer than five minutes, your name goes in a log." What's a health break?
"One of an incoming class of about 25. Twenty months later I look around at the hundred or so faces, and I don't recognize anyone from my class. " I was in a class of 30, I think 6 made it to the floor. I was one of the last still working there when I quit after four months.
"When the crew thins out, a new crop of agents is recruited and given two weeks basic training (Monday-Windows, Tuesday-Mac,Thursday-NT) and off they go." We got one week of training, then off we go.
The second page of the article wouldn't load, but I imagine it would have sounded familiar as well. Tech support is THE worst job I've ever had. If all companies are as poorly run as the one I work for, no wonder service is so bad. At least when I have to call for tech support for my ISP I understand what they're doing and how much it sucks. And I never say that I used to do tech support (here's a hint: we don't care or it pisses us off - most people who said the were tech people knew very little. I had a guy call in once who said he was a sys admin but didn't know he had to be connected to the internet to check his email). "Glory" of tech support? ha.
As paranoid as I tend to be, I have to agree with this article. Most conspiracy theorists forget an important part of the equation - human nature. If more than two people know something, it isn't a secret. And there are lots of disgruntled employees out there...
If you're a student (or faculty) at a university (at least in the US), all your personal info is ridiculously easy to get ahold of. My ex once needed the e-mail addy of a TA but knew only her first name and the name of the course she taught (not the call number). It took me only 45 minutes (working only online) to find out everything about her. I found that somewhat frightening...
Does anyone else find it amazing that the article reported that the MPAA is suing for $150,000 in damages per movie downloaded? Let's see - $150,000 divided by $7.50 per viewing in a theater - I guess they think everyone who downloads a movie would have gone to the theater 20,000 times instead.
One thing I don't understand is where Napster is getting money from. I don't remember hearing about a Napster IPO and their business model doesn't generate any revenue. Where did they come up with $2 Million for Limp Bizkit?
Many bands have openly embraced the online musical revolution, making their music available online (in RealPlayer format if not mp3). Artists such as Slipknot have even released new songs directly online in mp3 format. This certainly doesn't seem to have hurt the artists or their record sales at all, as Slipknot's album is currently number 54 on the Billboard charts (Metallica's S&M is 93). I can think of several other bands who have released entire albums online in mp3 format (along with selling them in the real world). It's fairly well known that one of the best ways for bands (esp. metal bands) to grow is through word-of-mouth. By transferring music files through a program such as Napster, word-of-mouth becomes even more efficient. I can think of several bands that I heard were good, downloaded some of their songs (some even from Napster), purchased the CD, and then went and saw them when they came to town. You stated in you online interview that the goal of this lawsuit is to shut Napster down. This is a futile exercise since Napster clones already exist and mp3s are here to stay. Why do you think that fighting this new technology is better for you, your music, and your fans than embracing it? Those artists who have don't seem any worse off.
...that a lot of people posting replies to this article seem to have the attitude "Companies have been polluting the environment forever, this is just more sensational journalism." That may be true, but if this sort of thing is not reported then it will not be addressed. Sure, the EPA may try to track down polluters, but how many of us have faith in a government beauracracy to take care of us? Journalists looking for stories may find something the EPA has overlooked, or highlight something they haven't. The resulting public outcry will (hopefully) *encourage* the polluter to clean up their act. I personally would rather have too many of these scare stories than too few.
"Tech Law Journal asked Billington if there is any parallel between hostility to the printing press in the late 15th and early 16th Centuries, and hostility to the Internet today. He stated that there is, but that there is also a significant difference. Billinton explained that some of the hostility to the printing press originated because cheap reproduction made books and pamphlets available to more people. Previously, only kings and an elite few had access to libraries. The printing press made the public library possible. Billington stated that in contrast, public libraries are a "political institution" today."
Of course, since "kings and the elite" were certainly NOT a political institution.
but the "amoral corporate mentality" which is only interested in profit and America's "lawsuit epidemic" are going to bring this system down in the end. I seriously doubt that this system will end up being profitable for Pinkerton. Although the Pinkerton Execs pointed out that such systems already exist for the annonymous reporting of other crimes, I agree with Whyte Rabbyt who pointed out that these systems apply to crimes which have already occurred, not to potential offenders. What I see happening with this program is that
a) Pinkerton will be flooded with countless false reports (which, given the prevailing opinion here and knowing how kids usually behave I would guess is inevitable)
b) One or two of these reports will be followed through and an innocent kid's life will be severely disrupted, resulting in a very costly, (most likely) very high profile lawsuit against Pinkerton and the school system which hired them.
After one or two of these lawsuits, Pinkerton is going to have to rethink just how profitable this program is going to be. My guees is this program won't last. Although it would not be fun to be one of the unfortunate kids (but the money from the lawsuit would be nice)
Slashdot Mirror
awww...I was hoping to get a "that was you?" reply from some random person...
Damn...and I thought I did some wierd shit when I lived in Taylor Tower... Somehow hanging up 100 paper plate smiley faces all over the building at 4 AM pales in comparison to this...
Hey...we prefer the term "garment-impaired." Horse-thief!! I bite my thumb at you!!! :-)
Wow...I don't know which of us needs sleep more...
Maybe "fascist" was the wrong word to use, but I meant more that people in America seem to be more willing now to sacrifice some of their freedoms and liberties in order to gain security. I know this is a reaction out of fear (which I can understand, even if I tend to disagree with some of it), but it really makes me nervous that disagreeing with the government is now seen as unpatriotic and inappropriate. I think the anti-terrorism legislation that has been enacted, or is pending, is overly broad and gives the government too many powers normally associated with police states (detention of foreigners without trial, expanded wiretapping, etc). The fact that congress seems to be simply rubber stamping them (since when has Cogress passed laws unanimously, or with only one dissenting vote?) is simply ominous...
I digress, but the point was that the United States seems to be running headlong towards becoming a police state (a noted hallmark of fascist regimes). I don't think we'll see a dictator in the White House anytime soon.
All this hype around terrorism is bringing some really disturbing changes in this country. People are embracing fascism in a way I'd never thought America capable of. How is sacrficing our liberty, freedom, and personal security to a bunch of shadowy government agencies and courts which can kick in our doors in the middle of the night and haul us off to jail in any way a victory over the forces of terrorism? One of the reasons we're a target is because of the freedoms we have, and our response is to become a repressive police state, like the ones that sponsor the terrorists in the first place? Every time I hear about "The Office of Homeland Security" I hear echos of "The Fatherland" and "Motherland" of Nazi Germany and Communist Russia, respectively. This is not what I want to think of when I think of "The Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave." We might lose the war against freedom in the process of winning the battle against terrorism. I'm afraid for the future. Canada's looking better and better...
Mushroomhead fan?
This could be more effective than banner ads (not that that would be real hard...). I have banners disabled through my browser, and when I don't I just ignore them anyway. But I would actually see the text ads. Whether I followed them or not would be a whole different question though. At least the text loads quicker than a banner ad.
Most of the comments so far seem to be of the opinion that other countries (Germany and China seem to be favorite targets) will attempt to use this to enforce their laws against US citizens in the US. I think it's more likely that the US (or more specifically, US corporations) will use this to harass/arrest/attack people in other countries, especially considering that they've already done it. Or am I the only one who remembers the MPAA-sponsored arrest of a certain Norwegian programmer?
"The first concept of modern jurisprudence to have arrived in Cyberspace
seems to have been Zero Tolerance."
I don't think that this idea should come as a surprise to anyone, nor should it surprise anyone that this attitude persists among law enforcement/corporate interests (the division between the two is a whole other rant I'll leave alone) with respect to the Internet. No matter how much lip service a government (esp. its police and law enforcement forces) give to the idea of freedom, the corrupt and erode it every chance they get. Our freedom is not in the best interest of the police. We view our freedom as the right to do whatever we want, unless it can be proven that we are harming someone. Police (in my experience) tend to look at it from the more authoritarian perspective that we should be allowed to do only what they approve. This is the fundamental difference in approach that is at the ehart of so many of these conflicts. I think that the constitution of the United States (and especially the Bill of Rights) were written with the first, more Libertarian approach in mind. The government naturally would disagree, since this runs counter to their best interest. Therefore, with every new medium, every new frontier, they attempt to use the ambiguity of the new situation to crush their authoritarian views on the people. And the people fight back. It's the way it's always been (especially in the United States). This struggle will continue forever, but as long as it's stil going on there's still hope...we haven't lost our voice.
"It might be stored on that node after you requested it, but it would be silly to blame someone for having some data on their computer that you put there. That would be akin to planting drugs on someone before arresting them."
And we all know that never happens...
Suzanna Markow, I.P. specialist of Markow, Ladley & Associates, said of the issuance, "This is a defining moment in the history of intellectual property law. To extend official registration to an emoticon, one who's common usage predated the existence of the trademark holder by several years, defies common sense and establishes a dangerous precedent." 1) reminds me of the etoy vs EToy dispute. It's funny that a satire page figured that out but a court couldn't. and 2) How the hell did Taco not get that that was satire? It was dripping with sarcasm. And people filing lawsuits don't normally say things like "Jeff has proven to be a true innovator. He's really inspired a new movement in the dotcom universe- frivolous, destructive intellectual property lawsuits. I couldn't be happier to be a part of the revolution." Oh well, at least he corrected himself.
No. I have my browser set up to change my referrer info so that it looks like I'm coming from the site I'm going to (my user agent is also set to YourMom ver 0.1, but that's another story), and I get the same error. So, your paranoia isn't justified this time. But sorry, I don't have a mirror.
sounds way too familiar...except much better than the place I worked:
"Stay on a call longer than thirty minutes and your name goes into a log." We got 6 minutes for tier one, 10 for tier two by the time I quit.
"Sit in Wrap (the time between calls) for longer than three minutes, your name goes in a log." Three minutes? We got three seconds.
"Take a Health break for longer than five minutes, your name goes in a log." What's a health break?
"One of an incoming class of about 25. Twenty months later I look around at the hundred or so faces, and I don't recognize anyone from my class. " I was in a class of 30, I think 6 made it to the floor. I was one of the last still working there when I quit after four months.
"When the crew thins out, a new crop of agents is recruited and given two weeks basic training (Monday-Windows, Tuesday-Mac,Thursday-NT) and off they go." We got one week of training, then off we go.
The second page of the article wouldn't load, but I imagine it would have sounded familiar as well. Tech support is THE worst job I've ever had. If all companies are as poorly run as the one I work for, no wonder service is so bad. At least when I have to call for tech support for my ISP I understand what they're doing and how much it sucks. And I never say that I used to do tech support (here's a hint: we don't care or it pisses us off - most people who said the were tech people knew very little. I had a guy call in once who said he was a sys admin but didn't know he had to be connected to the internet to check his email). "Glory" of tech support? ha.
will there be Free Beer?
As paranoid as I tend to be, I have to agree with this article. Most conspiracy theorists forget an important part of the equation - human nature. If more than two people know something, it isn't a secret. And there are lots of disgruntled employees out there...
If you're a student (or faculty) at a university (at least in the US), all your personal info is ridiculously easy to get ahold of. My ex once needed the e-mail addy of a TA but knew only her first name and the name of the course she taught (not the call number). It took me only 45 minutes (working only online) to find out everything about her. I found that somewhat frightening...
Does anyone else find it amazing that the article reported that the MPAA is suing for $150,000 in damages per movie downloaded? Let's see - $150,000 divided by $7.50 per viewing in a theater - I guess they think everyone who downloads a movie would have gone to the theater 20,000 times instead.
One thing I don't understand is where Napster is getting money from. I don't remember hearing about a Napster IPO and their business model doesn't generate any revenue. Where did they come up with $2 Million for Limp Bizkit?
Many bands have openly embraced the online musical revolution, making their music available online (in RealPlayer format if not mp3). Artists such as Slipknot have even released new songs directly online in mp3 format. This certainly doesn't seem to have hurt the artists or their record sales at all, as Slipknot's album is currently number 54 on the Billboard charts (Metallica's S&M is 93). I can think of several other bands who have released entire albums online in mp3 format (along with selling them in the real world). It's fairly well known that one of the best ways for bands (esp. metal bands) to grow is through word-of-mouth. By transferring music files through a program such as Napster, word-of-mouth becomes even more efficient. I can think of several bands that I heard were good, downloaded some of their songs (some even from Napster), purchased the CD, and then went and saw them when they came to town. You stated in you online interview that the goal of this lawsuit is to shut Napster down. This is a futile exercise since Napster clones already exist and mp3s are here to stay. Why do you think that fighting this new technology is better for you, your music, and your fans than embracing it? Those artists who have don't seem any worse off.
...that a lot of people posting replies to this article seem to have the attitude "Companies have been polluting the environment forever, this is just more sensational journalism." That may be true, but if this sort of thing is not reported then it will not be addressed. Sure, the EPA may try to track down polluters, but how many of us have faith in a government beauracracy to take care of us? Journalists looking for stories may find something the EPA has overlooked, or highlight something they haven't. The resulting public outcry will (hopefully) *encourage* the polluter to clean up their act. I personally would rather have too many of these scare stories than too few.
"Tech Law Journal asked Billington if there is any parallel between hostility to the printing press in the late 15th and early 16th Centuries, and hostility to the Internet today. He stated that there is, but that there is also a significant difference. Billinton explained that some of the hostility to the printing press originated because cheap reproduction made books and pamphlets available to more people. Previously, only kings and an elite few had access to libraries. The printing press made the public library possible. Billington stated that in contrast, public libraries are a "political institution" today."
Of course, since "kings and the elite" were certainly NOT a political institution.
but the "amoral corporate mentality" which is only interested in profit and America's "lawsuit epidemic" are going to bring this system down in the end. I seriously doubt that this system will end up being profitable for Pinkerton. Although the Pinkerton Execs pointed out that such systems already exist for the annonymous reporting of other crimes, I agree with Whyte Rabbyt who pointed out that these systems apply to crimes which have already occurred, not to potential offenders. What I see happening with this program is that
a) Pinkerton will be flooded with countless false reports (which, given the prevailing opinion here and knowing how kids usually behave I would guess is inevitable)
b) One or two of these reports will be followed through and an innocent kid's life will be severely disrupted, resulting in a very costly, (most likely) very high profile lawsuit against Pinkerton and the school system which hired them.
After one or two of these lawsuits, Pinkerton is going to have to rethink just how profitable this program is going to be. My guees is this program won't last. Although it would not be fun to be one of the unfortunate kids (but the money from the lawsuit would be nice)