I just thought of something - remember way back when the internet first became somewhat popular? Everyone went bonkers saying it would be a haven for porn, piracy, hate literature, etc., and there were debates (maybe not as public as the current ones) on wether the internet should be censored or not.
At the time, as I remember, one major argument against censoring the 'net was that it was nearly impossible to do - "anyone" can post "anything" on the net, and because its so international, no one nation had control.
Oh where have those days of freedom gone? How did the censors get past those barriers? Easily enough, it seems - they have the money and the will to spend it on their self-interest that makes anything possible. In retrospect, our claims of immunity from censorship were naive.
I believe that once systems like Gnutella become popular, it will move (like the original web) from being a geek's haven to corporate tool, and be appropriately restricted by their needs. Maybe less so than the web today, but order will be enforced. How? I don't know, but did we forsee the DMCA and other tactics corps are using to censor the 'net?
Don't worry, by then I'm sure we'll think of something else.:)
*HOW* one attacks is not as important as *why*
on
Virtual War
·
· Score: 1
In all this literary discussion about tactics and technologies, people are discussing trivialities, when compared to the big picture. You are accepting and taking for granted the initial, important decision that determines everything else: should we get involved in a military conflict? What reasons do we have? Are there any other avenues to explore?
Books like this sicken me, because they assume that the US has every right to beat up other nations for their national self-interest, as another poster put it - although that term is misleading because "national interest" is the interest of the elite power structure, a far cry from the population.
Kosovo was a mess before NATO stuck their noses (brown from kissing major US ass) into the mess. And don't you dare tell me they tried to "negotiate". Rambouillet was "give us the right to piss and trample on your country or we kick your f______ ass." That's not negotiation, that's bullying. As a side note, its interesting to note that the agreement signed by all parties after the "Virtual War" was very similar to what Milosevic said he would agree to at Rambouillet. NATO is the one that conceded nearly everything...
NATO did Milosevic a huge favour by uniting Serbs under him, getting all UN observers to leave a war zone so he could freely accellerate the murders and ethnic cleansing, etc. US generals admitted these results were completely predictable, and expected. NATO bombs helped kill off a bunch of Kosovars by "accident", too. Net result: some Serb buildings destroyed (which we have to help pay to rebuild), and most Kosovars gone. Who seems the victor?
What kind of a country are you guys running, that after this massacre caused in the name of "human rights" you soberly discuss wether using high-tech weapons in war is moral or not??!!
A looney idea that came into my mind when I heard their 1-download thing and read this post is:
To monitor actual downloads, could they not have made some kind of "proxy" napster client which, say, takes the list of songs some user has, posts to the server that it has those songs, and when somebody requests them, redirects the request to the original source? Maybe this is a little complicated but would give them some idea of how often music was downloaded, without necessarily "breaking into" Napster's computers.
Regarding the interview, I was also pleasantly surprised by Lars' responses, and must say that for the most part, I agree, and have for quite some time, agreed with the arguments he raises. In my opinion, the way to fight this kind of corporate greed and abuse of copyright we're seeing here is not to blatantly ignore and break the laws that have been so important in the past. I think the key is to show our non-appreciation for the abuses by refusing to spend our money on corporate products which support firms that continue to abuse user's rights. That means not buying CDs from signed artists, for example.
The fight is not to actively destroy the RIAA (and by the wayside, the artists their CD sales support, in whatever slim fashion) by pirating every CD you can get your hands on; the fight is to support in a constructive way the struggles of artists who would and do freely share their music, if that's what we truly want.
In order to manage this, however, it is of paramount importance that the freedom of the internet is maintained. The RIAA would naturally love to squash utilities like Napster, not just because they're allowing infringement, but because this distribution method spells out their doom in all its electronic glory.
My suggestion would be this: let them dig their own graves. Don't give them any excuse to attack you; Napster should live up to its claims that it is just for "struggling" artists and indie groups; why not block songs matching "Metallica" from their database, for example? As Lars was saying, he doesn't want to be the one to constantly have to search the Napster network and find and report the people trading his songs. Can't Napster compromise?
Let the Metallicas and RIAAs block their songs from Napster. All it means is that the hordes of Napster users will be left with... guess what, only free, indie music to listen to. Some of which is damned good, I might add. They won't throw money at concerts and CDs because they heard the mp3. Instead they'll buy indie CDs, t-shirts, and concert tickets. We've been using the argument that mp3s increase sales, well dammit let the RIAA prove it to themselves!!
Lets stop being hippocritical and actually act on the arguments we've been using, people! Long live free music! Down with RIAA's crap!
technology will always only be as smart as those who made it, never smarter. When you can pull intelligence out of nowhere, we can talk.
Out of nowhere? Where do you come from? You are capable of coherent, and sometimes intelligent thought.:) The evidence points to our origins from a bunch of carbon and other elements getting together and partying for a billion years or two. That's as close to "nothing" as I can think of.
Close enough, since we have much more that primitive elements to work with. We have our own intelligence, for one. Should we not be able to create, directly or indirectly, something intelligent, perhaps more intelligent than ourselves?
Perhaps our intelligence is, however, a barrier to this. The most interesting and promising (at least to my unexperienced mind) experiments that might lead towards true AI have been the ones harnessing not our intelligence but the only mechanism proven to have results - evolution. I'm not one to keep track of details, but there was an experiment done where a scientist created a large number of essentially random "programs", applied them to a task, picked the ones best at it, "bred" them with mutations... essentially the whole evolutionary mechanism as we understand it. What he ended up with was code to do the task more efficiently than any that a human could design - code that no human could even understand.
Is that not, in a way, technology "smarter" than its creator? Could this idea not be expanded to create truly intelligent machines?
That's all too true. Unfortunately, we seem to be moving the other way. Corporations are increasing gaining more power than a person - I mean, besides the obvious fact that they're a filthy rich "person". The Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) that was proposed a few years back would have given corporations powers greater than NATIONS, which is ridiculous. Luckily, that was struck down, but corporations haven't given up. With organisations like the WTO and laws like the DMCA, etc., they are setting up shop as the de facto enforcers of any and all laws.
If they have their way, say goodbye to the at least semi-responsive, semi-accountable governments of today. Our lives will be run to further the profits of corporate bigwigs, and not out of any soft-hearted considerations for things like freedom or human rights.
Until the Gnutella software allows me to restrict the # or speed of people downloading from me, I'm not sharing my files. Why? Because when I first got it, I *DID* share everything I had - and a few minutes later, I had 20 people downloading stuff off me at 10k/sec each. That's a good chunk of bandwith! I'm on a University server, and I agree with the concerns of the techs and other students that stuff like this is inappropriate use of that much bandwidth.
I have no problem sharing things - but they need to fix the Gnutella interface so, like in Napster, I can specify a maximum # of uploads.
This article and the heated debates regarding software and "business model" patents lead to one conclusion: The Patent Office has gone mad!
Mad as in greedy for money, that is. As was pointed out in other articles as well as this one, the Patent Office makes its money from the number of patents it puts out - they aren't interested in rejecting such applications. Even though applications for genes and such have more substance than, say, Amazon's 1-Click patent, that is not to say that they should be patentable.
We must first think of the consequences of such patents, and compare that to the desired result. Patents should encourage innovation and development - in this case, in new cures, new tests, and new knowledge; i.e. they should reward those who bring such new knowledge to the public. But from this article, it seems that patents are being used to steal the credit and any profit from the true researchers and put it in the hands of large corporations, as well as deny the use of the research to the public at large.
Clearly, this is not a desired result, and serves to hinder research rather than encourage it. When companies with a lot of money and clever lawyers start patenting genes that they do not even know the function or purpose of, and then as soon as somebody figures it out, to claim credit for it - that is clearly a blatant abuse of the system and must be stopped.
There might be some validity to filing and granting patents once something USEFUL is found. However, considering that often this research is conducted with samples freely donated from patients (i.e. the public), and public funds, should the fruits of these not be released to the public?
This does not even consider the moral and ethical concerns with restricting such research from the public once it is available, simply because a company that had some small investment in the research can make more money that way. We are talking about things that affect people's survival and quality of life, something we hold above all else. Should we not perhaps have some special laws dealing with this?
Perhaps so, but we probably will not. It is unfortunate that in our society, the bottom line is valued over even human life, at least by those with any real power.
Slashdot Mirror
I just thought of something - remember way back when the internet first became somewhat popular? Everyone went bonkers saying it would be a haven for porn, piracy, hate literature, etc., and there were debates (maybe not as public as the current ones) on wether the internet should be censored or not.
:)
At the time, as I remember, one major argument against censoring the 'net was that it was nearly impossible to do - "anyone" can post "anything" on the net, and because its so international, no one nation had control.
Oh where have those days of freedom gone? How did the censors get past those barriers? Easily enough, it seems - they have the money and the will to spend it on their self-interest that makes anything possible. In retrospect, our claims of immunity from censorship were naive.
I believe that once systems like Gnutella become popular, it will move (like the original web) from being a geek's haven to corporate tool, and be appropriately restricted by their needs. Maybe less so than the web today, but order will be enforced. How? I don't know, but did we forsee the DMCA and other tactics corps are using to censor the 'net?
Don't worry, by then I'm sure we'll think of something else.
In all this literary discussion about tactics and technologies, people are discussing trivialities, when compared to the big picture. You are accepting and taking for granted the initial, important decision that determines everything else: should we get involved in a military conflict? What reasons do we have? Are there any other avenues to explore?
Books like this sicken me, because they assume that the US has every right to beat up other nations for their national self-interest, as another poster put it - although that term is misleading because "national interest" is the interest of the elite power structure, a far cry from the population.
Kosovo was a mess before NATO stuck their noses (brown from kissing major US ass) into the mess. And don't you dare tell me they tried to "negotiate". Rambouillet was "give us the right to piss and trample on your country or we kick your f______ ass." That's not negotiation, that's bullying. As a side note, its interesting to note that the agreement signed by all parties after the "Virtual War" was very similar to what Milosevic said he would agree to at Rambouillet. NATO is the one that conceded nearly everything...
NATO did Milosevic a huge favour by uniting Serbs under him, getting all UN observers to leave a war zone so he could freely accellerate the murders and ethnic cleansing, etc. US generals admitted these results were completely predictable, and expected. NATO bombs helped kill off a bunch of Kosovars by "accident", too. Net result: some Serb buildings destroyed (which we have to help pay to rebuild), and most Kosovars gone. Who seems the victor?
What kind of a country are you guys running, that after this massacre caused in the name of "human rights" you soberly discuss wether using high-tech weapons in war is moral or not??!!
A looney idea that came into my mind when I heard their 1-download thing and read this post is:
To monitor actual downloads, could they not have made some kind of "proxy" napster client which, say, takes the list of songs some user has, posts to the server that it has those songs, and when somebody requests them, redirects the request to the original source? Maybe this is a little complicated but would give them some idea of how often music was downloaded, without necessarily "breaking into" Napster's computers.
Regarding the interview, I was also pleasantly surprised by Lars' responses, and must say that for the most part, I agree, and have for quite some time, agreed with the arguments he raises. In my opinion, the way to fight this kind of corporate greed and abuse of copyright we're seeing here is not to blatantly ignore and break the laws that have been so important in the past. I think the key is to show our non-appreciation for the abuses by refusing to spend our money on corporate products which support firms that continue to abuse user's rights. That means not buying CDs from signed artists, for example.
The fight is not to actively destroy the RIAA (and by the wayside, the artists their CD sales support, in whatever slim fashion) by pirating every CD you can get your hands on; the fight is to support in a constructive way the struggles of artists who would and do freely share their music, if that's what we truly want.
In order to manage this, however, it is of paramount importance that the freedom of the internet is maintained. The RIAA would naturally love to squash utilities like Napster, not just because they're allowing infringement, but because this distribution method spells out their doom in all its electronic glory.
My suggestion would be this: let them dig their own graves. Don't give them any excuse to attack you; Napster should live up to its claims that it is just for "struggling" artists and indie groups; why not block songs matching "Metallica" from their database, for example? As Lars was saying, he doesn't want to be the one to constantly have to search the Napster network and find and report the people trading his songs. Can't Napster compromise?
Let the Metallicas and RIAAs block their songs from Napster. All it means is that the hordes of Napster users will be left with... guess what, only free, indie music to listen to. Some of which is damned good, I might add. They won't throw money at concerts and CDs because they heard the mp3. Instead they'll buy indie CDs, t-shirts, and concert tickets. We've been using the argument that mp3s increase sales, well dammit let the RIAA prove it to themselves!!
Lets stop being hippocritical and actually act on the arguments we've been using, people! Long live free music! Down with RIAA's crap!
technology will always only be as smart as those who made it, never smarter. When you can pull intelligence out of nowhere, we can talk.
:) The evidence points to our origins from a bunch of carbon and other elements getting together and partying for a billion years or two. That's as close to "nothing" as I can think of.
Out of nowhere? Where do you come from? You are capable of coherent, and sometimes intelligent thought.
Close enough, since we have much more that primitive elements to work with. We have our own intelligence, for one. Should we not be able to create, directly or indirectly, something intelligent, perhaps more intelligent than ourselves?
Perhaps our intelligence is, however, a barrier to this. The most interesting and promising (at least to my unexperienced mind) experiments that might lead towards true AI have been the ones harnessing not our intelligence but the only mechanism proven to have results - evolution. I'm not one to keep track of details, but there was an experiment done where a scientist created a large number of essentially random "programs", applied them to a task, picked the ones best at it, "bred" them with mutations... essentially the whole evolutionary mechanism as we understand it. What he ended up with was code to do the task more efficiently than any that a human could design - code that no human could even understand.
Is that not, in a way, technology "smarter" than its creator? Could this idea not be expanded to create truly intelligent machines?
That's all too true. Unfortunately, we seem to be moving the other way. Corporations are increasing gaining more power than a person - I mean, besides the obvious fact that they're a filthy rich "person". The Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) that was proposed a few years back would have given corporations powers greater than NATIONS, which is ridiculous. Luckily, that was struck down, but corporations haven't given up. With organisations like the WTO and laws like the DMCA, etc., they are setting up shop as the de facto enforcers of any and all laws.
If they have their way, say goodbye to the at least semi-responsive, semi-accountable governments of today. Our lives will be run to further the profits of corporate bigwigs, and not out of any soft-hearted considerations for things like freedom or human rights.
Until the Gnutella software allows me to restrict the # or speed of people downloading from me, I'm not sharing my files. Why? Because when I first got it, I *DID* share everything I had - and a few minutes later, I had 20 people downloading stuff off me at 10k/sec each. That's a good chunk of bandwith! I'm on a University server, and I agree with the concerns of the techs and other students that stuff like this is inappropriate use of that much bandwidth.
I have no problem sharing things - but they need to fix the Gnutella interface so, like in Napster, I can specify a maximum # of uploads.
This article and the heated debates regarding software and "business model" patents lead to one conclusion: The Patent Office has gone mad!
Mad as in greedy for money, that is. As was pointed out in other articles as well as this one, the Patent Office makes its money from the number of patents it puts out - they aren't interested in rejecting such applications. Even though applications for genes and such have more substance than, say, Amazon's 1-Click patent, that is not to say that they should be patentable.
We must first think of the consequences of such patents, and compare that to the desired result. Patents should encourage innovation and development - in this case, in new cures, new tests, and new knowledge; i.e. they should reward those who bring such new knowledge to the public. But from this article, it seems that patents are being used to steal the credit and any profit from the true researchers and put it in the hands of large corporations, as well as deny the use of the research to the public at large.
Clearly, this is not a desired result, and serves to hinder research rather than encourage it. When companies with a lot of money and clever lawyers start patenting genes that they do not even know the function or purpose of, and then as soon as somebody figures it out, to claim credit for it - that is clearly a blatant abuse of the system and must be stopped.
There might be some validity to filing and granting patents once something USEFUL is found. However, considering that often this research is conducted with samples freely donated from patients (i.e. the public), and public funds, should the fruits of these not be released to the public?
This does not even consider the moral and ethical concerns with restricting such research from the public once it is available, simply because a company that had some small investment in the research can make more money that way. We are talking about things that affect people's survival and quality of life, something we hold above all else. Should we not perhaps have some special laws dealing with this?
Perhaps so, but we probably will not. It is unfortunate that in our society, the bottom line is valued over even human life, at least by those with any real power.