The problem with security by obscurity can perhaps be understood best through your reference to Blackbeard's treasure. Blackbeard buried his treasure with the thought that if his enemies couldn't find it, they couldn't have it. The problem with relying on this as a security measure is simple: if they can find it, they can have it -- you don't have any other way to protect it -- and one fine day when you go back to reclaim your treasure you discover some elderly guy from Florida with a metal detector has waddled off with your ill-gotten gains. Yo, ho, ho, and a bottle of rum.
The situation is much worse with respect to the internet, in which there is a small (?) army of script kiddies, all armed with metal detectors and pickaxes, randomly digging holes all over the place for the sheer destructive hell of it, and in which you've conveniently placed a sign (your URL) on top of your treasure. The question isn't whether one of them's going to find the treasure, it's how far will they have to dig and will they be able to break the lock on the treasure chest when they get down there.
I realize this is about 24 hours too late to get any significant reading, but hopefully at least the poster of this posting's parent will see it eventually...
Anyway, I just wanted to point out that Maryland is one of the most completely urbanized states in the Union. Nearly half the 1999 estimated population of Maryland (5.171 million) lives in the Baltimore PMSA (2.491 million). That doesn't even count regions in Maryland which are directly outlying from the DC border (roughly another 1.8 million, adding the MD counties listed in the DC PMSA). All told, nearly 4.3 million of MD's 5.2 million citizens live in the Baltimore-DC MSA alone. By contrast, adding together Lexington and the parts of the Louisville and Cincinnati MSAs which are in KY, I get a figure of about 1.6 million of KY's 3.9 million people, and those are three separate MSAs, not one large one. Of Maine's 1.25 million people, only 310,000 live in an MSA larger than 200,000 people, and none in one larger than 300,000. Of Montana's 883,000 people, 127,000 live in Billings, the only MSA with more than 100,000. (All population data were taken from the US Census Bureau's web site, particularly this page.)
The link between urbanization and violent crime is much better documented and understood than that between gun control laws and violent crime. I mention this only to point out that drawing a direct relationship between gun control laws and violent crime based on the data you've provided may (or may not) be fallacious, as there may be more important factors at work in the violent crime numbers.
This is true and a half. I actually had to take
days off because my interviews required more than
four hours of travel each way, but I also found
my current job while still working at my old one.
It took me, start to finish, two weeks in my
spare time and two days off work. I was looking in a fairly specific field, and had fairly unreasonable salary demands of California-based companies, so it's not like I had a wealth of options from which to choose. Still, as soon as I put my resume on the internet about half a dozen companies came looking for me (not counting random headhunters and contract opportunities I didn't want), and I ended up getting a 20% or so pay increase to change jobs. That's modest, certainly not great, but I got the environment I wanted and the type of people I wanted, so I'm quite happy. It's not difficult if you have any real skills or even if you're just a good interview.
Here's the distilled wisdom I've gained from my two job-hunting experiences (as if anyone in the world cared). ..
Look people in the eye (though not obsessively so), speak in complete sentences, and remember to say "please" and "thank you."
More than half the time the on-site interview is really only to decide whether you'll get along with their gang, so don't sweat technical matters unless they ask. If they do ask technical questions, be honest about what you don't know; it goes over better, and moreover, anybody who thinks that reference material is for wusses is not somebody for whom you want to be working.
A sense of humor can take you a long way in any interview, but only if you have one.
Don't look for a new job unless you're willing to relocate or live someplace where you probably won't have to do so.
Be honest about your goals and salary expectations in the phone interview, so you won't waste a day off on a useless on-site interview.
If you don't get an offer or a promise of one at the on-site, you didn't get the job.
Finally, don't be afraid to blow a little of whatever nest-egg you've managed to build on a nice vacation between jobs. If you live in the USA, taking six weeks off is only practical when you're self-employed or unemployed, so go ahead and take advantage if you can. It's said that life is uncertain, so one should eat dessert first. This is doubly true of time off work, IMHO. Good luck with your search!
To turn this off, hit menu, 4 (sounds), 1 (ring volume), 2 (messages), and set to VIBRATE or NONE.
I just tested that by calling from the land line in my office and I know it works. It took twenty seconds to figure out and I don't have my manual with me.
Now, this isn't targeted at you particularly, since I'm aware of the possibility that stories such as yours prompted them to include this option in a software upgrade (I bought mine fairly recently -- April, I think). However, I've noticed that most of the people who complain about this particular phone either can't figure out how to use it or can't hold on to it. If you RTFM (or can figure out three levels of menus on your own) and don't go off using it as a hammer to drive nails into concrete or as a prop in your juggling act, it's a pretty nice little phone. Admittedly, the defaults suck and the reception drops out a little too easily on the highway, which doesn't bother me much since I don't use it in the car (and since I shut off the warning beeps for when it goes out of reception, I don't notice anymore). That the service inside large buildings can be spotty is a little more annoying, but there's not much you can do about that if you're going PCS. I hear the earpieces do occasionally fail, and if mine does, I'll change my tune. It's been a good phone for me so far, though, especially for the money.
So in short, the Gore camp is just crying because there are millions of people who think Gore is a worthless sack, but happen to think he's slightly less worthless than Bush. Losers.
Thus, the most worthless candidate wins! Yay! That had to be what everyone wanted, right? Right??? Oops.
It is Congress that establishes tax rates. The President has no power to legislate...
This is a classic Republican dodge used to avoid taking responsibility for the ghastly horror which was the supply-side (A.K.A. "trickle-down") economics era. Supply-side economics was generally championed by wealthy conservatives to justify cutting taxes on the rich. High profile supply-siders include Nobel Laureate economist Milton Friedman as well as Republican politicians such as Ronald Reagan and Jack Kemp. This economic policy and the tax cuts it inspired (as well as the crippling interest rate hikes and deficits which followed) were absolutely the brainchild of the right wing. The fact that they managed to push it through Congress without a legitimate chance to make the kind of spending cuts it would have taken to pay for it is a more a testament to bipartisan short-sighted political demagoguery than to the difference between the two parties themselves.
Why should I be forced at gunpoint to pay to educate your children? THAT is a big loss in my book.
A universally educated populace is in everyone's economic best interest, period. It keeps wages for medium-skilled labor low, for one thing; imagine if the simple ability to read and write commanded >$50,000/year. The information and service-based economy of today would not be tenable with the literacy rates that would arise from a lack of universal, compulsory, public education. Despite this, based on your post I believe I can safely say that it would be redundant at this stage to point out that there are those among the wealthy too short-sighted to pony up for public education on a voluntary basis. That's why it has to happen at gunpoint.
. . . they could simply abstain from sex. The fact that you consider this (as I'm sure you do) to be "unrealistic" or whatever betrays that what you are really after is sex without consequences . ..
You're right in a way (note that I am not the original poster and am not trying to speak for him or her), but not the way you mean. For one thing, I ain't getting any, haven't gotten any, and can't see myself getting any in the near or even remote future, so that's that as far as what I'm really after goes. However, I still consider nationwide abstinence to be laughably unrealistic (and you secretly do, too, if you understand a damned thing about human nature). The fact that you go on about consequences rather than murder betrays the fact that you care more about whether other people are getting any than you do about children. What you're really after is for nobody to ever get laid; I won't bother to speculate upon the reason for this. What I'm after is much less ambitious -- for people to have rights and control over their own bodies, without having consequences imposed upon them by deities in whom they don't believe.
. . . (hence the Left's similar commitment to finding cures to diseases that are only prevalent among the sexually profligate).
Strange that someone who expresses such moral indignation over "profligate" sexual practices could have such a low opinion of an effort to find cures for diseases which are invariably FATAL. This is simple social Darwinism, and it's disgusting.
Your moralizing would be more respectable (though no less misguided) if you demonstrated any regard for human life whatsoever; however, your attitude is as unsurprising as it is pathetic. It is exactly this kind of arrogant disdain for the poor, for the sick, for those with different religious/moral views, for basically everyone, much more than the economics of the Reagan years, that has alienated much of the country from the Republican party. If this isn't a clever troll, and really does represent your beliefs, I humbly suggest you shut the hell up and stop embarrassing the people whom you're trying to support.
Does this mean the government is going to take my wastebasket away??? I swear, I'm...I'm a law-abiding citizen! I only use my wastebasket for non-recyclables -- and nothing toxic! It's harmless! Is it MY fault some corporations use shortcuts when disposing of their garbage? Please, join me in raising our national awareness of this great crisis! Don't let them take our wastebaskets away!!!
Ack! I'm a little bummed. I saw Pi at the
Capitol 8 in Columbia, SC, but, alas, no contest. The movie was only decent, but a poster would have been pretty cool.
The difference is that there is more than one well-defined, non-theoretical "fair use" for Napster. It's not a special purpose; it's something anyone can sit down and do at any time. Any one given transaction on Napster could be a "fair use," and moreover, there's no way to tell the difference between legal and illegal transfers from the outside. Whether or not a majority of the users actually engage in practices covered under the "fair use" umbrella is irrelevant. Perhaps you would prefer that the interstate highway system be closed, as MOST drivers use them to commit speeding violations? Yes, that's blown completely out of proportion, but I ask you this: have you ever considered why normal passenger automobiles aren't governed to the local state interstate speed limit? Isn't more than that illegal just about everywhere in the US? Why would anyone ever want to go any faster? Sure, there are some odd-end circumstances like closed-track racing, but those are pretty rare . . . hmm. I could throw out more of these, but I won't bother. Just notice that these sorts of metaphors and analogies can go on forever on both sides.
It's important to remember that there's nothing about Napster that's especially interesting technologically. What happens when the RIAA learns people use, say, ICQ to trade MP3's? How's that different from Napster? Don't get me wrong; I personally think Napster has become the most egregious waste of computing resources since Pong. I just can't see how it could possibly be illegal. My question is, simply, where does it stop?
I've long suspected that the long-term goal of the RIAA and MPAA has nothing to do with Napster or with 2600 or DeCSS. There's simply not enough money in it to make sense. I believe that they're just going after obvious bad guys as a way to guide people down this slippery slope. Their ultimate goal is a "blank tape" tax on internet service, hard disks, CD-R(W) disks/drives, etc. Call me paranoid if you want, but think about it. I don't really fear this sort of outcome (hey, it's just money), but I resent the way they think it's acceptable to chip away at the rights of everyone because there's a POSSIBILITY that a few people might chip away at theirs.
At any rate, the point is not that the issue is decided. The point is that there is a bigger, more important issue than "Gee, free stuff is cool," and that the people who don't take the time to see that are risking not only their own rights, but those of others as well.
If Napster was used for fair use by most people you would have a case.
What you MEANT to say was: "If Napster is being used for fair use by even one person, anywhere on earth, even if that person is a hermit living in a cave with magical electrical and internet hookups who has no other contact with the outside world whatsoever, to the point where no one's even completely certain he really exists, you have a case."
Since it is, he does. The legitimate use is NOT secondary, damn it all, even if it's less common. Can you imagine if people took that "if most people..." attitude toward, say, handguns? Well, okay, some people do, but at least in that case people acknowledge that it's a Constitutional debate about rights, and there's none of this wishy-washy "privilege" crap.
This could get interesting if word gets out...
on
Copyrant
·
· Score: 2
Microsoft built their empire on OEM sales, by establishing themselves as the path of least resistance for an entire generation of new computer users. They have millions of users who've never bought Windows off the shelf, and who probably wouldn't know where to look even if they wanted to. I think they're taking a big, big risk chancing pissing those people off. People aren't very computer savvy in general, but most of them know that when you buy software, you get a CD; they don't differentiate between the software and the medium. The "Where do you want to baa today?" effect is the best thing they have going for them right now. The last thing they should want to do, particularly post-breakup, is to disrupt that and start people thinking about what they're buying.
"Hey, my computer didn't come with a Windows CD. What, they don't anymore? How am I...oh. Can I get one without Windows and just buy it at the store? Oh. Same price? So it's free, then? No?? Oh. So I have to buy it and then buy it again??? Just keep the damned thing. I'm sending it back."
I think this will put OEMs in a very bad position. Some of the more clueful ones will finally start offering Win-free boxen at the appropriate discount in the name of good customer relations, but that's still time and money they don't want to be spending in the slash-and-burn, low-margin environment that is PC sales. Ultimately, MS has pretty much destroyed the one compelling reason to buy whole PCs -- getting everything in a single package -- and this will only hurt the PC industry as people turn to piecemeal upgrades to avoid paying for things they don't want and can't really use.
Given MS-OS's comparatively limited revenue stream, I see a higher price tag on Windows as an unavoidable result of the breakup; will people always select Windows off the shelf if it costs $200 more than everything else on that rack? They probably will, at least for a while. However, as the populace gradually becomes more and more computer-literate, it will be interesting to see if enough people begin trying out other operating systems to level the playing field, or if the desktop mindshare owned by Windows will continue to provide them with an effective monopoly long after the appearance of competitive options.
This kind of data could be used to determine your insurance rates, credit worthiness, school admissions, job eligibility, propensity to engage in drug use or other criminal behavior, etc. . . . You can bet that this data won't just be used for targetted advertising: the economic incentives to use it for credit ratings, insurance, law enforcement/profiling, and employment are simply too strong.
Uh huh. You bet. After all, our TV viewing habits are much more important to potential insurers, creditors, and employers than, say, our traffic record, credit report, and resumés. "Sir, your credit rating is spotless, and your salary is quite impressive, but I'm afraid we can't in good conscience loan any money to a man who watches ESPN four hours a day." I just can't see it. I certainly haven't seen any indication of willingness on the part of the powers that be to crack down on those people who willingly self-identify even the most damning political leanings, such as those who publish hate-group or anti-government propaganda. This is how it should be, of course -- freedom of speech works both ways -- but the point remains valid. As long as the world is safe for those kinds of people, we can watch whatever the hell we like on TV without fear.
People need to get in touch with two very simple facts of life near the end of the twentieth century:
If you haven't deliberately and carefully kept something a secret, it's been common knowledge for a while now. Somebody mentioned "them" knowing when you piss -- "they" do, they're your water company, and it's 1.6 gallons per flush here in the States.
That's okay, because nobody cares about our stupid little lives.
If you don't believe me, just try telling your boss about what you watched on TV last night. I'm betting he or she won't say, "Yes, thank you! Please provide me with valuable information about your TV viewing habits; this data will be extremely useful for the next layoff!" The response will almost certainly be somewhat less enthusiastic.
People are always quick to look at data mining in general and link it to the acts of oppressive regimes, as in a part of the earlier post that I didn't bother to quote. What they forget is that those regimes could as easily have imprisoned people on a completely random basis. Few slashdotters live in places where their life, liberty, or property are at risk based on what they believe, write, say, or watch.
"Yes, it's sad to say you will romanticize all the things you've known before, and it was not not not so great." -- TMBG
Whether this is due to it being based in an identifably 'real-world', or more likely due to the influence of co-author Neil Gaiman (Yes, he of 'Sandman' fame) is debatable.
While I like Pratchett's Discworld series perhaps
better than the posters here who seem disillusioned with the last few books in it, I do agree that Good Omens is the best of the Pratchett lot. I don't know if it's due to Gaiman's influence, either, but I think this is a good time to pitch Gaiman's solo novels, Neverwhere and Stardust, which I haven't yet seen mentioned here. Neverwhere in particular is an excellent book, which I highly recommend.
Getting back to pterry, I sometimes wonder whether he was really any smarter than Douglas Adams after all. Adams gets beaten up in these kinds of forums for not writing, while Pratchett gets beaten up for writing books that, to his oldest fans, just don't seem as good as they seem to remember the older books seeming to be. On one hand, continuing to write seems more lucrative. On the gripping hand, however, not writing seems much easier, and Adams is fond of saying that he's very good at not writing. Either way, reading the posts under this story gave me a new appreciation for the movie Finding Forrester.
"Yes, it's sad to say you will romanticize all the things you've known before...and it was not not not so great." -- TMBG
Slashdot Mirror
The problem with security by obscurity can perhaps be understood best through your reference to Blackbeard's treasure. Blackbeard buried his treasure with the thought that if his enemies couldn't find it, they couldn't have it. The problem with relying on this as a security measure is simple: if they can find it, they can have it -- you don't have any other way to protect it -- and one fine day when you go back to reclaim your treasure you discover some elderly guy from Florida with a metal detector has waddled off with your ill-gotten gains. Yo, ho, ho, and a bottle of rum.
The situation is much worse with respect to the internet, in which there is a small (?) army of script kiddies, all armed with metal detectors and pickaxes, randomly digging holes all over the place for the sheer destructive hell of it, and in which you've conveniently placed a sign (your URL) on top of your treasure. The question isn't whether one of them's going to find the treasure, it's how far will they have to dig and will they be able to break the lock on the treasure chest when they get down there.
I realize this is about 24 hours too late to get any significant reading, but hopefully at least the poster of this posting's parent will see it eventually...
Anyway, I just wanted to point out that Maryland is one of the most completely urbanized states in the Union. Nearly half the 1999 estimated population of Maryland (5.171 million) lives in the Baltimore PMSA (2.491 million). That doesn't even count regions in Maryland which are directly outlying from the DC border (roughly another 1.8 million, adding the MD counties listed in the DC PMSA). All told, nearly 4.3 million of MD's 5.2 million citizens live in the Baltimore-DC MSA alone. By contrast, adding together Lexington and the parts of the Louisville and Cincinnati MSAs which are in KY, I get a figure of about 1.6 million of KY's 3.9 million people, and those are three separate MSAs, not one large one. Of Maine's 1.25 million people, only 310,000 live in an MSA larger than 200,000 people, and none in one larger than 300,000. Of Montana's 883,000 people, 127,000 live in Billings, the only MSA with more than 100,000. (All population data were taken from the US Census Bureau's web site, particularly this page.)
The link between urbanization and violent crime is much better documented and understood than that between gun control laws and violent crime. I mention this only to point out that drawing a direct relationship between gun control laws and violent crime based on the data you've provided may (or may not) be fallacious, as there may be more important factors at work in the violent crime numbers.
Here's the distilled wisdom I've gained from my two job-hunting experiences (as if anyone in the world cared). .
- Look people in the eye (though not obsessively so), speak in complete sentences, and remember to say "please" and "thank you."
- More than half the time the on-site interview is really only to decide whether you'll get along with their gang, so don't sweat technical matters unless they ask. If they do ask technical questions, be honest about what you don't know; it goes over better, and moreover, anybody who thinks that reference material is for wusses is not somebody for whom you want to be working.
- A sense of humor can take you a long way in any interview, but only if you have one.
- Don't look for a new job unless you're willing to relocate or live someplace where you probably won't have to do so.
- Be honest about your goals and salary expectations in the phone interview, so you won't waste a day off on a useless on-site interview.
- If you don't get an offer or a promise of one at the on-site, you didn't get the job.
Finally, don't be afraid to blow a little of whatever nest-egg you've managed to build on a nice vacation between jobs. If you live in the USA, taking six weeks off is only practical when you're self-employed or unemployed, so go ahead and take advantage if you can. It's said that life is uncertain, so one should eat dessert first. This is doubly true of time off work, IMHO. Good luck with your search!I have a SCH-3500 (3500.SI11/3500.08Q).
To turn this off, hit menu, 4 (sounds), 1 (ring volume), 2 (messages), and set to VIBRATE or NONE. I just tested that by calling from the land line in my office and I know it works. It took twenty seconds to figure out and I don't have my manual with me.
Now, this isn't targeted at you particularly, since I'm aware of the possibility that stories such as yours prompted them to include this option in a software upgrade (I bought mine fairly recently -- April, I think). However, I've noticed that most of the people who complain about this particular phone either can't figure out how to use it or can't hold on to it. If you RTFM (or can figure out three levels of menus on your own) and don't go off using it as a hammer to drive nails into concrete or as a prop in your juggling act, it's a pretty nice little phone. Admittedly, the defaults suck and the reception drops out a little too easily on the highway, which doesn't bother me much since I don't use it in the car (and since I shut off the warning beeps for when it goes out of reception, I don't notice anymore). That the service inside large buildings can be spotty is a little more annoying, but there's not much you can do about that if you're going PCS. I hear the earpieces do occasionally fail, and if mine does, I'll change my tune. It's been a good phone for me so far, though, especially for the money.
Many. All good troll know dat one!
So in short, the Gore camp is just crying because there are millions of people who think Gore is a worthless sack, but happen to think he's slightly less worthless than Bush. Losers.
Thus, the most worthless candidate wins! Yay! That had to be what everyone wanted, right? Right??? Oops.
It is Congress that establishes tax rates. The President has no power to legislate...
.
This is a classic Republican dodge used to avoid taking responsibility for the ghastly horror which was the supply-side (A.K.A. "trickle-down") economics era. Supply-side economics was generally championed by wealthy conservatives to justify cutting taxes on the rich. High profile supply-siders include Nobel Laureate economist Milton Friedman as well as Republican politicians such as Ronald Reagan and Jack Kemp. This economic policy and the tax cuts it inspired (as well as the crippling interest rate hikes and deficits which followed) were absolutely the brainchild of the right wing. The fact that they managed to push it through Congress without a legitimate chance to make the kind of spending cuts it would have taken to pay for it is a more a testament to bipartisan short-sighted political demagoguery than to the difference between the two parties themselves.
Why should I be forced at gunpoint to pay to educate your children? THAT is a big loss in my book.
A universally educated populace is in everyone's economic best interest, period. It keeps wages for medium-skilled labor low, for one thing; imagine if the simple ability to read and write commanded >$50,000/year. The information and service-based economy of today would not be tenable with the literacy rates that would arise from a lack of universal, compulsory, public education. Despite this, based on your post I believe I can safely say that it would be redundant at this stage to point out that there are those among the wealthy too short-sighted to pony up for public education on a voluntary basis. That's why it has to happen at gunpoint.
. . . they could simply abstain from sex. The fact that you consider this (as I'm sure you do) to be "unrealistic" or whatever betrays that what you are really after is sex without consequences . .
You're right in a way (note that I am not the original poster and am not trying to speak for him or her), but not the way you mean. For one thing, I ain't getting any, haven't gotten any, and can't see myself getting any in the near or even remote future, so that's that as far as what I'm really after goes. However, I still consider nationwide abstinence to be laughably unrealistic (and you secretly do, too, if you understand a damned thing about human nature). The fact that you go on about consequences rather than murder betrays the fact that you care more about whether other people are getting any than you do about children. What you're really after is for nobody to ever get laid; I won't bother to speculate upon the reason for this. What I'm after is much less ambitious -- for people to have rights and control over their own bodies, without having consequences imposed upon them by deities in whom they don't believe.
. . . (hence the Left's similar commitment to finding cures to diseases that are only prevalent among the sexually profligate).
Strange that someone who expresses such moral indignation over "profligate" sexual practices could have such a low opinion of an effort to find cures for diseases which are invariably FATAL. This is simple social Darwinism, and it's disgusting.
Your moralizing would be more respectable (though no less misguided) if you demonstrated any regard for human life whatsoever; however, your attitude is as unsurprising as it is pathetic. It is exactly this kind of arrogant disdain for the poor, for the sick, for those with different religious/moral views, for basically everyone, much more than the economics of the Reagan years, that has alienated much of the country from the Republican party. If this isn't a clever troll, and really does represent your beliefs, I humbly suggest you shut the hell up and stop embarrassing the people whom you're trying to support.
Probably only slightly less than the amount used up in the creation of the hydrogen in the first place, I'm guessing...
Gee, so each successive person born is more likely to be the last than the person before? Such amazing insight...
"...and in other statistical news, scientists have discovered that 99.9% of lost things are found in the last place searched..."
Heh. Maybe these filters can be a valuable educational tool after all...
..."
"Class, today we're going to the library to learn about irony
Does this mean the government is going to take my wastebasket away??? I swear, I'm...I'm a law-abiding citizen! I only use my wastebasket for non-recyclables -- and nothing toxic! It's harmless! Is it MY fault some corporations use shortcuts when disposing of their garbage? Please, join me in raising our national awareness of this great crisis! Don't let them take our wastebaskets away!!!
Imposing criminal penalties based upon how you store your firearms is regulating that right.
Er, the government can impose criminal penalties on how you store your garbage...
Ack! I'm a little bummed. I saw Pi at the Capitol 8 in Columbia, SC, but, alas, no contest. The movie was only decent, but a poster would have been pretty cool.
The difference is that there is more than one well-defined, non-theoretical "fair use" for Napster. It's not a special purpose; it's something anyone can sit down and do at any time. Any one given transaction on Napster could be a "fair use," and moreover, there's no way to tell the difference between legal and illegal transfers from the outside. Whether or not a majority of the users actually engage in practices covered under the "fair use" umbrella is irrelevant. Perhaps you would prefer that the interstate highway system be closed, as MOST drivers use them to commit speeding violations? Yes, that's blown completely out of proportion, but I ask you this: have you ever considered why normal passenger automobiles aren't governed to the local state interstate speed limit? Isn't more than that illegal just about everywhere in the US? Why would anyone ever want to go any faster? Sure, there are some odd-end circumstances like closed-track racing, but those are pretty rare . . . hmm. I could throw out more of these, but I won't bother. Just notice that these sorts of metaphors and analogies can go on forever on both sides.
It's important to remember that there's nothing about Napster that's especially interesting technologically. What happens when the RIAA learns people use, say, ICQ to trade MP3's? How's that different from Napster? Don't get me wrong; I personally think Napster has become the most egregious waste of computing resources since Pong. I just can't see how it could possibly be illegal. My question is, simply, where does it stop?
I've long suspected that the long-term goal of the RIAA and MPAA has nothing to do with Napster or with 2600 or DeCSS. There's simply not enough money in it to make sense. I believe that they're just going after obvious bad guys as a way to guide people down this slippery slope. Their ultimate goal is a "blank tape" tax on internet service, hard disks, CD-R(W) disks/drives, etc. Call me paranoid if you want, but think about it. I don't really fear this sort of outcome (hey, it's just money), but I resent the way they think it's acceptable to chip away at the rights of everyone because there's a POSSIBILITY that a few people might chip away at theirs.
At any rate, the point is not that the issue is decided. The point is that there is a bigger, more important issue than "Gee, free stuff is cool," and that the people who don't take the time to see that are risking not only their own rights, but those of others as well.
If Napster was used for fair use by most people you would have a case.
What you MEANT to say was: "If Napster is being used for fair use by even one person, anywhere on earth, even if that person is a hermit living in a cave with magical electrical and internet hookups who has no other contact with the outside world whatsoever, to the point where no one's even completely certain he really exists, you have a case."
Since it is, he does. The legitimate use is NOT secondary, damn it all, even if it's less common. Can you imagine if people took that "if most people..." attitude toward, say, handguns? Well, okay, some people do, but at least in that case people acknowledge that it's a Constitutional debate about rights, and there's none of this wishy-washy "privilege" crap.
Microsoft built their empire on OEM sales, by establishing themselves as the path of least resistance for an entire generation of new computer users. They have millions of users who've never bought Windows off the shelf, and who probably wouldn't know where to look even if they wanted to. I think they're taking a big, big risk chancing pissing those people off. People aren't very computer savvy in general, but most of them know that when you buy software, you get a CD; they don't differentiate between the software and the medium. The "Where do you want to baa today?" effect is the best thing they have going for them right now. The last thing they should want to do, particularly post-breakup, is to disrupt that and start people thinking about what they're buying.
"Hey, my computer didn't come with a Windows CD. What, they don't anymore? How am I...oh. Can I get one without Windows and just buy it at the store? Oh. Same price? So it's free, then? No?? Oh. So I have to buy it and then buy it again??? Just keep the damned thing. I'm sending it back."
I think this will put OEMs in a very bad position. Some of the more clueful ones will finally start offering Win-free boxen at the appropriate discount in the name of good customer relations, but that's still time and money they don't want to be spending in the slash-and-burn, low-margin environment that is PC sales. Ultimately, MS has pretty much destroyed the one compelling reason to buy whole PCs -- getting everything in a single package -- and this will only hurt the PC industry as people turn to piecemeal upgrades to avoid paying for things they don't want and can't really use.
Given MS-OS's comparatively limited revenue stream, I see a higher price tag on Windows as an unavoidable result of the breakup; will people always select Windows off the shelf if it costs $200 more than everything else on that rack? They probably will, at least for a while. However, as the populace gradually becomes more and more computer-literate, it will be interesting to see if enough people begin trying out other operating systems to level the playing field, or if the desktop mindshare owned by Windows will continue to provide them with an effective monopoly long after the appearance of competitive options.
Uh huh. You bet. After all, our TV viewing habits are much more important to potential insurers, creditors, and employers than, say, our traffic record, credit report, and resumés. "Sir, your credit rating is spotless, and your salary is quite impressive, but I'm afraid we can't in good conscience loan any money to a man who watches ESPN four hours a day." I just can't see it. I certainly haven't seen any indication of willingness on the part of the powers that be to crack down on those people who willingly self-identify even the most damning political leanings, such as those who publish hate-group or anti-government propaganda. This is how it should be, of course -- freedom of speech works both ways -- but the point remains valid. As long as the world is safe for those kinds of people, we can watch whatever the hell we like on TV without fear.
People need to get in touch with two very simple facts of life near the end of the twentieth century:
- If you haven't deliberately and carefully kept something a secret, it's been common knowledge for a while now. Somebody mentioned "them" knowing when you piss -- "they" do, they're your water company, and it's 1.6 gallons per flush here in the States.
- That's okay, because nobody cares about our stupid little lives.
If you don't believe me, just try telling your boss about what you watched on TV last night. I'm betting he or she won't say, "Yes, thank you! Please provide me with valuable information about your TV viewing habits; this data will be extremely useful for the next layoff!" The response will almost certainly be somewhat less enthusiastic.People are always quick to look at data mining in general and link it to the acts of oppressive regimes, as in a part of the earlier post that I didn't bother to quote. What they forget is that those regimes could as easily have imprisoned people on a completely random basis. Few slashdotters live in places where their life, liberty, or property are at risk based on what they believe, write, say, or watch.
"Yes, it's sad to say you will romanticize all the things you've known before, and it was not not not so great." -- TMBG
Whether this is due to it being based in an identifably 'real-world', or more likely due to the influence of co-author Neil Gaiman (Yes, he of 'Sandman' fame) is debatable.
While I like Pratchett's Discworld series perhaps better than the posters here who seem disillusioned with the last few books in it, I do agree that Good Omens is the best of the Pratchett lot. I don't know if it's due to Gaiman's influence, either, but I think this is a good time to pitch Gaiman's solo novels, Neverwhere and Stardust, which I haven't yet seen mentioned here. Neverwhere in particular is an excellent book, which I highly recommend.
Getting back to pterry, I sometimes wonder whether he was really any smarter than Douglas Adams after all. Adams gets beaten up in these kinds of forums for not writing, while Pratchett gets beaten up for writing books that, to his oldest fans, just don't seem as good as they seem to remember the older books seeming to be. On one hand, continuing to write seems more lucrative. On the gripping hand, however, not writing seems much easier, and Adams is fond of saying that he's very good at not writing. Either way, reading the posts under this story gave me a new appreciation for the movie Finding Forrester.
"Yes, it's sad to say you will romanticize all the things you've known before...and it was not not not so great." -- TMBG