Well, the secrecy of Apple's upcoming projects is becoming incredibly important to them. So they made an example of this guy for breaking his contract with them. Yes, chance are, his contract included a Non Disclosure Agreement (whose contracts lately haven't?) and he broke it. I say fry him.
I quit watching the news because I was tired of the same guy spouting the same damn story day after day after day. I'm also tired of the technology-ignorant media. Half the time they talk on technology they're wrong. The other half, they're not entirely right. It sickens me how much time people waste watching the semi-accurate, corporate bought news. I go to the internet for the news now, why? Because I choose what I see. I go to sites that are accurate and I ignore sites that are bunk. It's a lot easier when I decide what is seen rather than some faceless content director.
Damn Straight. Well said. It's not about the industry and the ideals, it's about people who don't want to pay for what they could steal just as easily.
An ancient man once said (translated for effect): Argue for your limitations and they shall be thine.
As we advance as a society, finding new memes of thought and expression, our democracy grows ever more diverse. Granted, some memes have a more readily available political voice (read: Money) and with that we move away from democracy and back toward the oligarchy/tyranny we broke away from when the founders of this nation promised their lives and their sacred honor to a cause they believed in.
It seems to me that we, as a society at large, must eschew the monetary contributions of large party politics for a smaller more diverse political following. For the greater part of the history of the United States, we've had two or three major political parties. Now some say that is what has allowed us to "get things done" but has it allowed us to do things at all? Maybe.
My biggest concern in the modern political realm is that we, as a nation, will leave our political power stagnant in the rushing waters of international technological change. I think that if anything, current politics is completely out of touch with the plausible in terms of technology. Just look at the metaphor: Information Superhighway. How many people would like to see the person who created that stupid fscking metaphor shot? I would. I'm tired of the causification of American politics, whether it be Napster or DeCSS or what have you. We cannot use these as political vehicles if we ever expect to gain respect from the political community.
Okay, so you're getting out your flame thrower, just lay off the trigger a second, I have a point. We sound like whiners when we press our agenda on those points, but still we cry "Information wants to be free". We need not to distance ourselves from politics, but perhaps to create our own party, as a technically inclined society. We need a party that presses our agenda, since we definitely aren't represented by either major party now.
But what would our party be? Well, we wouldn't take stands on the social issues of welfare/affirmative action, or on abortion, those issues are important, but not crucial to our platform. Instead lets discuss freedom of speech and information on the web. The other parties are based on some very specific social programs and issues, but have no technology position to speak of.
As a nation we need this sort of major reform. That much is obvious.
But Napster did give out the tools and the protocols necessary to do just that. It's like this, say Smith and Wesson were to give a bunch of loaded.38s to a bunch of ethically devoid people in the same room. Would they be responsible when someone died? Maybe. It's debatable. Same with Napster.
Distribution of copyrighted audio for non-commercial gain is explicitly legal...
I think you fear what they are doing because you might be suddenly responsible for your own actions. I don't think peer-to-peer transactions on the web are going anywhere, personally, it's too hard to enforce all the violations. But then again, so is speeding. I can just see it now...some poor schmuck getting an email from the data police...a ticket. I don't think that if Napster loses (which it should, they were stupid) we'll lose all freedom on the internet, that's a specious argument at best (and on a good day at that). And it's hierarchical. Spell checks and dictionaries are good things mon amie.
Why not go wireless and go with 802.11b? Go wireless with a small antenna like I do at home. Damn I love wireless net...surf from the balcony, surf from the neighbor's...surf from the neighbor's pool...
If Sony chose to raise an Army, I have no question that they could succeed in taking over a small nation in Southeast Asia. Hell, they could probably just buy the damn thing. Microsoft has been forced to curtail some of their operations due to pressure, not just monetary, from governments, this makes them an actor in the international system, and with that status, they should be recognized as wielding some degree of power commensurate with their wealth.
The problem with that definition is that is starting to apply not just to states anymore. Many corporations wield enough monetary power (cough, cough, Microsoft) that they can do pretty much what they want without consequences, much like a nation/state could. I think perhaps a better wording of Nation State Actor should be Nation/State/Actor. Trust me, people with money can act, to some degree, with the sovereignty of a nation (say like....Pakistan or another third world nation).
The officer had EVERY right to question the guy. Free speech much? While no response to the officer's questions would be a justified response, it sends its own message. What concern do you have if the police know you're a law-abiding citizen? You're far too paranoid about a regulatory presence in society. If you're afraid of something going on record, chances are you broke the law anyway. Just live a good life and you don't have to worry about the cops arresting you. Is this hard to understand?
Not really. A Nation State Actor is an entity that acts with sovereignty to further their goals. A corporation acts with sovereignty to further their profits. Hence, Nation State Actor.
That's not entirely true. While there are corporations that breed mindless drones in some sectors, our society does value creativity (hence the sheer presence of music, even in such a simple nature as Britney Spears) and ingenuity. Some corporations succeed in providing that atmosphere, some fail.
And suddenly organizations will be held accountable for their actions, just like nations have been for the past 20 years. People will speak up, other corporations and countries will react (they already are: Microsoft) and eventually things will settle out into a peace. I don't think walled communities are acceptable to the population at large, just examine Berlin, that wall was removed. Corporations have responsibilities to their stockholders to keep business running smoothly. Their public image is part of keeping their business running smoothly. When I found out the depths to which Nike would stoop to make a bunch, I swapped shoe brands. So have a lot of people. Change is not an overnight sort of thing. We're still trying to figure out exactly what has happened/will happen with the demise of the Soviet Power.
The emergence of normative functions on the international scale of social mores and morals have begun to apply to countries. The international system is developing rules to play by which include cooperation and joint unselfish actions, when they didn't as late as the 1960s. So the idea that some countries are not important is bullshit. The corporations, if influenced as countries are, can become valuable tools in the future development of the third world.
But isn't the almighty dollar a better payoff than reputation/tenure? Having seen professors fight each other over something as randomly determined as tenure seems to be, cash should be a nice exchange for the system to measure credibility by. Sure, their reps will also be determined, as they are now, by integrity, quality of work and such, but why not pay them what they're worth? The National Science Foundation does have some advisory ability, and if we enhance that to act like the Bar for lawyers and a AMA for physicians, then why not let the sky be the limit here.
Sure. Those people who really are psycho about doing non-profit research will still do it, but for those fields in which profit is discovered, if anything it will attract MORE scientists. This is a good thing. Quit trying to prove otherwise.
Okay fine, so my dates suck. And my analogies. But my point is still the same: Corporations are the new nation-state-actors of the 21st century. And we're already seeing axes align themselves for structural control. As the nations themselves are unwilling to grant part of the sovereignty to other nations, corporations have the luxury of partners and buyouts and mergers which would allow for sovereignty to be truly international in a difficult system.
Regardless, the peace that was kept for 100 years was kept by the leaders of their countries, who were, I might add, mortal. The Great War was a result of growing tensions surrounding the ascendence of newer leaders. World War II was the result of unresolved tension after World War I and can mainly be attributed to the Versailles treaty, again created by untrained leaders. The analogy fits.
Okay, I can understand the desire to keep research pure, for scientific motivation and discovery only. However, I don't see why it should be ethically sensitive to profit from the work you've done on an extensive project. Everybody seems to eschew profiteering as if it were a capital crime. Why is that? I don't get it.
Sure, some people are a little more willing to break a few rules if they see a dollar sign at the end of the tunnel, but generally, these people would have been weeded out by the rigorous training in medical/journalist/research ethics. Or, they became lawyers. Science has always been a field where underpaid professors spend all the time in the lab and then only gain street cred for their work. Why not cut them in on the profits their research might garner?
I think I see what is really worrying people, and that is the similarities between programmers and scientists. Programmers spend a lot of time manipulating data into coherent, usable structures. Scientists do the same.
I understand the argument that large-body corporations are beginning to appear as dangerous Non-state Actors in the international political world, but I can't see a way in which society could exist without them. Sure, they didn't exist in this form 100 years ago, but who'd have thought near-instant global communication was possible then, either? Corporations will become the next nation-states in the political regime. Proctor and Gamble has their own solvency, since they stretch beyond the grasp of various nations. So does Microsoft, Apple, Sun, Oracle, IBM, and millions of other groups. Welcome to the 21st Century, era of corporate politics. The TwenCen notion of political legitimacy requiring control of contiguous areas of land is now defunct.
But where do we go from here? Excellent question. We will see stability evolve from these new Non-State Actors as stability arose following the Franco-Prussian war in Europe. The Great Peace. Let us only hope that we don't tie the hands of researchers by forcing them into accepting only what Universities offer and not garner royalties from their hard work and effort.
Why should he have any reason to be aggressive to the police? If he KNOWS he's in the right and free and clear of the law, what problem should he have with answering the police's questions? Once he became aggrevated, the police had every right to remove him from the situation before it turned violent, and he should have known that. Personally, I don't see why he's bitching. He said he was willing to be arrested. He wasn't EVEN arrested and he's still pissed. He got what he deserved.
The police were not objecting with his viewpoint. They were objecting to his CONDUCT. Conduct and belief are two different things (hence, do as I say, not as I do). The police were trying to maintain order (their job). Trying to maintain order includes keeping the freaky-freakies off the street during a political convention, when delegates need to be free and unencumbered while doing their social duty. If you want to demonstrate, go right ahead, but blocking main street will get you arrested. This is part of maintaining order.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, the secrecy of Apple's upcoming projects is becoming incredibly important to them. So they made an example of this guy for breaking his contract with them. Yes, chance are, his contract included a Non Disclosure Agreement (whose contracts lately haven't?) and he broke it. I say fry him.
Compliacted? Shoulda used the preview button.
I think you've forgotten than Macs *CAN* Run Linux. Like Linux PPC
Apparently a dictionary wasn't one of those books you kept around to help you maintain your education...
right after Shaggy sold his to buy more scooby snacks.
I quit watching the news because I was tired of the same guy spouting the same damn story day after day after day. I'm also tired of the technology-ignorant media. Half the time they talk on technology they're wrong. The other half, they're not entirely right. It sickens me how much time people waste watching the semi-accurate, corporate bought news. I go to the internet for the news now, why? Because I choose what I see. I go to sites that are accurate and I ignore sites that are bunk. It's a lot easier when I decide what is seen rather than some faceless content director.
Damn Straight. Well said. It's not about the industry and the ideals, it's about people who don't want to pay for what they could steal just as easily.
As we advance as a society, finding new memes of thought and expression, our democracy grows ever more diverse. Granted, some memes have a more readily available political voice (read: Money) and with that we move away from democracy and back toward the oligarchy/tyranny we broke away from when the founders of this nation promised their lives and their sacred honor to a cause they believed in.
It seems to me that we, as a society at large, must eschew the monetary contributions of large party politics for a smaller more diverse political following. For the greater part of the history of the United States, we've had two or three major political parties. Now some say that is what has allowed us to "get things done" but has it allowed us to do things at all? Maybe.
My biggest concern in the modern political realm is that we, as a nation, will leave our political power stagnant in the rushing waters of international technological change. I think that if anything, current politics is completely out of touch with the plausible in terms of technology. Just look at the metaphor: Information Superhighway. How many people would like to see the person who created that stupid fscking metaphor shot? I would. I'm tired of the causification of American politics, whether it be Napster or DeCSS or what have you. We cannot use these as political vehicles if we ever expect to gain respect from the political community.
Okay, so you're getting out your flame thrower, just lay off the trigger a second, I have a point. We sound like whiners when we press our agenda on those points, but still we cry "Information wants to be free". We need not to distance ourselves from politics, but perhaps to create our own party, as a technically inclined society. We need a party that presses our agenda, since we definitely aren't represented by either major party now.
But what would our party be? Well, we wouldn't take stands on the social issues of welfare/affirmative action, or on abortion, those issues are important, but not crucial to our platform. Instead lets discuss freedom of speech and information on the web. The other parties are based on some very specific social programs and issues, but have no technology position to speak of.
As a nation we need this sort of major reform. That much is obvious.
I think you fear what they are doing because you might be suddenly responsible for your own actions. I don't think peer-to-peer transactions on the web are going anywhere, personally, it's too hard to enforce all the violations. But then again, so is speeding. I can just see it now...some poor schmuck getting an email from the data police...a ticket. I don't think that if Napster loses (which it should, they were stupid) we'll lose all freedom on the internet, that's a specious argument at best (and on a good day at that). And it's hierarchical. Spell checks and dictionaries are good things mon amie.
Why not go wireless and go with 802.11b? Go wireless with a small antenna like I do at home. Damn I love wireless net...surf from the balcony, surf from the neighbor's...surf from the neighbor's pool...
If Sony chose to raise an Army, I have no question that they could succeed in taking over a small nation in Southeast Asia. Hell, they could probably just buy the damn thing. Microsoft has been forced to curtail some of their operations due to pressure, not just monetary, from governments, this makes them an actor in the international system, and with that status, they should be recognized as wielding some degree of power commensurate with their wealth.
The problem with that definition is that is starting to apply not just to states anymore. Many corporations wield enough monetary power (cough, cough, Microsoft) that they can do pretty much what they want without consequences, much like a nation/state could. I think perhaps a better wording of Nation State Actor should be Nation/State/Actor. Trust me, people with money can act, to some degree, with the sovereignty of a nation (say like....Pakistan or another third world nation).
The officer had EVERY right to question the guy. Free speech much? While no response to the officer's questions would be a justified response, it sends its own message. What concern do you have if the police know you're a law-abiding citizen? You're far too paranoid about a regulatory presence in society. If you're afraid of something going on record, chances are you broke the law anyway. Just live a good life and you don't have to worry about the cops arresting you. Is this hard to understand?
Not really. A Nation State Actor is an entity that acts with sovereignty to further their goals. A corporation acts with sovereignty to further their profits. Hence, Nation State Actor.
That's not entirely true. While there are corporations that breed mindless drones in some sectors, our society does value creativity (hence the sheer presence of music, even in such a simple nature as Britney Spears) and ingenuity. Some corporations succeed in providing that atmosphere, some fail.
The emergence of normative functions on the international scale of social mores and morals have begun to apply to countries. The international system is developing rules to play by which include cooperation and joint unselfish actions, when they didn't as late as the 1960s. So the idea that some countries are not important is bullshit. The corporations, if influenced as countries are, can become valuable tools in the future development of the third world.
But isn't the almighty dollar a better payoff than reputation/tenure? Having seen professors fight each other over something as randomly determined as tenure seems to be, cash should be a nice exchange for the system to measure credibility by. Sure, their reps will also be determined, as they are now, by integrity, quality of work and such, but why not pay them what they're worth? The National Science Foundation does have some advisory ability, and if we enhance that to act like the Bar for lawyers and a AMA for physicians, then why not let the sky be the limit here.
Okay, I used the wrong word. I meant having people profit from their work (like Capitalism suggests) not excessively doing so.
Sure. Those people who really are psycho about doing non-profit research will still do it, but for those fields in which profit is discovered, if anything it will attract MORE scientists. This is a good thing. Quit trying to prove otherwise.
Regardless, the peace that was kept for 100 years was kept by the leaders of their countries, who were, I might add, mortal. The Great War was a result of growing tensions surrounding the ascendence of newer leaders. World War II was the result of unresolved tension after World War I and can mainly be attributed to the Versailles treaty, again created by untrained leaders. The analogy fits.
Sure, some people are a little more willing to break a few rules if they see a dollar sign at the end of the tunnel, but generally, these people would have been weeded out by the rigorous training in medical/journalist/research ethics. Or, they became lawyers. Science has always been a field where underpaid professors spend all the time in the lab and then only gain street cred for their work. Why not cut them in on the profits their research might garner?
I think I see what is really worrying people, and that is the similarities between programmers and scientists. Programmers spend a lot of time manipulating data into coherent, usable structures. Scientists do the same.
I understand the argument that large-body corporations are beginning to appear as dangerous Non-state Actors in the international political world, but I can't see a way in which society could exist without them. Sure, they didn't exist in this form 100 years ago, but who'd have thought near-instant global communication was possible then, either? Corporations will become the next nation-states in the political regime. Proctor and Gamble has their own solvency, since they stretch beyond the grasp of various nations. So does Microsoft, Apple, Sun, Oracle, IBM, and millions of other groups. Welcome to the 21st Century, era of corporate politics. The TwenCen notion of political legitimacy requiring control of contiguous areas of land is now defunct.
But where do we go from here? Excellent question. We will see stability evolve from these new Non-State Actors as stability arose following the Franco-Prussian war in Europe. The Great Peace. Let us only hope that we don't tie the hands of researchers by forcing them into accepting only what Universities offer and not garner royalties from their hard work and effort.
Why should he have any reason to be aggressive to the police? If he KNOWS he's in the right and free and clear of the law, what problem should he have with answering the police's questions? Once he became aggrevated, the police had every right to remove him from the situation before it turned violent, and he should have known that. Personally, I don't see why he's bitching. He said he was willing to be arrested. He wasn't EVEN arrested and he's still pissed. He got what he deserved.
The police were not objecting with his viewpoint. They were objecting to his CONDUCT. Conduct and belief are two different things (hence, do as I say, not as I do). The police were trying to maintain order (their job). Trying to maintain order includes keeping the freaky-freakies off the street during a political convention, when delegates need to be free and unencumbered while doing their social duty. If you want to demonstrate, go right ahead, but blocking main street will get you arrested. This is part of maintaining order.