Depending on the criteria you need to meet to get a slice of that media-tax pie, it does seem like the state is subsidising an industry. My understanding is that appeals to the WTO don't cost anything, so it could make for some useful publicity (even if the WTO will almost certainly ignore it as a joke, and instead concentrate on trying to strip some other country of its environmental standards:-)
>Many many things could be proven argumenting with
>a correlation and many people (also in high official
>positions) would believe them.
The reverse is also a problem - people using the "correlation means nothing" as an excuse to avoid subjecting their beliefs to scrutiney
Just because coating the gaseous exchange membrane of the lung with tar and reactive chemicals corresponds to increased risk of lung cancer, doesn't mean that there is any reason why we should have to put warning labels on our cigarette packets! (It's almost funny today, but it took decades to overcome).
Such head-in-the-sand (mis?)reasoning is especially rampant on/. as it's a place where people are often both educated enough to be aware of the point, and opinionated enough to use it to protect their ideology from information that makes it look shakey:-)
This chestnut gets pulled out whenever scientific findings clash with what people want to believe (or have vested interests in). Sure, sometimes it's legit, but the vast majority of the times I see it used, it's blatent stick-fingers-in-ears-and-shout "la-la-la-can't-hear-you!" behaviour.
This of course, is possible, as there are many Judge Kaplans out there
Hey, that's a neat (if tired) way to protest - try to start using "JudgeKaplin" as a verb (to mean "to misjudge / to prejudice / to sell one's values, etc") and see if we can get it to catch on in/.
(Today/. - tommorow the WORLD!)
Or perhaps just "Kaplin" for short.
"I see the Salem Police JudgeKaplined free speech today"
Not enough space here to list all the grievances they have against the US. The US has screwed them over so many ways it ain't funny. But they (seem to me) to give every indication of not hating - sure, there are hardliners & religious fanatics (probably no more than there are in the USA:-), but it seems that most arab nations would be happy for the US to just butt out of their affairs, and that would be the end of the whole nasty business. 'Course, as long as US citizens demand the right to drive gas guzzlin' SUVs, butting out ain't likely. And as long as the US keeps giving Israel all the weaponry and support it wants to paint the desert with arab blood, same thing. But if the USA were to genuinely treat other nations as sovereign entities, the problems would evaporate within a generation (or possibly two).
If your wife was killed by US missiles, working at phamaceuticals factory that had nothing to hide, and all indications suggested that the reason it was bombed was because the US president needed a target NOW to distract his citizens from his own mistakes back home, you have one HELL of a grievance, and it is entirely justified. Now take a hundred people who have similarly had their lives unjustly destroyed by USA for no reason, and it would astonishing if a small percentage of them didn't harbour thoughts of revenge. Cease fucking up peoples lives, and it doesn't occur to them that they should make great sacrifices in order to fuck up yours. Even the religous hardliners would remain obsessed with more mundane and visible blasphemies closer to home if the USA wasn't so visible as the motherlode of injustice and evil in the world (which is how it is likely to appear if you live in a nation or area that is constantly at the receiving end).
Other countries have found other methods of getting most of what they need, and trying to not pursue "Strategic Interests" likely to cause long-term problems. In comparison, the US approach of "We're the greatest so screw you - we'll do as we please" does not seem so smart, even if it does bring better oil and coffee (and who knows what else) prices in the short term. I can't see anything changing though - it doesn't matter that it's unnecessary, it's part of the US culture and mindset now.
Somehow I'm not seeing how shooting down missiles, possibly missiles tipped with nuclear warheads and aimed at cities with millions of people, would ever be considered horrible, whether it's done by man or robot.
That's because you're missing the point. Sure, on the surface, being able to shoot down possible missiles might be a good thing, but looking at the big picture, is it a good thing to damage other country's defences against nuclear attack (deterrence), resulting in them needing - for their own safety - to develope new missiles that you can't shoot down, thus reducing the lasers/shields/whatever to useless billion dollar money-burning exercises, and provoking fears in the USA that they are planning an attack (why else develope missiles specifically designed to penetrate the US's best defences?) resulting in the ante being upped once again...
All this really becomes a problem when you consider how many trillions of dollars end up being wasted on an arms race that a) doesn't actually deliver any strategic advantage, and b) destabilises the world.
Why not just burn the money - everyone ends up just as poor, but at least global stability isn't threatened. You'll be safer than having a shield in an unstable world.
I agree - the only justifications made seem to be thinly veiled chest beating. I can't grasp the tactical advantage. Consider:
ICBM technology is every bit as difficult to develope as the nuclear warhead it carries. The result is that "Rogue Nations" (excluding the USA) often get the nuke before the ICBM.
Terrorists, on the other hand, are likely to only be able to get their hands on the nuke, not ICBMs.
Regardless of whether you have ICBMs or not, to bomb the USA, a suitcase makes an infinitely better delivery system for a rogue state or terrorist.
So what is the tactical effect of the shield? It renders null and void the "Nuclear Deterrant" capabilities of the nuclear powers, yet doesn't affect the terrorists or rogue states.
Hold on a minute - but if Russia or China are suddenly looking at a foreign nuclear power that has deliberately neutralised their nuclear defence (deterrance - M.A.D.), or even attempted to do so, they would be insane to not develope a new nuclear defence. (In their place, Americans would demand nothing less, and probably a lot more.)
So the USA will then discover that China is developing missiles specifically designed to penetrate the USA missile shield. Insert paranoia - What possible reason could China be doing that unless they intended to use those missiles against the USA? We are in Imminent Danger! Action Must Be Taken!
Can you see where this is going?
And through all of it, the terrorists and rogue states have a delivery system that penetrates the shield with ease.
What utter idiocy.
The reason behind the shield, as comes across in public advocacy seems to be a need for patriotic military wanking off in the knowledge that "We're The Greatest!" and the arguments just window dressing for an unspoken desire to have solid In-Your-Face proof of how great we are.
Do the people advocating it even care about NPTs? They genuinely don't seem to give a rat's ass (though they claim otherwise). Scary.
Ye shall reap what ye sow.
Except when it comes to nukes, it's more like we (innocent civilians) reap what they sow.
If a shield won't stop terrorist nukes, what will? Telling the CIA (and others) to stop creating the terrorists in the first place by fu(king people over would be a nice start.
While it massages the ego to think that terrorists or rogue nations hate you because they envy your wealth and power, in the real world beyond hollywood, tit-for-tat is the motive.
You can whine all you want, but a soveriegn nation is just that.
That sounds like a pretty big double standard if you are defending US actions in/against other sovereign nations.
It's easy for the little countries to cry about abuse of power. They've never abused their power, but then again they've never been in the situation the United States finds itself in.
I completely disagree. I can think of a several countries who, in their theatre of the world, are in exactly the same position and power, yet do not act with the same belligerence, aggression, or paranoia. (Of course, I can also think of countries who, in the same position, did act with the same belligerence and paranoia, or worse).
The "but the USA is unique and so is above ethical judgement" arguement just doesn't work. Other countries have been in the position that the US is in, and other countries currently are in similar positions. There is far and away enough preceedent to see that abuse of power IS a choice, NOT a necessity of situation. By your line of reasoning, any of the great abusive dictators of history had every right to do what they did.
The unfortunate irony is that where there once were no terrorists, abuse creates them. And then the US cries foul when it reaps its entirely predictable harvest, and then steps up the abuse...
One step soltuion to the "problem" of terrorists - stop creating them in the first place!
Doesn't AOL universally use encrypted-blacklist style censorware?
If so, the govt. might not need to bother trying to make censorware manditory, when it looks like the only way to avoid it will soon be to go to a specialist provider that doesn't get its bandwidth from the new megagiant (and thus miss out on the great home entertainment/cable/music one-stop package deals that I imagine will soon be the norm).
Is there any way for AOLers to opt out of having their feed auto-censored?
If not, the political, social and especially financial clout of that hidden blacklist is going to be amazing.
Could you sue for libel if mis-catagorised, despite their disclaimers? You could definitely show damages...
My relatives in Communist Prague back in the 70s and 80s *knew* to read the news with a grain of salt.
Unfortunately, my (limited) experience suggests that Joe Average American on the street firmly believes that propaganda and self-interested news bias is something that only happens in other countries, like Iraq and Serbia.
During the conflict with Serbia, the story as told by CNN was disturbingly different to the story that emerged from a healthier variety of sources from around the world. But mention that at the time, and you'd go down in roaring flames from the hundreds who don't watch any other news-source, and don't need to. 'Cause the American news is the true one!
To be fair, it was probably easier in Communist Prague - the spin was probably a bit more overt. In the US today, the marketing industry has made a science of manipulation, much of which is used outside that field. And it works in ways that not even buckets of salt can stop. (Though the salt does stop the more blatent stuff).
So many current practices (like encrypted filesystems) would bypass this technology. Do you predict the 4C will attempt to have these outlawed under DMCA if this effort is successful?
My guess would be no need - an encrypted filesystem just makes the HDD look like a non CPRM compliant device. Once CPRM is established in the market, there will be a little label on the software box you buy:
If you're running an encyrpted filesystem, tough luck. Ditch your system or ditch the software. You can't have both. A non-CPRM disk will probably be like DVD player without CSS descrambling.
The only reason why IBM etc. would want to do this thing, that I've heard, that makes sense, is that they want to sell more computers by pushing them as home entertainment devices for playing all the lastest movies and music. Hollywood isn't going to let that happen without some way of preserving their distribution models, so the deal between them is CPRM.
Is this the primary motivation?
If so, can we expect Apple (which prides itself on playing media) to fall in line with IBM etc (or at least quietly look in the other direction, happy to use to proceeds of CPRM but not dirty its hands creating it) ?
Should we expect companies that sell HDDs rather than computers (eg Maxtor, Seagate) to be fairly neutral in this (eg either way, they still sell their product), or support it (eg greater sales for IBM means greater HDD volumes which means higher profits) or against it (extra headaches)?
We know MS and some others are pretty loudly against it, but are there other relevant sectors of the industry that might play key roles that are currently being overlooked?
Are the legal precedents that will be set from the DeCSS trials likely to play a key role?
Lastly, would I be correct in my assumption that it is not actually within 4C's power to claim that CPRM is "optional" - it is completely up to the manufacturer of CPRM-compliant-software, as they can choose to write software that will not operate when CPRM features are turned off or absent?
I think you're a little too overconfident - there is a very real chance that, for the first time, you'll be up against real encryption technology - the kind of stuff that military intelligence can't break.
If things go badly, the only workable "crack" might need to be installed with a soldering iron and some expensive components. And once it's done, you might still need to crack all your legitimate software just to get it to think it's running on a compliant device rather than some evil pirate's machine.
It may be less than a year before we hear "If you've got nothing to hide, why do you have a problem with CPRM?"
>It was never mandatory, it has always been optional.
You too could benefit from the research you advocate. There is quite a difference between what their spin doctors try to persuade ("optional"), and what is really in the actual spec itself. The Register reporter seemed to get quite pissed off at their blatent distortions.
"Mandatory" is a more accurate description. It's "Optional" in the same sense that Microsoft is "Innovative":-)
If this had happened two months ago, we could politely point out to Gore's advisors that censorware X was blocking his and his supporter's sites and seemed to have a definite agenda. Then we could politely drop a line to the Bush camp, to express our moral outrage that the censorware package we were using clearly targeted pro-Bush sites.
Then Bush and Gore would have unwittingly united to do everything possible to stop the madness.
Ah well. It was a nice thought:-)
Seriously, While we should continue the fight, we should also have a plan B in case we lose.
Plan B might involve creating censorware that actually lacks a covert political/social agenda, and is actually transparent enough to maintain this. And errs on the side of caution, (rather than blanket-banning a million sites because of one page (and have the gall to then boast about how many pages the database blocks)).
Basically, there is a lot wrong with censorware besides the fact that it doesn't actually work. So much so that we would be a lot better off using equally unworkable censorware if said censorware lacked all the other crap that the current crop contains.
The only thing that scares me more than government censorship is corporate censorship, yet that's exactly where we are. And that's not good!
What I was responding to was the attitude that the automobile is solely an implement of destruction, people's living and travel preferences are irrelevant, and we must all be forced to conform to a utopian vision of "community".
Fair enough, but you ironically seem to be overlooking that said people's living and travel preferences forces itself on others who have differing preferences, such as to not have people dumping their air pollution all over your property (and everyone elses).
IMHO, the argument that things should not be forced on people cannot easily be used in defense of the automobile, because the choice to use it so extensively by a lot of people has forced considerable and unwanted changes onto a lot of other people.
If anything, I'd argue that the right to choose (extensive car usage) is a lesser right than the right to not to have other people's choices (said extensive car usage) forced upon you.
(And of course, as is usually the case with these things, there are people who quite clearly want to have their cake and eat it too:-)
I thought I'd reply to myself to provide an analogy to this, as it might be counter-intuitive enough to attract flames. An uncompressed BMP (eg like CD sound) image might take, say 100kb. A compressed JPG of the same image can, (depending on the image) be simultaniously a fifth the file size (ie like MD) and at a higher resolution, such that details not clear in the uncompressed BMP image can be made out in the JPG image. Ie, the compressed data can have a better picture despite the imperfections of lossy compression. For some images (types of music), the compression artifacts will cause more damage to the image than what is gained in resolution. For some however, the artifacts can have minimal effect and the resolution gain can have great effect, and the result is unquestionably superior.
In short, my counter example to the "MP3 is like cassette" idea wasn't intended to say "MD has better sound quality than CD" (cause in all but extreme cases this just isn't the case), but rather to blur this over-simplified view that compressed=bad and uncompressed=good in an area where filesize limits are being applied (such as music reproduction).
To me MP3 is equivalent sound quality to normal bias cassettes with no noise reduction
Then you might be annoyed to know that formats like MD (and Mp3 at 256+Kbs) can in some cases exceed CD quality.
(Certainly, those cases involve things like a source to record from that is better than CD (else first gen. recording), from memory something other than the standard 44khz sampling rates (can't remember), and a few other caveats), but the main point is to to highlight that your outdated information is not the sort of thing you make to be making informed decisions with.
And if you think MD today is comparable to cassette, you need a better sound system!
The technology (and resulting quality) has changed enormously, and is being continually improved.
As long as portable MP3 players are based on the crappy flash RAM concept, Minidisc players will continue to be the better device, and MD certainly has a greater (and well deserved) market share over here.
But once those miniature HDD-based devices evolve to the point that they have 6+ Gb storage, are as small as the tiny MD players, and the batteries actually last a decent length of time, then the days of MD will be numbered.
Currently, I carry about 4 Gb of all-time favourite music via minidiscs in a small plastic bag nestled in my bag. As you can imagine, you'd be insane to try that for a flash RAM device. MD is almost as good as what HDD will eventually become, but HDD promises some pretty cool advantages. I'm looking forward to the future:-)
In your haste to blame the media, I think you overlook a bigger problem - that the vast majority of science today is corporate research with the sole purpose of making money for the company - the effects on people's lives who don't happen to shareholders is simply irrelevant.
It is undeniable that technology can be used harmfully and destructively, and when it is the tool of single-minded companies with bloody track records, there is a cause for unease that has nothing to do with a luddite aversion to technology.
It's how the technology is being used. Even with all the GM hysteria and warnings and cautions, BT corn still made its way into human food supplies. No big deal if, like me, you're not allergic to the stuff and it wasn't your livelyhood that got flushed down the tubes, and you're don't give a rats ass about people who do have extreme allergies but can lead relatively normal lives by avoiding the wrong products by checking the labels.
But at the very least, it indicates that there are "actual problems", and for many, it suggests that the problems are not being taken anywhere near seriously enough - and while you might hate to admit it, GM hysteria has played a huge role in tightening up safety precautions that were previously heading towards profit-motivated levels of an inadequacy that is only now becoming evident.
What is really holding scientific community back from its true potential is a market system where the only research guarenteed to get funding is research that will make $$$ in the forseeable future. When the aim of science is quick bucks, not knowledge, is when science is suffering for the selfishness and stupidity of the elite. And you, sir, although you may deny it most strenuosly, associate yourself with them most strongly in your words:-)
Science should be for the people. If the people, in their supposed "stupidity" don't want something that you believe to be an increase in their standard of living, attempting to impose such change upon them because they are too ignorant or unwashed to know what is best for themselves, is itself an uneducated stance. History repeats.
And if you infer from this that I am anti-GM, then you haven't been listening:-)
(maybe even having the robot "eat" the bugs and use the carcass for energy)
On a BEAM mailing list, someone posted a link to an article about a gastro-robot that someone (or some institute) had developed - you feed it food, and a chemical (and probably micro-biological) processor used it to recharge the batteries.
I have thought about making an insect killer robot, but I kept refining the idea, and eventually, arrived at a design which, while effective, was more like a static trap, which doesn't have the exotic flavour of a roaming insect terminator, so I never bothered to attempt it:-)
However, after looking through the plans for some BEAM robots, these things appear to be little more than glorified wind up toys.
It sounds like you saw some of what might be called "entry-level designs" (which, to be fair, constitutes the vast, vast majority of what is easily availible on the net about BEAM). Remember - BEAM includes robot designs that 12 year old kids can build, and those designs are far more popular and widespread than the advanced stuff, which can require a pretty esoteric mix of biology and electronics expertise and tends to be discussed and developed in much less prominant groups.
Generally, I ignore Tilden though. I think part of his job is promotion, 'nuff said.
I don't see tilden's approach as scaling to even true insect like intelligence.
Ignoring Tilden and talking about BEAM, I would hesitate to say that. The problem, as I see it, is more that so few people have the mechanical aptitude and resources to build, say, six highly articulated legs. That tends to be a bigger challenge than scaling the "brains".
Unfortuantely, no technology can produce a body of the sophistication of today's highly evolved insects, so no matter how advanced BEAM (or any other approach) was, producing anything equivalent to an insect is ruled out before you even decide what robotics philosophy to use...
I've seen some pretty cool advances in BEAM tech over the years. (Mostly, I participate because of the Neat Tech with alternative applications that comes out of it - much of the innovation is the improvement of old designs, which might not be the best thing for the advancement of BEAM, but has resulted in some simple circuits that do interesting and useful things and only draw micro-amps to do it...)
Slashdot Mirror
Depending on the criteria you need to meet to get a slice of that media-tax pie, it does seem like the state is subsidising an industry. My understanding is that appeals to the WTO don't cost anything, so it could make for some useful publicity (even if the WTO will almost certainly ignore it as a joke, and instead concentrate on trying to strip some other country of its environmental standards :-)
>Many many things could be proven argumenting with
/. as it's a place where people are often both educated enough to be aware of the point, and opinionated enough to use it to protect their ideology from information that makes it look shakey :-)
>a correlation and many people (also in high official
>positions) would believe them.
The reverse is also a problem - people using the "correlation means nothing" as an excuse to avoid subjecting their beliefs to scrutiney
Just because coating the gaseous exchange membrane of the lung with tar and reactive chemicals corresponds to increased risk of lung cancer, doesn't mean that there is any reason why we should have to put warning labels on our cigarette packets!
(It's almost funny today, but it took decades to overcome).
Such head-in-the-sand (mis?)reasoning is especially rampant on
This chestnut gets pulled out whenever scientific findings clash with what people want to believe (or have vested interests in). Sure, sometimes it's legit, but the vast majority of the times I see it used, it's blatent stick-fingers-in-ears-and-shout "la-la-la-can't-hear-you!" behaviour.
>anons aren't all bad.
:-)
You're right, but the ones that post fake links are
You NEARLY caught me, before I realised the link had been posted by some Anon. coward loser, and so was going to be some other lame link instead.
This of course, is possible, as there are many Judge Kaplans out there
/.
/. - tommorow the WORLD!)
:)
Hey, that's a neat (if tired) way to protest - try to start using "JudgeKaplin" as a verb (to mean "to misjudge / to prejudice / to sell one's values, etc") and see if we can get it to catch on in
(Today
Or perhaps just "Kaplin" for short.
"I see the Salem Police JudgeKaplined free speech today"
Ok ok, but it could make for some nice in-jokes
>Why do all the arab nations hate us?
:-), but it seems that most arab nations would be happy for the US to just butt out of their affairs, and that would be the end of the whole nasty business. 'Course, as long as US citizens demand the right to drive gas guzzlin' SUVs, butting out ain't likely. And as long as the US keeps giving Israel all the weaponry and support it wants to paint the desert with arab blood, same thing. But if the USA were to genuinely treat other nations as sovereign entities, the problems would evaporate within a generation (or possibly two).
Not enough space here to list all the grievances they have against the US. The US has screwed them over so many ways it ain't funny. But they (seem to me) to give every indication of not hating - sure, there are hardliners & religious fanatics (probably no more than there are in the USA
If your wife was killed by US missiles, working at phamaceuticals factory that had nothing to hide, and all indications suggested that the reason it was bombed was because the US president needed a target NOW to distract his citizens from his own mistakes back home, you have one HELL of a grievance, and it is entirely justified. Now take a hundred people who have similarly had their lives unjustly destroyed by USA for no reason, and it would astonishing if a small percentage of them didn't harbour thoughts of revenge. Cease fucking up peoples lives, and it doesn't occur to them that they should make great sacrifices in order to fuck up yours. Even the religous hardliners would remain obsessed with more mundane and visible blasphemies closer to home if the USA wasn't so visible as the motherlode of injustice and evil in the world (which is how it is likely to appear if you live in a nation or area that is constantly at the receiving end).
Other countries have found other methods of getting most of what they need, and trying to not pursue "Strategic Interests" likely to cause long-term problems. In comparison, the US approach of "We're the greatest so screw you - we'll do as we please" does not seem so smart, even if it does bring better oil and coffee (and who knows what else) prices in the short term. I can't see anything changing though - it doesn't matter that it's unnecessary, it's part of the US culture and mindset now.
Somehow I'm not seeing how shooting down missiles, possibly missiles tipped with nuclear warheads and aimed at cities with millions of people, would ever be considered horrible, whether it's done by man or robot.
That's because you're missing the point. Sure, on the surface, being able to shoot down possible missiles might be a good thing, but looking at the big picture, is it a good thing to damage other country's defences against nuclear attack (deterrence), resulting in them needing - for their own safety - to develope new missiles that you can't shoot down, thus reducing the lasers/shields/whatever to useless billion dollar money-burning exercises, and provoking fears in the USA that they are planning an attack (why else develope missiles specifically designed to penetrate the US's best defences?) resulting in the ante being upped once again...
All this really becomes a problem when you consider how many trillions of dollars end up being wasted on an arms race that a) doesn't actually deliver any strategic advantage, and b) destabilises the world.
Why not just burn the money - everyone ends up just as poor, but at least global stability isn't threatened. You'll be safer than having a shield in an unstable world.
I agree - the only justifications made seem to be thinly veiled chest beating. I can't grasp the tactical advantage. Consider:
ICBM technology is every bit as difficult to develope as the nuclear warhead it carries. The result is that "Rogue Nations" (excluding the USA) often get the nuke before the ICBM.
Terrorists, on the other hand, are likely to only be able to get their hands on the nuke, not ICBMs.
Regardless of whether you have ICBMs or not, to bomb the USA, a suitcase makes an infinitely better delivery system for a rogue state or terrorist.
So what is the tactical effect of the shield? It renders null and void the "Nuclear Deterrant" capabilities of the nuclear powers, yet doesn't affect the terrorists or rogue states.
Hold on a minute - but if Russia or China are suddenly looking at a foreign nuclear power that has deliberately neutralised their nuclear defence (deterrance - M.A.D.), or even attempted to do so, they would be insane to not develope a new nuclear defence. (In their place, Americans would demand nothing less, and probably a lot more.)
So the USA will then discover that China is developing missiles specifically designed to penetrate the USA missile shield. Insert paranoia - What possible reason could China be doing that unless they intended to use those missiles against the USA? We are in Imminent Danger! Action Must Be Taken!
Can you see where this is going?
And through all of it, the terrorists and rogue states have a delivery system that penetrates the shield with ease.
What utter idiocy.
The reason behind the shield, as comes across in public advocacy seems to be a need for patriotic military wanking off in the knowledge that "We're The Greatest!" and the arguments just window dressing for an unspoken desire to have solid In-Your-Face proof of how great we are.
Do the people advocating it even care about NPTs? They genuinely don't seem to give a rat's ass (though they claim otherwise). Scary.
Ye shall reap what ye sow.
Except when it comes to nukes, it's more like we (innocent civilians) reap what they sow.
If a shield won't stop terrorist nukes, what will? Telling the CIA (and others) to stop creating the terrorists in the first place by fu(king people over would be a nice start.
While it massages the ego to think that terrorists or rogue nations hate you because they envy your wealth and power, in the real world beyond hollywood, tit-for-tat is the motive.
You can whine all you want, but a soveriegn nation is just that.
That sounds like a pretty big double standard if you are defending US actions in/against other sovereign nations.
It's easy for the little countries to cry about abuse of power. They've never abused their power, but then again they've never been in the situation the United States finds itself in.
I completely disagree. I can think of a several countries who, in their theatre of the world, are in exactly the same position and power, yet do not act with the same belligerence, aggression, or paranoia. (Of course, I can also think of countries who, in the same position, did act with the same belligerence and paranoia, or worse).
The "but the USA is unique and so is above ethical judgement" arguement just doesn't work. Other countries have been in the position that the US is in, and other countries currently are in similar positions. There is far and away enough preceedent to see that abuse of power IS a choice, NOT a necessity of situation. By your line of reasoning, any of the great abusive dictators of history had every right to do what they did.
The unfortunate irony is that where there once were no terrorists, abuse creates them. And then the US cries foul when it reaps its entirely predictable harvest, and then steps up the abuse...
One step soltuion to the "problem" of terrorists - stop creating them in the first place!
Doesn't AOL universally use encrypted-blacklist style censorware?
If so, the govt. might not need to bother trying to make censorware manditory, when it looks like the only way to avoid it will soon be to go to a specialist provider that doesn't get its bandwidth from the new megagiant (and thus miss out on the great home entertainment/cable/music one-stop package deals that I imagine will soon be the norm).
Is there any way for AOLers to opt out of having their feed auto-censored?
If not, the political, social and especially financial clout of that hidden blacklist is going to be amazing.
Could you sue for libel if mis-catagorised, despite their disclaimers? You could definitely show damages...
My relatives in Communist Prague back in the 70s and 80s *knew* to read the news with a grain of salt.
Unfortunately, my (limited) experience suggests that Joe Average American on the street firmly believes that propaganda and self-interested news bias is something that only happens in other countries, like Iraq and Serbia.
During the conflict with Serbia, the story as told by CNN was disturbingly different to the story that emerged from a healthier variety of sources from around the world. But mention that at the time, and you'd go down in roaring flames from the hundreds who don't watch any other news-source, and don't need to. 'Cause the American news is the true one!
To be fair, it was probably easier in Communist Prague - the spin was probably a bit more overt. In the US today, the marketing industry has made a science of manipulation, much of which is used outside that field. And it works in ways that not even buckets of salt can stop. (Though the salt does stop the more blatent stuff).
So many current practices (like encrypted filesystems) would bypass this technology. Do you predict the 4C will attempt to have these outlawed under DMCA if this effort is successful?
My guess would be no need - an encrypted filesystem just makes the HDD look like a non CPRM compliant device. Once CPRM is established in the market, there will be a little label on the software box you buy:
Requires Pentium4 1Ghz, 256Mb RAM, 300Mb CPRM HDD.
If you're running an encyrpted filesystem, tough luck. Ditch your system or ditch the software. You can't have both. A non-CPRM disk will probably be like DVD player without CSS descrambling.
The only reason why IBM etc. would want to do this thing, that I've heard, that makes sense, is that they want to sell more computers by pushing them as home entertainment devices for playing all the lastest movies and music. Hollywood isn't going to let that happen without some way of preserving their distribution models, so the deal between them is CPRM.
Is this the primary motivation?
If so, can we expect Apple (which prides itself on playing media) to fall in line with IBM etc (or at least quietly look in the other direction, happy to use to proceeds of CPRM but not dirty its hands creating it) ?
Should we expect companies that sell HDDs rather than computers (eg Maxtor, Seagate) to be fairly neutral in this (eg either way, they still sell their product), or support it (eg greater sales for IBM means greater HDD volumes which means higher profits) or against it (extra headaches)?
We know MS and some others are pretty loudly against it, but are there other relevant sectors of the industry that might play key roles that are currently being overlooked?
Are the legal precedents that will be set from the DeCSS trials likely to play a key role?
Lastly, would I be correct in my assumption that it is not actually within 4C's power to claim that CPRM is "optional" - it is completely up to the manufacturer of CPRM-compliant-software, as they can choose to write software that will not operate when CPRM features are turned off or absent?
>or would we no longer be able to exercise our fair use rights as an educational institution?
Going by what Kaplin's ruling suggests, merely having the right to fair use does not give one the right to have the means to achieve that right.
If they can rig the market to preclude fair-use-compliant devices being sold, that's their prerogative.
Hopefully Kaplin's idiocy will be overturned, but I fear it might be the idiocy of the legal system at large.
I think you're a little too overconfident - there is a very real chance that, for the first time, you'll be up against real encryption technology - the kind of stuff that military intelligence can't break.
If things go badly, the only workable "crack" might need to be installed with a soldering iron and some expensive components. And once it's done, you might still need to crack all your legitimate software just to get it to think it's running on a compliant device rather than some evil pirate's machine.
It may be less than a year before we hear "If you've got nothing to hide, why do you have a problem with CPRM?"
>It was never mandatory, it has always been optional.
:-)
You too could benefit from the research you advocate. There is quite a difference between what their spin doctors try to persuade ("optional"), and what is really in the actual spec itself. The Register reporter seemed to get quite pissed off at their blatent distortions.
"Mandatory" is a more accurate description. It's "Optional" in the same sense that Microsoft is "Innovative"
That idea, strangely enough, is all over ancient Taoist texts
:-)
Not to mention Plato, and others
If this had happened two months ago, we could politely point out to Gore's advisors that censorware X was blocking his and his supporter's sites and seemed to have a definite agenda. Then we could politely drop a line to the Bush camp, to express our moral outrage that the censorware package we were using clearly targeted pro-Bush sites.
:-)
Then Bush and Gore would have unwittingly united to do everything possible to stop the madness.
Ah well. It was a nice thought
Seriously, While we should continue the fight, we should also have a plan B in case we lose.
Plan B might involve creating censorware that actually lacks a covert political/social agenda, and is actually transparent enough to maintain this. And errs on the side of caution, (rather than blanket-banning a million sites because of one page (and have the gall to then boast about how many pages the database blocks)).
Basically, there is a lot wrong with censorware besides the fact that it doesn't actually work. So much so that we would be a lot better off using equally unworkable censorware if said censorware lacked all the other crap that the current crop contains.
The only thing that scares me more than government censorship is corporate censorship, yet that's exactly where we are. And that's not good!
What I was responding to was the attitude that the automobile is solely an implement of destruction, people's living and travel preferences are irrelevant, and we must all be forced to conform to a utopian vision of "community".
:-)
Fair enough, but you ironically seem to be overlooking that said people's living and travel preferences forces itself on others who have differing preferences, such as to not have people dumping their air pollution all over your property (and everyone elses).
IMHO, the argument that things should not be forced on people cannot easily be used in defense of the automobile, because the choice to use it so extensively by a lot of people has forced considerable and unwanted changes onto a lot of other people.
If anything, I'd argue that the right to choose (extensive car usage) is a lesser right than the right to not to have other people's choices (said extensive car usage) forced upon you.
(And of course, as is usually the case with these things, there are people who quite clearly want to have their cake and eat it too
can in some cases exceed CD quality.
I thought I'd reply to myself to provide an analogy to this, as it might be counter-intuitive enough to attract flames. An uncompressed BMP (eg like CD sound) image might take, say 100kb. A compressed JPG of the same image can, (depending on the image) be simultaniously a fifth the file size (ie like MD) and at a higher resolution, such that details not clear in the uncompressed BMP image can be made out in the JPG image. Ie, the compressed data can have a better picture despite the imperfections of lossy compression. For some images (types of music), the compression artifacts will cause more damage to the image than what is gained in resolution. For some however, the artifacts can have minimal effect and the resolution gain can have great effect, and the result is unquestionably superior.
In short, my counter example to the "MP3 is like cassette" idea wasn't intended to say "MD has better sound quality than CD" (cause in all but extreme cases this just isn't the case), but rather to blur this over-simplified view that compressed=bad and uncompressed=good in an area where filesize limits are being applied (such as music reproduction).
To me MP3 is equivalent sound quality to normal bias cassettes with no noise reduction
Then you might be annoyed to know that formats like MD (and Mp3 at 256+Kbs) can in some cases exceed CD quality.
(Certainly, those cases involve things like a source to record from that is better than CD (else first gen. recording), from memory something other than the standard 44khz sampling rates (can't remember), and a few other caveats), but the main point is to to highlight that your outdated information is not the sort of thing you make to be making informed decisions with.
And if you think MD today is comparable to cassette, you need a better sound system!
The technology (and resulting quality) has changed enormously, and is being continually improved.
:-)
Its like MP3, what was wrong with minidisc ?
:-)
As long as portable MP3 players are based on the crappy flash RAM concept, Minidisc players will continue to be the better device, and MD certainly has a greater (and well deserved) market share over here.
But once those miniature HDD-based devices evolve to the point that they have 6+ Gb storage, are as small as the tiny MD players, and the batteries actually last a decent length of time, then the days of MD will be numbered.
Currently, I carry about 4 Gb of all-time favourite music via minidiscs in a small plastic bag nestled in my bag. As you can imagine, you'd be insane to try that for a flash RAM device. MD is almost as good as what HDD will eventually become, but HDD promises some pretty cool advantages. I'm looking forward to the future
In your haste to blame the media, I think you overlook a bigger problem - that the vast majority of science today is corporate research with the sole purpose of making money for the company - the effects on people's lives who don't happen to shareholders is simply irrelevant.
:-)
:-)
It is undeniable that technology can be used harmfully and destructively, and when it is the tool of single-minded companies with bloody track records, there is a cause for unease that has nothing to do with a luddite aversion to technology.
It's how the technology is being used. Even with all the GM hysteria and warnings and cautions, BT corn still made its way into human food supplies. No big deal if, like me, you're not allergic to the stuff and it wasn't your livelyhood that got flushed down the tubes, and you're don't give a rats ass about people who do have extreme allergies but can lead relatively normal lives by avoiding the wrong products by checking the labels.
But at the very least, it indicates that there are "actual problems", and for many, it suggests that the problems are not being taken anywhere near seriously enough - and while you might hate to admit it, GM hysteria has played a huge role in tightening up safety precautions that were previously heading towards profit-motivated levels of an inadequacy that is only now becoming evident.
What is really holding scientific community back from its true potential is a market system where the only research guarenteed to get funding is research that will make $$$ in the forseeable future. When the aim of science is quick bucks, not knowledge, is when science is suffering for the selfishness and stupidity of the elite. And you, sir, although you may deny it most strenuosly, associate yourself with them most strongly in your words
Science should be for the people. If the people, in their supposed "stupidity" don't want something that you believe to be an increase in their standard of living, attempting to impose such change upon them because they are too ignorant or unwashed to know what is best for themselves, is itself an uneducated stance. History repeats.
And if you infer from this that I am anti-GM, then you haven't been listening
(maybe even having the robot "eat" the bugs and use the carcass for energy)
:-)
On a BEAM mailing list, someone posted a link to an article about a gastro-robot that someone (or some institute) had developed - you feed it food, and a chemical (and probably micro-biological) processor used it to recharge the batteries.
I have thought about making an insect killer robot, but I kept refining the idea, and eventually, arrived at a design which, while effective, was more like a static trap, which doesn't have the exotic flavour of a roaming insect terminator, so I never bothered to attempt it
However, after looking through the plans for some BEAM robots, these things appear to be little more than glorified wind up toys.
It sounds like you saw some of what might be called "entry-level designs" (which, to be fair, constitutes the vast, vast majority of what is easily availible on the net about BEAM). Remember - BEAM includes robot designs that 12 year old kids can build, and those designs are far more popular and widespread than the advanced stuff, which can require a pretty esoteric mix of biology and electronics expertise and tends to be discussed and developed in much less prominant groups.
Generally, I ignore Tilden though. I think part of his job is promotion, 'nuff said.
I don't see tilden's approach as scaling to even true insect like intelligence.
Ignoring Tilden and talking about BEAM, I would hesitate to say that. The problem, as I see it, is more that so few people have the mechanical aptitude and resources to build, say, six highly articulated legs. That tends to be a bigger challenge than scaling the "brains".
Unfortuantely, no technology can produce a body of the sophistication of today's highly evolved insects, so no matter how advanced BEAM (or any other approach) was, producing anything equivalent to an insect is ruled out before you even decide what robotics philosophy to use...
I've seen some pretty cool advances in BEAM tech over the years. (Mostly, I participate because of the Neat Tech with alternative applications that comes out of it - much of the innovation is the improvement of old designs, which might not be the best thing for the advancement of BEAM, but has resulted in some simple circuits that do interesting and useful things and only draw micro-amps to do it...)