If they had a filter, of some magical sort, that would filter out all the porn transfers and keep everything else in the log, most of us would be ok with them keeping records of our internet use.
Well then thank God for pr0n. It's a sad comment on North American society that it's only the makers of commercial sleaze who are willing to stand up for our rights. You're right about it, most people wouldn't give a shit about restrictions on privacy or free speech if it wasn't for dirty little secrets. And the porn industry knows it, and laughs all the way to the bank. The sex industries have been at the forefront of free expression and privacy battles mostly because they directly concern their profits. But at least somebody's trying to draw a line in the sand. It's just too bad so few are willing to draw such lines on the principles involved, which are far more important than your (admittedly important) right to look at goatse man in the privacy of your own home, or to buy a lap dance....
no doubt. the apple is obviously a reference to William S. Burroughs' deadly game of William Tell with his wife. "Put the apple on your head, honey..."
I think that once you get enough -1's racked up, your postings always start at -1.... you have to be modded up just to be seen by most readers. I could be wrong but I'm basing this on the fact that there is no summary of moderation - it just says -1, not "-1 troll", etc.
Ummm, the statistics you actually point to (in the pdf file) are for homicides. Certainly that is one type of crime, but the poster you're replying to was talking about white collar crime.
It was a joke. I suppose I was making a point - that a superior technology losing in the marketplace is not always the result of some nefarious conspiracy of control. But it struck me as interesting that the same comment made about another technology sounded so ridiculous.
Destroying government property (or most other uses of violence / force by non-uniformed combatants) in order to change policy is the definition of terrorism.
That of course is precisely the problem. Especially when being a member of a group peacefully protesting when another member of the group has thrown a rock winds up branding you a terrorist even though your actions are peaceful.
If throwing rocks through government office windows in order to change policy isn't terrorism, why not step up to Molotovs? Little chunks of lead? Where do you draw the line?
It's a fair question, but it is loaded in this context, since any political group can easily be branded "terrorist" by an act of violence that takes place during a protest, whether or not committed by one of its members. The problem lies in the notion of "terrorism" itself, which licenses severe responses. Should someone who violates (for example) the embargo on Cuba get 20 years in prison? The Marin County kid who joined the Taliban got precisely that, for violating sanctions on Afghanistan, not because his "crime" was worth 20 years of punishment, but because he joined a "terrorist" group. I have no argument with the Taliban being branded as such, but what about domestic nonviolent groups who participate in protests such as Seattle, where isolated acts of violence did occur. Is any act of vandalism terrorism if used in a political context? What about political graffiti? How long before Mothers Against Drunk Driving gets branded as a terrorist group when someone spray paints "Don't Drink and Drive" across a bridge?
Heh. Interestingly enough a lot of computer scientists who wouldn't work for the DoD because they were against the war in Vietnam wound up working for them indirectly at places like Xerox PARC. Great stuff on the "counterculture" influence on the computer era in Roszak's book _The Cult of Information_. Also here's the RAND paper that started it all, if anyone is interested.
Get off your high horse. Nobody's saying it's OK to steal from the rich. This is not about "right" and "wrong." The MPAA's argument that theft is occurring is based on the assumption that they are losing profits to pirates. The evidence, cleverly linked in the story, demonstrates otherwise. "Theft," as someone else pointed out in this discussion, is wrong because it deprives the owner of something of value. The MPAA's argument depends on the assumption that each "pirated" movie deprives them of something of value.
Perhaps what thay have been deprived of is the right to absolute control over the way the products of their imagination may be consumed. While I think reasonable copyright laws should protect an artist's right to some control over distribution, that isn't what current laws do at all, and these people (whose actual connection to the work is little more than a contractual fiction), are pushing for even more abusive laws. The right they claim to be deprived of is not their right at all, at least not in a society with reasonable interpretations of intellectual property, which perhaps ours is not.
Frankly, I believe the only reason they think this is their right is that they have egos the size of Jupiter. Few of these people are artists themselves; they are lawyers and businessmen. Some of them love art but perhaps feel they are poor artists themselves; they make up for this inadequacy by "owning" a huge catalog of work created by someone else. They are the arbiters of value in the consciousness industries; they decide which artists make it and which ones don't. They promote some of the weakest talents and shun the most independent-minded because they need to surround themselves with people they control. Frankly, I don't give a shit if the empire these people run dies the horrible bloody death they warn us it will if people copy movies/music/software. (Unfortunately, these warnings are gross hyperbole at best). Sure, there might not be people around with the money and willingness to fund multimillion dollar blockbusters, but there will still be plenty of talented people making very creative and original works that entertain and enlighten us into eternity, and making more than decent livings doing so.
</RANT>
On another note, the **AA can't have it both ways in their interpretation of what "theft" is. Either I am buying the DVD or I am buying the "right to watch it." If I am not buying a DVD but only buying the right to watch it (in a certain techno/social context - but let's leave that discussion aside for the moment), then when a thief steals the DVD I should get it replaced free, right? The usual argument in response is that the copyright owner should not bear the cost of theft against me. But the thief only stole the actual DVD, not the right to watch it! As far as the law is concerned, at least as they interpret it, the thief's viewing the actual DVD is still illegal, and mine viewing a "pirated" copy is entirely legal, since I have purchased from the media company the right to watch that movie.
Yes, Apple insiders have known for some time now that Apple is working on the iMammal in order to take the market in computerized mammals by storm. While they foresee many virtual pet applications, the first application of this new technology will be to replace the blowup doll. Here's a prototype.
Gov't should not be writing GPLd software that cannot be used in proprietary applications.
This is absurd. GPL'd software can be used by anyone willing to abide by the terms of the license. If a company chooses to make proprietary software and not release the source, they are voluntarily choosing not to use GPL'd software. It is ridiculous to say that they "cannot" use the software; that is a choice they made based on their own business model.
Am I stealing? Maybe. Am I worried about marketers? No. If marketers made tasteful ads I'd have no problem viewing them.
Exactly. Anybody who thinks blocking ads is stealing is a moron. The world does not owe you a living annoying people. Do something useful for a change and get paid for that instead.
And don't bitch about poor web designers being cheated out of ad revenue either. If your business model fails, too bad. I design 90% of the web pages that I design for free because I actually care about the stuff I put on them. Because of that I can't make a living designing web pages. Too bad for me, I suppose, but not too bad for the web. I have another job, and frankly I don't think the web would be worse off at all if there were little or no advertising revenue available on it. Sure, lots of web pages would die; maybe if we're lucky the only stuff left will be the stuff people write because they care about it enough to do it for free, or because readers care about it enough to pay a subscription to read it.
But I'm also not anti-ad; if the web stuck to banner ads I wouldn't complain or even bother to block them. But popup and popunder windows are just plain evil. Disabling them by blocking software is no different from putting a "NO SOLICITING" sign on your front door and expecting salesmen to respect it. Disabling blocking software is the equivalent of breaking in through the window to try to sell your product anyway.
I find the whole concept of anti-adblocking ridiculous for the main reason that is mentioned elsewhere in this discussion - someone who goes through the trouble of blocking ads is probably not going to want to buy your product if you are successful in defeating their blocking software! This is the thing that convinces me that people like the anti-adblocker guy are ideological drones rather than the cold-headed business folk they pretend to be. They feel they must defend the right to advertise even to people who have made it clear that they don't want their ads and that they'll be pissed off if they hear any more of them. What's the point? Obviously, not just to sell the product. Is there a such thing as an armchair capitalist?
Anyone who does this was clearly dropped on their head at birth, and should probably go to http://www.w3c.org and start reading the standards until some kind of clue sinks in...
Agreed.... why do people do this? How freakin hard is it to type A HREF=?? It's a link ferchrissakes!! The feature that I want in Mozilla - one click (or keystroke) to turn js on/off. The other feature - one click to send a note to the webmaster that such and such a link on such and such a page is in freakin' js and would they please rewrite it as an actual web page.
If the standard doesn't reflect reality, it should be ignored.
Guess what? If the standard is ignored, it doesn't reflect reality. Your point is circular. You've made no argument for ignoring standards; you've simply argued that certain companies ignore them now. And they shouldn't. It may be a sneaky way to short-term control of a market, but in the longer term it promotes chaos, which does not help anyone.
Don't act like the W3C is some sort of fascist or socialist bureaucracy. Membership is open to anyone who wants in. The agenda of the w3c is created by its members. If you have a problem with the standards, join the organization and participate in the democratic process. Standards are not being defended by anyone here as an a priori good; the point is that an external standards organization is an excellent means to a specific end -- cross platform interoperability -- in such a way that various agenda might be represented, rather than simply the agenda of MSFT shareholders.
This won't be relevant to most slashdot readers until we can get a tenure committee to accept "+5 Insightful" as the equivalent of a peer-reviewed publication.
Some really old phones can be found that redboxes work on. There is even a PalmOS application that will make your PDA play redbox tones. Helluva lot better than a hacked Hallmark greeting card!
Slashdot Mirror
Well then thank God for pr0n. It's a sad comment on North American society that it's only the makers of commercial sleaze who are willing to stand up for our rights. You're right about it, most people wouldn't give a shit about restrictions on privacy or free speech if it wasn't for dirty little secrets. And the porn industry knows it, and laughs all the way to the bank. The sex industries have been at the forefront of free expression and privacy battles mostly because they directly concern their profits. But at least somebody's trying to draw a line in the sand. It's just too bad so few are willing to draw such lines on the principles involved, which are far more important than your (admittedly important) right to look at goatse man in the privacy of your own home, or to buy a lap dance....
no doubt. the apple is obviously a reference to William S. Burroughs' deadly game of William Tell with his wife. "Put the apple on your head, honey..."
I think that once you get enough -1's racked up, your postings always start at -1.... you have to be modded up just to be seen by most readers. I could be wrong but I'm basing this on the fact that there is no summary of moderation - it just says -1, not "-1 troll", etc.
Doh!
(slinks away quietly)...
Can you ping me now? good!
Ummm, the statistics you actually point to (in the pdf file) are for homicides. Certainly that is one type of crime, but the poster you're replying to was talking about white collar crime.
It was a joke. I suppose I was making a point - that a superior technology losing in the marketplace is not always the result of some nefarious conspiracy of control. But it struck me as interesting that the same comment made about another technology sounded so ridiculous.
It is too good to be true. I don't care how much they've simplified the compiler; there is no way a parrot is going to be able to use it.
I guess if you've got the resources of Sony, you can pretty much screw anyone you like.
It's hard to believe that the Betamax, with its better sound and picture quality, ever lost out to the VHS.
I guess if you've got the resources of JVC, you can pretty much screw anyone you like.
That of course is precisely the problem. Especially when being a member of a group peacefully protesting when another member of the group has thrown a rock winds up branding you a terrorist even though your actions are peaceful.
If throwing rocks through government office windows in order to change policy isn't terrorism, why not step up to Molotovs? Little chunks of lead? Where do you draw the line?
It's a fair question, but it is loaded in this context, since any political group can easily be branded "terrorist" by an act of violence that takes place during a protest, whether or not committed by one of its members. The problem lies in the notion of "terrorism" itself, which licenses severe responses. Should someone who violates (for example) the embargo on Cuba get 20 years in prison? The Marin County kid who joined the Taliban got precisely that, for violating sanctions on Afghanistan, not because his "crime" was worth 20 years of punishment, but because he joined a "terrorist" group. I have no argument with the Taliban being branded as such, but what about domestic nonviolent groups who participate in protests such as Seattle, where isolated acts of violence did occur. Is any act of vandalism terrorism if used in a political context? What about political graffiti? How long before Mothers Against Drunk Driving gets branded as a terrorist group when someone spray paints "Don't Drink and Drive" across a bridge?
Heh. Interestingly enough a lot of computer scientists who wouldn't work for the DoD because they were against the war in Vietnam wound up working for them indirectly at places like Xerox PARC. Great stuff on the "counterculture" influence on the computer era in Roszak's book _The Cult of Information_. Also here's the RAND paper that started it all, if anyone is interested.
14. Surfing at 1200 baud. One line at a time.
Fuck that; mark me as foe too. I want a tonka truck!
Well, it's gotta be more effective than posting it to /. Write it to the Times or something; it should be published somewhere. Excellent work.
Perhaps what thay have been deprived of is the right to absolute control over the way the products of their imagination may be consumed. While I think reasonable copyright laws should protect an artist's right to some control over distribution, that isn't what current laws do at all, and these people (whose actual connection to the work is little more than a contractual fiction), are pushing for even more abusive laws. The right they claim to be deprived of is not their right at all, at least not in a society with reasonable interpretations of intellectual property, which perhaps ours is not.
<RANT TYPE="wild offtopic pseudo-psychoanalytical speculation">
</RANT>On another note, the **AA can't have it both ways in their interpretation of what "theft" is. Either I am buying the DVD or I am buying the "right to watch it." If I am not buying a DVD but only buying the right to watch it (in a certain techno/social context - but let's leave that discussion aside for the moment), then when a thief steals the DVD I should get it replaced free, right? The usual argument in response is that the copyright owner should not bear the cost of theft against me. But the thief only stole the actual DVD, not the right to watch it! As far as the law is concerned, at least as they interpret it, the thief's viewing the actual DVD is still illegal, and mine viewing a "pirated" copy is entirely legal, since I have purchased from the media company the right to watch that movie.
Yes, if the idea that it is wrong in the first place is based on the assumption that the "theft" is costing people money.
I got to admit that thing looks sweet. I want one with PalmOS in it. And I want it for $200. Is that so wrong?
Yes, Apple insiders have known for some time now that Apple is working on the iMammal in order to take the market in computerized mammals by storm. While they foresee many virtual pet applications, the first application of this new technology will be to replace the blowup doll. Here's a prototype.
This is absurd. GPL'd software can be used by anyone willing to abide by the terms of the license. If a company chooses to make proprietary software and not release the source, they are voluntarily choosing not to use GPL'd software. It is ridiculous to say that they "cannot" use the software; that is a choice they made based on their own business model.
Hello, my name is Alice
>Hi Alice, nice to meet you.
I send you this file in order to have your advice.
>That file is 3MB! I'm on a 56k modem! And I don't even know how to open it! Please cancel the transfer!
See you later! Thanks
Exactly. Anybody who thinks blocking ads is stealing is a moron. The world does not owe you a living annoying people. Do something useful for a change and get paid for that instead.
And don't bitch about poor web designers being cheated out of ad revenue either. If your business model fails, too bad. I design 90% of the web pages that I design for free because I actually care about the stuff I put on them. Because of that I can't make a living designing web pages. Too bad for me, I suppose, but not too bad for the web. I have another job, and frankly I don't think the web would be worse off at all if there were little or no advertising revenue available on it. Sure, lots of web pages would die; maybe if we're lucky the only stuff left will be the stuff people write because they care about it enough to do it for free, or because readers care about it enough to pay a subscription to read it.
But I'm also not anti-ad; if the web stuck to banner ads I wouldn't complain or even bother to block them. But popup and popunder windows are just plain evil. Disabling them by blocking software is no different from putting a "NO SOLICITING" sign on your front door and expecting salesmen to respect it. Disabling blocking software is the equivalent of breaking in through the window to try to sell your product anyway.
I find the whole concept of anti-adblocking ridiculous for the main reason that is mentioned elsewhere in this discussion - someone who goes through the trouble of blocking ads is probably not going to want to buy your product if you are successful in defeating their blocking software! This is the thing that convinces me that people like the anti-adblocker guy are ideological drones rather than the cold-headed business folk they pretend to be. They feel they must defend the right to advertise even to people who have made it clear that they don't want their ads and that they'll be pissed off if they hear any more of them. What's the point? Obviously, not just to sell the product. Is there a such thing as an armchair capitalist?
Agreed.... why do people do this? How freakin hard is it to type A HREF=?? It's a link ferchrissakes!! The feature that I want in Mozilla - one click (or keystroke) to turn js on/off. The other feature - one click to send a note to the webmaster that such and such a link on such and such a page is in freakin' js and would they please rewrite it as an actual web page.
Guess what? If the standard is ignored, it doesn't reflect reality. Your point is circular. You've made no argument for ignoring standards; you've simply argued that certain companies ignore them now. And they shouldn't. It may be a sneaky way to short-term control of a market, but in the longer term it promotes chaos, which does not help anyone.
Don't act like the W3C is some sort of fascist or socialist bureaucracy. Membership is open to anyone who wants in. The agenda of the w3c is created by its members. If you have a problem with the standards, join the organization and participate in the democratic process. Standards are not being defended by anyone here as an a priori good; the point is that an external standards organization is an excellent means to a specific end -- cross platform interoperability -- in such a way that various agenda might be represented, rather than simply the agenda of MSFT shareholders.
This won't be relevant to most slashdot readers until we can get a tenure committee to accept "+5 Insightful" as the equivalent of a peer-reviewed publication.
Some really old phones can be found that redboxes work on. There is even a PalmOS application that will make your PDA play redbox tones. Helluva lot better than a hacked Hallmark greeting card!