I would prefer that this particular crowd, ostensibly so much more sophisticated than the hoi polloi, would exhibit the capacity to elevate themselves above the knee-jerk, mindless reaction of the average goober-picking yee-haw who mimics the spoon-fed pablum provided by Mass media and show at least a little insight and understanding of Al Gore's role as a Senator during the 70's (as you correctly state). Gee, I thought it might be somehow different here, but I suppose a cross-cut through the bedrock will reveal the same strata as anywhere else...
I may be off-topic here, but seeing the above post gave me hope that perhaps not everyone was 'lol'-ing for the gazillionth time at that tired, worn out joke. By the way
Re:Music Owners' Listening Rights Act of 2000
on
Million E-mail March
·
· Score: 1
A few things bothering me about this. I care so much about what happens with the whole Napster / MP3.COM thing because it portends the future. Are we going to be as free as we wish? Does this mean we are trampling on the rights of corporations to continue to make money on the backs of the artists? Anyway...
- I may be wrong, but I got a bad feeling for MP3.COM when the basically caved to RIAA threats where Napster did not
- what if I own the vinyl? Do I not have rights because I can't electronically prove I own a copy? I know, I know, its just a service offered by mp3.com, doesn't mean it has to be available to the last hippie holdout 8-track purist... I say this because the law text uses the word "phonorecord" whatever that is.
- isn't this just the sort of activism that we need here at/.? Or is anarchy still the preferred M.O. of the digerati, albeit at the risk of legal peril?
- a senator who can't read email, or doesn't appreciate the significance of it (i.e., equivalent to snail mail except that it is easier than finding a stamp, etc..) isn't going to appreciate the finer points of MP3's. That is why the industries are currently winning the battle, possibly why MP3.COM sided with industry. They can see on which side their bread is buttered and can make the persuasive argument.
The masses can only join in the inarticulate din of the disorganized throng. But in its violence, it might be more persuasive than anything. The people have spoken! Well, emailed, anyway...
Yeah, Jon, I was thinking to myself as I read your polemic: "He talks about the Wired gurus, but what of their Suck bretheren who recently posted that article accusing the nerds of being out of touch with the justice and legal system - at their peril?". I Wish things were different and I Know that the arguments put forth by candidates are fluff and deceptively clever, but I can't help but believe that to date the only way we (by this I mean computer savvy people) - that is to say, You - have addressed political realities is by ignoring them and hoping (or just pretending) they will go away. This tendency, as much emotional as pragmatic, tends to make Arthur C. Clarke's vision more seductive.
But how can we affirm and hasten that transition from what we have to - what? I dunno - if we ignore the reality that those in power are going to make it their job to Stay in power, ineffective self-governance notwithstanding? Witness the ways they can wield influence: through the legislature, the media, local and national politics; possibly everything But the Web.
At some point the status quo may become so unbalanced that the political system topples and gets replaced by something 'web-based' but short of a Bastille Day / French Revolution type thang, I don't see it happening in our lifetime.
I guess what I am saying is that we/you need to actively take on a political role and become active in the everyday life of John Q. Public in a way less technical and more practical. But the one big stumbling block to that is your/our inability to organize / compromise / agree on anything.
That suck quote comes back to mind (to paraphrase):
"How did they respond? By posting. Thousands and thousands of posts."
We gotta come up with something more tangible than this, guys, or we will never see the change we are imagining...
Reminds me of Dick Gregory's Political Primer, which was written (in prison?) in the form of a college textbook. I recall (enough to paraphrase) one of the questions to the student in the back of one of the chapters.
"In four words or less, describe the difference between the two major political parties."
I just heard that if you bring a laptop into one of the stadiums and it's not an IBM laptop (IBM is the Official Laptop of the Games), you must tape over the logo on your laptop, I guess on the outside chance that a camera might be pointed at your laptop at some point in time. Geez, if the official shoe is Nike and I am wearing Reeboks, should I put those little yellow nuclear power plant booties over them? It seems wrong, and you know why? Because it is wrong.
I remember the old days when karma was something you bought off a monk.
True, librarians refuse to become censors as that is not their job. On the other hand, I don't recall ever being allowed to get the latest edition of Hustler from my local public library. So the ALA is in a quandary: while they once were purely liberal in determining that "Tropic of Cancer", and other O. Henry novels (as well as "Naked Lunch", et al) had enough redeeming social value to allow them to be shelved and accessed by the general public, they now must wrestle with the new technology. One valid response is not to allow internet terminals in the library. Why will no one explore that as a possibility? Another is to have them in open view / log user's url visits / put NetNanny on every terminal, breast cancer be damned / blahblahblah. To me, having public funds for porn access is kind of asking for it, like when the NEA funded "Piss Christ". Just as the NEA was asking for Jesse Helms to come down hard on them, so is the ALA asking for (how come noone mentions this lady?) Dr. Laura's wrath when they try to defend the 'rights' of children to access the internet without any sort of checks. The existence of lawyers just makes the draconian measures that much more inevitable. I said it before, and I will say it again: any parent who feels that they must put NetNanny on their computer has already lost the war over their child's morals. But I don't want to get off-topic here and lose my point, so to speak...
Let's See:
Chuck D is for it. Metallica against. Offspring is gonna release their album on the internet a month early and Sony can't seem to stop 'em. Primus: for it. Limp Bizkit says 'thumbs up!'.
In Hollywood, Bill Maher is agin it, thinks its stealing.
Everyone is talking about it and/or doing something about it. Everyone has an opinion.
Sounds like democracy at its best, if you ask me. I hope the Justice Dept lets it stay on for about a year just so I can watch it all settle out. It's great spectacle!
Bluesee
One the one hand, there is the push spearheaded (IMO) by Dr. Laura. She has taken on the ALA (librarians) with her brand of outraged incredulousness and is of the opinion, generally, that our public places should be kept clean of filth and pornography.
The response by the librarians is that they are appointed to shelve books, not be an arm of the government censors. They are right, it ain't in the job charter.
But so is Dr. Laura and all the Christian conservatives. Parents should have the right to expect that their children won't be exposed to such things while they are in a public institution built for their betterment. Many things on the web are harmful to children.
The problem as I see it is in the implementation. The poster who talks about Christians placing trust in Christian teachings has a clue here. Christians see the world as basically evil, but they fail to see their own shortcomings, their own evils. They simply want to battle 'evil' on all fronts, and the library appears to them as one of the fronts. These people would censor the entire net if they could. They would eliminate all porn if they could. But they can't so they pick the hills they will die on. The library is one such hill.
Oh, for some Eastern enlightenment! For the teachings of the Buddha to reveal themselves to these well-intentioned but wayward souls!
But that ain't gonna happen soon. For now, it needs to be up to the parents. I don't think they understand the importance of their role in a child's life. I have three children and I am happy to say that they have learned from me the destruction that porn causes to their young perceptions of what makes a happy and satisfying relationship. As far as I know, they (ages 11, 13, and 17) haven't fallen prey to that seductive and destructive siren porn. You only need a filter if you have an adversarial relationship with your kid. I am afraid that most of the Christians probably do as a result of their efforts to control what are natural urges of curiosity in their children. In fact, calling for a filter at home could be considered a litmus test of such a tainted parent-child relationship.
In the meantime, I would suggest that a log of a child's library website visits be maintained and sent to some sort of goevernment agency whose job it is to keep track of stuff. Or something.
Bluesee
Who among us can picture a future in which all revenue-generating ventures fail on the Internet, and the only thing that is left is what has been contributed by individuals of their own free will, building on the ideas of others?...or one in which the commerce is based solely on the barter system, freely, without a need to hide from the government services and products transacted ? Nobody? Just as I thought... Picture what the Internet would be like without any of the money... picture what the earth would be like without any of the air... Bluesee
This is the new economy in a nutshell: the ways and means of production that Marx told us about in das kapital are now not the barrier they once were to distribution. The RIAA will "get it" as long as Congress, in the interest of preserving the Golden Goose, decides to protect the freedom of the Internet. Way to go Courtney! Are you really a man like that Margaret chick on the Phil Hendry show said?
I would direct your attention to what Robert Fripp has to say about the music industry and their practices. He also has developed an alternative subscription service solely for music Crimson, you be the judge as to whether this is a good model for the New Economy. See http://www.disciplineglobalmobile.com/dgm/dgm.htm for an indication of how current music industry practices undermine the artist and undercut their freedoms. Thank you, Robert! Bluesee
I read with interest your editorial about MS. I, too, seethe with anger at the thought that the 'big corporations' are wrestling with the 'little guys' for control over the internet. How? Wow, there is just so much at stake. A small example: MSN. They are now promoting music on their front page a la MP3.com (I am a little ignorant about MPPP, but am a Napster devotee); they are ready to rapidly fill in the vacuum left by the demise of Napster (maybe?) and MP3 (certainly) with crappy songs selected by god-knows-who. Here is what bothers me: anytime someone comes up with a way to use the internet as God (or the military, whatever) intended, i.e., Gnutella / Napster, etc... lawsuits fly. This is because those entrenched at the top are threatened, as well they should be. We, the People, are trying to create a New Economy, while they, The Entrenched are vigorously fighting it. Can the battle be won? I saw a guy on Charlie Rose (name? heh, sorry...) who said "The Whales are getting bigger, but the Minnows are getting stronger." I hope the minnows survive. There is nothing less at stake here than our own autonomy, our Freedom. there is nothing less at stake here than mind control, and behavioral modification....and billions upon billions of dollars, some of which some of us have enough of - the same people who will never have enough total freedom of thought, of action, of discourse, of choice... Bluesee
There is a story that I'll relate by paraphrasing.
When one of the first computers came out, one of the bigwigs asked one of the techies what it does. "Well, sir, it can answer many of your questions." The bigwig then typed in "WHAT IS THE CAPTITAL OF NEW ZEALAND?"
Seriously, the issue of a deterministic universe was raised by - Voltaire? - in the 1700's. It was finally laid to rest by God in the early 1900's when we discovered the wonders of quantum mechanics and its implications.
It is a good thing to know what comps can and cannot do, but we must not limit our imagination unecessarily. I am not sure I agree with the author on the benefits of limiting future potential applications of the computer; in any case, that seems to me a realm best left up to science fiction writers. Do we imagine that Jules Verne didn't step on some scientific toes in the 19-aughts?
The Regulon would be...
on
The Regulon
·
· Score: 2
I think this is a non-problem, except for Katz who seems annoyed at spammers et al.
If there were a Regulon in the Semiosphere, then all the reporters who once covered the OJ trial would be looking to get their old jobs back. I look at the OJ trial as a seminal event in the history of media. Much like the Watergate trial was, only the media are more savvy this time around. The OJ trial helped create a monster media force filled with 'gasbags' who created their own market.
But the Regulon in the Semiosphere would have to be the law of supply and demand, the market forces. The Internet now makes the free flow of information so cheap that the market forces are much much weaker. So the Regulon in the Semiosphere is just a weak force, allowing for a greater proliferation of information.
So, no, there will remain a proliferation of cheap media. But tell me, Jon, why is that a problem? I get the impression that you don't like it, and that's fine, we are all entitled to our opinion. But simply because one would prefer a different reality is not sufficient reason to change the one that exists naturally. Spamming is and should be illegal, as would, say, stock fraud, and some important forms of misinformation. But the principles of Freedom admit to the possibility of a cacophonous throng, and fairly embrace it.
I didn't really have anything to say, I just like saying "Regulon in the Semiosphere.":)
To me its like saying "why isn't the town forming little hamlets on its own?"
There is one humanity, and due to geographical divisions, several societies. The Internet affects them, but isn't one of them in the traditional sense. Jon Katz, you are asking a new thing to be just like an old thing. But it can't be that which you or anyone else envisions. It is self-deterministic. Don't tell the Internet what it should be.
It's like saying "why doesn't my car take a dump on the road like my horse did? They both do the same thing for me (provide transportation)". But your car isn't a horse, and the Internet isn't Real Life. It's a part of it.
And you are right, people. I hate to say it because there are many out there who simply go off on Jon and it sounds like jealousy and sour grapes sometimes, but Katz doesn't seem to read and respond to even the most thoughtful of posts.
He does not open himself up to this 'community', so why should he expect other 'communities' to behave like the 'experts' tell him they should? Sorry, guy, but you really do ask for it.
Slashdot Mirror
I would prefer that this particular crowd, ostensibly so much more sophisticated than the hoi polloi, would exhibit the capacity to elevate themselves above the knee-jerk, mindless reaction of the average goober-picking yee-haw who mimics the spoon-fed pablum provided by Mass media and show at least a little insight and understanding of Al Gore's role as a Senator during the 70's (as you correctly state). Gee, I thought it might be somehow different here, but I suppose a cross-cut through the bedrock will reveal the same strata as anywhere else...
g y/www_accomp.html
I may be off-topic here, but seeing the above post gave me hope that perhaps not everyone was 'lol'-ing for the gazillionth time at that tired, worn out joke. By the way
http://www.algore2000.com/internet_and_technolo
Now, about that Love Story thing...
Bluesee
A few things bothering me about this. I care so much about what happens with the whole Napster / MP3.COM thing because it portends the future. Are we going to be as free as we wish? Does this mean we are trampling on the rights of corporations to continue to make money on the backs of the artists? Anyway...
/.? Or is anarchy still the preferred M.O. of the digerati, albeit at the risk of legal peril?
- I may be wrong, but I got a bad feeling for MP3.COM when the basically caved to RIAA threats where Napster did not
- what if I own the vinyl? Do I not have rights because I can't electronically prove I own a copy? I know, I know, its just a service offered by mp3.com, doesn't mean it has to be available to the last hippie holdout 8-track purist... I say this because the law text uses the word "phonorecord" whatever that is.
- isn't this just the sort of activism that we need here at
- a senator who can't read email, or doesn't appreciate the significance of it (i.e., equivalent to snail mail except that it is easier than finding a stamp, etc..) isn't going to appreciate the finer points of MP3's. That is why the industries are currently winning the battle, possibly why MP3.COM sided with industry. They can see on which side their bread is buttered and can make the persuasive argument.
The masses can only join in the inarticulate din of the disorganized throng. But in its violence, it might be more persuasive than anything. The people have spoken! Well, emailed, anyway...
Bluesee
It says Anonymous Coward, but I'm pretty sure the poster is that Gerbil bein' used for bait on joecartoon.com
Yeah, Jon, I was thinking to myself as I read your polemic: "He talks about the Wired gurus, but what of their Suck bretheren who recently posted that article accusing the nerds of being out of touch with the justice and legal system - at their peril?". I Wish things were different and I Know that the arguments put forth by candidates are fluff and deceptively clever, but I can't help but believe that to date the only way we (by this I mean computer savvy people) - that is to say, You - have addressed political realities is by ignoring them and hoping (or just pretending) they will go away. This tendency, as much emotional as pragmatic, tends to make Arthur C. Clarke's vision more seductive.
But how can we affirm and hasten that transition from what we have to - what? I dunno - if we ignore the reality that those in power are going to make it their job to Stay in power, ineffective self-governance notwithstanding? Witness the ways they can wield influence: through the legislature, the media, local and national politics; possibly everything But the Web.
At some point the status quo may become so unbalanced that the political system topples and gets replaced by something 'web-based' but short of a Bastille Day / French Revolution type thang, I don't see it happening in our lifetime.
I guess what I am saying is that we/you need to actively take on a political role and become active in the everyday life of John Q. Public in a way less technical and more practical. But the one big stumbling block to that is your/our inability to organize / compromise / agree on anything.
That suck quote comes back to mind (to paraphrase):
"How did they respond? By posting. Thousands and thousands of posts."
We gotta come up with something more tangible than this, guys, or we will never see the change we are imagining...
Bluesee
Reminds me of Dick Gregory's Political Primer, which was written (in prison?) in the form of a college textbook. I recall (enough to paraphrase) one of the questions to the student in the back of one of the chapters.
"In four words or less, describe the difference between the two major political parties."
Bluesee
I just heard that if you bring a laptop into one of the stadiums and it's not an IBM laptop (IBM is the Official Laptop of the Games), you must tape over the logo on your laptop, I guess on the outside chance that a camera might be pointed at your laptop at some point in time. Geez, if the official shoe is Nike and I am wearing Reeboks, should I put those little yellow nuclear power plant booties over them? It seems wrong, and you know why? Because it is wrong.
I remember the old days when karma was something you bought off a monk.
True, librarians refuse to become censors as that is not their job. On the other hand, I don't recall ever being allowed to get the latest edition of Hustler from my local public library. So the ALA is in a quandary: while they once were purely liberal in determining that "Tropic of Cancer", and other O. Henry novels (as well as "Naked Lunch", et al) had enough redeeming social value to allow them to be shelved and accessed by the general public, they now must wrestle with the new technology. One valid response is not to allow internet terminals in the library. Why will no one explore that as a possibility? Another is to have them in open view / log user's url visits / put NetNanny on every terminal, breast cancer be damned / blahblahblah. To me, having public funds for porn access is kind of asking for it, like when the NEA funded "Piss Christ". Just as the NEA was asking for Jesse Helms to come down hard on them, so is the ALA asking for (how come noone mentions this lady?) Dr. Laura's wrath when they try to defend the 'rights' of children to access the internet without any sort of checks. The existence of lawyers just makes the draconian measures that much more inevitable. I said it before, and I will say it again: any parent who feels that they must put NetNanny on their computer has already lost the war over their child's morals. But I don't want to get off-topic here and lose my point, so to speak...
Bluesee
Let's See: Chuck D is for it. Metallica against. Offspring is gonna release their album on the internet a month early and Sony can't seem to stop 'em. Primus: for it. Limp Bizkit says 'thumbs up!'. In Hollywood, Bill Maher is agin it, thinks its stealing. Everyone is talking about it and/or doing something about it. Everyone has an opinion. Sounds like democracy at its best, if you ask me. I hope the Justice Dept lets it stay on for about a year just so I can watch it all settle out. It's great spectacle! Bluesee
One the one hand, there is the push spearheaded (IMO) by Dr. Laura. She has taken on the ALA (librarians) with her brand of outraged incredulousness and is of the opinion, generally, that our public places should be kept clean of filth and pornography. The response by the librarians is that they are appointed to shelve books, not be an arm of the government censors. They are right, it ain't in the job charter. But so is Dr. Laura and all the Christian conservatives. Parents should have the right to expect that their children won't be exposed to such things while they are in a public institution built for their betterment. Many things on the web are harmful to children. The problem as I see it is in the implementation. The poster who talks about Christians placing trust in Christian teachings has a clue here. Christians see the world as basically evil, but they fail to see their own shortcomings, their own evils. They simply want to battle 'evil' on all fronts, and the library appears to them as one of the fronts. These people would censor the entire net if they could. They would eliminate all porn if they could. But they can't so they pick the hills they will die on. The library is one such hill. Oh, for some Eastern enlightenment! For the teachings of the Buddha to reveal themselves to these well-intentioned but wayward souls! But that ain't gonna happen soon. For now, it needs to be up to the parents. I don't think they understand the importance of their role in a child's life. I have three children and I am happy to say that they have learned from me the destruction that porn causes to their young perceptions of what makes a happy and satisfying relationship. As far as I know, they (ages 11, 13, and 17) haven't fallen prey to that seductive and destructive siren porn. You only need a filter if you have an adversarial relationship with your kid. I am afraid that most of the Christians probably do as a result of their efforts to control what are natural urges of curiosity in their children. In fact, calling for a filter at home could be considered a litmus test of such a tainted parent-child relationship. In the meantime, I would suggest that a log of a child's library website visits be maintained and sent to some sort of goevernment agency whose job it is to keep track of stuff. Or something. Bluesee
Who among us can picture a future in which all revenue-generating ventures fail on the Internet, and the only thing that is left is what has been contributed by individuals of their own free will, building on the ideas of others? ...or one in which the commerce is based solely on the barter system, freely, without a need to hide from the government services and products transacted ? Nobody? Just as I thought... Picture what the Internet would be like without any of the money... picture what the earth would be like without any of the air... Bluesee
This is the new economy in a nutshell: the ways and means of production that Marx told us about in das kapital are now not the barrier they once were to distribution. The RIAA will "get it" as long as Congress, in the interest of preserving the Golden Goose, decides to protect the freedom of the Internet. Way to go Courtney! Are you really a man like that Margaret chick on the Phil Hendry show said?
I would direct your attention to what Robert Fripp has to say about the music industry and their practices. He also has developed an alternative subscription service solely for music Crimson, you be the judge as to whether this is a good model for the New Economy. See http://www.disciplineglobalmobile.com/dgm/dgm.htm for an indication of how current music industry practices undermine the artist and undercut their freedoms. Thank you, Robert! Bluesee
I read with interest your editorial about MS. I, too, seethe with anger at the thought that the 'big corporations' are wrestling with the 'little guys' for control over the internet. How? Wow, there is just so much at stake. A small example: MSN. They are now promoting music on their front page a la MP3.com (I am a little ignorant about MPPP, but am a Napster devotee); they are ready to rapidly fill in the vacuum left by the demise of Napster (maybe?) and MP3 (certainly) with crappy songs selected by god-knows-who. Here is what bothers me: anytime someone comes up with a way to use the internet as God (or the military, whatever) intended, i.e., Gnutella / Napster, etc... lawsuits fly. This is because those entrenched at the top are threatened, as well they should be. We, the People, are trying to create a New Economy, while they, The Entrenched are vigorously fighting it. Can the battle be won? I saw a guy on Charlie Rose (name? heh, sorry...) who said "The Whales are getting bigger, but the Minnows are getting stronger." I hope the minnows survive. There is nothing less at stake here than our own autonomy, our Freedom. there is nothing less at stake here than mind control, and behavioral modification. ...and billions upon billions of dollars, some of which some of us have enough of - the same people who will never have enough total freedom of thought, of action, of discourse, of choice... Bluesee
There is a story that I'll relate by paraphrasing.
When one of the first computers came out, one of the bigwigs asked one of the techies what it does. "Well, sir, it can answer many of your questions." The bigwig then typed in "WHAT IS THE CAPTITAL OF NEW ZEALAND?"
Seriously, the issue of a deterministic universe was raised by - Voltaire? - in the 1700's. It was finally laid to rest by God in the early 1900's when we discovered the wonders of quantum mechanics and its implications.
It is a good thing to know what comps can and cannot do, but we must not limit our imagination unecessarily. I am not sure I agree with the author on the benefits of limiting future potential applications of the computer; in any case, that seems to me a realm best left up to science fiction writers. Do we imagine that Jules Verne didn't step on some scientific toes in the 19-aughts?
I think this is a non-problem, except for Katz who seems annoyed at spammers et al.
:)
If there were a Regulon in the Semiosphere, then all the reporters who once covered the OJ trial would be looking to get their old jobs back. I look at the OJ trial as a seminal event in the history of media. Much like the Watergate trial was, only the media are more savvy this time around. The OJ trial helped create a monster media force filled with 'gasbags' who created their own market.
But the Regulon in the Semiosphere would have to be the law of supply and demand, the market forces. The Internet now makes the free flow of information so cheap that the market forces are much much weaker. So the Regulon in the Semiosphere is just a weak force, allowing for a greater proliferation of information.
So, no, there will remain a proliferation of cheap media. But tell me, Jon, why is that a problem? I get the impression that you don't like it, and that's fine, we are all entitled to our opinion. But simply because one would prefer a different reality is not sufficient reason to change the one that exists naturally. Spamming is and should be illegal, as would, say, stock fraud, and some important forms of misinformation. But the principles of Freedom admit to the possibility of a cacophonous throng, and fairly embrace it.
I didn't really have anything to say, I just like saying "Regulon in the Semiosphere."
To me its like saying "why isn't the town forming little hamlets on its own?"
There is one humanity, and due to geographical divisions, several societies. The Internet affects them, but isn't one of them in the traditional sense. Jon Katz, you are asking a new thing to be just like an old thing. But it can't be that which you or anyone else envisions. It is self-deterministic. Don't tell the Internet what it should be.
It's like saying "why doesn't my car take a dump on the road like my horse did? They both do the same thing for me (provide transportation)". But your car isn't a horse, and the Internet isn't Real Life. It's a part of it.
And you are right, people. I hate to say it because there are many out there who simply go off on Jon and it sounds like jealousy and sour grapes sometimes, but Katz doesn't seem to read and respond to even the most thoughtful of posts.
He does not open himself up to this 'community', so why should he expect other 'communities' to behave like the 'experts' tell him they should? Sorry, guy, but you really do ask for it.