I doubt that the real purpose of filters in libraries is censorship. I have been to libraries where they filter out things like webmail access.
They simply don't want people wasting their resources on sites that don't have any educational or research value.
(Not that porn doesn't have an educational or research value)
Remembering the way Richard Feynman discussed the nuclear bomb tests in "Surely you're joking, mister Feynman", I can't help but think that was an example of human test-subjects right there.
According to Feynman, the scientists who worked on the experiment were stationed a few miles out from the explosion and given dark glasses so they could watch the results.
But there was another group -- a group of regular ol' soldiers -- who were stationed much closer to the blast. These soldiers, who supposedly represented the invasion force, were told to lie down in a ditch while the bomb went off.
Feynman, like many of the other scientists who witnessed the event, eventually died from cancer. He didn't display any cynicism about the government's motives; he merely stated that the effects of radiation on humans were not well known at the time.
But what, really, was the government's motive for putting soldiers in a ditch only 1 or 2 miles (I think) from the impact? I imagine that almost all of these men must have eventually contracted radiation sickness, and this provides a good sample for the government's tests of the effect of radiation on humans.
What I see here is the hackers wanting to "own" a word and control its usage. The hackers FAQ says that you aren't a hacker until other hackers recognize you as such. What gives them the right to control a word's usage?
One of the most abused rights is the "right" to self-naming. If you are a member of a cultural group, feel free to call yourself whatever you want, but you can't expect the rest of the world to go along with you no matter what.
Examples:
Prince, wierd symbol, "The Artist". Whatever... he's still Prince to me. If he wants to choose a pretentious name like "The Artist" then I'm not going to call him that.
In the same vein, if I change my name to the King of England, you're probably not going to recognize my sovereignty.
Sometimes, when a group advocates a certain name for themselves, they don't even have clear consensus from within the group. For example, using "African American" when "Black" is clearly the most descriptive word available. Try calling someone of Jamaican origin and African American; they sometimes get pissed off. I've even heard the term used to refer to people who live in Africa and are not American in any way, which is ludicrous.
Often, groups use names which have political connotations. "First Peoples" is more of a political statement than a name for a group.
In the abortion debate, both sides want to be pro-something. You can be pro-life or pro-choice. Or you can call your opponents anti-life or anti-choice or pro-death.
The media is better served to reject the obviously poltically-minded naming scheme and just call them pro-abortion and anti-abortion.
In the hacker vs. cracker situation, we have a case where the hackers want to prevent the crackers from calling themselves hackers (let's face it, the crackers probably do want to be known as hackers).
They have no particular right to do this. I have seen one instance where an organization (The Professional Engineers of Ontario) asserted their right to regulate the use of the word "engineer". However, the difference is that they are a trade organization with privileged legal status (and I still don't personally agree with their ability to do this).
This sounds suspiciously like the open source marketing models that were advanced by Netscape et al. Trouble is, many of us (brain-dead Nasdaq ex-millionaire investors excluded) aren't sold on the open source business model.
I, for one, would prefer to pay directly for the products I consume, and not for the packaging, the shipping, and the marketing tie-ins.
I'm so sick of going to a hockey game where every on-ice event is a product tie-in (e.g. the frito lay power play), sick of having to watch brainless sitcoms because advertisers believe they put teens in a mildy amused (and thus receptive to advertising) state, sick of movies which exist solely as advertisements for the action figures.
Do musicians have to follow the open source model? Should you give away your music for free as a loss-leader for the cover art? Should someone else be able to sell your music (with no profit to you) just because they can design better cover art than you?
The Internet provides a golden opportunity for artists to sell their products direct to the public at a reasonable price. That way, you're not paying the industry fatcats and you're not subsidizing the label's search for new boy bands. You're just paying for the product you want (the music).
BTW, In addition to the singles you hear on the radio, you have ample opportunity to preview the album before you buy it. Many sites provide clips from every song on the album. Plus there are magazine reviews, newsgroups, and word of mouth.
Courtney makes some excellent points, but I think she is still a bit naive to believe that people will go out of their way to "tip her" for her music.
How many websites/newsletters do you read where the authors have to beg & plead with you to please click on the ads? And do you?
Hell, Ayn Rand believed that if we abolished income tax then rich citizens would voluntarily pony up the dough to pay for roads, an army, etc.
I'm not a big fan of the bin music companies, and I do think the Internet can have a positive effect on the music industry, but Napster is not the only possible solution.
Most people are honest enough that they will pay a reasonable fee (as opposed to $20 for a cd) for a service so long as the payment mechanism is convenient (no forms to fill out).
A system of micropayments would allow this. You could listen to a song on demand for $.05 or buy (i.e. download) the whole album for $1.
Online radio formats like RealAudio help because they do not allow the user to save the downloaded music to disk. Yes, they can be subverted, but this indicates a consciousness of guilt.
Micropayments can be easy and automatic. It is still possible to subvert the system, but it requires effort to do so, and you end up feeling like a criminal. Who wants that?
If Napster was illegal then only criminals would use Napster.
Slashdot Mirror
I doubt that the real purpose of filters in libraries is censorship. I have been to libraries where they filter out things like webmail access. They simply don't want people wasting their resources on sites that don't have any educational or research value. (Not that porn doesn't have an educational or research value)
The biggest use of this technology will be in creating portable halitosis detectors. Now THAT would improve society.
Remembering the way Richard Feynman discussed the nuclear bomb tests in "Surely you're joking, mister Feynman", I can't help but think that was an example of human test-subjects right there.
According to Feynman, the scientists who worked on the experiment were stationed a few miles out from the explosion and given dark glasses so they could watch the results.
But there was another group -- a group of regular ol' soldiers -- who were stationed much closer to the blast. These soldiers, who supposedly represented the invasion force, were told to lie down in a ditch while the bomb went off.
Feynman, like many of the other scientists who witnessed the event, eventually died from cancer. He didn't display any cynicism about the government's motives; he merely stated that the effects of radiation on humans were not well known at the time.
But what, really, was the government's motive for putting soldiers in a ditch only 1 or 2 miles (I think) from the impact? I imagine that almost all of these men must have eventually contracted radiation sickness, and this provides a good sample for the government's tests of the effect of radiation on humans.
The only way in which Microsoft really facilitated the virus was in creating an explorer mode to "hide file extensions for known file types."
.txt or .mp3 file but is really a .vbs file?
How can you blame a user for double-clicking a file which appears to be a
I personally find this option very annoying and turn it off whenever I use a new Windows machine, but for some reason it is the default.
What I see here is the hackers wanting to "own" a word and control its usage. The hackers FAQ says that you aren't a hacker until other hackers recognize you as such. What gives them the right to control a word's usage?
One of the most abused rights is the "right" to self-naming. If you are a member of a cultural group, feel free to call yourself whatever you want, but you can't expect the rest of the world to go along with you no matter what.
Examples:
Prince, wierd symbol, "The Artist". Whatever... he's still Prince to me. If he wants to choose a pretentious name like "The Artist" then I'm not going to call him that.
In the same vein, if I change my name to the King of England, you're probably not going to recognize my sovereignty.
Sometimes, when a group advocates a certain name for themselves, they don't even have clear consensus from within the group. For example, using "African American" when "Black" is clearly the most descriptive word available. Try calling someone of Jamaican origin and African American; they sometimes get pissed off. I've even heard the term used to refer to people who live in Africa and are not American in any way, which is ludicrous.
Often, groups use names which have political connotations. "First Peoples" is more of a political statement than a name for a group.
In the abortion debate, both sides want to be pro-something. You can be pro-life or pro-choice. Or you can call your opponents anti-life or anti-choice or pro-death.
The media is better served to reject the obviously poltically-minded naming scheme and just call them pro-abortion and anti-abortion.
In the hacker vs. cracker situation, we have a case where the hackers want to prevent the crackers from calling themselves hackers (let's face it, the crackers probably do want to be known as hackers).
They have no particular right to do this. I have seen one instance where an organization (The Professional Engineers of Ontario) asserted their right to regulate the use of the word "engineer". However, the difference is that they are a trade organization with privileged legal status (and I still don't personally agree with their ability to do this).
God! Awful
I, for one, would prefer to pay directly for the products I consume, and not for the packaging, the shipping, and the marketing tie-ins.
I'm so sick of going to a hockey game where every on-ice event is a product tie-in (e.g. the frito lay power play), sick of having to watch brainless sitcoms because advertisers believe they put teens in a mildy amused (and thus receptive to advertising) state, sick of movies which exist solely as advertisements for the action figures.
Do musicians have to follow the open source model? Should you give away your music for free as a loss-leader for the cover art? Should someone else be able to sell your music (with no profit to you) just because they can design better cover art than you?
The Internet provides a golden opportunity for artists to sell their products direct to the public at a reasonable price. That way, you're not paying the industry fatcats and you're not subsidizing the label's search for new boy bands. You're just paying for the product you want (the music).
BTW, In addition to the singles you hear on the radio, you have ample opportunity to preview the album before you buy it. Many sites provide clips from every song on the album. Plus there are magazine reviews, newsgroups, and word of mouth.
Hell, Ayn Rand believed that if we abolished income tax then rich citizens would voluntarily pony up the dough to pay for roads, an army, etc.
I'm not a big fan of the bin music companies, and I do think the Internet can have a positive effect on the music industry, but Napster is not the only possible solution.
Most people are honest enough that they will pay a reasonable fee (as opposed to $20 for a cd) for a service so long as the payment mechanism is convenient (no forms to fill out). A system of micropayments would allow this. You could listen to a song on demand for $.05 or buy (i.e. download) the whole album for $1.
Online radio formats like RealAudio help because they do not allow the user to save the downloaded music to disk. Yes, they can be subverted, but this indicates a consciousness of guilt. Micropayments can be easy and automatic. It is still possible to subvert the system, but it requires effort to do so, and you end up feeling like a criminal. Who wants that?
If Napster was illegal then only criminals would use Napster.