First of all, all things aside, this is just plain cool. It shows a potentially helpful technology doing its job under real-life conditions. This looks like a solid demonstration of the practicality of the technology. I expect this example will be used again and again to show why the fabrication technology is a good idea.
Now, unfortunately, come the repercussions in our copyright/patent/IP-obsessed age. Now that someone can whip up things easily, we're going to see a repeat of the fears that led us to the DMCA, et al. These machines could concievably duplicate something you don't have the right to - time for massive government controls!
Let's hope we're all well-armed mentally for the next conflict.
Yes, once again we have a report that the net is dead, companies are taking over, we've all lost, etc. I've heard this in one form or another for about three years.
Guess what? It's not dead, it's changing. Everything changes. Did people think that companies would NOT see the massive opportunity? Of course not. Look above you - as I type I see a banner add.
So, it's changing. Everthing changes. The question is what are we going to do if we don't like it?
If you don't like it do something about it. Change it sneakily. Change it cleverly. Go down fighting at least and show some dignity.
The future is for those that will make something of it. Just showing up doesn't count.
It's very easy to say "well, I can sue you in my country."
It's quite another to enforce it and deal with all the implications of said enforcement.
Though I am concerned about countries trying to pass draconian laws that affect people in other countries, though I am concerned about the DMCA-type legislation considered in other countries, enforcement is still the sticking point.
Sometimes, I visualize the future where the internet leads to the governments of the world arguing over whose laws apply where, who should turn whom over to whom, and so forth. This person violated this law, but we don't recognize your law, but this guy violated OUR law, so . . .
Maybe while they argue we can get something productive done . . .
I'm bang alongside helping and protesting for Sklyarov, but are there any ways to donate for his family? I'm sure they've got enough concerns and expenses as it is.
Improving languages? More power to the people doing it. C++ is daunting as hell even to experienced programmers coming from other languages, and has some pretty odd legacies.
However, to play Devil's Advocate, why base a language on anything pre-existing? Is anyone creating languages completely (or mostly) from scratch?
Admittedly a from-scratch language would be up against a higher learning curve, but I wonder if the benefits would outweigh this.
Just a thought from a person who's had to learn a lot of languages.
For a man who decries negative images and stereotypes of geeks, Katz (who I do not think is nearly as bad as some thing) manages make this a hideously offensive column. In short, teens are smart a$$holes and we need to teach them ethics.
Wonderful. In one fell swoop he manages to both generalize and be shallow.
The part that galls me the most is that agression in teen online culture (which is there, but its in many online cultures) did NOT happen in a vaccum. Guess what? It came from their parents, culture, religion, media, etc. The violence and violent attitudes we see don't just appear, the kids didn't invent them.
It almost sounds like Katz blames the net by default.
Kids are young people. Teach them. Raise them. Be responsible and understand them. Nuff said.
What is surprising . . .
on
PDF Virus Spotted
·
· Score: 1, Redundant
Is that Adobe didn't find a way to blame Sklyarov or someone else and have them arrested - which seems much easier than addressing actual issues.
Odd idea here - let's stop imagining kids versus adults and focus on (and call my a wild radical here) raising our kids, supporting them, learning when we can and teaching when we can. You know, that community-type thingy that humans have experimented with for, oh, say . . . a few hundred thousand years.
It may make great press to imagine armies of techno-teens versus the irrelevant old geezers, but real life should take precidence over masturbatory culture-clash fantasies.
Most techno-teens spent the day pretty much like everyone else - getting along in life, having fun, making mistakes, learning. Same things us techno-oldsters did in our day, just with more bandwidth and pop-up adds.
First of all, as noted, we hear the exceptions, not the rule. Most fifteen-year-olds I run into on the net certainly aren't stupid, but I doubt they're running things. My 20 to 30 something friends do a lot on the net because we also have the money and the access to make our own servers, buy domains, etc.
Secondly, let's be honest about "kids running things" - the adults have the government, and the military, the police, and the money In short, brute and economic force. Until the kids have that, they aren't running things - and by the time they do, they'll be adults.
And, ironically, probably wonering if THEIR kids are running things.
This is an ironic arena of businesses fighting with each other. On one hand, we have . . . well the MPAA and RIAA whom I trust to care about my well-being as much as I'd trust Pauly Shore with nuclear weapons.
On the other, companies who make money selling access. I doubt they care much about my rights either.
However, what we do have is two different corporate intersts colliding, and as noted, if people don't like one service, they can go elsewhere. I can easily see companies using this as a sales pitch eventually - we support your rights and won't back down (please pay promptly).
This is a factor I hadn't considered in why people won't pay for content.
I think this relates to the mistrust between people and large content providers now - do we REALLY trust the MPAA, RIAA, etc.? I don't. Once micropayments start, I do expect people to search for even MORE ways to gouge us.
Come to think of it, the trust factor explains a LOT about aversion to paying for content, perhaps the critical factor.
I've thought about this issue myself, and first of all I don't think there's one answer. Any complex question like this isn't going to be answered simply.
However, I believe there are several specific answers:
ACCESS: We've got a lot of free information out there - libraries, personal sites, etc. Or we can pay a small amount for a book then hand it around making it free for the borrowers.. People like this, people are used to this. If you want them to pay, they'd like to see a good reason as to why.
BACKLASH: Let's face it, we're tired of the RIAA, MPAA, DMCA, and all the other collections of letters that have been screwing with us. We don't want to pay because the money always seems to be going to a bunch of pompous, controlling a$$es. If people knew more money was going right to the folks doing the work, there'd be less whining.
INTERPRETATION: Cable in my area is basically information delivery you pay for. People understand that, but payments for content on line have been pitched very poorly, and usually when someone suddenly needed a buck to keep a site going. People need to see that paying for content (in one for or another), isn't unusual in the non-computer world.
SELFISHNESS: People don't want to cough up $$$ sometimes, even if it'll help keep a writer or artist in business.
ENTITLEMENT: People were used to all sorts of free net services before The Crash. They still feel like things should be free.
Well, those are my theories, my 1/50th of a dollar (US please, the exchange rate is pretty good).
The webmaster in question states "ordinary people" are the problem, not governments or coprorations. This may seem a surprise to some.
However, it shouldn't be - because be they ordinary people, government people, or corporate people, the operative word is *people*. The greedy, the oppressive, the self-rigtheous are people too, and they can be found anywhere and their behavior is always the same. Some just have the tools or position to make their pathology into policy.
The oppressor can exist at any level of society. It's up to those of us who don't like the oppressor to not let him gain power - and even more important, to not become like him in the process.
I've had two major employers in IT, both consulting companies.
One fluctuated on training, encouraging us to do it ourselves and providing some money for books, but very little organization. We were free, but we had to make our own time.
My current employer emphasizes training when consultants are off assignment. You can train in your spare time, take time off for classes (if approved), etc., but the major focus is "when you don't work 8 hours a day, you will study 8 hours a day." Your manager also advises you on training paths.
My current employer thus has very little retention problems, and skillsets are always increasing. Because the support is there and organized, people take advantage of it. Even when there's lots of downtime, by the odds, eventually you WILL get an assignment if for nothing else what you learn during downtime.
The lesson? Make sure there's time and access to training. How much can vary depending on situations, but there needs to be some, and there needs to be a way to do it. Downtime is for study, and study is part of the job.
I have no plans to leave this company, needless to say.
IANAL, AIDWTB (I Am Not A Lawyer, And I Don't Want To Be).
If I read this correctly, basically, Microsoft dictates what kind of products you can use to work on this code. Hmmm. How long until you have to agree to only use Microsoft tools?
This, of course, is moronic. First of all, people are just going to ignore this, and unless Microsoft wants to have Code Police on guard, they're going to have the damndest time enforcing this.
Secondly, they've just limited people's interests in working with this code. "Whoops, sorry, you're not allowed to use your beloved tool with us!"
Third, if they keep throwing down gauntlets like this, someone is going to pick one up and give them a good smack. This is handing their competitors a wonderful opportunity ("Unlike Microsoft, we don't care what tools you use") and of course sticking their collective rear ends back in legal crosshairs ("How long until their agreements forbid the use of competitors non-OS tools?")
I'll be the first to say I actually think M$ products get an unfair rap many times, and I'll also be the first to say they have the PR skills of an epileptic monkey and serious ethical problems.
This is just another case of Microsoft, detached from common sense, doing what they've done for years. It's gonna catch up with them.
OK, so Bill is trying to scare people off of Open Source and GPL (and playing fuzz-the-boundaries as well) by saying all sorts of nasty things. Yet . . .
Now, some of his company's products use Free BSD, which anyone can idiot can discover (includng this idiot).
Hotmail uses Linux. I've heard this talked about for years.
Many progammers out there are quite aware of Open Source and its benefits. The company I work for even offers training for some Open Source products.
People are definitely using Open Source, which can be revealed by even the simplest investigations.
The more he talks about OS, the more it enters the spotlight and the more his statements get examined.
So what Gates is doing is, no matter how else one defines it, is saying the sky is Green. The problem is that you can go outside and see that he's full of it, and the more someone yells "The Sky Is Green" the more likely someone is to check.
His strategy is essentially hoping he can lie enough to get away with it - which seems pretty par for the course for M$ for some time.
My guess is Bill thinks that he's never going to be called to account for his actions and that he can keep getting away with it. The problem with lies of course is you have to keep creating bigger ones as you get caught.
So, as long as OS keeps rolling, Bill will have to keep fabricating, and perhaps we can have the joy of watching him self destruct.
What can I say, I'm a positive kind of guy in my own way.
Forget the M$/Linux thing, forget the fact that 600K doesnt seem significant compared to other companies, forget the dot-com hype and fall.
A company using OS as its base has managed to make a profit in a few years and survive. That may not legitimate the business model, but it gives us some hope that it is legitimate or can be legitimate.
And that, all things aside, is pretty damn neat and inspiring. So congrats to the Red Hat people.
One thing to keep in mind in fights like these, as pathetic as they are, is that companies are groups of people (and groups, of groups), not monolithic lockstep entities.
How much of this lawsuit (and the other lawsuits in this miess) are really representative of the companies/for the good of the companies/whatever? How much are some executive seeing dollar signs, some unhappy middle-manager seeking revenge, some group with lousy data making a stupid decision, a paranoid marketing manager, etc.
Of course this and related actions seem stupid because they are. The average company has all the grace and finesse of a drunken elephant. It's hard to find a "bad guy" or "good guy" because companies are made up of both.
What you can find easily is stupidity. There appears to be alot going around in this case.
1) Would it be getting nearly as much attention if it was being done by someone else other than Microsoft?
2) Is the basic concept a bad idea?
3) What are the legal issues?
After thinking it over, I think #1 is only partially true. If anyone was making a display-alteration system and attempting to get distributed, there would be controversy. Microsoft doing it just makes it something people will pay attention to for a variety of reasons - including (well-placed) mistrust of the company.
The basic concept however, of finding ways to enhance web delivery and use, is one I think is pretty useful. I've seen a variety of software packages meant to enhance the web experience. I think the basic idea isn't one to toss out - it's the implementation we should be concerned about.
Finally, the legal issues. To that I say - are we surprised it's already being talked about in legal issues? The internet and computer legislation of today is an utter mess - and the insanity of the DMCA is clearly displayed where companies champion it one moment, and violate it the next. I'm sure that Smart Tags will merely expose more of the pathology of technology legislation today - and, of course, I'm going to enjoy it.
In closing, I think the idea of enhancing web display isn't inherently flawed - but the company that's suddenly championing it and the legal labrynth of today certainly complicate any issues of actual usefulness.
As I recall, didn't someone who created a site-modifier (to change the language of a site) face a lawsuit under DMCA? I could be wrong, but I seem to recall a time site modification sites were getting in trouble.
This is possibly one of the most amazingly blatant examples of Microsoft misusing its technology I have seen - and that is saying a great deal. If this doesn't affect the monopoly case it bloody well should - though under the Shrub administration I have my doubts.
As for this helping Microsoft, this is one Microsoft user (albeit rather involuntary) who won't touch XP with a ten foot pole. Now if I can only talk my wife into using Linux at home . . .
Slashdot Mirror
Well said. True, some restrictions may be nice - I shouldn't let my cynicism run away with me.
The idea of Open Source hitting the "real world" objects is utterly fascinating. That'd jack up some levels of competition . . .
First of all, all things aside, this is just plain cool. It shows a potentially helpful technology doing its job under real-life conditions. This looks like a solid demonstration of the practicality of the technology. I expect this example will be used again and again to show why the fabrication technology is a good idea.
Now, unfortunately, come the repercussions in our copyright/patent/IP-obsessed age. Now that someone can whip up things easily, we're going to see a repeat of the fears that led us to the DMCA, et al. These machines could concievably duplicate something you don't have the right to - time for massive government controls!
Let's hope we're all well-armed mentally for the next conflict.
Yes, once again we have a report that the net is dead, companies are taking over, we've all lost, etc. I've heard this in one form or another for about three years.
Guess what? It's not dead, it's changing. Everything changes. Did people think that companies would NOT see the massive opportunity? Of course not. Look above you - as I type I see a banner add.
So, it's changing. Everthing changes. The question is what are we going to do if we don't like it?
If you don't like it do something about it. Change it sneakily. Change it cleverly. Go down fighting at least and show some dignity.
The future is for those that will make something of it. Just showing up doesn't count.
It's very easy to say "well, I can sue you in my country."
It's quite another to enforce it and deal with all the implications of said enforcement.
Though I am concerned about countries trying to pass draconian laws that affect people in other countries, though I am concerned about the DMCA-type legislation considered in other countries, enforcement is still the sticking point.
Sometimes, I visualize the future where the internet leads to the governments of the world arguing over whose laws apply where, who should turn whom over to whom, and so forth. This person violated this law, but we don't recognize your law, but this guy violated OUR law, so . . .
Maybe while they argue we can get something productive done . . .
I'm bang alongside helping and protesting for Sklyarov, but are there any ways to donate for his family? I'm sure they've got enough concerns and expenses as it is.
Improving languages? More power to the people doing it. C++ is daunting as hell even to experienced programmers coming from other languages, and has some pretty odd legacies.
However, to play Devil's Advocate, why base a language on anything pre-existing? Is anyone creating languages completely (or mostly) from scratch?
Admittedly a from-scratch language would be up against a higher learning curve, but I wonder if the benefits would outweigh this.
Just a thought from a person who's had to learn a lot of languages.
For a man who decries negative images and stereotypes of geeks, Katz (who I do not think is nearly as bad as some thing) manages make this a hideously offensive column. In short, teens are smart a$$holes and we need to teach them ethics.
Wonderful. In one fell swoop he manages to both generalize and be shallow.
The part that galls me the most is that agression in teen online culture (which is there, but its in many online cultures) did NOT happen in a vaccum. Guess what? It came from their parents, culture, religion, media, etc. The violence and violent attitudes we see don't just appear, the kids didn't invent them.
It almost sounds like Katz blames the net by default.
Kids are young people. Teach them. Raise them. Be responsible and understand them. Nuff said.
Is that Adobe didn't find a way to blame Sklyarov or someone else and have them arrested - which seems much easier than addressing actual issues.
That's a completely different issue - and a sad one. Young talented folks getting undervalued and underpaid.
There's a generational conflict that needs exploring a lot more.
Odd idea here - let's stop imagining kids versus adults and focus on (and call my a wild radical here) raising our kids, supporting them, learning when we can and teaching when we can. You know, that community-type thingy that humans have experimented with for, oh, say . . . a few hundred thousand years.
It may make great press to imagine armies of techno-teens versus the irrelevant old geezers, but real life should take precidence over masturbatory culture-clash fantasies.
Most techno-teens spent the day pretty much like everyone else - getting along in life, having fun, making mistakes, learning. Same things us techno-oldsters did in our day, just with more bandwidth and pop-up adds.
First of all, as noted, we hear the exceptions, not the rule. Most fifteen-year-olds I run into on the net certainly aren't stupid, but I doubt they're running things. My 20 to 30 something friends do a lot on the net because we also have the money and the access to make our own servers, buy domains, etc.
Secondly, let's be honest about "kids running things" - the adults have the government, and the military, the police, and the money In short, brute and economic force. Until the kids have that, they aren't running things - and by the time they do, they'll be adults.
And, ironically, probably wonering if THEIR kids are running things.
This is an ironic arena of businesses fighting with each other. On one hand, we have . . . well the MPAA and RIAA whom I trust to care about my well-being as much as I'd trust Pauly Shore with nuclear weapons.
On the other, companies who make money selling access. I doubt they care much about my rights either.
However, what we do have is two different corporate intersts colliding, and as noted, if people don't like one service, they can go elsewhere. I can easily see companies using this as a sales pitch eventually - we support your rights and won't back down (please pay promptly).
Maybe we can use greed against greed.
Company uses franchise to make money.
All the news about starships, casts, history, etc. is just window dressing to this simple piece of news.
This is a factor I hadn't considered in why people won't pay for content.
I think this relates to the mistrust between people and large content providers now - do we REALLY trust the MPAA, RIAA, etc.? I don't. Once micropayments start, I do expect people to search for even MORE ways to gouge us.
Come to think of it, the trust factor explains a LOT about aversion to paying for content, perhaps the critical factor.
I've thought about this issue myself, and first of all I don't think there's one answer. Any complex question like this isn't going to be answered simply.
However, I believe there are several specific answers:
ACCESS: We've got a lot of free information out there - libraries, personal sites, etc. Or we can pay a small amount for a book then hand it around making it free for the borrowers.. People like this, people are used to this. If you want them to pay, they'd like to see a good reason as to why.
BACKLASH: Let's face it, we're tired of the RIAA, MPAA, DMCA, and all the other collections of letters that have been screwing with us. We don't want to pay because the money always seems to be going to a bunch of pompous, controlling a$$es. If people knew more money was going right to the folks doing the work, there'd be less whining.
INTERPRETATION: Cable in my area is basically information delivery you pay for. People understand that, but payments for content on line have been pitched very poorly, and usually when someone suddenly needed a buck to keep a site going. People need to see that paying for content (in one for or another), isn't unusual in the non-computer world.
SELFISHNESS: People don't want to cough up $$$ sometimes, even if it'll help keep a writer or artist in business.
ENTITLEMENT: People were used to all sorts of free net services before The Crash. They still feel like things should be free.
Well, those are my theories, my 1/50th of a dollar (US please, the exchange rate is pretty good).
Is that of the celebrety queries, I don't KNOW who the top two are.
I think this says I'm out of touch with the interests of the general web-using population. I'm not sure if this is a good thing or a bad thing.
The webmaster in question states "ordinary people" are the problem, not governments or coprorations. This may seem a surprise to some.
However, it shouldn't be - because be they ordinary people, government people, or corporate people, the operative word is *people*. The greedy, the oppressive, the self-rigtheous are people too, and they can be found anywhere and their behavior is always the same. Some just have the tools or position to make their pathology into policy.
The oppressor can exist at any level of society. It's up to those of us who don't like the oppressor to not let him gain power - and even more important, to not become like him in the process.
I've had two major employers in IT, both consulting companies.
One fluctuated on training, encouraging us to do it ourselves and providing some money for books, but very little organization. We were free, but we had to make our own time.
My current employer emphasizes training when consultants are off assignment. You can train in your spare time, take time off for classes (if approved), etc., but the major focus is "when you don't work 8 hours a day, you will study 8 hours a day." Your manager also advises you on training paths.
My current employer thus has very little retention problems, and skillsets are always increasing. Because the support is there and organized, people take advantage of it. Even when there's lots of downtime, by the odds, eventually you WILL get an assignment if for nothing else what you learn during downtime.
The lesson? Make sure there's time and access to training. How much can vary depending on situations, but there needs to be some, and there needs to be a way to do it. Downtime is for study, and study is part of the job.
I have no plans to leave this company, needless to say.
IANAL, AIDWTB (I Am Not A Lawyer, And I Don't Want To Be).
If I read this correctly, basically, Microsoft dictates what kind of products you can use to work on this code. Hmmm. How long until you have to agree to only use Microsoft tools?
This, of course, is moronic. First of all, people are just going to ignore this, and unless Microsoft wants to have Code Police on guard, they're going to have the damndest time enforcing this.
Secondly, they've just limited people's interests in working with this code. "Whoops, sorry, you're not allowed to use your beloved tool with us!"
Third, if they keep throwing down gauntlets like this, someone is going to pick one up and give them a good smack. This is handing their competitors a wonderful opportunity ("Unlike Microsoft, we don't care what tools you use") and of course sticking their collective rear ends back in legal crosshairs ("How long until their agreements forbid the use of competitors non-OS tools?")
I'll be the first to say I actually think M$ products get an unfair rap many times, and I'll also be the first to say they have the PR skills of an epileptic monkey and serious ethical problems.
This is just another case of Microsoft, detached from common sense, doing what they've done for years. It's gonna catch up with them.
So what Gates is doing is, no matter how else one defines it, is saying the sky is Green. The problem is that you can go outside and see that he's full of it, and the more someone yells "The Sky Is Green" the more likely someone is to check.
His strategy is essentially hoping he can lie enough to get away with it - which seems pretty par for the course for M$ for some time.
My guess is Bill thinks that he's never going to be called to account for his actions and that he can keep getting away with it. The problem with lies of course is you have to keep creating bigger ones as you get caught.
So, as long as OS keeps rolling, Bill will have to keep fabricating, and perhaps we can have the joy of watching him self destruct.
What can I say, I'm a positive kind of guy in my own way.
Forget the M$/Linux thing, forget the fact that 600K doesnt seem significant compared to other companies, forget the dot-com hype and fall.
A company using OS as its base has managed to make a profit in a few years and survive. That may not legitimate the business model, but it gives us some hope that it is legitimate or can be legitimate.
And that, all things aside, is pretty damn neat and inspiring. So congrats to the Red Hat people.
One thing to keep in mind in fights like these, as pathetic as they are, is that companies are groups of people (and groups, of groups), not monolithic lockstep entities.
How much of this lawsuit (and the other lawsuits in this miess) are really representative of the companies/for the good of the companies/whatever? How much are some executive seeing dollar signs, some unhappy middle-manager seeking revenge, some group with lousy data making a stupid decision, a paranoid marketing manager, etc.
Of course this and related actions seem stupid because they are. The average company has all the grace and finesse of a drunken elephant. It's hard to find a "bad guy" or "good guy" because companies are made up of both.
What you can find easily is stupidity. There appears to be alot going around in this case.
Some thoughts on the Smart Tag issue.
1) Would it be getting nearly as much attention if it was being done by someone else other than Microsoft?
2) Is the basic concept a bad idea?
3) What are the legal issues?
After thinking it over, I think #1 is only partially true. If anyone was making a display-alteration system and attempting to get distributed, there would be controversy. Microsoft doing it just makes it something people will pay attention to for a variety of reasons - including (well-placed) mistrust of the company.
The basic concept however, of finding ways to enhance web delivery and use, is one I think is pretty useful. I've seen a variety of software packages meant to enhance the web experience. I think the basic idea isn't one to toss out - it's the implementation we should be concerned about.
Finally, the legal issues. To that I say - are we surprised it's already being talked about in legal issues? The internet and computer legislation of today is an utter mess - and the insanity of the DMCA is clearly displayed where companies champion it one moment, and violate it the next. I'm sure that Smart Tags will merely expose more of the pathology of technology legislation today - and, of course, I'm going to enjoy it.
In closing, I think the idea of enhancing web display isn't inherently flawed - but the company that's suddenly championing it and the legal labrynth of today certainly complicate any issues of actual usefulness.
Check out:
l dren/index.html
http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2001/06/11/chi
Salon takes a look at the "protecting the children" mantra in the age of censorship. Very informative.
As I recall, didn't someone who created a site-modifier (to change the language of a site) face a lawsuit under DMCA? I could be wrong, but I seem to recall a time site modification sites were getting in trouble.
This is possibly one of the most amazingly blatant examples of Microsoft misusing its technology I have seen - and that is saying a great deal. If this doesn't affect the monopoly case it bloody well should - though under the Shrub administration I have my doubts.
As for this helping Microsoft, this is one Microsoft user (albeit rather involuntary) who won't touch XP with a ten foot pole. Now if I can only talk my wife into using Linux at home . . .