Let's take a look at Mr. B's statements on open source piece by piece:
Yeah. It's good competition. It will force us to be innovative. It will force us to justify the prices and value that we deliver. And that's only healthy.
TRANSLATION: We can use it to say there's competition. Note how we say we like competition but are engaged in monopolistic practices. This ought to keep the government off our backs!
The only thing we have a problem with is when the government funds open-source work.
TRANSLATION: We're really afraid the government will get interested in open source.
Government funding should be for work that is available to everybody.
TRANSLATION: Unless the government funds our work, then you're SOL. Well, our products are available to everybody if you just sign this contract and fork over the money and don't worry about the bugs . . .
Open source is not available to commercial companies.
TRANSLATION: I'm either too stupid to read up on Open Source, or I'd better begin to spin FUD so fast it's centrifugal force could be used as artificial gravity.
The way the license is written, if you use any open-source software, you have to make the rest of your software open source.
TRANSLATION: I'd better start that FUD. I'll lie, forgettng to note that OS code requires you only to reveal code based on/using it. Also, since intellectual property is a big area of concern today, this ought to scare people.
If the government wants to put something in the public domain, it should. Linux is not in the public domain.
TRANSLATION: If I state the obvious it may scare people.
Linux is a cancer that attaches itself in an intellectual property sense to everything it touches. That's the way that the license works.
TRANSLATION: I'll use the cancer metaphor, that always works! Of course it trashes the start of this paragraph when I was all civil and stuff, but I'm on a roll. And yeah, I invoke intellectual property that'll really scare people! I just hope no one actually reads the Linux liscenses . . .
FINAL ANALYSIS: Stupidity and greed are more like a cancer than Linux.
OK, ALL else aside about how to do this, IPO status, etc. this is an interesting idea for one thought:
The idea people may invest without expecting a financial return, the idea of using money to support something instead of your own profit.
This opens up a lot of other interesting ideas as well - can companies take charity or donations (how much money could a Linux company raise if it took donations from various Penguinholics . ..). Can an Open Source company be reconcieved of as something other than the usual corporate concept?
Coming down from the blue sky, one simpl barrier I see, beyond the questions of proper procedure, is greed. A site I do some admin work for offered people a chance to donate some money and get some extra features as a gift - and prompty some ignorant a$$ argued about "getting his money's worth" without understanding that sometimes an idea is worth supporting . . .
Oh, as a programmer I realize Open Source also means Tons Of Code to Worry About. However, it still presents an advantage over Closed Source in that there is the opportunity to look through the code and the opportunity to adapt the code, and a different developmental mindset.
Not a perfect deterrent to potential abusers, but at least one that is there. Hey, I'll take what I can get.
All things aside, all questions of Linus, Bill, Mac, etc. aside, the Microsoft backdoor does illustrate a major advantage of Open Source:
Security.
Don't like the security? Change it. Don't trust a program? Check it then recompile it. Found a flaw in security? There's a good chance someone else did and has a fix.
Now I'll be first to admit that I feel MS products are not as bad as portrayed. I feel people bash them for the sake of bashing them. But Microsofts policies and attitudes, and now this debcale . . . that's highly bashable, that's indefensible.
Let's hope this story gets smeared all over the world news - and especially in those countries looking at Open Source as an alterative to Microsoft.
Well I'll admit the mistake here. I was under the impression that they did have to be defended/asserted as per other intellectual property laws.
Of course perhaps this is an interesting thought in itself - why can someone be granted a patent, then wait for a few years before suing people under it?
Let's take a look at this - having read the statements and the articles here, I think this illustrates more than "oh, darn those patents are so stupid."
The magnets are everywhere. This is a pretty lousy time to start suing people. I'd definitely say they haven't effectively defended their patent.
This illustrates that defense of patents is highly relative. If an idea becomes widespread quick enough, you can't possibly sue everyone.
From what I've read here, there's overseas investment involved in the company, specifically China. In the highly interconnected global economy, patents certainly seem like a potential weapon to me - a way to foul up other countries economies. We're too connected to be this stupid.
They've taken on some pretty heavy hitters, though in an awfully random way (Best Buy?). There's no guarantee they'll win - and this really shows that patents these days are not about principle, but about getting the court victory.
This legal action can probably be used by smart lawyers to undermine the current overdone patent/copyright legislation.
This is more than the usual stupid patent/copyright cases here. It illustrates a lot of the issues that need to be considered about patents, copyright, and intellectual property.
And I strongly reccomend people write Assistant Majority Whip Mike Pence (Republican, Indiana) on his statement. Let him know the above points, let him know the issues.
If Microsoft is engaging in a campaign against the idea of Open Source, then they're forgetting something very important:
Their own image problems.
This is Microsoft, a compnay whose products people use, but use at best out of habit, often reluctantly.
This is a company that has been investigated on monopoly charges and whose representatives lied in court.
This is a company who, after kissing up to AOL, appears to be ready to compete with them via.NET.
This is a company remembered by every user who suffered through a blue screen.
This is a company fearful that Open Source and Linux are catching on overseas - partially because people are sick of being beholden to an American company.
MS has only managed to make Open Source and related issues more visible. People will now ask about Open Source. People will want to know.
And people will wonder if Microsoft hates it, is it then such a bad thing?
Brilliant Satire - and some thoughts.
on
The Worst Of Times
·
· Score: 2
Well-done indeed. All too close to reality.
In the end, a lot of the dot-comians forgot a few simple rules:
You need to make a product people want, need, and will continue to want and need.
You have to make said product on time.
You have to make said product work.
You need to make enough money to continue to exist - you can't rely on external sources.
I have mixed sympathies for victims of the dot-com crashes. Sure, some were niave, some were truly concerned, many were energetic. But far too many ignored simple, basic economics.
Im a consultant, happily working for a branch of the company that studiously avoided getting involved in dot-coms. A lot of our competitors have fallen by the wayside, but we're steaming along.
Well, its nice to see the Danish government wants to allow file sharing - and they're allowing it by taxing writeable CDs.
This isn't a victory for file sharing.
At best, the CD tax is just a throwaway "shut up and take it" measure. At worse, however, it is the start of the idea of enforcing profits. Either way, it sets a dangerous precident.
This is a tradeoff - taxes on specific media sent right to copyright holders so people don't get harassed or arrested for sharing files.
If something like this was tried in the United States, companies would demand taxes on everything - disks, videotapes, audiotapes, photocopier use, etc. It'd be used as nothing more to funnel money to them - enforced profits.
In general I work 40 hour weeks. However this fuzzes a bit when you add in my self-training and comapny-funded training, which is another 2-10 hours a week depnding.
I have pulled some pretty excessive timeframes before, but only for a limited time.
This appears to be another case of a Microsoft person, completely out of touch with reality, trying a new tactic: insulting people's intelligence. What a brilliant marketing tool . . .
Let's dissect the article:
Claiming Open Source is a threat to intellectual property. This manages to insult open source people, suggesting they're to stupid to understand the implications of open source.
Claiming Open Source is a threat to intellectual property also assumes that people in our industry are hot for intellectual property laws - when many of us are seriously rethinking them. Mr. Mundie somehow assumes we're all stupid sheep who love the current intellectual property system.
The swipe at IBM merely insults one of their competitors' intelligence - a competitor that already is likely to not feel particuarly merciful.
Comparing Open Source to dot-com giveaways is utterly hilarious. Do they think we're so dumb to remember when MS gave away Internet Explorer as a marketing tactic? Is he aware of how bitter some tech-types are against the dot-coms and their lousy business practices? He hopes for ignorance on our parts while suggesting we all were glad to get behind InstantSpatualsOnline.com.
Microsoft practices the best of Open Source procedures. Right. Again, he assumes we're stupid.
Open source has a forking-software problem. Try the joy of dealing with several different versions of Windows in the same office, hardware and driver issues, ad nauseum. He assumes we forget some of the weird stuff Microsoft has pulled.
The GPL is not understood by many sophisticated people. Yeah, like it represents all of Open Source - and exactly how is he so sure those of us who use the GPL don't understand it? Again, he literally tells us we're idiots.
In short, another MS foot-in-mouth artist who only serves to drive people away.
At this rate I think MS's best marketing tactics would be to shut up for awhile and work on their software and products - software and products that I (be shocked) do not always think are that bad.
But I guess it's easier to insult people and play marketing games then write good code.
First, I'm glad to see books like this. The internet is changing things for people. I have and do know people that overuse it. In fact, at times, I have myself.
However, though I've seen net addiction, the author (and others) seem to be missing part of the point. People can get addicted to anything - so what people "losing life" to the net is really about is the impact of technology. The net is no more unique than television, sex, sports, drugs, religion, or anything else people can become obsesed with.
What should be studied and discussed is why people get addicted, how to identify and help addicts, and how to avoid witch-hunts againt innocent people who get improperly labeled. Though the book sounds interesting and helpful, it still sounds like it's got a bit of the "the addictive agent has some magic influence" mentality.
As a programmer and web developer whose friends are usually geeks too, the internet is so much part of my life that its easy to loose perspective. Sometimes I did. However, I found once I treated it as a tool, perspective came back. Thus I use it to meet people, make friends, arrange meetings, publish my column and my serial novel, and learn. But it's a tool.
I've heard about the "18 month mark." My friend in tech support lasted over 2 years. He's not a quitter, so he hangs on under really awful cnditions. I'm hoping he's managed to move on (I'm awaiting word as I type).
As for the psychological trauma of tech support, it isn't a joke. I've seen people so sick of tech support they hate to TALK over the phone to others.
Thank gods I don't work tech support, but I know people that have.
One currently has lasted two years, and is completely burnt out. He gets paid pretty well and gets good benefits, but over time the demands have gotten higher and the management more insane. At this rate he's ready to quit and find a different job rather than put up with it.
In my experience Tech Support is getting worse all over. It's a nasty cycle:
Tech support doesn't get attention, it's not glamorous, sexy, and it doesn't move units.
Thus tech support people are paid less, ignored, or in general treated like machines.
Tech support gets worse.
Less people want to get into tech support.
Tech support gets worse.
People quit tech support
Tech support gets worse.
People wonder what is wrong with tech support, and take a look at it - return to #1
Your best alternative is to make sure you, your office, your company have knowledgeable people on staff. You can't count on many companies out there - and if you find those you can count on, hang onto them.
All things aside about copyright laws, rights, etc. this story tells us something about the mentality all too many companies have:
"Someone is obviously ripping me off, or I can claim they are, and thus make money at it."
It's a treasure hunt to find out how to charge people as much as possible for anything remotely related to your business, or to other people's business (and claim you're just helping to enforce intellectual property rights).
It's the ultimate hope of making money for nothing.
The basic idea of expanding multimedia is an intriguing idea - add more effects, make it more realistic, expand the potential artistic complexity.
Wether it DOES anything useful, is affordable, and won't have other complications is a problem. We all recall the Pokemon Epilepsy scare - who knows what malfunctions could plague this even if it is a cool idea.
And let us not forget that old attempt at Smell-O-Vision . . .
I'm not sure that this patent can be stretched to apply to 3D games - however, as they are planning to "review sites using their technology," I get the distinct impression they're doing this as a way to generate $$$ with the old "pay-us-you're-using-our-idea" routine.
I've seen assorted 3D interactive environments, both chat and game. Indeed, some 3D games have chat in them. The concept itself is something that has been done in a variety of ways and discussed in even more ways. I can't see it holding up in court.
However, some people prefer to pay fees then face court. So let's keep watching.
If we're lucky, the sheer stupidity of this patent will be a useful tool against patent-mania.
See, these people are limiting their scope. Suing video game companies is easy, since, though millions of people play them, it's Politically Incorrect to admit you enjoy them. It's kind of like pornography - no one will admit to liking naked people, but the porn industry is trundling right along.
So, let's ask what other targets they can take on.
Hollywood. That's pretty easy to do as well. If you work at it you can point to the American movie Street Fighter, which not only combine violent media with violent videogames, but killed Raul Julia. Great evidence there.
Cable Companies. They dare broadcast a variety of media, so they're encouraging things. You can paint them as an insidious octopus-like menace whose cables are infintrating our lives.
Anyone remotely connected with the internet - after all it's the source of all corruption. There's all sorts of public figures who were involved in the internet - what great targets they make! And best of all, some of the net technology is a group effort, so there are TONS of people to sue! Suing everyone involved in Perl (which is used in CGI and thus is a major tool for abbeting use of the internet) could be a huge windfall!
Anyone with a religion different from you. After all, we know that they're responsible for a lot of problems since people of your religion are obviously perfect, just occasionally going on killing sprees. Since religion is a choice, people making the wrong choice are thus responsible for their actions. With a bit of work you can sue entire countries with a dominant religion.
Or, of course, the people could take some responsibility for their lives and deal with that time-tested statement "Shit Happens."
With my sarcasm spent, let me note how lawsuits like these combine two of the worst parts of our society - a tendancy to blame others and a lawsuit-happy attitude. These people are blaming others for their problems, so they're going to take them down without caring about the repercussions or the ethics.
Yes,I'm concerned about the MPAA using heavy-handed tactics and intimidation. Their approach seems to be "someone may infringe, so we best scare you pre-emptively." Usually scaring people pre-emptively is often considered terrorism or harassment, but I digress.
What is ignored all too often in stories like this is that there are companies out there spying on us. They monitor transactions, scan files, etc. just to see if we might be doing anything illegal.
Now if our government did this, people would be up in arms. But apparently monitoring me and my ISP without given cause beyond "you might be doing something" is just fine and dandy if you're a company. The threat to the internet is not the governments directly - it's governments that allow this to go on.
I suppose Big Brother is OK as long as he evolved via Free Enterprise. And sadly, intellectual property issues or not, this is plain disturbing.
You know, I have to wonder if some class-action suits are in order against the MPAA and the cyberspyers. Invasion of Privacy? Slander? RICO? arassment? I'm sure some lawyers out there could make quite a witch's brew of legal trouble.
Let's analyze Apple as if the were a person, not a company.
They are unfriendly towards the people they depend on (programmers, etc.)
They are very reserved and secretive (there's a reason the PC s dominant over the Mac).
They are prone to lash out bizarrely (as witnessed here).
They invoke shaky claims to justify their behavior.
They are prone to grandiose statements.
If Apple were a person, I'd think of them as a creative individual with schizophrenic tendancies marked with delusions of grandeur and persecution and a possible self-destructive urge.
Certainly lashing out at the Themes editor is crazy . . .
To speculate on "one thing" happening when subscription-based software companies go under is inaccurate. Public reactions to events change over time.
What is critical is how the public reacts to subscription-based software and how people react to the first time a subscription service goes under in a very public way. That will set the stage for how people react in the future - and if people will maintain the subscription model.
It is my hope that people are made aware of the dangers of subscription software - and that the first time a subscription service goes under (and one will) people raise merry hell about it. Then we will see precautions, then we will see harsh and serious reactions.
But if this is not done, this will become "just another computer problem" people put up with. It will become like blue screens and failing dot-coms.
What happens when subscription services go under? That depends on what WE are willing to make happen.
Sunstein's arguments about some upcoming cultural megadisaster are no different than the arguments that Y2K would end civilization.
Sunstein assumes that the world is like a set of dominoes - knock one down and the whole kit and kaboodle falls down. He's no different than those who figured bad data in Burma would destroy the Dow Jones.
The world is not a bunch of dominoes - it's a complex, ever-changing interconnected organism. A change here produces a change there. If people filter their data, the results of their ignorance will affect them and change (of many kinds) will occur.
However Sunstein goes by the domino theory, and thus assumes some "top level engineering" will stop that first domino from falling. Of course, he fails to ask what the costs and repercussions of his solutions are - which is ironic as he seems to be VERY convinced of the costs of the current situation.
The sad part is that I addressed this in a column I do on writing. Even in fiction the myth of the "domino world" is obvious.
But I suppose saying "things aren't the greatest, oh well" doesn't sell books. Panic and messianism does.
OK, this is when I enjoy Katz - heartfelt, human, and without bizarre comparisons or conspiracy theories.
In our country people like to blame "outside" elements - the that-not-like-me. It is games (which I don't play), music (which I don't like), and the Internet (which I'm too ignorant to use).
However, what is missed is that a problem this widespread (violence, suicide, bullying) is not going to come from outside - it is going to come from within the culture. That is hard for many people to accept.
Americans are people with a great deal of pride, but not all of that pride is earned. We visualize ourselves often as the Light of the World.
We're not good at introspection (having only 200+ years of history limits our shared experiences).
So, we don't want to deal with the fact that if something is going wrong in our country at large there is a problem in the culture at large. It would be having to admit we're not perfect. It would be having to admit we can make mistakes. It would mean hard work to fix things. It would mean confronting ourselves.
We are a violent culture. Wether we justify it by God, Darwin, or History, we figure nothing is wrong with taking what we want, hurting those different, and stomping around as if we'll never take a fall. Repercussions will never happen because, of course, we are so wonderful - and if they do "someone else" must be to blame.
Someday, America, will have to collectively examine itself.
Slashdot Mirror
Let's take a look at Mr. B's statements on open source piece by piece:
Yeah. It's good competition. It will force us to be innovative. It will force us to justify the prices and value that we deliver. And that's only healthy.
TRANSLATION: We can use it to say there's competition. Note how we say we like competition but are engaged in monopolistic practices. This ought to keep the government off our backs!
The only thing we have a problem with is when the government funds open-source work.
TRANSLATION: We're really afraid the government will get interested in open source.
Government funding should be for work that is available to everybody.
TRANSLATION: Unless the government funds our work, then you're SOL. Well, our products are available to everybody if you just sign this contract and fork over the money and don't worry about the bugs . . .
Open source is not available to commercial companies.
TRANSLATION: I'm either too stupid to read up on Open Source, or I'd better begin to spin FUD so fast it's centrifugal force could be used as artificial gravity.
The way the license is written, if you use any open-source software, you have to make the rest of your software open source.
TRANSLATION: I'd better start that FUD. I'll lie, forgettng to note that OS code requires you only to reveal code based on/using it. Also, since intellectual property is a big area of concern today, this ought to scare people.
If the government wants to put something in the public domain, it should. Linux is not in the public domain.
TRANSLATION: If I state the obvious it may scare people.
Linux is a cancer that attaches itself in an intellectual property sense to everything it touches. That's the way that the license works.
TRANSLATION: I'll use the cancer metaphor, that always works! Of course it trashes the start of this paragraph when I was all civil and stuff, but I'm on a roll. And yeah, I invoke intellectual property that'll really scare people! I just hope no one actually reads the Linux liscenses . . .
FINAL ANALYSIS: Stupidity and greed are more like a cancer than Linux.
OK, ALL else aside about how to do this, IPO status, etc. this is an interesting idea for one thought:
.). Can an Open Source company be reconcieved of as something other than the usual corporate concept?
The idea people may invest without expecting a financial return, the idea of using money to support something instead of your own profit.
This opens up a lot of other interesting ideas as well - can companies take charity or donations (how much money could a Linux company raise if it took donations from various Penguinholics . .
Coming down from the blue sky, one simpl barrier I see, beyond the questions of proper procedure, is greed. A site I do some admin work for offered people a chance to donate some money and get some extra features as a gift - and prompty some ignorant a$$ argued about "getting his money's worth" without understanding that sometimes an idea is worth supporting . . .
Oh, as a programmer I realize Open Source also means Tons Of Code to Worry About. However, it still presents an advantage over Closed Source in that there is the opportunity to look through the code and the opportunity to adapt the code, and a different developmental mindset.
Not a perfect deterrent to potential abusers, but at least one that is there. Hey, I'll take what I can get.
All things aside, all questions of Linus, Bill, Mac, etc. aside, the Microsoft backdoor does illustrate a major advantage of Open Source:
Security.
Don't like the security? Change it. Don't trust a program? Check it then recompile it. Found a flaw in security? There's a good chance someone else did and has a fix.
Now I'll be first to admit that I feel MS products are not as bad as portrayed. I feel people bash them for the sake of bashing them. But Microsofts policies and attitudes, and now this debcale . . . that's highly bashable, that's indefensible.
Let's hope this story gets smeared all over the world news - and especially in those countries looking at Open Source as an alterative to Microsoft.
Well I'll admit the mistake here. I was under the impression that they did have to be defended/asserted as per other intellectual property laws.
Of course perhaps this is an interesting thought in itself - why can someone be granted a patent, then wait for a few years before suing people under it?
This is more than the usual stupid patent/copyright cases here. It illustrates a lot of the issues that need to be considered about patents, copyright, and intellectual property.
And I strongly reccomend people write Assistant Majority Whip Mike Pence (Republican, Indiana) on his statement. Let him know the above points, let him know the issues.
If Microsoft is engaging in a campaign against the idea of Open Source, then they're forgetting something very important:
.NET.
Their own image problems.
This is Microsoft, a compnay whose products people use, but use at best out of habit, often reluctantly.
This is a company that has been investigated on monopoly charges and whose representatives lied in court.
This is a company who, after kissing up to AOL, appears to be ready to compete with them via
This is a company remembered by every user who suffered through a blue screen.
This is a company fearful that Open Source and Linux are catching on overseas - partially because people are sick of being beholden to an American company.
MS has only managed to make Open Source and related issues more visible. People will now ask about Open Source. People will want to know.
And people will wonder if Microsoft hates it, is it then such a bad thing?
In the end, a lot of the dot-comians forgot a few simple rules:
I have mixed sympathies for victims of the dot-com crashes. Sure, some were niave, some were truly concerned, many were energetic. But far too many ignored simple, basic economics.
Im a consultant, happily working for a branch of the company that studiously avoided getting involved in dot-coms. A lot of our competitors have fallen by the wayside, but we're steaming along.
Well, its nice to see the Danish government wants to allow file sharing - and they're allowing it by taxing writeable CDs.
This isn't a victory for file sharing.
At best, the CD tax is just a throwaway "shut up and take it" measure. At worse, however, it is the start of the idea of enforcing profits. Either way, it sets a dangerous precident.
This is a tradeoff - taxes on specific media sent right to copyright holders so people don't get harassed or arrested for sharing files.
If something like this was tried in the United States, companies would demand taxes on everything - disks, videotapes, audiotapes, photocopier use, etc. It'd be used as nothing more to funnel money to them - enforced profits.
Let's hope Denmark's idea DOESN'T catch on.
In general I work 40 hour weeks. However this fuzzes a bit when you add in my self-training and comapny-funded training, which is another 2-10 hours a week depnding.
I have pulled some pretty excessive timeframes before, but only for a limited time.
Let's dissect the article:
In short, another MS foot-in-mouth artist who only serves to drive people away.
At this rate I think MS's best marketing tactics would be to shut up for awhile and work on their software and products - software and products that I (be shocked) do not always think are that bad.
But I guess it's easier to insult people and play marketing games then write good code.
First, I'm glad to see books like this. The internet is changing things for people. I have and do know people that overuse it. In fact, at times, I have myself.
However, though I've seen net addiction, the author (and others) seem to be missing part of the point. People can get addicted to anything - so what people "losing life" to the net is really about is the impact of technology. The net is no more unique than television, sex, sports, drugs, religion, or anything else people can become obsesed with.
What should be studied and discussed is why people get addicted, how to identify and help addicts, and how to avoid witch-hunts againt innocent people who get improperly labeled. Though the book sounds interesting and helpful, it still sounds like it's got a bit of the "the addictive agent has some magic influence" mentality.
As a programmer and web developer whose friends are usually geeks too, the internet is so much part of my life that its easy to loose perspective. Sometimes I did. However, I found once I treated it as a tool, perspective came back. Thus I use it to meet people, make friends, arrange meetings, publish my column and my serial novel, and learn. But it's a tool.
I've seen your experiences before.
I've heard about the "18 month mark." My friend in tech support lasted over 2 years. He's not a quitter, so he hangs on under really awful cnditions. I'm hoping he's managed to move on (I'm awaiting word as I type).
As for the psychological trauma of tech support, it isn't a joke. I've seen people so sick of tech support they hate to TALK over the phone to others.
One currently has lasted two years, and is completely burnt out. He gets paid pretty well and gets good benefits, but over time the demands have gotten higher and the management more insane. At this rate he's ready to quit and find a different job rather than put up with it.
In my experience Tech Support is getting worse all over. It's a nasty cycle:
Your best alternative is to make sure you, your office, your company have knowledgeable people on staff. You can't count on many companies out there - and if you find those you can count on, hang onto them.
All things aside about copyright laws, rights, etc. this story tells us something about the mentality all too many companies have:
"Someone is obviously ripping me off, or I can claim they are, and thus make money at it."
It's a treasure hunt to find out how to charge people as much as possible for anything remotely related to your business, or to other people's business (and claim you're just helping to enforce intellectual property rights).
It's the ultimate hope of making money for nothing.
End result? Restraints on developing a new technology, which will thus remain experimental and unpredictable for much longer than is necessary.
I smell technophobia and political grandstanding.
The basic idea of expanding multimedia is an intriguing idea - add more effects, make it more realistic, expand the potential artistic complexity.
Wether it DOES anything useful, is affordable, and won't have other complications is a problem. We all recall the Pokemon Epilepsy scare - who knows what malfunctions could plague this even if it is a cool idea.
And let us not forget that old attempt at Smell-O-Vision . . .
I'm not sure that this patent can be stretched to apply to 3D games - however, as they are planning to "review sites using their technology," I get the distinct impression they're doing this as a way to generate $$$ with the old "pay-us-you're-using-our-idea" routine.
I've seen assorted 3D interactive environments, both chat and game. Indeed, some 3D games have chat in them. The concept itself is something that has been done in a variety of ways and discussed in even more ways. I can't see it holding up in court.
However, some people prefer to pay fees then face court. So let's keep watching.
If we're lucky, the sheer stupidity of this patent will be a useful tool against patent-mania.
So, let's ask what other targets they can take on.
Or, of course, the people could take some responsibility for their lives and deal with that time-tested statement "Shit Happens."
With my sarcasm spent, let me note how lawsuits like these combine two of the worst parts of our society - a tendancy to blame others and a lawsuit-happy attitude. These people are blaming others for their problems, so they're going to take them down without caring about the repercussions or the ethics.
Some moral stance they're making.
Yes,I'm concerned about the MPAA using heavy-handed tactics and intimidation. Their approach seems to be "someone may infringe, so we best scare you pre-emptively." Usually scaring people pre-emptively is often considered terrorism or harassment, but I digress.
What is ignored all too often in stories like this is that there are companies out there spying on us. They monitor transactions, scan files, etc. just to see if we might be doing anything illegal.
Now if our government did this, people would be up in arms. But apparently monitoring me and my ISP without given cause beyond "you might be doing something" is just fine and dandy if you're a company. The threat to the internet is not the governments directly - it's governments that allow this to go on.
I suppose Big Brother is OK as long as he evolved via Free Enterprise. And sadly, intellectual property issues or not, this is plain disturbing.
You know, I have to wonder if some class-action suits are in order against the MPAA and the cyberspyers. Invasion of Privacy? Slander? RICO? arassment? I'm sure some lawyers out there could make quite a witch's brew of legal trouble.
If Apple were a person, I'd think of them as a creative individual with schizophrenic tendancies marked with delusions of grandeur and persecution and a possible self-destructive urge.
Certainly lashing out at the Themes editor is crazy . . .
To speculate on "one thing" happening when subscription-based software companies go under is inaccurate. Public reactions to events change over time.
What is critical is how the public reacts to subscription-based software and how people react to the first time a subscription service goes under in a very public way. That will set the stage for how people react in the future - and if people will maintain the subscription model.
It is my hope that people are made aware of the dangers of subscription software - and that the first time a subscription service goes under (and one will) people raise merry hell about it. Then we will see precautions, then we will see harsh and serious reactions.
But if this is not done, this will become "just another computer problem" people put up with. It will become like blue screens and failing dot-coms.
What happens when subscription services go under? That depends on what WE are willing to make happen.
The column addressing the domino theory (while discussing writing parallel earths) is here.
Sunstein's arguments about some upcoming cultural megadisaster are no different than the arguments that Y2K would end civilization.
Sunstein assumes that the world is like a set of dominoes - knock one down and the whole kit and kaboodle falls down. He's no different than those who figured bad data in Burma would destroy the Dow Jones.
The world is not a bunch of dominoes - it's a complex, ever-changing interconnected organism. A change here produces a change there. If people filter their data, the results of their ignorance will affect them and change (of many kinds) will occur.
However Sunstein goes by the domino theory, and thus assumes some "top level engineering" will stop that first domino from falling. Of course, he fails to ask what the costs and repercussions of his solutions are - which is ironic as he seems to be VERY convinced of the costs of the current situation.
The sad part is that I addressed this in a column I do on writing. Even in fiction the myth of the "domino world" is obvious.
But I suppose saying "things aren't the greatest, oh well" doesn't sell books. Panic and messianism does.
OK, this is when I enjoy Katz - heartfelt, human, and without bizarre comparisons or conspiracy theories.
In our country people like to blame "outside" elements - the that-not-like-me. It is games (which I don't play), music (which I don't like), and the Internet (which I'm too ignorant to use).
However, what is missed is that a problem this widespread (violence, suicide, bullying) is not going to come from outside - it is going to come from within the culture. That is hard for many people to accept.
Americans are people with a great deal of pride, but not all of that pride is earned. We visualize ourselves often as the Light of the World.
We're not good at introspection (having only 200+ years of history limits our shared experiences).
So, we don't want to deal with the fact that if something is going wrong in our country at large there is a problem in the culture at large. It would be having to admit we're not perfect. It would be having to admit we can make mistakes. It would mean hard work to fix things. It would mean confronting ourselves.
We are a violent culture. Wether we justify it by God, Darwin, or History, we figure nothing is wrong with taking what we want, hurting those different, and stomping around as if we'll never take a fall. Repercussions will never happen because, of course, we are so wonderful - and if they do "someone else" must be to blame.
Someday, America, will have to collectively examine itself.