I do think some people would react differently if Microsoft was doing the investigating. I think this is the kind of thing we should be concerned about.
All serious (and legitimate) concerns aside, Microsoft provides an excellent boogieman for people to jeer at - while AOL merges with Time Warner, Larry Ellison goes on an ego rampage, and Yahoo snatches up everythng in sight.
The danger of making Microsoft the Prime Evil of computing is then any action against Microsoft can be justified. Of course, then the actions taken against Microsoft may be applied to other companies and individuals, but by then such actions have been legitimated . . .
We should be angry that this kind of things happen.
1) The RIAA doesn't like links compiled by search engines. 2) They want them reviewed. 3) There's a ton of links one would need to review. 4) Search engines are vital to the internet.
So, basically, they don't like the idea that search-engines, which usually have to be non-discriminatory by nature, do their job. This is like wanting to shut down a bookstore because one of the books sold in it happens to be plagarized. I dread to see this extended to Yahoo, Excite, etc.
I wish I had a more scientific way to say it, but the RIAA is completely clueless. Though I think they'll be struck down, they literally want to challenge the operation and nature of the internet and of major sites.
Though I'm sure we're all sick to death of the legal acrobatics surrounding the Internet, this is a breath of fresh air. Concerns aside, at least this site gives a chance for people to discuss, write about, and read about Internet law. After perusing the page for a few minutes., it seems well-done, clear, and useful.
My only gripe is one I doubt this site will address very much - the ridiculous amount of lawsuits and the bizarre, comtribution-driven evolution of Internet law. Then again, it's a good start.
Last time I checked, universities were supposed to be about teaching and research, not holding trade shows.
The irony of course is that Intel has just annoyed a bunch of students with their trade show - students going to a prestigious university. Now, what kind of impression have they made?
And the professors? How inclined are they now to trust Intel technology? Want to bet that 90%-use-of-Mac may just increase?
Lesson for Intel: Bad for customers, bad for you in the end.
Intel, Microsoft, AOL, other companies - we've seen them judged as evil, manipulating, grasping, etc. One trait that is not often considered is that they are also out of touch - and the case of the "Mac War" is an excellent example.
Remove Macs in use in a department that's 90% Mac? Threaten to pull funding over a childish tiff? Forget any moral questions - how stupid can people be?
This does nothing more than make people bitter and angry and make the company look bad. It's made national news, its been displayed here, and now Intel looks a bit stupider. Is anyone involved in this fiascon on the Intel side thinking?
Some of the big Info/Tech/Soft companies remind me of companies in Hollywood - churning out product and making policy with no idea what's going on or what the repercussions are. I have to wonder how long they can dodge real life.
I agree - one of the problems with changing the world (which really means changing ourselves) is that we try and 'purchase' traits, like modifying characters in a role-playing game. We don't really want to change of course - we just want the label.
If you want to face down megacorporatism, stop paying them to tell you who you are first.
To keep this on topic, I felt Barbelith was our self-created ability to save ourselves - our 'true self" after you give up egotistical and limited illusions.
We don't have to "play the game" of Shadowrun. Or anything else we don't choose. Don't like the megacorps? Do something. Rewrite the rulebook.
We can be Shadowrunners or Invisibles or the Discordians or anything else we want. But only if we don't let others define reality for us - be it one person or a corporation.
To paraphrase Hagbard Celine in the "Illuminatus Trillogy," I wonder if the "Megacorps" and "Shadowrunners" need each other. After all, you can't crusade against something heroically without an opponent, and are thus stuck to needing an opponent.
I'll take the route of The Invisibles, and use a little Open-Handed resistance. Barbelith.
An Open Source Dream Decisions?
on
Copyrant
·
· Score: 1
The new move to "liscenceware" seems to me to be a perfect opportunity for Open Source to move in. Though, say, Linux has a reputation for a difficult install, the appeal of a system that doesn't deal with nightmarish liscence laws can overcome problems with troublesome installations.
Maybe Gates and Warnock own stock in Red Hat - thats the only reason I can see for them to make these poor decisions and statements.
Definitely a must-have. Retro science-fiction space western with space pirates, different political factions, beautiful artificial android navigators, neurotic computers, sorcery, and more. Has a compelling and interesting plot - and a theme song that's NOT cheery pop to boot.
I haven't seen it outside of the Valley
on
Too Old To Code?
·
· Score: 1
Well, first of all the article is about a lot of assumptions. I've heard a lot about the assumptions, but very little in real life.
I'm in Ohio, which actually has several cities with good IT employment, and I haven't seen any age discrimination per se. The young newcomers tend to get split into the overpaid "prodigies" and the appropriately paid "entry level people," but older programmers seem to do pretty well.
What's interesting, however, is there is an emphasis on moving older programmers into management to use their knowledge. I've had offers to go into management - there seems to be an assumption that, at some point, a programmer must become a manager.
One thing I have found compaies discover the most painful way is that experience also brings business planning and skills that you just can't get in school. I have seen new programmers put in important positions and leave utter disasters - becasue they were inexperienced, unmentored, and unsupervised. The "stick in the cheap new guys" philosophy is a blueprint for disaster - and then the new guys take the blame after doing their best.
Maybe some folks want to discard the experienced to save money. I wonder how much they'll spend in training, overtime, lost contracts, and lawsuits.
First of all, its disgustingly grandiose, and tinks to me of the "i'm gonna save the world and take a stand because it'll make me look cool" mentality. Somethow the article didn't make me feel any safer, and made me feel a lot more threatened.
Secondly, anonymity is sometime necessary. He doesn't seem to complain about witness protection programs, voting, and other places where there's anonymity, and the idea anonymity is automatically like equipping for crime is misleading and insulting.
Third, again, we see people assuming INFORMATION is equal to PHYSICAL PROPERTY. Now all questions about copyright (and there are legitimate ones), information may be stored in, but is not physical property. In general, it is easier to duplicate information. Thus, you really have to treat information differently.
Fourth, some shared/open information is good - should languages be copyrighted? Religions? Medical knowledge?
Fifth, his "gifts of God and nature" are free really falls apart - if my brain is a gift of God/nature, what if I use it to create something . . .
In short, grandiose, insulting, ignorant, and annoying. If this is what corporate leaders are thinking of the internet and copyright, we have a problem.
OK, this is utterly ridiculous. A smell on an object is copyrighted.
Now, how many kinds of cut grass smells are there? Did they get them all or some? What about people who don't like it or can tell differences others can't?
And what about something ala the dialectizer - would it be illegal to re-scent the balls? If someone made new tennis-ball scents would that infringe on their rights as it COULD cancel out their scent?
Copyrighting sensory inputs - highly subjective experiences that I'd figure were uncopyrighted. I'm truly stunned.
I remember Theif, Thief II, and System Shock having excellent reviews.
This is good evidence that good reviews don't mean success, and that the gaming industry, seen as some as a haven for programmers, can be a nasty place.
Actually, by not getting the net, I mean they misunderstand its development and major strengths. I think right now they know what they want it to be, but not what it is.
And regarding television, networks have been suffering declining viewership for some time last I heard - only Regis Philbin has helped save the day;)
The problem I see is not as simple as corpratism/freedom/etc. It's more a problem of people not grasping basic things about human culture and living systems.
Living systems get more and more complex over time, and humans, massively adaptable, can change and grow at a stunning pace. We have adapted with culture and technology to be able to live anywhere on (or above) the planet. In general, human society and creations get more and more complex over time.
The internet is this taken to an amazing extreme, a gigantic interconnecting network, tying people and their systems together. It's an engine of change, perhaps the biggest thing since Gutenberg (as stereotypical as that sounds). It's evolving itself as well, promoting information exchange.
Sadly, a lot of people don't get it - the netcops, some companies, etc. This massive, growing, accelerating "thing" exists because it is open, it is chaotic, it is interconnected. In their zeal for control (probably due to fear and ignorance as much as greed), the want to go against its very nature.
The bizarre copyright laws can (and probably will) come back to bite people. Corporate blandness will be rewarded with indifference and lack o finterest. Innovation requires freedom - as does good, effective, commerce. Policing the net would require massive bureaucratic and legal efforts that would be better used elsewhere and would likely be ineffective. Attempts at control by individuals, governments, and corporations may result in THEM being controlled and constrained tomorrow, bound by laws backfiring and applied differently than expected.
This won't stop people from trying to manipulate the net - because if they "got" the net, then they wouldn't try to control it. If anything, not only do we have to fight these manipulations, we have to educate.
I think the best way to answer the question is to ask what you want to achieve with technology. I went into programming after being a secretary as I saw potential for automation and efficiency being squandered. I went from a VBA programmer to a Webmaster/Developer, but my goal is still the same - do it faster, better, and automatically.
I also find deciding what you want to do with technology helps set your education goals.
There is a difference between F451 and the moderation here, far more than destruction: 1) Your post may be moderated down, but you can still post. 2) This is only happening here - you are free to post your opinions elsewhere. 3) No one is going to come and destroy your means of communication or take your life (well, hopefully). 4) Slashdot is, in the end, has its own method of organization - its not perfect, it may change, but it has one that at least tries to work and gives people the chance to participate.
The real fear is when people start organizing to take the property of, imprison, and kill those they disagree with. The real fear is that you'll have nowhere to go when the hammer comes down.
Require internet service providers that wish to qualify for safe harbor to collect personally identifiable and verifiable information from their users. Napster currently allows its users to sign on anonymously, making it impossible for rights holders to track down the infringers. .
Well, thats not too darn much of a safe harbor in my opinion.
Establish a time frame for the "notice and take down" process for removal of infringing material. The law as currently written has no set time table, consequently service providers with a vested interest in the infringing activity of their subscribers, like Napster, have no incentive to act in a timely fashion.
Now this is kind of cool. It shows a real flaw in the DMCA, though this paragraph doesn't adress that having no time frame makes it hard on the people accused of aiding piracy as well.
Give judges the flexibility to grant injunctions against service providers whose services are substantially used for copyright infringement. It may be impossible to write a law that accounts for every conceivable technological innovations, however a judge will know an illegal act when she sees it.
. . . reminds me of the old "I know pornography when I see it" line.
Overall, not a heartening article. Not lockstep cyber-fascism (really, the blurb for the article overdid it), but also not that helpful and with a chance to be very harmful, and this shows some definite ignorance about Netculture and technology.
You think people who made "policies" would sit down and really think over the repercussions before spitting them out.
For that matter, what does this mean for: 1) Adbuster software that filters out ads? 2) Loading a page without graphics? Heck, could someone declare you can't view their page with Lynx? 3) Clipping services (sorry, not showing all the page is a violation).
BoA was stupid. We can go on for days listing things that people could declare to be violations in this manner. I hope this case doesn't cause more lawsuits to crawl out of the woodwork.
We need an Internet Legal Defense Fund, now. If any place on the planet could help it become a reality, it's Slashdot. A bank just declared war on a man's sense of humor - whose sense of humor is next?
Propigating the dialectizer source code is an excellent idea. If BoA is going to try and kill an idea, lets show them why it's hard to do so - ideas can be spread with little or no material cost and replicated easily.
When a few hundred of these are running, lets see what they think - even if they try to shut them all down, ONE shutdown will become prominent enough to bring the news down on their case.
Slashdot Mirror
I do think some people would react differently if Microsoft was doing the investigating. I think this is the kind of thing we should be concerned about.
All serious (and legitimate) concerns aside, Microsoft provides an excellent boogieman for people to jeer at - while AOL merges with Time Warner, Larry Ellison goes on an ego rampage, and Yahoo snatches up everythng in sight.
The danger of making Microsoft the Prime Evil of computing is then any action against Microsoft can be justified. Of course, then the actions taken against Microsoft may be applied to other companies and individuals, but by then such actions have been legitimated . . .
We should be angry that this kind of things happen.
1) The RIAA doesn't like links compiled by search engines.
2) They want them reviewed.
3) There's a ton of links one would need to review.
4) Search engines are vital to the internet.
So, basically, they don't like the idea that search-engines, which usually have to be non-discriminatory by nature, do their job. This is like wanting to shut down a bookstore because one of the books sold in it happens to be plagarized. I dread to see this extended to Yahoo, Excite, etc.
I wish I had a more scientific way to say it, but the RIAA is completely clueless. Though I think they'll be struck down, they literally want to challenge the operation and nature of the internet and of major sites.
Though I'm sure we're all sick to death of the legal acrobatics surrounding the Internet, this is a breath of fresh air. Concerns aside, at least this site gives a chance for people to discuss, write about, and read about Internet law. After perusing the page for a few minutes., it seems well-done, clear, and useful.
My only gripe is one I doubt this site will address very much - the ridiculous amount of lawsuits and the bizarre, comtribution-driven evolution of Internet law. Then again, it's a good start.
The irony of course is that Intel has just annoyed a bunch of students with their trade show - students going to a prestigious university. Now, what kind of impression have they made?
And the professors? How inclined are they now to trust Intel technology? Want to bet that 90%-use-of-Mac may just increase?
Lesson for Intel: Bad for customers, bad for you in the end.
Intel, Microsoft, AOL, other companies - we've seen them judged as evil, manipulating, grasping, etc. One trait that is not often considered is that they are also out of touch - and the case of the "Mac War" is an excellent example.
Remove Macs in use in a department that's 90% Mac? Threaten to pull funding over a childish tiff? Forget any moral questions - how stupid can people be?
This does nothing more than make people bitter and angry and make the company look bad. It's made national news, its been displayed here, and now Intel looks a bit stupider. Is anyone involved in this fiascon on the Intel side thinking?
Some of the big Info/Tech/Soft companies remind me of companies in Hollywood - churning out product and making policy with no idea what's going on or what the repercussions are. I have to wonder how long they can dodge real life.
I agree - one of the problems with changing the world (which really means changing ourselves) is that we try and 'purchase' traits, like modifying characters in a role-playing game. We don't really want to change of course - we just want the label.
If you want to face down megacorporatism, stop paying them to tell you who you are first.
To keep this on topic, I felt Barbelith was our self-created ability to save ourselves - our 'true self" after you give up egotistical and limited illusions.
We don't have to "play the game" of Shadowrun. Or anything else we don't choose. Don't like the megacorps? Do something. Rewrite the rulebook.
We can be Shadowrunners or Invisibles or the Discordians or anything else we want. But only if we don't let others define reality for us - be it one person or a corporation.
To paraphrase Hagbard Celine in the "Illuminatus Trillogy," I wonder if the "Megacorps" and "Shadowrunners" need each other. After all, you can't crusade against something heroically without an opponent, and are thus stuck to needing an opponent.
I'll take the route of The Invisibles, and use a little Open-Handed resistance. Barbelith.
The new move to "liscenceware" seems to me to be a perfect opportunity for Open Source to move in. Though, say, Linux has a reputation for a difficult install, the appeal of a system that doesn't deal with nightmarish liscence laws can overcome problems with troublesome installations.
Maybe Gates and Warnock own stock in Red Hat - thats the only reason I can see for them to make these poor decisions and statements.
Definitely a must-have. Retro science-fiction space western with space pirates, different political factions, beautiful artificial android navigators, neurotic computers, sorcery, and more. Has a compelling and interesting plot - and a theme song that's NOT cheery pop to boot.
Well, first of all the article is about a lot of assumptions. I've heard a lot about the assumptions, but very little in real life.
I'm in Ohio, which actually has several cities with good IT employment, and I haven't seen any age discrimination per se. The young newcomers tend to get split into the overpaid "prodigies" and the appropriately paid "entry level people," but older programmers seem to do pretty well.
What's interesting, however, is there is an emphasis on moving older programmers into management to use their knowledge. I've had offers to go into management - there seems to be an assumption that, at some point, a programmer must become a manager.
One thing I have found compaies discover the most painful way is that experience also brings business planning and skills that you just can't get in school. I have seen new programmers put in important positions and leave utter disasters - becasue they were inexperienced, unmentored, and unsupervised. The "stick in the cheap new guys" philosophy is a blueprint for disaster - and then the new guys take the blame after doing their best.
Maybe some folks want to discard the experienced to save money. I wonder how much they'll spend in training, overtime, lost contracts, and lawsuits.
Well, that was a disturbing ramble.
First of all, its disgustingly grandiose, and tinks to me of the "i'm gonna save the world and take a stand because it'll make me look cool" mentality. Somethow the article didn't make me feel any safer, and made me feel a lot more threatened.
Secondly, anonymity is sometime necessary. He doesn't seem to complain about witness protection programs, voting, and other places where there's anonymity, and the idea anonymity is automatically like equipping for crime is misleading and insulting.
Third, again, we see people assuming INFORMATION is equal to PHYSICAL PROPERTY. Now all questions about copyright (and there are legitimate ones), information may be stored in, but is not physical property. In general, it is easier to duplicate information. Thus, you really have to treat information differently.
Fourth, some shared/open information is good - should languages be copyrighted? Religions? Medical knowledge?
Fifth, his "gifts of God and nature" are free really falls apart - if my brain is a gift of God/nature, what if I use it to create something . . .
In short, grandiose, insulting, ignorant, and annoying. If this is what corporate leaders are thinking of the internet and copyright, we have a problem.
OK, this is utterly ridiculous. A smell on an object is copyrighted.
Now, how many kinds of cut grass smells are there? Did they get them all or some? What about people who don't like it or can tell differences others can't?
And what about something ala the dialectizer - would it be illegal to re-scent the balls? If someone made new tennis-ball scents would that infringe on their rights as it COULD cancel out their scent?
Copyrighting sensory inputs - highly subjective experiences that I'd figure were uncopyrighted. I'm truly stunned.
I mean, I figured scents were public domain . . .
I remember Theif, Thief II, and System Shock having excellent reviews.
This is good evidence that good reviews don't mean success, and that the gaming industry, seen as some as a haven for programmers, can be a nasty place.
And yet Ion "Egofest" Storm survives . . .
Actually, by not getting the net, I mean they misunderstand its development and major strengths. I think right now they know what they want it to be, but not what it is.
;)
And regarding television, networks have been suffering declining viewership for some time last I heard - only Regis Philbin has helped save the day
Someone does a study, people see what they want to see, and no one remebers correlation doesn't imply causation.
More thoughtful than I expected, actually.
The problem I see is not as simple as corpratism/freedom/etc. It's more a problem of people not grasping basic things about human culture and living systems.
Living systems get more and more complex over time, and humans, massively adaptable, can change and grow at a stunning pace. We have adapted with culture and technology to be able to live anywhere on (or above) the planet. In general, human society and creations get more and more complex over time.
The internet is this taken to an amazing extreme, a gigantic interconnecting network, tying people and their systems together. It's an engine of change, perhaps the biggest thing since Gutenberg (as stereotypical as that sounds). It's evolving itself as well, promoting information exchange.
Sadly, a lot of people don't get it - the netcops, some companies, etc. This massive, growing, accelerating "thing" exists because it is open, it is chaotic, it is interconnected. In their zeal for control (probably due to fear and ignorance as much as greed), the want to go against its very nature.
The bizarre copyright laws can (and probably will) come back to bite people. Corporate blandness will be rewarded with indifference and lack o finterest. Innovation requires freedom - as does good, effective, commerce. Policing the net would require massive bureaucratic and legal efforts that would be better used elsewhere and would likely be ineffective. Attempts at control by individuals, governments, and corporations may result in THEM being controlled and constrained tomorrow, bound by laws backfiring and applied differently than expected.
This won't stop people from trying to manipulate the net - because if they "got" the net, then they wouldn't try to control it. If anything, not only do we have to fight these manipulations, we have to educate.
I think the best way to answer the question is to ask what you want to achieve with technology. I went into programming after being a secretary as I saw potential for automation and efficiency being squandered. I went from a VBA programmer to a Webmaster/Developer, but my goal is still the same - do it faster, better, and automatically.
I also find deciding what you want to do with technology helps set your education goals.
There is a difference between F451 and the moderation here, far more than destruction:
1) Your post may be moderated down, but you can still post.
2) This is only happening here - you are free to post your opinions elsewhere.
3) No one is going to come and destroy your means of communication or take your life (well, hopefully).
4) Slashdot is, in the end, has its own method of organization - its not perfect, it may change, but it has one that at least tries to work and gives people the chance to participate.
The real fear is when people start organizing to take the property of, imprison, and kill those they disagree with. The real fear is that you'll have nowhere to go when the hammer comes down.
Require internet service providers that wish to qualify for safe harbor to collect personally identifiable and verifiable information from their users. Napster currently allows its users to sign on anonymously, making it impossible for rights holders to track down the infringers. .
Well, thats not too darn much of a safe harbor in my opinion.
Establish a time frame for the "notice and take down" process for removal of infringing material. The law as currently written has no set time table, consequently service providers with a vested interest in the infringing activity of their subscribers, like Napster, have no incentive to act in a timely fashion.
Now this is kind of cool. It shows a real flaw in the DMCA, though this paragraph doesn't adress that having no time frame makes it hard on the people accused of aiding piracy as well.
Give judges the flexibility to grant injunctions against service providers whose services are substantially used for copyright infringement. It may be impossible to write a law that accounts for every conceivable technological innovations, however a judge will know an illegal act when she sees it.
. . . reminds me of the old "I know pornography when I see it" line.
Overall, not a heartening article. Not lockstep cyber-fascism (really, the blurb for the article overdid it), but also not that helpful and with a chance to be very harmful, and this shows some definite ignorance about Netculture and technology.
You think people who made "policies" would sit down and really think over the repercussions before spitting them out.
Good point, I haven't heard from them in awhile - enough for me to forget about them.
Time to pay them a visit . . .
Well, at least Slashdot is standing up against Microsoft. I hope others would follow the example.
For that matter, what does this mean for:
1) Adbuster software that filters out ads?
2) Loading a page without graphics? Heck, could someone declare you can't view their page with Lynx?
3) Clipping services (sorry, not showing all the page is a violation).
BoA was stupid. We can go on for days listing things that people could declare to be violations in this manner. I hope this case doesn't cause more lawsuits to crawl out of the woodwork.
We need an Internet Legal Defense Fund, now. If any place on the planet could help it become a reality, it's Slashdot. A bank just declared war on a man's sense of humor - whose sense of humor is next?
Propigating the dialectizer source code is an excellent idea. If BoA is going to try and kill an idea, lets show them why it's hard to do so - ideas can be spread with little or no material cost and replicated easily.
When a few hundred of these are running, lets see what they think - even if they try to shut them all down, ONE shutdown will become prominent enough to bring the news down on their case.
Or is it illegal for me to turn of Java or Javascript? Can they legally tell me I must have certain plugins? Must I have a certain screen resolution?
This is like arguing that I can't watch color shows in black and white or mute my television.