The constitution (damn, sp?) was written to be interpretted. It was an open ended document, where by the current situation was to compared against it and a course of action interpreted out of it.
It's not suppose to be hard to do, but there's not way you can cover all possibilities in one document. Thus, you have to interpret. How is the advent of the internet suppose to be covered? What laws should apply? What rights should people have on the net. The constitution says nothing about these things specifically, thus we have to interpret an answer out of it.
Same with abortion (damn, sp again?)... does the "life" in 'life, libery, etc..." apply to the unborn? It doesn't say, you have to have some one decide... and there's where to courts come in.
Read some supreme court documents... I find them amazing. They constantly refer to the constitution in their briefs and decision.
Ok, sorry for the rant, but I"ve been on a big constitution kick lately.
Appointment of supreme court justices could be a big-deal outcome from this election... it would only take a vote or two to over turn Roe-vs-Wade.
So... I agree, the courts don't change the law, but with the vagueness of laws, they go a lot ways towards 'creating' the law in the way that the laws are interpreted.
I didn't think you were wrong for not liking the MidWest.
Personally, I think SiouxFalls is an armpit. I agree with you, Sioux Falls sucks.
And the mall sucks, too.
I never come to Sioux Falls, for that very reason.
Hmm, I guess a lot of it probably has to do with life style... I'm gathering that you don't like the style of entertainment offered in Sioux Falls or just the life style in general... I won't either.
But here's why I like Vermillion (where I'm at): I enjoy the out doors. I love the outdoors. I'm not a hunter, I don't kill stuff. I don't own or watch TV. I read books. What I like: canoeing, photography, biking, roller blading, disc golf... all of which are excellent things to do in this area.
Now, if want a good band or some good art of some sort, yep, I have to travel some where, and that's generally the cities. I still have friends and a brother up there, so when I want it, I can do it... it's only a 4.5 hour drive, I have a place to stay, and I know my way around the cities.
But I don't have to put up with the cities shit to get it.
Don't think you'll get away from the bible thumpers. THEY'RE EVERYWHERE.
So, don't get me wrong. I know small-town life isn't for everyone.
But it is for me. For now. Until I change.
I agree, of course a person wants to believe that what they think is correct, esp. when you have something like religion where there is supposedly so much riding on being correct (i.e., reward of heaven, punishment of hell).
However, no one can PROVE that they are the perfectly correct religion. Everyone IS equelly right and wrong, as far as we can tell. Some religions have beliefs that are obviously incorrect, but does that that mean everything else about that religion is incorrect? Or that it's right?
It's just that damn proof of god thing... no one can do it. It's a faith thing.
This is great argument/theory I always enjoy throwing out during religious arguments:
Let's say there's 200 religions in the world. (I have no idea how many there actually are, and the ultimately the number has nothing to do with the argument) Each has some things in common, but all have one things in common: they all think that they are 'the one true religion'.
So if every religion thinks it's the correct religion, and they are right (in that they are the true religion, and all other religions are false) then that leaves us with two posibilities:
Either one religion is correct (becuase one being right makes all the rest wrong) or zero religions are correct.
There are other additional possiblites, as in there isn't just one correct religion, or some parts of some religions are correct, or there is a one true religion and it's not known, etc...
The response I get is almost always the same: Yeah, but ours IS the the true religion.
Yeah. Right.
As for me: I'm an agnostic. I think the the 'truth' is out there, but no organized religion can provide it because all religions have gone the corruption by the power structure create by man for that religion.
All attempts at a 'proof of god' can be destroyed by logic and philosophy. I personally believe there just isn't a logicically solid proof for the exsistence of god.
All we have is our infallible selves, and what every faith you choose to put into something.
Now we have the nano-sized transitor (MOS-FET, actually), the carbon nano-tubes (which have a variety of uses, from springs to struts, etc...) and the carbon nano-bucky ball. We have tiny electrostatic motors, tiny gears, and many other things that are shrinking in size.
Is there any group hell-bent on putting all of this nano-stuff together and making something?
I just get the sensation that we are approaching the point where we should have enough misc. nano-sized parts to actually make something VERY cool... mechanical style.
A good point has been raised in that a large part of the voting population is neither focused on or understands current technology. Let me explain:
My mother can remember a time with out electricity, running water, or phones. Each of these things were a 'major' (for the time) advancement of technology. They entered her life as she grew up... and she had to learn them later in life. The point being, these things were not engrained into her existence.
Over time, these technologies spread, and at some point hit a 'event horizon' where they became common things (i.e. day-to-day). At that point, they became important to society... from being a novelty to a necessity, to being something new to being something necessary.
The internet did not exist for me until college. I had to learn it, and it did become engrained into my existence, but I know of people, young and old, who do not have the presence of the internet in their lives. It is not a day-to-day common thing for them... it is not a necessity. I'm confident that there will come a point where the internet is day-to-day common for almost everyone. At this point, it will go from being novel & new to common and a necessity.
My nieces and nephews will never know a world without the 'net, e-mail, cell phones, microwaves, etc... already, these things have no novelty to them. All this technology has already reached the status of necessity for them. They will (hopefully) understand and appreciate the role of technology in theirs lives, and thus, in politics. When they comprise the majority of the voting body, then these things (and other, unforeseen technologies) will be the focus of their voting desires.
There in lies the gap... the technological generation gap, if you will (wow, crappy buzz-word there). This gap will continue to worsen. Technology advances at an exponential rate... meaning that each generation will have a expontentialy larger technology gap than the last... we, too will be a victim of this gap as age gets the best of us. And politics will always be a victim of this gap... I highly doubt that politics will EVER keep up with the issues that technology raises, esp. as the rate of the rate at which tech. increases continues to increases. It will just get worse.
Additionally, this gap is being used to the advantage of the few who do understand it. This applies from the individual person to mega-corps and governments. Do you think things like the DMCA would be allowed if the voting majority understood? No... but the corps. DO understand, and are using the tech-gap and ignorance of the common voter to their advantage, mainly making sure that technology goes in their favor... i.e. the maximization of profits and control, not the maximization of the common good.
My point? The point of a presidential race is to win. Bush/Gore is focusing on the fears and ignorance caused by the tech-gap of the majority of the voters. This race is additionally fueled by mega-corps. that DO understand, thus increasing the advantage and power another level. (can you say positive feedback?)...
We, the slashdot subset, are the minority, as far as voting and politics goes, so we probably will never like what these politicians say or do. We are not in control, we are not the group being focused upon, nor are we the group that will make decisions politically.
The power we do have, however, lies in our knowledge and how we direct that knowledge. I think we are doing a lot to in our desire to keep information free, generate open-source software, promote encryption, etc...
We get-it. We understand the power of tech. We see where the power is going, and we don't like it. But never-ever expect the govt. to rescue us from it... politics won't let it happen.
This is my take on the political scene. This is the grain of salt I take the whole situation with. I'm voting for Ralph Nader, but I could write a whole 'nother big long babble on that subject alone...
I live in SD. Extreme SE corner. I work for BioMed test-equipment firm. We're small... however, we are all about technology.
I moved to St.Paul, MN for 2 years, 'cause I thought that's where all the hot tech action would be. I didn't like it much. For example: I kept track, and in one week I spent 4.5 hours just sitting at a stop lights. Screw that.
I was born and raised here in SD, and I missed the way life is here. So I came back and was VERY picky about where I wanted to work. I accept and acknowledge that there are some SD companies that are not embracing tech, but I have worked for many that have: BapCo Engineering, where I work, Daktronics, in brookings, 3M in brookings... they are all cutting edge tech.
And they are all excellent employers.
SD people pay the second lowest taxes in the nation. We do not have an income tax. I took a 1/3 pay cut moving from St. Paul to here, and at the end of the month, I have more money left over.
Sure, I don't have a mega-mall with in 15 minutes of my house. But at night I can sit in my back yard and see a sky full of stars, I never have to locks ANYTHING, people are friendly... I could go on...
Quality of life: that's where it's at. Sure, things are simplier here. Things are DIFFERENT. But, for me, things are better.
Do you know your neighbors? Do you know the people down the street? Are you concerned about crime? Do you hate how much money you give up in taxes? Do you hate the constanst noise and light of the city? Do people go out of their way to help you?
SD has the right answer to all of these questions.
And (to continue my rant) tech focused companies are starting to come to SD, because of such things as our low taxes and cheap cost of living, not to mention an abundence of cheap land and good inexpensive labor. The area along I-29 is become a tech coridor. Places like 3M, DAkt, and BapCo are proof of that...
Ok, I think my rant is over now... but this really hits home with me...
I love this idea. Simple, easy to get going, I esp. like the spin & move at same time feature of those wheels...
So what i want to do is:
Control it with an iPaq running linux.
Install wireless networking into the iPaq.
Allow it to explore and learn it's enviroment, storing and retrieving info through wireless when it can't hold all it's data.
Make it 'curious' When it senses something has changed about the way things are laid out (based off it's exsisting 'floor plan'), make it want to explore.
Make it get 'hungry' and go automatically charge itself. (I know, have to add the hardware side support for that).
Give it tasks: sweep the floor. Where I work would be perfect for this, large smooth concrete floor with lots of obstacles.
When the floor was clean, do senseless acts like run a IA routine to find the quickest route between points (kinda a 'idle-time' task).
etc...
Ok, I know it can't do all that, but this is definately a jumping off point. It's the ultimate blend of hardware/software hacking.
A great learning tool, too... can you imagine the reaction if you brought one into a class room that would do something cool like map out the room and wirelessly report the results back to a laptop? Have it show the room being explored in real time on the screen.
HEAR HEAR! I'm with you a hundred percent on this. I came to a strictly 'coding' job 6 months ago. I left behind a high-speed-do-40-things-at-once architectual firm. There, I was the 'IT director' and was responsible for everything plugged into an outlet. The owners of the firm loved technology and were willing to spend money when I said it was a good investment.
For some reason, I thought I'd like straight programming. Now I'm at a bio-med test eqiupment firm that is going no where fast. The management does NOT understand technology and spends money in the most foolish ways ever.
And I just found out a few days ago that my project, which was to be a new flagship for the company and I have invested damn near 1500 long hard hours into, has been 'suspended'. For some reason, the 'owner' of the firm (who is retired and started this place 'for fun') decided we no longer need new software...
ACK!!!!!! So, I get to support their existing crap instead (it really is bad, written in VB by some one who knew just enough programing to be VERY dangerous).
I just sent out resumes last night.
The moral of the story: I think this article is some what accurate: I've seen damn near the best and damn near the worst examples of the upper management leaveraging technology (hardware/software/people).
NO amount of money can make up for having a moron at the helm.
I'm with you. I haven't even OWNED a TV for 2 years. I can count the number of hours I've watched a TV in the past year on one hand.
Every one I know owns a TV and watches TV more than an hour a day. I get the same response from all of these people... "God, how can you live with out TV?"
I say: "God, how can you watch TV?"
When I see the commercialism on TV (which doesn't take long, watch for 5 minutes and you'll get subjected to some sort of intentional attempt at influence) it DRIVES ME CRAZY!
It's gone from not watching TV to not even being able to watch TV... it really is that bad. It pisses me off, it makes me cringe...
And not a lot of people understand, 'cause... god, I don't know how you can live with out tv.
I think this is a good thing. IMHO, eventually this string of 'lawsuits' will bring 'the powers that be' to a position where they are fighting the very essence of the 'net and all things created by it: hyper linking. Add to that: billions of web pages and no way to stop the flow of information.
How many ways can you think of to spread information on the internet? A LOT! So, for better of for worse, information will be free. Just like the drug war does not stop people from using drugs and vietnam did not stop the spread of communisism, no amount of ANY THING can stop the spread of information on the 'net. (may be a far flung set of comparisions, but I do believe in the importance of the set of events occuring concerning this).
There may be lots of casualities along the way. It may become 'social unexceptable' behavior and driven underground... but it will never be stopped.
I'm very curious to see where the legal battle goes from here. Will we soon have a 'War on Information'?
How long 'til we have 20,000 lawsuits preventing the linking to a whole host of 'objectionable' material (as define by those who have the desire to file a lawsuit, which could be just about anyone, I guess.)
All those wonderful non-techinical people who are supplying the power behind these lawsuits are finally going to really bump up against the realities of the internet, mainly that you can't make information go away, not matter how many people you sue. It has progressed to the point that they are dealing with the very fabric of the web, which is irreducible. You can not take hyper-links out of the web. You can't sue or buy them away.
I think this is VERY significant becuase it is no longer about just the content of one entity on the web, it's about the way the web works. Try to make one 'topic' illegal to link to, then watch the flood. The legal system -should- quickly realize how incredible unenforcible and rediculous this is.
This actually kinda makes me feel good... I'm glad this was part of the ruling, 'cause it's a mile-stone... and once we get over this hurdle, and it is realized that you just can't stop hyper-linking, it will be one more legal battle the web will have taken care of.
The catch to all this is that in order for things to become simple, we must put them in the correct frame work. What made us realize that the orbit of the planets was simple? We had to find the correct framework, or rules, to apply to the orbits, and then the orbits became simple.
We experience reality in 3 dimensions (4, if you want to toss in time as a dimension). But that's just the limitations of our perception of things. Adding higher dimension can vastly simplifiy mathematical propblems. Think of going from a list (one dimensional) to a table (two dimensional). With a table, organization and patterns can appear that were not evident in the one dimensional list.
So... eleven dimensions ( or 24, or whatever) may sound messy, but if you can come up with on equation that describes all the forces (or just reality in general) within the framework of those dimension then that's simple.
Slashdot Mirror
The constitution (damn, sp?) was written to be interpretted. It was an open ended document, where by the current situation was to compared against it and a course of action interpreted out of it.
It's not suppose to be hard to do, but there's not way you can cover all possibilities in one document. Thus, you have to interpret. How is the advent of the internet suppose to be covered? What laws should apply? What rights should people have on the net. The constitution says nothing about these things specifically, thus we have to interpret an answer out of it.
Same with abortion (damn, sp again?)... does the "life" in 'life, libery, etc..." apply to the unborn? It doesn't say, you have to have some one decide... and there's where to courts come in.
Read some supreme court documents... I find them amazing. They constantly refer to the constitution in their briefs and decision.
Ok, sorry for the rant, but I"ve been on a big constitution kick lately.
Appointment of supreme court justices could be a big-deal outcome from this election... it would only take a vote or two to over turn Roe-vs-Wade.
So... I agree, the courts don't change the law, but with the vagueness of laws, they go a lot ways towards 'creating' the law in the way that the laws are interpreted.
Agree? Disagree? Hate me?
Yeah, another person that listens to NPR...
Just don't drop me to -1 (sucks ass) ok?
It may be worth only a single chuckle, but damn, that's one beautiful (sp?) single chuckly.
I didn't think you were wrong for not liking the MidWest. Personally, I think SiouxFalls is an armpit. I agree with you, Sioux Falls sucks. And the mall sucks, too. I never come to Sioux Falls, for that very reason. Hmm, I guess a lot of it probably has to do with life style... I'm gathering that you don't like the style of entertainment offered in Sioux Falls or just the life style in general... I won't either. But here's why I like Vermillion (where I'm at): I enjoy the out doors. I love the outdoors. I'm not a hunter, I don't kill stuff. I don't own or watch TV. I read books. What I like: canoeing, photography, biking, roller blading, disc golf... all of which are excellent things to do in this area. Now, if want a good band or some good art of some sort, yep, I have to travel some where, and that's generally the cities. I still have friends and a brother up there, so when I want it, I can do it... it's only a 4.5 hour drive, I have a place to stay, and I know my way around the cities. But I don't have to put up with the cities shit to get it. Don't think you'll get away from the bible thumpers. THEY'RE EVERYWHERE. So, don't get me wrong. I know small-town life isn't for everyone. But it is for me. For now. Until I change.
I agree, of course a person wants to believe that what they think is correct, esp. when you have something like religion where there is supposedly so much riding on being correct (i.e., reward of heaven, punishment of hell).
However, no one can PROVE that they are the perfectly correct religion. Everyone IS equelly right and wrong, as far as we can tell. Some religions have beliefs that are obviously incorrect, but does that that mean everything else about that religion is incorrect? Or that it's right?
It's just that damn proof of god thing... no one can do it. It's a faith thing.
This is great argument/theory I always enjoy throwing out during religious arguments:
Let's say there's 200 religions in the world. (I have no idea how many there actually are, and the ultimately the number has nothing to do with the argument) Each has some things in common, but all have one things in common: they all think that they are 'the one true religion'.
So if every religion thinks it's the correct religion, and they are right (in that they are the true religion, and all other religions are false) then that leaves us with two posibilities:
Either one religion is correct (becuase one being right makes all the rest wrong) or zero religions are correct.
There are other additional possiblites, as in there isn't just one correct religion, or some parts of some religions are correct, or there is a one true religion and it's not known, etc...
The response I get is almost always the same: Yeah, but ours IS the the true religion.
Yeah. Right.
As for me: I'm an agnostic. I think the the 'truth' is out there, but no organized religion can provide it because all religions have gone the corruption by the power structure create by man for that religion.
All attempts at a 'proof of god' can be destroyed by logic and philosophy. I personally believe there just isn't a logicically solid proof for the exsistence of god.
All we have is our infallible selves, and what every faith you choose to put into something.
Jason
Hmm, let's see now:
Now we have the nano-sized transitor (MOS-FET, actually), the carbon nano-tubes (which have a variety of uses, from springs to struts, etc...) and the carbon nano-bucky ball. We have tiny electrostatic motors, tiny gears, and many other things that are shrinking in size.
Is there any group hell-bent on putting all of this nano-stuff together and making something?
I just get the sensation that we are approaching the point where we should have enough misc. nano-sized parts to actually make something VERY cool... mechanical style.
Ok, I'm really sick of typing 'nano' now. =)
A good point has been raised in that a large part of the voting population is neither focused on or understands current technology. Let me explain:
My mother can remember a time with out electricity, running water, or phones. Each of these things were a 'major' (for the time) advancement of technology. They entered her life as she grew up... and she had to learn them later in life. The point being, these things were not engrained into her existence.
Over time, these technologies spread, and at some point hit a 'event horizon' where they became common things (i.e. day-to-day). At that point, they became important to society... from being a novelty to a necessity, to being something new to being something necessary.
The internet did not exist for me until college. I had to learn it, and it did become engrained into my existence, but I know of people, young and old, who do not have the presence of the internet in their lives. It is not a day-to-day common thing for them... it is not a necessity. I'm confident that there will come a point where the internet is day-to-day common for almost everyone. At this point, it will go from being novel & new to common and a necessity.
My nieces and nephews will never know a world without the 'net, e-mail, cell phones, microwaves, etc... already, these things have no novelty to them. All this technology has already reached the status of necessity for them. They will (hopefully) understand and appreciate the role of technology in theirs lives, and thus, in politics. When they comprise the majority of the voting body, then these things (and other, unforeseen technologies) will be the focus of their voting desires.
There in lies the gap... the technological generation gap, if you will (wow, crappy buzz-word there). This gap will continue to worsen. Technology advances at an exponential rate... meaning that each generation will have a expontentialy larger technology gap than the last... we, too will be a victim of this gap as age gets the best of us. And politics will always be a victim of this gap... I highly doubt that politics will EVER keep up with the issues that technology raises, esp. as the rate of the rate at which tech. increases continues to increases. It will just get worse.
Additionally, this gap is being used to the advantage of the few who do understand it. This applies from the individual person to mega-corps and governments. Do you think things like the DMCA would be allowed if the voting majority understood? No... but the corps. DO understand, and are using the tech-gap and ignorance of the common voter to their advantage, mainly making sure that technology goes in their favor... i.e. the maximization of profits and control, not the maximization of the common good.
My point? The point of a presidential race is to win. Bush/Gore is focusing on the fears and ignorance caused by the tech-gap of the majority of the voters. This race is additionally fueled by mega-corps. that DO understand, thus increasing the advantage and power another level. (can you say positive feedback?)...
We, the slashdot subset, are the minority, as far as voting and politics goes, so we probably will never like what these politicians say or do. We are not in control, we are not the group being focused upon, nor are we the group that will make decisions politically.
The power we do have, however, lies in our knowledge and how we direct that knowledge. I think we are doing a lot to in our desire to keep information free, generate open-source software, promote encryption, etc...
We get-it. We understand the power of tech. We see where the power is going, and we don't like it. But never-ever expect the govt. to rescue us from it... politics won't let it happen.
This is my take on the political scene. This is the grain of salt I take the whole situation with. I'm voting for Ralph Nader, but I could write a whole 'nother big long babble on that subject alone...
Do you like the valley? What sort of incentive could you give me to make the big move? You know SD... tell me why it's better there.
nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnr. Wrong.
I live in SD. Extreme SE corner. I work for BioMed test-equipment firm. We're small... however, we are all about technology.
I moved to St.Paul, MN for 2 years, 'cause I thought that's where all the hot tech action would be. I didn't like it much. For example: I kept track, and in one week I spent 4.5 hours just sitting at a stop lights. Screw that.
I was born and raised here in SD, and I missed the way life is here. So I came back and was VERY picky about where I wanted to work. I accept and acknowledge that there are some SD companies that are not embracing tech, but I have worked for many that have: BapCo Engineering, where I work, Daktronics, in brookings, 3M in brookings... they are all cutting edge tech.
And they are all excellent employers.
SD people pay the second lowest taxes in the nation. We do not have an income tax. I took a 1/3 pay cut moving from St. Paul to here, and at the end of the month, I have more money left over.
Sure, I don't have a mega-mall with in 15 minutes of my house. But at night I can sit in my back yard and see a sky full of stars, I never have to locks ANYTHING, people are friendly... I could go on...
Quality of life: that's where it's at. Sure, things are simplier here. Things are DIFFERENT. But, for me, things are better.
Do you know your neighbors? Do you know the people down the street? Are you concerned about crime? Do you hate how much money you give up in taxes? Do you hate the constanst noise and light of the city? Do people go out of their way to help you?
SD has the right answer to all of these questions.
And (to continue my rant) tech focused companies are starting to come to SD, because of such things as our low taxes and cheap cost of living, not to mention an abundence of cheap land and good inexpensive labor. The area along I-29 is become a tech coridor. Places like 3M, DAkt, and BapCo are proof of that...
Ok, I think my rant is over now... but this really hits home with me...
I love this idea. Simple, easy to get going, I esp. like the spin & move at same time feature of those wheels...
So what i want to do is:
Control it with an iPaq running linux.
Install wireless networking into the iPaq.
Allow it to explore and learn it's enviroment, storing and retrieving info through wireless when it can't hold all it's data.
Make it 'curious' When it senses something has changed about the way things are laid out (based off it's exsisting 'floor plan'), make it want to explore.
Make it get 'hungry' and go automatically charge itself. (I know, have to add the hardware side support for that).
Give it tasks: sweep the floor. Where I work would be perfect for this, large smooth concrete floor with lots of obstacles.
When the floor was clean, do senseless acts like run a IA routine to find the quickest route between points (kinda a 'idle-time' task).
etc...
Ok, I know it can't do all that, but this is definately a jumping off point. It's the ultimate blend of hardware/software hacking.
A great learning tool, too... can you imagine the reaction if you brought one into a class room that would do something cool like map out the room and wirelessly report the results back to a laptop? Have it show the room being explored in real time on the screen.
This is gonna' be fun...
HEAR HEAR! I'm with you a hundred percent on this. I came to a strictly 'coding' job 6 months ago. I left behind a high-speed-do-40-things-at-once architectual firm. There, I was the 'IT director' and was responsible for everything plugged into an outlet. The owners of the firm loved technology and were willing to spend money when I said it was a good investment.
For some reason, I thought I'd like straight programming. Now I'm at a bio-med test eqiupment firm that is going no where fast. The management does NOT understand technology and spends money in the most foolish ways ever.
And I just found out a few days ago that my project, which was to be a new flagship for the company and I have invested damn near 1500 long hard hours into, has been 'suspended'. For some reason, the 'owner' of the firm (who is retired and started this place 'for fun') decided we no longer need new software...
ACK!!!!!! So, I get to support their existing crap instead (it really is bad, written in VB by some one who knew just enough programing to be VERY dangerous).
I just sent out resumes last night.
The moral of the story: I think this article is some what accurate: I've seen damn near the best and damn near the worst examples of the upper management leaveraging technology (hardware/software/people).
NO amount of money can make up for having a moron at the helm.
If I had only known.
I'm with you. I haven't even OWNED a TV for 2 years. I can count the number of hours I've watched a TV in the past year on one hand.
Every one I know owns a TV and watches TV more than an hour a day. I get the same response from all of these people... "God, how can you live with out TV?"
I say: "God, how can you watch TV?"
When I see the commercialism on TV (which doesn't take long, watch for 5 minutes and you'll get subjected to some sort of intentional attempt at influence) it DRIVES ME CRAZY!
It's gone from not watching TV to not even being able to watch TV... it really is that bad. It pisses me off, it makes me cringe...
And not a lot of people understand, 'cause... god, I don't know how you can live with out tv.
Scary, very scary.
I think this is a good thing. IMHO, eventually this string of 'lawsuits' will bring 'the powers that be' to a position where they are fighting the very essence of the 'net and all things created by it: hyper linking. Add to that: billions of web pages and no way to stop the flow of information.
How many ways can you think of to spread information on the internet? A LOT! So, for better of for worse, information will be free. Just like the drug war does not stop people from using drugs and vietnam did not stop the spread of communisism, no amount of ANY THING can stop the spread of information on the 'net. (may be a far flung set of comparisions, but I do believe in the importance of the set of events occuring concerning this).
There may be lots of casualities along the way. It may become 'social unexceptable' behavior and driven underground... but it will never be stopped.
I'm very curious to see where the legal battle goes from here. Will we soon have a 'War on Information'?
How long 'til we have 20,000 lawsuits preventing the linking to a whole host of 'objectionable' material (as define by those who have the desire to file a lawsuit, which could be just about anyone, I guess.)
All those wonderful non-techinical people who are supplying the power behind these lawsuits are finally going to really bump up against the realities of the internet, mainly that you can't make information go away, not matter how many people you sue. It has progressed to the point that they are dealing with the very fabric of the web, which is irreducible. You can not take hyper-links out of the web. You can't sue or buy them away.
I think this is VERY significant becuase it is no longer about just the content of one entity on the web, it's about the way the web works. Try to make one 'topic' illegal to link to, then watch the flood. The legal system -should- quickly realize how incredible unenforcible and rediculous this is.
This actually kinda makes me feel good... I'm glad this was part of the ruling, 'cause it's a mile-stone... and once we get over this hurdle, and it is realized that you just can't stop hyper-linking, it will be one more legal battle the web will have taken care of.
The catch to all this is that in order for things to become simple, we must put them in the correct frame work. What made us realize that the orbit of the planets was simple? We had to find the correct framework, or rules, to apply to the orbits, and then the orbits became simple. We experience reality in 3 dimensions (4, if you want to toss in time as a dimension). But that's just the limitations of our perception of things. Adding higher dimension can vastly simplifiy mathematical propblems. Think of going from a list (one dimensional) to a table (two dimensional). With a table, organization and patterns can appear that were not evident in the one dimensional list. So... eleven dimensions ( or 24, or whatever) may sound messy, but if you can come up with on equation that describes all the forces (or just reality in general) within the framework of those dimension then that's simple.