Sweetness. Yeah, Simutronics rocks. I still play DragonRealms & a little HX from time to time.
As a matter of full disclosure, I was formerly a GM on HX. Nevertheless, I was a player before and after I worked for Simu, and I loved and continue to love the games. A longtime MUDder, I found that Simu's games had the best from MUSHes and MUDs without the worst.
But the reason I played and continue to play, is that the roleplay is terrific. Graphic-based RPGs can't compete, and both player and GM run events are immersive. There's a war going on now, you ought to log in and check it out.
Since the issue seems to have been made large in the courts over 2600's actual hypertext, but they have apparently been permitted to continue posting the addresses...
Just change your 2600 link to the text http://www.2600.com instead of an active link. It's lame, but so is the court system.
Even so, in the states where there is a law binding the electorate to the popular vote, there is not actually any immediate recourse, should an electoral college member decide to be faithless.
That is to say, if an elector votes contrary to the popular vote, the state can take action against the elector (fines, expulsion), but the elector's faithless vote still stands. The election will still be based on that vote, regardless of the later consequence to the elector.
So it is entirely possible that a few electors could change the course of the entire election, with or without the backing of their region's popular vote.
For those of you who did like the Cyan products the first time round, yes, I'd say the new products are going to be thoroughly enjoyable.
I had the chance to meet Rand Miller, one of the brothers creative, at a festival this past summer. He gave a well-spoken talk on subcreation, and talked about a little history and a bit of backstory. We also saw an earlier version of the RealMyst trailer; very nice.
Highlight, of course, was a glimpse of a Mudpie demo, an in-house version. Along with the expected superb graphics, the motion base seemed smooth and well developed. It will be interesting to see how they incorporate the multiplayer aspect. It should be rewarding to interact against the backdrop of such an immersive created world.
May I paraphrase from a great political thinker, otherwise known as DA?
A little story:
"Take me to your lizard." said the giant robot.
"It comes from a very ancient democracy," explained Ford.
"You mean it comes from a world of lizards?" befuddled Arthur.
"No, in its world, the people are people, but the rulers are lizards. You see, the people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people."
"What? I thought you said it was a democracy!"
"It is," deferred Ford. "The people vote for the lizards. They've all got the vote, so they assume that the government they've got is more or less the government they all want."
"I don't understand," demurred Arthur. "If they hate the lizards, why do the people actually vote for them?"
"Because if they don't, " replied Ford with a wicked grin, "the wrong lizard might get in."
With apologies to Douglas Adams, both for borrowing the passage, and for mangling it so in the paraphrasing...
The moral of this story is:
Reducing a political race to two irrelevant candidates does not mean that you are obligated to vote for the less irritating of the irrelevant. Vote for a candidate you can actually support. It's only a wasted vote if you throw it away on someone you do not want to be your president.
A music publisher deals with the songwriter and the written (but not yet recorded) song. The record company deals with the performer and the recorded song.
And a more extensive one.
ASCAP/BMI/SESAC/MCPS/etc. deal with the songwriter and the music publisher. They're 'performance rights organizations'. The original author has the right to perform the song they have written. Anytime the song is performed by someone/something other than the original artist (radio, covers in clubs, muzak, tv commercials), then royalties are owed to the original author. The venues pay a licensing fee that allows them to play any piece that the PRO has rights to. In the United States, at this point, nothing is owed to the recording artist at all.
This is a relevant point, because in some international equivalents to the US organizations, royalty rights are given both to the composer of a song and its performer. Be careful with your arguments here. No, the RIAA is probably not going to be the most responsible with distributing those royalties. If your cry is 'compensate the artists', though, you may be in favor of performers getting paid royalties. Not only for webcasts, though, it should be consistent -- which would mean paying the recording artist royalties for radio broadcasts, etc., as well.
Royalties are paid 50% to the songwriter and 50% to the publisher. It's clear why the songwriter deserves to be paid, but there is debate over the value of the publisher's role.
The confusion comes in because publishing rights are highly desireable and quite profitable. Therefore, many record companies negotiate clauses in songwriters' contracts that require them to sign over their publishing rights. This is a bummer, because independent artists are perfectly capable of doing their own publishing and thus receiving 100% of their royalties, but this is an entirely different issue.
America-centricity aside, this problem is not specific to the states.
Most massive corporations who would be capable of effectively tracking your data are multinationals anyway. The mom&pop grocer down the street knows my name and what I buy, but they don't need a SQL database to tell them that. The potential for abuse, or at least for annoying targeted marketing exists with the big boys, and they have fingers in every pot.
However, I disagree with the original poster's reason for bringing this up. The fact that privacy is being encroached in so many ways does not mean that we should shrug when we know about it. Speaking against privacy issues as they arise in technology, in this case IPv6, is vital to the success of tech. At the very least, being aware of what the issues are, or that there is potential for problems is valid and worthwhile.
--- "The Constitution...is not a suicide pact."
Re:Regrettably, snail mail is probably best...
on
Million E-mail March
·
· Score: 1
While I agree that snail mail is, unfortunately, more effective, I maintain that an email campaign is a reasonable option. The campaign is likely to draw a larger number of respondants as an email effort, due to the ease of email.
However if you are genuinely concerned, why not send both email and postal mail? Print it & stick it in an envelope, if you're convenience-inclined. Otherwise, format it nicely, toss some nice letterhead in the laser, and away you go.
At any rate, I generally frown on responding to the call of a corporation to lobby on its behalf. Nevertheless, if your views are similar, this may be an excellent opportunity to exert your influence among your peers. Certainly all the other corporate entities have their lobbyists firmly in place. Perhaps we can create a bit of an impact, simply as a body of constituents who are concerned over legislation. It would be about time.
Of course, we could always just send tiny bottles of tabasco.
I don't think that the entire political system is at an end, nor is the current two-party system. However, I do feel that the two parties in office have become useless to us. This is both because they are becoming increasingly central and identical, but also because the elected officials in these parties vote solely along their party lines. Periodically in America's history, the parties themselves have changed, but not the system. The time is ripe now, for new parties to replace the old.
Lack of support for the current candidates does not necessarily translate into lack of support for politics. In the past, the reason I have opted not to vote has been because I was unable to commit my support to any of the existing candidates. The reason I have changed this stance is because of the failure of the other end of this system: impeachment. If there is no valid, functional mechanism to remove a failed executive officer, then it is vital that we exercise what little amount of choice we do have, on the front end.
An alternative? Tell me, of those of you who do not vote, or who do not actively support the candidate you vote for...would you vote if you could place a negative vote? So, I don't want to vote for either candidate, but I object to one more than the other. I place my negative vote against that candidate. When votes are tallied, positive votes are counted, and negative votes are subtracted. The candidate with the least objection wins. What do you say?
I think the significant difference is the awareness. I know that department store sales are conducted, and publicized. If I chose to, I could go to the store during the sale and be assured of getting a 'lower' price, or I could go after and be assured of getting a 'higher' price. There's little or no chance that when I walk into my local store, I personally will not receive sale price while my neighbor does.
On the other hand, I wouldn't have known that Amazon was offering varying prices. Nor, if I had known, would I have been able to respond to that appropriately. Maybe randmoness offends the sensibilities; 'if I try hard enough, I'll be able to secure the best deals.' Certainly it defeats the common notion of roughly equivalent pricing for literature. We're fairly used to book prices being relatively stable.
Perhaps the real fear is that with secrecy and randomness, there is the potential for abuse. Preferential treatment could easily also be discriminatory.
The compensation comment was mostly a joke, directed not at the purchase, but at the valuable marketing information we would have inadvertently provided, had the 'tests' continued.
While I agree that segregating a court has its own set of inherent problems, it is still clear that there must be a better mechanism to deal with technically complex cases than what currently exists.
If not a tech court, then what? Advisory boards of tech experts in various fields? Translator expert witnesses to explain the cultural and ideological background to bits of code? If not tech judges, then tech lawyers, specializing in languages or fields?
As these cases become more common, and as their impact widens, it will become clearer that change is necessary.
Perhaps more importantly, how about that other branch of American government that is drumming up these technically inept laws to begin with? Why don't you elect a tech Congress, instead?
Besides, if it was 'just a test, sorry', shouldn't we be compensated for doing their testing? After all, in the real world it costs money to get such a nice big focus group.
At any rate, I give credit for Amazon giving credit. When you get caught, you should try to make amends. But please don't blow me any hot air about how you never meant any harm. Not every consumer is that dull and complacent.
Yes, but conceptually, you have just spent the cash, on a piece of plastic. If you don't ever exchange the piece of plastic for your spiffy new shirt, will you ever get your cash back? Then, in essence, a sale has already occurred, regardless of the further expected value of what you have purchased. Semantics, I suppose. --- "The Constitution...is not a suicide pact."
If we were using the truly anonymous cash card (phonecard machine type), then couldn't the government just tax the purchase of the card itself, and stop worrying about it?
But then, how not to re-tax the sale itself, differentiating between a cash card and a credit/debit card...
And then, that would require the identification of the location where you purchased the cashcard, which would be worse in terms of anonymity than current credit cards. And odds are the government would be perfectly happy to tax twice, and..
Oh, nevermind. --- "The Constitution...is not a suicide pact."
Incidentally, not having to pay for it is a different thing from the fraudulent charger being prosecuted. The fact that I can get stolen from, but since what to me is a significant amount is miniscule to these companies, means that ultimately these crimes go mostly unpunished. --- "The Constitution...is not a suicide pact."
This brings up an interesting issue. Why do all subscription/registration systems provide Sign Up Here! methods, but not Get Out Now! methods?
On occasion, I have signed up for various services online, from newsreaders to tea companies. Over time, for various reasons, I have decided to stop using some of these services. But at the website, I can't unregister. I have no way of completely removing my information and account. I have no way to ask that my name be at least deactivated and at best deleted from their databases. Why is this? Shouldn't I be able to get out as easily as I got in? Wouldn't it even be beneficial to these companies to save the cost of maintaining info on someone who is no longer interested or satisfied with their products?
DBA's out there...is it feasible, practical, to completely remove a user's record from your data on request? Obviously you can't nix the transactional records, but could you pull the salable information if I asked you to? When I call up and ask you to remove my info from your systems, do you? Do I have any way to verify that you have?
In Amazon's case (and many others, I suspect), I would have carefully checked the privacy policy before I first gave my details. But when major changes such as these come about, suddenly, I have no method to dissent. I can't get my information deleted, and I can't un-join now that the policy is no longer satisfactory.
At the very least, changes like these should only be allowed to be valid from the time of the change forward. So, transactions I made in the past, under a previous policy, would not be eligible for sale. Transactions going forward after notification, would be. Then, if I had the ability to delete my details, I would be satisfied (albeit not happy) with the process.
If you want to have privacy, you have to protect it.
Absolutely.
In the physical world:
Pay with cash, whenever possible. (You may be surprised where it is possible.)
Company/Vendor not local? Pay with money orders. They aren't personally identifiable.
Don't join discount clubs that track your purchases.
Modify your signature if it's being digitally retained: Best Buy, UPS. (I add a +)
De-list & De-info your phone numbers.
Use a post office box.
In the online world:
Fill out forms with only the minimum required information. Try not filling out anything, odds are the site will let you know what you *must* fill in.
Use fictitious information for registrations if you're not purchasing anything. You don't have to lie, make it clear this is not valid info: Pseudo Name, 123 Street, City
Use initials if you must provide a valid address. That way at least you know where they bought your address.
Email accounts are free. Use them.
The real problems arise from companies utilizing your purchase (credit card) and shipping (address) records. This I know of no way to adequately prevent, but as was pointed out in this thread, this is nothing new. In the US when you get married, the clerk's office may sell your information. When you get your driver's license, you may have to specify that you don't want your info sold. You can't prevent all abuse, but you can limit it, and where you can, you should.
No, it's not as convenient as using credit/debit cards for everything. No, it's not easy to deal with internet companies. (But, if you can't find a phone number/address to deal with, perhaps you don't want to be dealing with the company anyway.) No, it won't solve everything.
But, yes, it will save you charges, fees and assorted headaches. Yes, it does provide a modicum of privacy. Is it worth it? You'll have to decide for yourself. I think so.
Search engines don't fall under this ruling because they don't know they are linking to "illegal" material
Perhaps someone ought to let them know, then. With apologies for the tone of that response, I do think the concern about a legal ruling on linking isn't completely FUD.
My concern is that any law that is enforceable based on the intent of the offender can be abusively (selectively) enforced. I'm sure there are a number of people out there who would be happier if 2600 were silenced. This may be the case, but it should not be why 2600 is litigated for this violation, and others are not.
Linking itself, and hypertext, is the foundation of the web as we know it today. We're posting on the web now, and not gopher, because of the ease of navigation brought on by hypertext on the web. Free links propagated the web. Restricting links conceivably could irreparably damage it. Therefore, it is reasonable to be concerned about limitations on that ability to freely link, for reasons other than fear, uncertainty and doubt.
Lastly, it is interesting that the definition of a link is the href, and not the address.
What *about* those search engines? Based on this logic, shouldn't each of those also be liable? And what impact will that have? Will we have search engines doing censorship based, not even on ethical grounds, but on US litigation?
Since the major defining issue with the court seems to be 'intent', rather than content (copyleft but not new york times), doesn't this give license for selective prosecution of a law? I consider this highly problematic.
It's arrogant for the current humanity to assume that sentients of the future would be less capable of interpreting messages than we are capable of transmitting them. Do we really think we are the peak of human existence? I bet the Greeks thought so. Or perhaps the Mayans. Look, it's cyclical.
The only assumption that it's necessary to make is that there will be sentient life at the time. If there is, it's not really relevant what stage of the Enlightenment/Dark Ages cycle that they're in. If they're all just digging in the muck, they'll ignore it. If they're at a point where they are capable of initiating a decoding project, they can.
Either way, the more interesting aspect of it happens now. What does today's humanity feel is important enough or trivial or funny or insightful enough that it should last some unfathomable amount of time? What does humanity feel should be communicated? Graffiti? Threats? Religious tracts? Politics? Science? Love? Music? Art? Code?
For us, right now, what it amounts to is tossing a bottle in the sea. We have no way of knowing that it will survive, find a destination, be picked up, read or cared about by anyone. But everyone feels they have something to say. Why not say it?
Sure. But what is the value of freedom of speech, if listeners are prohibited? (i.e. Americans can discourse on democracy, but China cannot listen). Equally, what worth is there if an author is free to write what he pleases, but his publisher's method of distribution restricts his readership?
I'm starting to have a growing unease with the concept of selling 'rights'. I suppose there is a certain amount of inevitability, since the ease of digital replication is causing a decreasing demand for sold products.
Nevertheless, there's something disturbing about the fact that a right to do anything can be bought or sold. The right to read a book, the right to listen to a song, the right to use a piece of software. I don't own my house, I pay for the right to live there for a time. The sale of a right, or a license, implies that there is an inherent owner who has all rights to the material, and an inherent buyer who has no rights, and can be induced to pay for such. With property ownership this is definable, but far less so with information.
Even using the term 'right' to define what's happening here has subtextual meaning. Many have fought for the rights as defined by the bill of, but there's a difference between the right to freedom of speech, and the right to read. Or is there?
You know, I've been hearing a lot of the 'don't sue the messenger' argument lately. Here's an analogy, though. Illicit drugs are created/grown/manufactured by someone. Dealers make it easier for joe-on-the-street to get hold of them. The dealer didn't make the product, and might not use it, but knows that what's being dealt is mostly illegal. Joe-on-the-street obtains and consumes said products, driving the market.
But in anti-drug policy, isn't the philosophy not to go after the end user, but to nab the dealer? We generally say 'Leave the little guy alone.' Isn't 'sue the user, not the provider' effectively the opposite of this?
The reason end-user drug offenders go to jail is because it's easier to grab them, than to work up the chain. The reason intermediaries are getting sued is because it's easier to sue a company than scads of users.
I'm not challenging drug policy here, and I'm certainly not saying that I agree uncontestedly with it. Nor am I saying that it is appropriate to sue/prosecute intermediaries like mp3.com, napster, et. al. Perhaps, though, we need a better way to challenge unconstitutional laws.
Do we really want to sue/prosecute end users for this type of litigation?
Slashdot Mirror
Sweetness. Yeah, Simutronics rocks. I still play DragonRealms & a little HX from time to time.
As a matter of full disclosure, I was formerly a GM on HX. Nevertheless, I was a player before and after I worked for Simu, and I loved and continue to love the games. A longtime MUDder, I found that Simu's games had the best from MUSHes and MUDs without the worst.
But the reason I played and continue to play, is that the roleplay is terrific. Graphic-based RPGs can't compete, and both player and GM run events are immersive. There's a war going on now, you ought to log in and check it out.
---
I still live in a small enough town that it has only one exchange. People do still give each other their numbers by saying the last four digits only.
On another note, I think the introduction of zero and one is a bigger deal than simply going to a ten digit number. What's more confusing?
Going from 919-9999 to 818-919-9999?
Or remembering that 1-181-919-9999 is a toll call, but 181-919-9999 isn't?
---
Since the issue seems to have been made large in the courts over 2600's actual hypertext, but they have apparently been permitted to continue posting the addresses...
Just change your 2600 link to the text http://www.2600.com instead of an active link. It's lame, but so is the court system.
---
"The Constitution...is not a suicide pact."
Even so, in the states where there is a law binding the electorate to the popular vote, there is not actually any immediate recourse, should an electoral college member decide to be faithless.
That is to say, if an elector votes contrary to the popular vote, the state can take action against the elector (fines, expulsion), but the elector's faithless vote still stands. The election will still be based on that vote, regardless of the later consequence to the elector.
So it is entirely possible that a few electors could change the course of the entire election, with or without the backing of their region's popular vote.
---
"The Constitution...is not a suicide pact."
For those of you who did like the Cyan products the first time round, yes, I'd say the new products are going to be thoroughly enjoyable.
I had the chance to meet Rand Miller, one of the brothers creative, at a festival this past summer. He gave a well-spoken talk on subcreation, and talked about a little history and a bit of backstory. We also saw an earlier version of the RealMyst trailer; very nice.
Highlight, of course, was a glimpse of a Mudpie demo, an in-house version. Along with the expected superb graphics, the motion base seemed smooth and well developed. It will be interesting to see how they incorporate the multiplayer aspect. It should be rewarding to interact against the backdrop of such an immersive created world.
Also, Rand was funny.
---
"The Constitution...is not a suicide pact."
A little story:
With apologies to Douglas Adams, both for borrowing the passage, and for mangling it so in the paraphrasing...
The moral of this story is:
Reducing a political race to two irrelevant candidates does not mean that you are obligated to vote for the less irritating of the irrelevant. Vote for a candidate you can actually support. It's only a wasted vote if you throw it away on someone you do not want to be your president.
---
"The Constitution...is not a suicide pact."
A quick clarification.
A music publisher deals with the songwriter and the written (but not yet recorded) song. The record company deals with the performer and the recorded song.
And a more extensive one.
ASCAP/BMI/SESAC/MCPS/etc. deal with the songwriter and the music publisher. They're 'performance rights organizations'. The original author has the right to perform the song they have written. Anytime the song is performed by someone/something other than the original artist (radio, covers in clubs, muzak, tv commercials), then royalties are owed to the original author. The venues pay a licensing fee that allows them to play any piece that the PRO has rights to. In the United States, at this point, nothing is owed to the recording artist at all.
This is a relevant point, because in some international equivalents to the US organizations, royalty rights are given both to the composer of a song and its performer. Be careful with your arguments here. No, the RIAA is probably not going to be the most responsible with distributing those royalties. If your cry is 'compensate the artists', though, you may be in favor of performers getting paid royalties. Not only for webcasts, though, it should be consistent -- which would mean paying the recording artist royalties for radio broadcasts, etc., as well.
Royalties are paid 50% to the songwriter and 50% to the publisher. It's clear why the songwriter deserves to be paid, but there is debate over the value of the publisher's role.
The confusion comes in because publishing rights are highly desireable and quite profitable. Therefore, many record companies negotiate clauses in songwriters' contracts that require them to sign over their publishing rights. This is a bummer, because independent artists are perfectly capable of doing their own publishing and thus receiving 100% of their royalties, but this is an entirely different issue.
---
"The Constitution...is not a suicide pact."
America-centricity aside, this problem is not specific to the states.
Most massive corporations who would be capable of effectively tracking your data are multinationals anyway. The mom&pop grocer down the street knows my name and what I buy, but they don't need a SQL database to tell them that. The potential for abuse, or at least for annoying targeted marketing exists with the big boys, and they have fingers in every pot.
However, I disagree with the original poster's reason for bringing this up. The fact that privacy is being encroached in so many ways does not mean that we should shrug when we know about it. Speaking against privacy issues as they arise in technology, in this case IPv6, is vital to the success of tech. At the very least, being aware of what the issues are, or that there is potential for problems is valid and worthwhile.
---
"The Constitution...is not a suicide pact."
While I agree that snail mail is, unfortunately, more effective, I maintain that an email campaign is a reasonable option. The campaign is likely to draw a larger number of respondants as an email effort, due to the ease of email.
However if you are genuinely concerned, why not send both email and postal mail? Print it & stick it in an envelope, if you're convenience-inclined. Otherwise, format it nicely, toss some nice letterhead in the laser, and away you go.
At any rate, I generally frown on responding to the call of a corporation to lobby on its behalf. Nevertheless, if your views are similar, this may be an excellent opportunity to exert your influence among your peers. Certainly all the other corporate entities have their lobbyists firmly in place. Perhaps we can create a bit of an impact, simply as a body of constituents who are concerned over legislation. It would be about time.
Of course, we could always just send tiny bottles of tabasco.
---
"The Constitution...is not a suicide pact."
I don't think that the entire political system is at an end, nor is the current two-party system. However, I do feel that the two parties in office have become useless to us. This is both because they are becoming increasingly central and identical, but also because the elected officials in these parties vote solely along their party lines. Periodically in America's history, the parties themselves have changed, but not the system. The time is ripe now, for new parties to replace the old.
Lack of support for the current candidates does not necessarily translate into lack of support for politics. In the past, the reason I have opted not to vote has been because I was unable to commit my support to any of the existing candidates. The reason I have changed this stance is because of the failure of the other end of this system: impeachment. If there is no valid, functional mechanism to remove a failed executive officer, then it is vital that we exercise what little amount of choice we do have, on the front end.
An alternative? Tell me, of those of you who do not vote, or who do not actively support the candidate you vote for...would you vote if you could place a negative vote? So, I don't want to vote for either candidate, but I object to one more than the other. I place my negative vote against that candidate. When votes are tallied, positive votes are counted, and negative votes are subtracted. The candidate with the least objection wins. What do you say?
---
"The Constitution...is not a suicide pact."
I think the significant difference is the awareness. I know that department store sales are conducted, and publicized. If I chose to, I could go to the store during the sale and be assured of getting a 'lower' price, or I could go after and be assured of getting a 'higher' price. There's little or no chance that when I walk into my local store, I personally will not receive sale price while my neighbor does.
On the other hand, I wouldn't have known that Amazon was offering varying prices. Nor, if I had known, would I have been able to respond to that appropriately. Maybe randmoness offends the sensibilities; 'if I try hard enough, I'll be able to secure the best deals.' Certainly it defeats the common notion of roughly equivalent pricing for literature. We're fairly used to book prices being relatively stable.
Perhaps the real fear is that with secrecy and randomness, there is the potential for abuse. Preferential treatment could easily also be discriminatory.
The compensation comment was mostly a joke, directed not at the purchase, but at the valuable marketing information we would have inadvertently provided, had the 'tests' continued.
---
"The Constitution...is not a suicide pact."
While I agree that segregating a court has its own set of inherent problems, it is still clear that there must be a better mechanism to deal with technically complex cases than what currently exists.
If not a tech court, then what? Advisory boards of tech experts in various fields? Translator expert witnesses to explain the cultural and ideological background to bits of code? If not tech judges, then tech lawyers, specializing in languages or fields?
As these cases become more common, and as their impact widens, it will become clearer that change is necessary.
Perhaps more importantly, how about that other branch of American government that is drumming up these technically inept laws to begin with? Why don't you elect a tech Congress, instead?
---
"The Constitution...is not a suicide pact."
Besides, if it was 'just a test, sorry', shouldn't we be compensated for doing their testing? After all, in the real world it costs money to get such a nice big focus group.
At any rate, I give credit for Amazon giving credit. When you get caught, you should try to make amends. But please don't blow me any hot air about how you never meant any harm. Not every consumer is that dull and complacent.
---
"The Constitution...is not a suicide pact."
Yes, but conceptually, you have just spent the cash, on a piece of plastic. If you don't ever exchange the piece of plastic for your spiffy new shirt, will you ever get your cash back? Then, in essence, a sale has already occurred, regardless of the further expected value of what you have purchased. Semantics, I suppose.
---
"The Constitution...is not a suicide pact."
If we were using the truly anonymous cash card (phonecard machine type), then couldn't the government just tax the purchase of the card itself, and stop worrying about it?
But then, how not to re-tax the sale itself, differentiating between a cash card and a credit/debit card...
And then, that would require the identification of the location where you purchased the cashcard, which would be worse in terms of anonymity than current credit cards. And odds are the government would be perfectly happy to tax twice, and..
Oh, nevermind.
---
"The Constitution...is not a suicide pact."
Incidentally, not having to pay for it is a different thing from the fraudulent charger being prosecuted. The fact that I can get stolen from, but since what to me is a significant amount is miniscule to these companies, means that ultimately these crimes go mostly unpunished.
---
"The Constitution...is not a suicide pact."
This brings up an interesting issue. Why do all subscription/registration systems provide Sign Up Here! methods, but not Get Out Now! methods?
On occasion, I have signed up for various services online, from newsreaders to tea companies. Over time, for various reasons, I have decided to stop using some of these services. But at the website, I can't unregister. I have no way of completely removing my information and account. I have no way to ask that my name be at least deactivated and at best deleted from their databases. Why is this? Shouldn't I be able to get out as easily as I got in? Wouldn't it even be beneficial to these companies to save the cost of maintaining info on someone who is no longer interested or satisfied with their products?
DBA's out there...is it feasible, practical, to completely remove a user's record from your data on request? Obviously you can't nix the transactional records, but could you pull the salable information if I asked you to? When I call up and ask you to remove my info from your systems, do you? Do I have any way to verify that you have?
In Amazon's case (and many others, I suspect), I would have carefully checked the privacy policy before I first gave my details. But when major changes such as these come about, suddenly, I have no method to dissent. I can't get my information deleted, and I can't un-join now that the policy is no longer satisfactory.
At the very least, changes like these should only be allowed to be valid from the time of the change forward. So, transactions I made in the past, under a previous policy, would not be eligible for sale. Transactions going forward after notification, would be. Then, if I had the ability to delete my details, I would be satisfied (albeit not happy) with the process.
---
"The Constitution...is not a suicide pact."
Absolutely.
In the physical world:
- Pay with cash, whenever possible. (You may be surprised where it is possible.)
- Company/Vendor not local? Pay with money orders. They aren't personally identifiable.
- Don't join discount clubs that track your purchases.
- Modify your signature if it's being digitally retained: Best Buy, UPS. (I add a +)
- De-list & De-info your phone numbers.
- Use a post office box.
In the online world:- Fill out forms with only the minimum required information. Try not filling out anything, odds are the site will let you know what you *must* fill in.
- Use fictitious information for registrations if you're not purchasing anything. You don't have to lie, make it clear this is not valid info: Pseudo Name, 123 Street, City
- Use initials if you must provide a valid address. That way at least you know where they bought your address.
- Email accounts are free. Use them.
The real problems arise from companies utilizing your purchase (credit card) and shipping (address) records. This I know of no way to adequately prevent, but as was pointed out in this thread, this is nothing new. In the US when you get married, the clerk's office may sell your information. When you get your driver's license, you may have to specify that you don't want your info sold. You can't prevent all abuse, but you can limit it, and where you can, you should.No, it's not as convenient as using credit/debit cards for everything. No, it's not easy to deal with internet companies. (But, if you can't find a phone number/address to deal with, perhaps you don't want to be dealing with the company anyway.) No, it won't solve everything.
But, yes, it will save you charges, fees and assorted headaches. Yes, it does provide a modicum of privacy. Is it worth it? You'll have to decide for yourself. I think so.
---
"The Constitution...is not a suicide pact."
Search engines don't fall under this ruling because they don't know they are linking to "illegal" material
...is legal, but...
...is not.
Perhaps someone ought to let them know, then. With apologies for the tone of that response, I do think the concern about a legal ruling on linking isn't completely FUD.
My concern is that any law that is enforceable based on the intent of the offender can be abusively (selectively) enforced. I'm sure there are a number of people out there who would be happier if 2600 were silenced. This may be the case, but it should not be why 2600 is litigated for this violation, and others are not.
Linking itself, and hypertext, is the foundation of the web as we know it today. We're posting on the web now, and not gopher, because of the ease of navigation brought on by hypertext on the web. Free links propagated the web. Restricting links conceivably could irreparably damage it. Therefore, it is reasonable to be concerned about limitations on that ability to freely link, for reasons other than fear, uncertainty and doubt.
Lastly, it is interesting that the definition of a link is the href, and not the address.
So...
http://www.lemuria.org/DeCSS/
http://www.lemuria.org/DeCSS/
I guess it just depends on what the definition of link is.
---
"The Constitution...is not a suicide pact."
Since the major defining issue with the court seems to be 'intent', rather than content (copyleft but not new york times), doesn't this give license for selective prosecution of a law? I consider this highly problematic.
Searches currently function from:
---
"The Constitution...is not a suicide pact."
It's arrogant for the current humanity to assume that sentients of the future would be less capable of interpreting messages than we are capable of transmitting them. Do we really think we are the peak of human existence? I bet the Greeks thought so. Or perhaps the Mayans. Look, it's cyclical.
The only assumption that it's necessary to make is that there will be sentient life at the time. If there is, it's not really relevant what stage of the Enlightenment/Dark Ages cycle that they're in. If they're all just digging in the muck, they'll ignore it. If they're at a point where they are capable of initiating a decoding project, they can.
Either way, the more interesting aspect of it happens now. What does today's humanity feel is important enough or trivial or funny or insightful enough that it should last some unfathomable amount of time? What does humanity feel should be communicated? Graffiti? Threats? Religious tracts? Politics? Science? Love? Music? Art? Code?
For us, right now, what it amounts to is tossing a bottle in the sea. We have no way of knowing that it will survive, find a destination, be picked up, read or cared about by anyone. But everyone feels they have something to say. Why not say it?
What would you say?
---
"The Constitution...is not a suicide pact."
Sure. But what is the value of freedom of speech, if listeners are prohibited? (i.e. Americans can discourse on democracy, but China cannot listen). Equally, what worth is there if an author is free to write what he pleases, but his publisher's method of distribution restricts his readership?
---
"The Constitution...is not a suicide pact."
I'm starting to have a growing unease with the concept of selling 'rights'. I suppose there is a certain amount of inevitability, since the ease of digital replication is causing a decreasing demand for sold products.
Nevertheless, there's something disturbing about the fact that a right to do anything can be bought or sold. The right to read a book, the right to listen to a song, the right to use a piece of software. I don't own my house, I pay for the right to live there for a time. The sale of a right, or a license, implies that there is an inherent owner who has all rights to the material, and an inherent buyer who has no rights, and can be induced to pay for such. With property ownership this is definable, but far less so with information.
Even using the term 'right' to define what's happening here has subtextual meaning. Many have fought for the rights as defined by the bill of, but there's a difference between the right to freedom of speech, and the right to read. Or is there?
---
"The Constitution...is not a suicide pact."
Now, let me see...would chip manufacture fall under operating systems, or software applications? Hrm...
---
"The Constitution...is not a suicide pact."
You know, I've been hearing a lot of the 'don't sue the messenger' argument lately. Here's an analogy, though. Illicit drugs are created/grown/manufactured by someone. Dealers make it easier for joe-on-the-street to get hold of them. The dealer didn't make the product, and might not use it, but knows that what's being dealt is mostly illegal. Joe-on-the-street obtains and consumes said products, driving the market.
But in anti-drug policy, isn't the philosophy not to go after the end user, but to nab the dealer? We generally say 'Leave the little guy alone.' Isn't 'sue the user, not the provider' effectively the opposite of this?
The reason end-user drug offenders go to jail is because it's easier to grab them, than to work up the chain. The reason intermediaries are getting sued is because it's easier to sue a company than scads of users.
I'm not challenging drug policy here, and I'm certainly not saying that I agree uncontestedly with it. Nor am I saying that it is appropriate to sue/prosecute intermediaries like mp3.com, napster, et. al. Perhaps, though, we need a better way to challenge unconstitutional laws.
Do we really want to sue/prosecute end users for this type of litigation?
---
"The Constitution...is not a suicide pact."