So they try to tidy up the Internet to get rid of all the stuff that's not decent...
Making Internet filters mandatory at public places to make sure kids won't be exposed to pornography - or even nudity. Nudity, the most natural thing, we're all nude below our clothes. And I myself wear clothes to protect myself from the environment, not to hide my nudity, I actually like nudity and consider it beautiful (depends on the nude person - of course).
There's some sick stuff out there. But it's not porn. The sickest stuff is speech, e.g. white supremacy reasoning. It was, is, and will be protected under the right of free speech. And I'm all for protecting it, keeping it on the web, but I'd not want my kids (and all children are naive) to fall for their faulty logic. Only educated people can argue against such stuff, but a child is gullible, lacking experience. So if you go ahead and block the graphic explicit materials, you might feel save to let your kid surf alone, but that's definitely a problem. You should always observe and assist your children when they're dealing with the world out there, and even if they're in their homes, the world out there can be access through the Internet. Don't fool yourselves, the Internet is not a regulated medium, and we don't want it that way. The Internet is a mirror of the whole world, good, bad, even the ugly. Don't try to regulate the net, instead, try to regulate yourself. Take responsibility of your life and the lives of your children. Don't try to protect them by hiding them from the outer world, by blocking the stuff you don't want them to see, expose them to it. Show them what it is and especially explain why you don't want them to see it. Why it's a problem. Do your job and bring it up, teach them, raise your children. Only then will they become independent free-thinking and reasonable adults later on who can deal with their problems in the proper way.
Don't filter - teach. Censorship is never a solution. The only solution to bad information is good information.
A quick message to the people responsible...your behavior will eventually lead to the kind of IP network monitoring that the Russian Government is making all their ISPs pay for. It is one thing to describe the attacks and work to repair the infrastructure; it's something entirely different to execute attacks that will quickly lead to solutions that can only be described as nightmarish.
Think for a moment who wins when you take down Yahoo, and shudder. Because there is a winner, and in the long run, it ain't you. You're helping someone. Guess who.
To think or even say so is very dangerous: If something you do supports somebody else, wouldn't it be a good idea for that certain someone to do it himself, and blame you? Arguing like you do is useful only to convince the neutral why they shouldn't act evil, but those who are already evil will use it to their own advantage, and try to make the good guys responsible!
It's comparable to the Linux advocacy situation. Those who know how to properly advocate Linux do know how to approach others. Those who would like to but have no clue yet should be taught so they won't make mistakes. But those who want to spoil it, they will intentionally mess it up, to ruin it for the others. We must not take responsibility for them or else we'll be blamed as a whole. We have to distance ourselves from them and make clear that we've got nothing to do with them. We don't endorse that behavior and anyone who engages in it is not a part of our community. That's the proper attitude to discourage it and prevent being held responsible for the actions of others.
That applies to DoS, Linux, OSS - and anything else you want to advocate for/against...
Hopefully this is not too Off-Topic, but I'm one of those who immediately put up a mirror for DeCSS and CSS-auth upon learning of the attempts to ban it - without ever thinking about the (il)legal situation... I'm a German, my webhost is in the UK, the servers itself are located in Canada (or the other way round - I keep forgetting). Yesterday I got an e-mail with an attached Word document from egallagher@sargoy.com representing Sargoy, Stein, Rosen & Shapiro. Since IANAL, nor do I have one, I simply took down the mirror since I can't risk to get into trouble because of this (I need my site for other stuff and even if they can't touch myself, I have to make sure my domain and server keep working, wouldn't want police to raid my host or myself). So now that the mirror is down, I hopefully am safe, but was it the right thing to do? Sure, their silly attempts to remove DeCSS will fail, you can always get it from an illegal warez site, but that doesn't matter! What matters is the very fact that I had to remove it, I can't keep a useful utility on my website, it's illegal - so they claim... it shouldn't be, but they say it is, and outside of our knowledgable community nobody gives a damn or understands the issues at stake.
I'm not going to rant about how corporations will control all of our legally purchased properties by encrypting them and controlling access, the real problem I have is that I don't know how to deal with that lawyer letter, and that's probably why they do it: Send it to lots of people and most will act accordingly because they 1) don't understand the complicated legal situation 2) can't risk trouble with authorities 3) will better be safe than sorry - so their plan is apparently working... Unless people are educated about it! Does anyone have advice or links to information that explains this very problem so we can deal with it properly?
Slashdot is a very powerful forum to talk about these things, our greatest strength is information, so we have to spread it (the information) and educate ourselves and others about it!!
So, how do we fix it? We could develop games entirely open source. Who's going to pay for that? People don't buy support contracts for games; they rarely buy the manuals.
How about differentiating between the Engine and the Game? The engine should be open but the game's content (graphics, sounds, etc.) could be paid for! The engine itself is small compared to the rest, it could be easily downloaded, but if the contents are huge (bigger than a DVD) it's well worth buying it. The engine would be like the Operating System, definitely Open Source, and the contents could be free or proprietary. This would give open source developers an advantage, a free engine, a great toy. And the engine itself, improved by hackers world-wide, would benefit the content producers and game creators as well. A Win:Win situation...
So a cracker changed their website! How helpful is that as a protest? Comparing it to Linux advocacy, it's similar to flaming a company who you would like to change their mind regarding Linux support...
By attacking someone, you don't change their mind, unless you fight and win. I tend to think it's hard to do that with their website. They'll fix it, prosecute the attackers, and get pretty pissed off. Will that make them reconsider? No way!
It would be more useful if the Australian public politely but firmly demanded what they want to achieve. Add in support by the net at large, just like when the Communications Decency Act was fought with black backgrounds, then awareness would be raised. Once the general public is informed and against the net censorship, the government has to give in, or it shows that it's not a government by the people but over the people.
When I was about six or seven years old, I played with action figures, "Star Wars" and later "Masters of the Universe". I thought the good guys were stupid, the bad guys were way cooler, and I enjoyed playing with them. It usually ended with the deaths of all the figures. Occasionally I really broke them, ripped off the heads, I even burned a furry one. I didn't watch much TV, if any, only the common child stuff. I wasn't a suppressed geek at all, in fact, I was the leader of a group of kids during Kindergarten and elementary school. I also experimented with insects, nothing to be proud of, but I think it's a very common thing. At that time I even was a Christian who still believed in God as an old guy on a cloud.
What's the point of this personal history? Tell me if that is common history! Aren't all humans violent in such a playful way? I have never killed a human being and don't want to ever do it! I firmly believe human nature does contain violent aspects but you can keep it under control. People have to learn that, it's their parents job to teach it, to teach them respect and morals. Perhaps violent fantasies are a necessary balance, you think of it, so you don't have to do it. Frankly, that's similar to sexuality, and sexual desires. Are sexual offenders people who masturbate always, never, or regularly? I think it's a similar situation and I'd like to see some statistics and studies about that! Since the majority of people do it regularly, and only a minority is offending, that could give some insight...
Finally - back to my point and main claim: I think the most important factor that determines if you act out your violent fantasies in real life or not is upbringing. No game or movie can influence a child's life as much as the parents. Don't blame anything, take responsibility again, they're your children.
Well, what is the problem, why do scientists have to ask religious authorities if they can or cannot proceed at all? Do men ask that question when they're going to have sexual intercourse? Or is there a difference if it's "created from scratch"?
Even when we're creating life from inanimate dead objects, we didn't create the objects, so there's no problem with religious claims that God is the origin. And if we were not supposed to do it, we shouldn't be able to, the impossible isn't possible. So we could actually do it???
Of course, a possibility doesn't mean it's the right thing to do, we should think about it. Using common sense. Not just religious beliefs.
Personally, I think we could learn a lot about life from this experiment, so I'm giving my go-ahead-signal. It's neither good nor bad, it's (as most things) mixed, but I believe the good will outweigh the bad. Go ahead, carefully, move on...
These two viewpoints, while each has obvious merit and obvious failings when taken to extremes, need to be met with some kind of compromise. As it stands now, the only compromise is that the technically savvy can have anonymity and the technically ignorant masses get to have their privacy violated.
Extremes are always too extreme, justice lies within balance, so a compromise is necessary. On the other hand, we could argue if privacy should be compromised for security, which might be a false feeling of safety. After all, we'll never be really secure as long as there are things out of our control, everything that isn't under our control makes us feel unsafe if we think it could be damaging to us. That's exactly why governments try to get the net in their control, to keep us under control, for nation (i.e. authorities') security.
So what compromise could we get? Anonymous in front of each other, tracable for the authorities, is that a proper balance? Or is the current situation more balanced?
Savvy people are anonymous since they know how to prevent being traced, ignorant people can be traced and caught. Actually that's the way it is all the time. The skilled will get their way, the majority of unskilled will be caught and punished. That's what our justice system is based on, we can't catch everyone, so we try to catch most. Never mind that the few we won't catch do worse things than all the others together. Law enforcement isn't there to protect all citizens, it's there to protect a general order of society, to keep it running well. That's why it makes no sense to say abolishing anonymity and establishing permanent surveillance would help anyone. All it does is make it easier to keep this system running, it's all about the whole, individuals don't matter in that scheme. Hopefully that attitude will change within the next millennium...
The Mindstorms are a good idea, but there's one downside... I know I'm not a 'typical' geek for the most part, but, I know I couldn't leave the Lego's alone long enough for it to get any cleaning done. I'd have it assembled, let it start doing it's thing, see a way to improve it, etc. That process could go on forever!
Hopefully we'll see a similar trend like Open Source for software in the hardware area: You get a working device but are free to take it apart and rebuild it to suit your needs. That's opposite to the current approach, trying to hide how it works and preventing people to change it. In a way, that might be why PC's are so successful and useful, you can open them and insert/remove/replace stuff. It would be neat to see other kinds of hardware follow, you can do it with your car, what about your TV? One size never fits all so being able to customize your software AND hardware is the new way of doing things!
Getting passwords wrong is "normal", but how many of you get an "alarm" to go off is someone gets it wrong several times?
I believe there's a difference between being checked once before being granted access and being checked all the time. Monitoring the access process is important to keep the system secure. That's different from always granting access but observing the user for misbehavior.
Being observed all the time and knowing that a mistake might mean trouble will impact people's comfortability by causing a feeling of unease. Just think about it, are you really more productive while your boss is watching over your shoulder, I bet not. Privacy might be an inherent part of human lives which would mean that full-time surveillance of common (innocent) people damages their feelings.
Well, it sure would be interesting to hear a psychologist's opinion...
I mean, would you consider stealing 87,000 bucks while in China now? Hell no!
Would you consider murdering somebody in the USA? No way! But... there's a problem: Criminals usually believe their plan is safe and they won't be caught. As long as you expect to be caught, you will be careful not to do something stupid. But once you're absolutely sure about pulling off the coup, the punishment is often forgotten since it's expected that it can't apply in your case.
Take software piracy: No matter if it's legally okay or not, it's illegal, and there are severe penalties. Do they prevent it? No, pirates always assume they won't be caught! I think this is a similar situation, I'm not saying it's justified, though.
And remember negligence: It won't save anyone, but draconian punishment could ruin someone who simply forgot or overlooked something, punishment should be appropriate instead of excessive.
Now that Quake 3: Arena is done and available for Windows already, there's an important issue to think about as it affects all versions (Win, Mac, Linux) and possibly the future of software in general: Central authentication servers. The latest kind of copy-protection for software online. You can only play on the Internet when your code (usually CD key) is authorized by a special server that's maintained by the producers. Not a new way of fighting software piracy but the very fact that now even id Software's Quake is relying on this means it could become a standard in future times.
Another great game, Half-Life, already used it. When I found out about that, I stopped playing online, and still regret that I bought it. I always buy the few games I can play in my limited time, modifyable games like most of the 3D shooters really offer so much that the cost is nothing compared to the fun, and I recommend that to others as well. But the latest copy-protection crazyness is so frustrating, warez-dudes simply download the cracked programs for free while I pay for an original to show my support for the producer, but then I'm the one who has to deal with the stupid protection stuff and can't even make a backup of it or use it over the LAN on several machines simulatenously. Yet central authentication is even worse than that for three reasons:
1. If the authentication server goes down, so does the game, nobody would be authorized to play. Only cracked games could be played on cracked servers. We who pay are left out, even if it's temporarily, it is a problem. Especially if the central servers get flooded or cracked...
2. When a CD key is used to identify and authorize players, legit users will be locked out if their codes are stolen or generated with a key generator utility. If all software was protected with unique keys, breaking into a computer and stealing them would immediately render all your paid software unusable. You can't use it while the key is used by another user or when it's been blocked because of abuse or for any other reason.
3. We're, once again, at the whim of the producer. It's very similar to DIVX. You don't have to pay to play online, at least not yet, but it could be implemented easily. Pay-per-Play, no thanks, either Pay-to-Own or nothing. Besides, what about privacy, if your unique ID number is transmitted (with hardware information, as harmless as it might seem, and who knows what else at a later time or by another entity) each time you want to connect to a server.
I've been thinking about all of this since I got Half-Life. Now Quake 3: Arena is coming out and I'm waiting for the Linux Elite Edition. But I'm no longer so sure if I really want to buy it, of course I want to show my support for Linux, but I'm not going to support authentication copy protection. Just say no? It's hard if it's my favorite game! But if I make a mistake now, my next favorite game will have the same problem, so it's time to choose. We all have to make that decision. The point of this article is to raise awareness of the issue so you can make your own choice consciously.
PS: I'm also interested in id Software's opinion on this issue (Johnc and Zoid are registered Slashdot readers). The latest happenings are so different from what they did before! Would John Carmack really prefer a world where all software that's used online requires central authentication servers? In many ways, id often sets a precedent, think about it...
Now that both Quake 3: Arena and Unreal Tournament are coming out, think about what's best for Linux:
Is it better to buy the Unreal Tournament Windows version, download the Linux binaries, then tell them that you're using Linux (only)?
Or is it better to buy the Quake 3: Arena Linux edition instead, then get the Windows binaries at a later time, if you want them as well?
Personally, I wanted to buy both, but now I consider buying another Linux Q3A instead of a Windows UT - one more Linux customer, one less Windows customer, and more support for those who fully support Linux!
Personally, I think the Mortal Kombat-style games are worst of all - but maybe that's because I don't play them.
Of course that's because you don't play them. 2D Beat-Em-Ups have a community of their own just like 3D Shoot-Em-Ups. Mortal Kombat is just one of them, known for its violence, but there are others. For an outsider they often look like stupid games where all you have to do is punch some buttons to beat your opponent. But that's only at first glance and as wrong as claiming Quake is only about clicking your mouse. There's more to it as everybody who got seriously involved with these games knows.
But the real problem with your statement is not this misunderstanding because of a lack of knowledge of what you judge, although judgement without knowing all the facts IS a problem, personally I'm disturbed about the putting down of others who should be part of the same community. No matter if you're a Simmer, Quaker, Fighter - you're a gamer. We're all gamers. Part of the gaming community. The worst thing we could do when the media or other propaganda groups blame games for violence is to claim our subcommunity is okay but blame the others. Think about it, if you say "Our games are right, theirs are wrong" you're helping the ones who are against ALL games. And if those can get rid of one part, the other parts will be weakened. So don't put down any other gaming groups just because you prefer another one, games are games, we're all gamers. Let's act united in favor of all games instead of splitting up and weakening the whole community.
That's also valid for blaming other different groups like the movies, music, whatever. You might not like it, you can prevent your children to get it (if you're a good parent you should be in control and supervision), but don't try to take it away from others by blaming it. If you blame something else, so can they blame your stuff, so better act with united strength by supporting each other.
As seen on BluesNews : Contrary to expectations, the Linux Unreal Tournament executable will not be included in the retail Unreal Tournament box, but will rather be made available for download when the game is available for purchase:
Earlier I said that Linux UT would be available out of the box. GT decided that they didn't want to support a Linux version and didn't want it in the box. We decided not to argue the issue, so the Linux UT libraries and executables will not be available in the box.
So if you thought about buying Unreal Tournament, think again, it might be better to buy another copy of Quake3Arena instead just to show your interest in Linux...
[Linux]'s a great OS, no doubt about it, but that's all. Something better will come along (probably fairly soon) and Linux will become a fixture of the past. A memorable one, of course, but that's it.
Tux the penguin has nothing revolutionary going for him. It's just an implementation of Unix. It's a good one, but it's still comparable to Solaris and others.
Yes and no. The greatest difference isn't the specific technology but the development model. In a commercial world where a company wants to make a profit, it doesn't pay off to keep working on a released product, it's more profitable to publish a new full version instead of just an update. Whatever is released is already outdated at the time of public retail, the creators are already working on a better version that is supposed to replace the old one once it isn't selling well enough anymore. The moment you buy some new software, it's already old stuff for the producer, they don't want to fix it (for existing customers) but concentrate on the successor (which is supposed to bring them more new customers). That's why products die and are replaced so quickly in the commercial world.
But Linux is different. The latest technology is already there right now, publically available for all who're interested (i.e. developers), open to be examined and enhanced. That's the special thing about Open Source. Sure, there are many other benefits, but the best thing is the guaranteed evolution. Open source software will be maintained as long as there is interest, and with all the time and energy invested in Linux already, people won't just drop it once something "better" comes along. Instead it can be made better all the time, it is actively evolved, it thrives in the open (contrary to commercial proprietary products). The philosophy is not to reinvent the wheel all the time, a problem should be solved only once, so all that energy can be used for other work that has not been done before. Sometimes there are drastic changes but thanks to Linux's open source nature, it's pretty easy to adapt it to a different environment, and you can always keep the theory and design principles if the actual code ever became useless (Quantum computing or something totally different from our binary computers). If anything, it's Linux and other open source projects that have best chances to be useful and up-to-date for a long time to come...
Maybe a new version tag is needed, additionally to the the odd numbers, and the "pre" and "ac" tags. Like "ea" for "early adopter". Whatever. Anything above "beta".
The distributions would offer two kernels then: "ea" and "stable as hell".
And "stable as hell" is what "release" should mean.
I'm all for K.I.S.S.;)
If there was such a thing as a special EA release, why put it in a Linux distribution at all? It's the Kernel, not the OS, so a distro doesn't have to provide packages for all releases! Newbies should stick with what their favorite distro provides pre-packaged, then get into source packages once they want to learn more, and finally try the unstable kernel versions when they feel ready to tackle some serious stuff. To be ready to use the "beta" kernerls, one should have read the appropriate FAQ's and HOWTO's, which means you know about the version numbering scheme and risks. Why change the simple rules and make them more complicated for those who shouldn't mess with the Kernel anyway? If one gets confused by the Kernel version numbers and release phases, do NOT go any further, stick to what your distribution provides! Leave the Kernel development to the developers and get tested packages from your distro's site. You're free to play with the unstable releases, but make sure you know the rules first, it never was intended to be for everyone. Everybody can get involved, but they must learn, or rely on their vendor.
When I got on the net for the first time three years ago, I picked a nickname that became my "virtual real name", a true pseudonym. I use it all the time, but the people I know in real life and on the net as well, they know the connection and my identity. I trust them but since they trust others who I can't trust since I don't even know those, I don't know who else knows about it, that's why I can just as well publish the info on my homepage. I could try to hide the connection between my nickname and my real life identity, but to me, they are equal. I don't want to have a split personality and be too paranoid, especially since that doesn't really provide any security, it's just obscurity. It only works for so long.
The true problem is an attitude: We must all remember that people grow up, change their minds, evolve. We learn a lot from mistakes, hopefully, so our mistakes and problems are good things (PRO-blem). There are no pure or innocent people around, we all fuck up, we all evolve. Some faster than others.
Deja.com has archived a few stupid things I once said, but that's not a bad thing, it's a good thing since it also shows how I improved myself. My Slashdot history also gives a lot of insight in my interests and believes, which can be connected to my real life identity by looking up my info. I'm not anonymous, since I try to only say what I believe in, and I'm standing by my believes until I evolve them on my own.
Freedom of speech doesn't only mean you can speak freely and anonymously, it also means you can speak freely and not be threatened in real life. If you only speak anonymously because you are afraid that your opinions are a danger to yourself, then you're actually supporting the media, the misconception that what you (once) said is what you (still) mean. It's as useful as claiming evolution is just an illusion...
Anonymity is important, but not all the time, otherwise you hurt your individuality without noticing - and if the obscurity ever fails, you'll be in for some serious trouble, since you've forsaken the chance to maintain that opinions can change.
Implied Disclaimer: That's what I just said, it might not be what I'll mean at a later time, I retain the right to freely change my mind without any notice. -- this should be OBVIOUS at all times!!
In general, software (open or closed) seems to be much like Highlander: there can be only one.
Interesting statement. In theory it might be reasonable, but in practice, it defies reason. Choice is a good thing, no matter if it's free or not, but in a free marketplace, you usually have more choice because different choices can peacefully coexist and evolve together. It's competition and symbiosis at the same time.
Actually I think that's not a marketplace mechanism but related to the users and creators. The same force that drives people to engage in flame wars about their favorite products is the force that ensures variety and evolution within the free (software) world.
As long as people engage in flame wars about Linux vs BSD, Gnome vs KDE, Emacs vs Vi, etc., the choices will keep evolving and getting better. Intuitively we would like to see a single perfect solution, but since everybody wants that and everyone is different, we'll inevitably have several choices. As long as taste varies and people choose, there will be different choices, and there can be a lot.
I would still prefer two branched distributions. I'd rather see more server-side stuff on a Server Distribution CD when I'm installing the servers (optional PAM and apache modules, maybe a choice of databases, etc), and more client/workstation packages (where to begin) included on the Workstation Distribution CD.
What about us who own high-end machines that can act both as a server and workstation, at home, for example. I consider it one of the important advantages of Linux to be able to use a single distribution in place of several other systems (Win98 & NT). Also easier if machines exchange jobs, no need to install a different distribution, just update it to be a server/client as well. So I'm against in branching Red Hat Linux, but once the different jobs get too big, i'm all for a compromise: Instead of a single Main CD-ROM, ship a Workstation and a Server CD, while preserving the possibilities of mixing them and keeping all compatibility. I think that's the best way to solve the problem, if there ever will be such a problem, for a mainstream distro like RedHat's.
(Maybe that's what Can meant? In that case, great, there's no problem at all!)
"I may as well dive off the deep end and speak truth (and don't waste time trying to tell me this is just my opinion)."
The truth is that there's no such thing as an absolute truth. If something is true, something else must be false. The absolute is beyond the opposites, to be absolute, it must encompass both right and wrong. That means the absolute can't be judged, not objectively, only subjectively. Beyond the mere human perception of true and false, it just is, that's the fact. Although we're all human beings (least I think so), we're all different, so we can only decide on our own for ourselves. We're individuals and our beliefs and values are all individual, others might or might not agree, that's important to realize. We live in one world yet our world views vary, that means there are different worlds within one, it's essential to keep that balance. Since we want to be allowed to freely make our own decisions, it's only fair if we let others choose on their own, without forcing our attitude.
In my world, I'd rather have people make love to each other in public than fight each other as openly as they use to do. To me, sex is a creative act, violence is a destructive action. That's my view. Neither better nor worse than yours or anybody else's. To prepare my children for life, I won't hide them from the world or the world from them, I'll teach them how to handle the real life. Children are not as fragile as one might think, they do have their own brains, we should teach them how to use them instead of make them mindless clones or drones. The most important lesson is respect, to respect yourself and all others as equally valid beings with equally valid choices, a lesson we adults also have to learn and live.
...that another company (let's use Microsoft as an example) makes their own Linux distribution. Now the various licenses would apply, but Microsoft decides to label the distro a beta and claim it's only given to special "internal" testers. To become such a privileged person, you simply pay for it and sign their restrictive license. It's only beta, not to the general public, for testing purposes only...
Once Corel's problem is fixed, we should forgive them, but until then we shouldn't let this look like a precedent of how to circumvent the open source licenses!!
On the other hand, if this became a precedent, all the WaReZ sites on the web would immediately get a chance to become legal in the same way by twisting the original license agreements.
It's not WHY or HOW but WHO that matters...
on
Three on Munich
·
· Score: 1
They propose HOW to regulate information on the Internet. WHY? Because of the children, of course, to protect and serve all of us! That's so obvious, in fact, it's too obvious... let's look at it in another way, WHO are they, WHO wants this?!
Government and corporations. Authorities that want to keep in charge and control all of us. Information is power so who can regulate it will have the power to rule. The Internet isn't just fun (chat'n'games'n'porn), it's also about education and spreading your opinion, all kinds of opinions and experiences. Both government and corporations have been hurt by this, for them the net is even worse than public media, because it's not just a few big guys but lots of small fishes in a global pond.
Especially government authorities should be worried since they got their power by the people to represent them. If a global network connects all people and allows them to both get all the information they need and decide based on that, we'd have a perfect democracy, no need for representatives. Politicians will become obsolete once the Internet, technology and population all are ready. That's why they fight it so much, they know it's coming, not now but sooner or later it must happen. Although it probably is too late, most of them won't give up, not until the end. Expect such attempts at regulation to become worse, but never give in, now we can forget about the past and improve the future. The Internet is something new, unlike all media, the old rules can't apply here.
Now that we know WHO is doing it and WHY they really try to do it, HOW can we stop them? Personally, I think we should ally with corporations so they can oppose governments. We should go against the involved companies that are in favor of this regulation like Greenpeace goes against their opponents: Educate the public, spread the information, boycott the enemy... Let's clear up the Internet and get rid of the real smut, those who want to control it, these people are worse for mankind than any bits and bytes could ever be!!
So the Internet is the battleground, it's friendly territory, our strongest force is information. Some of that information is essential, it's what makes the net so important, this is good info. Then there's other information that is either corrupting or dangerous, the dark side of the net, this is bad info. Of course, good or bad are mere opinions, depending on individuals. Authorities would like to filter out the bad stuff and only let us access the good stuff. They want to control the information we can access so that they can keep controlling us and stay in charge. If we can't stop them, we must make sure they can't take over the net, we should mix the information so good and bad become one. If all the info that is considered bad is blocked, that block has to block all good info as well, so they can't have one without the other.
We could rate all of our content to be most extreme, even if it's a FAQ or HOWTO, so volunatry ratings would turn out to be useless. To make sure mandatory ratings wouldn't work, either, we could put extreme information into our FAQ's and HOWTO's. Add pornography, violence, hate-speech and explain why...
You don't have to support that additional content, basically the censorship efforts forced you to add it, so explain that to your audience to raise awareness. It's better to start early, before it's too late, while there still is an audience. Okay, I admit this seems a bit extreme, but it's appropriate to the extreme threat of censorship that's facing The Net As We Know It. The Internet is something special, we can't let any authorities ruin it, that loss of freedom would be far worse for our children than any unrated content could ever be...
Slashdot Mirror
So they try to tidy up the Internet to get rid of all the stuff that's not decent...
Making Internet filters mandatory at public places to make sure kids won't be exposed to pornography - or even nudity. Nudity, the most natural thing, we're all nude below our clothes. And I myself wear clothes to protect myself from the environment, not to hide my nudity, I actually like nudity and consider it beautiful (depends on the nude person - of course).
There's some sick stuff out there. But it's not porn. The sickest stuff is speech, e.g. white supremacy reasoning. It was, is, and will be protected under the right of free speech. And I'm all for protecting it, keeping it on the web, but I'd not want my kids (and all children are naive) to fall for their faulty logic. Only educated people can argue against such stuff, but a child is gullible, lacking experience. So if you go ahead and block the graphic explicit materials, you might feel save to let your kid surf alone, but that's definitely a problem. You should always observe and assist your children when they're dealing with the world out there, and even if they're in their homes, the world out there can be access through the Internet. Don't fool yourselves, the Internet is not a regulated medium, and we don't want it that way. The Internet is a mirror of the whole world, good, bad, even the ugly. Don't try to regulate the net, instead, try to regulate yourself. Take responsibility of your life and the lives of your children. Don't try to protect them by hiding them from the outer world, by blocking the stuff you don't want them to see, expose them to it. Show them what it is and especially explain why you don't want them to see it. Why it's a problem. Do your job and bring it up, teach them, raise your children. Only then will they become independent free-thinking and reasonable adults later on who can deal with their problems in the proper way.
Don't filter - teach. Censorship is never a solution. The only solution to bad information is good information.
Think for a moment who wins when you take down Yahoo, and shudder. Because there is a winner, and in the long run, it ain't you. You're helping someone. Guess who.
To think or even say so is very dangerous: If something you do supports somebody else, wouldn't it be a good idea for that certain someone to do it himself, and blame you? Arguing like you do is useful only to convince the neutral why they shouldn't act evil, but those who are already evil will use it to their own advantage, and try to make the good guys responsible!
It's comparable to the Linux advocacy situation. Those who know how to properly advocate Linux do know how to approach others. Those who would like to but have no clue yet should be taught so they won't make mistakes. But those who want to spoil it, they will intentionally mess it up, to ruin it for the others. We must not take responsibility for them or else we'll be blamed as a whole. We have to distance ourselves from them and make clear that we've got nothing to do with them. We don't endorse that behavior and anyone who engages in it is not a part of our community. That's the proper attitude to discourage it and prevent being held responsible for the actions of others.
That applies to DoS, Linux, OSS - and anything else you want to advocate for/against...
Hopefully this is not too Off-Topic, but I'm one of those who immediately put up a mirror for DeCSS and CSS-auth upon learning of the attempts to ban it - without ever thinking about the (il)legal situation... I'm a German, my webhost is in the UK, the servers itself are located in Canada (or the other way round - I keep forgetting). Yesterday I got an e-mail with an attached Word document from egallagher@sargoy.com representing Sargoy, Stein, Rosen & Shapiro. Since IANAL, nor do I have one, I simply took down the mirror since I can't risk to get into trouble because of this (I need my site for other stuff and even if they can't touch myself, I have to make sure my domain and server keep working, wouldn't want police to raid my host or myself). So now that the mirror is down, I hopefully am safe, but was it the right thing to do? Sure, their silly attempts to remove DeCSS will fail, you can always get it from an illegal warez site, but that doesn't matter! What matters is the very fact that I had to remove it, I can't keep a useful utility on my website, it's illegal - so they claim... it shouldn't be, but they say it is, and outside of our knowledgable community nobody gives a damn or understands the issues at stake.
I'm not going to rant about how corporations will control all of our legally purchased properties by encrypting them and controlling access, the real problem I have is that I don't know how to deal with that lawyer letter, and that's probably why they do it: Send it to lots of people and most will act accordingly because they 1) don't understand the complicated legal situation 2) can't risk trouble with authorities 3) will better be safe than sorry - so their plan is apparently working... Unless people are educated about it! Does anyone have advice or links to information that explains this very problem so we can deal with it properly?
Slashdot is a very powerful forum to talk about these things, our greatest strength is information, so we have to spread it (the information) and educate ourselves and others about it!!
So, how do we fix it? We could develop games entirely open source. Who's going to pay for that? People don't buy support contracts for games; they rarely buy the manuals.
How about differentiating between the Engine and the Game? The engine should be open but the game's content (graphics, sounds, etc.) could be paid for! The engine itself is small compared to the rest, it could be easily downloaded, but if the contents are huge (bigger than a DVD) it's well worth buying it. The engine would be like the Operating System, definitely Open Source, and the contents could be free or proprietary. This would give open source developers an advantage, a free engine, a great toy. And the engine itself, improved by hackers world-wide, would benefit the content producers and game creators as well. A Win:Win situation...
So a cracker changed their website! How helpful is that as a protest? Comparing it to Linux advocacy, it's similar to flaming a company who you would like to change their mind regarding Linux support...
By attacking someone, you don't change their mind, unless you fight and win. I tend to think it's hard to do that with their website. They'll fix it, prosecute the attackers, and get pretty pissed off. Will that make them reconsider? No way!
It would be more useful if the Australian public politely but firmly demanded what they want to achieve. Add in support by the net at large, just like when the Communications Decency Act was fought with black backgrounds, then awareness would be raised. Once the general public is informed and against the net censorship, the government has to give in, or it shows that it's not a government by the people but over the people.
When I was about six or seven years old, I played with action figures, "Star Wars" and later "Masters of the Universe". I thought the good guys were stupid, the bad guys were way cooler, and I enjoyed playing with them. It usually ended with the deaths of all the figures. Occasionally I really broke them, ripped off the heads, I even burned a furry one. I didn't watch much TV, if any, only the common child stuff. I wasn't a suppressed geek at all, in fact, I was the leader of a group of kids during Kindergarten and elementary school. I also experimented with insects, nothing to be proud of, but I think it's a very common thing. At that time I even was a Christian who still believed in God as an old guy on a cloud.
What's the point of this personal history? Tell me if that is common history! Aren't all humans violent in such a playful way? I have never killed a human being and don't want to ever do it! I firmly believe human nature does contain violent aspects but you can keep it under control. People have to learn that, it's their parents job to teach it, to teach them respect and morals. Perhaps violent fantasies are a necessary balance, you think of it, so you don't have to do it. Frankly, that's similar to sexuality, and sexual desires. Are sexual offenders people who masturbate always, never, or regularly? I think it's a similar situation and I'd like to see some statistics and studies about that! Since the majority of people do it regularly, and only a minority is offending, that could give some insight...
Finally - back to my point and main claim: I think the most important factor that determines if you act out your violent fantasies in real life or not is upbringing. No game or movie can influence a child's life as much as the parents. Don't blame anything, take responsibility again, they're your children.
Well, what is the problem, why do scientists have to ask religious authorities if they can or cannot proceed at all? Do men ask that question when they're going to have sexual intercourse? Or is there a difference if it's "created from scratch"?
Even when we're creating life from inanimate dead objects, we didn't create the objects, so there's no problem with religious claims that God is the origin. And if we were not supposed to do it, we shouldn't be able to, the impossible isn't possible. So we could actually do it???
Of course, a possibility doesn't mean it's the right thing to do, we should think about it. Using common sense. Not just religious beliefs.
Personally, I think we could learn a lot about life from this experiment, so I'm giving my go-ahead-signal. It's neither good nor bad, it's (as most things) mixed, but I believe the good will outweigh the bad. Go ahead, carefully, move on...
These two viewpoints, while each has obvious merit and obvious failings when taken to extremes, need to be met with some kind of compromise. As it stands now, the only compromise is that the technically savvy can have anonymity and the technically ignorant masses get to have their privacy violated.
Extremes are always too extreme, justice lies within balance, so a compromise is necessary. On the other hand, we could argue if privacy should be compromised for security, which might be a false feeling of safety. After all, we'll never be really secure as long as there are things out of our control, everything that isn't under our control makes us feel unsafe if we think it could be damaging to us. That's exactly why governments try to get the net in their control, to keep us under control, for nation (i.e. authorities') security.
So what compromise could we get? Anonymous in front of each other, tracable for the authorities, is that a proper balance? Or is the current situation more balanced?
Savvy people are anonymous since they know how to prevent being traced, ignorant people can be traced and caught. Actually that's the way it is all the time. The skilled will get their way, the majority of unskilled will be caught and punished. That's what our justice system is based on, we can't catch everyone, so we try to catch most. Never mind that the few we won't catch do worse things than all the others together. Law enforcement isn't there to protect all citizens, it's there to protect a general order of society, to keep it running well. That's why it makes no sense to say abolishing anonymity and establishing permanent surveillance would help anyone. All it does is make it easier to keep this system running, it's all about the whole, individuals don't matter in that scheme. Hopefully that attitude will change within the next millennium...
The Mindstorms are a good idea, but there's one downside... I know I'm not a 'typical' geek for the most part, but, I know I couldn't leave the Lego's alone long enough for it to get any cleaning done. I'd have it assembled, let it start doing it's thing, see a way to improve it, etc. That process could go on forever!
Hopefully we'll see a similar trend like Open Source for software in the hardware area: You get a working device but are free to take it apart and rebuild it to suit your needs. That's opposite to the current approach, trying to hide how it works and preventing people to change it. In a way, that might be why PC's are so successful and useful, you can open them and insert/remove/replace stuff. It would be neat to see other kinds of hardware follow, you can do it with your car, what about your TV? One size never fits all so being able to customize your software AND hardware is the new way of doing things!
And this is different to computer systems how?
Getting passwords wrong is "normal", but how many of you get an "alarm" to go off is someone gets it wrong several times?
I believe there's a difference between being checked once before being granted access and being checked all the time. Monitoring the access process is important to keep the system secure. That's different from always granting access but observing the user for misbehavior.
Being observed all the time and knowing that a mistake might mean trouble will impact people's comfortability by causing a feeling of unease. Just think about it, are you really more productive while your boss is watching over your shoulder, I bet not. Privacy might be an inherent part of human lives which would mean that full-time surveillance of common (innocent) people damages their feelings.
Well, it sure would be interesting to hear a psychologist's opinion...
No matter if it's legally okay or not, it's illegal, and there are severe penalties.
;-)
Oops, I previewed before submitting, but I must have overlooked this - of course I meant "morally"...
I mean, would you consider stealing 87,000 bucks while in China now? Hell no!
Would you consider murdering somebody in the USA? No way! But... there's a problem: Criminals usually believe their plan is safe and they won't be caught. As long as you expect to be caught, you will be careful not to do something stupid. But once you're absolutely sure about pulling off the coup, the punishment is often forgotten since it's expected that it can't apply in your case.
Take software piracy: No matter if it's legally okay or not, it's illegal, and there are severe penalties. Do they prevent it? No, pirates always assume they won't be caught! I think this is a similar situation, I'm not saying it's justified, though.
And remember negligence: It won't save anyone, but draconian punishment could ruin someone who simply forgot or overlooked something, punishment should be appropriate instead of excessive.
Now that Quake 3: Arena is done and available for Windows already, there's an
important issue to think about as it affects all versions (Win, Mac, Linux) and
possibly the future of software in general: Central authentication servers. The
latest kind of copy-protection for software online. You can only play on the
Internet when your code (usually CD key) is authorized by a special server
that's maintained by the producers. Not a new way of fighting software piracy
but the very fact that now even id Software's Quake is relying on this means it
could become a standard in future times.
Another great game, Half-Life, already used it. When I found out about that, I
stopped playing online, and still regret that I bought it. I always buy the few
games I can play in my limited time, modifyable games like most of the 3D
shooters really offer so much that the cost is nothing compared to the fun, and
I recommend that to others as well. But the latest copy-protection crazyness is
so frustrating, warez-dudes simply download the cracked programs for free while
I pay for an original to show my support for the producer, but then I'm the one
who has to deal with the stupid protection stuff and can't even make a backup
of it or use it over the LAN on several machines simulatenously. Yet central
authentication is even worse than that for three reasons:
1. If the authentication server goes down, so does the game, nobody would be
authorized to play. Only cracked games could be played on cracked servers. We
who pay are left out, even if it's temporarily, it is a problem. Especially if
the central servers get flooded or cracked...
2. When a CD key is used to identify and authorize players, legit users will be
locked out if their codes are stolen or generated with a key generator utility.
If all software was protected with unique keys, breaking into a computer and
stealing them would immediately render all your paid software unusable. You
can't use it while the key is used by another user or when it's been blocked
because of abuse or for any other reason.
3. We're, once again, at the whim of the producer. It's very similar to DIVX.
You don't have to pay to play online, at least not yet, but it could be
implemented easily. Pay-per-Play, no thanks, either Pay-to-Own or nothing.
Besides, what about privacy, if your unique ID number is transmitted (with
hardware information, as harmless as it might seem, and who knows what else at
a later time or by another entity) each time you want to connect to a server.
I've been thinking about all of this since I got Half-Life. Now Quake 3: Arena
is coming out and I'm waiting for the Linux Elite Edition. But I'm no longer so
sure if I really want to buy it, of course I want to show my support for Linux,
but I'm not going to support authentication copy protection. Just say no? It's
hard if it's my favorite game! But if I make a mistake now, my next favorite
game will have the same problem, so it's time to choose. We all have to make
that decision. The point of this article is to raise awareness of the issue so
you can make your own choice consciously.
PS: I'm also interested in id Software's opinion on this issue (Johnc and Zoid
are registered Slashdot readers). The latest happenings are so different from
what they did before! Would John Carmack really prefer a world where all
software that's used online requires central authentication servers? In many
ways, id often sets a precedent, think about it...
Now that both Quake 3: Arena and Unreal Tournament are coming out, think about what's best for Linux:
Is it better to buy the Unreal Tournament Windows version, download the Linux binaries, then tell them that you're using Linux (only)?
Or is it better to buy the Quake 3: Arena Linux edition instead, then get the Windows binaries at a later time, if you want them as well?
Personally, I wanted to buy both, but now I consider buying another Linux Q3A instead of a Windows UT - one more Linux customer, one less Windows customer, and more support for those who fully support Linux!
Personally, I think the Mortal Kombat-style games are worst of all - but maybe that's because I don't play them.
Of course that's because you don't play them. 2D Beat-Em-Ups have a community of their own just like 3D Shoot-Em-Ups. Mortal Kombat is just one of them, known for its violence, but there are others. For an outsider they often look like stupid games where all you have to do is punch some buttons to beat your opponent. But that's only at first glance and as wrong as claiming Quake is only about clicking your mouse. There's more to it as everybody who got seriously involved with these games knows.
But the real problem with your statement is not this misunderstanding because of a lack of knowledge of what you judge, although judgement without knowing all the facts IS a problem, personally I'm disturbed about the putting down of others who should be part of the same community. No matter if you're a Simmer, Quaker, Fighter - you're a gamer. We're all gamers. Part of the gaming community. The worst thing we could do when the media or other propaganda groups blame games for violence is to claim our subcommunity is okay but blame the others. Think about it, if you say "Our games are right, theirs are wrong" you're helping the ones who are against ALL games. And if those can get rid of one part, the other parts will be weakened. So don't put down any other gaming groups just because you prefer another one, games are games, we're all gamers. Let's act united in favor of all games instead of splitting up and weakening the whole community.
That's also valid for blaming other different groups like the movies, music, whatever. You might not like it, you can prevent your children to get it (if you're a good parent you should be in control and supervision), but don't try to take it away from others by blaming it. If you blame something else, so can they blame your stuff, so better act with united strength by supporting each other.
As seen on BluesNews : Contrary to expectations, the Linux Unreal Tournament executable will not be included in the retail Unreal Tournament box, but will rather be made available for download when the game is available for purchase:
Earlier I said that Linux UT would be available out of the box. GT decided that they didn't want to support a Linux version and didn't want it in the box. We decided not to argue the issue, so the Linux UT libraries and executables will not be available in the box.
So if you thought about buying Unreal Tournament, think again, it might be better to buy another copy of Quake3Arena instead just to show your interest in Linux...
Tux the penguin has nothing revolutionary going for him. It's just an implementation of Unix. It's a good one, but it's still comparable to Solaris and others.
Yes and no. The greatest difference isn't the specific technology but the development model. In a commercial world where a company wants to make a profit, it doesn't pay off to keep working on a released product, it's more profitable to publish a new full version instead of just an update. Whatever is released is already outdated at the time of public retail, the creators are already working on a better version that is supposed to replace the old one once it isn't selling well enough anymore. The moment you buy some new software, it's already old stuff for the producer, they don't want to fix it (for existing customers) but concentrate on the successor (which is supposed to bring them more new customers). That's why products die and are replaced so quickly in the commercial world.
But Linux is different. The latest technology is already there right now, publically available for all who're interested (i.e. developers), open to be examined and enhanced. That's the special thing about Open Source. Sure, there are many other benefits, but the best thing is the guaranteed evolution. Open source software will be maintained as long as there is interest, and with all the time and energy invested in Linux already, people won't just drop it once something "better" comes along. Instead it can be made better all the time, it is actively evolved, it thrives in the open (contrary to commercial proprietary products). The philosophy is not to reinvent the wheel all the time, a problem should be solved only once, so all that energy can be used for other work that has not been done before. Sometimes there are drastic changes but thanks to Linux's open source nature, it's pretty easy to adapt it to a different environment, and you can always keep the theory and design principles if the actual code ever became useless (Quantum computing or something totally different from our binary computers). If anything, it's Linux and other open source projects that have best chances to be useful and up-to-date for a long time to come...
Maybe a new version tag is needed, additionally to the the odd numbers, and the "pre" and "ac" tags. Like "ea" for "early adopter". Whatever. Anything above "beta".
;)
:)
The distributions would offer two kernels then: "ea" and "stable as hell".
And "stable as hell" is what "release" should mean.
I'm all for K.I.S.S.
If there was such a thing as a special EA release, why put it in a Linux distribution at all? It's the Kernel, not the OS, so a distro doesn't have to provide packages for all releases! Newbies should stick with what their favorite distro provides pre-packaged, then get into source packages once they want to learn more, and finally try the unstable kernel versions when they feel ready to tackle some serious stuff. To be ready to use the "beta" kernerls, one should have read the appropriate FAQ's and HOWTO's, which means you know about the version numbering scheme and risks. Why change the simple rules and make them more complicated for those who shouldn't mess with the Kernel anyway? If one gets confused by the Kernel version numbers and release phases, do NOT go any further, stick to what your distribution provides! Leave the Kernel development to the developers and get tested packages from your distro's site. You're free to play with the unstable releases, but make sure you know the rules first, it never was intended to be for everyone. Everybody can get involved, but they must learn, or rely on their vendor.
It's that easy.
When I got on the net for the first time three years ago, I picked a nickname that became my "virtual real name", a true pseudonym. I use it all the time, but the people I know in real life and on the net as well, they know the connection and my identity. I trust them but since they trust others who I can't trust since I don't even know those, I don't know who else knows about it, that's why I can just as well publish the info on my homepage. I could try to hide the connection between my nickname and my real life identity, but to me, they are equal. I don't want to have a split personality and be too paranoid, especially since that doesn't really provide any security, it's just obscurity. It only works for so long.
The true problem is an attitude: We must all remember that people grow up, change their minds, evolve. We learn a lot from mistakes, hopefully, so our mistakes and problems are good things (PRO-blem). There are no pure or innocent people around, we all fuck up, we all evolve. Some faster than others.
Deja.com has archived a few stupid things I once said, but that's not a bad thing, it's a good thing since it also shows how I improved myself. My Slashdot history also gives a lot of insight in my interests and believes, which can be connected to my real life identity by looking up my info. I'm not anonymous, since I try to only say what I believe in, and I'm standing by my believes until I evolve them on my own.
Freedom of speech doesn't only mean you can speak freely and anonymously, it also means you can speak freely and not be threatened in real life. If you only speak anonymously because you are afraid that your opinions are a danger to yourself, then you're actually supporting the media, the misconception that what you (once) said is what you (still) mean. It's as useful as claiming evolution is just an illusion...
Anonymity is important, but not all the time, otherwise you hurt your individuality without noticing - and if the obscurity ever fails, you'll be in for some serious trouble, since you've forsaken the chance to maintain that opinions can change.
Implied Disclaimer: That's what I just said, it might not be what I'll mean at a later time, I retain the right to freely change my mind without any notice. -- this should be OBVIOUS at all times!!
In general, software (open or closed) seems to be much like Highlander: there can be only one.
Interesting statement. In theory it might be reasonable, but in practice, it defies reason. Choice is a good thing, no matter if it's free or not, but in a free marketplace, you usually have more choice because different choices can peacefully coexist and evolve together. It's competition and symbiosis at the same time.
Actually I think that's not a marketplace mechanism but related to the users and creators. The same force that drives people to engage in flame wars about their favorite products is the force that ensures variety and evolution within the free (software) world.
As long as people engage in flame wars about Linux vs BSD, Gnome vs KDE, Emacs vs Vi, etc., the choices will keep evolving and getting better. Intuitively we would like to see a single perfect solution, but since everybody wants that and everyone is different, we'll inevitably have several choices. As long as taste varies and people choose, there will be different choices, and there can be a lot.
I would still prefer two branched distributions. I'd rather see more server-side stuff on a Server Distribution CD when I'm installing the servers (optional PAM and apache modules, maybe a choice of databases, etc), and more client/workstation packages (where to begin) included on the Workstation Distribution CD.
What about us who own high-end machines that can act both as a server and workstation, at home, for example. I consider it one of the important advantages of Linux to be able to use a single distribution in place of several other systems (Win98 & NT). Also easier if machines exchange jobs, no need to install a different distribution, just update it to be a server/client as well. So I'm against in branching Red Hat Linux, but once the different jobs get too big, i'm all for a compromise: Instead of a single Main CD-ROM, ship a Workstation and a Server CD, while preserving the possibilities of mixing them and keeping all compatibility. I think that's the best way to solve the problem, if there ever will be such a problem, for a mainstream distro like RedHat's.
(Maybe that's what Can meant? In that case, great, there's no problem at all!)
"I may as well dive off the deep end and speak truth (and don't waste time trying to tell me this is just my opinion)."
The truth is that there's no such thing as an absolute truth. If something is true, something else must be false. The absolute is beyond the opposites, to be absolute, it must encompass both right and wrong. That means the absolute can't be judged, not objectively, only subjectively. Beyond the mere human perception of true and false, it just is, that's the fact. Although we're all human beings (least I think so), we're all different, so we can only decide on our own for ourselves. We're individuals and our beliefs and values are all individual, others might or might not agree, that's important to realize. We live in one world yet our world views vary, that means there are different worlds within one, it's essential to keep that balance. Since we want to be allowed to freely make our own decisions, it's only fair if we let others choose on their own, without forcing our attitude.
In my world, I'd rather have people make love to each other in public than fight each other as openly as they use to do. To me, sex is a creative act, violence is a destructive action. That's my view. Neither better nor worse than yours or anybody else's. To prepare my children for life, I won't hide them from the world or the world from them, I'll teach them how to handle the real life. Children are not as fragile as one might think, they do have their own brains, we should teach them how to use them instead of make them mindless clones or drones. The most important lesson is respect, to respect yourself and all others as equally valid beings with equally valid choices, a lesson we adults also have to learn and live.
...that another company (let's use Microsoft as an example) makes their own Linux distribution. Now the various licenses would apply, but Microsoft decides to label the distro a beta and claim it's only given to special "internal" testers. To become such a privileged person, you simply pay for it and sign their restrictive license. It's only beta, not to the general public, for testing purposes only...
Once Corel's problem is fixed, we should forgive them, but until then we shouldn't let this look like a precedent of how to circumvent the open source licenses!!
On the other hand, if this became a precedent, all the WaReZ sites on the web would immediately get a chance to become legal in the same way by twisting the original license agreements.
They propose HOW to regulate information on the Internet. WHY? Because of the children, of course, to protect and serve all of us! That's so obvious, in fact, it's too obvious... let's look at it in another way, WHO are they, WHO wants this?!
Government and corporations. Authorities that want to keep in charge and control all of us. Information is power so who can regulate it will have the power to rule. The Internet isn't just fun (chat'n'games'n'porn), it's also about education and spreading your opinion, all kinds of opinions and experiences. Both government and corporations have been hurt by this, for them the net is even worse than public media, because it's not just a few big guys but lots of small fishes in a global pond.
Especially government authorities should be worried since they got their power by the people to represent them. If a global network connects all people and allows them to both get all the information they need and decide based on that, we'd have a perfect democracy, no need for representatives. Politicians will become obsolete once the Internet, technology and population all are ready. That's why they fight it so much, they know it's coming, not now but sooner or later it must happen. Although it probably is too late, most of them won't give up, not until the end. Expect such attempts at regulation to become worse, but never give in, now we can forget about the past and improve the future. The Internet is something new, unlike all media, the old rules can't apply here.
Now that we know WHO is doing it and WHY they really try to do it, HOW can we stop them? Personally, I think we should ally with corporations so they can oppose governments. We should go against the involved companies that are in favor of this regulation like Greenpeace goes against their opponents: Educate the public, spread the information, boycott the enemy... Let's clear up the Internet and get rid of the real smut, those who want to control it, these people are worse for mankind than any bits and bytes could ever be!!
So the Internet is the battleground, it's friendly territory, our strongest force is information. Some of that information is essential, it's what makes the net so important, this is good info. Then there's other information that is either corrupting or dangerous, the dark side of the net, this is bad info. Of course, good or bad are mere opinions, depending on individuals. Authorities would like to filter out the bad stuff and only let us access the good stuff. They want to control the information we can access so that they can keep controlling us and stay in charge. If we can't stop them, we must make sure they can't take over the net, we should mix the information so good and bad become one. If all the info that is considered bad is blocked, that block has to block all good info as well, so they can't have one without the other.
We could rate all of our content to be most extreme, even if it's a FAQ or HOWTO, so volunatry ratings would turn out to be useless. To make sure mandatory ratings wouldn't work, either, we could put extreme information into our FAQ's and HOWTO's. Add pornography, violence, hate-speech and explain why...
You don't have to support that additional content, basically the censorship efforts forced you to add it, so explain that to your audience to raise awareness. It's better to start early, before it's too late, while there still is an audience. Okay, I admit this seems a bit extreme, but it's appropriate to the extreme threat of censorship that's facing The Net As We Know It. The Internet is something special, we can't let any authorities ruin it, that loss of freedom would be far worse for our children than any unrated content could ever be...
Let's do it for freedom, the kids, and us too!!