What we need is representative moderation, not widespread moderation.
Representative of whom? If the majority of people on Slashdot are tight-assed screeching Linux weenies, then "representative" mean representative of these weenies, right?
I don't think it's a representation problem. If you don't like the majority or believe they are assholes, no democratic methods will help you.
sheer arrogance of these people [Linux-weenies (who tend to cluster around the ages of ~14-20) ] sickens me.
Why? That is as it should be. People who are not arrogant about their ideas in late teens are generally stupid, boring, square, and future corporate fodder. When you are 18 you *should* be arrogant, you should believe your idea will change the world. This does not necessarily mean this idea should get implemented, of course.
Is Linux dying? Yes. Linux as we knew it in 1993-1995 is dead.
Read some Hindu cosmology. You cannot have new things without old things dying. Building something necessarily involves destruction. Yes, Linux of the mid-90s is dead, but this is good -- otherwise we would be looking at an ossified monster. The world changes and evolves -- nobody can stop that. Don't pine for gooden olden days -- the future is always more interesting.
It's time to grow up, people.
Growing up happens naturally. Don't try to turn full of energy and arrogance youngsters into old men before their time. They'll become old men eventually.
This just gives the corporate suits more ammo to not play by the counterculture rules.
Heh. Corporate suits are *never* going to play by counterculture rules. It's not a question of more ammo or less ammo. Counterculture should not try to become accepted into mainstream -- it only happens when the counterculture dies. And it should not be in a hurry to die.
First of all, there are two different kinds of student visas -- the "F" ones and the "J" ones. The difference is that after an F visa you can go straight into an H1B program, or win a green card in a lottery, or get married to a US citizen, etc. However after a J visa you have to spend at least two years outside the US in order to become eligible for H1B/lottery/etc. Thus, it's considerably harder to stay in the US if you have a J visa (but not impossible, I know people who did it).
Second, to stay in the US you can: (1) apply for political asylum; (2) win a green card lottery; (3) get a work visa. All methods work (obviously, not for everybody and not all the time).
Generally, to get a work visa you need to find an employer who wants you so much that he is willing to jump through INS hoops to get you. Jumping through these hoops in not particularly hard, but it's a hassle. It's common for the company to agree to sponsor you for a green card one-two years down the road. I wouldn't go work for a company which would refuse to do this. It's not a legal obligation, but there is understanding that if they don't do this you'll leave.
In any case, staying in the US after a student visa is hard but definitely possible.
even if you get an H1B you end up stuck in the same job for your entire period and then get kicked out the country like an illegal immegrant.
Bullshit. First of all, you can change jobs provided you can persuade your new company to get you an H1B. Second, most people I know who work on H1Bs have an understanding with the company that after a couple of years, the company will sponsor that person for a green card. Yes, that works, I know a few people that did exactly this thing and they are now green card holders (or already citizens).
What other country in the world lets it's citizens work 90 hour weeks without a single hour of overtime?
Oh, spare me this crap. First of all, what do you mean "allows"? Do you want laws prohibiting your from working more than X hours per week? Second, there is a standard solution: Don't do it, then! If you don't like 90-hour-a-week jobs, don't work there. There are plenty of places where you work 9-to-5 (e.g. most government jobs, by the way). Oh, you say, but I like the pay and the options! Well, then, don't complain. You are making a bargain: your time for money. If you don't like the terms, do not agree to the bargain.
the whole reason for H1Bs is to get foreigners here to do those 90 hour weeks
So would you rather shut down this program altogether?
if you're not an American, you can only come here if you're willing to live like a second class citizen.
Well, generally speaking, if you are not an American you cannot come live here at all. That is normal and it is as it should be. If you don't think so, try thinking through the consequences of allowing completely open immigration.
Besides, isn't it strange: if US sucks so much, why so many people are willing to spend great effort and accept huge risks for a chance of living here?
gadgets may be fun for a short time. but if children are taught through christmas, and birthdays, that "stuff is life", they will belive, that spending money, and buying stuff will make them happy, and will live life as such.
Ahem. Since when giving somebody a gift is teaching them that "stuff is life"? And, anyway, I can make a completely opposite argument: buying stuff for kids will teach them (through their own experiences) that stuff can be fun, but will NOT make them happy by itself. Not buying stuff for them, on the other hand, is likely to lead to neuroses regarding material possessions and an illusion that only if they had that stuff, they would be happy. Breaking such illusions is much more painful for an adult.
i often got legos,...[snip]... that sounds much more enjoyable, and definitly healthier than everyone spending tons of money on just stuff.
Heh. It sounds like "stuff" to you is what you don't like. Legos are fun, but I consider them heavily overpriced, for example.
I think that what you are trying to say is that the value of gifts should not be measured in money. I agree completely.
I would like to point out that NTSC has a total of 640*480*30fps=9,216,000 pixels per second,.... [snip]... With that in mind, and neglecting overdraw, you don't need more than 12,000,000 polygons/sec anyway. If your rate is steady, that is.
I don't think Microsoft is stupid enough to limit the Xbox only to TV resolutions. If I get one (which is doubtful, but let's assume so for the sake of argument) there is no way I am going to plug it into a TV. A consumer TV is an outdated, horrible, blurry, flickering display platform. It sucks bowling balls through a garden hose. The only reason it is used as a computer display is because it allows people NOT to buy an expensive computer monitor with a smaller screen.
In any case, if I get an Xbox, it's going to get plugged into a decent computer monitor. And, of course, if the highest resolution it'll support will be 640x480 with 60Hz refresh rate...
If it was implemented better, A3D could have taken Creative by storm.
Do you know how many ideas would take the world by storm if "implemented better"?
Anything software that Creative releases is utter and total crap.
So? They are a hardware company. Just junk their installation CDs and download the latest drivers from the net. I agree that if allowed they tend to install piles of all-singing all-dancing crap to your machine that has to be cleaned off later. Just don't do it.
IMHO, the only reliable Creative product is an Annihilator running the NVidia reference drivers.?
I've had no problems at all with their SoundBlasters, either plain-vanilla or Live variety.
Send a message to their tech support and try to get a reply within 6 aeons.
I am yet to see a manufacturer with good tech support. Most of my tech support comes from two places. One is called Google, and the other -- Deja.
Still, after all is said, I see no use for products like Nomad. A CD player that can read/play MP3 files off a CD-R is much cheaper, has no bullshit limitations on what you can copy where, and plays your regular CDs as well.
The only thing they care about is your ability to FUNCTION. Snorting coke and speed, and getting stoned every night after work impairs your function on THEIR TIME regardless if you did the drug on YOUR TIME. YOUR TIME has nothing to do with it. When you become enefficient on THEIR TIME because of what you do on YOUR TIME then they can kick your ass out and you can go flip burgers or something. I'd rather do my job effectively, and drive a nice sports car.
So? Lots of things I do on my own time affect my efficiency during my work time. The amount of sleep is probably the most important one. Does this mean that the employer can mandate (and check) the minimum number of hours I should sleep at night? Working our and eating a healthy diet (whatever it might be) is also likely to increase my effectiveness on the job -- so what? Does this mean that the employer can force me to work out and chew on lettuce?
And don't forget about sexual sublimation -- NOT being laid produces surplus energy that often finds its outlet in work. It has been suggested that this is exactly the reason why Victorian England and Silicon Valley were so successful at making technological stuff. And this means -- no sex for you if you want to do your job effectively and drive a nice sports car. Yeah, how could you think about getting laid when getting laid on YOUR TIME will impair your function on THEIR TIME??
As I found out when I put another NIC into my Sparcstation 4 (currently doing its job as a firewall/NAT box). I was quite surprised to discover that both NIC in the SPARC -- built-in and the card -- had the same MAC address. I started worrying and hit Google.
It turned out that on SPARCs (at least older ones) the NIC do not have their own MAC address -- they get theirs from the motherboard! So if a machine has two (or more) NICs, they all have the same MAC, which is really a motherboard MAC.
I think the Sun argument was that multiple NICs are likely to find themselves on different (physical) networks, so having the same MAC address for all of them was OK, and it probably saved five cents somewhere.
Books that I can no longer read because they have expired.
Don't do it, then! Don't buy books that expire.
Oh, you'll tell me, but in the future the only books I'll be able to buy will be the expiring kind... To which I answer: and what makes you think so? Just because some corporate idiots thought up a way to fuck everybody does not mean that this way is going to be successful. Just look at Divx: buy... err rent a movie! Pay us again in two days! The format flopped with a fairly loud crash. I see no evidence of all this expiring media becoming popular with the public.
Besides, expiring media is not necessarily intrinsically evil. When you rent a movie from Blockbuster's, you don't complain that you'll not be able to watch that movie because you have to return it, do you? There is a difference between renting and buying, and both have their place.
I feel that the fears of "rent everything, buy nothing" are overblown.
Software that I can no longer write because I am too busy defending myself in court.
That has nothing to do with technology and only with laws.
Behaviour I can no long critize because I have been silenced by the misbehavors.
Same thing: this is bad law (I assume you mean UCITA) and not bad technology.
Movies I can no longer view, because I don't have the "approved" viewer.
You don't have any rights to view movies. The movie's publisher can release it in any format he likes, including one that runs only on an Amiga, for example. Obviously, it's in the publisher's interest to release the movie for the most popular formats. As to the fear of expiry/tracking/etc. see the discussion about books above.
I believe that technology that attempts to make movie/music/etc. distribution and viewing tightly controlled will fail in the marketplace. Just because MPAA would like you to pay them any time you touch a DVD disk does not mean it's going to happen.
Private email conversations that I can no longer particpate in, because stronger encryption is only used by "criminals" because after all, I "don't have anything to hide".
Again, bad laws, not bad technology. And learn steganography:-)
What the law doesn't do is explain why it's legal for me to upload the bits to my own server and listen to them from wherever I like, but it's not legal for me to prove to MP3.com that I have paid for the right to listen to the album and then listen to the identical bits coming from their server.
You are still confused. It's completely legal for you to listen to whatever MP3.com streams to you. Again, your right to listen is not in question.
What the court said was illegal (and agree with its interpretation of current laws, but not necessarily with the laws themselves) was for MP3.com to stream the music from its servers. It's important to understand the difference between the right to send and the right to receive. One does not automatically create the other. You have a right to listen, but that right to listen does NOT automatically create a right to transmit for MP3.com
You can also think about that in this way: when MP3.com bought the CDs that they used to make the online library, they were bound by the standard copyright law. Specifically, the law prohibits them from broadcasting/performing/disseminating/etc. the music on these CDs. Now you having the right to listen to a CD does not change anything in MP3.com's obligations under the copyright law.
as long as I have proven to that source that I have paid for the right to listen to that album?
You have the right to listen to your. But that right by itself does not give some other entity the right to send this music to you.
If you don't find this logical, I am sorry. What you probably mean is that this defies common sense and in some way it does. Logically, however, it holds.
Change to a totalitarian government using technology to oppress and control, and I will agree with you.
Dragging somebody over hot coals is a form of torture. Should we ban fire, then?
The fact that a totalitarian government uses technology is irrelevant. There were totalitarian governments at all technology levels, starting from prehistoric times.
[Don't do it, then!] says that I shouldn't read books
Why? Unless you consider books technology, which they are...
write software
Definitely. If you think technology is evil/dangerous, then you should NOT be writing software.
criticize behavior
???
view movies
See books
have or private conversations.
Again, ???
examples of where technology is/can/will be used to remove control over some aspect of my life, and give it to the government/society/corporate america. This is the techonology that will control me.
This is all science fiction. Currently you are not forced to use a single piece of technology if you don't like it. But don't complain about life being hard in that case. Feel that the government is reading your email? Don't use email (or, better, use strong encryption). Feel that somebody is cataloguing your web surfing habits? Don't surf the web (or, better, get something like Freedom software).
To repeat a banal point, technology is a tool and has no intrinsic moral value. It was, is, and will be used for both good and evil. Just like about everything else on this planet. Live with it.
And who, pray tell, is forcing you? Any black helicopters flying over your house and air-dropping computers, toasters, and VCRs? I am still to hear a single valid response to the classic "Don't do it, then!" solution.
See another comment to see some examples
I did look at it, and it has nothing to do with technology. It has to do with a totalitarian government trying to oppress and control its citizens (or subjects). Remember: technology is a tool. It can be used for good, and it can be used for evil. Computers can open much freedom. They can also be used for suppression of freedom. So?
Like many who responded, I often find myself a slave to the machine.
I don't understand your complaints. Don't do it, then! Resign from your job, move to Montana, build a cabin, live in primitive conditions. What's stopping you?
The problem is that once technology has you, it's extremely difficult to get free from it. I love it, and I hate it.
Sounds to me like it's your problem and not the technology's problem.
Try living in a less 'technological' country for a while, you'll see what I mean.
I have. I have lived in Africa for quite a long time, both as a kid and as an adult.
Yes, living in technologically primitive conditions is simpler. An obvious truth. It is also more restrictive (as in: you have less choices) and much more boring. And I don't buy the isolationism theory. Because I am on the net I can talk to people who have interests similar to mine. Without technology I would have been forced to sit with my neighbors and listen to them jabber about the latest sports match. At least it would have masked the silence of my brain cells slowly dying...
You has certain rights. MP3.com does not have these rights even if you prove to it that you have them. Sounds logical to me.
It's not your right to listen that is in question. It is just that MP3.com has no right to broadcast the music to you, even if you have the right to listen to it.
I simply don't understand how you, or anyone else for that matter, can say that technology is going to cause you to lose control of your life.
His point [disclaimer: I don't agree with it] is that technology is addictive, just like a drug is addictive.
I don't think technology is addictive to the degree that this guy fears and I don't think that addiction (mental, not physical) is necessarily an evil thing, but that's what he believes.
Of course it's all just differences in the value system. If you eat nothing but pasta for a week in order to pay your ISP bill, some people would consider you addicted to the net. Other people will say that this is a good example of mind needs being more important than body needs.
I am saying that we as a society should evaluate new uses of technology more thoroughly before allowing ourselves to become dependent upon it.
Well, there is a problem here. Do you think that the proper level of technology is to be decided by the society (==government) or by individuals?
If by individuals, I have no problem. You don't like technology, I do. Your house is heated by a wood-burning stove, mine by a microprocessor-controlled heat pump (or whatever). Fine. You chop wood, I repair my complicated machinery.
The problem is if the government decides to dictate to the individuals what level of technology is appopriate for them. That would be a Very Bad Thing.
Consider a fundamentalist muslim government (e.g. in Afghanistan) forbidding girls from attending schools. This is very similar to forbidding a certain level of technology. Nothing good has ever come out of it.
Yeah, reading the Risks Digest can make you supersensitive to technology failures. Yet the humanity managed to survive and thrive not in spite of, but precisely because of technology. One should not be blind to technology's risks, but just denying the technology altogether has never worked and is not likely to work in the future either.
I am working on it, I used to have a Color TV, but I have not yet convinced my wife to go without.
I don't know what the big problem is. I have a TV (color!) but last time I watched it was maybe three weeks ago. I don't like movies all that much and I get all my news on the net. TV programming is such crap it's not really worth watching.
I see people with beepers, and cellphones, who can't leave them behind. They must also be within reach. I would posit that those people are not in control of their technology.
I would posit that the problem lies with the people themselves and not the technology. People who would not leave their cell phone behind are those people who in the pre-cell days would call their home every couple of hours to check that everything is fine.
Being accustomed to something is not necessary addiction and not necessary a bad thing. For example I drink a glass of orange juice every morning. I like it -- I am unwilling to stop doing it. Does it mean I am not in control of my orange juice?
but who has the higher "quality" of life? I may be staring at a screen 10 hours a day while someone else in less technologically advanced society is actually "living".
Well, sport, instead of bullshitting why don't you try it, then?
Go to some place like Mozambique where after the civil war and AIDS they have plenty of free land available. Dig yourself a well, plant a field of bananas, and live like that for a year. If you survive it (which I doubt) you'll be able to tell us that a tribesman in New Guinea has higher quality of life. Until then, excuse me if I say that I find your "romantic savage" ideas a bit out of touch with reality.
I know how many ways technology and the dependence of society upon it can fail us
Do you know in how many way the absence of technology can fail us? What about the famines? the plagues? manual back-breaking work?
Compare life expectancy in the US and in, say, New Guinea. Does technology has anything to do with this rather striking difference?
I don't have a cellular phone, I don't have a color television.
Color? But you have a black-and-white TV? So a color TV will control you, but a B/W TV will not?
When I consider adding some new technology to my life I try to evaluate the impact. Will I become dependent on it? Will I control it? Or will it control me?
A man stands looking at a hammer in his hand. "Will I be able to control it? Or will it control me? Aaah, better not take the chance...".
moral relativism is the mode of thought that whatever anyone wants to do is fine becuase it's what they beleieve is right.
As opposed to "What I believe is right and what you believe is wrong, so shut up and do as I say"?
I'd be interested to know on which basis you are going to pick one morality over another one. And no, "because God told us so" doesn't cut it.
This is going to cause the ultimate downfall of our society
I think one of the clay tablets from the ancient Assyria complained that the morality is lacking, the young do not respect their elders, and the world is going to collapse soon.
There HAS to be standards of conduct.
There are. They are called "laws". Perhaps you've heard of the concept.
And before you are going to argue that laws should determine individual morality, stop and think about it for a bit.
Yet in our REAL lives there are NO standards of behavior? That's ludicrious.
Riiight. So let's gather all these long-haired freaks, all those disrespectful of authority, all those smarty-pants rocket scientists, and put them in a concentration camp somewhere until they learn to respect the standard of behavior.
Or is it standards of belief? Morality mostly has to do with what one believes in, not necessarily with what one does. So why don't we make moral relativism illegal and jail those dissidents? It's all for the good of the society, remember? Just trying to prevent the collapse of the civilization... Kaa
My question to you is so what? It is simple to say "that's the way the law is worded", but can you explain why this is logical?
Come on! It's trivial.
A consumer, having bought a CD, has certain rights with regard to the music on this CD. For example he can copy it to a different medium, like a file residing on a remote server. This right comes with the CD he has bought and he cannot just transfer this right to somebody else while leaving the CD for himself. Now, MP3.com said: we have the right to make copies of CDs for the consumers. Bzzzt, sorry, you do not. The consumer himself can -- I can upload my mp3s to, say, iDrive, and get them from there anytime I choose. But MP3.com does not have any rights with regard to my copy of the CD.
Basically, MP3.com said: all copies are the same and there's no difference. The court reminded it that while there may be no informational difference, there is a big legal difference.
What kills me is that people are really pissed about this. It's the *job* of the security agencies to do this. It isn't right, but it is what they do.
Yes. But it is also the job of all concerned to give the security agencies a whack on the ass when they overreach themselves and start to believe they own the world.
Slashdot Mirror
What we need is representative moderation, not widespread moderation.
Representative of whom? If the majority of people on Slashdot are tight-assed screeching Linux weenies, then "representative" mean representative of these weenies, right?
I don't think it's a representation problem. If you don't like the majority or believe they are assholes, no democratic methods will help you.
Kaa
and will provide the incentive for a few morons to publicly wish your death in graphic details.
But that is good, right? You don't want these morons to publicly agree with you -- this could be embarassing...
Kaa
sheer arrogance of these people [Linux-weenies (who tend to cluster around the ages of ~14-20) ] sickens me.
Why? That is as it should be. People who are not arrogant about their ideas in late teens are generally stupid, boring, square, and future corporate fodder. When you are 18 you *should* be arrogant, you should believe your idea will change the world. This does not necessarily mean this idea should get implemented, of course.
Is Linux dying? Yes. Linux as we knew it in 1993-1995 is dead.
Read some Hindu cosmology. You cannot have new things without old things dying. Building something necessarily involves destruction. Yes, Linux of the mid-90s is dead, but this is good -- otherwise we would be looking at an ossified monster. The world changes and evolves -- nobody can stop that. Don't pine for gooden olden days -- the future is always more interesting.
It's time to grow up, people.
Growing up happens naturally. Don't try to turn full of energy and arrogance youngsters into old men before their time. They'll become old men eventually.
This just gives the corporate suits more ammo to not play by the counterculture rules.
Heh. Corporate suits are *never* going to play by counterculture rules. It's not a question of more ammo or less ammo. Counterculture should not try to become accepted into mainstream -- it only happens when the counterculture dies. And it should not be in a hurry to die.
Kaa
First of all, there are two different kinds of student visas -- the "F" ones and the "J" ones. The difference is that after an F visa you can go straight into an H1B program, or win a green card in a lottery, or get married to a US citizen, etc. However after a J visa you have to spend at least two years outside the US in order to become eligible for H1B/lottery/etc. Thus, it's considerably harder to stay in the US if you have a J visa (but not impossible, I know people who did it).
Second, to stay in the US you can: (1) apply for political asylum; (2) win a green card lottery; (3) get a work visa. All methods work (obviously, not for everybody and not all the time).
Generally, to get a work visa you need to find an employer who wants you so much that he is willing to jump through INS hoops to get you. Jumping through these hoops in not particularly hard, but it's a hassle. It's common for the company to agree to sponsor you for a green card one-two years down the road. I wouldn't go work for a company which would refuse to do this. It's not a legal obligation, but there is understanding that if they don't do this you'll leave.
In any case, staying in the US after a student visa is hard but definitely possible.
Kaa
even if you get an H1B you end up stuck in the same job for your entire period and then get kicked out the country like an illegal immegrant.
Bullshit. First of all, you can change jobs provided you can persuade your new company to get you an H1B. Second, most people I know who work on H1Bs have an understanding with the company that after a couple of years, the company will sponsor that person for a green card. Yes, that works, I know a few people that did exactly this thing and they are now green card holders (or already citizens).
What other country in the world lets it's citizens work 90 hour weeks without a single hour of overtime?
Oh, spare me this crap. First of all, what do you mean "allows"? Do you want laws prohibiting your from working more than X hours per week? Second, there is a standard solution: Don't do it, then! If you don't like 90-hour-a-week jobs, don't work there. There are plenty of places where you work 9-to-5 (e.g. most government jobs, by the way). Oh, you say, but I like the pay and the options! Well, then, don't complain. You are making a bargain: your time for money. If you don't like the terms, do not agree to the bargain.
the whole reason for H1Bs is to get foreigners here to do those 90 hour weeks
So would you rather shut down this program altogether?
if you're not an American, you can only come here if you're willing to live like a second class citizen.
Well, generally speaking, if you are not an American you cannot come live here at all. That is normal and it is as it should be. If you don't think so, try thinking through the consequences of allowing completely open immigration.
Besides, isn't it strange: if US sucks so much, why so many people are willing to spend great effort and accept huge risks for a chance of living here?
Kaa
gadgets may be fun for a short time. but if children are taught through christmas, and birthdays, that "stuff is life", they will belive, that spending money, and buying stuff will make them happy, and will live life as such.
...[snip]... that sounds much more enjoyable, and definitly healthier than everyone spending tons of money on just stuff.
Ahem. Since when giving somebody a gift is teaching them that "stuff is life"? And, anyway, I can make a completely opposite argument: buying stuff for kids will teach them (through their own experiences) that stuff can be fun, but will NOT make them happy by itself. Not buying stuff for them, on the other hand, is likely to lead to neuroses regarding material possessions and an illusion that only if they had that stuff, they would be happy. Breaking such illusions is much more painful for an adult.
i often got legos,
Heh. It sounds like "stuff" to you is what you don't like. Legos are fun, but I consider them heavily overpriced, for example.
I think that what you are trying to say is that the value of gifts should not be measured in money. I agree completely.
Kaa
I would like to point out that NTSC has a total of 640*480*30fps=9,216,000 pixels per second,.... [snip] ... With that in mind, and neglecting overdraw, you don't need more than 12,000,000 polygons/sec anyway. If your rate is steady, that is.
I don't think Microsoft is stupid enough to limit the Xbox only to TV resolutions. If I get one (which is doubtful, but let's assume so for the sake of argument) there is no way I am going to plug it into a TV. A consumer TV is an outdated, horrible, blurry, flickering display platform. It sucks bowling balls through a garden hose. The only reason it is used as a computer display is because it allows people NOT to buy an expensive computer monitor with a smaller screen.
In any case, if I get an Xbox, it's going to get plugged into a decent computer monitor. And, of course, if the highest resolution it'll support will be 640x480 with 60Hz refresh rate...
Kaa
Can't you see that EAX is not the answer?
Ahem. And the question is?..
If it was implemented better, A3D could have taken Creative by storm.
Do you know how many ideas would take the world by storm if "implemented better"?
Anything software that Creative releases is utter and total crap.
So? They are a hardware company. Just junk their installation CDs and download the latest drivers from the net. I agree that if allowed they tend to install piles of all-singing all-dancing crap to your machine that has to be cleaned off later. Just don't do it.
IMHO, the only reliable Creative product is an Annihilator running the NVidia reference drivers.?
I've had no problems at all with their SoundBlasters, either plain-vanilla or Live variety.
Send a message to their tech support and try to get a reply within 6 aeons.
I am yet to see a manufacturer with good tech support. Most of my tech support comes from two places. One is called Google, and the other -- Deja.
Still, after all is said, I see no use for products like Nomad. A CD player that can read/play MP3 files off a CD-R is much cheaper, has no bullshit limitations on what you can copy where, and plays your regular CDs as well.
Kaa
Try a Christmas holiday without consumerism.
Care to try explaining to my kids why everybody around is getting new shiny stuff, but they have to fight consumerism?
Kaa
The only thing they care about is your ability to FUNCTION. Snorting coke and speed, and getting stoned every night after work impairs your function on THEIR TIME regardless if you did the drug on YOUR TIME. YOUR TIME has nothing to do with it. When you become enefficient on THEIR TIME because of what you do on YOUR TIME then they can kick your ass out and you can go flip burgers or something. I'd rather do my job effectively, and drive a nice sports car.
So? Lots of things I do on my own time affect my efficiency during my work time. The amount of sleep is probably the most important one. Does this mean that the employer can mandate (and check) the minimum number of hours I should sleep at night? Working our and eating a healthy diet (whatever it might be) is also likely to increase my effectiveness on the job -- so what? Does this mean that the employer can force me to work out and chew on lettuce?
And don't forget about sexual sublimation -- NOT being laid produces surplus energy that often finds its outlet in work. It has been suggested that this is exactly the reason why Victorian England and Silicon Valley were so successful at making technological stuff. And this means -- no sex for you if you want to do your job effectively and drive a nice sports car. Yeah, how could you think about getting laid when getting laid on YOUR TIME will impair your function on THEIR TIME??
Kaa
As I found out when I put another NIC into my Sparcstation 4 (currently doing its job as a firewall/NAT box). I was quite surprised to discover that both NIC in the SPARC -- built-in and the card -- had the same MAC address. I started worrying and hit Google.
It turned out that on SPARCs (at least older ones) the NIC do not have their own MAC address -- they get theirs from the motherboard! So if a machine has two (or more) NICs, they all have the same MAC, which is really a motherboard MAC.
I think the Sun argument was that multiple NICs are likely to find themselves on different (physical) networks, so having the same MAC address for all of them was OK, and it probably saved five cents somewhere.
Kaa
How am I going to heat my house this winter?
Use an Athlon. They are quite adequate to the task.
Kaa
Books that I can no longer read because they have expired.
:-)
Don't do it, then! Don't buy books that expire.
Oh, you'll tell me, but in the future the only books I'll be able to buy will be the expiring kind... To which I answer: and what makes you think so? Just because some corporate idiots thought up a way to fuck everybody does not mean that this way is going to be successful. Just look at Divx: buy... err rent a movie! Pay us again in two days! The format flopped with a fairly loud crash. I see no evidence of all this expiring media becoming popular with the public.
Besides, expiring media is not necessarily intrinsically evil. When you rent a movie from Blockbuster's, you don't complain that you'll not be able to watch that movie because you have to return it, do you? There is a difference between renting and buying, and both have their place.
I feel that the fears of "rent everything, buy nothing" are overblown.
Software that I can no longer write because I am too busy defending myself in court.
That has nothing to do with technology and only with laws.
Behaviour I can no long critize because I have been silenced by the misbehavors.
Same thing: this is bad law (I assume you mean UCITA) and not bad technology.
Movies I can no longer view, because I don't have the "approved" viewer.
You don't have any rights to view movies. The movie's publisher can release it in any format he likes, including one that runs only on an Amiga, for example. Obviously, it's in the publisher's interest to release the movie for the most popular formats. As to the fear of expiry/tracking/etc. see the discussion about books above.
I believe that technology that attempts to make movie/music/etc. distribution and viewing tightly controlled will fail in the marketplace. Just because MPAA would like you to pay them any time you touch a DVD disk does not mean it's going to happen.
Private email conversations that I can no longer particpate in, because stronger encryption is only used by "criminals" because after all, I "don't have anything to hide".
Again, bad laws, not bad technology. And learn steganography
Kaa
What the law doesn't do is explain why it's legal for me to upload the bits to my own server and listen to them from wherever I like, but it's not legal for me to prove to MP3.com that I have paid for the right to listen to the album and then listen to the identical bits coming from their server.
You are still confused. It's completely legal for you to listen to whatever MP3.com streams to you. Again, your right to listen is not in question.
What the court said was illegal (and agree with its interpretation of current laws, but not necessarily with the laws themselves) was for MP3.com to stream the music from its servers. It's important to understand the difference between the right to send and the right to receive. One does not automatically create the other. You have a right to listen, but that right to listen does NOT automatically create a right to transmit for MP3.com
You can also think about that in this way: when MP3.com bought the CDs that they used to make the online library, they were bound by the standard copyright law. Specifically, the law prohibits them from broadcasting/performing/disseminating/etc. the music on these CDs. Now you having the right to listen to a CD does not change anything in MP3.com's obligations under the copyright law.
as long as I have proven to that source that I have paid for the right to listen to that album?
You have the right to listen to your. But that right by itself does not give some other entity the right to send this music to you.
If you don't find this logical, I am sorry. What you probably mean is that this defies common sense and in some way it does. Logically, however, it holds.
Kaa
Change to a totalitarian government using technology to oppress and control, and I will agree with you.
Dragging somebody over hot coals is a form of torture. Should we ban fire, then?
The fact that a totalitarian government uses technology is irrelevant. There were totalitarian governments at all technology levels, starting from prehistoric times.
[Don't do it, then!] says that I shouldn't read books
Why? Unless you consider books technology, which they are...
write software
Definitely. If you think technology is evil/dangerous, then you should NOT be writing software.
criticize behavior
???
view movies
See books
have or private conversations.
Again, ???
examples of where technology is/can/will be used to remove control over some aspect of my life, and give it to the government/society/corporate america. This is the techonology that will control me.
This is all science fiction. Currently you are not forced to use a single piece of technology if you don't like it. But don't complain about life being hard in that case. Feel that the government is reading your email? Don't use email (or, better, use strong encryption). Feel that somebody is cataloguing your web surfing habits? Don't surf the web (or, better, get something like Freedom software).
To repeat a banal point, technology is a tool and has no intrinsic moral value. It was, is, and will be used for both good and evil. Just like about everything else on this planet. Live with it.
Kaa
I said that I should not be forced to use it.
And who, pray tell, is forcing you? Any black helicopters flying over your house and air-dropping computers, toasters, and VCRs? I am still to hear a single valid response to the classic "Don't do it, then!" solution.
See another comment to see some examples
I did look at it, and it has nothing to do with technology. It has to do with a totalitarian government trying to oppress and control its citizens (or subjects). Remember: technology is a tool. It can be used for good, and it can be used for evil. Computers can open much freedom. They can also be used for suppression of freedom. So?
Kaa
Like many who responded, I often find myself a slave to the machine.
I don't understand your complaints. Don't do it, then! Resign from your job, move to Montana, build a cabin, live in primitive conditions. What's stopping you?
The problem is that once technology has you, it's extremely difficult to get free from it. I love it, and I hate it.
Sounds to me like it's your problem and not the technology's problem.
Try living in a less 'technological' country for a while, you'll see what I mean.
I have. I have lived in Africa for quite a long time, both as a kid and as an adult.
Yes, living in technologically primitive conditions is simpler. An obvious truth. It is also more restrictive (as in: you have less choices) and much more boring. And I don't buy the isolationism theory. Because I am on the net I can talk to people who have interests similar to mine. Without technology I would have been forced to sit with my neighbors and listen to them jabber about the latest sports match. At least it would have masked the silence of my brain cells slowly dying...
Kaa
an you explain why this is logical?
Open your mind and re-read carefully.
You has certain rights. MP3.com does not have these rights even if you prove to it that you have them. Sounds logical to me.
It's not your right to listen that is in question. It is just that MP3.com has no right to broadcast the music to you, even if you have the right to listen to it.
Kaa
I simply don't understand how you, or anyone else for that matter, can say that technology is going to cause you to lose control of your life.
His point [disclaimer: I don't agree with it] is that technology is addictive, just like a drug is addictive.
I don't think technology is addictive to the degree that this guy fears and I don't think that addiction (mental, not physical) is necessarily an evil thing, but that's what he believes.
Of course it's all just differences in the value system. If you eat nothing but pasta for a week in order to pay your ISP bill, some people would consider you addicted to the net. Other people will say that this is a good example of mind needs being more important than body needs.
In other words, it all depends.
Kaa
I am saying that we as a society should evaluate new uses of technology more thoroughly before allowing ourselves to become dependent upon it.
Well, there is a problem here. Do you think that the proper level of technology is to be decided by the society (==government) or by individuals?
If by individuals, I have no problem. You don't like technology, I do. Your house is heated by a wood-burning stove, mine by a microprocessor-controlled heat pump (or whatever). Fine. You chop wood, I repair my complicated machinery.
The problem is if the government decides to dictate to the individuals what level of technology is appopriate for them. That would be a Very Bad Thing.
Consider a fundamentalist muslim government (e.g. in Afghanistan) forbidding girls from attending schools. This is very similar to forbidding a certain level of technology. Nothing good has ever come out of it.
Yeah, reading the Risks Digest can make you supersensitive to technology failures. Yet the humanity managed to survive and thrive not in spite of, but precisely because of technology. One should not be blind to technology's risks, but just denying the technology altogether has never worked and is not likely to work in the future either.
I am working on it, I used to have a Color TV, but I have not yet convinced my wife to go without.
I don't know what the big problem is. I have a TV (color!) but last time I watched it was maybe three weeks ago. I don't like movies all that much and I get all my news on the net. TV programming is such crap it's not really worth watching.
I see people with beepers, and cellphones, who can't leave them behind. They must also be within reach. I would posit that those people are not in control of their technology.
I would posit that the problem lies with the people themselves and not the technology. People who would not leave their cell phone behind are those people who in the pre-cell days would call their home every couple of hours to check that everything is fine.
Being accustomed to something is not necessary addiction and not necessary a bad thing. For example I drink a glass of orange juice every morning. I like it -- I am unwilling to stop doing it. Does it mean I am not in control of my orange juice?
Kaa
but who has the higher "quality" of life? I may be staring at a screen 10 hours a day while someone else in less technologically advanced society is actually "living".
Well, sport, instead of bullshitting why don't you try it, then?
Go to some place like Mozambique where after the civil war and AIDS they have plenty of free land available. Dig yourself a well, plant a field of bananas, and live like that for a year. If you survive it (which I doubt) you'll be able to tell us that a tribesman in New Guinea has higher quality of life. Until then, excuse me if I say that I find your "romantic savage" ideas a bit out of touch with reality.
Kaa
I know how many ways technology and the dependence of society upon it can fail us
Do you know in how many way the absence of technology can fail us? What about the famines? the plagues? manual back-breaking work?
Compare life expectancy in the US and in, say, New Guinea. Does technology has anything to do with this rather striking difference?
I don't have a cellular phone, I don't have a color television.
Color? But you have a black-and-white TV? So a color TV will control you, but a B/W TV will not?
When I consider adding some new technology to my life I try to evaluate the impact. Will I become dependent on it? Will I control it? Or will it control me?
A man stands looking at a hammer in his hand. "Will I be able to control it? Or will it control me? Aaah, better not take the chance...".
I don't think you trust yourself.
Kaa
moral relativism is the mode of thought that whatever anyone wants to do is fine becuase it's what they beleieve is right.
As opposed to "What I believe is right and what you believe is wrong, so shut up and do as I say"?
I'd be interested to know on which basis you are going to pick one morality over another one. And no, "because God told us so" doesn't cut it.
This is going to cause the ultimate downfall of our society
I think one of the clay tablets from the ancient Assyria complained that the morality is lacking, the young do not respect their elders, and the world is going to collapse soon.
There HAS to be standards of conduct.
There are. They are called "laws". Perhaps you've heard of the concept.
And before you are going to argue that laws should determine individual morality, stop and think about it for a bit.
Yet in our REAL lives there are NO standards of behavior? That's ludicrious.
Riiight. So let's gather all these long-haired freaks, all those disrespectful of authority, all those smarty-pants rocket scientists, and put them in a concentration camp somewhere until they learn to respect the standard of behavior.
Or is it standards of belief? Morality mostly has to do with what one believes in, not necessarily with what one does. So why don't we make moral relativism illegal and jail those dissidents? It's all for the good of the society, remember? Just trying to prevent the collapse of the civilization...
Kaa
My question to you is so what? It is simple to say "that's the way the law is worded", but can you explain why this is logical?
Come on! It's trivial.
A consumer, having bought a CD, has certain rights with regard to the music on this CD. For example he can copy it to a different medium, like a file residing on a remote server. This right comes with the CD he has bought and he cannot just transfer this right to somebody else while leaving the CD for himself. Now, MP3.com said: we have the right to make copies of CDs for the consumers. Bzzzt, sorry, you do not. The consumer himself can -- I can upload my mp3s to, say, iDrive, and get them from there anytime I choose. But MP3.com does not have any rights with regard to my copy of the CD.
Basically, MP3.com said: all copies are the same and there's no difference. The court reminded it that while there may be no informational difference, there is a big legal difference.
Kaa
What kills me is that people are really pissed about this. It's the *job* of the security agencies to do this. It isn't right, but it is what they do.
Yes. But it is also the job of all concerned to give the security agencies a whack on the ass when they overreach themselves and start to believe they own the world.
Kaa