Are these the people you want as judges in cases like 2600?
I am fairly sure that you'll need a law degree and a substantial amount of actual experience of practicing law in order to become a judge, "tech" or no. So, rest easy -- Katz is not going to sit in judgement on you.
Why should a case which involves technical concepts merit its own special type of judge,
Because in order for the trial to be fair and honest (I am trying to keep a straight face here), or at least half-way decent, the judge has to understand the issues involved. Look at Kevin Mitnick's case. The judge was a total asshole and, as I've heard -- although this looks like an urban legend -- refused to let him use a telephone in his cell for the fear that he would whistle modem tones into it, connect to some computer system and blow up USA or something.
In any case, there is precedent: tax cases are decided by special tax court for precisely the same reasons. Tax issues are so "technical" that normal judges are expected to be unqualified to judge on them.
no judge could keep up with all of the advances in the various fields of computing unless they worked in them.
They don't have to. You are confusing judges and patent assessors:-)
A judge that knows, say, the difference between a compiler and a linker would be a great advance over what we have now.
And if they did, you could never be sure that they were unbiased.
Biased in whose favor? And why knowing "tech" stuff should make them different, bias-wise, from "normal" judges?
and stick with what we know works.
Works? And, pray tell, what makes you think that the justice system in the USA now works? Oh, sure, the cases move through the courts, but are you saying that the system we have now is the best of all possible ones?
targetted advertising is helpful. It provides ads that are relevant to you and your lifestyle, not irrelevant tampon promos or job opportunities.
We seem to have a difference of opinion here. You see ads as source of information. I see ads as nuisance payments for free/cheap TV. I don't care about ads relevant to my lifestyle -- I'm not going to buy a Dell even though I am interested in computers.
Wouldn't you rather have some banners advertising useful computer products that you'd actually be interesting in hearing of and learning more about?
No. To repeat, ads are not source of information. And, no, I am not afraid of missing out a device/service I might like just because I ignore ads.
And, honestly, why should I care that anyone else knows my television viewing habits?
Maybe you don't. This doesn't mean that other people are like you.
Some people don't need privacy. Some will actually go to great length to get rid of their own privacy (jennycam and similar). However, there are other people as well, who want their life to stay private. A one-size-fits-all approach is not a good one here.
TiVO is doing you a favor.
Thankyouverymuch. I'll pass on such favors.
they're trying to cater to each user individually.
That's fine. I don't object to them trying. However what I want is a checkbox/button/switch that says "To have your viewing habits analyzed and to receive targeted advertising, click this".
My personal hate is a numbered list where I want 1,2,3,3a,4 and Word wants 1,2,3,4,5.
I could never understand why is it that people are so pround of their inability to deal with software. Proud enough to boast of it on Slashdot!
Making Word do 1,2,3,3a,4 is trivial. Look into Format/Bullets and Numbering/Outline Numbered. Click the Customize button and specify whatever you want, your favorite sequence included.
2. he should sign the document because they don't even need him to sign it to move forward with it.
You are confused. If they don't need him to sign, why should he sign? He is clearly uncomfortable with it, you are telling us there is no need for him to sign anything -- so why should him?
he fulfilled his moral obligations in trying to pursuade the employer to look twice at the document,
I am not sure everybody has such a simple view of what their moral obligations are.
but by not signing it, he will creating a bigger problem for himself within the organization.
I understand he no longer works there. As to creating a problem for himself -- it's a funny thing abour moral obligations, they are so often incovenient and sometimes even create problems! Shame, really.
if you think it's broad and that they won't change their minds and reword the document, that's not your fault. sign the document and let them pay the lawyers to try to uphold something that will probably be refuted.
The guy wasn't asking whose fault it is. He was asking about his personal responsibility in the matter. I'd like to note that it has nothing to do with the chances that the patent will be denied/overturned.
sign it and don't think twice about it.
Wonderful. And please ignore that fact that the ink is red and kind of viscous.
There is a whole lot of Catholics who'll disagree with you. But I don't think you'll be surprised by it:-)
You ask Jesus Christ to forgive you of your sins and dwell within you so that when you die you may spend eternity by His side.
Not to cast doubt on your religious experiences, but how about an "age of consent" concept? Seven-year-olds let things/concepts/ideas into their heart quite easily...
general middle eastern bronze skinned, dark haired, dark eyed look.
Ah. That's generally called "the brown people". Nothing they do is of any consequence.;-)
they weren't very concerned with keeping their hair all nice and tidy and cut above their ears, but let it grow until it was long enough to rach back and hack off.
That depends on the accounts. Men generally wore short hair not to make a fashion statement, but because of (1) Fleas and lice; and (2) Long hair is a disadvantage in a fight.
Not that I am trying to contest your point that Jesus was not a proper, decent, *cough*God-fearing pillar of the establishment. Clearly, he was a trouble-maker, a rabble-rouser, and he did come to a bad end. We might as well add long hair into the bargain.
Ok, now for a quick poll. Who here has ever heard of:
Sufi mysticism
Gurdjieff and The Fourth Way
Maslows 'Self Actualizer'
The Enneagram (how many variants can you name?)
Krishnamurti
Paramahansa Yogananda
Sri Ramana Maharshi
Ken Wilber
Ram Dass
The Diamond Approach
The 'Pre/Trans' Fallacy
Sri Aurobindo
Neuro Linguistic Programming
I asked my mom what it was to be saved and then decided I wanted to do it.
Ahem. And what is it to be saved? You don't mean just baptism, do you?
Jesus Christ was an Arab Jew
He most certainly was a Jew, but why Arab? "Arab Jew" usually refers to Jews who live(d) in Arab countries. AFAIK Israel at that time was not an Arab country (among other things the Arabs didn't come out of the Arabian peninsula yet). If anything, since Israel was a province of Rome, Jesus was a Roman Jew. But it doesn't sound as well, does it? And, btw, the language he spoke was Aramaic, nor Arab.
who by all accounts had shoulder length hair
Which accounts? Just because it's traditional to paint Jesus as a long-haired blond with blue sorrowful eyes does not mean anything about what actually happened two thousand years ago.
Most of these issues -- law vs. cyberspace -- were explored at a much higher intellectual level in Lessig's book "Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace". Highly recommended.
And what does it say for the kitchen-sink concept of software definition and development, in general.
Like EMACS, right?
To go one step further, what does it say for the concept of pay-for software?
Why, nothing. Nothing at all. May I remind you that Netscape was free (beer) and Mozilla will be free (both).
and admitting that you're just fixing bugs means that you should be giving it away.
Well, with the exception of Win9x series, patches are usually free, are they not?
Now we're seeing a claim that in a rather fundamental fashion, feature accretion is not a good thing.
Maybe now you are seeing it. It's a very old debate in the design and programming community. To give you an example of two approaches, compare the original UNIX to Emacs.
Because they are assholes? With the IQ of a guano dropping?
But, of course, this is all done to protect the children. None but satanist child-abusers can object to that!
dosen't mean I'm going to go on a shooting rampage killing a bunch of hellspawn
Well, as far as I am concerned, if you do see a bunch of hellspawn you would be perfectly justified to go on a shooting rampage. Hell, the Congress will probably even give you a medal...
If the idea of no war is so insane, why haven't we had a major one in years?
We haven't? I don't know what you consider major, of course, but the Iran-Iraq war was very bloody. The civil wars in Angola, Mozambique, Rwanda were quite nasty, too. Or wars between brown people do not count?
What's up with the Serbs or the Bosnians? Do we care?
Maybe you don't. That doesn't mean everybody else doesn't care either.
They fight over land and food and things we have in such great abundance
Sigh. They fight over power, not land and food. If you give them food, they will not stop fighting.
So after everyone turns to the internet, and a common global currency is developed, the only thing you would have to worry about is shipping.
Ah. Wonderful. I see it now -- all we have to worry about is shipping. Nothing else, really, it's all just shipping. Human rights, ecology, crime -- they'll just stop being problems once we deal with shipping. Joy.
Take a starving country in Africa, and tell them that if they have completely non-restrictive internet laws, they will cease being poor. Say that you can sell anything you want online, and allow for this small little country to see money beyond it's wildest dreams,
Most starving countries in Africa have NO internet laws so yo can sell anything you want online right now. Besides, what's wrong with selling anything online?
As to the ways to deal with it, I recommend the book Dogs of War by Frederick Forsyth. It is quite explicit about how such problems can be solved.
You didn't read my post carefully. I explicitly said that nobody claims that market can solve all problems. You are attacking a strawman. Roads are not a market failure because in no sane economic system market rules all. There is a difference between failing at something and being not applicable to something.
It looks like Napster is pretty much getting snuffed
Napster the corporation may get snuffed. Peer-to-peer file sharing is here to stay. We were talking about suppression of technology, not of companies, right? Well, suppressing file sharing is going to be much harder than suing Napster.
Sometimes, free market economics can actually prevent the uptake of a new technology, because it threatens large corporations that have the resources to stifle it before it harms them
(1) Care to name some examples where this actually worked?
(2) This has nothing to do with market economics, but only with wielding of power for one's own benefit. Same things would happen in a non-market economy.
That is just one example of many "market failures" that government can help work around.
What is an example of a market failure? MPAA's legal antics? Why is this a failure of the market?
And why do you think that government intervention is going to be helpful? The XX century has proved quite conclusively that governments are very inept, clumsy, slow, and consistently make bad choices, especially with regard to technology.
Another example would be Medicaid.
Another example of what? Nobody claims that the market is the appropriate mechanism for everything under the sun. Roads, for example, are a classic case of something that should be publicly owned.
We were talking about the wisdom of giving government money to corporations to order to induce them to change with the times. I think it's a waste of money and sends the wrong signal, as well (the signal is that the history of earning money in a certain way confers a right to continue to earn money in exactly the same way).
Oftentimes it's not. I'll give you two reasons why I use Napster (and lookalikes) and none of them has to do with money:
(1) It's immediate and effortless. Say a friend tells me "Have you heard Foo Qux? It's an awesome band!" It'll take me five minutes (I have broadband) to check them out and decide if I like them or not. Compare that to buying a CD, especially if Foo Qux isn't all that well known...
(2) There is no good reason (except greed) not to allow me to pick songs (as opposed to albums) I like. From Napster I can pick and choose and most of the time I like 1-2 songs on an album. Should I buy a whole CD just for these 1-2 songs?
What's the best solution for solving the Napster case? Put an 'MP3 tax' in place! That way, some semblance of justice will be served.
Thank you very much, I don't want to have "some semblance of justice". Besides, it's highly doubtful that this will be the "best solution", never mind technically feasibility. Frankly, I think that's one of the worst solutions. And why do you think your music will become free? In countries like Canada that imposed a CD-R tax infringing a copyright didn't become any less of a crime.
f done correctly, this could actually help the publishing firms move their business in a new direction, by encouraging (financially) their participation in the New Economy.
You mean the desire to survive is not enough? They have to be financially encouraged to do something for their own benefit??
[shakes his head in disgust...]
I say dinosaurs should go the way of dinosaurs. No need to set up a government system which will catch small furry mammals and feed them to the dinosaurs so that they be "encouraged" to adapt to life.
I don't think there are any problems with the individual per say. I'll admit that in large groups individuals tend to become followers and lose their uniqueness. This is a social problem, and not really a mark of intelligence.
[Grin]
You misunderstand my.sig. It is as politically incorrect as it looks. It's point is not the "mob effect", but rather the overwhelming abundance of idiots -- individually idiots -- in the world.
The law is empirically derived, which is a fancy way of saying that I came up with it after observing a large number of idiots in real life. It can also be treated as a special case of Sturgeon's Law ("90% of everything is shit").
In case you are wondering, a final impetus to the formulation of Kaa's Law was reading the MENSA magazine.
Trivia bit: the word "idiot" comes from Greek and originally meant an Egyptian peasant.
We'll drown in so much useless information that we won't have to worry about starving children in Africa any more.
And we worry about them now?
So if giant media corporations feed us limited news, then we will worry about the Right Things and all will be well. But if we'll be able to pick and choose from the ocean of info, we'll choose Wrong Things to worry about, right?
I understand your point about picking information to reinforce your worldview, but I don't see any good alternatives because they inevitably imply that somebody else is picking information for you.
As the trend increases and we enter a true "information" age, it will get to the point where people do have access to all the information they could ever want, but instead they limit themselves to the unchallenging and comfortable.
Yes, probably. The sheeple certainly will. However, again, consider the alternatives: do you want to force-feed to people information that is "good for them"? Who gets to pick what's good?
The communist (aka socialist) countries like USSR practiced stict control over information dissemination. For example, crime was almost never reported in the news ( => no copycat crimes and people are not afraid). Do you really want to go down that path?
In this situation who will be bothered about the have-nots?
You imply that everybody worries only about what he has seen on the TV screen during the last five minutes. There a lot of people like this, but they are not going to be helpful to the starving-children-in-Africa situations. For people whose attention span is not measured in minutes, the problem you describe is not so severe.
I'd also like to say something to the readers: don't get angry and attack these guys. They're just a group of guys trying to feed their dogs by coming up with ideas to make a buck.
Their dogs are attack dogs, better known in certain circles as lawyers.
Their explanation is pure bullshit, starting with the fact that it is only for trademarks that the principle "defend it or lose it" is valid. Besides, what exactly intellectual property they are trying to defend from hackers? They are wonderfully vague on this point and the reason is that what they'd like to defend is not legally defensible. And spare me these sob-sister stories about five years of sleepless nights. There is nothing technologically interesting in their toy. They came up with a business plan which, as usual, didn't survive contact with reality. Film at 11.
I don't like guys whose knee-jerk reaction is to send threatening but legally meaningless letters.
Easily: mobile phone networks (unlike, say, the Visa network) are set up for micropayments. Want a can of Coke? Ring the number on the Coke machine and get 40 pence changed to your account.
Thankyouverymuch. I still value my privacy and have no wish for somebody to own a very complete database of everything I paid money for.
In any case, my wallet holds more than money. It holds various IDs, credit cards, public transportation passes. It also holds a ToolLogic tool set -- now let me see a cell phone do that!
I took a look at the letter and nearly fell out of my chair laughing. Here are some pieces:
"It further includes not only the direct infringement made by Flyingbuttmonkeys.com, but also any infringement which Flyingbuttmonkeys.com induces others to perform. The longer that Flyingbuttmonkeys.com continues its improper activities, the longer damages will accrue."
and further on
"both we and Digital Convergence intend to continue monitoring the activities of Flyingbuttmonkey.com...".
improper activities of flying butt monkeys! monitored by our learned friends at Kenyon & Kenyon!! ROTFL!
Slashdot Mirror
Are these the people you want as judges in cases like 2600?
:-)
I am fairly sure that you'll need a law degree and a substantial amount of actual experience of practicing law in order to become a judge, "tech" or no. So, rest easy -- Katz is not going to sit in judgement on you.
Why should a case which involves technical concepts merit its own special type of judge,
Because in order for the trial to be fair and honest (I am trying to keep a straight face here), or at least half-way decent, the judge has to understand the issues involved. Look at Kevin Mitnick's case. The judge was a total asshole and, as I've heard -- although this looks like an urban legend -- refused to let him use a telephone in his cell for the fear that he would whistle modem tones into it, connect to some computer system and blow up USA or something.
In any case, there is precedent: tax cases are decided by special tax court for precisely the same reasons. Tax issues are so "technical" that normal judges are expected to be unqualified to judge on them.
no judge could keep up with all of the advances in the various fields of computing unless they worked in them.
They don't have to. You are confusing judges and patent assessors
A judge that knows, say, the difference between a compiler and a linker would be a great advance over what we have now.
And if they did, you could never be sure that they were unbiased.
Biased in whose favor? And why knowing "tech" stuff should make them different, bias-wise, from "normal" judges?
and stick with what we know works.
Works? And, pray tell, what makes you think that the justice system in the USA now works? Oh, sure, the cases move through the courts, but are you saying that the system we have now is the best of all possible ones?
Kaa
Jeff Bezos is a smart guy and Amazon has a good PR department. 'nuff said.
Kaa
targetted advertising is helpful. It provides ads that are relevant to you and your lifestyle, not irrelevant tampon promos or job opportunities.
We seem to have a difference of opinion here. You see ads as source of information. I see ads as nuisance payments for free/cheap TV. I don't care about ads relevant to my lifestyle -- I'm not going to buy a Dell even though I am interested in computers.
Wouldn't you rather have some banners advertising useful computer products that you'd actually be interesting in hearing of and learning more about?
No. To repeat, ads are not source of information. And, no, I am not afraid of missing out a device/service I might like just because I ignore ads.
And, honestly, why should I care that anyone else knows my television viewing habits?
Maybe you don't. This doesn't mean that other people are like you.
Some people don't need privacy. Some will actually go to great length to get rid of their own privacy (jennycam and similar). However, there are other people as well, who want their life to stay private. A one-size-fits-all approach is not a good one here.
TiVO is doing you a favor.
Thankyouverymuch. I'll pass on such favors.
they're trying to cater to each user individually.
That's fine. I don't object to them trying. However what I want is a checkbox/button/switch that says "To have your viewing habits analyzed and to receive targeted advertising, click this".
All I want is a choice.
Kaa
...but one has to wonder how they "extracted" the DNA material... and just how much of it...
I believe the standard technique is to take a swab of the inside of your cheek. Enough cells there to get some DNA.
And once you have your DNA it's very easy to replicate it in any amounts needed.
So, no, I don't think this is a "frog in a blender" case.
Kaa
My personal hate is a numbered list where I want 1,2,3,3a,4 and Word wants 1,2,3,4,5.
I could never understand why is it that people are so pround of their inability to deal with software. Proud enough to boast of it on Slashdot!
Making Word do 1,2,3,3a,4 is trivial. Look into Format/Bullets and Numbering/Outline Numbered. Click the Customize button and specify whatever you want, your favorite sequence included.
Kaa
2. he should sign the document because they don't even need him to sign it to move forward with it.
You are confused. If they don't need him to sign, why should he sign? He is clearly uncomfortable with it, you are telling us there is no need for him to sign anything -- so why should him?
he fulfilled his moral obligations in trying to pursuade the employer to look twice at the document,
I am not sure everybody has such a simple view of what their moral obligations are.
but by not signing it, he will creating a bigger problem for himself within the organization.
I understand he no longer works there. As to creating a problem for himself -- it's a funny thing abour moral obligations, they are so often incovenient and sometimes even create problems! Shame, really.
Kaa
if you think it's broad and that they won't change their minds and reword the document, that's not your fault. sign the document and let them pay the lawyers to try to uphold something that will probably be refuted.
The guy wasn't asking whose fault it is. He was asking about his personal responsibility in the matter. I'd like to note that it has nothing to do with the chances that the patent will be denied/overturned.
sign it and don't think twice about it.
Wonderful. And please ignore that fact that the ink is red and kind of viscous.
Kaa
Being saved has nothing to do with baptism.
:-)
;-)
There is a whole lot of Catholics who'll disagree with you. But I don't think you'll be surprised by it
You ask Jesus Christ to forgive you of your sins and dwell within you so that when you die you may spend eternity by His side.
Not to cast doubt on your religious experiences, but how about an "age of consent" concept? Seven-year-olds let things/concepts/ideas into their heart quite easily...
general middle eastern bronze skinned, dark haired, dark eyed look.
Ah. That's generally called "the brown people". Nothing they do is of any consequence.
they weren't very concerned with keeping their hair all nice and tidy and cut above their ears, but let it grow until it was long enough to rach back and hack off.
That depends on the accounts. Men generally wore short hair not to make a fashion statement, but because of (1) Fleas and lice; and (2) Long hair is a disadvantage in a fight.
Not that I am trying to contest your point that Jesus was not a proper, decent, *cough*God-fearing pillar of the establishment. Clearly, he was a trouble-maker, a rabble-rouser, and he did come to a bad end. We might as well add long hair into the bargain.
Kaa
Heh.
Ok, now for a quick poll. Who here has ever heard of:
Sufi mysticism
Gurdjieff and The Fourth Way
Maslows 'Self Actualizer'
The Enneagram (how many variants can you name?)
Krishnamurti
Paramahansa Yogananda
Sri Ramana Maharshi
Ken Wilber
Ram Dass
The Diamond Approach
The 'Pre/Trans' Fallacy
Sri Aurobindo
Neuro Linguistic Programming
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Kaa
I got curious:
I asked my mom what it was to be saved and then decided I wanted to do it.
Ahem. And what is it to be saved? You don't mean just baptism, do you?
Jesus Christ was an Arab Jew
He most certainly was a Jew, but why Arab? "Arab Jew" usually refers to Jews who live(d) in Arab countries. AFAIK Israel at that time was not an Arab country (among other things the Arabs didn't come out of the Arabian peninsula yet). If anything, since Israel was a province of Rome, Jesus was a Roman Jew. But it doesn't sound as well, does it? And, btw, the language he spoke was Aramaic, nor Arab.
who by all accounts had shoulder length hair
Which accounts? Just because it's traditional to paint Jesus as a long-haired blond with blue sorrowful eyes does not mean anything about what actually happened two thousand years ago.
Kaa
Most of these issues -- law vs. cyberspace -- were explored at a much higher intellectual level in Lessig's book "Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace". Highly recommended.
Kaa
And what does it say for the kitchen-sink concept of software definition and development, in general.
Like EMACS, right?
To go one step further, what does it say for the concept of pay-for software?
Why, nothing. Nothing at all. May I remind you that Netscape was free (beer) and Mozilla will be free (both).
and admitting that you're just fixing bugs means that you should be giving it away.
Well, with the exception of Win9x series, patches are usually free, are they not?
Now we're seeing a claim that in a rather fundamental fashion, feature accretion is not a good thing.
Maybe now you are seeing it. It's a very old debate in the design and programming community. To give you an example of two approaches, compare the original UNIX to Emacs.
Kaa
Because they are assholes? With the IQ of a guano dropping?
But, of course, this is all done to protect the children. None but satanist child-abusers can object to that!
dosen't mean I'm going to go on a shooting rampage killing a bunch of hellspawn
Well, as far as I am concerned, if you do see a bunch of hellspawn you would be perfectly justified to go on a shooting rampage. Hell, the Congress will probably even give you a medal...
Kaa
If the idea of no war is so insane, why haven't we had a major one in years?
We haven't? I don't know what you consider major, of course, but the Iran-Iraq war was very bloody. The civil wars in Angola, Mozambique, Rwanda were quite nasty, too. Or wars between brown people do not count?
What's up with the Serbs or the Bosnians? Do we care?
Maybe you don't. That doesn't mean everybody else doesn't care either.
They fight over land and food and things we have in such great abundance
Sigh. They fight over power, not land and food. If you give them food, they will not stop fighting.
So after everyone turns to the internet, and a common global currency is developed, the only thing you would have to worry about is shipping.
Ah. Wonderful. I see it now -- all we have to worry about is shipping. Nothing else, really, it's all just shipping. Human rights, ecology, crime -- they'll just stop being problems once we deal with shipping. Joy.
Kaa
Of course this is inevitable...
Of course? A lot of people seem to disagree...
Take a starving country in Africa, and tell them that if they have completely non-restrictive internet laws, they will cease being poor. Say that you can sell anything you want online, and allow for this small little country to see money beyond it's wildest dreams,
Most starving countries in Africa have NO internet laws so yo can sell anything you want online right now. Besides, what's wrong with selling anything online?
As to the ways to deal with it, I recommend the book Dogs of War by Frederick Forsyth. It is quite explicit about how such problems can be solved.
Kaa
Roads are a perfect example of a market failure
You didn't read my post carefully. I explicitly said that nobody claims that market can solve all problems. You are attacking a strawman. Roads are not a market failure because in no sane economic system market rules all. There is a difference between failing at something and being not applicable to something.
It looks like Napster is pretty much getting snuffed
Napster the corporation may get snuffed. Peer-to-peer file sharing is here to stay. We were talking about suppression of technology, not of companies, right? Well, suppressing file sharing is going to be much harder than suing Napster.
Kaa
Sometimes, free market economics can actually prevent the uptake of a new technology, because it threatens large corporations that have the resources to stifle it before it harms them
(1) Care to name some examples where this actually worked?
(2) This has nothing to do with market economics, but only with wielding of power for one's own benefit. Same things would happen in a non-market economy.
That is just one example of many "market failures" that government can help work around.
What is an example of a market failure? MPAA's legal antics? Why is this a failure of the market?
And why do you think that government intervention is going to be helpful? The XX century has proved quite conclusively that governments are very inept, clumsy, slow, and consistently make bad choices, especially with regard to technology.
Another example would be Medicaid.
Another example of what? Nobody claims that the market is the appropriate mechanism for everything under the sun. Roads, for example, are a classic case of something that should be publicly owned.
We were talking about the wisdom of giving government money to corporations to order to induce them to change with the times. I think it's a waste of money and sends the wrong signal, as well (the signal is that the history of earning money in a certain way confers a right to continue to earn money in exactly the same way).
Kaa
This is upmodded as "interesting"??
Some people can't detect a troll even if it comes up to them and bites them on the ass.
Kaa
What's this obsession with free (as in lunch)?
Oftentimes it's not. I'll give you two reasons why I use Napster (and lookalikes) and none of them has to do with money:
(1) It's immediate and effortless. Say a friend tells me "Have you heard Foo Qux? It's an awesome band!" It'll take me five minutes (I have broadband) to check them out and decide if I like them or not. Compare that to buying a CD, especially if Foo Qux isn't all that well known...
(2) There is no good reason (except greed) not to allow me to pick songs (as opposed to albums) I like. From Napster I can pick and choose and most of the time I like 1-2 songs on an album. Should I buy a whole CD just for these 1-2 songs?
What's the best solution for solving the Napster case? Put an 'MP3 tax' in place! That way, some semblance of justice will be served.
Thank you very much, I don't want to have "some semblance of justice". Besides, it's highly doubtful that this will be the "best solution", never mind technically feasibility. Frankly, I think that's one of the worst solutions. And why do you think your music will become free? In countries like Canada that imposed a CD-R tax infringing a copyright didn't become any less of a crime.
Kaa
f done correctly, this could actually help the publishing firms move their business in a new direction, by encouraging (financially) their participation in the New Economy.
You mean the desire to survive is not enough? They have to be financially encouraged to do something for their own benefit??
[shakes his head in disgust...]
I say dinosaurs should go the way of dinosaurs. No need to set up a government system which will catch small furry mammals and feed them to the dinosaurs so that they be "encouraged" to adapt to life.
Kaa
I don't think there are any problems with the individual per say. I'll admit that in large groups individuals tend to become followers and lose their uniqueness. This is a social problem, and not really a mark of intelligence.
.sig. It is as politically incorrect as it looks. It's point is not the "mob effect", but rather the overwhelming abundance of idiots -- individually idiots -- in the world.
[Grin]
You misunderstand my
The law is empirically derived, which is a fancy way of saying that I came up with it after observing a large number of idiots in real life. It can also be treated as a special case of Sturgeon's Law ("90% of everything is shit").
In case you are wondering, a final impetus to the formulation of Kaa's Law was reading the MENSA magazine.
Trivia bit: the word "idiot" comes from Greek and originally meant an Egyptian peasant.
Kaa
We'll drown in so much useless information that we won't have to worry about starving children in Africa any more.
And we worry about them now?
So if giant media corporations feed us limited news, then we will worry about the Right Things and all will be well. But if we'll be able to pick and choose from the ocean of info, we'll choose Wrong Things to worry about, right?
I understand your point about picking information to reinforce your worldview, but I don't see any good alternatives because they inevitably imply that somebody else is picking information for you.
As the trend increases and we enter a true "information" age, it will get to the point where people do have access to all the information they could ever want, but instead they limit themselves to the unchallenging and comfortable.
Yes, probably. The sheeple certainly will. However, again, consider the alternatives: do you want to force-feed to people information that is "good for them"? Who gets to pick what's good?
The communist (aka socialist) countries like USSR practiced stict control over information dissemination. For example, crime was almost never reported in the news ( => no copycat crimes and people are not afraid). Do you really want to go down that path?
In this situation who will be bothered about the have-nots?
You imply that everybody worries only about what he has seen on the TV screen during the last five minutes. There a lot of people like this, but they are not going to be helpful to the starving-children-in-Africa situations. For people whose attention span is not measured in minutes, the problem you describe is not so severe.
Kaa
I'd also like to say something to the readers: don't get angry and attack these guys. They're just a group of guys trying to feed their dogs by coming up with ideas to make a buck.
Their dogs are attack dogs, better known in certain circles as lawyers.
Their explanation is pure bullshit, starting with the fact that it is only for trademarks that the principle "defend it or lose it" is valid. Besides, what exactly intellectual property they are trying to defend from hackers? They are wonderfully vague on this point and the reason is that what they'd like to defend is not legally defensible. And spare me these sob-sister stories about five years of sleepless nights. There is nothing technologically interesting in their toy. They came up with a business plan which, as usual, didn't survive contact with reality. Film at 11.
I don't like guys whose knee-jerk reaction is to send threatening but legally meaningless letters.
Kaa
Easily: mobile phone networks (unlike, say, the Visa network) are set up for micropayments. Want a can of Coke? Ring the number on the Coke machine and get 40 pence changed to your account.
Thankyouverymuch. I still value my privacy and have no wish for somebody to own a very complete database of everything I paid money for.
In any case, my wallet holds more than money. It holds various IDs, credit cards, public transportation passes. It also holds a ToolLogic tool set -- now let me see a cell phone do that!
Kaa
I took a look at the letter and nearly fell out of my chair laughing. Here are some pieces:
"It further includes not only the direct infringement made by Flyingbuttmonkeys.com, but also any infringement which Flyingbuttmonkeys.com induces others to perform. The longer that Flyingbuttmonkeys.com continues its improper activities, the longer damages will accrue."
and further on
"both we and Digital Convergence intend to continue monitoring the activities of Flyingbuttmonkey.com...".
improper activities of flying butt monkeys! monitored by our learned friends at Kenyon & Kenyon!! ROTFL!
Kaa