The reason that those in the Right direction of politics has made many bad decisions for the techies of world is because the individual people in power are ignorant of our thoughts. I fully believe that their ideology is the one we can benefit from the most... but they are still stuck in an old world. They'll come around and see what we have in common with them in time. If you leave the Left in power, they _will_ take your freedom to program, they will take your freedom to encrypt, and they will turn us into the world's newest socialist/fascist country if given enough rope to hang us with.
wow. yeah. definitely sounds like you've done your research. i like how you prove that LEFT == FASCISM/SOCIALISM == BAD.
sorry for seeming the firebrand, but the only reason that this case went to court at all is due to the judicial realization of corporate interests in the internet. it's about money, folks -- now that god knows how much of our national economy is tied up in these flighty internet fancies, we're seeing more and more legistlation/court precedents emerging -- many of which only superficially protect users, and more often then not, protect the newly empowered. would they prosecute this sort of thing for mister (even doctor) joe q. user? doubtful.
course i am speaking without reading the damn article, so whatever, mr. I.P.-Ho.
PLEASE STOP THE MASSES FROM THINKING! IT'S ALL ON YOU! YOU ARE MY LAST HOPE! YOU MUST NOT FAIL! LOOK OUT FOR ALL THOSE IDIOT MUTTONHEADS WHO ARE GOING TO GET SOME CRAZY IDEAS FROM AKIRA (because NOBODY would ever hear about it if not for/.) AND KILL US ALL WITH THE PUNCTUATION THEY'VE SAVED UP FROM USING CAPITAL LETTERS.
fisfhcuekr.
(yeah, masses, thinking? a bit overboard and reactionary, and, uh, wrongheaded in that its opposite is rather a priori, yes, no?)
to the media of the working man?
uh. Akira been out on videotape for a long long long long time, and is probably being played on rep houses in even podunk towns. just because it's not on DVD is no reason not to see it.
fisfhucekr.
("uh, so, dude, do you have a CD or something?")
WOO! LOOK OUT FOR THE HACKERS. THEY WILL RUIN THE ELECTION JUST FOR GOOD FUN.
seriously, man, there's not a lot stopping someone from walking into a polling booth and claiming to be someone else, dropping down their signature, and placing a vote -- all you need (at least where i vote) was an address -- they didn't even ask for picture ID. voting fraud is already an easy prospect -- what would make it e-voting-fraud appealing is that geography and numbers would no longer be an issue (ie, you wouldn't necessary need to go to several polling places, or leave and come back after you put on a beanie, and you might not even need to live in the US! HOO-RAY!)
is there an UNBREAKABLE SYSTEM that we can e-vote on?
i'm not well informed, but i'm guessing not.
is voting, as we know it now, incredibly secure?
that's also a big no.
fishguvner.
i say we just let the "BIG BAD MEDIA" decide the outcome of every race from now on, since it seems they already have their fat inbred hand in it. corporations have the power of citizenry? let's have them vote -- best for the economy, no doubt, and that's all that really chaddamn matters, re-ight?
did any of you "WE'VE SEEN THIS NEWS BEFORE!!(@!@" whiners bother to click on the link again? hes now got instructions geared towards *you* building one. SO NOW I'M TWO STEPS AHEAD OF YOU IN THE RACE TO GOODWILL.
are always considered "flame-bait" or "trolls" -- sure, they are worded to evoke some sort of response -- but what message isn't? just because a message seems to hold a different viewpoint than your own, or the (slashdot) mainstream, doesn't mean it's flamebait -- talking about the end victim in all of this seems to me completely relevant. to have every message be simply informative and non-opinionated is unrealistic and, yep, quite boring.
fishfucekr.
yeah -- i suppose it'll remain to be seen whether hundreds/thousands of new users will serve the purposes of such a site well (depends, really, on how generous the/. demographic is...) see, we have a website sorta like this locally -- most likely, many of you living in the bay area have heard of it (craigslist) with increasing volume from the local "hip" weeklies and whatnot... turns out the folks reading these weeklies are just a bit *too* hip to take a model based on community/sharing and turn it into a minature antique market -- where prices on whatever you might want to purchase were of the "take it away, i don't need it, variety" we're now seeing the "my junk is gold" user, (not to mention the college kids who are taking furniture off the street and selling it as "used" to fund beer runs, etc -- a cute idea, but shameful abuse of craigslist.)
what i'm saying here (ie, how it's applicable) is that services are only going to benefit from a greater user base if that base matches a balance necessary to such a model -- meaning, that there must be people who want to get stuff, and others who want to give.
as the internet lately seems to have been overtaken more and more by some mad mob mentality (post-93, 94, anyone?) obeying the theory that "people on computers in great numbers are infintely stupider" (don't believe it? go witness collective stupidity that overruns holzer's original "truisms" in her Please Change Beliefs work.) I have little hope for such a site to survive as a useful resource given greater numbers of traffic.
sorry, the glass is half empty, and the fuckers getting drunk on paper profits are pissing in it.
so you're excusing theft until payment can be afforded?
i'm not making enough money, so i'm just going to take my groceries from the store -- when i get a job, i'll start paying for them.
i'm sure napster is SWIMMING in fucking VC money, or was at some point -- and i'm sure they decided they'd rather drive the fly cars and get all the honies instead of basing their business on legal content.
man, i know it's tough to compete out there, but that strikes me as essentially not even playing the game.
sure, napster has this "ROBIN HOOD" quality that makes all the kids love it so much, but it doesn't excuse breaking the laws of the country in which they are incoporated -- if they want to do that, they need to go offshore -- you don't deserve the benefits unless you are rightly following the rules.
i don't understand how you can have this "ANTI CAPITALIST I'M A RADICAL" viewpoint without understanding the simple fact that NAPSTER IS, YES, A CORPORATION. they are trying to MAKE MONEY FROM PEOPLE TRADING MP3s, which is precisely what the RECORD COMPANIES want to do to, except at least the record companies have some intent of paying (albeit a piddling) amount to the artists, because they live in the real world, where we have laws about intellectual property (ie, you make it, you own it -- until, of course, you sign your soul over to Warner.)
which society is worse off -- the one that has companies that steals from artists to make a profit, or the one that renumerates them???..
i'm guessing the later -- anyone who produces their own "intellectual property" should feel the same.
i would think it's a difficult path for a public school chancellor to walk down -- to say either "we'll LET our students FREELY pirate music on our networks" and "we'll CUT OFF OUR STUDENTS FREE ACCESS.
does a public university have a right to regulate our network traffic??? I think so -- we may pay for our tuition, but the school is subsidized by the government and is intended, as are our networks, for "educational use" -- downloading music on napster is certainly questionable proper use. ("Hey! My school won't let me run a BUSINESS from my WEB ACCOUNT THERE! WHAT THE HELL IS THAT! I PAY FOR THE NETWORKS! I SHOULD HAVE FREE ACCESS!" may remain our example that there are certainly TYPES of USE that are DISALLOWED across the board -- and don't make the university any less of an institution dedicated to learning, freedom, etc.)
regardless, no-one has a "RIGHT" to napster or free (as in speech) internet access -- so i would imagine that by banning napster access, you're not being "PUNISHED" or "CENSORED".
that said, i do think our university (UC Berkeley) implemented the WORST response to napster -- they capped ALL network traffic at 5kbs. This, as you can imagine, caused numerous complaints by people residing in the dorm (where we have "free" broadband) complaining that since they "ESSENTIALLY BUILT THE NETWORK WITH THEIR TUITION" that they were entitled to A) service as fast as could be provided and B) the use of napster.
The reason that the cap was implemented was in fact because napster use was preventing normative use of the network by people clearly engaged in educational use. that is, the people using napster (which is EXTREMELY QUESTIONABLY an "EDUCATIONAL" use of the networks) were CURTAILING the use of the people using the netork properly -- now, as far as i can tell, this is a VIOLATION of our use agreement, and so certainly these users, be they downloading LEGAL music or not, deserved "punishment" by having their napster access cut off. instead, the university decided to implement the unfortunate policy that affected all users across the board (which sucked, but at least people using the network in a proper manner had a pretty much guaranteed bandwidth, so it wasn't crippling -- although we do have people who need to do things like watch broadcast/archived lectures, and i'm sure this was a pain for them.)
regardless, i suppose i should make clear that i would NOT support a university caving in to corporate interests, whatever my feelings about napster (over)use on a university network may be, i don't like at all the idea of a corporate request (a letter from metallica? yeah, right.) for a university to remove access privileges -- and i find it unfortunate that much of the dialogue following this (we had an article in our campus newspaper last week) has centered around the issue of "napster" and "free access to networks" rather than the more pressing issue, i think, of corporate power grabs of internet "property" -- which one would think that our school, given it's history, would have a compelling interest in. (but nope, seems like everyone wants to download pirated music, graduate EECS, and get rich.)
whoa -- it's my understanding (perhaps, MISunderstanding, uh, sorta inattentive.) from the Pacifica interview, that they intend to include this format in a CD-type form, and to release SDMI readers -- meaning if the copy protection is impenetrable, eventually, you won't have any CDs to rip from.
of course, given processor power evolution, etc, etc, and the time it will take to introduce YET ANOTHER music format, it will probably be pretty damn moot by then.
Slashdot Mirror
no fucking way to distribute it.
wait -- NO, IT'S BECAUSE AMERICANS ARE FUCKING ASSHOLES AND WE LOVE STEAK@!
fisfhcuerk.
uh, if you feel so insecure about living among the bourgeosie, maybe you should sell your computer and shit. er.
The reason that those in the Right direction of politics has made many bad decisions for the techies of world is because the individual people in power are ignorant of our thoughts. I fully believe that their ideology is the one we can benefit from the most... but they are still stuck in an old world. They'll come around and see what we have in common with them in time. If you leave the Left in power, they _will_ take your freedom to program, they will take your freedom to encrypt, and they will turn us into the world's newest socialist/fascist country if given enough rope to hang us with.
wow. yeah. definitely sounds like you've done your research. i like how you prove that LEFT == FASCISM/SOCIALISM == BAD.
oh wait. this is slashdot. nevermind.
fishfucekr.
what? LOGIC? NO!
sorry for seeming the firebrand, but the only reason that this case went to court at all is due to the judicial realization of corporate interests in the internet. it's about money, folks -- now that god knows how much of our national economy is tied up in these flighty internet fancies, we're seeing more and more legistlation/court precedents emerging -- many of which only superficially protect users, and more often then not, protect the newly empowered. would they prosecute this sort of thing for mister (even doctor) joe q. user? doubtful.
course i am speaking without reading the damn article, so whatever, mr. I.P.-Ho.
fishfucekr.
PLEASE STOP THE MASSES FROM THINKING! IT'S ALL ON YOU! YOU ARE MY LAST HOPE! YOU MUST NOT FAIL! LOOK OUT FOR ALL THOSE IDIOT MUTTONHEADS WHO ARE GOING TO GET SOME CRAZY IDEAS FROM AKIRA (because NOBODY would ever hear about it if not for /.) AND KILL US ALL WITH THE PUNCTUATION THEY'VE SAVED UP FROM USING CAPITAL LETTERS.
fisfhcuekr.
(yeah, masses, thinking? a bit overboard and reactionary, and, uh, wrongheaded in that its opposite is rather a priori, yes, no?)
oh, one last special message. ART == FUCK.
oh wait, no, i mean... COMICS == REAL.
to the media of the working man? uh. Akira been out on videotape for a long long long long time, and is probably being played on rep houses in even podunk towns. just because it's not on DVD is no reason not to see it. fisfhucekr. ("uh, so, dude, do you have a CD or something?")
those tank photos look awfully damn suspect. the hair on all those women seems glued to their heads (at odd angles even)
maybe it was the flash, eh?
fisfhcuekr.
photoshop masters in switzerland?
WOO! LOOK OUT FOR THE HACKERS. THEY WILL RUIN THE ELECTION JUST FOR GOOD FUN.
seriously, man, there's not a lot stopping someone from walking into a polling booth and claiming to be someone else, dropping down their signature, and placing a vote -- all you need (at least where i vote) was an address -- they didn't even ask for picture ID. voting fraud is already an easy prospect -- what would make it e-voting-fraud appealing is that geography and numbers would no longer be an issue (ie, you wouldn't necessary need to go to several polling places, or leave and come back after you put on a beanie, and you might not even need to live in the US! HOO-RAY!)
is there an UNBREAKABLE SYSTEM that we can e-vote on?
i'm not well informed, but i'm guessing not.
is voting, as we know it now, incredibly secure?
that's also a big no.
fishguvner.
i say we just let the "BIG BAD MEDIA" decide the outcome of every race from now on, since it seems they already have their fat inbred hand in it. corporations have the power of citizenry? let's have them vote -- best for the economy, no doubt, and that's all that really chaddamn matters, re-ight?
er.
yeah. i post anyways.
did any of you "WE'VE SEEN THIS NEWS BEFORE!!(@!@" whiners bother to click on the link again? hes now got instructions geared towards *you* building one. SO NOW I'M TWO STEPS AHEAD OF YOU IN THE RACE TO GOODWILL.
fisfhcuerk.
yeah. whatever.
are always considered "flame-bait" or "trolls" -- sure, they are worded to evoke some sort of response -- but what message isn't? just because a message seems to hold a different viewpoint than your own, or the (slashdot) mainstream, doesn't mean it's flamebait -- talking about the end victim in all of this seems to me completely relevant. to have every message be simply informative and non-opinionated is unrealistic and, yep, quite boring. fishfucekr.
yeah -- i suppose it'll remain to be seen whether hundreds/thousands of new users will serve the purposes of such a site well (depends, really, on how generous the /. demographic is...) see, we have a website sorta like this locally -- most likely, many of you living in the bay area have heard of it (craigslist) with increasing volume from the local "hip" weeklies and whatnot... turns out the folks reading these weeklies are just a bit *too* hip to take a model based on community/sharing and turn it into a minature antique market -- where prices on whatever you might want to purchase were of the "take it away, i don't need it, variety" we're now seeing the "my junk is gold" user, (not to mention the college kids who are taking furniture off the street and selling it as "used" to fund beer runs, etc -- a cute idea, but shameful abuse of craigslist.)
what i'm saying here (ie, how it's applicable) is that services are only going to benefit from a greater user base if that base matches a balance necessary to such a model -- meaning, that there must be people who want to get stuff, and others who want to give.
as the internet lately seems to have been overtaken more and more by some mad mob mentality (post-93, 94, anyone?) obeying the theory that "people on computers in great numbers are infintely stupider" (don't believe it? go witness collective stupidity that overruns holzer's original "truisms" in her Please Change Beliefs work.) I have little hope for such a site to survive as a useful resource given greater numbers of traffic.
sorry, the glass is half empty, and the fuckers getting drunk on paper profits are pissing in it.
fisfhcuerk.
what? i can't say fuck?
but you haven't considered what it makes to produce 5.2 gigs of content.
oh yeah. it'll just keep coming. FREE MUSIK 4 LIFE!
fishfucekr.
glad you've ripped 5.2 GIGS worth of other's work.
thanks.
I/P == intellectual property. fisfhcuierk. (you knew it.)
so you're excusing theft until payment can be afforded?
i'm not making enough money, so i'm just going to take my groceries from the store -- when i get a job, i'll start paying for them.
i'm sure napster is SWIMMING in fucking VC money, or was at some point -- and i'm sure they decided they'd rather drive the fly cars and get all the honies instead of basing their business on legal content.
man, i know it's tough to compete out there, but that strikes me as essentially not even playing the game.
sure, napster has this "ROBIN HOOD" quality that makes all the kids love it so much, but it doesn't excuse breaking the laws of the country in which they are incoporated -- if they want to do that, they need to go offshore -- you don't deserve the benefits unless you are rightly following the rules.
fisfhcuerk.
hardly a reason to go to university.
..
i don't understand how you can have this "ANTI CAPITALIST I'M A RADICAL" viewpoint without understanding the simple fact that NAPSTER IS, YES, A CORPORATION. they are trying to MAKE MONEY FROM PEOPLE TRADING MP3s, which is precisely what the RECORD COMPANIES want to do to, except at least the record companies have some intent of paying (albeit a piddling) amount to the artists, because they live in the real world, where we have laws about intellectual property (ie, you make it, you own it -- until, of course, you sign your soul over to Warner.)
which society is worse off -- the one that has companies that steals from artists to make a profit, or the one that renumerates them???
i'm guessing the later -- anyone who produces their own "intellectual property" should feel the same.
fishfcuerk.
are private...
i would think it's a difficult path for a public school chancellor to walk down -- to say either "we'll LET our students FREELY pirate music on our networks" and "we'll CUT OFF OUR STUDENTS FREE ACCESS.
does a public university have a right to regulate our network traffic??? I think so -- we may pay for our tuition, but the school is subsidized by the government and is intended, as are our networks, for "educational use" -- downloading music on napster is certainly questionable proper use. ("Hey! My school won't let me run a BUSINESS from my WEB ACCOUNT THERE! WHAT THE HELL IS THAT! I PAY FOR THE NETWORKS! I SHOULD HAVE FREE ACCESS!" may remain our example that there are certainly TYPES of USE that are DISALLOWED across the board -- and don't make the university any less of an institution dedicated to learning, freedom, etc.)
regardless, no-one has a "RIGHT" to napster or free (as in speech) internet access -- so i would imagine that by banning napster access, you're not being "PUNISHED" or "CENSORED".
that said, i do think our university (UC Berkeley) implemented the WORST response to napster -- they capped ALL network traffic at 5kbs. This, as you can imagine, caused numerous complaints by people residing in the dorm (where we have "free" broadband) complaining that since they "ESSENTIALLY BUILT THE NETWORK WITH THEIR TUITION" that they were entitled to A) service as fast as could be provided and B) the use of napster.
The reason that the cap was implemented was in fact because napster use was preventing normative use of the network by people clearly engaged in educational use. that is, the people using napster (which is EXTREMELY QUESTIONABLY an "EDUCATIONAL" use of the networks) were CURTAILING the use of the people using the netork properly -- now, as far as i can tell, this is a VIOLATION of our use agreement, and so certainly these users, be they downloading LEGAL music or not, deserved "punishment" by having their napster access cut off. instead, the university decided to implement the unfortunate policy that affected all users across the board (which sucked, but at least people using the network in a proper manner had a pretty much guaranteed bandwidth, so it wasn't crippling -- although we do have people who need to do things like watch broadcast/archived lectures, and i'm sure this was a pain for them.)
regardless, i suppose i should make clear that i would NOT support a university caving in to corporate interests, whatever my feelings about napster (over)use on a university network may be, i don't like at all the idea of a corporate request (a letter from metallica? yeah, right.) for a university to remove access privileges -- and i find it unfortunate that much of the dialogue following this (we had an article in our campus newspaper last week) has centered around the issue of "napster" and "free access to networks" rather than the more pressing issue, i think, of corporate power grabs of internet "property" -- which one would think that our school, given it's history, would have a compelling interest in. (but nope, seems like everyone wants to download pirated music, graduate EECS, and get rich.)
fisfhcuerk.
M.A.R.E.!
fisfhcuerk.
(macs are really expensive.)
yes. another dry pop culture adaptation ("port").
ah. ok. then, well. guess the whole thing didn't even get a chance to be relevant (read: moot a priori)
fishfucekr.
whoa -- it's my understanding (perhaps, MISunderstanding, uh, sorta inattentive.) from the Pacifica interview, that they intend to include this format in a CD-type form, and to release SDMI readers -- meaning if the copy protection is impenetrable, eventually, you won't have any CDs to rip from.
of course, given processor power evolution, etc, etc, and the time it will take to introduce YET ANOTHER music format, it will probably be pretty damn moot by then.
fisfhcuekr.