the thing that struck me was when they were talking about security for wtc2002. in the book, people happily gave up personal liberty as a fair trade-off for security. it's a great read.
until the New York Times or ABC News gets sued for reporting on a circumvention technology. Then we'll all hear a lot of screaming
I doubt it. During the 2600 case one of those big-media-owned web sites did post a link to decss. after a few hours or so the link was quietly pulled from the article. the only protests I remember came from/. posts
i agree he should read./ -- him and all those bio-robots he talks about. sure, people devote too much of their mental faculties to trivia and not enough to processing all this garbage we're ingesting.
the internet caused that?
i know guys who can name any player in any sport if you give them their number. i know people who couldn't balance a cheque book but can subract numbers like dustin hoffman in rain man to figure their dart scores.
that's one way the human brain is like a computer: it's just as happy to map the human genome as it is to play quake.
read/. or usenet or any other forumn where the merits of a given article, or newscast, or idea or whatever are discussed and you'll see that getting a bunch of people to even agree on what is "fact" is impossible.
what counts is the discussion.
carr suggests regulation because we're either gonna get what the corporations want to give us or what the government wants to give us, but at least the governemt is accountable to "the people."
what about personal web pages? what about usenet posts, or email? no doubt some carnivor-like system could be devised to filter out "unauthorized" content. who gets to set the rules for that software?
ThePrivateEssayist used the creation/evolution example. excactly.
governments do have a role to play, but that role is to fund education -- with a focus on critical thinking -- and to enforce existing laws of libal in individual cases that warrent it.
but doesn't the Tyrell corp come off as "evil" by (creating?) Deckard to elimate the bad replicants who threaten the company's off-world activities? I see Batty as a noble, admirable charactor who longed for the answers the humans he was created to emulate should be searching for.
inventors should accept some responsibility for the uses their inventions are put to. sure oppenheimer didn't give the order to drop atomic bombs on japan, but it's hard to imagine a use for one that wouldn't result in death and suffering for hundreds of thousands of humans. he later regretted his involvement in the manhatten project, and paid for speaking out against further development of nuclear weapons.
napster, as i see it, is designed to share music files compressed in mp3 format. the obvious use for this is to find and download copyright-protected songs, but it's not the only potential use. and other utilities like gnutella & freenet are geared even less to a specific (and illegal) use. these programs make it easier for less-knowledgable users to do what people have been doing for years with usenet, archie, & ftp: finding and retrieving what they are looking for.
individuals need to bear responsibility for their own actions. napster was immediately embraced by people who wanted to trade copyrighted music. i would like to see more discussion about encouraging people to use the technology they are given to play with ethically.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd pay for a phone that replaced all my remotes
I enjoyed a good, solid hour of reading thanks to the links in your post, and I'll be looking for a copy of If At All Possible Involve a Cow: The Book of College Pranks when the book stores open tomorrow.
An Insightful comment that makes up for the fact that the Article was /.ed faster than you can type "FP!".
Thanks
+1 Insightful
the thing that struck me was when they were talking about security for wtc2002. in the book, people happily gave up personal liberty as a fair trade-off for security. it's a great read.
totally off topic but ...
wtc2002 kinda reminded me of Oath of Fealty.
why was this comment modded down? seems like a fair question to me.
until the New York Times or ABC News gets sued for reporting on a circumvention technology. Then we'll all hear a lot of screaming
I doubt it. During the 2600 case one of those big-media-owned web sites did post a link to decss. after a few hours or so the link was quietly pulled from the article. the only protests I remember came from /. posts
Ari pulls back and says "I'm sorry, I can't. You're just too ugly!"
wasn't that line in the original?
the internet caused that?
i know guys who can name any player in any sport if you give them their number. i know people who couldn't balance a cheque book but can subract numbers like dustin hoffman in rain man to figure their dart scores.
that's one way the human brain is like a computer: it's just as happy to map the human genome as it is to play quake.
read /. or usenet or any other forumn where the merits of a given article, or newscast, or idea or whatever are discussed and you'll see that getting a bunch of people to even agree on what is "fact" is impossible.
what counts is the discussion.
carr suggests regulation because we're either gonna get what the corporations want to give us or what the government wants to give us, but at least the governemt is accountable to "the people."
what about personal web pages? what about usenet posts, or email? no doubt some carnivor-like system could be devised to filter out "unauthorized" content. who gets to set the rules for that software?
ThePrivateEssayist used the creation/evolution example. excactly.
governments do have a role to play, but that role is to fund education -- with a focus on critical thinking -- and to enforce existing laws of libal in individual cases that warrent it.
but doesn't the Tyrell corp come off as "evil" by (creating?) Deckard to elimate the bad replicants who threaten the company's off-world activities? I see Batty as a noble, admirable charactor who longed for the answers the humans he was created to emulate should be searching for.
napster, as i see it, is designed to share music files compressed in mp3 format. the obvious use for this is to find and download copyright-protected songs, but it's not the only potential use. and other utilities like gnutella & freenet are geared even less to a specific (and illegal) use. these programs make it easier for less-knowledgable users to do what people have been doing for years with usenet, archie, & ftp: finding and retrieving what they are looking for.
individuals need to bear responsibility for their own actions. napster was immediately embraced by people who wanted to trade copyrighted music. i would like to see more discussion about encouraging people to use the technology they are given to play with ethically.