This whole topic is so very interesting because it's the next step after RIAA/Napster / failure to innovate issue we've all seen.
aggregation/analysis of open information will only be more prevelant and available moving forward. In 15 years ANYONE motivated would be able to recreate this guy's work, plus other much more scary aggregation. What happens when people start really publishing information on biological technologies and systems that could lead to bioweapons?
Most importantly, we (human civilization) will never stop inforamtion flows; no matter how Orwellian we (the US) push our lives -- information might be delayed, but never stopped.
As a previous poster wrote: moving forward, knowledge is ultimate power in our world. How we control what's out there and who gets access to it will define all future human existence.
to be accurate, thoe WHOLE concept of property is a legal fiction... it's just a more obvious fiction for IP.
in most cases, that fiction has served mankind well. it allowes control of resources, locking up the food and common shelter, getting everyone to WORK for a living to make shit people don't really need (or even want, without unsolicited marketing)... yada yada yada
basically the legal fiction of "property" has enabled human culture for about the last 8000 years.
good? bad? -- all the answers change when you change your context.
Holy crap! FOOD GROWS ON TREES! why are we all working again?
on one side he writes: Intellectual property should not be treated any differently than other property. Unless you buy it, you should not copy it for your own use. on http://www.pbs.org/newshour/forum/june03/copyr ight 2.html
and then later he writes: When the RIAA searches the Internet to find infringing recordings that are being distributed, it is looking in exactly the same types of places that anybody else on the Internet may go.
We are not accessing anybody's "property," and we are certainly not violating anybody's personal rights. We are doing exactly the same thing that every other infringer is doing.
on http://www.pbs.org/newshour/forum/june03/cop yright 5.html
when will people get the basics:
-- riaa, mpaa, et al are cowering behind absurd laws to maintain a market that is grossly out of balance -- with marginal costs 100x over market costs.
-- the issues of information and who controls it is the fundamental issue facing human society. music and movies are just the tip of the iceberg. the enabling of machines to enforce laws that have always been about balance and DIFFERNETIAL enforcement will wreak havoc, followed by totalitarian control. Just wait until the powers that be start telling you that you can't have access to certain job listings because you don't have qualifications, or you can't contact a certain person because you don't have the correct digital key signatures, or that the thought police didn't like the conversation they overheard in your bedroom
-- I'm stating a company to make telescreens. looking for funding now.;)
has anyone else noticed a stream of spam that appears to be forged in an attempt to get the highest spam scores possible?
Over the last few (2-3) months, I've watched the maximum spamassassin scores for filtered mesages -- rise steadily. it looks like people somewhere are actually trying to create spam that trips as many of the rules as possible. Its actually kind of funny -- scores like 45-55 are not uncommon.
maybe people should stand up and let it be known that we don't think the existence of laws that make a perversion of economics contribues to a free socety or a working market economy.
the reality of the p2p black market in music is that the cost of the "music" product is artificailly inflated to hundreds of times the real market value because of the (now eliminated) historical distribution controls in tapes/cd/etc. the cost disparity between the selling price and the market price both CREATED and MAINTAINS the black market. it's not rocket science here folks.
the ridiculousness of current copyright laws and the teeth of the DMCA are the only thing maintaining the profits by which these people harass everyone else. why should we have special laws to maintain an industry that is now NO LONGER NECCESARY?
in short, simply tell RIAA and thier "industry" to fuck off and die like any normal, non-innovating dinosaur industry should. stand up & flip the bird. I'm still am waiting to get a CnD from them.
no mention of the "n" in the study. so we have no idea the statistical power of the %s they throw out. How many people did they interview? 20, 200, 2000? this leads to a big difference in the importance of the results.
they didn't tell me their "n" -- the number of people in the study. They could have asked 20 men and 20 women, making thestatistical power quite low, or many more.
I would agree with this, in general, as I have done the same -- however, it really only applies to a comparison with major banks. Local banks and credit unions can still offer great services if you can find them.
It all comes down to money and the models people have used to force advertizements onto people while they are entertained or eduacted.
the cold, hard truth is that the digital future obviates the traditional content control mechanisms used to force consumers to watch ads for content. The exact same lines are playing out on the web, on TV, in music, movies, magazines -- everywhere informationcan be digitized and presented in ways not tied to physical mediums.
The (now old) business models that the digital methods circumvent will eventually be redefined. Short term laws will support them, because the industries have eough money and clout to cause the laws to happen. Long term, though, people will no longer stand for the absurd, one-sided contract with society that is our current IP system.
This a vague comment, quickly written -- but I see here the exact same theme played out over and over in recent years. Free communication (amortized) + 'digitizable' items of value => lack of control by provider for profits. This is yet another example.
unfortunately, the lawyers in this culture have pushed all our hands to the point where we HAVE to deal with litigation to get companies to act decently.
while it's easy to look down your nose at litiginous behavior, it is typically the only way to keep companies from acting like greedy, spoiled schoolyard bullies.
once I cross the "you pissed me off, spammer" line...
I usually send a nastygram back to all the email addresses I can find, their funders & investors, board members, customers, employees, etc. all in the TO: field:
I say I will never do business with them, will tell my friends not to do business with them, and purposefully seek out their competitors when I next need their product.
I tell them that this is formal notification to not contact me again commercially, and list the email addresses that they must remove.
Then I tell them I will sue them under CA law (http://www.spamlaws.com/state/ca1.html) if they don't comply.
something I can run on my apache server that rejects clients that don not follow the rfc for tcp/ip, and hence rejects ie
I've toyed with blocking based on agent string, but that seems cruel and stoops to the level of MS...(who do this regualrly) and besides, it goes against my beliefs of software choice... however, it would be nice to redirect peopel to a page that says, "Your browser is not standards-compliant"
Slashdot Mirror
the real issue here is much bigger than terrorism.
controlling information will define human existence moving forward in time. it's about how we live, and what we are allowed to do.
Who gets to decide what is public? Do we all think the government (a slow/greedy beurocracy) should decide?
This whole topic is so very interesting because it's the next step after RIAA/Napster / failure to innovate issue we've all seen.
aggregation/analysis of open information will only be more prevelant and available moving forward. In 15 years ANYONE motivated would be able to recreate this guy's work, plus other much more scary aggregation. What happens when people start really publishing information on biological technologies and systems that could lead to bioweapons?
Most importantly, we (human civilization) will never stop inforamtion flows; no matter how Orwellian we (the US) push our lives -- information might be delayed, but never stopped.
As a previous poster wrote: moving forward, knowledge is ultimate power in our world. How we control what's out there and who gets access to it will define all future human existence.
wrong.
moving forward, hardware will be so cheap, no one will care.
it's ALL about the information.
you really ARE a slave to your employer. none of the mental cage stuff any more. "Work when and how I tell you or you will suffer"
shouldn't all OS design have at least the "intent" of working like this?
not knowing anything about QNX, it sounds like they're just a better OS.
have I missed something?
what makes you think I don't have a job?
(in fact I do, and I love it)
thanks, I have.
remember the wizard?
no.
to be accurate, thoe WHOLE concept of property is a legal fiction... it's just a more obvious fiction for IP.
in most cases, that fiction has served mankind well. it allowes control of resources, locking up the food and common shelter, getting everyone to WORK for a living to make shit people don't really need (or even want, without unsolicited marketing)... yada yada yada
basically the legal fiction of "property" has enabled human culture for about the last 8000 years.
good? bad? -- all the answers change when you change your context.
Holy crap! FOOD GROWS ON TREES! why are we all working again?
matt, RIAA, etal is so fscking hypocritical...
r ight 2.html
p yright 5.html
;)
on one side he writes:
Intellectual property should not be treated any differently than other property. Unless you buy it, you should not copy it for your own use. on
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/forum/june03/copy
and then later he writes:
When the RIAA searches the Internet to find infringing recordings that are being distributed, it is looking in exactly the same types of places that anybody else on the Internet may go.
We are not accessing anybody's "property," and we are certainly not violating anybody's personal rights. We are doing exactly the same thing that every other infringer is doing.
on
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/forum/june03/co
when will people get the basics:
-- riaa, mpaa, et al are cowering behind absurd laws to maintain a market that is grossly out of balance -- with marginal costs 100x over market costs.
-- the issues of information and who controls it is the fundamental issue facing human society. music and movies are just the tip of the iceberg. the enabling of machines to enforce laws that have always been about balance and DIFFERNETIAL enforcement will wreak havoc, followed by totalitarian control. Just wait until the powers that be start telling you that you can't have access to certain job listings because you don't have qualifications, or you can't contact a certain person because you don't have the correct digital key signatures, or that the thought police didn't like the conversation they overheard in your bedroom
-- I'm stating a company to make telescreens. looking for funding now.
has anyone else noticed a stream of spam that appears to be forged in an attempt to get the highest spam scores possible?
Over the last few (2-3) months, I've watched the maximum spamassassin scores for filtered mesages -- rise steadily. it looks like people somewhere are actually trying to create spam that trips as many of the rules as possible. Its actually kind of funny -- scores like 45-55 are not uncommon.
anyone else noticed this?
maybe people should stand up and let it be known that we don't think the existence of laws that make a perversion of economics contribues to a free socety or a working market economy.
the reality of the p2p black market in music is that the cost of the "music" product is artificailly inflated to hundreds of times the real market value because of the (now eliminated) historical distribution controls in tapes/cd/etc. the cost disparity between the selling price and the market price both CREATED and MAINTAINS the black market. it's not rocket science here folks.
the ridiculousness of current copyright laws and the teeth of the DMCA are the only thing maintaining the profits by which these people harass everyone else. why should we have special laws to maintain an industry that is now NO LONGER NECCESARY?
in short, simply tell RIAA and thier "industry" to fuck off and die like any normal, non-innovating dinosaur industry should. stand up & flip the bird. I'm still am waiting to get a CnD from them.
no mention of the "n" in the study. so we have no idea the statistical power of the %s they throw out. How many people did they interview? 20, 200, 2000? this leads to a big difference in the importance of the results.
they didn't tell me their "n" -- the number of people in the study. They could have asked 20 men and 20 women, making thestatistical power quite low, or many more.
I would agree with this, in general, as I have done the same -- however, it really only applies to a comparison with major banks. Local banks and credit unions can still offer great services if you can find them.
i have to second this
two words: Merril Lynch
I've had very good luck with them.
can you get these fsckos for squatting? I'd like to.
someone bought (myname).org and has one of the thousands of "Ultimate Search, Inc." pages on it.
thx
It all comes down to money and the models people have used to force advertizements onto people while they are entertained or eduacted.
the cold, hard truth is that the digital future obviates the traditional content control mechanisms used to force consumers to watch ads for content. The exact same lines are playing out on the web, on TV, in music, movies, magazines -- everywhere informationcan be digitized and presented in ways not tied to physical mediums.
The (now old) business models that the digital methods circumvent will eventually be redefined. Short term laws will support them, because the industries have eough money and clout to cause the laws to happen. Long term, though, people will no longer stand for the absurd, one-sided contract with society that is our current IP system.
This a vague comment, quickly written -- but I see here the exact same theme played out over and over in recent years. Free communication (amortized) + 'digitizable' items of value => lack of control by provider for profits. This is yet another example.
wait wait
physics nearly killed ME! (in college)
"no I have to do sam"
n s/60-80/two-towers-09.jpg
too funny
http://home.online.no/~gremmem/engrish_ttt_captio
unfortunately, the lawyers in this culture have pushed all our hands to the point where we HAVE to deal with litigation to get companies to act decently.
while it's easy to look down your nose at litiginous behavior, it is typically the only way to keep companies from acting like greedy, spoiled schoolyard bullies.
once I cross the "you pissed me off, spammer" line...
I usually send a nastygram back to all the email addresses I can find, their funders & investors, board members, customers, employees, etc. all in the TO: field:
I say I will never do business with them, will tell my friends not to do business with them, and purposefully seek out their competitors when I next need their product.
I tell them that this is formal notification to not contact me again commercially, and list the email addresses that they must remove.
Then I tell them I will sue them under CA law (http://www.spamlaws.com/state/ca1.html) if they don't comply.
really -- this was asked above but not aswered.
What topics are you looking for? Do they have
to relate to open source software? Some
guidelines would be niec if you are soliciting
authors.
something I can run on my apache server that rejects clients that don not follow the rfc for tcp/ip, and hence rejects ie
I've toyed with blocking based on agent string, but that seems cruel and stoops to the level of MS...(who do this regualrly) and besides, it goes against my beliefs of software choice... however, it would be nice to redirect peopel to a page that says, "Your browser is not standards-compliant"
a much more relevant question:
will humanity survive another 10,000 years?
i think not.