I feel like a child being taught a lesson by his parents.
The article states that "Lawyers rule the world." And also "the judiciary... is doing the plugged-in set an enourmous favor." But may I point out one fact: the Internet is not the world. It was not brought up by Lawyers, Politicians, Mathemeticians, or even "John Q. Public." It was born and raised of and by geeks. By nerds, by social outcasts; by those who were misunderstood.
What is happening is that the rest of the world is trying to take over this world without understanding it. Lawyers understand law, they don't understand collective agreements. It is generally understood (or was, I should say) that domain names were property. Then the court steps in, because of some swift legal maneuvering and pretty words, and states that they are not property. Geeks understand each other. We understand implicit rules, because we think alike. We know that linking to a program isn't wrong. But the public doesn't.
While I agree completely with the Suck article, I think that there were some points left out. I have only read a few of the Slashdot comments, and my impression was that people simply exclaimed that the article sucked, they didn't understand (amongst the usual trolls, flamebaits, and first-posts). We have two cultures coming together: a geek culture, and the rest of the world. There will be clashes. And as much as I hate to say this, we do need to learn to play by their rules. They are bigger, and they set the standards. As much as we all may hate Microsoft, they are the standard, and we develop by their "rules" (not in the internals of programs, but what they do and how they look).
I have never liked the statement "You need to learn to play by their rules." It doesn't sit well with me. Why? Why should I learn their rules? Why can't they learn mine? Because their bigger. The only reason we need to learn their rules is because they want in, and they're bigger and (pardon my generalization) not quite as bright. And if we let them in, of which we have not much of a choice, we need to learn to play by their rules.
The only thing in the article that doesn't sit well with me was that "Millions use the internet without the slightest idea that their rights are being stripped away, blissfully unaware of what's going on because they don't happen to be members of the choir." Suck makes it sound as though they don't care. They may not directly care, but they will. They will care that they can't send something to someone in private. They will care that they don't own their own domain. When they stumble on these things, they will care. They may need to be educated, but most of all, they need people to fight on their behalf.
And we should. We should learn the rules, but teach the Lawyers a few of our own. Let them know that they are entering a world unlike their own, and there are other standards and expectations of them that they must follow by. But because they aren't as bright, we need to teach them this in their own terms.
Slashdot Mirror
I feel like a child being taught a lesson by his parents.
... is doing the plugged-in set an enourmous favor." But may I point out one fact: the Internet is not the world. It was not brought up by Lawyers, Politicians, Mathemeticians, or even "John Q. Public." It was born and raised of and by geeks. By nerds, by social outcasts; by those who were misunderstood.
The article states that "Lawyers rule the world." And also "the judiciary
What is happening is that the rest of the world is trying to take over this world without understanding it. Lawyers understand law, they don't understand collective agreements. It is generally understood (or was, I should say) that domain names were property. Then the court steps in, because of some swift legal maneuvering and pretty words, and states that they are not property. Geeks understand each other. We understand implicit rules, because we think alike. We know that linking to a program isn't wrong. But the public doesn't.
While I agree completely with the Suck article, I think that there were some points left out. I have only read a few of the Slashdot comments, and my impression was that people simply exclaimed that the article sucked, they didn't understand (amongst the usual trolls, flamebaits, and first-posts). We have two cultures coming together: a geek culture, and the rest of the world. There will be clashes. And as much as I hate to say this, we do need to learn to play by their rules. They are bigger, and they set the standards. As much as we all may hate Microsoft, they are the standard, and we develop by their "rules" (not in the internals of programs, but what they do and how they look).
I have never liked the statement "You need to learn to play by their rules." It doesn't sit well with me. Why? Why should I learn their rules? Why can't they learn mine? Because their bigger. The only reason we need to learn their rules is because they want in, and they're bigger and (pardon my generalization) not quite as bright. And if we let them in, of which we have not much of a choice, we need to learn to play by their rules.
The only thing in the article that doesn't sit well with me was that "Millions use the internet without the slightest idea that their rights are being stripped away, blissfully unaware of what's going on because they don't happen to be members of the choir." Suck makes it sound as though they don't care. They may not directly care, but they will. They will care that they can't send something to someone in private. They will care that they don't own their own domain. When they stumble on these things, they will care. They may need to be educated, but most of all, they need people to fight on their behalf.
And we should. We should learn the rules, but teach the Lawyers a few of our own. Let them know that they are entering a world unlike their own, and there are other standards and expectations of them that they must follow by. But because they aren't as bright, we need to teach them this in their own terms.