Re:Anonymity vs Free Speech
on
Anonymity
·
· Score: 1
The right you're describing simply can't exist in a free society.
Unfortunately, I have to agree that you're right about this. Actually after thinking about this point and some others, I'd have to say that anonymity is something necessary and we have to take the bad with the good.
Kind of unusual to see someone actually change their mind in an argument, isn't it?
If God had wanted us to think, he would have given us brains!
Running out of silicon isn't an issue. Hitting the limits of what we can do with it is. Although I've read some neat stuff recently that IBM or someone was doing to print much smaller silicon stuff. Still, it'll run out eventually.
Re:Anonymity vs Free Speech
on
Anonymity
·
· Score: 1
What I mean in that second quote, is related to what you said
Unfortunatley, speaking the truth can get you fucked. That's why anonymity is important.
You need anonymity because speaking the truth can get you fucked, as you say. This is exactly what I mean by hiding behind it. I suppose hiding has a connotation I don't really mean. Not having the "real rights" means the rights to not be fucked by speaking the truth. That is the right you should fight for.
Re:Anonymity vs Free Speech
on
Anonymity
·
· Score: 1
First, to contradict your first paragraph, I'm 17 and consider myself liberal. Now that that's out the window...
What you people don't realize, is that you're hiding behind anonymity because you lack the real rights. You shouldn't have to have anonymity to be immune to a corporation destroying you because you have a truthful and sincere disagreement. This is what I am saying.
And yes, I completely agree with you on your last line. These companies are incredibly irresponsible. If I could vote....I'd have really crappy choices. Damn, so much for that.
Re:Net should remain as it is
on
Anonymity
·
· Score: 1
I would like to use your comment as an example of a case where anonymity is pointless.
Your post is well thought out, contributes to the discussion, and is an honest opinion. Why not attach your name to it?
I suppose it's not actually a real name on slashdot, it's an identity created for this particular virtual environment. All it really means is that you can tie my posts with earlier posts and there is a somewhat consistent entity that appears to be posting all these. So I suppose I may be missing a point which is what is anonymity really? Anyways, I wouldn't have a problem with posting these under my real name. Although, I wouldn't want anyone to be biased against me because of who I really am, but then isn't that the right I say I'm fighting for? To not have any prejudice against me despite all knowledge of my "real" self? Yes.
Okay, then. Just to establish the real point here...it is to be able to have all the rights associated with anonymity, without needing the anonymity itself.
This is really some odd philosophical rambling written as I think each thought and not edited but posted for the general consumption of slashdot in case anyone cares to respond and contribute...feel free to ignore it.
What I am saying here, is that the right we should defend, is the right to do that without fear of retribution without needing to resort to anonymity. Until then, channels should exist for this. True free speech however, is the real issue, because with it, anonymity isn't needed, and without it, anonymity doesn't stand a chance as an actual right, and will become something we achieve through technical means as a last stand.
Re:Net should remain as it is
on
Anonymity
·
· Score: 1
You have a good point about culture, and I will admit that there are definitely good and bad sides to anonymity. However, I think that human culture has existed for a long time in all its richness without everyone being anonymous in everyday conversation, and that the anonymity itself doesn't add this culture you're talking about. If people have the right to not fear retribution of any sort (true free speech, which is what I'm suggesting should be the issue) without being anonymous, this will all survive.
Anonymity vs Free Speech
on
Anonymity
·
· Score: 2
You're all focusing on the wrong thing. Anonymity is not equal to free speech. Anonymity just gives you an excuse to shrug off all responsibility for what you say and, in the case of the internet, do.
The internet does not need anonymity. I'm sure most of you have noticed that the internet is full of garbage. Quite a lot of that garbage wouldn't be there if it weren't for the anonymity that exists.
I'm not talking about just anonymity from the government (although it is obviously a large part of the issue here), which as I already mentioned in an earlier post doesn't exist unless you really know what you're doing, and possibly not even then. I'm talking about the regular every day not knowing who that anonymous coward is on slashdot. Dang, that guy posts a lot. He must never sleep.
Neither of these forms of anonymity need to be protected. In the first case (government), because it's not even the issue. The government decides whether to expose you or not, but the real issue is free speech. The right to say what we want, even when everyone knows who we are. The second anonymity (anonymous coward)...well the name given to them on slashdot is fitting. Knowing someone's identity forces some responsibility. If free speech is protected, as it should be, they can still say what they want, but most of them won't say what they don't really need to say, which would eliminate the problem of the internet being 99% complete trash.
The real point here, is that free speech, not anonymity, is what needs to be protected. The right to stand in the middle of everything, when everybody knows exactly who you are, and say what you have to say. This right exists without anonymity, you just have to put a little more thought into what you say. The mentally healthy person however, doesn't need fear the opinion of the masses when they have something actually important to say.
Well the article said that ISPs have to give the information out revealing people's identity.
Complete anonymity on the internet is a myth unless you really know what you're doing. The information is always somewhere.
In Foundation and Earth, which was by Asmimov himself, as well as the books he wrote late in his career that went back and followed the life of Hari Seldon (No I'm not referring to the stuff benford, brin, and bear wrote, I know that wasn't him) did include the theme that robots were secretly guiding humanity.
I have to say that I really didn't like the three books those other authors wrote about Seldon and the robots. Asimov wasn't a very technical writer and there was something slightly mystical about the way he wrote that this trilogy seemed to not only lack, but attempt to remove.
You operate under the mistaken assumption that software has to actually make use of new and super fast hardware to require it. Er, I don't work at microsoft.
5 people live on a street. They each buy a new computer every 2 years. That means, that the sales on that street are still 2.5 computers per year. Constant. Meaning zero GROWTH. It's amazing how many people have responded to this article with the idea that growth is the same as sales.
Nothing's to say it all came from this planet; I didn't say that. Just that it all came from the same place. It all works pretty much the same way. Something that originated separately would be far more different than anything we have on Earth.
We will be able to support life on mars eventually probably.
As to actually finding life on Mars...
The idea that conditions very similar to Earth are required for life to form is incredibly narrow minded. Any environment stable enough for reproducing patterns to exist for decent periods of time and energetic enough for them to exist, should fit the bill as a possibility until we have more experimental data as to what the requirements are. Right now we have a sample of 1, as all life on earth is pretty similar and came from the same thing.
Same as any other colonization effort in history. Damn it must've been boring living a few centuries ago....
At least they'd have a lot of modern conveniences. Which would be necessities in that environment.
This idea appealed greatly to me at first, but after some consideration, I conclude that it's not practical. How do you possibly enforce this regulation?
Reverse engineering needs to not have a regulated body of people allowed to do it, but a set of regulations on how it can be used. Reverse engineering for the purpose of cloning or stealing somebody else's ideas to use them in your own product should obviously be illegal. People who work at software companies depend on sales. It's how they support themselves.
I think that reverse engineering for the purpose of testing the security of a system you're planning on implementing in a situation where you need security is totally reasonable. If you need to make your own program work with another one, why not? You're not hurting anybody. If you are, you're moving away from trying to achieve interoperability and towards the zone of stealing ideas for your own product.
Like anything else, it is a right we deserve until it infringes upon other people's rights.
Now, everyone is able to see exactly how it works! All of your hard work, and it is suddenly ripped away from you as clones pop up everywhere!
The original intent of patent law was to promote innovation by rewarding innovators. As with many other things however, it is now taken advantage of by non-innovating profit seekers.
I completely agree with the idea that something I create should be protected if I want it to be. I worked hard at it and deserve a reward. I don't think though, that it should be completely closed. Anyone who wants to should be able to look around and see what I did and how I did it. As long as the law says that they can't sell a clone of it. I don't really mind if they get inspiration for their own innovation though. We all stand on the shoulders of giants (paraphrase of Newton). This is the way progress works. The time limit on a patent is a very good idea. I'm not sure exactly how long it is though. Should be shorter probably, now that everything moves so quickly on the internet.
Also i ask as a question which is more illegal: If a company A, releases a device D (like the CueCat), and A says that they are not collecting information, that the device D has no way of identifying someone &tc, if a person P, reverse engineers D, does only P get into trouble, is there no accountablility for A, which lied to the public?
This has been an issue for a long time in the United States. The laws basically say that if something is investigated illegally, it can't be used in court and therefore in your semi-hypothetical situation the company does not get in trouble. This is actually intended to protect the citizens from the government, but in this situation you no longer have the citizens being protected. Obviously, something needs to be reevaluated.
It is clear that half the regulation either hasn't caught up with the digital age and the other half has been subverted by the companies taking advantage of us. Does anyone know of plans to challenge the DMCA in court? I know a number of organizations that are probably doing this but haven't seen an organized effort (mostly due to my own ignorance).
That doesn't make sense from any perspective that I can think of.
People can play on their own servers (which they like). It becomes an added feature to the game. More features == better game == more money for blizzard. Since someone else is running the server, Blizzard doesn't have to expend it's own resources (and anyone who bought any blizzard game right after release knows about this).
You have to give them a little credit though. Diablo must have created a deep seated fear of reverse engineering, because of all the cheating. It seems to me that, except for your story, Blizzard has only really been against reverse engineering for the sake of cheating.
Slashdot Mirror
The right you're describing simply can't exist in a free society.
Unfortunately, I have to agree that you're right about this. Actually after thinking about this point and some others, I'd have to say that anonymity is something necessary and we have to take the bad with the good.
Kind of unusual to see someone actually change their mind in an argument, isn't it?
If God had wanted us to think, he would have given us brains!
Running out of silicon isn't an issue. Hitting the limits of what we can do with it is. Although I've read some neat stuff recently that IBM or someone was doing to print much smaller silicon stuff. Still, it'll run out eventually.
What I mean in that second quote, is related to what you said
Unfortunatley, speaking the truth can get you fucked. That's why anonymity is important.
You need anonymity because speaking the truth can get you fucked, as you say. This is exactly what I mean by hiding behind it. I suppose hiding has a connotation I don't really mean. Not having the "real rights" means the rights to not be fucked by speaking the truth. That is the right you should fight for.
First, to contradict your first paragraph, I'm 17 and consider myself liberal. Now that that's out the window...
What you people don't realize, is that you're hiding behind anonymity because you lack the real rights. You shouldn't have to have anonymity to be immune to a corporation destroying you because you have a truthful and sincere disagreement. This is what I am saying.
And yes, I completely agree with you on your last line. These companies are incredibly irresponsible. If I could vote....I'd have really crappy choices. Damn, so much for that.
I would like to use your comment as an example of a case where anonymity is pointless.
Your post is well thought out, contributes to the discussion, and is an honest opinion. Why not attach your name to it?
I suppose it's not actually a real name on slashdot, it's an identity created for this particular virtual environment. All it really means is that you can tie my posts with earlier posts and there is a somewhat consistent entity that appears to be posting all these. So I suppose I may be missing a point which is what is anonymity really? Anyways, I wouldn't have a problem with posting these under my real name. Although, I wouldn't want anyone to be biased against me because of who I really am, but then isn't that the right I say I'm fighting for? To not have any prejudice against me despite all knowledge of my "real" self? Yes.
Okay, then. Just to establish the real point here...it is to be able to have all the rights associated with anonymity, without needing the anonymity itself.
This is really some odd philosophical rambling written as I think each thought and not edited but posted for the general consumption of slashdot in case anyone cares to respond and contribute...feel free to ignore it.
Patrick Carlisle
without fear of retribution
What I am saying here, is that the right we should defend, is the right to do that without fear of retribution without needing to resort to anonymity. Until then, channels should exist for this. True free speech however, is the real issue, because with it, anonymity isn't needed, and without it, anonymity doesn't stand a chance as an actual right, and will become something we achieve through technical means as a last stand.
You have a good point about culture, and I will admit that there are definitely good and bad sides to anonymity. However, I think that human culture has existed for a long time in all its richness without everyone being anonymous in everyday conversation, and that the anonymity itself doesn't add this culture you're talking about. If people have the right to not fear retribution of any sort (true free speech, which is what I'm suggesting should be the issue) without being anonymous, this will all survive.
You're all focusing on the wrong thing. Anonymity is not equal to free speech. Anonymity just gives you an excuse to shrug off all responsibility for what you say and, in the case of the internet, do.
The internet does not need anonymity. I'm sure most of you have noticed that the internet is full of garbage. Quite a lot of that garbage wouldn't be there if it weren't for the anonymity that exists.
I'm not talking about just anonymity from the government (although it is obviously a large part of the issue here), which as I already mentioned in an earlier post doesn't exist unless you really know what you're doing, and possibly not even then. I'm talking about the regular every day not knowing who that anonymous coward is on slashdot. Dang, that guy posts a lot. He must never sleep.
Neither of these forms of anonymity need to be protected. In the first case (government), because it's not even the issue. The government decides whether to expose you or not, but the real issue is free speech. The right to say what we want, even when everyone knows who we are. The second anonymity (anonymous coward)...well the name given to them on slashdot is fitting. Knowing someone's identity forces some responsibility. If free speech is protected, as it should be, they can still say what they want, but most of them won't say what they don't really need to say, which would eliminate the problem of the internet being 99% complete trash.
The real point here, is that free speech, not anonymity, is what needs to be protected. The right to stand in the middle of everything, when everybody knows exactly who you are, and say what you have to say. This right exists without anonymity, you just have to put a little more thought into what you say. The mentally healthy person however, doesn't need fear the opinion of the masses when they have something actually important to say.
Free speech. Not anonymity. Make the distinction.
Well the article said that ISPs have to give the information out revealing people's identity.
Complete anonymity on the internet is a myth unless you really know what you're doing. The information is always somewhere.
In Foundation and Earth, which was by Asmimov himself, as well as the books he wrote late in his career that went back and followed the life of Hari Seldon (No I'm not referring to the stuff benford, brin, and bear wrote, I know that wasn't him) did include the theme that robots were secretly guiding humanity.
I have to say that I really didn't like the three books those other authors wrote about Seldon and the robots. Asimov wasn't a very technical writer and there was something slightly mystical about the way he wrote that this trilogy seemed to not only lack, but attempt to remove.
You operate under the mistaken assumption that software has to actually make use of new and super fast hardware to require it. Er, I don't work at microsoft.
5 people live on a street. They each buy a new computer every 2 years. That means, that the sales on that street are still 2.5 computers per year. Constant. Meaning zero GROWTH. It's amazing how many people have responded to this article with the idea that growth is the same as sales.
Yes, but downloading is useless if you can't play it.
Evolutionarily, they are backward (what flightless bird isn't?).
They're just adapted to a different environment: the water. Sure they look pathetic out of it, but in the water, they do quite well indeed.
Nothing's to say it all came from this planet; I didn't say that. Just that it all came from the same place. It all works pretty much the same way. Something that originated separately would be far more different than anything we have on Earth.
Or they're just plain dotty.
We will be able to support life on mars eventually probably.
As to actually finding life on Mars...
The idea that conditions very similar to Earth are required for life to form is incredibly narrow minded. Any environment stable enough for reproducing patterns to exist for decent periods of time and energetic enough for them to exist, should fit the bill as a possibility until we have more experimental data as to what the requirements are. Right now we have a sample of 1, as all life on earth is pretty similar and came from the same thing.
In another recent mars story (stories seem to come in subject groups...) yesterday I think, you'll find discussion on this.
Possibly the reason is that it lacks a decent magnetosphere and so solar wind blows away the atmosphere.
Same as any other colonization effort in history. Damn it must've been boring living a few centuries ago....
At least they'd have a lot of modern conveniences. Which would be necessities in that environment.
It'll blend in with the water. Camoflage computing!
Battle.net is free to the players but actually, now that you point this out I remember that it does have advertising. That's probably significant.
This idea appealed greatly to me at first, but after some consideration, I conclude that it's not practical. How do you possibly enforce this regulation?
Reverse engineering needs to not have a regulated body of people allowed to do it, but a set of regulations on how it can be used. Reverse engineering for the purpose of cloning or stealing somebody else's ideas to use them in your own product should obviously be illegal. People who work at software companies depend on sales. It's how they support themselves.
I think that reverse engineering for the purpose of testing the security of a system you're planning on implementing in a situation where you need security is totally reasonable. If you need to make your own program work with another one, why not? You're not hurting anybody. If you are, you're moving away from trying to achieve interoperability and towards the zone of stealing ideas for your own product.
Like anything else, it is a right we deserve until it infringes upon other people's rights.
Now, everyone is able to see exactly how it works! All of your hard work, and it is suddenly ripped away from you as clones pop up everywhere!
The original intent of patent law was to promote innovation by rewarding innovators. As with many other things however, it is now taken advantage of by non-innovating profit seekers.
I completely agree with the idea that something I create should be protected if I want it to be. I worked hard at it and deserve a reward. I don't think though, that it should be completely closed. Anyone who wants to should be able to look around and see what I did and how I did it. As long as the law says that they can't sell a clone of it. I don't really mind if they get inspiration for their own innovation though. We all stand on the shoulders of giants (paraphrase of Newton). This is the way progress works. The time limit on a patent is a very good idea. I'm not sure exactly how long it is though. Should be shorter probably, now that everything moves so quickly on the internet.
Also i ask as a question which is more illegal: If a company A, releases a device D (like the CueCat), and A says that they are not collecting information, that the device D has no way of identifying someone &tc, if a person P, reverse engineers D, does only P get into trouble, is there no accountablility for A, which lied to the public?
This has been an issue for a long time in the United States. The laws basically say that if something is investigated illegally, it can't be used in court and therefore in your semi-hypothetical situation the company does not get in trouble. This is actually intended to protect the citizens from the government, but in this situation you no longer have the citizens being protected. Obviously, something needs to be reevaluated.
It is clear that half the regulation either hasn't caught up with the digital age and the other half has been subverted by the companies taking advantage of us. Does anyone know of plans to challenge the DMCA in court? I know a number of organizations that are probably doing this but haven't seen an organized effort (mostly due to my own ignorance).
That doesn't make sense from any perspective that I can think of.
People can play on their own servers (which they like). It becomes an added feature to the game. More features == better game == more money for blizzard. Since someone else is running the server, Blizzard doesn't have to expend it's own resources (and anyone who bought any blizzard game right after release knows about this).
You have to give them a little credit though. Diablo must have created a deep seated fear of reverse engineering, because of all the cheating. It seems to me that, except for your story, Blizzard has only really been against reverse engineering for the sake of cheating.