I think we are trying to solve the problem of "How can we get girls intrested in computers?" while its probably as silly as trying to solve the problem of "How can we get boys intrested in playing with dolls?"
There's a problem with getting boys interested in dolls?
Boys play with dolls all the time. They're called "action figures".
(My point: We can "get girls interested in computers" by giving them computers that they'd be interested in using. Easy? Not necessarily, but we could gain a lot of insight with a spot of good ol' market research.)
According to an Ipsos-Reid poll conducted over a year ago(1), over fifty million people, nearly one quarter of the American population, have used the Internet to download a music file. Even if only 1/2 of these downloads were illegal (which is a staggeringly conservative estimate,) some 30 million Americans have downloaded a piece of copyright-protected music which they have not paid for.
The RIAA has recently announced their intention to pursue individuals who use these filesharing services. Under current law, the RIAA can pursue civil damages as high as $150,000 and criminal damages as high as $250,000/5 years against people who share music they have not purchased(2). The RIAA has demonstrated on repeated occasions that they have no qualms about aggressively pursuing individuals and organizations they believe to be in violation of their copyrights(3).
My question is a simple question; I have no desire to hear about caveats, nuances of the legal system, assertions that the law is the law, or similar responses. I am quite aware that I am not a lawyer, and while I do not doubt you could find a number of nits to pick with my question and assertions, I hope that you can forgive the shortcomings of my legal understanding and address the central issue, as that is what I am most concerned about. I am would very much appreciate an honest, candid response to a very fundamental issue in this matter.
My question is this: is it just that the average American citizen can be charged with up to $150,000 per song in civil damages alone simply by downloading a song they haven't paid for?
It looks like the business community is preparing for economic recovery and these deals are meant to position themselves all the better for it...Let's see what the next few months bring, but the mood is definitely shifting.
That's rather optimistic of you. Personally, I see it as a bunch of larger companies grabbing smaller (albeit annyoingly competitive) fish at fire-sale, economy-in-the-dumps prices in the hopes that less competition = lock on business sector. That is, I see less of a forward-looking optimism and more of a here-and-now opportunism on the part of these companies.
To be honest, I can't say that I'm more likely than you to be right in this matter, but there are plenty of ways to skin this particular cat, and a quick look at recent history suggests that increased A&M activity isn't the economic panacea we once thought it was.
We've been hearing "It'll be getting better Real Soon Now" for over a year now, but no serious economic forecaster has committed one way or the other. There's simply too much conflicting data out there to put forth anything more than the murky, byzantine forecasts we've been tossing around for months now. Anything more concrete than "It's too tough to call" at this point stems from the forecaster's natural optimism (as with you) or pessimism (as with me) towards the state of the economy right now.
If you don't like it sooooo much--if you have such a problem with the content of Slashdot--STOP READING SLASHDOT. You're not paying anything, you're not forced to read any of the sections, and no one here owes you anything.
I don't understand why people who are pissed off so much by typos and accidental duplicate story posts (it's not like it's done on purpose) would continue coming here just to bitch about it in the comment threads. Oh, wait, this is/Slashdot/...
You do understand that many of us "pissed off" types make noise about stupid and preventable errors because we really, really like Slashdot, don't you?
Do you understand that it's rather embarassing that the premier news website of the geek community isn't even expected to meet basic, high school-level editorial standards? Aren't you the slightest bit ashamed that the face we show the world is that of the stereotypical geek--lazy, smug, careless, unmotivated to do anything but trumpet our own zealous pet projects?
I find it infuriating that the editorial staff seemingly refuses to take their job more seriously than they do. I don't care if they're not journalists, I don't care that they didn't go to school for this sort of thing. Fact is, they're running the most promising geek news site in the world, and it's up to them to start treating it as something more than Taco's hobby. Greatness has been thrust upon them, and they're futzing around as if nothing has changed since the late 1990's. It's friggin' embarassing.
This is a Big. Freaking. Deal. Slashdot has reached a size and level of influence where it does not go unnoticed by the mainstream; I've seen more and more references to this site in "normal" news sites' tech stories. With greater exposure comes greater scrutiny, and unless the editorial staff makes a considerable effort to improve their reporting, we're going to become National Enquirer of technology news.
Frankly, I don't understand why people are so eager to defend the half-assed, mediocre-at-best editorial work that goes on here. Do you like being a champion of carelessness and indifference? Does the thought of Slashdot becoming a solid, well-run, unbiased source of tech news upset you?
You're standing with a group of other people, discussing Company X's latest product. One of the people talking throws out an acronym that you've never heard before. You have absolutely no idea what this acronym may mean, as it was mentioned while the person was discussing a framework/language/methodology/technology that you've never heard of before.
Do you:
Gently nod your head and maintain a visage of total and unwavering comprehension,
Remark, "Oh, good, I was wondering when they'd get around to supporting that natively,"
Say, "Odd that they chose to go with [unknown acronym], when [new acronym you just made up on the spot] does better in real-world tests," and hope they don't call your bluff,
Step away to get some coffee to keep from being put on the spot (thus revealing your ignorance on the matter,)
Say, "Have they managed to work the kinks out of their implementation of [unknown acronym]?" and hope to glean important clues to the nature of what that acronym is from the response, or
Say, "Uh-oh--gotta run--just remembered--" and leave the conversation to look up the unknown acronym on Google?
Honestly, are any of us geeks ever willing to admit that we don't inherently recognize and grok every single term that is thrown our way? Isn't that part of being a geek?
Compare the relative age of consumer cellular service against the relative age of consumer Wifi. Heck, Danny Glover was using a cell phone in Lethal Weapon; yeah, it was all cutting-edge and stuff (it was a brick, and they had to pull over on top of bridges to get reception,) but it was there. That was way back in 1987--about 16 years ago. What's more, there were already over a million cell phone users in 1987.
Where was WiFi in 1987? Heck, the World Wide Web didn't even exist back then, and true consumer subscription Internet access didn't exist 'till Delphi came along in 1992.
WiFi is still a fledgling tech; cellular has a huge head-start, and while it's plausible that WiFi will get smothered by it, you've gotta remember that we're just starting to see WiFi take off. Give it time.
(BTW, the graphs they use in the article look like they were massaged to maximize the appearance of cellular technology's growth. It's impossible to judge WiFi's growth with their massive y-axis scale, and the x-axis starts in 1997, when cell tech was already well-established and Wifi didn't even exist. Nice.)
To be perfectly frank, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if they could get this to work. It'll require years of testing, tweaking, trial-by-error, and careful design, but I can easily see the day arriving where they've successfully addressed enough "what if" scenarios that they have a highly reliable product.
To take your example: Honda engineers discover that an oncoming car in a right curve that appears out of "nowhere" (from around the side of the mountain" causes the device to activate unnecissarily. Solution? There are lots of possible solutions. Is the vehicle approaching you at greater than your own speed? If so, it's oncoming traffic, and automatic braking is an inappropriate response (though a warning light/buzzer -may- be.) What is the four-second history of the angle of your car's wheels? If it suggests that you're on a right curve, it would make sense that an oncoming vehicle would appear to be directly in front of you; no alert necessary. Heck, you could even disable the entire system whenever your steering angle is greater than some small angle--it's safe to assume that if you're engaged in a turning maneuver, your attention is on your driving (whereas if you're bombing down the Interstate in Nebraska, it's much more likely that your attention will wander.)
I'm not saying that we shouldn't expect stringent and rigorous development and testing of such systems, but I find it a bit disingenuous to question the ability of such a system to work successfully because one can imagine scenarios where it wouldn't work. There are umpteen-thousand potential scenarios in which it wouldn't "work". That does not mean, however, that Honda cannot produce a system that provides a very real safety enhancement without putting drivers at risk from unnecessary activation.
Airbags, when they first came out, did their job pretty darn well, but there were still a small number of cases--very short people, overly-sensitive triggers, overly-forceful deployment, etc.--where they were problematic. These kinks got ironed out. Today, airbags are really, really, really reliable, they make cars considerably safer, and I'm glad we have 'em. I can see a system such as the one Honda is developing having a similar history--pretty good launch, a few rare but highly-publicized problems, second and third generation systems being excellent safety systems.
At any rate, are there really that many truckers hauling around laptops?
I don't know, but honestly, this is one occupational demographic that can really use wireless internet.
Consider that they've developed an intricate code-oriented language for use over CB radios. (They've been heavily into the "wireless communications" thing for decades, if you look at it in that light.)
Consider that a trucker has both a financial and personal safety interest in knowing things like nationwide weather forecasts, traffic reports, and navigational systems. These people really do rely heavily on knowing where that snowstorm is going, or hearing about the multi-car accident on their projected route through a busy city at rush hour.
Consider that trucking can be an amazingly lonely occupation, and the ability to communicate with people is incredibly valuable. Truckers got spouses and families. How else are you going to get your e-mail, complete with photo attachments of little Johnny doing something cute? Would you prefer some half-assed, run-down attempt at a pay kiosk in the middle of the truck stop, or your own personal system in the privacy of your own cab?
Networking has been part of trucking for decades. In many ways, this is the next logical step.
Researchers said in a report Thursday saying that if hydrogen replaced fossil fuels to run everything from cars to power plants, large amounts of hydrogen would drift into the stratosphere as a result of leakage and indirectly cause increased depletion of the ozone.
This shouldn't be too hard to deal with.
All we need to keep this problem in check is an oversized Zippo in orbit right near the ozone layer.
Activate it every Fourth of July for one helluva fireworks show.
That's the first time i've ever seen a story on slashdot simultaneously sitting at the top of both the main story page and the "Older Stuff" box.
Neat effect, that.
The one under "Older Stuff" is actually a honeypost made by a virtual editor. It appears that it successfully fooled you into thinking that the post was a mistake!
I'm not defending the model. I'm saying that we have a responsibility to pay it out.
I'd be perfectly happy to get rid of the entire thing, but the fact remains that we have an obligation to follow through on our commitments. For us to simply discard Social Security payments because it's a failed experiment is incredibly unfair to those who have vested in it their entire lives.
Just because it hasn't worked well doesn't mean we're under no obligation to pay what's due. Regardless of how very, very nice things would be if we could just let it slip past, to do so would be extremely irresponsible and unfair to those who have invested so much in the plan.
Do you understand that it's not my problem? I don't plan on collecting social security, so why should they? Screw this "retirement" bullshit. If you don't want to work anymore then you don't get any money, this is absolute crap that soceity owes you a waiting to die vacation.
...you do understand that these people have paid roughly 8% of their life's income to fund this program, right? You're cool with yanking the rug out from under them, a "so sorry, we've changed our minds, you're not getting what we promised you. McDonalds is hiring, gramps." mentality?
I'd rather keep my money and take care of myself then have the government help take care of me, guess you could say I'm a libertarian at heart.
I'd call you a guy with a less than basic understanding of civics, society, the concept of a greater good, and government. The jury is still out on the presence of a heart.
Whatcha gonna say when several million Americans who have worked hard their entire lives suddenly can't collect the Social Security benefits they've been paying for their entire working lives? "Fuck you, leave my taxes alone, you freeloading jerks!"?
There's a big, angry, flashing red warning light going off right now. We're cutting taxes like they were cancers, out administration has unequivocally stated that they plan to keep cutting taxes, regardless of the fact that both the federal budget and federal deficit are the largest they've ever been. Our forecast for the next few years is to spend money we don't have, and amazingly enough, nobody seems to care that we don't have enough money to pay Social Security. Nobody seems to care that we're running a 6.5 trillion dollar national debt. No, everything and anything can be fixed by cutting taxes. Economy doing well? Well then, cut taxes. Economy doing poorly? Well then, cut taxes. Sky still blue? Well then, cut taxes.
We're spending our nation into oblivion, the largest generation in American history is about to start demanding retirement benefits, and our fiscal policy is being dictated by a president who has a long and proud history of total incompetence at running a business.
And you want lower taxes.
Do you understand how insanely irresponsible that is?
On one hand: a mileage tax would be more fair than a gas tax in some ways, as gas can be used for things like lawn mowers, which don't use roads. Additionally, vehicles get varying miles per gallon, making gas guzzlers pay higher rates per mile than economy cars.
On the other hand: heavier vehicles tend to both use more gas and cause more wear and tear on roads than lighter vehicles. Thus, a by-mile tax unfairly charges lighter/more efficient vehicles for usage. It can also be argued that programs to counter the collateral effects of burning gas (for example, clean-air initiatives) need a source of funding, for which the gas tax is a good model.
The cynic in me thinks this is popular because of SUVs, and while the plan has it's merits, it is an irresponsible step towards reversing years of progress made in encouraging people to buy less polluting, more efficient vehicles.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow. CBS and ABC are gonna be all over this one...
Touché. I can get testy when I haven't had enough caffeine...
Woub yoo caar to puht a fyoo mow wouds im my mouf? Thew's stiwl pwenty ub spafe...
There's a problem with getting boys interested in dolls?
Boys play with dolls all the time. They're called "action figures".
(My point: We can "get girls interested in computers" by giving them computers that they'd be interested in using. Easy? Not necessarily, but we could gain a lot of insight with a spot of good ol' market research.)
According to an Ipsos-Reid poll conducted over a year ago(1), over fifty million people, nearly one quarter of the American population, have used the Internet to download a music file. Even if only 1/2 of these downloads were illegal (which is a staggeringly conservative estimate,) some 30 million Americans have downloaded a piece of copyright-protected music which they have not paid for.
The RIAA has recently announced their intention to pursue individuals who use these filesharing services. Under current law, the RIAA can pursue civil damages as high as $150,000 and criminal damages as high as $250,000/5 years against people who share music they have not purchased(2). The RIAA has demonstrated on repeated occasions that they have no qualms about aggressively pursuing individuals and organizations they believe to be in violation of their copyrights(3).
My question is a simple question; I have no desire to hear about caveats, nuances of the legal system, assertions that the law is the law, or similar responses. I am quite aware that I am not a lawyer, and while I do not doubt you could find a number of nits to pick with my question and assertions, I hope that you can forgive the shortcomings of my legal understanding and address the central issue, as that is what I am most concerned about. I am would very much appreciate an honest, candid response to a very fundamental issue in this matter.
My question is this: is it just that the average American citizen can be charged with up to $150,000 per song in civil damages alone simply by downloading a song they haven't paid for?
(1) http://www.ipsos-reid.com/media/dsp_displaypr_us.c fm?id_to_view=1414
(2) http://www.riaa.com/issues/piracy/penalties.asp
(3) http://www.riaa.com/news/filings/default.asp
That's rather optimistic of you. Personally, I see it as a bunch of larger companies grabbing smaller (albeit annyoingly competitive) fish at fire-sale, economy-in-the-dumps prices in the hopes that less competition = lock on business sector. That is, I see less of a forward-looking optimism and more of a here-and-now opportunism on the part of these companies.
To be honest, I can't say that I'm more likely than you to be right in this matter, but there are plenty of ways to skin this particular cat, and a quick look at recent history suggests that increased A&M activity isn't the economic panacea we once thought it was.
We've been hearing "It'll be getting better Real Soon Now" for over a year now, but no serious economic forecaster has committed one way or the other. There's simply too much conflicting data out there to put forth anything more than the murky, byzantine forecasts we've been tossing around for months now. Anything more concrete than "It's too tough to call" at this point stems from the forecaster's natural optimism (as with you) or pessimism (as with me) towards the state of the economy right now.
Kupost!
</Final Fantasy dork>
I don't understand why people who are pissed off so much by typos and accidental duplicate story posts (it's not like it's done on purpose) would continue coming here just to bitch about it in the comment threads. Oh, wait, this is /Slashdot/ ...
You do understand that many of us "pissed off" types make noise about stupid and preventable errors because we really, really like Slashdot, don't you?
Do you understand that it's rather embarassing that the premier news website of the geek community isn't even expected to meet basic, high school-level editorial standards? Aren't you the slightest bit ashamed that the face we show the world is that of the stereotypical geek--lazy, smug, careless, unmotivated to do anything but trumpet our own zealous pet projects?
I find it infuriating that the editorial staff seemingly refuses to take their job more seriously than they do. I don't care if they're not journalists, I don't care that they didn't go to school for this sort of thing. Fact is, they're running the most promising geek news site in the world, and it's up to them to start treating it as something more than Taco's hobby. Greatness has been thrust upon them, and they're futzing around as if nothing has changed since the late 1990's. It's friggin' embarassing.
This is a Big. Freaking. Deal. Slashdot has reached a size and level of influence where it does not go unnoticed by the mainstream; I've seen more and more references to this site in "normal" news sites' tech stories. With greater exposure comes greater scrutiny, and unless the editorial staff makes a considerable effort to improve their reporting, we're going to become National Enquirer of technology news.
Frankly, I don't understand why people are so eager to defend the half-assed, mediocre-at-best editorial work that goes on here. Do you like being a champion of carelessness and indifference? Does the thought of Slashdot becoming a solid, well-run, unbiased source of tech news upset you?
You're standing with a group of other people, discussing Company X's latest product. One of the people talking throws out an acronym that you've never heard before. You have absolutely no idea what this acronym may mean, as it was mentioned while the person was discussing a framework/language/methodology/technology that you've never heard of before.
Do you:
Honestly, are any of us geeks ever willing to admit that we don't inherently recognize and grok every single term that is thrown our way? Isn't that part of being a geek?
I hear ya there.
The USPS could learn a thing or two about accuracy and error-prevention from Slashdot.
fnord
Check out Gamehippo.com. They have a nice listing of freeware titles, with comments, editorial review, and peer review.
Where was WiFi in 1987? Heck, the World Wide Web didn't even exist back then, and true consumer subscription Internet access didn't exist 'till Delphi came along in 1992.
WiFi is still a fledgling tech; cellular has a huge head-start, and while it's plausible that WiFi will get smothered by it, you've gotta remember that we're just starting to see WiFi take off. Give it time.
(BTW, the graphs they use in the article look like they were massaged to maximize the appearance of cellular technology's growth. It's impossible to judge WiFi's growth with their massive y-axis scale, and the x-axis starts in 1997, when cell tech was already well-established and Wifi didn't even exist. Nice.)
(+1, Underestimated)
*boggle*
To take your example: Honda engineers discover that an oncoming car in a right curve that appears out of "nowhere" (from around the side of the mountain" causes the device to activate unnecissarily. Solution? There are lots of possible solutions. Is the vehicle approaching you at greater than your own speed? If so, it's oncoming traffic, and automatic braking is an inappropriate response (though a warning light/buzzer -may- be.) What is the four-second history of the angle of your car's wheels? If it suggests that you're on a right curve, it would make sense that an oncoming vehicle would appear to be directly in front of you; no alert necessary. Heck, you could even disable the entire system whenever your steering angle is greater than some small angle--it's safe to assume that if you're engaged in a turning maneuver, your attention is on your driving (whereas if you're bombing down the Interstate in Nebraska, it's much more likely that your attention will wander.)
I'm not saying that we shouldn't expect stringent and rigorous development and testing of such systems, but I find it a bit disingenuous to question the ability of such a system to work successfully because one can imagine scenarios where it wouldn't work. There are umpteen-thousand potential scenarios in which it wouldn't "work". That does not mean, however, that Honda cannot produce a system that provides a very real safety enhancement without putting drivers at risk from unnecessary activation.
Airbags, when they first came out, did their job pretty darn well, but there were still a small number of cases--very short people, overly-sensitive triggers, overly-forceful deployment, etc.--where they were problematic. These kinks got ironed out. Today, airbags are really, really, really reliable, they make cars considerably safer, and I'm glad we have 'em. I can see a system such as the one Honda is developing having a similar history--pretty good launch, a few rare but highly-publicized problems, second and third generation systems being excellent safety systems.
I don't know, but honestly, this is one occupational demographic that can really use wireless internet.
Consider that they've developed an intricate code-oriented language for use over CB radios. (They've been heavily into the "wireless communications" thing for decades, if you look at it in that light.)
Consider that a trucker has both a financial and personal safety interest in knowing things like nationwide weather forecasts, traffic reports, and navigational systems. These people really do rely heavily on knowing where that snowstorm is going, or hearing about the multi-car accident on their projected route through a busy city at rush hour.
Consider that trucking can be an amazingly lonely occupation, and the ability to communicate with people is incredibly valuable. Truckers got spouses and families. How else are you going to get your e-mail, complete with photo attachments of little Johnny doing something cute? Would you prefer some half-assed, run-down attempt at a pay kiosk in the middle of the truck stop, or your own personal system in the privacy of your own cab?
Networking has been part of trucking for decades. In many ways, this is the next logical step.
This shouldn't be too hard to deal with.
All we need to keep this problem in check is an oversized Zippo in orbit right near the ozone layer.
Activate it every Fourth of July for one helluva fireworks show.
Older Geek: "Amiga". In Spanish, it means 'female friend', and...
Younger Geek: What the FUCK is a female friend?
I saw a similar story yesterday on a popular community-driven geek news website.
You should check it out sometime!
Neat effect, that.
The one under "Older Stuff" is actually a honeypost made by a virtual editor. It appears that it successfully fooled you into thinking that the post was a mistake!
Editorial integrity through obfuscation works!
I'd be perfectly happy to get rid of the entire thing, but the fact remains that we have an obligation to follow through on our commitments. For us to simply discard Social Security payments because it's a failed experiment is incredibly unfair to those who have vested in it their entire lives.
Just because it hasn't worked well doesn't mean we're under no obligation to pay what's due. Regardless of how very, very nice things would be if we could just let it slip past, to do so would be extremely irresponsible and unfair to those who have invested so much in the plan.
I'd rather keep my money and take care of myself then have the government help take care of me, guess you could say I'm a libertarian at heart.
I'd call you a guy with a less than basic understanding of civics, society, the concept of a greater good, and government. The jury is still out on the presence of a heart.
Whatcha gonna say when several million Americans who have worked hard their entire lives suddenly can't collect the Social Security benefits they've been paying for their entire working lives? "Fuck you, leave my taxes alone, you freeloading jerks!"?
There's a big, angry, flashing red warning light going off right now. We're cutting taxes like they were cancers, out administration has unequivocally stated that they plan to keep cutting taxes, regardless of the fact that both the federal budget and federal deficit are the largest they've ever been. Our forecast for the next few years is to spend money we don't have, and amazingly enough, nobody seems to care that we don't have enough money to pay Social Security. Nobody seems to care that we're running a 6.5 trillion dollar national debt. No, everything and anything can be fixed by cutting taxes. Economy doing well? Well then, cut taxes. Economy doing poorly? Well then, cut taxes. Sky still blue? Well then, cut taxes.
We're spending our nation into oblivion, the largest generation in American history is about to start demanding retirement benefits, and our fiscal policy is being dictated by a president who has a long and proud history of total incompetence at running a business.
And you want lower taxes.
Do you understand how insanely irresponsible that is?
On the other hand: heavier vehicles tend to both use more gas and cause more wear and tear on roads than lighter vehicles. Thus, a by-mile tax unfairly charges lighter/more efficient vehicles for usage. It can also be argued that programs to counter the collateral effects of burning gas (for example, clean-air initiatives) need a source of funding, for which the gas tax is a good model.
The cynic in me thinks this is popular because of SUVs, and while the plan has it's merits, it is an irresponsible step towards reversing years of progress made in encouraging people to buy less polluting, more efficient vehicles.