Forgotten how we got that freedom of speech and expression, have we? I can put that more succinctly and ontopic actually, it's very simple. "Having more guns does not make you right", guns can be used to defend liberty, but should a more powerful person or group want to oppress you then one gun isn't going to do much good. Should you decide that the US govornment is iligitimate and that you will take it down, I doubt that any amount of guns, certainly any amount of guns that you can grab hold of would do you any good.
That is why gun ownership, and talking of guns as a defence of liberty is "right wing", because the rich will always have more guns than the poor (should they need them).
Forgotten how we got that freedom of speech and expression, have we?
This is the most bunk point of the pro gun lobby. If a "democratic" power abuses its mandate sufficiently for a good proportion of the population to see fit to attempt to bring it down what chance would such a group of people have... I suppose the slim hope that this may happen from the monolith of american corporate/political power is an enduring legacy of america throwing out the British. It'd be interesting to see what would happen if we tried to remove american military bases from UK soil I'm certain.
It's also worth pointing out that the people most in need of a gun, those who are denied food and shelter, or ghettoised in inner cities due to greed and politics are those least likely to have one and the least likely to organise in such a manner should they become armed. They are more likely to shoot each other. Not, although as american dream, NRA zealots might claim because they are some kind of inferior species but because they see an enormous monolith pushing against them at every turn. If you mess with the rich men, or those who preotect the rich men the stake is high and your chances of achieving any kind of satisfaction from it extremenly low. It therefore makes sense to play the lower stake, lower reward game of stealking from your own (pushed into conflict with the very people with whom you should be uniting). What chance do the people of the third world really stand unarmed against "free trade" biased in favour of the rich? If we live in a society that purports to be a democracy then the best hopes of changing these things should be democratic. Even if the chances seem slim it may be the only alley we have left.
Back to the topic though, freedom of speech is of course important. Such censorship should not be put apon adults in general. If you believe in a point of view, if you are actually getting political then you should have the faith in your argument to allow all opinions to be heard. A work connection on the other hand, which is censored, well what work purpose did you have looking up the NRA anyway? You can still go look at it on your non censored internet connection, you can still go to the library, and you can still read newspapers (general skewing of the press by powerful people is much more dangerous to liberty than more obvious, outright censorship).
If this type of censorship becomes widespread (and therefore difficult to avoid), which is really really not the case in the western world then there are more important things to get your knickers in a twist over.
It's not a matter of ludditism. What I was actually arguing for was progress. I said that 1) we should change the way we use the car... especially within cities as it has a big impact on quality of life, especially for the poorest. and that 2) Where we do need cars we should put resources into finding new, better ways of fuelling them. You know, progress!
I think this is a huge step in the right direction
Is it now!? There are lots of good reasons not to cut down on motor vehicles other than the fact that oil might one day run out, especially in urban areas.
Mixing high speed traffic with pedestrian traffic, especially high volume pedestrian traffic has always seemed crazy to me. The way that we just accept road deaths as part of life, and the fact that UK law deems death by dangerous driving to be a seperate crime to manslaughter extends this attitude wherein people do not take full responsibility for the way that they drive their cars and the consequences thereof.
Antisocial/toxic pollutants are an obvious (although diminishng) point. Diesel engines in particular chuck out some really unpleasant stuff whenever I'm behind them, I don't know what it is but maybe someone can tell me what is in that black soot that they chuck out to a lesser or greater extent whenever they start. Of course emissions are getting better, but poorer people who are forced to drive a car in a society where it's nessecary are going to driver older, crappier cars with nastier emissions. A recent advert by Transport for London (londons transport body, responsible for tube, bus, street management and transport integration amongst other things) quoted the figure that 1 in 5 cars would fail an EU emissions test and quoted some 5 digit number of deaths caused by them.
Damage to buildings. Burning hydrocarbons is always going to contribute to acid rain, many statues in rome are melting away. Whenever I go down the eastern avenue I wonder how white all the grey houses once were.
I could go on... I could talk about health (how many people stumble into car from home, out of car into office, into lift, into chair). I could talk about the segregation and unpleasant territorial attitudes that the car can bring. I could talk about the way that roads divide areas and slice inner city areas to peices.
The point is that 200 years ago our cities were not built for the motor car. And now many (most?) cities, especially those in north america put tha car first. We need to find alternatives to HGVs running about through the centre of town. We need good metropolitan transit systems, with public subsidy (to a redistributive end poorer people effectively pay less, and are not forced to drive old vehicles which pollute and stigmatise). I think the use of roads for long distance traffic is more acceptable mind, long distance road traffic is segregated from pedestrian traffic, safer for the occupants of the vehicle and will always be cheaper than long distance, low volume rail or other means of transit. The coach seems pretty cheap if you need. What this dosn't mean is that we can keep going about burning bloody hydrocarbons all the time. At some point we're going to be forced to find some other way of doing it (aren't we), countries all had a point where they built up a lot of their infrastructure... why can't we put investment in again now? While we're at it we may as well find a better way of doing things.
I've had enough of adverts, I really don't like this idea. Putting it on money!? On the side of nationally important monuments. I'm not sure what it does to the value of a nation, imagine big ben with a big "Coca Cola" printed on it. I've cried this before on slashdot, I need some space! Is there none left? Even to ignore an advert takes some processing by your brain. Should I have to be constantly alert for it. I thought the advantage of separating from the "state of nature" was so that I didn't have to be alert all the time. If I know there will be adverts in a magazine that is one thing. But public space.. no! Money is integral to my life, money should be something that I earned, that belongs to me. If it has some brand all over it, it is now a way of putting an advert in my pocket.. and I have no choice over it (how easy is it to opt out of the cash economy?). Please, stop!
I'm in one of the groups mentioned in this article as prime for robotic replacement. Reading it I couldn't help wondering what effect it might have on me. I'm a cycle messenger in london town.
Thinking about it, I suppose not robotic, but computer replacement threatens me most. We're protected by the archaic laws in this country that means that a great deal of legal work, things requiring signatures etc. cannot be done digitally where they may elsewhere in the world. Can't see that lasting forever though. There's also a lot of digital betamax, photo prints etc. media type stuff that needs to be carried that in the forseeable future 99% will be carried digitally. This leaves me with physical goods, a parcel where the good in its physical form (not some kind of data or legal acknowledgement, the amount of cheques I carry is actually shocking) is of value. Clothes for fashion mags, other parcels, swanky city types leaving their wallets in brick lane curry houses. This cuts down the workforce by 90% I suppose if I think of it, but what it does leave is the most skilled 10% to take up the work. I can't see a machine doing my job as far as actually riding about town goes, understanding a map on paper is one thing, riding on a road in real life with mixed traffic, pedestrians etc. is another. I also imagine most city roads to be like londons, that is pretty freeform and quite dangerous not to mention Londons notably insane geography. Maybe a sort of elite hardcore, maybe with an insular culture could be a factor of this new society. A relatively small computer clique who keep technology running globally, a small amount of skilled bikers to navigate the high density city areas (long distance transit seems more liable to automation with vehichle only motorways) and soforth. Small widley distributed groups of people with specific skills may become the way in this new society.
What this means I don't know, maybe you lot have something good to say about it.
I don't *want* to use it... but I do! Why? Coz a lot of people I wish to speak to use it and no other network. How did this come about? They found a client on their windows XP box, or it appeared on their computer when they installed the latest internet explorer or something. If you ask them to install some other IM protocol it's either too scary, too much bother or they don't want to run more than one and all their mates already use MSN (intertia). It's at least going to be a temporary pain in the backside for me, it's another monopoly abuse, just as IE was.
The BBC has measures to stop people recieving its brodcasts in other countries to avoid royalty issues. If belgians can watch the FA Cup final when belgium may have a pay per view situation then the BBC are in trouble. I imagine its a similar kind of idea for the teletext.
Let me explain this a little. It is not the US standard of living alone which attracts terrorism, it is what it does to sustain that quality of life. The US cares about civil liberties (at least nominally) within its own shores, but those from other countries are not afforded the same rights (wasn't someone shipped to an american court rather than camp X-Ray due to their being a US citizen, the non americans were illegally imprisoned with the rest of them). It effects politics all over the world for good and bad.
It's size and cultural power has another interesting implication. The pervasiveness of american culture and media (cinema, McDonalds, nike trainers.... maybe I mean corporate american culture and media) means that everyone in the world not in the US has knowledge of at least two cultures, that of US corporatism and their own, and when one is seen to be overpowering the other it leads to conflict. The american stereotype as ignorant and insular is in no small part influenced by the fact that by and large most americans only see one culture, their own.
Americans with an interest in the civil liberties of all people, not just those americans with the power and money to defend their own (and to take those of others), many of whom I'm sure read slashdot should fight terrorism in their own way. By making America the state it was founded to be, by scrutinising businessmen, politicians (and anyone else in a position of power and influence) by using the power of their wallet, their vote and whatever else it takes to make america a state and a symbol that is not viewed by the rest of the world with contempt. It's not about what they cannot do, but what they see America (as a symbol for the global economic system?) doing to them.
A perception of america as a greedy, self interested, intefering, imperialist power is what attracts terrorism. To fight terrorism america should look within.
Talking about this congestion charge, I'd love to see it work. I'm a cycle courier in london, congestion shortens my lifespan, fumes, limited visibility, kamikaze pedestrians walking through stationary traffic traffic in which I am moving and even worse motorbikes (although motorbikes make more noise). There's a point, all two wheelers are exempted from the charge. fair enough they don't cause congestion, but what about accidents (some people think that in central london you can wander around roads as if they are not there.. I never understood this... "the tourist effect"?)? Whatsmore who is on the roads when the charge will apply, which is basically during working hours? It's people who (like me) have to be on the roads, it's their job, couriers, taxi drivers, hauliers and those suited types going about their business. Now I'd love to see the suited types and everyone else decide to cycle more, or walk more or think of different ways of getting about, or change your business so you can get about less. Past a point organically grown, unplanned cities like london start to grind to a halt if everyone needs to get about anyway. To get across the north or south of the city, I either have to have an incredibly detailed knowledge of the city (london taxi drivers have to study for 5 years and learn 10s of thousands of streets to get their licence, in NY I think it takes 2 days) and go through residential streets, or follow the main "A" roads in then out again, or if you're lucky maybe you can use one of the tacked on, jam packed ring roads. Thinking about it (this is coming straight from brain to keyboard) cycling really could be the answer. The increase in capacity would be incredible, especially with the use of green space and cycle only paths to get from place to place. up to a point cyclists on the roads will use excess capacity between cars at no extra cost, but if too many people did that then we'd be in car and cycle gridlock, an absolute nightmare. The problem with getting people to use bikes is that they do not consider 10 miles to be a reasonable distance to cycle, most people really are pretty sedentary. One of the first things I noticed when I started cycling regularly with this job was the improvement in my fitness, when I stopped excercising my heart rate noticably slowed down very quickly. I thought to myself, this is how the human body *should* be working, most people can barely run to catch the bus. This whole car philosophy is silly, driving kids to school, driving to work driving to the corner shop. Where do you walk? Our cities are already overtaken by vast strips of tarmac. Use of cycles means less buses and taxis, less private vehicles leaving motors for heavy goods and long distance (should we be forced to need a motor for long distances?) still a lot, but reducing it to what it needs to be. Well I could go on all day (are you still here!?) the whole point of this rant is that this needs to be a proper dialogue between everyone, the mayor just helping it along, making everything work and the ideas coming from the bottom up. That's what all this democracy business is about isn't it? But it seems to me that the thining behind our use of cars dosn't seem right to me.
The charge is being imposed by the current mayor, Ken Livingstone, who ran as an independant (he went to be the labour canditate, he lost/got rigged out depending on who you ask). Labour came 3rd. Since being voted in on a left wing ticket he has built a few bus lanes, put his picture *everywhere* (he has the top how many buttons undone on his shirt? Londoners back me up here) and put in the congestion charge. Big cities can't be counted on like the rest of the country.
THey sorted the graffiti ting out by putting graffiti proof paint on the cars so that it can just be wiped off. Now the little gits scratch their names into the windows with bottletops... lovely. I hope I havn't just given the game away to the rest of the world. I guess they don't read slashdot, maybe on a palmtop while in the park at night drinking frosty jacks cider.... naaah
This post was confusing for me "obviously the right decision for regular users" I'm not sure if that is meant in the real meaning of the word, people who use regularly or used to mean normal. I think it's the second. It's a little nitpickey, maybe I'm just confusing myself
Re:Not so bad
on
Advergames
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Fair enough... it looks like some people saw "advergames" in the article and leaped with either joy or anger and posted a comment before reading the article. But this is part of a wider issue. The example you use is quite a choice one... giving children games to get them to pester their parents around them. This is a pretty base form of advertising, you can construct virtually any image you like with a computer game, custom to the (in this case very vulnerable) audience you are targeting. Increasingly there is no escape from advertising. Adverts on taxis, on the back of motorcycle couriers, all over squares such as picadilly circus and time square, television, newspapers, graffitid on pavements and all over any blow up high street that I care to name. Brand image is everywhere. "You have your choice" they say, but so many people think they do not fall for advertising and brand image.. but millions (of whatever currency you care to name) are spent on these brand images. These organisations are not into spending money on something that dosn't work, they don't like risks. A brand image is thousands of hours of thought condensed into an advert, a game, a sign on the street. And wheres the contest if no resistance is put up by the general public anyway. These practices are not about "letting you know the product exists" it's about associating ideas, lifestyle, feelings and gut reaction to a product. To cut as much thought out of consumer behaviour as possible. I could talk about selling cigarettes in brown paper bages. But I will leave it there. Think before you buy.. resist
With all that's said about Open Source a philosophy, something that goes beyond pure making programs, I think that this post has missed the point a bit. Open Source comes from sharing knowledge and skills and is developed by a community, the community growing bigger and improving from its virtues. This is looking at open source cost in a very american style corporate manner. To buy support for open source in some circumstances may well cost more than getting support for a commercial product, I have no argument, I have no opinion on it... it's beside the point.
For open source to show its true value the company must to some extent embrace the spirit in which the software (at grass roots level at least) is created. Nurturing gifted people and allowing them the freedom to work with the software, in that environment with the right people open source methods are surely the most productive. I'm aware that there are problems with this, small companies with small budgets may have problems with this. Doing this may go against the corporate grain of most big companies, but that is the battle that we face. OSS has already changed the rules in some respect, it has bent market forces to get large companies to fund open source work, to open their code because this philosophy adds value to their product. Good IT people who have the resources and the ability should attempt to build this within their departments. Pressure for the use of open source, pressure by making a good product and showing results in the development of the staff and a change of corporate attitude. We can get rid of this sort of thinking... and it will be for the better.
Don't lose your way, confusion is a tool of hegemony.
Did I buy this license? Yes, with a laptop but I have bought it from toshiba. Toshiba supply support rather than MS (Reducing the cost) and that license has been sold to me. Does the fact that I bought it with a laptop for a discount make it less mine? No. It is still a license that I have paid for.. Besides, at what point does the laptop become another computer? If I replace all the bits one by one over time is it still the same computer, how about if I've replaced just a few bits (unlikely on a laptop, but the same would apply to the desktop machine).
I probably couldn't buy the hard drive or the CPU for the price that toshiba bought for it or the theoretical price I paid for it. But if I decide to take it out and sell it that is my right. A software license it a commodity like that hard drive, I have only one (I cannot make an illegal copy of a hard drive). Therefore a license is to do the same for software. It should not go beyond that.
I can answer the question for my toshiba laptop with the following from the XP home edition EULA:
"The SOFTWARE is licensed with the HARDWARE as a single integrated product and may only be used with the HARDWARE. If the SOFTWARE is not accompanied by new HARDWARE, you may not use the SOFTWARE. You may permanently transfer all of your rights under this EULA only as part of a permanent sale or transfer of the HARDWARE" But hang on... didn't I pay money (even through an OEM) for that license? Isn't that license then mine to transfer?..... If it isn't shouldn't it be?
Apart from not buying it, you can also write to the relevent authorities on this. In the UK the Director General of Fair Trading has a responsibility to act in response to "unfair terms" in contracts. And beyond that shouldn't govornment realise that although people do have a right to write software and sell it for money, and in this endevour should get the full protection of the law that the rights should be limited to copying (and a limitation of liability, but possibly a legally enshrined liability in some cases) and not stretching so far as to stop me using the software that has been licensed to be in certain ways. "You can have the leather jacket but you can only wear it on sundays, and only then if I say so... that'll be fifty quid".
--
You can write to the DGFT at:
Director General of Fair Trading
Office of Fair Trading
Fleetbank House
2-6 Sailsbury Square
London
EC4Y 8JX
I actually wrote a letter to my (UK)MP about the issue of the EULA. It's early days yet, the reply I got was that I'd be contacted again after he'd talked to the secretary of state for trade and industry (Patricia Hewitt I believe). For those that care, I've pasted the letter below. (Please, slate the content, not the grammer
"This e-mail regards the EULA, End User License Agreement. The legal documents that control the use of software. Since you may not be familiar with this subject please pardon a basic explanation of what a EULA should reasonably be. Software is a commercial product as is hardware, and a EULA should afford legal protection to the owner of copyright to make software similar in property to hardware. That is I cannot make a copy of my laptop without putting in effort, and therefore I should not reasonably be able to make a copy of a software product that I do not own. When sold a piece of commercial software I am sold the media containing the product any other physical goods that come with it (manuals, documentation etc.) and a license to use the software included on the media. That license is what I have been sold, it is then my property to do as I wish with. I was in that case distressed to find the following clause in the EULA for the OEM (software that comes with hardware) version of Microsoft's Windows XP Home edition: "Software as a Component of the Computer"... "You may permanently transfer all of your rights under this EULA only as part of a permanent sale or transfer of the HARDWARE" I cannot attach the full EULA in this e-mail as I cannot attach it in this form, I shall gladly send it to you at your request. It is crystal clear from this statement that Microsoft are selling me a product and then imposing conditions on what I do with it. It would clearly be unreasonable for me to be sold a television that exploded if I removed it from my house, or in a better context if I were to have a component of my computer which ceased to function if I removed it from my computer to sell to someone else. The EULA is not being used to protect Microsoft's reasonable rights, it is being used to violate those of the consumer. I propose that if this behaviour is legal, it should not be. Some action must be taken on this matter, Microsoft are attacking basic property rights (media mine, software theirs, license to use software mine). Specific law should be in place enshrining the right of both end users and the creators of commercial software. The law should define the terms on which software should be sold and what terms the manufacturer can and cannot place on the use of this product (reasonable things such as copying and limitation of liability). I would very much like to hear what action can be taken on this matter."
The example you use in particular raises interesting issues about the nature of patents. When big pharma tries to enforce patent laws on generic manufacturers in africa. Rendering life extending antiretroviral drugs unavailable to around 2.5 million in africa, the question is asked about what right they have to deny these people their treatment. It has to be acknowledged that huge amounts of money were put into the R&D of this drug, and that the pharmaceutical company should rightfully expect a return on that, but considering the proportion of R&D (and pure gratuitous profit) that these people cannot afford to pay, do the companies not have some sort of obligation to sell to this market at a price they can afford while still maintaining a profit margin over the pure production of these drugs. An inventor of a complex concept deserves protection, to allow him the time and space to carry his idea through to fruition. After this period it can be opened to competition. But in situations like this, where the patent has been clearly used well and the product well established (GlaxoSmithkline do not need the same protection as an inventor working out of his shed) should they be able to use it purely as a tool to drive pure profit out of poor people. Perhaps the problem is not the patent, companies deserve to profit from their research - especially expensive pharmaceutical research such as drug development. But the attitude of the company, these patents could be maintaines, they could make a higher amount of profit and still maintain a compassionate outlook and good PR to boot. This may be considered offtopic - but I think it provides good fodder nonetheless.
It may well take one weekend to get a million subscribers, but I for one certainly wouldn't want that business model. I currently pay £10-15 for a CD album, £30 for a (dance) vinyl album and £5 for a new vinyl single. Where does that money go? Well most of the music I buy is on minor, independant labels. Many of which are run by the artists themselves (genuinely not affiliated to EMI, Sony, Polydor etc.). Of that most goes on production, distribution, relatively little on advertising and a small portion back to the artist - most musicians certainly are not rich. The result of charging £25 or so to download music for a year would mean that if music is not on a major label many people will simply not download it. If the idea actually came to be a major method of distribution, it may even stop it entering a respectable position in the charts anyway. Another problem is how would you market this, the major labels could syndicate to offer one package, or they could compete (the less pleasant option) in which case they would have to fight it out for the best plethora of big name stars to offer the most attractive deal. The result of this would be less room for small artists There would also be even less reigonal variation than there is already, indy labels would die or have to cut themselves back(although probably not those that sell most of thier material on vinyl, an mp3 dosn't compete with a record for DJs)and pioneering indy labels therefore offering less innovative new artists to work into the mainstream (therefore a lower quality of mainstream music, more boy bands, girl bands... slipknot). Small labels and artists could offer free teasers, and you could say that global distribution via the internet allows a greater variety of music to be heard. But let's be honest, while it is true that I could (can) buy an mp3 from Brazil, how many people will even know where to buy this stuff, and why would they pay a premium for the higher production costs of smaller labels who cannot offer such cheap deals? As people get used to paying less for music (rather than taking bits then buying albums) then it genuinely will have a detrimental effect on music, resulting in homogenised, bland, global pop and one or two big super rich stars. It ain't good
"Move to the US"
What sort of attitude is that!! There is so much good stuff going on *outside* the US, it's going on everywhere. True enough, a lot of dance music dosn't make it out of its' own country, but please please please. Less of it
The great thing about dance music is that (here in the UK at least) at the grass roots it's about little people, little labels and little shops. That said there seem to be a few good communities online. www.breakbeat.co.uk www.drumandbasszone.co.uk www.junglist.com etc. etc. have some good stuff. www.tunes.co.uk is a really good specialist dance music vendor (and on an offtopic note, Dj Markys "lk" is a masterpiece - that tune needs to be broken in america, it's sad that a guy from Brazil gets heard in the UK before the US). The real way to do it though is to get into the community, get some decks and go down to your local record shop. If you start raving or something you'll find a community just as you have one here. Could I give you open source 101? Possibly, but it'd be more effective to meet the geeks! Get out there, get raving, get mixing - and it goes from there:) -- Jack and Jill
Slashdot Mirror
Forgotten how we got that freedom of speech and expression, have we?
I can put that more succinctly and ontopic actually, it's very simple. "Having more guns does not make you right", guns can be used to defend liberty, but should a more powerful person or group want to oppress you then one gun isn't going to do much good. Should you decide that the US govornment is iligitimate and that you will take it down, I doubt that any amount of guns, certainly any amount of guns that you can grab hold of would do you any good.
That is why gun ownership, and talking of guns as a defence of liberty is "right wing", because the rich will always have more guns than the poor (should they need them).
Forgotten how we got that freedom of speech and expression, have we?
... I suppose the slim hope that this may happen from the monolith of american corporate/political power is an enduring legacy of america throwing out the British. It'd be interesting to see what would happen if we tried to remove american military bases from UK soil I'm certain.
This is the most bunk point of the pro gun lobby. If a "democratic" power abuses its mandate sufficiently for a good proportion of the population to see fit to attempt to bring it down what chance would such a group of people have
It's also worth pointing out that the people most in need of a gun, those who are denied food and shelter, or ghettoised in inner cities due to greed and politics are those least likely to have one and the least likely to organise in such a manner should they become armed. They are more likely to shoot each other. Not, although as american dream, NRA zealots might claim because they are some kind of inferior species but because they see an enormous monolith pushing against them at every turn. If you mess with the rich men, or those who preotect the rich men the stake is high and your chances of achieving any kind of satisfaction from it extremenly low. It therefore makes sense to play the lower stake, lower reward game of stealking from your own (pushed into conflict with the very people with whom you should be uniting). What chance do the people of the third world really stand unarmed against "free trade" biased in favour of the rich? If we live in a society that purports to be a democracy then the best hopes of changing these things should be democratic. Even if the chances seem slim it may be the only alley we have left.
Back to the topic though, freedom of speech is of course important. Such censorship should not be put apon adults in general. If you believe in a point of view, if you are actually getting political then you should have the faith in your argument to allow all opinions to be heard. A work connection on the other hand, which is censored, well what work purpose did you have looking up the NRA anyway? You can still go look at it on your non censored internet connection, you can still go to the library, and you can still read newspapers (general skewing of the press by powerful people is much more dangerous to liberty than more obvious, outright censorship).
If this type of censorship becomes widespread (and therefore difficult to avoid), which is really really not the case in the western world then there are more important things to get your knickers in a twist over.
It's not a matter of ludditism. ... especially within cities as it has a big impact on quality of life, especially for the poorest. and that 2) Where we do need cars we should put resources into finding new, better ways of fuelling them.
What I was actually arguing for was progress. I said that 1) we should change the way we use the car
You know, progress!
I think this is a huge step in the right direction ... I could talk about health (how many people stumble into car from home, out of car into office, into lift, into chair). I could talk about the segregation and unpleasant territorial attitudes that the car can bring. I could talk about the way that roads divide areas and slice inner city areas to peices. ... why can't we put investment in again now? While we're at it we may as well find a better way of doing things.
Is it now!? There are lots of good reasons not to cut down on motor vehicles other than the fact that oil might one day run out, especially in urban areas.
Mixing high speed traffic with pedestrian traffic, especially high volume pedestrian traffic has always seemed crazy to me. The way that we just accept road deaths as part of life, and the fact that UK law deems death by dangerous driving to be a seperate crime to manslaughter extends this attitude wherein people do not take full responsibility for the way that they drive their cars and the consequences thereof.
Antisocial/toxic pollutants are an obvious (although diminishng) point. Diesel engines in particular chuck out some really unpleasant stuff whenever I'm behind them, I don't know what it is but maybe someone can tell me what is in that black soot that they chuck out to a lesser or greater extent whenever they start. Of course emissions are getting better, but poorer people who are forced to drive a car in a society where it's nessecary are going to driver older, crappier cars with nastier emissions. A recent advert by Transport for London (londons transport body, responsible for tube, bus, street management and transport integration amongst other things) quoted the figure that 1 in 5 cars would fail an EU emissions test and quoted some 5 digit number of deaths caused by them.
Damage to buildings. Burning hydrocarbons is always going to contribute to acid rain, many statues in rome are melting away. Whenever I go down the eastern avenue I wonder how white all the grey houses once were.
I could go on
The point is that 200 years ago our cities were not built for the motor car. And now many (most?) cities, especially those in north america put tha car first. We need to find alternatives to HGVs running about through the centre of town. We need good metropolitan transit systems, with public subsidy (to a redistributive end poorer people effectively pay less, and are not forced to drive old vehicles which pollute and stigmatise). I think the use of roads for long distance traffic is more acceptable mind, long distance road traffic is segregated from pedestrian traffic, safer for the occupants of the vehicle and will always be cheaper than long distance, low volume rail or other means of transit. The coach seems pretty cheap if you need. What this dosn't mean is that we can keep going about burning bloody hydrocarbons all the time. At some point we're going to be forced to find some other way of doing it (aren't we), countries all had a point where they built up a lot of their infrastructure
I've had enough of adverts, I really don't like this idea. Putting it on money!? On the side of nationally important monuments. I'm not sure what it does to the value of a nation, imagine big ben with a big "Coca Cola" printed on it. .. no! Money is integral to my life, money should be something that I earned, that belongs to me. If it has some brand all over it, it is now a way of putting an advert in my pocket .. and I have no choice over it (how easy is it to opt out of the cash economy?).
I've cried this before on slashdot, I need some space! Is there none left? Even to ignore an advert takes some processing by your brain. Should I have to be constantly alert for it. I thought the advantage of separating from the "state of nature" was so that I didn't have to be alert all the time. If I know there will be adverts in a magazine that is one thing. But public space
Please, stop!
I'm in one of the groups mentioned in this article as prime for robotic replacement. Reading it I couldn't help wondering what effect it might have on me. I'm a cycle messenger in london town.
Thinking about it, I suppose not robotic, but computer replacement threatens me most. We're protected by the archaic laws in this country that means that a great deal of legal work, things requiring signatures etc. cannot be done digitally where they may elsewhere in the world. Can't see that lasting forever though. There's also a lot of digital betamax, photo prints etc. media type stuff that needs to be carried that in the forseeable future 99% will be carried digitally. This leaves me with physical goods, a parcel where the good in its physical form (not some kind of data or legal acknowledgement, the amount of cheques I carry is actually shocking) is of value. Clothes for fashion mags, other parcels, swanky city types leaving their wallets in brick lane curry houses. This cuts down the workforce by 90% I suppose if I think of it, but what it does leave is the most skilled 10% to take up the work. I can't see a machine doing my job as far as actually riding about town goes, understanding a map on paper is one thing, riding on a road in real life with mixed traffic, pedestrians etc. is another. I also imagine most city roads to be like londons, that is pretty freeform and quite dangerous not to mention Londons notably insane geography. Maybe a sort of elite hardcore, maybe with an insular culture could be a factor of this new society. A relatively small computer clique who keep technology running globally, a small amount of skilled bikers to navigate the high density city areas (long distance transit seems more liable to automation with vehichle only motorways) and soforth. Small widley distributed groups of people with specific skills may become the way in this new society.
What this means I don't know, maybe you lot have something good to say about it.
I don't *want* to use it ... but I do!
Why? Coz a lot of people I wish to speak to use it and no other network. How did this come about? They found a client on their windows XP box, or it appeared on their computer when they installed the latest internet explorer or something. If you ask them to install some other IM protocol it's either too scary, too much bother or they don't want to run more than one and all their mates already use MSN (intertia). It's at least going to be a temporary pain in the backside for me, it's another monopoly abuse, just as IE was.
It's not that hard is it?
The BBC has measures to stop people recieving its brodcasts in other countries to avoid royalty issues. If belgians can watch the FA Cup final when belgium may have a pay per view situation then the BBC are in trouble. I imagine its a similar kind of idea for the teletext.
Let me explain this a little.
.... maybe I mean corporate american culture and media) means that everyone in the world not in the US has knowledge of at least two cultures, that of US corporatism and their own, and when one is seen to be overpowering the other it leads to conflict. The american stereotype as ignorant and insular is in no small part influenced by the fact that by and large most americans only see one culture, their own.
It is not the US standard of living alone which attracts terrorism, it is what it does to sustain that quality of life. The US cares about civil liberties (at least nominally) within its own shores, but those from other countries are not afforded the same rights (wasn't someone shipped to an american court rather than camp X-Ray due to their being a US citizen, the non americans were illegally imprisoned with the rest of them). It effects politics all over the world for good and bad.
It's size and cultural power has another interesting implication. The pervasiveness of american culture and media (cinema, McDonalds, nike trainers
Americans with an interest in the civil liberties of all people, not just those americans with the power and money to defend their own (and to take those of others), many of whom I'm sure read slashdot should fight terrorism in their own way. By making America the state it was founded to be, by scrutinising businessmen, politicians (and anyone else in a position of power and influence) by using the power of their wallet, their vote and whatever else it takes to make america a state and a symbol that is not viewed by the rest of the world with contempt. It's not about what they cannot do, but what they see America (as a symbol for the global economic system?) doing to them.
A perception of america as a greedy, self interested, intefering, imperialist power is what attracts terrorism. To fight terrorism america should look within.
Talking about this congestion charge, I'd love to see it work. I'm a cycle courier in london, congestion shortens my lifespan, fumes, limited visibility, kamikaze pedestrians walking through stationary traffic traffic in which I am moving and even worse motorbikes (although motorbikes make more noise). There's a point, all two wheelers are exempted from the charge. fair enough they don't cause congestion, but what about accidents (some people think that in central london you can wander around roads as if they are not there .. I never understood this ... "the tourist effect"?)?
Whatsmore who is on the roads when the charge will apply, which is basically during working hours? It's people who (like me) have to be on the roads, it's their job, couriers, taxi drivers, hauliers and those suited types going about their business. Now I'd love to see the suited types and everyone else decide to cycle more, or walk more or think of different ways of getting about, or change your business so you can get about less. Past a point organically grown, unplanned cities like london start to grind to a halt if everyone needs to get about anyway. To get across the north or south of the city, I either have to have an incredibly detailed knowledge of the city (london taxi drivers have to study for 5 years and learn 10s of thousands of streets to get their licence, in NY I think it takes 2 days) and go through residential streets, or follow the main "A" roads in then out again, or if you're lucky maybe you can use one of the tacked on, jam packed ring roads.
Thinking about it (this is coming straight from brain to keyboard) cycling really could be the answer. The increase in capacity would be incredible, especially with the use of green space and cycle only paths to get from place to place. up to a point cyclists on the roads will use excess capacity between cars at no extra cost, but if too many people did that then we'd be in car and cycle gridlock, an absolute nightmare. The problem with getting people to use bikes is that they do not consider 10 miles to be a reasonable distance to cycle, most people really are pretty sedentary. One of the first things I noticed when I started cycling regularly with this job was the improvement in my fitness, when I stopped excercising my heart rate noticably slowed down very quickly. I thought to myself, this is how the human body *should* be working, most people can barely run to catch the bus. This whole car philosophy is silly, driving kids to school, driving to work driving to the corner shop. Where do you walk? Our cities are already overtaken by vast strips of tarmac. Use of cycles means less buses and taxis, less private vehicles leaving motors for heavy goods and long distance (should we be forced to need a motor for long distances?) still a lot, but reducing it to what it needs to be.
Well I could go on all day (are you still here!?) the whole point of this rant is that this needs to be a proper dialogue between everyone, the mayor just helping it along, making everything work and the ideas coming from the bottom up. That's what all this democracy business is about isn't it? But it seems to me that the thining behind our use of cars dosn't seem right to me.
The charge is being imposed by the current mayor, Ken Livingstone, who ran as an independant (he went to be the labour canditate, he lost/got rigged out depending on who you ask). Labour came 3rd. Since being voted in on a left wing ticket he has built a few bus lanes, put his picture *everywhere* (he has the top how many buttons undone on his shirt? Londoners back me up here) and put in the congestion charge. Big cities can't be counted on like the rest of the country.
THey sorted the graffiti ting out by putting graffiti proof paint on the cars so that it can just be wiped off. Now the little gits scratch their names into the windows with bottletops ... lovely. .... naaah
I hope I havn't just given the game away to the rest of the world.
I guess they don't read slashdot, maybe on a palmtop while in the park at night drinking frosty jacks cider
This post was confusing for me "obviously the right decision for regular users" I'm not sure if that is meant in the real meaning of the word, people who use regularly or used to mean normal. I think it's the second. It's a little nitpickey, maybe I'm just confusing myself
Fair enough ... it looks like some people saw "advergames" in the article and leaped with either joy or anger and posted a comment before reading the article. But this is part of a wider issue. The example you use is quite a choice one ... giving children games to get them to pester their parents around them. This is a pretty base form of advertising, you can construct virtually any image you like with a computer game, custom to the (in this case very vulnerable) audience you are targeting. .. but millions (of whatever currency you care to name) are spent on these brand images. These organisations are not into spending money on something that dosn't work, they don't like risks. A brand image is thousands of hours of thought condensed into an advert, a game, a sign on the street. And wheres the contest if no resistance is put up by the general public anyway. .. resist
Increasingly there is no escape from advertising. Adverts on taxis, on the back of motorcycle couriers, all over squares such as picadilly circus and time square, television, newspapers, graffitid on pavements and all over any blow up high street that I care to name. Brand image is everywhere. "You have your choice" they say, but so many people think they do not fall for advertising and brand image
These practices are not about "letting you know the product exists" it's about associating ideas, lifestyle, feelings and gut reaction to a product. To cut as much thought out of consumer behaviour as possible.
I could talk about selling cigarettes in brown paper bages. But I will leave it there. Think before you buy
Yes, and a clock that is 5 minutes fast is never right. Which would you rather have?
Indeed, this bug means that it's impossible to moderate using win 9x and IE. (Let's see the smart arse replies to that one)
With all that's said about Open Source a philosophy, something that goes beyond pure making programs, I think that this post has missed the point a bit. Open Source comes from sharing knowledge and skills and is developed by a community, the community growing bigger and improving from its virtues. This is looking at open source cost in a very american style corporate manner. To buy support for open source in some circumstances may well cost more than getting support for a commercial product, I have no argument, I have no opinion on it ... it's beside the point.
... and it will be for the better.
For open source to show its true value the company must to some extent embrace the spirit in which the software (at grass roots level at least) is created. Nurturing gifted people and allowing them the freedom to work with the software, in that environment with the right people open source methods are surely the most productive. I'm aware that there are problems with this, small companies with small budgets may have problems with this. Doing this may go against the corporate grain of most big companies, but that is the battle that we face. OSS has already changed the rules in some respect, it has bent market forces to get large companies to fund open source work, to open their code because this philosophy adds value to their product.
Good IT people who have the resources and the ability should attempt to build this within their departments. Pressure for the use of open source, pressure by making a good product and showing results in the development of the staff and a change of corporate attitude. We can get rid of this sort of thinking
Don't lose your way, confusion is a tool of hegemony.
Did I buy this license? Yes, with a laptop but I have bought it from toshiba. Toshiba supply support rather than MS (Reducing the cost) and that license has been sold to me. Does the fact that I bought it with a laptop for a discount make it less mine? No. It is still a license that I have paid for .. Besides, at what point does the laptop become another computer? If I replace all the bits one by one over time is it still the same computer, how about if I've replaced just a few bits (unlikely on a laptop, but the same would apply to the desktop machine).
I probably couldn't buy the hard drive or the CPU for the price that toshiba bought for it or the theoretical price I paid for it. But if I decide to take it out and sell it that is my right. A software license it a commodity like that hard drive, I have only one (I cannot make an illegal copy of a hard drive). Therefore a license is to do the same for software. It should not go beyond that.
I can answer the question for my toshiba laptop with the following from the XP home edition EULA: "The SOFTWARE is licensed with the HARDWARE as a single integrated product and may only be used with the HARDWARE. If the SOFTWARE is not accompanied by new HARDWARE, you may not use the SOFTWARE. You may permanently transfer all of your rights under this EULA only as part of a permanent sale or transfer of the HARDWARE" But hang on ... didn't I pay money (even through an OEM) for that license? Isn't that license then mine to transfer? ..... If it isn't shouldn't it be? ... that'll be fifty quid".
Apart from not buying it, you can also write to the relevent authorities on this. In the UK the Director General of Fair Trading has a responsibility to act in response to "unfair terms" in contracts. And beyond that shouldn't govornment realise that although people do have a right to write software and sell it for money, and in this endevour should get the full protection of the law that the rights should be limited to copying (and a limitation of liability, but possibly a legally enshrined liability in some cases) and not stretching so far as to stop me using the software that has been licensed to be in certain ways. "You can have the leather jacket but you can only wear it on sundays, and only then if I say so
--
You can write to the DGFT at:
Director General of Fair Trading
Office of Fair Trading
Fleetbank House
2-6 Sailsbury Square
London
EC4Y 8JX
Your MP can be found with the constituency locata
Is www.number10.gov.uk I will say no more. The most blatant bit of political cheerleading I've ever seen.
I actually wrote a letter to my (UK)MP about the issue of the EULA. It's early days yet, the reply I got was that I'd be contacted again after he'd talked to the secretary of state for trade and industry (Patricia Hewitt I believe). For those that care, I've pasted the letter below. (Please, slate the content, not the grammer
... "You may permanently transfer all of your rights under this EULA only as part of a permanent sale or transfer of the HARDWARE"
"This e-mail regards the EULA, End User License Agreement. The legal documents that control the use of software. Since you may not be familiar with this subject please pardon a basic explanation of what a EULA should reasonably be.
Software is a commercial product as is hardware, and a EULA should afford legal protection to the owner of copyright to make software similar in property to hardware. That is I cannot make a copy of my laptop without putting in effort, and therefore I should not reasonably be able to make a copy of a software product that I do not own. When sold a piece of commercial software I am sold the media containing the product any other physical goods that come with it (manuals, documentation etc.) and a license to use the software included on the media. That license is what I have been sold, it is then my property to do as I wish with. I was in that case distressed to find the following clause in the EULA for the OEM (software that comes with hardware) version of Microsoft's Windows XP Home edition:
"Software as a Component of the Computer"
I cannot attach the full EULA in this e-mail as I cannot attach it in this form, I shall gladly send it to you at your request.
It is crystal clear from this statement that Microsoft are selling me a product and then imposing conditions on what I do with it. It would clearly be unreasonable for me to be sold a television that exploded if I removed it from my house, or in a better context if I were to have a component of my computer which ceased to function if I removed it from my computer to sell to someone else. The EULA is not being used to protect Microsoft's reasonable rights, it is being used to violate those of the consumer. I propose that if this behaviour is legal, it should not be.
Some action must be taken on this matter, Microsoft are attacking basic property rights (media mine, software theirs, license to use software mine). Specific law should be in place enshrining the right of both end users and the creators of commercial software. The law should define the terms on which software should be sold and what terms the manufacturer can and cannot place on the use of this product (reasonable things such as copying and limitation of liability).
I would very much like to hear what action can be taken on this matter."
The example you use in particular raises interesting issues about the nature of patents. When big pharma tries to enforce patent laws on generic manufacturers in africa. Rendering life extending antiretroviral drugs unavailable to around 2.5 million in africa, the question is asked about what right they have to deny these people their treatment.
It has to be acknowledged that huge amounts of money were put into the R&D of this drug, and that the pharmaceutical company should rightfully expect a return on that, but considering the proportion of R&D (and pure gratuitous profit) that these people cannot afford to pay, do the companies not have some sort of obligation to sell to this market at a price they can afford while still maintaining a profit margin over the pure production of these drugs.
An inventor of a complex concept deserves protection, to allow him the time and space to carry his idea through to fruition. After this period it can be opened to competition. But in situations like this, where the patent has been clearly used well and the product well established (GlaxoSmithkline do not need the same protection as an inventor working out of his shed) should they be able to use it purely as a tool to drive pure profit out of poor people. Perhaps the problem is not the patent, companies deserve to profit from their research - especially expensive pharmaceutical research such as drug development. But the attitude of the company, these patents could be maintaines, they could make a higher amount of profit and still maintain a compassionate outlook and good PR to boot.
This may be considered offtopic - but I think it provides good fodder nonetheless.
It may well take one weekend to get a million subscribers, but I for one certainly wouldn't want that business model. I currently pay £10-15 for a CD album, £30 for a (dance) vinyl album and £5 for a new vinyl single.
Where does that money go? Well most of the music I buy is on minor, independant labels. Many of which are run by the artists themselves (genuinely not affiliated to EMI, Sony, Polydor etc.). Of that most goes on production, distribution, relatively little on advertising and a small portion back to the artist - most musicians certainly are not rich. The result of charging £25 or so to download music for a year would mean that if music is not on a major label many people will simply not download it. If the idea actually came to be a major method of distribution, it may even stop it entering a respectable position in the charts anyway. Another problem is how would you market this, the major labels could syndicate to offer one package, or they could compete (the less pleasant option) in which case they would have to fight it out for the best plethora of big name stars to offer the most attractive deal. The result of this would be less room for small artists
There would also be even less reigonal variation than there is already, indy labels would die or have to cut themselves back(although probably not those that sell most of thier material on vinyl, an mp3 dosn't compete with a record for DJs)and pioneering indy labels therefore offering less innovative new artists to work into the mainstream (therefore a lower quality of mainstream music, more boy bands, girl bands... slipknot).
Small labels and artists could offer free teasers, and you could say that global distribution via the internet allows a greater variety of music to be heard. But let's be honest, while it is true that I could (can) buy an mp3 from Brazil, how many people will even know where to buy this stuff, and why would they pay a premium for the higher production costs of smaller labels who cannot offer such cheap deals? As people get used to paying less for music (rather than taking bits then buying albums) then it genuinely will have a detrimental effect on music, resulting in homogenised, bland, global pop and one or two big super rich stars.
It ain't good
"Move to the US" What sort of attitude is that!! There is so much good stuff going on *outside* the US, it's going on everywhere. True enough, a lot of dance music dosn't make it out of its' own country, but please please please. Less of it
The great thing about dance music is that (here in the UK at least) at the grass roots it's about little people, little labels and little shops. That said there seem to be a few good communities online. www.breakbeat.co.uk www.drumandbasszone.co.uk www.junglist.com etc. etc. have some good stuff. www.tunes.co.uk is a really good specialist dance music vendor (and on an offtopic note, Dj Markys "lk" is a masterpiece - that tune needs to be broken in america, it's sad that a guy from Brazil gets heard in the UK before the US). :)
The real way to do it though is to get into the community, get some decks and go down to your local record shop. If you start raving or something you'll find a community just as you have one here. Could I give you open source 101? Possibly, but it'd be more effective to meet the geeks! Get out there, get raving, get mixing - and it goes from there
--
Jack and Jill