Despite this minor setback, hopefully Indianapolis will be able in the future to regulate what games children may play. The world of the child is stuffed with a plethora of unhealthy, evil entertainments that need to be purged so that we may produce moral, upright children ready to perform God's will.
Take for example the realm of board games, those mental cannibals of cardboard that swallow our children's time. There's Monopoly, teaching children to ruthlessly crush the dreams of prosperity possessed by others. And what of Battleship? Have we learned nothing from Pearl Harbor? Do we really need a generation of children trained in the dive-bombing arts? I can't even begin to approach Candyland, that pernicious purveyor of tooth-rottening sweets to our youngest and most pure.
Vigilance must also be a priority on the playground. For far too long have our most defenseless been savaged in the hour-long assualt & battery of a dodgeball tournament. Today the ball, tomorrow the bombs. Heed my words. And "tag", that cruelest of isolationist evils masquerading as a recess diversion. Stop the madness now, lest your child be the next to become IT.
"the question i would ask you, Dyas, is what are you going to do about it?"
The same things I'm doing now -- donating to & remaining active in organizations that support my civil rights online (EFF, ACLU), writing my congresspeople, informing my friends and family about their rights both online and in the real world (some in my extended family thought copying their own CDs to MP3 was illegal because of the hype they'd heard in the news!), encouraging those who agree with me to do the same.
This is a civil democracy you know, so I'm not about to pick up a gun or anything if that's what you mean. If the same actions above performed at large by many people isn't enough to change things for the better, then we've lost already.
Looking from the outside in on the legal community's response or lack thereof to the constitutionality and legal basis of recent court rulings (Napster, Eric Corley), the DMCA/SSCA, etc, I see very few lawyers taking a stand against this -- there's mostly a massive shrug. There's the ACLU, the EFF of which you're a part, and Jessica Litman, and that's all I see trying to do something about the co-opting of copyright and patent lawmaking by corporations through appeals based on the interest of business, lobbyists' dealmaking, and outright graft. By and large however there seems to be little interest even amongst lawyers and congressmen about the arcana of copyright and patent law, and thus it's left to such companies and libraries because they're the only ones who both have power and care about it. Has trying to fight this caused conflict in your professional work? Is it lonely being a "vox clamantis in deserto"? What's your game plan for beating these guys back, or do you have one? There's a certain sadness and resignation in both your and Litman's writing that's very disencouraging that would lead me to think that even our flag-bearers feel there's little hope at this point.
It's sad how blase we are about our kids watching people get shot, hacked up, beaten & abused on various TV programs, yet let two naked people make love on a television and OH MY GOD WHAT WILL THE CHILDREN THINK!
It's just like everyone shitting themselves over a handful of anthrax deaths when thousands die in their cars on the way to work each morning. Like much else a matter of misplaced priorities and media-hyped threats to our society.
I think the 2nd circuit was right in this case. Felten has already publicized the information in question in the suit without consequence, so there is no longer an explicit prohibition against him. Thus, it was only proper that it be dismissed.
You see, when you go to court you can NOT argue for some larger philosophical point of law. You need to argue your position on the merits of your specific case, and in Felten's case the information had already been made public. He'd already presented it. RIAA had already publicly backed down and thus he's under no threat not to publish.
Here's an analogous situation to this using current events. There are about 600 people being held incommunicado by our gov't with regard to terrorism investigations. If Amnesty Int'l wished to sue for their release their case would be rejected for the same reason -- they're not an affected party because nobody they represent was held. They would have to represent someone who is to sue the gov't.
What's going to happen now (as I put on my Karnak hat) is that Felten/EFF are going to send a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court and the Supremes are going to reject it for the exact same reason. You need to either be experiencing or be under direct threat of experiencing an adverse consequence. You can't just sue because the DMCA is a bad law (which we all know it to be). You have to be suffering under an effect of that law while prosecuting your case in order to be able to prosecute.
Re:Another day...
on
God's Debris
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
science freely admits that it doesn't know what caused the big bang explosion and probably never will.
Not knowing is no reason to pick up the closest fairy tale at hand and go parading it around. If the choice is between the confortable security of myth or an uneasy yet honest lack of knowledge give me that latter.
Gandhi & Jesus
on
God's Debris
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Gandhi never said the Christian bible was any sort of manual for how to live. He did, however, esteem Jesus over any other historical/mythical/whatever person. I quote:
A man who was completely innocent, offered himself as a sacrifice for the good of others, including his enemies, and became the ransom of the world. It was a perfect act.
He saw the passion of Jesus as the ultimate act, and considered it the moment at which Jesus truly became human in sacrifice to God.
Re:What if ...
on
God's Debris
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
What if science were a crutch for the weak-minded?
And what if the world sat spinning on a stack of turtles? It's a cute theory, but you'd have to prove it. And there's the difference between faith and science. There's a large amount of evidence supporting quantum mechanics and little supporting the existence of God. Science isn't a crutch for anything. It's just a formal method for finding out how the world works. You hold yourself to strict rules of evidence, and bit by bit, fact by fact, crawl toward a greater understanding of physical phenomena. You make alot of mistakes along the way. You interpret things incorrectly, make false assumptions, etc. But by jerks & starts you make progress and we learn more.
To paraphrase from Richard Feynman re: quantum electrodynamics: "It probably doesn't make sense to you, but that's not important. It doesn't have to make sense, because regardless of our reason and logic that is how it is."
Re:A crutch for the weak-minded?
on
God's Debris
·
· Score: 2
And Thomas Jefferson didn't by any means "believe in God" in the conventional sense. He was a Deist, a believer in the idea that some god created the universe in toto, then abandoned it, and has no influence, no power, and no care for its affairs. It's a feeling more closely related to Aristotle's philosophy of the unmoved mover than anything from the Bible.
Gates also took some credit for the genesis of open-source software. He said Microsoft made it possible by standardizing
computers: "Really, the reason you see open source there at all is because we came in and said there should be a platform that's
identical with millions and millions of machines," he said.
Well Bill, you're right. You are the reason for open-source software. Just not for the reasons you think you are.
The process is now in the hands of the Judiciary, with a Judge determining the process. She's got an early Nov. deadline for mediation. I know MS wants to run out the clock, but I don't think the gov't can stand to look like it got the smelly end of the stick on this thing. The gov't know's MS is guilty as hell and the American people are starting to wake up to the fact that MS doesn't have their interests at heart, so it IS possible, IMO.
In reading about the latest stupid move MS has taken to try & turn the the internet into their own proprietary.NET I find myself hoping that the new judge is watching. OK, sure, breaking up the company doesn't look feasible any longer, though it would have been nice to separate their OS from their Office Productivity from their.NET/MSN ventures. Not gonna happen though. SO, what structural remedies can be taken?
I think our best chance lies in a judically mandated opening of all IE &.NET software & protocols to allow anyone & everyone to use it. This directly prevents an MS takeover of the net, let's them keep their precious OS monopoly, and adequately punishes them for the underhanded methods used to gain browser superiority in the first place. It also makes sure that this major piece of software most people use to surf the net is out in the open, without any hidden dirty little secrets.
It'd be nice to make them open up the OS too, but it won't happen. Outside of/. too many people like Windows & are mystified by Linux to want it in anyone else's hands. Maybe we could try for opening up the MFCs, a long time wish of WinX programmers everywhere, which would go a long way toward making all programs better. For any lasting remedy though, something has to be done to thwart the development of proprietary internet protocols. Each individual has a part to play too. Do NOT use Passport / Hotmail. Do NOT patronize any.NET-using service. I now run XP, and despite the hype, it's completely possible to use this OS without involving yourself in any of that crap. Long term, write your congresspeople to demand laws mandating all internet communications protocols be open and available for even the individual user to make use of.
The perception of some silly "war" is in itself part of the problem.
I like Torvalds' take on it. Just work on what you're working on -- make it better because then it'll be more useful to YOU, or your friends. They say in business that one of the surest ways to fail is to be always watching the competition. It turns you into a follower. A true leader, be it a CEO or an OS, works on making the best product possible. Though he's cognizant of the competition's moves, he doesn't make them his preoccupation, because then he'd be thinking about what THEY'RE doing, not what HE'S doing.
I'm sure some others have thought of this, but I want to see if/.ers in general might agree with this theory.
Before the open, take all comers internet rose from the DARPA labs to worldwide prominence, all previous efforts at such a wide-spanning network were controlled, pay at the gate affairs that had always planned to remain strictly private. We all remember the early days of AOL, Compuserve, Prodigy, MSN, etc. The idea of a free, open network that anyone can get on & use at relatively low cost is anathema to companies like AOL is and MS wants to be, whose bread & butter consists of (or is seen to be consisting of in the future) running networks. As long as the internet remains an open system where anyone can get on & protocols are laid out for all to see, it's going to be a threat to their business. What's needed above all in their eyes is some sort of control of the exchange of information, of how business is conducted, and how money changes hands so they can create and maintain an ongoing revenue stream, making this free network profitable for them since their owned networks & software are fast meeting obsolesence. They wish to be the Visa / MC of the net, only more. They want to interject themselves as a middleman between consumer & retailer and between friends & strangers, between you and information itself, collecting micro or perhaps not so micro payments along the way. In this light, AOL & MS aren't evil as much as they're both cut-throat competitors fighting over which of them is going to eat our lunch.
The problem is, of course, that it's OUR lunch! The internet isn't an MS or AOL invention, it's OUR invention as much, if not more, than it is theirs. Our government funded companies and academics to invent this beautiful thing, and they're looking hard for a way to use software to make it their own.
How can we stop this? I'm not sure.
Perhaps we should seek laws mandating all standards & protocols for internet communication be open, so that no company may control the exchange of information. I'm not sure. But no company should have even partial control of how anyone else uses the internet.
I will NEVER be forced to carry proof of my citizenship or identity to live in this country.
Jail me? Sure. Fine me? OK. Torture me? Ouch. They can have my freedom, but not my acquiescence. I would never acceed to this, and I don't feel any self-respecting freedom-loving American should either.
I'm terribly dissappointed these so-called forward thinkers think so little of our personal liberty. It's really very sad.
Microsoft will release Windows XP on time, with all of the features it alone intends to incorporate. There will be some slight cosmetic changes meant to give the misleading impression that the Bush Justice Dep't was able to reach some sort of deal with Gates et.al. It will be an almost bald-faced lie that nobody in the non-slashdot world will give a second thought to.
In truth, XP will be within approximation exactly what Microsoft intended it to be, its crowbar to begin leveraging their control of the individual PC desktop into dominance of the internet's protocols themselves and thus the server market. Microsoft will attempt to become the IBM of the 21st century, with all of the attendant lethargy, intransigence, and dictatorial control of what may and may not be done with the equipment that old dinosaur used to have. This'll be explained as the best of all possible outcomes for the consumer because it introduces "consistent standards for the protection of intellectual property and the security of personal data."
----------
Their ploy, most likely, will work. You see, I really think that there's not enough appreciation on Slashdot for the crushing masses of people who never, ever think about free software, open standards, or whether or not there are whatever sorts of privacy or antitrust issues involved with XP. They just want to use their computers to do stuff, and if XP makes it easier for them to do things online, work with video, etc, then they will use it even if installing it's a pain in the ass. And it looks all neat and new, too. For them, Linux is geek stuff. They know that Windows is "the only real OS". They've been using Windows and are quite comfortable with it, warts and all. All their friends use it. They don't want to mess with their computers all the time or have to find out what free program is available to do X, Y, or Z. They're just not at all curious about it as we are.
And MS, with a crack marketing dep't, knows all of this and more about their consumers. Linux can't even make a decent distro for idiots yet, nevermind that relatively prodigious learning curve. Linux has its market, sure, but so far it's not even on the same map as Windows & MS's efforts, and I speak as a complete advocate of open OSes. We MUST be honest with ourselves about the extent of permeation Windows enjoys and not fool ourselves with fantasies about how a government that only reflects the aforementioned popular disinterest is gigon to do anything real, anything solid, to stop the big bad company from making & selling its product.
Nobody's ever going to pay $1.00 to "rent" And Then There Were None for 10 hours when they can either get a paperback copy at a garage sale for the same price or less, pay maybe $3.00 max for a copy at a used book store, or get a new paper/hardcover copy for $4.50/$7.00. Any of the above options gets you the book FOREVER.
I'm an avid reader and my friends are avid readers. First of all, we like paper. It feels good. It's easier on the eyes than any screen. No tech-gadget I've yet seen improves on paper for readability. I love the rows of books in my dining room, and enjoy poring through old favorites at all hours. Sitting in front of a computer screen or with some sort of machine in my hand just isn't the same thing. I don't think I could ever hip myself to that kind of change.
Second, the idea of first paying $200-$300 for a gadget to read books I don't even get to keep and go back to at will? Pshaw. Never. I don't care how techie it is, I'm not going to move to some new format that's both going to cost me more money AND deprive me of rights I'm already enjoying.
On a semi-related note, it simply cracks me up that companies like Adobe & Rosetta think that they effectively encrypt data and nobody'll be able to unencrypt it. If we can read it, watch it, or listen to it, we can unencrypt it. Simple enough.
Invariably, what you drink out of the container cost less to produce than the container itself. Essentially, when you buy a coke you're paying more for the can than the liquid inside it.
Salon's Eric Boehlert has been doing what I consider some of the best coverage out there on radio industry, the Big 5 and RIAA (which all know are synonymous).
Little remains new in the music entertainment industry, a marketplace rife with corruption, kickbacks, and graft. There's payola, which despite the drive against it in the 80's is alive and well through 3rd-party middlemen. There's Clear Channel Communications, a bully of a nationwide radio & concert venue operator only beginning to flex its monopolistic muscles thanks to the utterly moronic Telecommunications Act of 1998, and lastly there's RIAA, an organization whose entire control is under the aegis of 5 multinational companies and is used to crush competition and stifle innovation through lawsuits and lobbying efforts.
I almost feel sorry for Marilyn Hall Patel, the judge overseeing the Napster suit. When the Big 5's online divisions premiere she's going to realize that she was just the chloroform the members of RIAA used to take out their first-mover competition. The members of RIAA were smart. They knew that as long as there remained a hope that they could crush the upstart music distributor, they could save the day & split the pie amongst themselves. Call it just doing the best they can to keep each other in business.
It's all a grand circle of control and money, and has been thus since the 50's. Recording companies, either under the table or through middlemen, pay off DJs to play what they want us to hear. This ups their ratings on the Billboard charts, which garners them more sales to retailers. Then there's the coercion by the radio station's corporate owners, like Clear Channel, who also owns many concert venues. They tell artists & record companies to book their venues and give the stations freebies, else they'll stop playing their music. Clear Channel's then able to use this favorable treatment by record companies to push other stations out of the market and increase its own domination of the industry. It's a closed system, with everyone owning their little feifdom, and nothing getting played or popular unless a multinational corporation is willing to make it so. Just ask yourself - whois the last artist you know of that hit the big time with NO assistance from a major label? This fact alone tells you that you are to this day largely listening to what you're minders want you to listen to.
Should it be like this? Well, of course not. But is the government ever going to succeed in making this bunch of crooks in armani suits play it straight with one another? Pshaw. Good luck. Only one option remains. Stop buying music that these companies produce. Or make a dozen copies of a popular CD and engage in some (perfectly legal) fair use with your friends. But don't think for a second the gov't will help. RIAA just cut a $10,000 check for your senator's PAC last week. What the hell have you ever done for them?
I personally feel you can take your pick of about a half-dozen of the best Salon stories of the past year and walk away with the prize.
The continuing coverage by Eric Boehlert of Clear Channel Communications's widescale acquisition of radio stations and its effect on the diversity and quality of radio is possibly the single largest story nobody else is covering. Locally owned and operated radio is becoming a thing of the past. As an adjunct to this, their articles on the Nat'l Assoc. of Radio Broadcasters alliance with NPR in a successful push to quash the FCC's efforts to introduce low-power FM radio for city & local organizations is an interesting read.
The debunking of the Clinton White House vandalizing incident deserves praise, again because the majors are too embarassed at being taken in to give it any time.
Lastly, their technology articles are one of the few places online where those not technologically inclined can inform themselves on the issues without being talked down to. Their general coverage of digital rights gets much deeper and remains much more interesting than the major networks alarmist nonsense over Napster, viruses and DoS attacks.
This is just the latest failed attempt by Katz to be Eric Raymond.
Fact is, no one is compelling anyone to use any MS products or services. Don't wanna use.NET? You don't have to. Gates's stormtroopers aren't going to break into your house & install an XBox while you're at work, either. All that has to happen for them to fail is for people to see how their aim (in competition with AOL/TW) is to be the toll-point for entry, exit, & movement about the 'net. Their desire to not be encumbered by the decisions MS has chosen to make for them will take care of the situation nicely. It's as if some people here are saying "DAMN THEM for making such lucrative products that people are just going to be FORCED to buy & use them!", which is a ridiculous statement. Some, perhaps many, people will like the controlled experiences MS seeks to provide. I myself intend (as I'm sure most here do) to avoid all things XP,.NET, XBox, etc like the plague.
However, if only us geeks feel this way & the rest of the world likes having their entertainment & information experiences predigested for them, there is little we can do.
As a post script, the idea of a corporation beyond regulation is the stuff of backwoods cabin manifestos. All any gov't needs is the will to regulate MS's actions in their countries to do so.
Better yet, check it out from the library, scan the pages into your computer, run it through some OCR software & make it available via Gnutella and/or Freenet.
A month ago on 4/19 I got Jessica Litman, the author of the book & a renowned copyright law professor, to consent to a moderated interview for Slashdot. I then came to this website & submitted it to the Slashdot Gods, only to have it be completely ignored. I took a risk for Slashdot & they made me look like a stupid geek.
Sigh. And I told her that us/.ers were really interested in the subject, too.
The open source issue requires not only some knowledge of what software really is and does, but also knowledge of business law, licensing agreements, and the history of not only MS but the whole software industry to have a proper perspective & make a reasoned, analytic judgement. Consider also that everyone knows MS, while most think Linux is something you use to take down Yahoo & EBay, and you have your answer.
In a world where there're much sexier stories, like car wrecks and the death of has-been star's girlfriends, what else would you expect? The real world just wants to go online & buy a book, and doesn't really give a shit about who's monopolizing who. What pisses me off is that MS knows this & most of us seem not to.
The following section from the NYT article cited has been refuted by Salon. They've said they have no such plans & that David Talbot was completely misquoted.
"A lot of our audience pays $300 a year to join National Public Radio and they don't
have to pay anything," he said. As early as next year, Mr. Talbot said, Salon hopes to
impose a fee of $75 to $150 a year to read any of its site with ads.
Why not just impose the full fee now? "That's jumping off a cliff with no net," Mr.
Talbot said. Sites that have imposed fees, like Yahoo Auctions, have experienced
declines in volume of as much as 90 percent. And the biggest subscription content site,
The Wall Street Journal Online, has 574,000 subscribers at $29 to $59 a year,
one-tenth the monthly audience of the largest free financial news sites.
Slashdot Mirror
Despite this minor setback, hopefully Indianapolis will be able in the future to regulate what games children may play. The world of the child is stuffed with a plethora of unhealthy, evil entertainments that need to be purged so that we may produce moral, upright children ready to perform God's will.
Take for example the realm of board games, those mental cannibals of cardboard that swallow our children's time. There's Monopoly, teaching children to ruthlessly crush the dreams of prosperity possessed by others. And what of Battleship? Have we learned nothing from Pearl Harbor? Do we really need a generation of children trained in the dive-bombing arts? I can't even begin to approach Candyland, that pernicious purveyor of tooth-rottening sweets to our youngest and most pure.
Vigilance must also be a priority on the playground. For far too long have our most defenseless been savaged in the hour-long assualt & battery of a dodgeball tournament. Today the ball, tomorrow the bombs. Heed my words. And "tag", that cruelest of isolationist evils masquerading as a recess diversion. Stop the madness now, lest your child be the next to become IT.
ignis wrote:
"the question i would ask you, Dyas, is what are you going to do about it?"
The same things I'm doing now -- donating to & remaining active in organizations that support my civil rights online (EFF, ACLU), writing my congresspeople, informing my friends and family about their rights both online and in the real world (some in my extended family thought copying their own CDs to MP3 was illegal because of the hype they'd heard in the news!), encouraging those who agree with me to do the same.
This is a civil democracy you know, so I'm not about to pick up a gun or anything if that's what you mean. If the same actions above performed at large by many people isn't enough to change things for the better, then we've lost already.
Dr. Lessig,
Looking from the outside in on the legal community's response or lack thereof to the constitutionality and legal basis of recent court rulings (Napster, Eric Corley), the DMCA/SSCA, etc, I see very few lawyers taking a stand against this -- there's mostly a massive shrug. There's the ACLU, the EFF of which you're a part, and Jessica Litman, and that's all I see trying to do something about the co-opting of copyright and patent lawmaking by corporations through appeals based on the interest of business, lobbyists' dealmaking, and outright graft. By and large however there seems to be little interest even amongst lawyers and congressmen about the arcana of copyright and patent law, and thus it's left to such companies and libraries because they're the only ones who both have power and care about it. Has trying to fight this caused conflict in your professional work? Is it lonely being a "vox clamantis in deserto"? What's your game plan for beating these guys back, or do you have one? There's a certain sadness and resignation in both your and Litman's writing that's very disencouraging that would lead me to think that even our flag-bearers feel there's little hope at this point.
--Gregory Dyas
It's sad how blase we are about our kids watching people get shot, hacked up, beaten & abused on various TV programs, yet let two naked people make love on a television and OH MY GOD WHAT WILL THE CHILDREN THINK!
It's just like everyone shitting themselves over a handful of anthrax deaths when thousands die in their cars on the way to work each morning. Like much else a matter of misplaced priorities and media-hyped threats to our society.
I think the 2nd circuit was right in this case. Felten has already publicized the information in question in the suit without consequence, so there is no longer an explicit prohibition against him. Thus, it was only proper that it be dismissed.
You see, when you go to court you can NOT argue for some larger philosophical point of law. You need to argue your position on the merits of your specific case, and in Felten's case the information had already been made public. He'd already presented it. RIAA had already publicly backed down and thus he's under no threat not to publish.
Here's an analogous situation to this using current events. There are about 600 people being held incommunicado by our gov't with regard to terrorism investigations. If Amnesty Int'l wished to sue for their release their case would be rejected for the same reason -- they're not an affected party because nobody they represent was held. They would have to represent someone who is to sue the gov't.
What's going to happen now (as I put on my Karnak hat) is that Felten/EFF are going to send a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court and the Supremes are going to reject it for the exact same reason. You need to either be experiencing or be under direct threat of experiencing an adverse consequence. You can't just sue because the DMCA is a bad law (which we all know it to be). You have to be suffering under an effect of that law while prosecuting your case in order to be able to prosecute.
science freely admits that it doesn't know what caused the big bang explosion and probably never will.
Not knowing is no reason to pick up the closest fairy tale at hand and go parading it around. If the choice is between the confortable security of myth or an uneasy yet honest lack of knowledge give me that latter.
Gandhi never said the Christian bible was any sort of manual for how to live. He did, however, esteem Jesus over any other historical/mythical/whatever person. I quote:
A man who was completely innocent, offered himself as a sacrifice for the good of others, including his enemies, and became the ransom of the world. It was a perfect act.
He saw the passion of Jesus as the ultimate act, and considered it the moment at which Jesus truly became human in sacrifice to God.
What if science were a crutch for the weak-minded?
And what if the world sat spinning on a stack of turtles? It's a cute theory, but you'd have to prove it. And there's the difference between faith and science. There's a large amount of evidence supporting quantum mechanics and little supporting the existence of God. Science isn't a crutch for anything. It's just a formal method for finding out how the world works. You hold yourself to strict rules of evidence, and bit by bit, fact by fact, crawl toward a greater understanding of physical phenomena. You make alot of mistakes along the way. You interpret things incorrectly, make false assumptions, etc. But by jerks & starts you make progress and we learn more.
To paraphrase from Richard Feynman re: quantum electrodynamics: "It probably doesn't make sense to you, but that's not important. It doesn't have to make sense, because regardless of our reason and logic that is how it is."
And Thomas Jefferson didn't by any means "believe in God" in the conventional sense. He was a Deist, a believer in the idea that some god created the universe in toto, then abandoned it, and has no influence, no power, and no care for its affairs. It's a feeling more closely related to Aristotle's philosophy of the unmoved mover than anything from the Bible.
Gates also took some credit for the genesis of open-source software. He said Microsoft made it possible by standardizing
computers: "Really, the reason you see open source there at all is because we came in and said there should be a platform that's
identical with millions and millions of machines," he said.
Well Bill, you're right. You are the reason for open-source software. Just not for the reasons you think you are.
Dick.
I dunno, I don't think so.
The process is now in the hands of the Judiciary, with a Judge determining the process. She's got an early Nov. deadline for mediation. I know MS wants to run out the clock, but I don't think the gov't can stand to look like it got the smelly end of the stick on this thing. The gov't know's MS is guilty as hell and the American people are starting to wake up to the fact that MS doesn't have their interests at heart, so it IS possible, IMO.
In reading about the latest stupid move MS has taken to try & turn the the internet into their own proprietary .NET I find myself hoping that the new judge is watching. OK, sure, breaking up the company doesn't look feasible any longer, though it would have been nice to separate their OS from their Office Productivity from their .NET/MSN ventures. Not gonna happen though. SO, what structural remedies can be taken?
I think our best chance lies in a judically mandated opening of all IE & .NET software & protocols to allow anyone & everyone to use it. This directly prevents an MS takeover of the net, let's them keep their precious OS monopoly, and adequately punishes them for the underhanded methods used to gain browser superiority in the first place. It also makes sure that this major piece of software most people use to surf the net is out in the open, without any hidden dirty little secrets.
It'd be nice to make them open up the OS too, but it won't happen. Outside of /. too many people like Windows & are mystified by Linux to want it in anyone else's hands. Maybe we could try for opening up the MFCs, a long time wish of WinX programmers everywhere, which would go a long way toward making all programs better. For any lasting remedy though, something has to be done to thwart the development of proprietary internet protocols. Each individual has a part to play too. Do NOT use Passport / Hotmail. Do NOT patronize any .NET-using service. I now run XP, and despite the hype, it's completely possible to use this OS without involving yourself in any of that crap. Long term, write your congresspeople to demand laws mandating all internet communications protocols be open and available for even the individual user to make use of.
The perception of some silly "war" is in itself part of the problem.
I like Torvalds' take on it. Just work on what you're working on -- make it better because then it'll be more useful to YOU, or your friends. They say in business that one of the surest ways to fail is to be always watching the competition. It turns you into a follower. A true leader, be it a CEO or an OS, works on making the best product possible. Though he's cognizant of the competition's moves, he doesn't make them his preoccupation, because then he'd be thinking about what THEY'RE doing, not what HE'S doing.
Mr. Torvalds gets this. Most here don't.
I'm sure some others have thought of this, but I want to see if /.ers in general might agree with this theory.
Before the open, take all comers internet rose from the DARPA labs to worldwide prominence, all previous efforts at such a wide-spanning network were controlled, pay at the gate affairs that had always planned to remain strictly private. We all remember the early days of AOL, Compuserve, Prodigy, MSN, etc. The idea of a free, open network that anyone can get on & use at relatively low cost is anathema to companies like AOL is and MS wants to be, whose bread & butter consists of (or is seen to be consisting of in the future) running networks. As long as the internet remains an open system where anyone can get on & protocols are laid out for all to see, it's going to be a threat to their business. What's needed above all in their eyes is some sort of control of the exchange of information, of how business is conducted, and how money changes hands so they can create and maintain an ongoing revenue stream, making this free network profitable for them since their owned networks & software are fast meeting obsolesence. They wish to be the Visa / MC of the net, only more. They want to interject themselves as a middleman between consumer & retailer and between friends & strangers, between you and information itself, collecting micro or perhaps not so micro payments along the way. In this light, AOL & MS aren't evil as much as they're both cut-throat competitors fighting over which of them is going to eat our lunch.
The problem is, of course, that it's OUR lunch! The internet isn't an MS or AOL invention, it's OUR invention as much, if not more, than it is theirs. Our government funded companies and academics to invent this beautiful thing, and they're looking hard for a way to use software to make it their own.
How can we stop this? I'm not sure.
Perhaps we should seek laws mandating all standards & protocols for internet communication be open, so that no company may control the exchange of information. I'm not sure. But no company should have even partial control of how anyone else uses the internet.
I will NEVER be forced to carry proof of my citizenship or identity to live in this country.
Jail me? Sure. Fine me? OK. Torture me? Ouch. They can have my freedom, but not my acquiescence. I would never acceed to this, and I don't feel any self-respecting freedom-loving American should either.
I'm terribly dissappointed these so-called forward thinkers think so little of our personal liberty. It's really very sad.
Here is what I know to be true.
Microsoft will release Windows XP on time, with all of the features it alone intends to incorporate. There will be some slight cosmetic changes meant to give the misleading impression that the Bush Justice Dep't was able to reach some sort of deal with Gates et.al. It will be an almost bald-faced lie that nobody in the non-slashdot world will give a second thought to.
In truth, XP will be within approximation exactly what Microsoft intended it to be, its crowbar to begin leveraging their control of the individual PC desktop into dominance of the internet's protocols themselves and thus the server market. Microsoft will attempt to become the IBM of the 21st century, with all of the attendant lethargy, intransigence, and dictatorial control of what may and may not be done with the equipment that old dinosaur used to have. This'll be explained as the best of all possible outcomes for the consumer because it introduces "consistent standards for the protection of intellectual property and the security of personal data."
----------
Their ploy, most likely, will work. You see, I really think that there's not enough appreciation on Slashdot for the crushing masses of people who never, ever think about free software, open standards, or whether or not there are whatever sorts of privacy or antitrust issues involved with XP. They just want to use their computers to do stuff, and if XP makes it easier for them to do things online, work with video, etc, then they will use it even if installing it's a pain in the ass. And it looks all neat and new, too. For them, Linux is geek stuff. They know that Windows is "the only real OS". They've been using Windows and are quite comfortable with it, warts and all. All their friends use it. They don't want to mess with their computers all the time or have to find out what free program is available to do X, Y, or Z. They're just not at all curious about it as we are.
And MS, with a crack marketing dep't, knows all of this and more about their consumers. Linux can't even make a decent distro for idiots yet, nevermind that relatively prodigious learning curve. Linux has its market, sure, but so far it's not even on the same map as Windows & MS's efforts, and I speak as a complete advocate of open OSes. We MUST be honest with ourselves about the extent of permeation Windows enjoys and not fool ourselves with fantasies about how a government that only reflects the aforementioned popular disinterest is gigon to do anything real, anything solid, to stop the big bad company from making & selling its product.
Excuse my rant.
Nobody's ever going to pay $1.00 to "rent" And Then There Were None for 10 hours when they can either get a paperback copy at a garage sale for the same price or less, pay maybe $3.00 max for a copy at a used book store, or get a new paper/hardcover copy for $4.50/$7.00. Any of the above options gets you the book FOREVER.
I'm an avid reader and my friends are avid readers. First of all, we like paper. It feels good. It's easier on the eyes than any screen. No tech-gadget I've yet seen improves on paper for readability. I love the rows of books in my dining room, and enjoy poring through old favorites at all hours. Sitting in front of a computer screen or with some sort of machine in my hand just isn't the same thing. I don't think I could ever hip myself to that kind of change.
Second, the idea of first paying $200-$300 for a gadget to read books I don't even get to keep and go back to at will? Pshaw. Never. I don't care how techie it is, I'm not going to move to some new format that's both going to cost me more money AND deprive me of rights I'm already enjoying.
On a semi-related note, it simply cracks me up that companies like Adobe & Rosetta think that they effectively encrypt data and nobody'll be able to unencrypt it. If we can read it, watch it, or listen to it, we can unencrypt it. Simple enough.
Off-Topic regarding Coke & Other Sodas:
Invariably, what you drink out of the container cost less to produce than the container itself. Essentially, when you buy a coke you're paying more for the can than the liquid inside it.
Salon's Eric Boehlert has been doing what I consider some of the best coverage out there on radio industry, the Big 5 and RIAA (which all know are synonymous).
Little remains new in the music entertainment industry, a marketplace rife with corruption, kickbacks, and graft. There's payola, which despite the drive against it in the 80's is alive and well through 3rd-party middlemen. There's Clear Channel Communications, a bully of a nationwide radio & concert venue operator only beginning to flex its monopolistic muscles thanks to the utterly moronic Telecommunications Act of 1998, and lastly there's RIAA, an organization whose entire control is under the aegis of 5 multinational companies and is used to crush competition and stifle innovation through lawsuits and lobbying efforts.
I almost feel sorry for Marilyn Hall Patel, the judge overseeing the Napster suit. When the Big 5's online divisions premiere she's going to realize that she was just the chloroform the members of RIAA used to take out their first-mover competition. The members of RIAA were smart. They knew that as long as there remained a hope that they could crush the upstart music distributor, they could save the day & split the pie amongst themselves. Call it just doing the best they can to keep each other in business.
It's all a grand circle of control and money, and has been thus since the 50's. Recording companies, either under the table or through middlemen, pay off DJs to play what they want us to hear. This ups their ratings on the Billboard charts, which garners them more sales to retailers. Then there's the coercion by the radio station's corporate owners, like Clear Channel, who also owns many concert venues. They tell artists & record companies to book their venues and give the stations freebies, else they'll stop playing their music. Clear Channel's then able to use this favorable treatment by record companies to push other stations out of the market and increase its own domination of the industry. It's a closed system, with everyone owning their little feifdom, and nothing getting played or popular unless a multinational corporation is willing to make it so. Just ask yourself - whois the last artist you know of that hit the big time with NO assistance from a major label? This fact alone tells you that you are to this day largely listening to what you're minders want you to listen to.
Should it be like this? Well, of course not. But is the government ever going to succeed in making this bunch of crooks in armani suits play it straight with one another? Pshaw. Good luck. Only one option remains. Stop buying music that these companies produce. Or make a dozen copies of a popular CD and engage in some (perfectly legal) fair use with your friends. But don't think for a second the gov't will help. RIAA just cut a $10,000 check for your senator's PAC last week. What the hell have you ever done for them?
I personally feel you can take your pick of about a half-dozen of the best Salon stories of the past year and walk away with the prize.
The continuing coverage by Eric Boehlert of Clear Channel Communications's widescale acquisition of radio stations and its effect on the diversity and quality of radio is possibly the single largest story nobody else is covering. Locally owned and operated radio is becoming a thing of the past. As an adjunct to this, their articles on the Nat'l Assoc. of Radio Broadcasters alliance with NPR in a successful push to quash the FCC's efforts to introduce low-power FM radio for city & local organizations is an interesting read.
The debunking of the Clinton White House vandalizing incident deserves praise, again because the majors are too embarassed at being taken in to give it any time.
Lastly, their technology articles are one of the few places online where those not technologically inclined can inform themselves on the issues without being talked down to. Their general coverage of digital rights gets much deeper and remains much more interesting than the major networks alarmist nonsense over Napster, viruses and DoS attacks.
This is just the latest failed attempt by Katz to be Eric Raymond.
Fact is, no one is compelling anyone to use any MS products or services. Don't wanna use .NET? You don't have to. Gates's stormtroopers aren't going to break into your house & install an XBox while you're at work, either. All that has to happen for them to fail is for people to see how their aim (in competition with AOL/TW) is to be the toll-point for entry, exit, & movement about the 'net. Their desire to not be encumbered by the decisions MS has chosen to make for them will take care of the situation nicely. It's as if some people here are saying "DAMN THEM for making such lucrative products that people are just going to be FORCED to buy & use them!", which is a ridiculous statement. Some, perhaps many, people will like the controlled experiences MS seeks to provide. I myself intend (as I'm sure most here do) to avoid all things XP, .NET, XBox, etc like the plague.
However, if only us geeks feel this way & the rest of the world likes having their entertainment & information experiences predigested for them, there is little we can do.
As a post script, the idea of a corporation beyond regulation is the stuff of backwoods cabin manifestos. All any gov't needs is the will to regulate MS's actions in their countries to do so.
Please, please, please go get yourself a copy.
Better yet, check it out from the library, scan the pages into your computer, run it through some OCR software & make it available via Gnutella and/or Freenet.
A month ago on 4/19 I got Jessica Litman, the author of the book & a renowned copyright law professor, to consent to a moderated interview for Slashdot. I then came to this website & submitted it to the Slashdot Gods, only to have it be completely ignored. I took a risk for Slashdot & they made me look like a stupid geek.
Sigh. And I told her that us /.ers were really interested in the subject, too.
The open source issue requires not only some knowledge of what software really is and does, but also knowledge of business law, licensing agreements, and the history of not only MS but the whole software industry to have a proper perspective & make a reasoned, analytic judgement. Consider also that everyone knows MS, while most think Linux is something you use to take down Yahoo & EBay, and you have your answer.
In a world where there're much sexier stories, like car wrecks and the death of has-been star's girlfriends, what else would you expect? The real world just wants to go online & buy a book, and doesn't really give a shit about who's monopolizing who. What pisses me off is that MS knows this & most of us seem not to.
The following section from the NYT article cited has been refuted by Salon. They've said they have no such plans & that David Talbot was completely misquoted.
"A lot of our audience pays $300 a year to join National Public Radio and they don't have to pay anything," he said. As early as next year, Mr. Talbot said, Salon hopes to impose a fee of $75 to $150 a year to read any of its site with ads. Why not just impose the full fee now? "That's jumping off a cliff with no net," Mr. Talbot said. Sites that have imposed fees, like Yahoo Auctions, have experienced declines in volume of as much as 90 percent. And the biggest subscription content site, The Wall Street Journal Online, has 574,000 subscribers at $29 to $59 a year, one-tenth the monthly audience of the largest free financial news sites.
Guess the NYT just ain't what she used to be.