Do you think the concept of copyright will survive the presence of a global internet? If so, how do you see it being inforced and to what degree, and if not, what do you see replacing it?
TMBG, do you know about the Street Performer Protocol, and if so, what do you think of it? Do you think it is a viable business model for the production of art, and if not, what changes do you think need to be made?
I remember BBSes. Without them, I would have had no social life whatsoever from when I was 12 to when I was something like 18. I even ran a 24 line one for a while called Dragon World and we ran Trade Wars, although I never played it. I just sat in the tavern (teleconference) and eventually suggested a GT (get-together) to Denny's at some obscene hour of the evening. Slashdot is the closest thing I've found to that community feel since Dragon World.
*sigh* I miss the good ol' days sometimes...:-)
Joshua
Welcome to.NET! Where a computer that is not connected to the internet (preferably over a high-bandwidth connection) is essentially useless. This is something that is definteily happening at a faster rate all the time, and infact, I think it's innevitable.
A computer without an internet connection is like a body without a soul.
Joshua
How about we let kids be? How about we tell kids that there is some weird stuff out there, but go and see what you can find and try to learn something, and if they have any questions, they can ask their damn parents! Nothing on the internet is going to really hurt or damage anyone! I know this is a hard concept for some people to understand, but if children occasionally see sex or violence, they will not instantly be destroyed for life. Just make sure kids know to be safe and not get themselves into any physically dangerous situations from the internet, which is fairly easily done.
I use my right button menus all the time, and I think they are very intuitive, and a very good idea. I think the problem is that no one explains it to most people properly. The right button brings up a list of all the actions you can take upon whatever you've clicked the right button on, while the left button selects on the first click, and when you double click, it executes the default action (which is bold in your right button menu).
Now, obviously no one here really needed that explained to them, but I've done lots of teaching basic windoze, and I've found that is a rather good way to explain it to people. People use it if they're taught how.
Here's the real question. Are telephones really a technology we want to put more money and effort into changing when we have newer and in many cases better technologies on the uprise. I'd rather have a device with an IP and a permanent, high bandwidth internet connection, and make voice-over-ip calls to another machine of the same sort, then I could use nicknames of some sort (e-mail addresses, AIM handles, domains), and wouldn't need to remember any damn phone numbers. I've always been rather annoyed with phone numbers because I have trouble remembering them, but I don't really need to know my IP address (I do, actually) because I can reference it by a domain. I say let the internet encapsulate the phone system, don't pump more effort into changing the phone system.
You know, I'm getting bloody well sick of this concept that any business model will work if I just stick advertising everywhere I can. I can't stand advertising, especially when it's overdone (I will admit,/. handles it better than most). Fight the commercialization of the internet!
A start menu has shortcuts on it for applications and whatnot, and you change it manually, or install/uninstall programs change it. A taskbar on the other hand lists all the programs that are currently running.
I can't get over the fact that a start menu is just not a good way to launch applications on a palmtop. I like the idea of a desktop that you can get to with a single click, or perhaps a physical button with configurable icons on it, plus a task bar of some sort (a drop down taskbar would probably be best. Hell, I'm not sure that a start menu is even best for desktop GUI's.
For those of us who don't know, can someone explain what the hell Alpha Blending is? Everything I've read assumes that you already know this critial piece of info. I can get a general understanding from context, but a good definition would be lovely here.
Communism because it results in a lower standard of living for all
Huh? Communism (if actually implemented properly), would result in a lower standard of linving for some, in as much as no one gets the mansions, the limosine's and the caviar. Hell, I don't consider that a "higher" standard of living anyway, as I don't fancy any of those things, but that's what would go away. Communism would also increase the standard of living dramatically for those who under capitalism have the bottom end of the stick. All those people who don't have any houses at all to sleep in and no food at all to eat would have a drastic increase in standard of living. It would put people on a more level playing field.
Now, before you all get huffy and puffy about how this couldn't work, I did say that this would be the case if communism were implemented properly, and I will be the first to admit the difficulties involved in that.
Does that mean I can leagally own lockpicking tools?
You certainly can! I took lockpicking up as a hobby a while ago. I ordered a book from Amazon and a pick set from J&L Self Defence Products. It's damn hard to do actually, and takes great skill, but I managed to get the basics down.
Frankly, a global law on copyright is the only way to protect the interests of the artists. One that everyone agrees to, one that is enforced, one that is fair regardless of creed, colour or country. Copying material around the globe without paying for it is not 'free speech', nor is it 'free expression'. Its ripping people off.
No, I disagree thoroughly. The last thing we need is more laws that we can't enforce. The point is that you can't enforce copyright on the internet! There simply isn't a way! If I can play it, I can record it and copy it to a friend, or to everyone on the planet. The business models under which music is created will have to change to acomodate that fact. Artists, IMHO, don't have some god-given right to get paid indefinetly (or even for a long time) for something they did. There are lots of artists who will not be hurt by the disapearance of copyright, and those will be the best artists anyway. Certainly, Britney Spears and S Club 7 will suffer from this, but Phish and DMB won't much be affected, infact, I think it'll improve that quality of music that this wee rock produces. Copying music is not ripping anyone off, you can't own data.
Joshua
This is a big step backwards! My machine already has a number to get to the web, and so does every other one. Mine is 64.188.195.210, but it has a name too, because that number is bloody hard to remember! I'm bad with numbers, and have a terrible time remembering phone numbers. I look forward to a time when I can use people's names to contact them (e-mail, instant messages, irc, etc.), instead of these daft numbers. I suspect this company will do rather badly
I agree, but I think that each country should have a domain, but it should be only for governmental bodiea websites. I mean, do away with.gov, and put everything on.gov on.us, and put every country on equal footing on the net. But keep anything but government sites in other TLDs.
I too, am rather a UNIX newbie, and not remarkably knowledgable. However, I feel that a lot of the concepts in organization on computers we use need re-thinking. Check out our e-group, and maybe we'll get something done.;)
Let me start out by saying that this is indeed my favorite book, and has been since I first picked it up. I will, however, be the first to admit that Heinlein holds some beliefs that I do not agree with, as well as some that I wholeheartedly hope are truth. I read that book when I was 15, by a strange set of coincidences (We didn't start the fire, anyone?), and it taught me that I love to read, and I started reading other Heinlein (To Sail Beyond the Sunset, Time Enough for Love, The Cat Who Walks Through Walls, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, Methuselah's Children, Starship Troopers, etc.), and I enjoyed them all.
The purpose of SIASL was to question the very foundations of our culture. Heinlein looked at the world, he looked at our judeo-christian taboos of modesty and monogomy, he looked at how we villify sex and use words to describe it like "dirty". He looked at our constant jealousy and fear and unhappiness and he questioned whether we needed to be so sad, and more than that he proposed new ideas, new concepts of family, as well as many other new ideas and concepts. They may not all be correct, or ideal, but he was at least questioning the culture we live in, which most of us don't do nearly enough. Also, I think it should be considered that what Heinlein actually felt, and what he thought he should feel were two different things. He's often said (through his characters) things like "You can take the boy out of the bible belt, but you can't take the bible belt out of the boy." He had some prejudices he grew up with (such as his sexism, and attitudes towards women in general) that he thought were flawed, and try as he did, he couldn't break them in himself, so he created fictional characters to do so, but he always put himself in the book (or at least who he wanted to be, ie, Jubal). Jubal thought Mike's ideas and ideals were beautiful and lovely, but felt it was too late for him, as I feel it is for many people, but just because some people can't accept ideals doesn't mean we should abandon them, but it means we should try harder to not let our prejudices effect us, and instill in our children better set of ideals than we were brought up in.
I have long and hard considered many of the things Heinlein said, mostly in Stranger, and have come to the conclusion that about many things, I agree with him. I think that monogomy is a flawed concept (whoa, will I get flamed for this or what?), and I think his proposal (repeatedly, in lots of books) of a kind of group marriage is a much better ideal that we should strive for. I feel very lucky in that I read this book (and many others that have shaped my ideals including B.F. Skinner and Herbert M. Shelton), and that I have the strength to choose not to accept the ideals of our society, but form my own, which admittedly, bare a resembalance to Heinlein's ideals. I also feel very lucky to have met a girl who feels the same way I do, who was fortunate enough to question our culture at a young enough age to form opinions that are at odds with the accepted. She and I are a family, in Heinlein's sense of the word, and we even use the term brothers (it's as good as any other, ain't it?) and I hope that our family will grow, in something of the way Mike's did. My ideals are not set in stone of course, but constantly evolving, hopefully for the better. I will try to live in this world in the most idealistic way I can, and choose what I think is good, not simply what is accepted. We may fail of course, but we will bloody well try.
This seems to be a rather alarming trend between this, the DMCA, UCITA, DeCSS, etc. developing of governments (US being the worst) enacting laws about the internet that are totally and wholly unenforcable. Let me say that again incase anyone missed it. DeCSS cannot be stopped no matter how many lawyers you throw at it, Information cannot be contained in such a connected world. It doesn't matter whether it's "right" or "wrong" or "legal" or "illegal". If it cannot be enforced (Can you say drug war, kiddies?), then making a law is wasted effort. I mean, hell! Don't the people behind SDMI have a single consultant among them who is rational enough to realize that if you can play music, you can copy it.
Those foes say that if UCITA is modified to require warranties, there had better be an exception for open-source efforts, whose software developers earn no money.
Indeed! the alternative sounds rather like trying to ban the concept of giving things away for free.
The difference here though, is that the only people in the system are those who chose to be in it. That's what makes it nothing whatsoever like communism or any other choice-free authoritarian system.
This is about _choosing_ to do whats good for everyone, much like I do already in my spare time with open source software, and so do many others.
Communism on the other hand is about forcing others to do things for the good of others whether they like it or not.
In one system, you can be a hero and be happy to think you made good choices. In the other you are a slave and you get no choice at all.
Now what was that? Communism is about forcing people? Communism is people living together and declaring that they are co-owners of everything. Communism also does not need to be implemented on a large scale. Small-scale communes and communisms are just as real, and no one is "forced" to do anything. Communism has become a dirty word in this country, but it is a very noble, and idealistic concept worthy of thought, IMHO. Just because it's been implemented in authoritarian ways in the past does not mean that this is the only possible implementation of such a beautiful concept. Freedom is not possibly only under capitalism.
There are a whole lot of people out there who simply don't agree with the medical industry of today. Look at Stop Eating and Chet Day and sites like Living and Raw Foods. There are lots of health philosophies that don't match the one that the WHO would condone. That doesn't necessarily make them less acurate, just a different point of view. I think that anything that causes these ides to be taken less seriously is a bad idea. I would have no problem with a.health domain as long as groups outside the WTO could use them too.
We don't need less sex in the world today, we need more of it. We have lots and lots of very frustrated indivisuals who just aren't having enough sex, and they're getting upset, and having lots of stress in their lives. Some of them are even getting violent about it and forcing people to have sex with them, which is a horrible, terrible thing. We need to overcome our rediculous sexual taboos, not yell and scream in CAPITAL LETTERS about common sense, which obviously you have none of. Technology that makes sex safer can only be a good thing. Go get laid and try to relax.;)
Slashdot Mirror
Quite simple, really... nothing else is open. ;)
Joshua
Terradot
Joshua
Terradot
Joshua
Terradot
*sigh* I miss the good ol' days sometimes... :-)
Joshua
Terradot
A computer without an internet connection is like a body without a soul.
Joshua
Terradot
Joshua
Terradot
I use my right button menus all the time, and I think they are very intuitive, and a very good idea. I think the problem is that no one explains it to most people properly. The right button brings up a list of all the actions you can take upon whatever you've clicked the right button on, while the left button selects on the first click, and when you double click, it executes the default action (which is bold in your right button menu).
Now, obviously no one here really needed that explained to them, but I've done lots of teaching basic windoze, and I've found that is a rather good way to explain it to people. People use it if they're taught how.
Joshua
Terradot
Joshua
Terradot
Joshua
Terradot
Joshua
Terradot
Joshua
Terradot
Cheers, Joshua
Terradot
Huh? Communism (if actually implemented properly), would result in a lower standard of linving for some, in as much as no one gets the mansions, the limosine's and the caviar. Hell, I don't consider that a "higher" standard of living anyway, as I don't fancy any of those things, but that's what would go away. Communism would also increase the standard of living dramatically for those who under capitalism have the bottom end of the stick. All those people who don't have any houses at all to sleep in and no food at all to eat would have a drastic increase in standard of living. It would put people on a more level playing field.
Now, before you all get huffy and puffy about how this couldn't work, I did say that this would be the case if communism were implemented properly, and I will be the first to admit the difficulties involved in that.
Joshua
Terradot
Does that mean I can leagally own lockpicking tools?
You certainly can! I took lockpicking up as a hobby a while ago. I ordered a book from Amazon and a pick set from J&L Self Defence Products. It's damn hard to do actually, and takes great skill, but I managed to get the basics down.
JoshuaTerradot
And what are guns used for?
To defend one's self.
JoshuaTerradot
Frankly, a global law on copyright is the only way to protect the interests of the artists. One that everyone agrees to, one that is enforced, one that is fair regardless of creed, colour or country. Copying material around the globe without paying for it is not 'free speech', nor is it 'free expression'. Its ripping people off.
No, I disagree thoroughly. The last thing we need is more laws that we can't enforce. The point is that you can't enforce copyright on the internet! There simply isn't a way! If I can play it, I can record it and copy it to a friend, or to everyone on the planet. The business models under which music is created will have to change to acomodate that fact. Artists, IMHO, don't have some god-given right to get paid indefinetly (or even for a long time) for something they did. There are lots of artists who will not be hurt by the disapearance of copyright, and those will be the best artists anyway. Certainly, Britney Spears and S Club 7 will suffer from this, but Phish and DMB won't much be affected, infact, I think it'll improve that quality of music that this wee rock produces. Copying music is not ripping anyone off, you can't own data. JoshuaTerradot
This is a big step backwards! My machine already has a number to get to the web, and so does every other one. Mine is 64.188.195.210, but it has a name too, because that number is bloody hard to remember! I'm bad with numbers, and have a terrible time remembering phone numbers. I look forward to a time when I can use people's names to contact them (e-mail, instant messages, irc, etc.), instead of these daft numbers. I suspect this company will do rather badly
JoshuaTerradot
I agree, but I think that each country should have a domain, but it should be only for governmental bodiea websites. I mean, do away with .gov, and put everything on .gov on .us, and put every country on equal footing on the net. But keep anything but government sites in other TLDs.
JoshuaTerradot
I too, am rather a UNIX newbie, and not remarkably knowledgable. However, I feel that a lot of the concepts in organization on computers we use need re-thinking. Check out our e-group, and maybe we'll get something done. ;)
JoshuaTerradot
The purpose of SIASL was to question the very foundations of our culture. Heinlein looked at the world, he looked at our judeo-christian taboos of modesty and monogomy, he looked at how we villify sex and use words to describe it like "dirty". He looked at our constant jealousy and fear and unhappiness and he questioned whether we needed to be so sad, and more than that he proposed new ideas, new concepts of family, as well as many other new ideas and concepts. They may not all be correct, or ideal, but he was at least questioning the culture we live in, which most of us don't do nearly enough. Also, I think it should be considered that what Heinlein actually felt, and what he thought he should feel were two different things. He's often said (through his characters) things like "You can take the boy out of the bible belt, but you can't take the bible belt out of the boy." He had some prejudices he grew up with (such as his sexism, and attitudes towards women in general) that he thought were flawed, and try as he did, he couldn't break them in himself, so he created fictional characters to do so, but he always put himself in the book (or at least who he wanted to be, ie, Jubal). Jubal thought Mike's ideas and ideals were beautiful and lovely, but felt it was too late for him, as I feel it is for many people, but just because some people can't accept ideals doesn't mean we should abandon them, but it means we should try harder to not let our prejudices effect us, and instill in our children better set of ideals than we were brought up in.
I have long and hard considered many of the things Heinlein said, mostly in Stranger, and have come to the conclusion that about many things, I agree with him. I think that monogomy is a flawed concept (whoa, will I get flamed for this or what?), and I think his proposal (repeatedly, in lots of books) of a kind of group marriage is a much better ideal that we should strive for. I feel very lucky in that I read this book (and many others that have shaped my ideals including B.F. Skinner and Herbert M. Shelton), and that I have the strength to choose not to accept the ideals of our society, but form my own, which admittedly, bare a resembalance to Heinlein's ideals. I also feel very lucky to have met a girl who feels the same way I do, who was fortunate enough to question our culture at a young enough age to form opinions that are at odds with the accepted. She and I are a family, in Heinlein's sense of the word, and we even use the term brothers (it's as good as any other, ain't it?) and I hope that our family will grow, in something of the way Mike's did. My ideals are not set in stone of course, but constantly evolving, hopefully for the better. I will try to live in this world in the most idealistic way I can, and choose what I think is good, not simply what is accepted. We may fail of course, but we will bloody well try.
Flame on, brothers!
Joshua
Terradot
This seems to be a rather alarming trend between this, the DMCA, UCITA, DeCSS, etc. developing of governments (US being the worst) enacting laws about the internet that are totally and wholly unenforcable. Let me say that again incase anyone missed it. DeCSS cannot be stopped no matter how many lawyers you throw at it, Information cannot be contained in such a connected world. It doesn't matter whether it's "right" or "wrong" or "legal" or "illegal". If it cannot be enforced (Can you say drug war, kiddies?), then making a law is wasted effort. I mean, hell! Don't the people behind SDMI have a single consultant among them who is rational enough to realize that if you can play music, you can copy it.
JoshuaTerradot
Those foes say that if UCITA is modified to require warranties, there had better be an exception for open-source efforts, whose software developers earn no money.
Indeed! the alternative sounds rather like trying to ban the concept of giving things away for free.
JoshuaTerradot
This is about _choosing_ to do whats good for everyone, much like I do already in my spare time with open source software, and so do many others.
Communism on the other hand is about forcing others to do things for the good of others whether they like it or not.
In one system, you can be a hero and be happy to think you made good choices. In the other you are a slave and you get no choice at all.
Now what was that? Communism is about forcing people? Communism is people living together and declaring that they are co-owners of everything. Communism also does not need to be implemented on a large scale. Small-scale communes and communisms are just as real, and no one is "forced" to do anything. Communism has become a dirty word in this country, but it is a very noble, and idealistic concept worthy of thought, IMHO. Just because it's been implemented in authoritarian ways in the past does not mean that this is the only possible implementation of such a beautiful concept. Freedom is not possibly only under capitalism.
Joshua
Terradot
Joshua
Terradot
Joshua
Terradot