True, "computer skills" don't really involve learning to touch-type in a lab, but neither do basic communication skills involve learning good penmanship. Yet penmanship is still taught in schools. The main reason why we tend to think of typing as a superfluous learning activity is because most of us learned to type in middle school, as opposed to first and second grade. Had we learned it then, and been forced to practice it for a couple of years, this discussion would be moot.
You don't often see people trying to communicate with letters that they've made up, or by holding their pens between their toes. Most folks don't glue a pencil to their thumbs to write, either. So we can agree that there's a proper way to write things by hand. Why not also for typing? Your l/s and wpm scores will truly improve, your passwords will become more secure, and chicks will like you more.
Try the password thing: watch someone type for a few seconds by hunting and pecking, and see if you can figure out what they're typing without looking at the screen. Then watch someone touch-type. If they're good a touch-typing, you shouldn't be able to figure out what they're typing.
It's like watching a technically accurate guitarist: they're ten times faster than you'll ever be, and you'll never learn their licks by watching them play (Vernon Reid of Living Colour, for example).
One other benefit for the college students: you can write your 15-page paper that's due at 8:00am in the dark without pissing off your roommate. My freshman year roommate told me to turn off my monitor because he needed to sleep. I told him I had a paper due, and he told me that I should have written it earlier. Fortunately, we compromised: I just turned off the monitor and wrote it in the dark. I absolutely could not have done that by hunt & peck.
Oh, so sorry to be off-topic, but I've just run across the goofiest error message ever:
On HP SmartStart 6.40,
A Haiku, by the SmartStart Development Team:
A Fatal Error Continue, SmartStart Cannot Agony, Reboot
On topic, however, my dad is an infuriating Mac user, which I also used to be. Then I got a career in IT (as opposed to just a job) and I wasn't working on Macs any more. That was in 1999, and he's still calling and asking for support on new Mac technologies. Um, hello, I haven't touched one in 5 years.
He calls almost every day. "I had problems today, so I ran Norton Utilities." "My cable modem doesn't work. What do I do?"
I can't tell you how seriously close I've come to installing a W2K server as a DC in a child domain to mine, using group policy to lock his butt down, and forcing his connection to proxy through my ISA server. No more worries about downloading virii, but I couldn't ignore the phone any more.
What the hell is a panakeia? What's wrong with using a spell-checker? PANACEA PANACEA PANACEA And while I'm on the subject, there is no "a" in "definite" or "definitely".
I hate making flame-bait, but dammit, we're supposed to be the intellectual frontiersmen, here.
And how many spam messages do you get that seem to come from yourself? And what about those who steal AOL-account passwords (we may not like AOL, but all of our grandmothers do)? How will the FTC differentiate between e-mail that has been forged or spoofed and "honest" spam? I certainly don't want to get a bill at the end of the year for $2.5M because someone spent way too much time trying to guess my Yahoo password. What recourse would be available? How do I *prove* that I am not the spammer who offered to enlarge your penis safely and naturally? Will defendants be required to offer up their hard-drives for forensic investigation? This quickly becomes a YRO issue.
I didn't read that 100% of 12-17's are downloading anywhere in that text. This is absurdly flawed logic.
Consider: if only 10% of all 12-17's are downloading at all, then 100% of downloaders are NOT BUYING. If 20% are downloading, then 50% are NOT BUYING.
I find it hard to believe that 100% of teens download music--particularly when some parts of the country still run on dial-up or have no internet access.
What an absolute pain in the booty. First Yahoo killed my Geocities account (which I could get through POP3 from the dawn of time), and now they take away my free POP3 access. Sure, cool, kill spammers and all, but they are the ones who are willing to pay the $20. Not me. No sirree. Looks like it's time to set up that Exchange server and register an MX record at dyndns.org... F**kers.
As opposed to what? Slow death to DSL? We've been over the whole DSL thing before (and many times, I might add): no business anywhere wants to give space, equipment, and reduced-rate service to the competition. That's just dumb. And this time the Bells are right: cable service does have unfair rights to its own lines (at least in comparison with phone lines).
The '96 telco act basically only makes sense for DSL if DSL is prolific enough to necessitate protection. It's not. Almost all of the C-LEC's have gone out of business already, and the service they offer is generally trash. They typically can't afford the larger egresses and charge more to off-set their tremendous over-head.
Good God, can we at least let the service get a foot-hold before we freak out about the control of the corporations? And hey, if it weren't for corporations, who'd provide the service?
/RANT: I really enjoy reading this site for news. What I can't stand reading, though, is how everyone's "rights" are being trampled. A guy posts treasonous info and gets busted:/.er's complain. A guy steals code/illegally distributes other people's IP/steals music:/.er's say "Big deal. It's within my rights to steal." Someone steals a/.er's work: the world might as well have come to an end.
Do the rules only apply when we want them to? When they serve an agenda? Is corporate America wholly outside of their rights by conducting business under (inter)national law?
Granted, I dislike some laws, like the DMCA and whatever damned law created ICANN, but breaking the law doesn't prove anything. Oh, sure: call your congressman to prevent something that might actually make DSL available and affordable, but just break the law when you don't like what's being done to your "rights".
Sorry. I just get so sick of hearing about "rights" this and "rights" that. You have no digitally protected rights. Everything you are doing can be and is being logged by someone. And that someone's TOS says they're damned well within their limits. And nobody has the "right" to lawlessness. Change the laws through protest: you have the right to do that. /END RANT
How is it that there's "nothing evil" about MS changing our access to free speech on a whim, but Disney is evil and inappropriate for making a video aimed at protecting intellectual property?
I watched a show a few months ago about technology and how it relates to new cars and auto development and the like. There was a quick discussion of Tokyo's (I think) traffic monitoring system:
Basically there are hundreds (thousands?) of cameras around Tokyo that all feed to a central monitoring office. That office is staffed by several people whose whole job is to watch the TV's and update their systems on where congestion is occurring. These "systems" then send the data to cell towers/satellites for transmission to all "wired" cars. The drivers of these cars can pull up traffic reports instantly; recalculate their route based on baselines of traffic-flow, speed limits and traffic lights on other possible routes; and get instant ETA's based on any of those recommended alt routes.
Obviously the system is interactive with GPS and even cell signal triangulation in order to get these route updates.
Let us also not forget the notion of "trade dress". This is Apple sued e-machines for: making a similar product in design and functionality that relies on a similar name and could cause unfavorable results in either the sales or reputation of the original. I realize we all think that the word "illustrator" is bland and common enough, but as a trademark protected name, it would be extremely easy to see how one might suspect "Killustrator"'s name of being derogatory of "Illustrator" (realize that not everyone knows about "K"). Such a product name would be detrimental to the reputation and success of future sales of "Illustrator", making it an infringement on "Illustrator"'s trade dress.
And no, I don't think "illustrator" is a common word that is accurately descriptive of a type of application. It became common because of Adobe's product, much like "Xerox", "Styrofoam" and "Velcro".
The beings at the end of the movie aren't aliens. Nobody seems to get this, and indeed I didn't either, at first. My wife was the first to point out that they were highly advanced robots. You can see some of their circuitry through their translucent "flesh", they refer to David as one of the "original" robots, who remember living people, and they fulfill the prophecy of Gigolo Joe, who said that after the humans were dead and gone, the robots would be all that remained. And furthermore, the robot that sits with David expresses the ultimate shortcoming of the robot creations, their lack of genuine humanity. He says that he has always envied humans for their poetry and art. Would aliens really care about soulful expressions of a race that could barely leave its own planet?
Believe me, once you get over the notion that they're aliens, the movie's ending gets a whole lot better.
You are absolutely correct about public broadcast. It is 100% illegal to play a CD at a party for your 100 closest friends. It is not illegal to play that CD in your house with your family present, though. That is still a private performance.
I don't think (bearing in mind I'm not a lawyer) playing a CD in your car is really a violation, as the intended audience is still within the private spectrum. Obviously people could stand outside the windows of your home and listen to your music if they wanted--incidentals cannot be averted or necessarily challenged. A car is not really a public broadcast unless you go to a block party, open the doors and hatch-back, and use the car for your "system".
I remember at college we had a list posted on the side of the TV in the lounge. That list contained the names of all movies the college had bought the rights to have publicly displayed on campus. Any other movies, even if rented or owned by the residents, could only be watched within the resident's dorm room, or the college would (could) be sued.
Now turn back to the early 1990's. The days when sampling was just becoming the "big thing" in music. Remember Vanilla Ice. Remember the Beastie Boys. They, and countless others, got sued by their samplees for copyright infringement for not getting the rights to portions of songs. Barely even fragments. And if you'll recall, most of the plaintiffs won. Any recording, be it a second, a minute, or an hour, if copyrighted, is fully covered by copyright laws.
To return to my original topic, I stated that incidentals are just that, and cannot be necessarily challenged. This winds up being the chief argument for unbridled P2P file sharing (at least among the more intelligent). "You can't try to filter the bad out of a situation without negatively impacting the good." Well, that's true. Therefore I would agree that other systems, those designed for the public sharing of other media formats (ie, term papers, research, art-work that is not copyrighted, etc) are perfectly fine, and that abridging their services does adversely affect our ability to share freely with each other.
Napster is not one of these services. Napster was designed with one and only one intention: to FREELY distribute music files. Well, here's a secret: most music is copyrighted. Ergo: Napster was designed to allow ordinary people to easily break the law. Sort of like designing attractive, plush hand-grenades for babies:-).
Hotline (though now over-run with porn, mp3's, and all sorts of other copyrighted stuff) was originally designed for the very good purpose of allowing exactly the type of P2P (sort of) file sharing that I support. It housed discussions on popular subjects, was a huge source of information on all sorts of special interests, and a good distribution method for all of those great humorous things we remember (the Troops video, the guy smashing his monitor with his keyboard, and my favorite: the 4 guys in bandanas beating the shit out of a Wintel box with baseball bats) from the internet of yore. To abridge such a system, even with its illegal content, would be to restrict the free flow of ideas, inspirations, and liberties of those who use the system legally.
So for now, I say: Napster bad! Hotline, eh... was pretty cool. Artists who freely distribute their own music digitally to their fans (Curve, Radiohead, Primus) rule. They've embraced the technology responsibly, and encourage fans to do so, too. So there. That's all I have to say about that. Jenny.
Actually, if you read up on your fair use act, you'll discover that computers are not covered. They are specifically not covered, as decided in federal court recently (can't remember the case, just remember the hub-bub). So if a computer was used in the copy (as is most often the case), then the copies are illegel. And fair use does NOT cover re-distribution. It covers the right of an individual to make copies for his/her PRIVATE use. Re-distribution (ie, trading w/ friends) falls under PUBLIC use domain.
And in the first case, I'm not arguing whether the product was freely available at Walmart down the street. The simple fact is that theft is theft. Justify it all you want, but that's how it boils down in the end. Metallica owns the rights to their music (or at least their recording company does). They, and only they, have the right to determine methods of distribution. If Walmart gives the albums away, it's Walmart's loss. If you steal it, you're a criminal. Where's the gray area here?
Sadly it's just exactly the comments like yours that lead to the whole morality debate, and destroy any credence lent by others to the plight for P2P software.
"If we had money, we wouldn't need Napster"? So you do admit it's theft... And yes, it is stealing even if it can be copied. In fact, if you read just about ANY copyright issue posted on this site, you should know a little something about the DMCA...
Allow me to submit the following questions to you:
1. If you walk into a convenience store, and there's no clerk and no electronic surveillance, is it wrong to steal product off the shelves?
2. Say you buy a CD (assume you have $16) and find out your friends want copies. Is it illegal to burn copies for them?
I'll give you a hint. The answer is the same for both. The whole debate stems around whether you (or society as a whole) say yes or no. I personally think it is wrong, both morally and legally. Morally for your cherished reasons, and legally for Mr. Ulrich's rights to a paycheck. But for the love of [your deity here], at least have intelligent reasons for supporting the software.
I'm not looking for a flame-war. It would just please me to no end to hear exactly what the original author was looking for: viewpoints supporting Napster beyond "Free music rulez!!".
And I think major acts are the better source. So far I've heard hundreds of people say that local bands benefit from Napster, but I've never heard that from any of the musicians I know. I would contact Radiohead's label. I seem to recall them releasing all of Kid A digitally.
A few months ago I was sent by Pomeroy Computer Resources to a Rhythms DSL Installer training class. There I learned several things about the way the government cleared the way for companies like Rhythms, Covad, and Northpoint.
CLEC's (Competitive Local Exchange Carriers) were given access to local phone lines in the same manner as new power companies, with the expectation of creating better rates for consumers through competition. ILEC's (Incumbent LEC's), or the Baby Bells, were REQUIRED BY LAW to give the CLEC's access to their equipment and lines to set up shop. Of course, if you were told by Unky Sam to let some stranger use your toilet and kitchen, you'd probably be a little upset, too.
The newly imposed laws on the Baby Bells required that the CLEC's get access, but the ILEC's were allowed to charge for that access, and since they owned and maintained the actual lines (with the exception of the actual egresses and DSLAM's), they charged (very heavily) for maintenance calls made by CLEC's. We were told, as installers, not to place calls in to have the ILEC perform service on the line if it was at all avoidable, because the cost would out-weigh what Rhythms was getting from the customer.
So what happened? Northpoint, with all its "venture capital" and "good ideas" tried to face off against Pacific Bell, with all of its established customers, pools of economic resources, and oh yeah, its ability to shut down the entire Northpoint network by flicking a switch. And we, as consumers, are surprised when the Baby Bells win?
I'm frankly surprised the DSL carriers have lasted as long as they have. I left my position at Pomeroy in January, and two months before that I was told to start looking for other work, as Rhythms was short of cash and was sure to start cutting contracts.
The original post mentions that 5 major carriers will eventually handle all hi-speed network access, well one other thing I learned in my training class is that Rhythms, Covad, and Northpoint were just connecting services, and that they relied on those same 5 major carriers (Rhythms primarily relied on M/E). Nothing's really changing, just the person who takes your check.
It seems to be a common flaw of the intelligent to believe that life and politics can be so simply divided into neat little boxes, each fitting nicely within each other and lining up perfectly. For years I have heard how we, as Americans, are terrible and oafish and boorish, while the Europeans are perfect and happy. I've heard that our foreign policy is terrible, that the Republicans are responsible for world hunger, and that Al Gore would have saved us all from ourselves. What's terrifying to me is that most of this has come from the most intelligent people I know.
I cannot conceive of anything more complicated than a political structure. Many intelligent people seem to think that because they understand math or programming that they can make the same judgments about the world and the people in it. The concept that we, as Americans, are pig-headed for not apologizing--or better yet, that an apology would resolve this situation with no fallout--is to me the most ludicrous notion I've heard in quite some time.
Please don't allow yourselves to think that an "isolated event" such as this collision can be so simply resolved. Whatever comes of this will shape US-China relations for the next several years. Do any of you really think it just coincidence that this should happen at the beginning of a new presidency, when we stand against China on the very hot issue of Taiwan? I realize that almost everybody reading this site is too young to remember the Cuban missile crisis (myself included), but the parallels are quite similar. We have a "rogue" nation that has (whether intentionally or not is of no consequence) placed us, our technology, and our international relations in direct danger. We have a young new president who is un-tested in international politics. How better could China guage our future relations during the Bush years than to test him on the international stage? This is no accident. The Chinese are demanding an apology to see how much room we will give them in international affairs. The Germans did the same thing in the mid 1930's, and the world did exactly what you, the intelligencia, are recommending what we do. Can you think that we and our national ideals and precious culture could possibly have survived having ICBM's parked off our coast in the 1960's?
The only thing that makes this issue stand out is the size and relative "importance" (ie, power) of these two countries. The world's 2 largest military powers face a crisis, and the rest of the world is keeping silent. The rest of the world is also using this incident to guage the future of American politics. Will Bush be hard-lined? Will he endanger the lives of 24 soldiers for national security? Will he bow to Chinese pressure? If he does, will there be room for the other "rogue" nations of the world to try similar tactics? If so, does that open up the doors for terrorism? After all, a nation weak on international affairs is an easy target for terrorism. It gets them focusing internally and even weaker externally. The implications of any decision on this matter are extremely far-reaching. No nation should take an incident such as this lightly and simply cast a dis-interested answer at it.
If the incident were truly an accident, no apology would be necessary, "face" or not. We are seeing an obvious attempt at policy-change, and an attempt to sway international favor farther from the US through embarrassment. Only by our dedication to finding a mutually beneficial agreement to this crisis can either nation be respected in the years to come.
I was under the impression that the fastest atmospheric flight was Mach 4.3. At least that's what I remember reading in Guinness...
And lest anyone get confused, that speed was nowhere near 4300MPH. The speed of sound is considerably lower (see the diatribe and resulting corrections two or three strings below...)
Can you imagine: You're sitting at the public library, trying to do some research because (God forbid) your computers are down at home. You look up from your screen to make sure the world is still there, and you notice that the guy next to you is discretely jerking off while watching the Pam & Tommy video? Or maybe the 13yr old has discovered some farts.com type site and keeps playing all of the sound bytes over and over again.
Public money for filtering? What does that mean? One guy spending 5 minutes a day typing off-limits domain names into Proxy Server? Big deal. This is not rocket science. We should not get our panties in a wad.
Yes, I did mean electorate (members of an "orate" are "ors", ergo: electorate, electors). When did the Republicans come to the forefront, though? What were the social conditions? Who was informed?
I agree with you by and large, and am honestly not a proponent of a two party system. I love German politics. I really do wish that a 5% vote for JimBob's Country Party meant that they got 5% of the seats in the house/senate. Unfortunately, our forefathers did not foresee a time when the people would have immediate access to the information necessary to make intelligent decisions for themselves (often we still don't). They chose to empower a small group of chosen voters to "represent" the populace. They also chose to have pre-determined numbers of senators from each state who campaign independently, but who are nominated by their individual parties.
I agree most of all with the views of the Libertarian party. I would NEVER vote for the libertarians, though. Let me tell you why: I have an intense fear of Al Gore. The man is unstable. He pouts when he doesn't get his way, and he wants to take credit for everybody else's work. He doesn't want you to be able to drive a car. Freak! I don't agree with Bush's opinions on abortion or gay rights, BUT only one of them is going to win. So I'm telling my electors (members of electorate in VA) that. No Gore. Dried snail innards are better than Gore. Just can't have 'im.
That being said, I do agree also that bringing attention to alternatives will eventually replace the failed mainstreams (Linux, Be, Amiga, whatever v. MS, Novell). Perhaps in a future election, when candidates are more moderate in their beliefs, I will feel safe using a protest vote. This is simply not the election in which to use (waste) a protest vote. The prospect of Al Gore signing laws into effect is simply too harrowing for words.
By the way, does anybody remember the guy who started the Libertarian party? Lynden LaRouche (sp?). Yeesh. I need to shake the memory of that guy from my head before I could ever conscionably vote for them.
Ross Perot's campaign caused 8 years of Clinton. The winner of the prestigious "Most Impeachable President Award", and progenitor of the now cherished trend of "cuddly and reproachable politicians".
19%. 19% that could have prevented WhiteWater, impeachment trials, shoestringing the military, Vice President Hillary and her sidekick Al, the power of the "StarFucker" (i.e., Lewinsky), and all of the other carnival fun-ride events of the Clinton administration.
What would the proposed 3rd party folks do in tricky foreign policy situations? Would they recommend group-hugs with foreign diplomats? Would "rogue nations" be sent psychiatrists or tough-guys? Cabinet nominations, people. Bush can surround himself well. Gore could adopt the current cabinet. Who would Nader choose, and why? This is an important thing to consider (cabinet members usually make the recommendations and decisions, not the prez). Could you handle 4 years of the "New and Improved Steve Dallas" (post-Gephardtization) as your Sec. of State?
Slashdot Mirror
Call me a freak, but I can easily afford cable, but choose not to buy into it.
I watch 3 network TV shows, and Netflix everything else.
I've actually met several people lately who are eschewing the rising costs of cable TV in favor of advertiser-paid OTA TV.
Disenfranchise me, and I won't look back. Of course, I won't support you, either.
True, "computer skills" don't really involve learning to touch-type in a lab, but neither do basic communication skills involve learning good penmanship. Yet penmanship is still taught in schools. The main reason why we tend to think of typing as a superfluous learning activity is because most of us learned to type in middle school, as opposed to first and second grade. Had we learned it then, and been forced to practice it for a couple of years, this discussion would be moot.
You don't often see people trying to communicate with letters that they've made up, or by holding their pens between their toes. Most folks don't glue a pencil to their thumbs to write, either. So we can agree that there's a proper way to write things by hand. Why not also for typing? Your l/s and wpm scores will truly improve, your passwords will become more secure, and chicks will like you more.
Try the password thing: watch someone type for a few seconds by hunting and pecking, and see if you can figure out what they're typing without looking at the screen. Then watch someone touch-type. If they're good a touch-typing, you shouldn't be able to figure out what they're typing.
It's like watching a technically accurate guitarist: they're ten times faster than you'll ever be, and you'll never learn their licks by watching them play (Vernon Reid of Living Colour, for example).
One other benefit for the college students: you can write your 15-page paper that's due at 8:00am in the dark without pissing off your roommate. My freshman year roommate told me to turn off my monitor because he needed to sleep. I told him I had a paper due, and he told me that I should have written it earlier. Fortunately, we compromised: I just turned off the monitor and wrote it in the dark. I absolutely could not have done that by hunt & peck.
www.supermicro.com
I bought a 1U/P4/256MB/40GB for $650 a year ago. It works perfectly, was cheap, and looks great in my rack.
IT'S NOISY AS HELL, THOUGH.
Oh, so sorry to be off-topic, but I've just run across the goofiest error message ever:
On HP SmartStart 6.40,
A Haiku, by the SmartStart Development Team:
A Fatal Error
Continue, SmartStart Cannot
Agony, Reboot
On topic, however, my dad is an infuriating Mac user, which I also used to be. Then I got a career in IT (as opposed to just a job) and I wasn't working on Macs any more. That was in 1999, and he's still calling and asking for support on new Mac technologies. Um, hello, I haven't touched one in 5 years.
He calls almost every day. "I had problems today, so I ran Norton Utilities." "My cable modem doesn't work. What do I do?"
I can't tell you how seriously close I've come to installing a W2K server as a DC in a child domain to mine, using group policy to lock his butt down, and forcing his connection to proxy through my ISA server. No more worries about downloading virii, but I couldn't ignore the phone any more.
What the hell is a panakeia? What's wrong with using a spell-checker? PANACEA PANACEA PANACEA And while I'm on the subject, there is no "a" in "definite" or "definitely".
I hate making flame-bait, but dammit, we're supposed to be the intellectual frontiersmen, here.
And how many spam messages do you get that seem to come from yourself? And what about those who steal AOL-account passwords (we may not like AOL, but all of our grandmothers do)? How will the FTC differentiate between e-mail that has been forged or spoofed and "honest" spam? I certainly don't want to get a bill at the end of the year for $2.5M because someone spent way too much time trying to guess my Yahoo password. What recourse would be available? How do I *prove* that I am not the spammer who offered to enlarge your penis safely and naturally? Will defendants be required to offer up their hard-drives for forensic investigation? This quickly becomes a YRO issue.
When did we all get math-stupid? How could this:
"10% of 12-17's are downloading/stealing"
mean this:
"90% of traders are buying"?
I didn't read that 100% of 12-17's are downloading anywhere in that text. This is absurdly flawed logic.
Consider: if only 10% of all 12-17's are downloading at all, then 100% of downloaders are NOT BUYING. If 20% are downloading, then 50% are NOT BUYING.
I find it hard to believe that 100% of teens download music--particularly when some parts of the country still run on dial-up or have no internet access.
Um, I meant inbound. D'oh!
Verizon (DSL) blocks TCP 80 outbound. They've done it since Code Red, and when I called them to bitch, they said they'd probably never re-open it.
Such is life. We're buying into the service they provide. Don't like it? Start your own.
I've never seen a good set of "quesions" before. I know, I know: flamebait. But still, a good /. typo is always amusing...
What an absolute pain in the booty. First Yahoo killed my Geocities account (which I could get through POP3 from the dawn of time), and now they take away my free POP3 access. Sure, cool, kill spammers and all, but they are the ones who are willing to pay the $20. Not me. No sirree. Looks like it's time to set up that Exchange server and register an MX record at dyndns.org... F**kers.
As opposed to what? Slow death to DSL? We've been over the whole DSL thing before (and many times, I might add): no business anywhere wants to give space, equipment, and reduced-rate service to the competition. That's just dumb. And this time the Bells are right: cable service does have unfair rights to its own lines (at least in comparison with phone lines).
/.er's complain. A guy steals code/illegally distributes other people's IP/steals music: /.er's say "Big deal. It's within my rights to steal." Someone steals a /.er's work: the world might as well have come to an end.
The '96 telco act basically only makes sense for DSL if DSL is prolific enough to necessitate protection. It's not. Almost all of the C-LEC's have gone out of business already, and the service they offer is generally trash. They typically can't afford the larger egresses and charge more to off-set their tremendous over-head.
Good God, can we at least let the service get a foot-hold before we freak out about the control of the corporations? And hey, if it weren't for corporations, who'd provide the service?
/RANT:
I really enjoy reading this site for news. What I can't stand reading, though, is how everyone's "rights" are being trampled. A guy posts treasonous info and gets busted:
Do the rules only apply when we want them to? When they serve an agenda? Is corporate America wholly outside of their rights by conducting business under (inter)national law?
Granted, I dislike some laws, like the DMCA and whatever damned law created ICANN, but breaking the law doesn't prove anything. Oh, sure: call your congressman to prevent something that might actually make DSL available and affordable, but just break the law when you don't like what's being done to your "rights".
Sorry. I just get so sick of hearing about "rights" this and "rights" that. You have no digitally protected rights. Everything you are doing can be and is being logged by someone. And that someone's TOS says they're damned well within their limits. And nobody has the "right" to lawlessness. Change the laws through protest: you have the right to do that.
/END RANT
Thank you and have a very nice day
How is it that there's "nothing evil" about MS changing our access to free speech on a whim, but Disney is evil and inappropriate for making a video aimed at protecting intellectual property?
I watched a show a few months ago about technology and how it relates to new cars and auto development and the like. There was a quick discussion of Tokyo's (I think) traffic monitoring system:
Basically there are hundreds (thousands?) of cameras around Tokyo that all feed to a central monitoring office. That office is staffed by several people whose whole job is to watch the TV's and update their systems on where congestion is occurring. These "systems" then send the data to cell towers/satellites for transmission to all "wired" cars. The drivers of these cars can pull up traffic reports instantly; recalculate their route based on baselines of traffic-flow, speed limits and traffic lights on other possible routes; and get instant ETA's based on any of those recommended alt routes.
Obviously the system is interactive with GPS and even cell signal triangulation in order to get these route updates.
Yummy Japan.
Let us also not forget the notion of "trade dress". This is Apple sued e-machines for: making a similar product in design and functionality that relies on a similar name and could cause unfavorable results in either the sales or reputation of the original. I realize we all think that the word "illustrator" is bland and common enough, but as a trademark protected name, it would be extremely easy to see how one might suspect "Killustrator"'s name of being derogatory of "Illustrator" (realize that not everyone knows about "K"). Such a product name would be detrimental to the reputation and success of future sales of "Illustrator", making it an infringement on "Illustrator"'s trade dress.
And no, I don't think "illustrator" is a common word that is accurately descriptive of a type of application. It became common because of Adobe's product, much like "Xerox", "Styrofoam" and "Velcro".
The beings at the end of the movie aren't aliens. Nobody seems to get this, and indeed I didn't either, at first. My wife was the first to point out that they were highly advanced robots. You can see some of their circuitry through their translucent "flesh", they refer to David as one of the "original" robots, who remember living people, and they fulfill the prophecy of Gigolo Joe, who said that after the humans were dead and gone, the robots would be all that remained. And furthermore, the robot that sits with David expresses the ultimate shortcoming of the robot creations, their lack of genuine humanity. He says that he has always envied humans for their poetry and art. Would aliens really care about soulful expressions of a race that could barely leave its own planet?
Believe me, once you get over the notion that they're aliens, the movie's ending gets a whole lot better.
You are absolutely correct about public broadcast. It is 100% illegal to play a CD at a party for your 100 closest friends. It is not illegal to play that CD in your house with your family present, though. That is still a private performance.
:-).
I don't think (bearing in mind I'm not a lawyer) playing a CD in your car is really a violation, as the intended audience is still within the private spectrum. Obviously people could stand outside the windows of your home and listen to your music if they wanted--incidentals cannot be averted or necessarily challenged. A car is not really a public broadcast unless you go to a block party, open the doors and hatch-back, and use the car for your "system".
I remember at college we had a list posted on the side of the TV in the lounge. That list contained the names of all movies the college had bought the rights to have publicly displayed on campus. Any other movies, even if rented or owned by the residents, could only be watched within the resident's dorm room, or the college would (could) be sued.
Now turn back to the early 1990's. The days when sampling was just becoming the "big thing" in music. Remember Vanilla Ice. Remember the Beastie Boys. They, and countless others, got sued by their samplees for copyright infringement for not getting the rights to portions of songs. Barely even fragments. And if you'll recall, most of the plaintiffs won. Any recording, be it a second, a minute, or an hour, if copyrighted, is fully covered by copyright laws.
To return to my original topic, I stated that incidentals are just that, and cannot be necessarily challenged. This winds up being the chief argument for unbridled P2P file sharing (at least among the more intelligent). "You can't try to filter the bad out of a situation without negatively impacting the good." Well, that's true. Therefore I would agree that other systems, those designed for the public sharing of other media formats (ie, term papers, research, art-work that is not copyrighted, etc) are perfectly fine, and that abridging their services does adversely affect our ability to share freely with each other.
Napster is not one of these services. Napster was designed with one and only one intention: to FREELY distribute music files. Well, here's a secret: most music is copyrighted. Ergo: Napster was designed to allow ordinary people to easily break the law. Sort of like designing attractive, plush hand-grenades for babies
Hotline (though now over-run with porn, mp3's, and all sorts of other copyrighted stuff) was originally designed for the very good purpose of allowing exactly the type of P2P (sort of) file sharing that I support. It housed discussions on popular subjects, was a huge source of information on all sorts of special interests, and a good distribution method for all of those great humorous things we remember (the Troops video, the guy smashing his monitor with his keyboard, and my favorite: the 4 guys in bandanas beating the shit out of a Wintel box with baseball bats) from the internet of yore. To abridge such a system, even with its illegal content, would be to restrict the free flow of ideas, inspirations, and liberties of those who use the system legally.
So for now, I say: Napster bad! Hotline, eh... was pretty cool. Artists who freely distribute their own music digitally to their fans (Curve, Radiohead, Primus) rule. They've embraced the technology responsibly, and encourage fans to do so, too. So there. That's all I have to say about that. Jenny.
Actually, if you read up on your fair use act, you'll discover that computers are not covered. They are specifically not covered, as decided in federal court recently (can't remember the case, just remember the hub-bub). So if a computer was used in the copy (as is most often the case), then the copies are illegel. And fair use does NOT cover re-distribution. It covers the right of an individual to make copies for his/her PRIVATE use. Re-distribution (ie, trading w/ friends) falls under PUBLIC use domain.
And in the first case, I'm not arguing whether the product was freely available at Walmart down the street. The simple fact is that theft is theft. Justify it all you want, but that's how it boils down in the end. Metallica owns the rights to their music (or at least their recording company does). They, and only they, have the right to determine methods of distribution. If Walmart gives the albums away, it's Walmart's loss. If you steal it, you're a criminal. Where's the gray area here?
Sadly it's just exactly the comments like yours that lead to the whole morality debate, and destroy any credence lent by others to the plight for P2P software.
"If we had money, we wouldn't need Napster"? So you do admit it's theft... And yes, it is stealing even if it can be copied. In fact, if you read just about ANY copyright issue posted on this site, you should know a little something about the DMCA...
Allow me to submit the following questions to you:
1. If you walk into a convenience store, and there's no clerk and no electronic surveillance, is it wrong to steal product off the shelves?
2. Say you buy a CD (assume you have $16) and find out your friends want copies. Is it illegal to burn copies for them?
I'll give you a hint. The answer is the same for both. The whole debate stems around whether you (or society as a whole) say yes or no. I personally think it is wrong, both morally and legally. Morally for your cherished reasons, and legally for Mr. Ulrich's rights to a paycheck. But for the love of [your deity here], at least have intelligent reasons for supporting the software.
I'm not looking for a flame-war. It would just please me to no end to hear exactly what the original author was looking for: viewpoints supporting Napster beyond "Free music rulez!!".
And I think major acts are the better source. So far I've heard hundreds of people say that local bands benefit from Napster, but I've never heard that from any of the musicians I know. I would contact Radiohead's label. I seem to recall them releasing all of Kid A digitally.
A few months ago I was sent by Pomeroy Computer Resources to a Rhythms DSL Installer training class. There I learned several things about the way the government cleared the way for companies like Rhythms, Covad, and Northpoint.
CLEC's (Competitive Local Exchange Carriers) were given access to local phone lines in the same manner as new power companies, with the expectation of creating better rates for consumers through competition. ILEC's (Incumbent LEC's), or the Baby Bells, were REQUIRED BY LAW to give the CLEC's access to their equipment and lines to set up shop. Of course, if you were told by Unky Sam to let some stranger use your toilet and kitchen, you'd probably be a little upset, too.
The newly imposed laws on the Baby Bells required that the CLEC's get access, but the ILEC's were allowed to charge for that access, and since they owned and maintained the actual lines (with the exception of the actual egresses and DSLAM's), they charged (very heavily) for maintenance calls made by CLEC's. We were told, as installers, not to place calls in to have the ILEC perform service on the line if it was at all avoidable, because the cost would out-weigh what Rhythms was getting from the customer.
So what happened? Northpoint, with all its "venture capital" and "good ideas" tried to face off against Pacific Bell, with all of its established customers, pools of economic resources, and oh yeah, its ability to shut down the entire Northpoint network by flicking a switch. And we, as consumers, are surprised when the Baby Bells win?
I'm frankly surprised the DSL carriers have lasted as long as they have. I left my position at Pomeroy in January, and two months before that I was told to start looking for other work, as Rhythms was short of cash and was sure to start cutting contracts.
The original post mentions that 5 major carriers will eventually handle all hi-speed network access, well one other thing I learned in my training class is that Rhythms, Covad, and Northpoint were just connecting services, and that they relied on those same 5 major carriers (Rhythms primarily relied on M/E). Nothing's really changing, just the person who takes your check.
It seems to be a common flaw of the intelligent to believe that life and politics can be so simply divided into neat little boxes, each fitting nicely within each other and lining up perfectly. For years I have heard how we, as Americans, are terrible and oafish and boorish, while the Europeans are perfect and happy. I've heard that our foreign policy is terrible, that the Republicans are responsible for world hunger, and that Al Gore would have saved us all from ourselves. What's terrifying to me is that most of this has come from the most intelligent people I know.
I cannot conceive of anything more complicated than a political structure. Many intelligent people seem to think that because they understand math or programming that they can make the same judgments about the world and the people in it. The concept that we, as Americans, are pig-headed for not apologizing--or better yet, that an apology would resolve this situation with no fallout--is to me the most ludicrous notion I've heard in quite some time.
Please don't allow yourselves to think that an "isolated event" such as this collision can be so simply resolved. Whatever comes of this will shape US-China relations for the next several years. Do any of you really think it just coincidence that this should happen at the beginning of a new presidency, when we stand against China on the very hot issue of Taiwan? I realize that almost everybody reading this site is too young to remember the Cuban missile crisis (myself included), but the parallels are quite similar. We have a "rogue" nation that has (whether intentionally or not is of no consequence) placed us, our technology, and our international relations in direct danger. We have a young new president who is un-tested in international politics. How better could China guage our future relations during the Bush years than to test him on the international stage? This is no accident. The Chinese are demanding an apology to see how much room we will give them in international affairs. The Germans did the same thing in the mid 1930's, and the world did exactly what you, the intelligencia, are recommending what we do. Can you think that we and our national ideals and precious culture could possibly have survived having ICBM's parked off our coast in the 1960's?
The only thing that makes this issue stand out is the size and relative "importance" (ie, power) of these two countries. The world's 2 largest military powers face a crisis, and the rest of the world is keeping silent. The rest of the world is also using this incident to guage the future of American politics. Will Bush be hard-lined? Will he endanger the lives of 24 soldiers for national security? Will he bow to Chinese pressure? If he does, will there be room for the other "rogue" nations of the world to try similar tactics? If so, does that open up the doors for terrorism? After all, a nation weak on international affairs is an easy target for terrorism. It gets them focusing internally and even weaker externally. The implications of any decision on this matter are extremely far-reaching. No nation should take an incident such as this lightly and simply cast a dis-interested answer at it.
If the incident were truly an accident, no apology would be necessary, "face" or not. We are seeing an obvious attempt at policy-change, and an attempt to sway international favor farther from the US through embarrassment. Only by our dedication to finding a mutually beneficial agreement to this crisis can either nation be respected in the years to come.
I was under the impression that the fastest atmospheric flight was Mach 4.3. At least that's what I remember reading in Guinness... And lest anyone get confused, that speed was nowhere near 4300MPH. The speed of sound is considerably lower (see the diatribe and resulting corrections two or three strings below...)
Can you imagine: You're sitting at the public library, trying to do some research because (God forbid) your computers are down at home. You look up from your screen to make sure the world is still there, and you notice that the guy next to you is discretely jerking off while watching the Pam & Tommy video? Or maybe the 13yr old has discovered some farts.com type site and keeps playing all of the sound bytes over and over again.
Public money for filtering? What does that mean? One guy spending 5 minutes a day typing off-limits domain names into Proxy Server? Big deal. This is not rocket science. We should not get our panties in a wad.
Yes, I did mean electorate (members of an "orate" are "ors", ergo: electorate, electors). When did the Republicans come to the forefront, though? What were the social conditions? Who was informed?
I agree with you by and large, and am honestly not a proponent of a two party system. I love German politics. I really do wish that a 5% vote for JimBob's Country Party meant that they got 5% of the seats in the house/senate. Unfortunately, our forefathers did not foresee a time when the people would have immediate access to the information necessary to make intelligent decisions for themselves (often we still don't). They chose to empower a small group of chosen voters to "represent" the populace. They also chose to have pre-determined numbers of senators from each state who campaign independently, but who are nominated by their individual parties.
I agree most of all with the views of the Libertarian party. I would NEVER vote for the libertarians, though. Let me tell you why: I have an intense fear of Al Gore. The man is unstable. He pouts when he doesn't get his way, and he wants to take credit for everybody else's work. He doesn't want you to be able to drive a car. Freak! I don't agree with Bush's opinions on abortion or gay rights, BUT only one of them is going to win. So I'm telling my electors (members of electorate in VA) that. No Gore. Dried snail innards are better than Gore. Just can't have 'im.
That being said, I do agree also that bringing attention to alternatives will eventually replace the failed mainstreams (Linux, Be, Amiga, whatever v. MS, Novell). Perhaps in a future election, when candidates are more moderate in their beliefs, I will feel safe using a protest vote. This is simply not the election in which to use (waste) a protest vote. The prospect of Al Gore signing laws into effect is simply too harrowing for words.
By the way, does anybody remember the guy who started the Libertarian party? Lynden LaRouche (sp?). Yeesh. I need to shake the memory of that guy from my head before I could ever conscionably vote for them.
Good thoughts, sadly a major point is missed:
Ross Perot's campaign caused 8 years of Clinton. The winner of the prestigious "Most Impeachable President Award", and progenitor of the now cherished trend of "cuddly and reproachable politicians".
19%. 19% that could have prevented WhiteWater, impeachment trials, shoestringing the military, Vice President Hillary and her sidekick Al, the power of the "StarFucker" (i.e., Lewinsky), and all of the other carnival fun-ride events of the Clinton administration. What would the proposed 3rd party folks do in tricky foreign policy situations? Would they recommend group-hugs with foreign diplomats? Would "rogue nations" be sent psychiatrists or tough-guys? Cabinet nominations, people. Bush can surround himself well. Gore could adopt the current cabinet. Who would Nader choose, and why? This is an important thing to consider (cabinet members usually make the recommendations and decisions, not the prez). Could you handle 4 years of the "New and Improved Steve Dallas" (post-Gephardtization) as your Sec. of State?
Don't waste your vote. DON'T WAST YOUR VOTE.