...and don't give me that bullshit argument about freedom of expression not applying here
Freedom of expression does not apply here. This is not a public area/site/whatever the hell you want to call it. It is a private site run by the runners of slashdot. If they want to ban stupid links, it's their choice. If they want to ban you, it's their choice.
You're not protected by the first ammendment here; this site is not run by the government for the people. It's run by certian people for certain other people.
You think it'll hold up in court, for example, that those who run this site banned you from posting a specific link on their site? Please...
And second, censorship is not the problem. Unwanted censorship is. If you want to censor something, go for it. If someone's pushing censorship on you when it's unwanted, however, then it's a problem.
No, governmental laws may not apply here...
And yet you claim first am. rights here? Ha. That's funny.
That's a really nice article, there, not that I read all of it. I get the jist, though.
There is nothing wrong with advocacy. No one ever said advocacy entailed tunnel-vision. That stems not from the advocator, but from the listener. Instead of trying to abolish advocacy, let's try and abolish the ignorance of those who listen to advocators.
Using the example in the article about the discussion on Perl and ML, whoever asked "What's wrong with the way Perl does it?" (or however it was worded) was a bit ignorant, and reads into things too much. Simply comparing two different approaches does not mean the speaker is saying the latter approach is better than the former (unless s/he specifically says that).
Screw advocating against advocacy, advocate for an antidote to ignorance.
Sad? Why is it sad someone spends time with something they enjoy which also happens to be constructive?
As for "many young people are semi-literate", what the hell is that supposed to mean? This isn't because of gaming, if this even is the case at all. In case you haven't noticed, the younger generation is moving ahead quite a bit faster than the older, for many reasons I should need not explain.
Besides, games have words, too.
On top of that, how do you expect your so-called semi-literate younger generation to read web pages, or game instructions, or everything else they read. Technical sites or instructions, which must be read in the case of gaming or surfing which apparently seem to plague the younger generation, according to you, is not a simple task, nor is it one in which you can be semi-literate and understand half of it.
If anything, 49 minutes a day seems quite a bit off, as does your semi-literate comment on semi-literate people.
It's shit like this that really pisses me off. It's almost a new fad, now, for a company to trademark the simplest terms. It's turned into a bit of a contest, a race to see who can come up with the simplest term to legally trademark.
Aqua should not be a trademarked name; it's too common, after all, it is the name of a color, and a prefix in English at that.
Apple is fooling themselves if they think America will recognize Aqua as Apple's interface simply by the name Aqua.
Comments similar to "If you don't like MAPS, don't use it" are VERY short sighted.
You are basically prooving the point "If you don't like MAPS [or similar services], don't use it [them]". You didn't like them, so you didn't use them.
...I don't get the option to 'opt out'. This is FORCED censorship.
You argument here sucks, yet again. There is no such thing as forced censorship. If you submit to it, it is not forced. Unsubscribing to your ISP effectively bypasses any imposed censorship.
If enough subscribers to a given ISP which uses the RBL, or anything like it, to which those subscribers oppose, unsubscribe to the ISP, or otherwise protest, the ISP will start getting the message.
If anything, this is simply an inconvenience, albeit quite a large one. It can be stopped, thus it is not forced.
I think that unless there is some democratic process...
I completely agree, that is if one chooses to use such a service. Personally, I'd rather not see that as much as I would see the volutary halt of spam and the realization by spammers that spam sucks and does not work. Of course, spam does work, not only because people choose to simply delete more often then fight it, and on top of that, people still quite often read spam, visit the sites, order things, etc. This is what is truely unacceptable.
This is fair and *optional* -- for the subscriber. I see your points as far as the consumer goes, but if you're really worried about it, shouldn't you stop wasting your breath (so to speak), here, and start wasting it on your/their ISP's admin(s)?
That's not entirely correct; this is: using an ISP is volutary.
While you may choose to use an ISP, sometimes you may only choose not to use an ISP using the RBL by choosing not to use an ISP at all.
Furthermore, it would be unwise not to note that subscribers to ISPs who use the RBL can protest (or support) their ISPs uses of the RBL if they so desire.
Lastly, from what I gathered from the posting, Media3 does not willingly support spammers in any way. Moreso, their sites are including in the RBL because Media3 choose not to cooperate very well when a third party choose to add 6 entire Class C networks to the RBL, almost regardless of whether sites residing in that network engage or otherwise support spam.
And, just for the hell of it, I'd like to point out that MAPS has effectively become socialist thanks to their discrimation by association [to a given IP network number].
To put it in more realistic terms, the RBL is simply a list of IP addresses. What subscribers to the list choose to do with that list of addresses is up to the them.
Generally, however, subscribers match the sender and/or relay server of incoming mail against the list, and discards any email which with a sender or relay in the RBL.
Thus, MAPS does not block anything; it is entirely up to the subscriber of the RBL and/or the mail server software he/she/they is/are using.
This also prompts me to point out that in saying, effectively, MAPS' RBL does not block a single piece of spam is pure crap.
The RBL applies to e-mail only, AFAIK. Its subscribers use it to block "known spammers" for delivering mail to a certain address, NOT to block users of a subscribed ISP from viewing their websites.
Also, because ISPs volutarily subscribe to the RBL, Media3 has no case; MAPS' does not require anyone to use it's RBL. If Media3 has a problem with the RBL, it should be negotiating with its subscribers, although that would be pointless.
And yes, as I'm sure is well noted, if you don't like the RBL, don't use it. Likewise, if you like the concept behind the RBL, but don't like the direction it is currently taking, you can take that up with MAPS', as well as other subscribers with similar opinions.
This is a much better, in my opinion, way to police the Internet, compared to legislature, as the latter has almost no jurisdiction whatsoever, and the former has many supporters behind it.
Ultimately, this is the wave of the future (as are some more unique cliches, I hope). The singular problematic factor in competition, I think, is the physical medium. From my experiences, from more of a consumer perspective, phycical mediums are expensive, because not only do they entail some form of labor, they also impose quite a few restrictions.
This even supports my idea that everyone is lazy. We're trying to get rid of something which requires too much time, and too much money, and too much effort, in order to reach a vast audience (and thereby increasing profit, of course).
Sooner or later, companies are going to learn (at least acknowledge the fact, if they've already learned) that some people just don't like a certain product and/or company for reasons beyond that company's control. When this happens, things will get a little (and I do mean little) better. Let's not forget free enterprise. Free enterprise actually has a definition, and a very valid one that needs not changing at this point in time. That definition, however, is often lost among the likes of Microsoft, and other large monopolistic companies.
The act is in place, and when we're ready for it, I think we'll be glad that it was in place, now, because there'll be a bit less bickering about it, and we will have had more time to peice the puzzle together and smooth it out, and refine it.
It is my belief, and has been for as long as I can remember (but that doesn't really say much), that things are done, whether we know it or not, in a very specific pattern. This probably stems from my religious background, and I'm sure I'll get flamed for this sometime or another, but the further humanity goes into the unknown called the future, things begin to make more and more sense.
In short, the act is in place, and we are making use of it whether we can see the results or not.
I think it's time to redefine The American Dream. It's used quite extensively, but no one truely knows what it is.
The American Dream is quite contradictory. In definition, it's not truely American, but takes more of an individualistic approach. Yet, at the same time, America has always been understood to be individualistic itself. It is, after all, one of the purposes of this country being founded, among many other.
The American Dream is no as incredibly difficult to attain is one may think. Sure, it's difficult, but what isn't? That's just life.
Probably the most important reason as to why we haven't made use of the act is that we're just plain lazy. That's beauracracy for you. It's mostly just words. In reality, business are too stubborn to change (for the most part; and think of Microsoft), and the People don't realize (in both common senses of the word) their power.
Perhaps this is for the better. If the fees are actually imposed, it will at least weed out stations who are too concerned with money to stand up for their own rights.
since it is essentially "copying" digital data from one computer to another
If broadcasting data from one computer to another is copying and therefore should be subjected to royalties, why isn't playing a CD considered copying?
I'm assuming someone's response would be that computers buffer the information. Well, so do anti-skip CD players. Are they now going to try to charge owners of anti-skip CD players royalties everytime they listen to a CD? Those types of players buffer the audio as well, essentially copying it. And of course, just as with broadcasts to a computer can be considered a download, the same can be done from a CD player in a computer, essentially. This whole idea of essentials makes the RIAA's case fall-apart very easily.
I don't think there will be any court that uphelds the RIAA's viewpoint on this so-called copying of data; at least not as an end-result. This is stupid. When are people going to stand up and say a company should perform for the people, not the owners and workers?
People often forget (that is, if they ever knew) their power. Take a monopoly, any monopoly. If the people don't like the way they practice business, the can boy-cott them, or something. A corrupt provider can easily be stopped by the people, or changed; however no one seems to realize it.
In a market such as the one we have today, people control the market, not the government (with few exceptions). We control the market, no one else. If we want something done (or undone), by all means: go for it. Stop relying on government to protect us; rely on ourselves. Ourselves are, after all, the only ones we can truely trust...it's not like we can read minds (yet).
As you see, unregulated by your definition is not unregulated. Nothing is unregulated in today's economy. The market is controlled by one singal entity: consumers.
You're feelings towards the RIAA are well warrented, but keep in mind the artists who actually take time to make the music. Don't you think they deserve some reward for that?
I admit, I don't like paying for music; of course, I don't like paying for anything so there's really no harm done. I will, however, pay for music which I really like and has come from an artist I wish to support (that is, if I have money to begin with).
Reasonable access to modern culture is absolutely fine; I'm all for it. But a complete lack of monitary price, in this society, is by far unreasonable. On the opposite of the spectrum, however, so is $20-30/CD, $45/yr, $5/mo, and what have you.
Yes, you're missing something -- it's that little blurb after the first-to-use-numeric-blah-blah-blah. They claim to be the first to go onling with numeric addressing using phone numbers. Of course, IPv6 has already done this, before them, in addition to tpc.int. Maybe the first in Aussie-land, but not in the world.
Ok, anyone know that phone number? It's some company's phone system menu where option 7 is a duck sound then hangs up...can't remember the number though; isn't that what DNS was all about, associating names with numbers, not the other way around? Though I still think the email-fax gateway is neat, that's about all it should be for; that's what it was designed for. (Bad grammer, I know)
Who ever said this was about fairness? Unregulated territory is always the best, especially when it undermines something traditional, such as a telco. Try to regulate VoIP is like trying to regulate the...wait, it is trying to regulate the internet. You can't regulate the internet.
Ok, fine, let's have the telcos try to regulate VoIP just to have them waste money on something that's not going to happen. That will drive up the prices on "traditional" services, forcing everyone to switch to VoIP; essentially, the telcos would be puttying themselves out of business.
Yes, let's regulate VoIP. Rather, let's let them regulate VoIP.
It seems I remember something about either address allocation having to be free, or the actual transit over the network...I'm not sure which, and I can't find any information on it right now, but I thought either way, it'd be of particular interest with regards to (and possibly opposition of) your idea of micropayments for bandwidth and such.
I'll try to find out some more info on this; anyone know much else about it?
]
I do, however, know for a fact that you're quite a bit more than wrong about the lack of services over the IPv6 network. They are plentiful, for the users and developers using the current testbed (aka the 6bone). DHIS is one of many free providers of IPv6 testing address allocation, Freenet6 is another. And there are numerous IPv6 capable sites, including FreeBSD's site, portions of Microsoft's site, NASA...
If you check out the main IPv6 sites, such as the 6bone, IPv6.org, IPv6Forum, and a whole lot of others, you'll find the network is quite extensive. Work is being done quite a bit, and it's more than just talk.
Slashdot Mirror
I third. Hey, let's put this on the next poll.
Blah blah blah blah.
Freedom of expression does not apply here. This is not a public area/site/whatever the hell you want to call it. It is a private site run by the runners of slashdot. If they want to ban stupid links, it's their choice. If they want to ban you, it's their choice.
You're not protected by the first ammendment here; this site is not run by the government for the people. It's run by certian people for certain other people.
You think it'll hold up in court, for example, that those who run this site banned you from posting a specific link on their site? Please...
And second, censorship is not the problem. Unwanted censorship is. If you want to censor something, go for it. If someone's pushing censorship on you when it's unwanted, however, then it's a problem.
No, governmental laws may not apply here...
And yet you claim first am. rights here? Ha. That's funny.
That's a really nice article, there, not that I read all of it. I get the jist, though.
There is nothing wrong with advocacy. No one ever said advocacy entailed tunnel-vision. That stems not from the advocator, but from the listener. Instead of trying to abolish advocacy, let's try and abolish the ignorance of those who listen to advocators.
Using the example in the article about the discussion on Perl and ML, whoever asked "What's wrong with the way Perl does it?" (or however it was worded) was a bit ignorant, and reads into things too much. Simply comparing two different approaches does not mean the speaker is saying the latter approach is better than the former (unless s/he specifically says that).
Screw advocating against advocacy, advocate for an antidote to ignorance.
Sad? Why is it sad someone spends time with something they enjoy which also happens to be constructive?
As for "many young people are semi-literate", what the hell is that supposed to mean? This isn't because of gaming, if this even is the case at all. In case you haven't noticed, the younger generation is moving ahead quite a bit faster than the older, for many reasons I should need not explain.
Besides, games have words, too.
On top of that, how do you expect your so-called semi-literate younger generation to read web pages, or game instructions, or everything else they read. Technical sites or instructions, which must be read in the case of gaming or surfing which apparently seem to plague the younger generation, according to you, is not a simple task, nor is it one in which you can be semi-literate and understand half of it.
If anything, 49 minutes a day seems quite a bit off, as does your semi-literate comment on semi-literate people.
No, why should it?
It's shit like this that really pisses me off. It's almost a new fad, now, for a company to trademark the simplest terms. It's turned into a bit of a contest, a race to see who can come up with the simplest term to legally trademark.
Aqua should not be a trademarked name; it's too common, after all, it is the name of a color, and a prefix in English at that.
Apple is fooling themselves if they think America will recognize Aqua as Apple's interface simply by the name Aqua.
Comments similar to "If you don't like MAPS, don't use it" are VERY short sighted.
You are basically prooving the point "If you don't like MAPS [or similar services], don't use it [them]". You didn't like them, so you didn't use them.
You argument here sucks, yet again. There is no such thing as forced censorship. If you submit to it, it is not forced. Unsubscribing to your ISP effectively bypasses any imposed censorship.
If enough subscribers to a given ISP which uses the RBL, or anything like it, to which those subscribers oppose, unsubscribe to the ISP, or otherwise protest, the ISP will start getting the message.
If anything, this is simply an inconvenience, albeit quite a large one. It can be stopped, thus it is not forced.
I think that unless there is some democratic process...
I completely agree, that is if one chooses to use such a service. Personally, I'd rather not see that as much as I would see the volutary halt of spam and the realization by spammers that spam sucks and does not work. Of course, spam does work, not only because people choose to simply delete more often then fight it, and on top of that, people still quite often read spam, visit the sites, order things, etc. This is what is truely unacceptable.
Don't even say that this is fair and *optional*.
This is fair and *optional* -- for the subscriber. I see your points as far as the consumer goes, but if you're really worried about it, shouldn't you stop wasting your breath (so to speak), here, and start wasting it on your/their ISP's admin(s)?
using an ISP that subscribes to them is voluntary
That's not entirely correct; this is: using an ISP is volutary.
While you may choose to use an ISP, sometimes you may only choose not to use an ISP using the RBL by choosing not to use an ISP at all.
Furthermore, it would be unwise not to note that subscribers to ISPs who use the RBL can protest (or support) their ISPs uses of the RBL if they so desire.
Lastly, from what I gathered from the posting, Media3 does not willingly support spammers in any way. Moreso, their sites are including in the RBL because Media3 choose not to cooperate very well when a third party choose to add 6 entire Class C networks to the RBL, almost regardless of whether sites residing in that network engage or otherwise support spam.
And, just for the hell of it, I'd like to point out that MAPS has effectively become socialist thanks to their discrimation by association [to a given IP network number].
To put it in more realistic terms, the RBL is simply a list of IP addresses. What subscribers to the list choose to do with that list of addresses is up to the them.
Generally, however, subscribers match the sender and/or relay server of incoming mail against the list, and discards any email which with a sender or relay in the RBL.
Thus, MAPS does not block anything; it is entirely up to the subscriber of the RBL and/or the mail server software he/she/they is/are using.
This also prompts me to point out that in saying, effectively, MAPS' RBL does not block a single piece of spam is pure crap.
The RBL applies to e-mail only, AFAIK. Its subscribers use it to block "known spammers" for delivering mail to a certain address, NOT to block users of a subscribed ISP from viewing their websites.
Also, because ISPs volutarily subscribe to the RBL, Media3 has no case; MAPS' does not require anyone to use it's RBL. If Media3 has a problem with the RBL, it should be negotiating with its subscribers, although that would be pointless.
And yes, as I'm sure is well noted, if you don't like the RBL, don't use it. Likewise, if you like the concept behind the RBL, but don't like the direction it is currently taking, you can take that up with MAPS', as well as other subscribers with similar opinions.
This is a much better, in my opinion, way to police the Internet, compared to legislature, as the latter has almost no jurisdiction whatsoever, and the former has many supporters behind it.
Ultimately, this is the wave of the future (as are some more unique cliches, I hope). The singular problematic factor in competition, I think, is the physical medium. From my experiences, from more of a consumer perspective, phycical mediums are expensive, because not only do they entail some form of labor, they also impose quite a few restrictions.
This even supports my idea that everyone is lazy. We're trying to get rid of something which requires too much time, and too much money, and too much effort, in order to reach a vast audience (and thereby increasing profit, of course).
Sooner or later, companies are going to learn (at least acknowledge the fact, if they've already learned) that some people just don't like a certain product and/or company for reasons beyond that company's control. When this happens, things will get a little (and I do mean little) better. Let's not forget free enterprise. Free enterprise actually has a definition, and a very valid one that needs not changing at this point in time. That definition, however, is often lost among the likes of Microsoft, and other large monopolistic companies.
The act is in place, and when we're ready for it, I think we'll be glad that it was in place, now, because there'll be a bit less bickering about it, and we will have had more time to peice the puzzle together and smooth it out, and refine it.
It is my belief, and has been for as long as I can remember (but that doesn't really say much), that things are done, whether we know it or not, in a very specific pattern. This probably stems from my religious background, and I'm sure I'll get flamed for this sometime or another, but the further humanity goes into the unknown called the future, things begin to make more and more sense.
In short, the act is in place, and we are making use of it whether we can see the results or not.
I think it's time to redefine The American Dream. It's used quite extensively, but no one truely knows what it is.
The American Dream is quite contradictory. In definition, it's not truely American, but takes more of an individualistic approach. Yet, at the same time, America has always been understood to be individualistic itself. It is, after all, one of the purposes of this country being founded, among many other.
The American Dream is no as incredibly difficult to attain is one may think. Sure, it's difficult, but what isn't? That's just life.
Probably the most important reason as to why we haven't made use of the act is that we're just plain lazy. That's beauracracy for you. It's mostly just words. In reality, business are too stubborn to change (for the most part; and think of Microsoft), and the People don't realize (in both common senses of the word) their power.
Perhaps this is for the better. If the fees are actually imposed, it will at least weed out stations who are too concerned with money to stand up for their own rights.
Eventually, my friend, eventually.
since it is essentially "copying" digital data from one computer to another
If broadcasting data from one computer to another is copying and therefore should be subjected to royalties, why isn't playing a CD considered copying?
I'm assuming someone's response would be that computers buffer the information. Well, so do anti-skip CD players. Are they now going to try to charge owners of anti-skip CD players royalties everytime they listen to a CD? Those types of players buffer the audio as well, essentially copying it. And of course, just as with broadcasts to a computer can be considered a download, the same can be done from a CD player in a computer, essentially. This whole idea of essentials makes the RIAA's case fall-apart very easily.
I don't think there will be any court that uphelds the RIAA's viewpoint on this so-called copying of data; at least not as an end-result. This is stupid. When are people going to stand up and say a company should perform for the people, not the owners and workers?
People often forget (that is, if they ever knew) their power. Take a monopoly, any monopoly. If the people don't like the way they practice business, the can boy-cott them, or something. A corrupt provider can easily be stopped by the people, or changed; however no one seems to realize it.
In a market such as the one we have today, people control the market, not the government (with few exceptions). We control the market, no one else. If we want something done (or undone), by all means: go for it. Stop relying on government to protect us; rely on ourselves. Ourselves are, after all, the only ones we can truely trust...it's not like we can read minds (yet).
As you see, unregulated by your definition is not unregulated. Nothing is unregulated in today's economy. The market is controlled by one singal entity: consumers.
Information will be free, sometime. Completely free. No price will be needed. This is hindering the process by which that will happen.
Our arguments stand.
You're feelings towards the RIAA are well warrented, but keep in mind the artists who actually take time to make the music. Don't you think they deserve some reward for that?
I admit, I don't like paying for music; of course, I don't like paying for anything so there's really no harm done. I will, however, pay for music which I really like and has come from an artist I wish to support (that is, if I have money to begin with).
Reasonable access to modern culture is absolutely fine; I'm all for it. But a complete lack of monitary price, in this society, is by far unreasonable. On the opposite of the spectrum, however, so is $20-30/CD, $45/yr, $5/mo, and what have you.
Yes, you're missing something -- it's that little blurb after the first-to-use-numeric-blah-blah-blah. They claim to be the first to go onling with numeric addressing using phone numbers. Of course, IPv6 has already done this, before them, in addition to tpc.int. Maybe the first in Aussie-land, but not in the world.
Ok, anyone know that phone number? It's some company's phone system menu where option 7 is a duck sound then hangs up...can't remember the number though; isn't that what DNS was all about, associating names with numbers, not the other way around? Though I still think the email-fax gateway is neat, that's about all it should be for; that's what it was designed for. (Bad grammer, I know)
Who ever said this was about fairness? Unregulated territory is always the best, especially when it undermines something traditional, such as a telco. Try to regulate VoIP is like trying to regulate the...wait, it is trying to regulate the internet. You can't regulate the internet. Ok, fine, let's have the telcos try to regulate VoIP just to have them waste money on something that's not going to happen. That will drive up the prices on "traditional" services, forcing everyone to switch to VoIP; essentially, the telcos would be puttying themselves out of business. Yes, let's regulate VoIP. Rather, let's let them regulate VoIP.
It seems I remember something about either address allocation having to be free, or the actual transit over the network...I'm not sure which, and I can't find any information on it right now, but I thought either way, it'd be of particular interest with regards to (and possibly opposition of) your idea of micropayments for bandwidth and such.
I'll try to find out some more info on this; anyone know much else about it?
]I do, however, know for a fact that you're quite a bit more than wrong about the lack of services over the IPv6 network. They are plentiful, for the users and developers using the current testbed (aka the 6bone). DHIS is one of many free providers of IPv6 testing address allocation, Freenet6 is another. And there are numerous IPv6 capable sites, including FreeBSD's site, portions of Microsoft's site, NASA...
If you check out the main IPv6 sites, such as the 6bone, IPv6.org, IPv6Forum, and a whole lot of others, you'll find the network is quite extensive. Work is being done quite a bit, and it's more than just talk.