Hmm. Well, setting up the TV next to the cmoputer might be interesting. Then test the kids for general knowledge. If most of the questions have to do with Ally McBeal I bet the TV kids win.;-D
The Internet, as had been envisioned by Wired dreamers in the early days, was seen as a great sea where a thing could be accessed by any other thing. A thing being a person/user/hub/server whatever. At the time, digital things had no value, only the machines that made it possible were of value... and not too valuable. The Net itself was the "product", not what was on it.
The point was to give a massive distribution super power to anyone connected. And visa versa. Anyone could access you too! Tools were used to find specific things, and they worked well.
Then some jack-ass (I think his name was Bill something...) jumped up and exclaimed; "Hey! You should sell that software! Not give it away for free stupid!" and thus the current situation formed.
Commercial applications were born. Now children, we all know that the difference between a commercial thing and... something else...*..., is that the commercial thing could care less about giving you anything and is, in fact, designed to do exactly the opposite within the confines of the law.
Google is ment to "guide" you to commercial sites, most likely Google partners, not present information categorized in a logical and academic fashion. That would be giving it away for free, wouldn't it? What are you? A TERRORIST OR SOMETHING! HUH!?!?? HUH??? WELL??? *aims laser bomb*
To answer your first point; your scenario is already covered by law. What's your problem? I've reiterating the long legal argument that people in a DIGITAL WORLD should have some control over their own image. Currently, if you sign a waver for a photographer or someone, they own that image and can use it whenever, etc. With the proliferation of instant imagery, etc. this might be a good idea to check out? Well, Harvard law Profs think so. Maybe you aren't aware of these things. *snork*
Ask any famous actress who once did a porn flic.
As for your second point, ask the actress again. As for the Mayor of New York - he never asked to be a part of that campaign and his words and image are plastered all over Gotham. Is that fair? No... it's just legal.
So Bill calls Jerry, tells Jerry the sanctions are "crazy". Jerry never read the sanctions but tells Bill that if you [secret Corporate deal] for AMD then I'll sing like a bird for ya in court.
"Yes," agreed Sanders. "I asked Mr. Gates to hold Intel to the same standard he held us to."
You know, guys my age used called this crapola payola!
EYE Magazine (Toronto free paper) By: JOANNE HUFFA eye "Maybe the Internet's the answer," he says. "It's one of the few things that has a bit of the traditional punk to it -- a DIY approach, an accessibility. All those things fit into my idea of what punk's all about."
As for the endless debate about music-sharing sites, Bragg feels trading files is akin to radio and mixed tapes.
"It would be OK if there were lots of little labels trying to make great music," he posits, "but when it's five transnational corporations who can't even deal with Mariah Carey -- Jesus Christ! Never mind the poor artists in Finland. Where are you ever gonna find that Finnish music in your local record store? You ain't. But if you can find someone in Finland to download that music for you, then good luck to you.
"It would be great if I was selling millions of records in Canada and people were swapping my files. You wouldn't hear me complaining about it. There's nothing worse than rich people whinging -- those poor, poor fuckers in Metallica."
Let's face it. This, like most litigious initiatives, had no desire what-so-ever to do anything about pedophiles or child porn. Grow up. Why do you think the language in it was so broad? This was ment to fail. Politics... *sigh*
Anyho', this wouldn't be a problem if people had the right to their own image... would it?
'Course, that will never happen as long as the Corporations control our lives, our government, industry, oh and our computers. Your image is not owned by you. The law says so... even if your being abused. Ask the mayor of New York! mmmm, splifffy weed. I tried it and I liked it!
Yeeeaaaa... Create giant online book distribution, get exclusive contracts from publishers to sell product. Destroy every other bookstore in North America (Amazon is just part of this, not directly taking part. However, they exist BECAUSE of this... not because it's 'better' in any way for anyone... except the Corp. Publishers who tell Amazon what to sell). The market is now yours.
Congratulations, you have managed to destroy years of independent literary commerce and turn it into a Wal-Mart.
Now, many Slashdot readers seem to think Wal-Mart, and thus any Corporate market control, is OK and I'm just a whining flame bait bastard.
Give me a break. This is an obvious lie, look, has anyone reading this not ever signed a confidentiality agreement? THIS IS THE TECH INDUSTRY SILLY! What's the real story here?
Considering Microsoft has refered to Linux in general as "communist" and "bad for business" I don't think ANY software company distributing Linux can afford to NOT answer Micro$oft's retarded accusations.
BTW, I've heard worse things from M$ about Linux, but the ones I mention above come from actual news copy.
Wonderfully done radicalsubversiv. Well written too.
Yes, Soros is another of the "futurist" writer/consulting morons from the old financial class. This nefarious bastard is not qualified to comment on socio-political issues in the context of international trade. Not by a long shot.
So he writes a book? Worse, Jon Katz gives it space on an Open Source oriented website. I'm beginning to wonder if Katz gets cheques from the White House.
Capitalism assumes a free market. It's like calling America a democracy. Considering we work in the IT industry, you should be aware that there is no such thing.
The protests in your country, where a student died at the hands of a cop I recall, were simply asking for a voice, a chance, an opinion. They were gased for asking. Being from Barcelona I'd take a good long look at what Argentina has gone through with the USA and the WTO... because you're next!
Re:Semantics: Globalism vs. Corporate Imperialism
on
Globalism Post 9/11
·
· Score: 1
You are a believer. Globalization is a fantasy. 5000 words of rationalization will not change that. Ask yourself, why do this?
Good tip; try to be realistic about the consiquesnces... this isn't a Sims game pal.
Wow. That is the worse collection of mistakes, lies, and obfuscation I've ever read. George Soros is one of those "believers". He's the guy that says we can have a New World Economy and still have an Open Society. Well, he's a liar. Connecting trade to human rights is an old trick. It simply doesn't work, it never worked, and it won't work. Yet, we still get books from liars like this guy. Let me break down the article above paragraph by paragraph.
This isn't what's happening in the World at all. Not even generally. Computer networks are not changing anything, they simply generate money. that's what IT is for, nothing else (ask Bill, Larry, and Steve).
American culture is forced upon the world by the "American Empire" (defined as Corp. interest that control Government and thus trade and law). That is, a world wide market controlled and flooded with American "media" product. It's another big money maker after all. Since this already exists and is a complete mess for everyone but the billionaires in California, it might be a great model for the WTO... but they ignore it as everyone knows that it perfectly shows that World Trade to the USA means the World buying American products... and nothing else.
The truth is, the entire world sees the USA as amateur diplomats with guns and bombs who can barely speak English. Don't get mad, I'm being kind. Recent events in Israel caused one Diplomat to refer to American efforts from the Bush/Cheney/Oil government as "amateur hour at the U.N".
Global Economic policy (defined recently - behind closed doors and without any input from anyone not wearing a tie) is specifically designed to put the "American Corporate Empire" on top. If that isn't what happens, suddenly the USA isn't interested (and has threatened to leave the WTO if they don't get their way). Note; all of this is done behind closed doors with ABSOLUTELY no human rights input at all.
A data based economy? Did he just make that up?
American policy on terrorism has not changed at all since Ronald Reagan and TWA-Flight111. 9/11 seems only to cause the Bush government to give out billions to industry (mainly the Military Industrial Complex) and appoint his pals to silly and completely new positions of power. Homeland Security Director? No such thing. Who are they trying to fool?
I love how this "genius of investment" referred to the protesters of the WTO as "fragmented potpourri of laments about life in the modern world." Fuck you pal!! They are students mostly, and some are not DEAD BY COP. They are concerned that the entire future of the nation is being decided behind closed doors by people who have a history of MURDERING MILLIONS FOR PROFIT.
It has little to do, as he implies, with sour grapes about American infiltration of traditional markets and everything to do with an American Corporation controlling the economy of a nation. American companies already call the shots all over the world and get CIA and NSA help to do it. Central American history is a great place to learn just how the American Industry, government, and the military have no problems at all breaking the laws and very ideals that are the definition of the United States of America. I would think the USA would be ashamed to sell drugs for guns, but it doesn't seem to have bothered Dick Cheney a bit.
Since WWII is mentioned, I feel it necessary to point out that the term "New World Economy" was thrown around allot then too. The Cold War seems to have stymied their plans then.
Lastly, the last 20 years of deregulation, WTO, and New Economy law shredding has created a world of Corporations that have all the restraint of SHELL OIL! Thank you Ronald Reagan. You know, some people think it might not be a good idea to give a Corporation the equivilant legal rights of an human being. Call me crazy...
There is no such thing as a Welfare state, there never was one. It's simply the argument politicians roll out to justify deregulation. After all, what difference does it make to you if your taxes go to Corporations instead of Hospitals? You'll find out the second you need a doctor.
The last paragraph reminds me Nazi propaganda circa 1936. Chose us or CRAZY SUBHUMAN MONSTERS! *pffffft*. Do I look like I'd fall for such crap?
Why in the name of Kibo would anyone bother getting richer and richer on a global scale? Does it make peoples lives better? Does it help the world in any way... any way at all.
Yea, a war on my PC. It's not like I haven't noticed all these proggies f@cking the file associations, web apps, and placing links into my web/file browser (whatever it is these days).
I hate streaming video. It looks like crap. So I don't really care if one is slightly better than the other.
Even digital broadcast, which we prolly watch every day, is clunky and unreliable (sounds like the Net doesn't it?). As someone who PAYS FOR THE BLOODY CABLE, I gotta say I'm completely disappointed in each and every digital "entertainment" technology so far. Not good enough. If I can find an alternative, I'll take it in a second. I'm seriously considering cutting all cable and simply using DVD collections and trades. Hey, as long as Buffy the Vampire Slayer is on disk, I don't need cable (if you get me).
I firmly believe digital technology cannot deliver high quality over a distance. Even through a wire. 1001010100101010 --- are too fat!
Some of us have long argued that culture isn't being destroyed in cyberspace, but is actually being reborn here
Culture in America died years ago. It's called "content" now. The Internet is a massive hole of cultureless junk. "Geek culture" is not a culture, it's a reporters tag line.
Those searching for meaning within the confins of the Internet are constantly disappointed.
More than half of modern culture depends on what one shouldn't read. Oscar Wilde - The Importance of Being Earnest
Polemics aside, why is this a good idea? Am I the only person who thinks this all sounds familiar? Am I the only customer who has no desire what-so-ever-for this?
As a customer, I find all the software available, Unix, Microsoft, or Apple, is basically crap. It's not reliable, it's not secure, and it's horrifically over complicated to network.
At least the Open Source software ADMITS it's not the cats ass.
The truth is, get Open Source and spend your money on a kick ass System Administrator. You can't beat that.
OK, these technical issues are beyond me, but my perception of this is... in a big picture way... Private companies claim security features in their software. They tell their customers that with this, security is assured.
Has any free Open Source softeware EVER claimed this?
As far as I know, every Sys Admin I've ever talked to tells me that nothing is secure on the Internet... it's simply not designed to be! Never was! Hence, claiming Open Source software isn't secure is false - as nothing is secure. What I mean is, claiming security is a lie, you're only as secure as the Admin can make it.
I saw Lord of the Rings recently on a digital screen at Toronto's Paramount theatre. Washed out colour, banding, and lag. Yea, no one really noticed... except myself and perhaps any other artist in the theatre.
Personally, I find digital means low quality. I realize Slashdotters think I'm insane, but then, seeing is believing. LOOK at the screen. Is it really better than analog film? Even if it's just as good, what's the point of spending billions to revert to digital? Other than the evil corporate reasons.;p
Slashdot Mirror
Hmm. Well, setting up the TV next to the cmoputer might be interesting. Then test the kids for general knowledge. If most of the questions have to do with Ally McBeal I bet the TV kids win. ;-D
The Internet, as had been envisioned by Wired dreamers in the early days, was seen as a great sea where a thing could be accessed by any other thing. A thing being a person/user/hub/server whatever. At the time, digital things had no value, only the machines that made it possible were of value... and not too valuable. The Net itself was the "product", not what was on it.
The point was to give a massive distribution super power to anyone connected. And visa versa. Anyone could access you too! Tools were used to find specific things, and they worked well.
Then some jack-ass (I think his name was Bill something...) jumped up and exclaimed; "Hey! You should sell that software! Not give it away for free stupid!" and thus the current situation formed.
Commercial applications were born. Now children, we all know that the difference between a commercial thing and... something else...*..., is that the commercial thing could care less about giving you anything and is, in fact, designed to do exactly the opposite within the confines of the law.
Google is ment to "guide" you to commercial sites, most likely Google partners, not present information categorized in a logical and academic fashion. That would be giving it away for free, wouldn't it? What are you? A TERRORIST OR SOMETHING! HUH!?!?? HUH??? WELL??? *aims laser bomb*
;-D
To answer your first point; your scenario is already covered by law. What's your problem? I've reiterating the long legal argument that people in a DIGITAL WORLD should have some control over their own image. Currently, if you sign a waver for a photographer or someone, they own that image and can use it whenever, etc. With the proliferation of instant imagery, etc. this might be a good idea to check out? Well, Harvard law Profs think so. Maybe you aren't aware of these things. *snork*
Ask any famous actress who once did a porn flic.
As for your second point, ask the actress again. As for the Mayor of New York - he never asked to be a part of that campaign and his words and image are plastered all over Gotham. Is that fair? No... it's just legal.
So Bill calls Jerry, tells Jerry the sanctions are "crazy". Jerry never read the sanctions but tells Bill that if you [secret Corporate deal] for AMD then I'll sing like a bird for ya in court.
"Yes," agreed Sanders. "I asked Mr. Gates to hold Intel to the same standard he held us to."
You know, guys my age used called this crapola payola!
EYE Magazine (Toronto free paper)
;-D
By: JOANNE HUFFA
eye
"Maybe the Internet's the answer," he says. "It's one of the few things that has a bit of the traditional punk to it -- a DIY approach, an accessibility. All those things fit into my idea of what punk's all about."
As for the endless debate about music-sharing sites, Bragg feels trading files is akin to radio and mixed tapes.
"It would be OK if there were lots of little labels trying to make great music," he posits, "but when it's five transnational corporations who can't even deal with Mariah Carey -- Jesus Christ! Never mind the poor artists in Finland. Where are you ever gonna find that Finnish music in your local record store? You ain't. But if you can find someone in Finland to download that music for you, then good luck to you.
"It would be great if I was selling millions of records in Canada and people were swapping my files. You wouldn't hear me complaining about it. There's nothing worse than rich people whinging -- those poor, poor fuckers in Metallica."
rotfl
Let's face it. This, like most litigious initiatives, had no desire what-so-ever to do anything about pedophiles or child porn. Grow up. Why do you think the language in it was so broad? This was ment to fail. Politics... *sigh*
Anyho', this wouldn't be a problem if people had the right to their own image... would it?
'Course, that will never happen as long as the Corporations control our lives, our government, industry, oh and our computers. Your image is not owned by you. The law says so... even if your being abused. Ask the mayor of New York! mmmm, splifffy weed. I tried it and I liked it!
Yeeeaaaa...
Create giant online book distribution, get exclusive contracts from publishers to sell product. Destroy every other bookstore in North America (Amazon is just part of this, not directly taking part. However, they exist BECAUSE of this... not because it's 'better' in any way for anyone... except the Corp. Publishers who tell Amazon what to sell). The market is now yours.
Congratulations, you have managed to destroy years of independent literary commerce and turn it into a Wal-Mart.
Now, many Slashdot readers seem to think Wal-Mart, and thus any Corporate market control, is OK and I'm just a whining flame bait bastard.
You mean streaming formats, online flash, and general Internet media will be slightly less crappy? Wow!
Digital is just another way of saying;"more expensive, less relievant, less quality, more waiting.
Only Republican liars and thier Finland Scientist yes men. Your "Envirnomental Era" theory is - quite frankly, crap.
Yea... because IT businesses are happy to share.
Give me a break. This is an obvious lie, look, has anyone reading this not ever signed a confidentiality agreement? THIS IS THE TECH INDUSTRY SILLY! What's the real story here?
Considering Microsoft has refered to Linux in general as "communist" and "bad for business" I don't think ANY software company distributing Linux can afford to NOT answer Micro$oft's retarded accusations.
BTW, I've heard worse things from M$ about Linux, but the ones I mention above come from actual news copy.
Wonderfully done radicalsubversiv. Well written too.
Yes, Soros is another of the "futurist" writer/consulting morons from the old financial class. This nefarious bastard is not qualified to comment on socio-political issues in the context of international trade. Not by a long shot.
So he writes a book? Worse, Jon Katz gives it space on an Open Source oriented website. I'm beginning to wonder if Katz gets cheques from the White House.
Capitalism assumes a free market. It's like calling America a democracy. Considering we work in the IT industry, you should be aware that there is no such thing.
The protests in your country, where a student died at the hands of a cop I recall, were simply asking for a voice, a chance, an opinion. They were gased for asking. Being from Barcelona I'd take a good long look at what Argentina has gone through with the USA and the WTO... because you're next!
You are a believer. Globalization is a fantasy. 5000 words of rationalization will not change that. Ask yourself, why do this?
Good tip; try to be realistic about the consiquesnces... this isn't a Sims game pal.
Wow. That is the worse collection of mistakes, lies, and obfuscation I've ever read. George Soros is one of those "believers". He's the guy that says we can have a New World Economy and still have an Open Society. Well, he's a liar. Connecting trade to human rights is an old trick. It simply doesn't work, it never worked, and it won't work. Yet, we still get books from liars like this guy. Let me break down the article above paragraph by paragraph.
This isn't what's happening in the World at all. Not even generally. Computer networks are not changing anything, they simply generate money. that's what IT is for, nothing else (ask Bill, Larry, and Steve).
American culture is forced upon the world by the "American Empire" (defined as Corp. interest that control Government and thus trade and law). That is, a world wide market controlled and flooded with American "media" product. It's another big money maker after all. Since this already exists and is a complete mess for everyone but the billionaires in California, it might be a great model for the WTO... but they ignore it as everyone knows that it perfectly shows that World Trade to the USA means the World buying American products... and nothing else.
The truth is, the entire world sees the USA as amateur diplomats with guns and bombs who can barely speak English. Don't get mad, I'm being kind. Recent events in Israel caused one Diplomat to refer to American efforts from the Bush/Cheney/Oil government as "amateur hour at the U.N".
Global Economic policy (defined recently - behind closed doors and without any input from anyone not wearing a tie) is specifically designed to put the "American Corporate Empire" on top. If that isn't what happens, suddenly the USA isn't interested (and has threatened to leave the WTO if they don't get their way). Note; all of this is done behind closed doors with ABSOLUTELY no human rights input at all.
A data based economy? Did he just make that up?
American policy on terrorism has not changed at all since Ronald Reagan and TWA-Flight111. 9/11 seems only to cause the Bush government to give out billions to industry (mainly the Military Industrial Complex) and appoint his pals to silly and completely new positions of power. Homeland Security Director? No such thing. Who are they trying to fool?
I love how this "genius of investment" referred to the protesters of the WTO as "fragmented potpourri of laments about life in the modern world." Fuck you pal!! They are students mostly, and some are not DEAD BY COP. They are concerned that the entire future of the nation is being decided behind closed doors by people who have a history of MURDERING MILLIONS FOR PROFIT.
It has little to do, as he implies, with sour grapes about American infiltration of traditional markets and everything to do with an American Corporation controlling the economy of a nation. American companies already call the shots all over the world and get CIA and NSA help to do it. Central American history is a great place to learn just how the American Industry, government, and the military have no problems at all breaking the laws and very ideals that are the definition of the United States of America. I would think the USA would be ashamed to sell drugs for guns, but it doesn't seem to have bothered Dick Cheney a bit.
Since WWII is mentioned, I feel it necessary to point out that the term "New World Economy" was thrown around allot then too. The Cold War seems to have stymied their plans then.
Lastly, the last 20 years of deregulation, WTO, and New Economy law shredding has created a world of Corporations that have all the restraint of SHELL OIL! Thank you Ronald Reagan. You know, some people think it might not be a good idea to give a Corporation the equivilant legal rights of an human being. Call me crazy...
There is no such thing as a Welfare state, there never was one. It's simply the argument politicians roll out to justify deregulation. After all, what difference does it make to you if your taxes go to Corporations instead of Hospitals? You'll find out the second you need a doctor.
The last paragraph reminds me Nazi propaganda circa 1936. Chose us or CRAZY SUBHUMAN MONSTERS! *pffffft*. Do I look like I'd fall for such crap?
Why in the name of Kibo would anyone bother getting richer and richer on a global scale? Does it make peoples lives better? Does it help the world in any way... any way at all.
Anyone...
No, not you.
Anyone else... ?
St. John's decadent??? It's Newfoundland! It's like Afghanistan without the sand! Where the fook are you from pal... Rosedale? *snork*
We don't call it ScareCanada for nothin'!
Yea, a war on my PC. It's not like I haven't noticed all these proggies f@cking the file associations, web apps, and placing links into my web/file browser (whatever it is these days).
:(
And I pay money for this treatment.
I hate streaming video. It looks like crap. So I don't really care if one is slightly better than the other.
Even digital broadcast, which we prolly watch every day, is clunky and unreliable (sounds like the Net doesn't it?). As someone who PAYS FOR THE BLOODY CABLE, I gotta say I'm completely disappointed in each and every digital "entertainment" technology so far. Not good enough. If I can find an alternative, I'll take it in a second. I'm seriously considering cutting all cable and simply using DVD collections and trades. Hey, as long as Buffy the Vampire Slayer is on disk, I don't need cable (if you get me).
I firmly believe digital technology cannot deliver high quality over a distance. Even through a wire. 1001010100101010 --- are too fat!
Some of us have long argued that culture isn't being destroyed in cyberspace, but is actually being reborn here
Culture in America died years ago. It's called "content" now. The Internet is a massive hole of cultureless junk. "Geek culture" is not a culture, it's a reporters tag line.
Those searching for meaning within the confins of the Internet are constantly disappointed.
More than half of modern culture depends on what one shouldn't read.
Oscar Wilde - The Importance of Being Earnest
Polemics aside, why is this a good idea? Am I the only person who thinks this all sounds familiar? Am I the only customer who has no desire what-so-ever-for this?
Can anyone tell me why?!?!!!??
As a customer, I find all the software available, Unix, Microsoft, or Apple, is basically crap. It's not reliable, it's not secure, and it's horrifically over complicated to network.
At least the Open Source software ADMITS it's not the cats ass.
The truth is, get Open Source and spend your money on a kick ass System Administrator.
You can't beat that.
Fuck you moderators!
OK, these technical issues are beyond me, but my perception of this is... in a big picture way...
Private companies claim security features in their software. They tell their customers that with this, security is assured.
Has any free Open Source softeware EVER claimed this?
As far as I know, every Sys Admin I've ever talked to tells me that nothing is secure on the Internet... it's simply not designed to be! Never was! Hence, claiming Open Source software isn't secure is false - as nothing is secure. What I mean is, claiming security is a lie, you're only as secure as the Admin can make it.
I saw Lord of the Rings recently on a digital screen at Toronto's Paramount theatre. Washed out colour, banding, and lag. Yea, no one really noticed... except myself and perhaps any other artist in the theatre.
;p
Personally, I find digital means low quality. I realize Slashdotters think I'm insane, but then, seeing is believing. LOOK at the screen. Is it really better than analog film? Even if it's just as good, what's the point of spending billions to revert to digital? Other than the evil corporate reasons.