When there's some major disaster that knocks out regular communications channels, those "old sweaty fat bearded men", as you put it, are often the only link left.
It's also worth noting that in ploitical crises, such as coups and other instability, ham operators are often the only way you're going to get information out of and into the troubled area. In almost all cases, when someone is attempting to seize power in a country, the first thing they do is take control of the telephone system and broadcast outlets. Without alternative means of communications, entire populations could be cut off from the outside world, and vice versa.
It's true that the number of operators is declining, but if you're using that fact to assert that the service is useless, I think you're mistaken. And no, the Internet is not a suitable replacement, nor are wireless phones. An Internet connection can be knocked out for any number of reasons, both accidental and deliberate, and a wireless network can go down if the cell sites are knocked out, but unless you can find a ham operator and seize his equipment, he can most likely get on the air.
FYI, this isn't limited to Pac Bell. I got a notice on July 27 that SW Bell is also doing this. The exact same message, in fact.
Which brings me to a question. How is it that I submitted this info on that date (7/27), and it was rejected for posting as an article here, but it gets posted today, over a month later. I realize Slashdot gets a lot of submissions, but still. If whether something gets accepted or rejected is based on chance, as it appears to be, what's the point in submitting?
No, that's exactly the problem. All the moaning in the world will get you a grand total of squat unless it's backed by political action. Yes, you need communications infrastructure in place so people can share ideas, and mailing lists and Web-based forums work quite nicely for that, up to a point, but they don't substitute for face-to-face contact. And no amount of discussion will substitute for action. In the end, you have to be ready, willing, and able to deliver the goods (votes) or bust some heads (end political careers, or at least seriously damage them), or both, whichever is necessary. When you're able to do these things, you get attention and respect, and things suddenly start to go your way.
Yep, they did. Adobe didn't back off because they felt bad about what they did. One could certainly argue that they could back off and let the feds take the heat and accomplish the same thing, but the fact remains that they took plenty of heat themselves, and I imagine they didn't like it.
I think it's also important to remember that turnout for elections in this country is often low. It's nearly miraculous to get more than 50% of registered voters to show up at the polls. And that's registered voters. I often wonder what the percentage would be if we also counted people who were eligible to register to vote but who aren't even registered. What this all means is that elections are decided by a relatively small number of people. One could argue that this apathy works to the advantage of corporations because they have to sway smaller numbers of people and because an apathetic electorate, if it votes at all, is more likely to take the easy way out and vote for the incumbent or the candidate who had the most ads, often the same person, and almost always the one backed by powerful special interests. However, low voter turnout can also benefit grass-roots groups because they can have more of an effect on elections in such a situation, especially if they have an active and cohesive membership.
The trick is to build that membership and hold it together. The Internet provides a deceptive unity, I think. You're connected with all these people, but you often never see their faces and often don't even know their names. The problem comes in that you can have an impassioned discussion of an issue, then get up from your keyboard and forget about it. Lots of it has to do with the fact that many of the people around you often don't even know about the issues that you're so passionate about online. Education is part of the problem, but I think the old-school politicians--the ones who knocked on doors, held rallies, and kissed every baby within reach--had it right. Personal contact is a strong unifying force, if for no other reason than you see these people on a regular basis, and they see you, and you reinforce each other's viewpoints and determination to take action. What I'm getting to here is that any kind of Internet advocacy groups has to utilize a mixture of personal contact along with Internet-based communication. My guess is that this would be easiest to do initially in places like Silicon Valley, the Bay Area, and New York. From there, it would hopefully spread as it gained momentum.
Just my $.02 worth, anyway.
Re:Police State? Only if we put up with it
on
The Internet Backlash
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I agree, but I wasn't thinking so much in terms of groups like the EFF. I'm thinking of something more overtly political, a group whose primary mission is to apply political pressure to make sure Net users' interests are respected. Certainly, its views would fit nicely with those of the EFF, but it would be more focused on either pressuring incumbent politicians or developing its own slate of candidates, not unlike the tactics of, dare I say it, the Christian Coallition. Obviously, what I'm contemplating would have absolutely nothing in common with them in terms of philosophy, but no one can deny that they exemplify the power of grass-roots organization with their voter guides. Love 'em or hate 'em, they often get results for their supporters. I think the Net could likewise benefit from a damn-the-torpedoes political action group. Let groups like the EFF, CDT, and EPIC continue to do what they do, and rely on them to formulate well-thought-out policy issues, then use whatever political action group you have to ram these issues through Congress and the state legislatures using good old-fashioned political muscle, since that's often the only language politicians understand.
Re:Police State? Only if we put up with it
on
The Internet Backlash
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
If we refuse to put up with it, it won't happen. If we lie back and wait for someone else to save us, we'll all wind up as indentured servants to the MPAA.
And there lies the problem. We can scream and moan and protest all we want, but it won't matter one damn bit unless we become politically active. Why do the corporations so often get their way? Because they make huge campaign contributions? Why do issues involving senior citizens, such as Social Security and Medicare, get constant attention? Because senior citizens vote. Yes, friends, they vote, they vote in large numbers, they care about these issues, and they make absolutely sure the politicians know it.
It seems odd that Net users, who are often the most well-connected people out there, haven't come together to defend themselves against political persecution and scapegoating. Still, that unity hasn't developed, but it had better happen soon. If we were to become a force that could change the outcome of elections, things would change, but until that happens, we'll continue to be on the losing end of laws like the DMCA. So, until people begin to get organized and flex some political muscle, nothing will change.
Anyone care to form an Internet-based political advocacy group? Slashdot would probably be an excellent place from which to draw some initial members. And a name even comes to mind: OpenSociety.
Please don't take my comments personally. They aren't meant to be. The reasons I feel the way I do about AOL is:
The commercials that scream "EASY!" over and over, all the time using sound bites from people talking about how they do this and do that on AOL (travel, news, stocks, weather), as if this is some big deal, when all this is available on the Net in much greater quantity.
The fact that AOL charges so much more per month than ISPs do.
The fact that their software isn't standards-compliant. Why can't they allow their e-mail client to use POP3/IMAP or at least give people the option to use these protocols if they want to use their own client software?
The issue of standards slapped me in the face just last week. I was rebuilding a machine after a SirCam attack, and the gentleman was using AOL. So I reinstalled AOL 6.0 and got everything working. He then tried to post to a mailing list he subscribes to, but his posts kept being rejected. After doing some detective work, I came to the conclusion that the list didn't like HTML formatting in the messages. No problem, I'd just switch his mail to plain text, and he should be OK. After about 20 minutes of poking around the AOL software, I couldn't find a way to do this, so I called tech support. The tech I spoke to had me check several settings, to no avail. When we were both stumped, I mentioned that this was AOL 6.0 (I assumed she'd figure that's what was running), at which point she said that that was the reason: AOL 6.0 doesn't allow you to send plain text e-mail. She said you could switch from HTML to plain text in earlier versions, but this was dropped in 6.0. Why??? Why take away functionality??? That's just stupid! Fortunately, he had another e-mail account that wasn't on AOL, so I set him up to use that, but that wouldn't have been necessary if AOL hadn't pulled this boneheaded move.
I do agree that there are reasons one might want to use AOL, but why do they have to have a service that dumbs things down so much? It would be so easy to have something that would allow users to grow as they increased their skills. CompuServe managed to do this back in the old days. Why can't AOL do it now?
I think you're right, and the marketing droids think the same way. It's why we have AOL and WebTV.
With AOL, you're constantly told how "EASY!" the service is. "Moronic" would be a better word, I think. It had always been assumed that AOL was where people got their first taste of being online, then they moved on to the Internet. Apparently, it isn't true. The common excuse that I hear from people who stay with AOL is that they don't want to leave because they'd have to change their e-mail address. In fact, someone told me that just a little over a week ago. I really have to wonder if this is a real reason or merely an excuse. I've changed addresses quite a few times, and it hasn't ever been a traumatic experience. I do get tired of doing it, so I registered a domain name for 10 bucks a year, and now I have a permanent address. John C. Dvorak has an interesting column on AOL in last December's issue of Boardwatch. I just wish they had posted the sidebar online. It was a fictional (perhaps) account of how AOL fooled so many people into believing that it is the Internet.
With WebTV, you have an almost complete convergence of the Internet and television. I mean, why should your average couch potato exert the effort to get up and walk over to a computer when they can have a wireless keyboard on their lap while they're in the recliner? Never mind that WebTV is a proprietary service and that you're viewing it on a blurry television.
I think the mass-marketing of the Internet has defined what later adopters (those who came online after around 1996) expect from it. All the fun, offbeat, and truly interesting and informative content is still out there, but it's been overshadowed by the big corporations because these companies have the means to advertise their sites. In the early days, the Net was still a novelty, so people tended to explore to see what was out there, not unlike what we do when we move to a new city. Now, the Web has reached such public awareness that anyone who can plaster their URL on a package, advertisement, shirt, whatever, has done so. Add to that the influx of the masses, many of whom see the Net as just another service to subscribe to, like cable TV, and you have a situation where many people settle into specific patterns of use, just as they do when watching television. Anyone who finds a way to exploit that tendency, such as AOL and WebTV, or anyone who can get their URL in front of enough people for enough time, is going to benefit. This isn't to say that non-mainstream sites will disappear, but they aren't going to generate the huge number of hits that the big, corporate sites do, unless they manage to get the public's attention somehow. It is a shame, though. You can have your global soapbox, where you could be posting the most significant philosophical musings since Plato and Socrates, but all the sheep will be hanging out in the AOL chat rooms.
Well, yes, you have your burner, but my guess is that what they're after is taxing the blank discs and new burners. Eventually, your burner will wear out, or you'll want to replace it with something newer, then they'll get you.
But you do make a good point about not consuming their product, and I want to comment on that further. The best way to cut the RIAA and its members down to size is to cut off their money supply. In short, don't buy their product. If you want music, buy from independent labels, if you can find them, or support your local bands. Many of them sell CDs at their shows. Show your appreciation by buying them. If you must buy something from an RIAA-member company, try to find a used copy. That way, they see none of the revenue from the sale.
Now I know what people are going to say. Yes, we here at Slashdot represent a small minority. This is true. However, we have friends who aren't as aware of the situation as we are. We need to educate them. I do this whenever it's appropriate, and the usual reaction is dusgust with the record industry. That's the idea. Show your friends and neighbors what slimeballs these people are. Teach them, educate them, and they may get interested in what's going on, and if we're lucky, they may pass the word on to their friends. The change won't come overnight, but the music industry didn't get as big as it did overnight, either. What we're after is to slowly starve this monster to death, and we have to do it one person at a time. If you want to make a start, send a link to this article to a couple of computer-savvy friends who don't read Slashdot. Don't bug them about things like this, but make sure they're informed. Like I said, one person at a time. I've found that many people already have a pent-up hatred of the music industry, and when I show them what these people are up to, it really makes them mad. I know this won't automatically translate to fewer sales, but it's a start.
OK Mr. Troll, we see you. Now crawl back under your rock.
But I just have to ask. What do you find wrong with a K6-II, especially considering the fact that I bought it when it was the fastest chip out there? It does the job, so I don't feel the need to upgrade every six months just to spend money. And when I do upgrade, I'll be getting a Thunderbird, which, if I'm not mistaken, is exactly the market Intel is after. But since you never bothered to consider these things, you wouldn't have known, now would you?
The PII/PIII serial number "Big Brother Inside" disaster.
And now this. And never mind the fact that, when you buy Intel, you get the honor of paying more for less performance. What a joke. Has it never occurred to these corporate idiots that they're losing market share?
And in case anyone from Intel is reading this... Hey guys, there's a reason your numbers are declining: many people don't find your products competitive anymore. You might have been able to get away with such tactics five years ago, but not anymore. I'm running a K6-II right now, and if there was ever a miniscule chance that I'd have purchased an Intel chip in the future or even recommended one to someone else, it's gone now.
Re:Why people love Code Red
on
Code Red III
·
· Score: 2
It's impossible to guard 100% against any kind of break-in. Anyone who thinks they have all the angles covered in deluding themselves. And even if you manage to get a system completely locked down, every new piece of software you install presnets new opportunities for exploits.
Yes, everyone should have backups, but that doesn't make it OK to destroy data. You say a physical break-in is different than an electronic one because there's damage in a physical break-in and not in an electronic one. How is the damage different? Suppose someone was able to hack a computer at your local power company and black out half the state? Backups won't help you there. Suppose someone launches a DoS attack against your ISP for a day, and your Internet access is rendered useless. I've been there before, and it ain't no fun. Suppose someone mailbombs you because they got pissed off with something you said on a newsgroup. I've been through that, too. Even if there's no physical damage, there's damage caused by wasted time and productivity.
You may not want your tax dollars going to fight that. OK, fine, then make the responsible party pay restitution to cover the costs of the investigation. If he's a minor, make his parents pay. If you're worried that he won't have the money to pay, then also worry about the victims of such attacks who don't have the money to bankroll their own investigations.
Re:Why people love Code Red
on
Code Red III
·
· Score: 2
Perhaps you weren't paying attention to this thread and what I was commenting on. Read more carefully before you post.
But since you brought it up, perhaps you'll enlighten everyone here as to who's writing this stuff. And be sure to use lots of small words so we'll understand.
Re:Why people love Code Red
on
Code Red III
·
· Score: 2
Yes, the people who run poorly-patched servers bear some of the blame, but most of the blame still falls on the shoulders of the worm writer. Even if you don't lock the doors to your house, someone who walks in and steals your TV is still guilty of burglary. In the case of Code Red and its successors, the owners of the systems are becoming more and more to blame as time goes by and they don't patch, but does that excuse the worm writer? Not in the least.
As for the 15-year-olds, I never said parents don't have responsibility. I think they do, and I also think a good many of them park their kids in front of a TV or computer, and that's wrong. But I was 15 once, and although that was before the age of the mass-marketed Internet, I knew the difference between right and wrong, and these kids do, too. If one of them breaks into a system and destroys data or defaces a Web site, what do you propose we do with him? Tell him he's been a very bad boy, and say he should never do that again? That might work for the first time and for an extremely minor infraction, but there has to be the threat of some real punishment, or the problem will never end.
Or perhaps we should just lock the 1337 hax0r in a room with the admin of the system he trashed and let it get settled that way. In fairness to a civil society and the health of the kid, the criminal justice system would probably be a better alternative, no?
Re:Why people love Code Red
on
Code Red III
·
· Score: 2
Are you saying that writing and distributing viruses is a victimless crime? Try telling that to someone whose system has just been wiped out.
IMHO, if the little snot-nosed 15-year-old script kiddies don't know what they're doing is wrong, then some time in the can might be just what they need. I love it when people try to excuse their behavior by saying they lack social skills and need direction to give them a sense of morality. No, these kids do what they do because they think they'll get away with it and that there'll be no consequences for them. Let them face the music. If that means some jail time, so be it.
Agreed 100%. Although Doctor Who had B-grade special effects, the thing that made the show work was the intelligent and witty writing. When you have that, you can live without the big budgets. But without it, all the effects in the world won't do any good.
Speaking of British sci-fi, I'd also like to mention Blake's 7 and Red Dwarf. I especially tip my hat to the latter. The humor will have you doubled over with laughter.
On the American scene, Stargate SG-1 is still doing quite well, although I was a little disappointed with last Friday's episode. The Outer Limits is also an interesting show to watch. Psi Factor was also good when it first came on the air, back when it was divided into short stories. I haven't seen it much in the last few years, though.
I'm not sure why we didn't do that. Well, DSL in our case was a product that we were never sure what to do with, partly because we were getting bought out at the time, and things were in flux, and partly because of difficulties in dealing with Bell. We'd ask potential customers how many computers they planned to connect and steer them to the product that allowed that many. We wouldn't have been able to tell, but they often didn't know that.
As for the script kiddies, I know what you mean. I don't have a router, but I do run a software-based firewall, and I'm always watching to see what it catches. The little morons just keep probing away with their port scanners, figuring they'll find something open, but they never do. I usually leave them alone, but if one gets persistent, I'll send my logs to his ISP. There's some jerkoff on SW Bell's DSL network in this same part of the state, maybe even the same city, who drops in every now and then. One of these days, I'm going to get up on the wrong side of the bed and go after him with a vengence...with SW Bell, of course.
I'm in the same situation that you are. I'm DHCP, and if they make me change, I'll find another provider.
I think that one of the reasons they'd want to move folks to PPPoE is because, with DHCP, you can get more than one IP per DSL connection. All you have to do is hook your modem up to a hub, then plug multiple computers into the hub. When you turn each one on, it'll request an IP from the DHCP server, and the server will assign one. I only have one PC right now, but I've seen other people do this, and I've also heard that some businesses have really abused this little connection loophole. Using a router is more efficient from SBC's point of view because it only eats up one public IP. Still, I could see them still getting upset, and I don't necessarily blame them. At the ISP where I used to work, we sold basic DSL as a single-user service, period. If you wanted to connect more than one computer, you had to purchase a higher-priced product. This may sound harsh, but we were only clearing a few bucks a month on each sale, and more than one computer would more easily saturate the bandwidth. And DSL is so cheap on the customer end because the bandwidth is oversold so many times, but then, all "consumer" connections" are. If a customer wants all of that 1.54 MB/s to himself, then he needs to buy a T1.
Having said all that, I'll still switch if they do this to me. I've always wanted a static IP, and I've been considering DirecTV Broadband (formerly Telocity). I've also got other problems with SW Bell, such as their slow mail servers and less-than-top-notch tech support, so it won't be too hard for them to make me leave.
I think, however, that some members of Congress rely on the courts to save us from the bad laws they pass. They can get away with passing a law they know to be unconstitutional because they feel sure it will be struck down. This lets them score political points with voters, and the courts take the blame when they set things right by striking down the bad law.
It almost makes me wonder if there could be a way to sue legislators for passing clearly unconstitutional laws. Maybe go after them for violating their oaths of office, since they swear to uphold the Constitution, not take pot shots at it. OK, this may be taking things a bit far, and God knows we don't need any more lawsuits than we have right now, but it's an interesting concept.
Image usually doesn't influence the Supreme Court that much. Remember when Jerry Falwell sued Larry Flynt over an allegedly defamitory cartoon in Hustler magazine? Falwell had prevailed in an appeals court before the Supreme Court took the case. The Court reversed the decision and sided with Flynt on First Amendment grounds, and Chief Justice Rehnquist, a conservative by all accounts, wrote the opinion. So if Larry Flynt, who is definitely not the most popular guy in the country, can win, I think 2600 has a shot. I think the Court likes these kinds of cases because they know it's all too easy for an unpopular individual or organization to be prosecuted. Yes, they screw things up sometimes, but they get it right a remarkable amount of times, certainly more often than the political prostitutes we have in Congress.
Because, if they did that, there would be restraint-of-trade issues that even the Justice Department couldn't ignore. It's one thing for the big content producers and electronics makers to get together to protect content the producers own, but it's quite another for them to try to lock out unencrypted content that they don't own. They'd almost be asking for an independent producer to sue them. There are other issues, such as if a particular electronics maker doesn't want to play ball. What if some company made a camcorder that recorded content that was perfectly in line with national DTV standards but that wasn't encrypted, then the TVs wouldn't play it? Aside from restraint-of-trade issues, there's also the standards the FCC has set for digital TV. The set makers would probably be able to get away with making sets that played both the regular, unencrypted DTV signal and an encrypted stream, but not allowing the unencrypted stream would theoretically violate those standards. What happens if the rogue electronics maker sued, claiming that the electronics makers have built sets that don't conform to federally-set standards and that these companies have conspired to shut out both independent hardware vendors and program producers? It'd be akin to Microsoft, Adobe, and Lotus/IBM getting together with all the big hard drive makers and deciding that the manufacturers would only make drives that will work only with these companies' software to the exclusion of everyone else's products. It'd take about 30 seconds before someone filed a lawsuit on that one.
I'm not saying the big electronics and media companies won't try, but it'll be a tricky road for them to navigate.
Too much caffiene can seriously mess with your heart. If you have underlying heart problems, this could be a bad thing. Other stimulants will do the same thing. Read the warning labels on workout enhancers like Ripped Fuel. They explicitly warn you that an overdose can cause a heart attack. Definitely something to be mindful of.
I wouldn't say that it's "fortunate" that it only affects older articles. Conducting online research is hard enough already, and this won't make it any easier. Many times, you are specifically looking for older material, which has always been hard to find online, and this won't make it any easier.
Our best hope is that the authors of the affected articles will choose to repost them themselves. Actually, this could be a positive development if they decide to post articles that were never made available online in the first place, as with those that publications offered only in their print editions.
Slashdot Mirror
When there's some major disaster that knocks out regular communications channels, those "old sweaty fat bearded men", as you put it, are often the only link left.
It's also worth noting that in ploitical crises, such as coups and other instability, ham operators are often the only way you're going to get information out of and into the troubled area. In almost all cases, when someone is attempting to seize power in a country, the first thing they do is take control of the telephone system and broadcast outlets. Without alternative means of communications, entire populations could be cut off from the outside world, and vice versa.
It's true that the number of operators is declining, but if you're using that fact to assert that the service is useless, I think you're mistaken. And no, the Internet is not a suitable replacement, nor are wireless phones. An Internet connection can be knocked out for any number of reasons, both accidental and deliberate, and a wireless network can go down if the cell sites are knocked out, but unless you can find a ham operator and seize his equipment, he can most likely get on the air.
FYI, this isn't limited to Pac Bell. I got a notice on July 27 that SW Bell is also doing this. The exact same message, in fact.
Which brings me to a question. How is it that I submitted this info on that date (7/27), and it was rejected for posting as an article here, but it gets posted today, over a month later. I realize Slashdot gets a lot of submissions, but still. If whether something gets accepted or rejected is based on chance, as it appears to be, what's the point in submitting?
That very well may be true. I certainly hope not because if it is true, we might as well clear a space on the wall for the telescreen.
No, that's exactly the problem. All the moaning in the world will get you a grand total of squat unless it's backed by political action. Yes, you need communications infrastructure in place so people can share ideas, and mailing lists and Web-based forums work quite nicely for that, up to a point, but they don't substitute for face-to-face contact. And no amount of discussion will substitute for action. In the end, you have to be ready, willing, and able to deliver the goods (votes) or bust some heads (end political careers, or at least seriously damage them), or both, whichever is necessary. When you're able to do these things, you get attention and respect, and things suddenly start to go your way.
Yep, they did. Adobe didn't back off because they felt bad about what they did. One could certainly argue that they could back off and let the feds take the heat and accomplish the same thing, but the fact remains that they took plenty of heat themselves, and I imagine they didn't like it.
You are exactly right.
I think it's also important to remember that turnout for elections in this country is often low. It's nearly miraculous to get more than 50% of registered voters to show up at the polls. And that's registered voters. I often wonder what the percentage would be if we also counted people who were eligible to register to vote but who aren't even registered. What this all means is that elections are decided by a relatively small number of people. One could argue that this apathy works to the advantage of corporations because they have to sway smaller numbers of people and because an apathetic electorate, if it votes at all, is more likely to take the easy way out and vote for the incumbent or the candidate who had the most ads, often the same person, and almost always the one backed by powerful special interests. However, low voter turnout can also benefit grass-roots groups because they can have more of an effect on elections in such a situation, especially if they have an active and cohesive membership.
The trick is to build that membership and hold it together. The Internet provides a deceptive unity, I think. You're connected with all these people, but you often never see their faces and often don't even know their names. The problem comes in that you can have an impassioned discussion of an issue, then get up from your keyboard and forget about it. Lots of it has to do with the fact that many of the people around you often don't even know about the issues that you're so passionate about online. Education is part of the problem, but I think the old-school politicians--the ones who knocked on doors, held rallies, and kissed every baby within reach--had it right. Personal contact is a strong unifying force, if for no other reason than you see these people on a regular basis, and they see you, and you reinforce each other's viewpoints and determination to take action. What I'm getting to here is that any kind of Internet advocacy groups has to utilize a mixture of personal contact along with Internet-based communication. My guess is that this would be easiest to do initially in places like Silicon Valley, the Bay Area, and New York. From there, it would hopefully spread as it gained momentum.
Just my $.02 worth, anyway.
I agree, but I wasn't thinking so much in terms of groups like the EFF. I'm thinking of something more overtly political, a group whose primary mission is to apply political pressure to make sure Net users' interests are respected. Certainly, its views would fit nicely with those of the EFF, but it would be more focused on either pressuring incumbent politicians or developing its own slate of candidates, not unlike the tactics of, dare I say it, the Christian Coallition. Obviously, what I'm contemplating would have absolutely nothing in common with them in terms of philosophy, but no one can deny that they exemplify the power of grass-roots organization with their voter guides. Love 'em or hate 'em, they often get results for their supporters. I think the Net could likewise benefit from a damn-the-torpedoes political action group. Let groups like the EFF, CDT, and EPIC continue to do what they do, and rely on them to formulate well-thought-out policy issues, then use whatever political action group you have to ram these issues through Congress and the state legislatures using good old-fashioned political muscle, since that's often the only language politicians understand.
If we refuse to put up with it, it won't happen. If we lie back and wait for someone else to save us, we'll all wind up as indentured servants to the MPAA.
And there lies the problem. We can scream and moan and protest all we want, but it won't matter one damn bit unless we become politically active. Why do the corporations so often get their way? Because they make huge campaign contributions? Why do issues involving senior citizens, such as Social Security and Medicare, get constant attention? Because senior citizens vote. Yes, friends, they vote, they vote in large numbers, they care about these issues, and they make absolutely sure the politicians know it.
It seems odd that Net users, who are often the most well-connected people out there, haven't come together to defend themselves against political persecution and scapegoating. Still, that unity hasn't developed, but it had better happen soon. If we were to become a force that could change the outcome of elections, things would change, but until that happens, we'll continue to be on the losing end of laws like the DMCA. So, until people begin to get organized and flex some political muscle, nothing will change.
Anyone care to form an Internet-based political advocacy group? Slashdot would probably be an excellent place from which to draw some initial members. And a name even comes to mind: OpenSociety.
Please don't take my comments personally. They aren't meant to be. The reasons I feel the way I do about AOL is:
The commercials that scream "EASY!" over and over, all the time using sound bites from people talking about how they do this and do that on AOL (travel, news, stocks, weather), as if this is some big deal, when all this is available on the Net in much greater quantity.
The fact that AOL charges so much more per month than ISPs do.
The fact that their software isn't standards-compliant. Why can't they allow their e-mail client to use POP3/IMAP or at least give people the option to use these protocols if they want to use their own client software?
The issue of standards slapped me in the face just last week. I was rebuilding a machine after a SirCam attack, and the gentleman was using AOL. So I reinstalled AOL 6.0 and got everything working. He then tried to post to a mailing list he subscribes to, but his posts kept being rejected. After doing some detective work, I came to the conclusion that the list didn't like HTML formatting in the messages. No problem, I'd just switch his mail to plain text, and he should be OK. After about 20 minutes of poking around the AOL software, I couldn't find a way to do this, so I called tech support. The tech I spoke to had me check several settings, to no avail. When we were both stumped, I mentioned that this was AOL 6.0 (I assumed she'd figure that's what was running), at which point she said that that was the reason: AOL 6.0 doesn't allow you to send plain text e-mail. She said you could switch from HTML to plain text in earlier versions, but this was dropped in 6.0. Why??? Why take away functionality??? That's just stupid! Fortunately, he had another e-mail account that wasn't on AOL, so I set him up to use that, but that wouldn't have been necessary if AOL hadn't pulled this boneheaded move.
I do agree that there are reasons one might want to use AOL, but why do they have to have a service that dumbs things down so much? It would be so easy to have something that would allow users to grow as they increased their skills. CompuServe managed to do this back in the old days. Why can't AOL do it now?
I think you're right, and the marketing droids think the same way. It's why we have AOL and WebTV.
With AOL, you're constantly told how "EASY!" the service is. "Moronic" would be a better word, I think. It had always been assumed that AOL was where people got their first taste of being online, then they moved on to the Internet. Apparently, it isn't true. The common excuse that I hear from people who stay with AOL is that they don't want to leave because they'd have to change their e-mail address. In fact, someone told me that just a little over a week ago. I really have to wonder if this is a real reason or merely an excuse. I've changed addresses quite a few times, and it hasn't ever been a traumatic experience. I do get tired of doing it, so I registered a domain name for 10 bucks a year, and now I have a permanent address. John C. Dvorak has an interesting column on AOL in last December's issue of Boardwatch. I just wish they had posted the sidebar online. It was a fictional (perhaps) account of how AOL fooled so many people into believing that it is the Internet.
With WebTV, you have an almost complete convergence of the Internet and television. I mean, why should your average couch potato exert the effort to get up and walk over to a computer when they can have a wireless keyboard on their lap while they're in the recliner? Never mind that WebTV is a proprietary service and that you're viewing it on a blurry television.
I think the mass-marketing of the Internet has defined what later adopters (those who came online after around 1996) expect from it. All the fun, offbeat, and truly interesting and informative content is still out there, but it's been overshadowed by the big corporations because these companies have the means to advertise their sites. In the early days, the Net was still a novelty, so people tended to explore to see what was out there, not unlike what we do when we move to a new city. Now, the Web has reached such public awareness that anyone who can plaster their URL on a package, advertisement, shirt, whatever, has done so. Add to that the influx of the masses, many of whom see the Net as just another service to subscribe to, like cable TV, and you have a situation where many people settle into specific patterns of use, just as they do when watching television. Anyone who finds a way to exploit that tendency, such as AOL and WebTV, or anyone who can get their URL in front of enough people for enough time, is going to benefit. This isn't to say that non-mainstream sites will disappear, but they aren't going to generate the huge number of hits that the big, corporate sites do, unless they manage to get the public's attention somehow. It is a shame, though. You can have your global soapbox, where you could be posting the most significant philosophical musings since Plato and Socrates, but all the sheep will be hanging out in the AOL chat rooms.
Well, yes, you have your burner, but my guess is that what they're after is taxing the blank discs and new burners. Eventually, your burner will wear out, or you'll want to replace it with something newer, then they'll get you.
But you do make a good point about not consuming their product, and I want to comment on that further. The best way to cut the RIAA and its members down to size is to cut off their money supply. In short, don't buy their product. If you want music, buy from independent labels, if you can find them, or support your local bands. Many of them sell CDs at their shows. Show your appreciation by buying them. If you must buy something from an RIAA-member company, try to find a used copy. That way, they see none of the revenue from the sale.
Now I know what people are going to say. Yes, we here at Slashdot represent a small minority. This is true. However, we have friends who aren't as aware of the situation as we are. We need to educate them. I do this whenever it's appropriate, and the usual reaction is dusgust with the record industry. That's the idea. Show your friends and neighbors what slimeballs these people are. Teach them, educate them, and they may get interested in what's going on, and if we're lucky, they may pass the word on to their friends. The change won't come overnight, but the music industry didn't get as big as it did overnight, either. What we're after is to slowly starve this monster to death, and we have to do it one person at a time. If you want to make a start, send a link to this article to a couple of computer-savvy friends who don't read Slashdot. Don't bug them about things like this, but make sure they're informed. Like I said, one person at a time. I've found that many people already have a pent-up hatred of the music industry, and when I show them what these people are up to, it really makes them mad. I know this won't automatically translate to fewer sales, but it's a start.
OK Mr. Troll, we see you. Now crawl back under your rock.
But I just have to ask. What do you find wrong with a K6-II, especially considering the fact that I bought it when it was the fastest chip out there? It does the job, so I don't feel the need to upgrade every six months just to spend money. And when I do upgrade, I'll be getting a Thunderbird, which, if I'm not mistaken, is exactly the market Intel is after. But since you never bothered to consider these things, you wouldn't have known, now would you?
Let's see now...
The Pentium FPU error recall debacle.
The PII/PIII serial number "Big Brother Inside" disaster.
And now this. And never mind the fact that, when you buy Intel, you get the honor of paying more for less performance. What a joke. Has it never occurred to these corporate idiots that they're losing market share?
And in case anyone from Intel is reading this... Hey guys, there's a reason your numbers are declining: many people don't find your products competitive anymore. You might have been able to get away with such tactics five years ago, but not anymore. I'm running a K6-II right now, and if there was ever a miniscule chance that I'd have purchased an Intel chip in the future or even recommended one to someone else, it's gone now.
It's impossible to guard 100% against any kind of break-in. Anyone who thinks they have all the angles covered in deluding themselves. And even if you manage to get a system completely locked down, every new piece of software you install presnets new opportunities for exploits.
Yes, everyone should have backups, but that doesn't make it OK to destroy data. You say a physical break-in is different than an electronic one because there's damage in a physical break-in and not in an electronic one. How is the damage different? Suppose someone was able to hack a computer at your local power company and black out half the state? Backups won't help you there. Suppose someone launches a DoS attack against your ISP for a day, and your Internet access is rendered useless. I've been there before, and it ain't no fun. Suppose someone mailbombs you because they got pissed off with something you said on a newsgroup. I've been through that, too. Even if there's no physical damage, there's damage caused by wasted time and productivity.
You may not want your tax dollars going to fight that. OK, fine, then make the responsible party pay restitution to cover the costs of the investigation. If he's a minor, make his parents pay. If you're worried that he won't have the money to pay, then also worry about the victims of such attacks who don't have the money to bankroll their own investigations.
Perhaps you weren't paying attention to this thread and what I was commenting on. Read more carefully before you post.
But since you brought it up, perhaps you'll enlighten everyone here as to who's writing this stuff. And be sure to use lots of small words so we'll understand.
Yes, the people who run poorly-patched servers bear some of the blame, but most of the blame still falls on the shoulders of the worm writer. Even if you don't lock the doors to your house, someone who walks in and steals your TV is still guilty of burglary. In the case of Code Red and its successors, the owners of the systems are becoming more and more to blame as time goes by and they don't patch, but does that excuse the worm writer? Not in the least.
As for the 15-year-olds, I never said parents don't have responsibility. I think they do, and I also think a good many of them park their kids in front of a TV or computer, and that's wrong. But I was 15 once, and although that was before the age of the mass-marketed Internet, I knew the difference between right and wrong, and these kids do, too. If one of them breaks into a system and destroys data or defaces a Web site, what do you propose we do with him? Tell him he's been a very bad boy, and say he should never do that again? That might work for the first time and for an extremely minor infraction, but there has to be the threat of some real punishment, or the problem will never end.
Or perhaps we should just lock the 1337 hax0r in a room with the admin of the system he trashed and let it get settled that way. In fairness to a civil society and the health of the kid, the criminal justice system would probably be a better alternative, no?
Are you saying that writing and distributing viruses is a victimless crime? Try telling that to someone whose system has just been wiped out.
IMHO, if the little snot-nosed 15-year-old script kiddies don't know what they're doing is wrong, then some time in the can might be just what they need. I love it when people try to excuse their behavior by saying they lack social skills and need direction to give them a sense of morality. No, these kids do what they do because they think they'll get away with it and that there'll be no consequences for them. Let them face the music. If that means some jail time, so be it.
Agreed 100%. Although Doctor Who had B-grade special effects, the thing that made the show work was the intelligent and witty writing. When you have that, you can live without the big budgets. But without it, all the effects in the world won't do any good.
Speaking of British sci-fi, I'd also like to mention Blake's 7 and Red Dwarf. I especially tip my hat to the latter. The humor will have you doubled over with laughter.
On the American scene, Stargate SG-1 is still doing quite well, although I was a little disappointed with last Friday's episode. The Outer Limits is also an interesting show to watch. Psi Factor was also good when it first came on the air, back when it was divided into short stories. I haven't seen it much in the last few years, though.
I'm not sure why we didn't do that. Well, DSL in our case was a product that we were never sure what to do with, partly because we were getting bought out at the time, and things were in flux, and partly because of difficulties in dealing with Bell. We'd ask potential customers how many computers they planned to connect and steer them to the product that allowed that many. We wouldn't have been able to tell, but they often didn't know that.
As for the script kiddies, I know what you mean. I don't have a router, but I do run a software-based firewall, and I'm always watching to see what it catches. The little morons just keep probing away with their port scanners, figuring they'll find something open, but they never do. I usually leave them alone, but if one gets persistent, I'll send my logs to his ISP. There's some jerkoff on SW Bell's DSL network in this same part of the state, maybe even the same city, who drops in every now and then. One of these days, I'm going to get up on the wrong side of the bed and go after him with a vengence...with SW Bell, of course.
I'm in the same situation that you are. I'm DHCP, and if they make me change, I'll find another provider.
I think that one of the reasons they'd want to move folks to PPPoE is because, with DHCP, you can get more than one IP per DSL connection. All you have to do is hook your modem up to a hub, then plug multiple computers into the hub. When you turn each one on, it'll request an IP from the DHCP server, and the server will assign one. I only have one PC right now, but I've seen other people do this, and I've also heard that some businesses have really abused this little connection loophole. Using a router is more efficient from SBC's point of view because it only eats up one public IP. Still, I could see them still getting upset, and I don't necessarily blame them. At the ISP where I used to work, we sold basic DSL as a single-user service, period. If you wanted to connect more than one computer, you had to purchase a higher-priced product. This may sound harsh, but we were only clearing a few bucks a month on each sale, and more than one computer would more easily saturate the bandwidth. And DSL is so cheap on the customer end because the bandwidth is oversold so many times, but then, all "consumer" connections" are. If a customer wants all of that 1.54 MB/s to himself, then he needs to buy a T1.
Having said all that, I'll still switch if they do this to me. I've always wanted a static IP, and I've been considering DirecTV Broadband (formerly Telocity). I've also got other problems with SW Bell, such as their slow mail servers and less-than-top-notch tech support, so it won't be too hard for them to make me leave.
You're exactly right.
I think, however, that some members of Congress rely on the courts to save us from the bad laws they pass. They can get away with passing a law they know to be unconstitutional because they feel sure it will be struck down. This lets them score political points with voters, and the courts take the blame when they set things right by striking down the bad law.
It almost makes me wonder if there could be a way to sue legislators for passing clearly unconstitutional laws. Maybe go after them for violating their oaths of office, since they swear to uphold the Constitution, not take pot shots at it. OK, this may be taking things a bit far, and God knows we don't need any more lawsuits than we have right now, but it's an interesting concept.
Image usually doesn't influence the Supreme Court that much. Remember when Jerry Falwell sued Larry Flynt over an allegedly defamitory cartoon in Hustler magazine? Falwell had prevailed in an appeals court before the Supreme Court took the case. The Court reversed the decision and sided with Flynt on First Amendment grounds, and Chief Justice Rehnquist, a conservative by all accounts, wrote the opinion. So if Larry Flynt, who is definitely not the most popular guy in the country, can win, I think 2600 has a shot. I think the Court likes these kinds of cases because they know it's all too easy for an unpopular individual or organization to be prosecuted. Yes, they screw things up sometimes, but they get it right a remarkable amount of times, certainly more often than the political prostitutes we have in Congress.
Because, if they did that, there would be restraint-of-trade issues that even the Justice Department couldn't ignore. It's one thing for the big content producers and electronics makers to get together to protect content the producers own, but it's quite another for them to try to lock out unencrypted content that they don't own. They'd almost be asking for an independent producer to sue them. There are other issues, such as if a particular electronics maker doesn't want to play ball. What if some company made a camcorder that recorded content that was perfectly in line with national DTV standards but that wasn't encrypted, then the TVs wouldn't play it? Aside from restraint-of-trade issues, there's also the standards the FCC has set for digital TV. The set makers would probably be able to get away with making sets that played both the regular, unencrypted DTV signal and an encrypted stream, but not allowing the unencrypted stream would theoretically violate those standards. What happens if the rogue electronics maker sued, claiming that the electronics makers have built sets that don't conform to federally-set standards and that these companies have conspired to shut out both independent hardware vendors and program producers? It'd be akin to Microsoft, Adobe, and Lotus/IBM getting together with all the big hard drive makers and deciding that the manufacturers would only make drives that will work only with these companies' software to the exclusion of everyone else's products. It'd take about 30 seconds before someone filed a lawsuit on that one.
I'm not saying the big electronics and media companies won't try, but it'll be a tricky road for them to navigate.
Too much caffiene can seriously mess with your heart. If you have underlying heart problems, this could be a bad thing. Other stimulants will do the same thing. Read the warning labels on workout enhancers like Ripped Fuel. They explicitly warn you that an overdose can cause a heart attack. Definitely something to be mindful of.
I wouldn't say that it's "fortunate" that it only affects older articles. Conducting online research is hard enough already, and this won't make it any easier. Many times, you are specifically looking for older material, which has always been hard to find online, and this won't make it any easier.
Our best hope is that the authors of the affected articles will choose to repost them themselves. Actually, this could be a positive development if they decide to post articles that were never made available online in the first place, as with those that publications offered only in their print editions.