Should the full-court press by the censorship powers-that-be continue, the next step might be radio-based packet systems. Feel free to pile in on the technical/political feesability/shortcomings of such a system, but...
The guys over at L0pht (which I didn't see at the MIT Flea yesterday...) were working on such a system. I wonder if it's mothballed due to their newfound partnership with @Stake. Hm.
Call me cynical, but do those guys up in Slashland use MadLibs as a base for their stories?
[person] writes, "[person, lab] has
[verb]'d a way to [verb] the [noun]".
Wow. How many [contested file format]'s
could you [verb] with this??
[person] writes, "the [hated industry]
is [verb]ing [loved individual]". Ya know,
there used to be a day when [verb] was not
only legal but encouraged.
[person] writes, "a [greek letter] release
of [obscure linux app] has just hit [release
site]'s page. Hoo boy, now our world is
[adjective].
"This place used to be full of insightful people, where the hell did they go?"
If an order preventing someone from making others aware they're being sued doesn't scare the knickers off you, then I don't know what would. A good parallel (IMHO) is the US Gov't refusal to pay for hostages. They know that once they start doing it, everyone becomes a target. This is not being paranoid, it's a very logical conclusion that you're more than welcome to argue with.
Same here - once we start saying that people cannot even acknowledge that they're being sued, you set a very dangerous precedent. It is not a leap of faith to demonstrate that this can be used in ways that are contrary to our 1st Amendment right to free speech. The First Amendment is a RIGHT to free speech, not a PROBABILITY of free speech. And therein lies my/our problem with this action.
Also, coolness does not begin and end at the doorstep of your opinion. I don't think you're un-insightful because you disagree with me, but you could use some growing up.
Maybe anyone who thinks she's right should head on over to Courtney's Fairtunes.com page and send her a buck or three, show some luvin' and put your money where your mouth is. I can't think of a better token way to tell her that we appreciate her voice vs. the clusterf**k known as the Recording Industry Cartel.
Besides, if we reward outspokenness in a tangible, financial way, who else might follow suit? I don't want the internet to be a reasonable alternative only as a hypothetical.
"Wouldn't it be wise to keep a lid on this until the 2600 / DeCSS affair concludes? The last thing we want is the MPAA being able to easily shoot down one of our key arguments by simply pointing to an article on tomshardware.com. I'm all for cool new technology, but what ever happened to journalistic responsibility? You're either for free speech or you're against it, and Mr. Pabst unfortunately seems to be taking the latter position."
What a load of reconstituted bulls***. Journalistic integrity does not begin and end where you agree with someone. Journalistic integrity is reporting the truth - whatever that truth might be - and letting the outcome be determined by the facts. What you're suggesting is partisanship, an introduction of a bias or personal agenda, to shape a social issue. This is the height of arrogance.
I'll leave your technical errors for someone else to bludgeon...
I think tkhe perfect culmination of all of this would be a MPEG4 copy of Valenti shooting an eggroll out of his arse when he finds out about this program. I'd pay quite a pretty penny to witness that, firsthand... Ten bucks says he keels over on the spot. Preferably after the eggroll, tho.
Oh, cool. This should occur on Slashdot sometime next week...
Intertwined Quickies, Aussie Style [ Sex ] Posted by quux26 on 12:35 PM September 14th, 2000
dagget purchases a DNA-tagged USO shirt, rufDEV ports CueCat to that $35,000 Cray up for sale on eBay, some people over at CERN started watching way too many episodes of Weird Science and a Norwegian kid is busted for owning his very own Mia Hamm clone. Coincidence? Can you blame him?? We think not.
"Are there constructive ways to make the point that we want DVD support under Linux?"
I understand and appreciate your point, but this is far more than DVD support under Linux.
CSS is control access, not copy protection like the official MPAA site claims. CSS does NOTHING to stop copying. If I have an encoded message on a piece of paper, I don't need to decrypt it to xerox it.
What the DMCA provides is a method to prosecute access violations. For example, if I want to make a DVD that is only viewable by white people, I can. And viewing by a black person is illegal and prosecutable under the DMCA. Think I'm joking? An author of a protected work can set whatever limitations they want and the DMCA makes circumvention of that protection illegal.
So again, while I appreciate your point, I think mass-posting DeCSS is a great form of protest. Almost any type of protest is going to disturb bystanders - think of this week's oil blocade in France or the Seattle protests last year. The relevant question is, "does this do more good than harm, does this advance the cause?" I think it succeeds in spades.
"However, the quality of editorial opinion IMHO has gone down since I first started reading a year and a half ago."
I agree. What's more, I've posted a few truly half-baked ideas that were moderated up to a 5. The readers aren't that discerning, it appears.
It's one thing to bitch and another to offer a cure. I don't have one, so this amounts to nothing more than a rant. So you. Yes, you. The one with moderator points. Take this down a peg.
"Why do so many people have trouble accepting the fact that life is not
fair? Even if you really, really, really want something, you still have no
right to property belonging to someone else."
My initial premise is that you don't have right to own knowledge in the first
place - an idea that you're not addressing, just hurdling. But you bring up
some interesting points.
"This sort of "logic" comes up so often in public health debates and
all it really reflects is that the person voicing it lacks critical thinking
skills. Taking the creation of someone else is a good way to ensure
that they either prevent you from doing that ever again or stop making
things."
By this logic nothing was ever created before intellectual property laws.
"Consider - it would be infinitely more productive if everyone who complains
about those evil pharmaceutical companies would instead conduct or fund
research into public-domain equivalents. Why don't they do that instead? Well,
it's expensive and hard to do; the people who can do the hard work and
their backers might decide that after all that effort they'd like to have
something show for it."
Agree, and I did mention that certain endeavors need to be given a profit motive.
"The only way communism (which this is a form of) works is if everyone
involved is willing to put the welfare of the group ahead of their own and
has a sufficiently broad definition of "group"."
Here is where you leap the track a bit. Communism is for the distribution of
all material. I believe I have the right to my bicycle exclusively, communism
does not. My rant against intellectual property is that it corrals knowledge
which - IMHO - is evil. Again, you can have a copy of my poem without
depriving me of my copy. This is a Good Thing.
"Linus didn't waste time whining that (Microsoft|Sun|IBM|DEC|etc)
didn't give away their source code"
No, but Stallman did. And it's worth noting that Stallman and GNU is something
that quite literally made Linux possible. This is obviously not a new or
uncontrovertial subject and not something that is said with an eye toward a
flamewar (others; read that twice if you need to).
"Does anyone think things would have been the same if someone had stolen the
source?"
Probably worse, or at least that's what the folks at Microsoft think based upon
their leaked Halloween docs.
"Decent food and sanitation would help at least one order of
magnitude more people than an AIDS treatment."
Agreed.
"Widespread use of condoms would not only take care of AIDS but also
reduce the birth rate enough that children aren't doomed to poverty and
disease because there's too little money providing for too many people."
I agree with the former, everything after "because" is debatable.
"There's a perfect cure for AIDS which is completely free: don't have
sex with anyone you don't trust with your life. Oops, that would be the smart
thing to do and requires personal responsibility, too. Never mind."
Flamebait.
"The most important change, however, would be political. There have been
countless stories about grain shipments rotting on the docks while the
political leaders decide whose tribe gets the most. Money which could have been
spent improving an entire country is instead lining the coffers of
the resident dictator and his friends. Supplies are often sold on the black
market, again to benefit a well-connected few."
I see a conflict here between #2 and #4. You say there isn't enough to go
around but then admit there is a political and/or greed factor that prevents existing resources from being distributed equitably. I agree with
this and would suggest that it precedes #2.
"Stealing intellectual property won't change any of the real
problems..."
Again, unless you believe that IP is morally reprehensible. If you want to
debate the ethics and merits of IP, that's great. What I object to is Nicholas
taking Napster, interpreting the users actions in a narrow way then foisting
his notions on the entire "Free Speech" crowd. Your reply to my post is far
more well thought out than his essay.
In the Slashdot blurb, captain Pooh writes:
"Nicholas Petreley expresses his opinion about how "Information Doesn't
Want To Be Free--People Want It To Be". " Pretty provocative piece - although
his reasoning is sound."
I think we can come to this conclusion ourself, if need be, thanks.
Petrely writes:
"The fact is our current system entitles us to some free information, and it
requires us to purchase or license other information. You may not like the
fact that some information must be licensed, but that's how it is. Those who
want information to be free as a matter of principle should create some
information and make it free. But what they shouldn't do is license or buy
existing information that is not free and then cut it loose without
permission. That's just plain wrong,..."
There are two types of objects - tangible and intangible. Tangible objects
(food, your car, a minidisc player) can only have one owner at any given
moment. Intangible objects (music, inventions, words) can have any
number of owners. Physical objects have a single owner out of nessesity - it
cannot exist in two places at the same time. But what about an idea? Clearly
I can make a copy of your poem without depriving you of that poem.
So what is the point of giving exclusive ownership of an idea when it can be
shared by all without depriving the creator of that idea? It is power, clearly
enough. I have, you don't, let's negotiate. It is easy to use Napster as a
sort of strawman to attack, but it's another issue entirely when you look at
intellectual property in the light of the AIDS epedemic where millions have
died and continue to die because pharmecuticals own the right to the knowledge.
"Give us a half billion for the rights to create our vaccine. OH, you don't
have that kind of cash? Oh, your entire country's GDP isn't even half
that? Sorry." How about irrigation technologies? I could go on but I
think my point is made.
I'll grant that there needs to be an impetus for the company to create the
vaccine in the first place, but once it's created that knowledge should be in
the public domain.
"...and it demonstrates that what they are interested in is not free speech
at all but getting stuff without paying for it."
This is akin to saying electronic hobbyists are only interested in descrambling
their cable feed. Can it be a side result? Yes. Is it the point? No.
Are you not aware of what a 21st century, western idea ownership of knowledge
is? Is it beyond your ability to comprehend - not even nessesarily to
understand but to just acknowledge - that ownship of an idea is repugnent,
almost humorous?
As an aside, I enjoy the fact that I can get a song and erase it if I don't like it. No
blood no foul. I appreciate the fact that I haven't heard a single radio ad in
2 years. I can't name a single radio station and I live in metro Boston. I
haven't seen a single TV ad that I haven't gone out of my way to see.
Free speech, Nick, isn't only about the right to speak myself
but the right of others to speak so I might hear them. You've got this idea
that free speech means "me me me" but what it really does (and should) stand for is "them them them". And what does a company that control information fear more than
anything? Loss of market share, loss of mindshare, loss of control.
And what is intellectual property about if not control?
"But not NEWS, Curry; when we want news we go to the
news channels. Does anyone else get irritated that, when a news channel has "traffic on the 2s", you know that you have to wait as long as nine
minutes - an eternity for our supposedly-connected age."
Hyperlinks provide a really nice alternative to this. I can just hear Curt Loder saying;
"Madonna reinvents herself again, Courtney bodyslams the RIAA, Sleater-Kinney comes correct and Bustah Rhymes picks up an acoustic guitar - click on the news link if you want more..."
"Let's wait to find something that is going to hit us before we start panicing. Sure, go ahead, develop tracking and interception technologies, that's
only prudent, but it's not front page news."
I agree, but how do you educate the public about an impact with a rock that will turn the air to fire, possibly fracture or obliterate the planet and cause our home to become as sterile as a Backstreet Boys liner note without inciting fear?
I understand what you're saying - we don't want to shoot ourselves in the foot about this (like we did once already) - but public funding sucks. I don't see how you bring this to people's attention w/out being accused of the Chicken Little/Cassandra complex.
"Consider how little a nudge it would take to make it hit us right on. I'm afraid I don't have the math for orbital mechanics, but my guess is that out by
the apogee of its orbit it would take a very small angular change. How much force would it take? Are we talking about a small asteroid impact, a
pass by a massive object warping its orbit, or what?"
Think of it like a billiard ball. If the ball is going to miss the hole by just a little, a minor nudge will put it in. The closer it gets to the hole, the more of a nudge it will need to correct course. On the other hand the deflections doesn't need to be precise the closer it occurs to the pocket. But then add to that the complexity of three dimensions.
So you'd have to have a very rare flyby of a significant object coupled with a very rare collision combined with some very unlucky and unlikely trajectory corrections that for all intent is random. I'm not holding my breath.
But the question shouldn't be "how likely during my lifetime" but "how likely during the period of which we are not technilogically advanced (or willing) to evacuate." If you ask "how likely" as an open-timed question then the answer is "1".
"If we haven't had a serious hit in the last 2k yrs what do you think the chances of us getting one in the few years since we've had the technology to
see them?"
Do you mean "What are the chances of us getting hit with a rock that will end all life on the planet if not the planet itself"? Then the answer is non-zero.
We shouldn't overstate the liklihood, but we should not understate the consequences of that unlikeliness. After all, the dinosaurs did become extinct because they didn't have a space program (Sagan, I believe).
"Some days I wonder if we're headed toward a society where you can't even wipe your own butt for yourself, instead of having some corporation do it for you (for a nominal fee)."
This is so simple it's silly. Just get Levi's and Old Navy to create a new line of jeans that feature not one but two pockets for your cellphones. Then get nSync to wear them in public, the RIAA to cram their just-too-goddamn-cool music down our throats and *BLAMMO* - you've just doubled your market.
"Rather than suing your ISP, try beating them at their own game: post their name, and a list of a few other customers, and we'll send them a couple more of
legalese letters claiming that such and such customer has breached some copyright somewhere. Eventually they will have to kick so many customers that it
hurts their business. Hopefully, this makes them more critical vs lawyer's letters."
I replied:
"I'm not sure that beating up innocents with clubs to show how insideous clubs are...is a great way to win us friends."
You responded:
"...but only styrofoam lookalikes of clubs. These kinds of hoaxes will be quickly found out: the law office doesn't actually exist, or it does exist but
doesn't know of the case, etc. Within days, service will be restored to the hoaxed users, and all it did was put lots of egg on the ISP's face. As the
action continues, the omelette will spread to more and more ISPs, and ISPs will be increasingly weary of any legalese letter, especially if the claims
are ludicrous (such as "links to links to links to links to DeCSS are illegal")."
Lovely. All you've done is:
force ISP's to make a few phone calls first before they take any action.
fscked a half-dozen innocent sites.
gotten yourself in a world of legal trouble if you are traced to the act somehow.
And since pretty much any ISP will ditch you rather than face legal action, the people you've theoretically made upset with their ISP will go to...another ISP.
"Rather than suing your ISP, try beating them at their own game: post their name, and a list of a few other customers, and we'll send them a couple
more of legalese letters claiming that such and such customer has breached some copyright somewhere. Eventually they will have to kick so many
customers that it hurts their business. Hopefully, this makes them more critical vs lawyer's letters."
I'm not sure that beating up innocents with clubs to show how insideous clubs are...is a great way to win us friends.
"I don't think we can say that the black hole is rotating. The singularity is a point with (effectively) zero volume, and I would say that this precludes it's ability to rotate."
A previous poster noted that if the earth collapsed into a black hole then it would be about 1mm across - which is clearly not zero.
As an aside, I think it's interesting to note how many people think that if our sun turned into a black hole that it would suck us in. Even when presented why this isn't so they still don't get it.
Slashdot Mirror
The guys over at L0pht (which I didn't see at the MIT Flea yesterday...) were working on such a system. I wonder if it's mothballed due to their newfound partnership with @Stake. Hm.
.02
My
Quux26
History, time and time again, disagrees with you.
.02
My
Quux26
"What's the res, what's the weight, what's the..."
what you think:
"Yeah, but do I look like I kick ass?"
Don't front.
.02
My
Quux26
Call me cynical, but do those guys up in Slashland use MadLibs as a base for their stories?
[person] writes, "[person, lab] has
[verb]'d a way to [verb] the [noun]".
Wow. How many [contested file format]'s
could you [verb] with this??
[person] writes, "the [hated industry]
is [verb]ing [loved individual]". Ya know,
there used to be a day when [verb] was not
only legal but encouraged.
[person] writes, "a [greek letter] release
of [obscure linux app] has just hit [release
site]'s page. Hoo boy, now our world is
[adjective].
</HUMOR>
.02
My
Quux26
If an order preventing someone from making others aware they're being sued doesn't scare the knickers off you, then I don't know what would. A good parallel (IMHO) is the US Gov't refusal to pay for hostages. They know that once they start doing it, everyone becomes a target. This is not being paranoid, it's a very logical conclusion that you're more than welcome to argue with.
Same here - once we start saying that people cannot even acknowledge that they're being sued, you set a very dangerous precedent. It is not a leap of faith to demonstrate that this can be used in ways that are contrary to our 1st Amendment right to free speech. The First Amendment is a RIGHT to free speech, not a PROBABILITY of free speech. And therein lies my/our problem with this action.
Also, coolness does not begin and end at the doorstep of your opinion. I don't think you're un-insightful because you disagree with me, but you could use some growing up.
.02
My
Quux26
Besides, if we reward outspokenness in a tangible, financial way, who else might follow suit? I don't want the internet to be a reasonable alternative only as a hypothetical.
.02
My
Quux26
What a load of reconstituted bulls***. Journalistic integrity does not begin and end where you agree with someone. Journalistic integrity is reporting the truth - whatever that truth might be - and letting the outcome be determined by the facts. What you're suggesting is partisanship, an introduction of a bias or personal agenda, to shape a social issue. This is the height of arrogance.
I'll leave your technical errors for someone else to bludgeon...
.02
My
Quux26
I think tkhe perfect culmination of all of this would be a MPEG4 copy of Valenti shooting an eggroll out of his arse when he finds out about this program. I'd pay quite a pretty penny to witness that, firsthand... Ten bucks says he keels over on the spot. Preferably after the eggroll, tho.
.02
My
Quux26
Intertwined Quickies, Aussie Style
.02
[ Sex ] Posted by quux26 on 12:35 PM September 14th, 2000
dagget purchases a DNA-tagged USO shirt, rufDEV ports CueCat to that $35,000 Cray up for sale on eBay, some people over at CERN started watching way too many episodes of Weird Science and a Norwegian kid is busted for owning his very own Mia Hamm clone. Coincidence? Can you blame him?? We think not.
My
Quux26
I understand and appreciate your point, but this is far more than DVD support under Linux.
CSS is control access, not copy protection like the official MPAA site claims. CSS does NOTHING to stop copying. If I have an encoded message on a piece of paper, I don't need to decrypt it to xerox it.
What the DMCA provides is a method to prosecute access violations. For example, if I want to make a DVD that is only viewable by white people, I can. And viewing by a black person is illegal and prosecutable under the DMCA. Think I'm joking? An author of a protected work can set whatever limitations they want and the DMCA makes circumvention of that protection illegal.
So again, while I appreciate your point, I think mass-posting DeCSS is a great form of protest. Almost any type of protest is going to disturb bystanders - think of this week's oil blocade in France or the Seattle protests last year. The relevant question is, "does this do more good than harm, does this advance the cause?" I think it succeeds in spades.
.02
My
Quux26
I agree. What's more, I've posted a few truly half-baked ideas that were moderated up to a 5. The readers aren't that discerning, it appears.
It's one thing to bitch and another to offer a cure. I don't have one, so this amounts to nothing more than a rant. So you. Yes, you. The one with moderator points. Take this down a peg.
Thanks.
.02
My
Quux26
Your question should be, If a tree falls on an anonymous coward yelling 'first post' in the forest, does anybody care ?
.02
My
Quux26
If I could moderate this up, I would. It's far more elegant that my original post. Thanks.
.02
My
Quux26
"Why do so many people have trouble accepting the fact that life is not fair? Even if you really, really, really want something, you still have no right to property belonging to someone else."
My initial premise is that you don't have right to own knowledge in the first place - an idea that you're not addressing, just hurdling. But you bring up some interesting points.
"This sort of "logic" comes up so often in public health debates and all it really reflects is that the person voicing it lacks critical thinking skills. Taking the creation of someone else is a good way to ensure that they either prevent you from doing that ever again or stop making things."
By this logic nothing was ever created before intellectual property laws.
"Consider - it would be infinitely more productive if everyone who complains about those evil pharmaceutical companies would instead conduct or fund research into public-domain equivalents. Why don't they do that instead? Well, it's expensive and hard to do; the people who can do the hard work and their backers might decide that after all that effort they'd like to have something show for it."
Agree, and I did mention that certain endeavors need to be given a profit motive.
"The only way communism (which this is a form of) works is if everyone involved is willing to put the welfare of the group ahead of their own and has a sufficiently broad definition of "group"."
Here is where you leap the track a bit. Communism is for the distribution of all material. I believe I have the right to my bicycle exclusively, communism does not. My rant against intellectual property is that it corrals knowledge which - IMHO - is evil. Again, you can have a copy of my poem without depriving me of my copy. This is a Good Thing.
"Linus didn't waste time whining that (Microsoft|Sun|IBM|DEC|etc) didn't give away their source code"
No, but Stallman did. And it's worth noting that Stallman and GNU is something that quite literally made Linux possible. This is obviously not a new or uncontrovertial subject and not something that is said with an eye toward a flamewar (others; read that twice if you need to).
"Does anyone think things would have been the same if someone had stolen the source?"
Probably worse, or at least that's what the folks at Microsoft think based upon their leaked Halloween docs.
- "Decent food and sanitation would help at least one order of
magnitude more people than an AIDS treatment."
- "Widespread use of condoms would not only take care of AIDS but also
reduce the birth rate enough that children aren't doomed to poverty and
disease because there's too little money providing for too many people."
- "There's a perfect cure for AIDS which is completely free: don't have
sex with anyone you don't trust with your life. Oops, that would be the smart
thing to do and requires personal responsibility, too. Never mind."
- "The most important change, however, would be political. There have been
countless stories about grain shipments rotting on the docks while the
political leaders decide whose tribe gets the most. Money which could have been
spent improving an entire country is instead lining the coffers of
the resident dictator and his friends. Supplies are often sold on the black
market, again to benefit a well-connected few."
"Stealing intellectual property won't change any of the real problems..."Agreed.
I agree with the former, everything after "because" is debatable.
Flamebait.
I see a conflict here between #2 and #4. You say there isn't enough to go around but then admit there is a political and/or greed factor that prevents existing resources from being distributed equitably. I agree with this and would suggest that it precedes #2.
Again, unless you believe that IP is morally reprehensible. If you want to debate the ethics and merits of IP, that's great. What I object to is Nicholas taking Napster, interpreting the users actions in a narrow way then foisting his notions on the entire "Free Speech" crowd. Your reply to my post is far more well thought out than his essay.
.02
My
Quux26
"Nicholas Petreley expresses his opinion about how "Information Doesn't Want To Be Free--People Want It To Be". " Pretty provocative piece - although his reasoning is sound."
I think we can come to this conclusion ourself, if need be, thanks.
Petrely writes:
"The fact is our current system entitles us to some free information, and it requires us to purchase or license other information. You may not like the fact that some information must be licensed, but that's how it is. Those who want information to be free as a matter of principle should create some information and make it free. But what they shouldn't do is license or buy existing information that is not free and then cut it loose without permission. That's just plain wrong,..."
There are two types of objects - tangible and intangible. Tangible objects (food, your car, a minidisc player) can only have one owner at any given moment. Intangible objects (music, inventions, words) can have any number of owners. Physical objects have a single owner out of nessesity - it cannot exist in two places at the same time. But what about an idea? Clearly I can make a copy of your poem without depriving you of that poem.
So what is the point of giving exclusive ownership of an idea when it can be shared by all without depriving the creator of that idea? It is power, clearly enough. I have, you don't, let's negotiate. It is easy to use Napster as a sort of strawman to attack, but it's another issue entirely when you look at intellectual property in the light of the AIDS epedemic where millions have died and continue to die because pharmecuticals own the right to the knowledge. "Give us a half billion for the rights to create our vaccine. OH, you don't have that kind of cash? Oh, your entire country's GDP isn't even half that? Sorry." How about irrigation technologies? I could go on but I think my point is made.
I'll grant that there needs to be an impetus for the company to create the vaccine in the first place, but once it's created that knowledge should be in the public domain.
"...and it demonstrates that what they are interested in is not free speech at all but getting stuff without paying for it."
This is akin to saying electronic hobbyists are only interested in descrambling their cable feed. Can it be a side result? Yes. Is it the point? No.
Are you not aware of what a 21st century, western idea ownership of knowledge is? Is it beyond your ability to comprehend - not even nessesarily to understand but to just acknowledge - that ownship of an idea is repugnent, almost humorous?
As an aside, I enjoy the fact that I can get a song and erase it if I don't like it. No blood no foul. I appreciate the fact that I haven't heard a single radio ad in 2 years. I can't name a single radio station and I live in metro Boston. I haven't seen a single TV ad that I haven't gone out of my way to see.
Free speech, Nick, isn't only about the right to speak myself but the right of others to speak so I might hear them. You've got this idea that free speech means "me me me" but what it really does (and should) stand for is "them them them". And what does a company that control information fear more than anything? Loss of market share, loss of mindshare, loss of control.
And what is intellectual property about if not control?
.02
My
Quux26
Hyperlinks provide a really nice alternative to this. I can just hear Curt Loder saying;
"Madonna reinvents herself again, Courtney bodyslams the RIAA, Sleater-Kinney comes correct and Bustah Rhymes picks up an acoustic guitar - click on the news link if you want more..."
I could definetly deal with this.
.02
My
Quux26
I agree, but how do you educate the public about an impact with a rock that will turn the air to fire, possibly fracture or obliterate the planet and cause our home to become as sterile as a Backstreet Boys liner note without inciting fear?
I understand what you're saying - we don't want to shoot ourselves in the foot about this (like we did once already) - but public funding sucks. I don't see how you bring this to people's attention w/out being accused of the Chicken Little/Cassandra complex.
.02
My
Quux26
Think of it like a billiard ball. If the ball is going to miss the hole by just a little, a minor nudge will put it in. The closer it gets to the hole, the more of a nudge it will need to correct course. On the other hand the deflections doesn't need to be precise the closer it occurs to the pocket. But then add to that the complexity of three dimensions.
So you'd have to have a very rare flyby of a significant object coupled with a very rare collision combined with some very unlucky and unlikely trajectory corrections that for all intent is random. I'm not holding my breath.
But the question shouldn't be "how likely during my lifetime" but "how likely during the period of which we are not technilogically advanced (or willing) to evacuate." If you ask "how likely" as an open-timed question then the answer is "1".
.02
My
Quux26
Do you mean "What are the chances of us getting hit with a rock that will end all life on the planet if not the planet itself"? Then the answer is non-zero.
We shouldn't overstate the liklihood, but we should not understate the consequences of that unlikeliness. After all, the dinosaurs did become extinct because they didn't have a space program (Sagan, I believe).
.02
My
Quux26
Brings a whole new meaning to PayPal, doesn't it?
.02
My
Quux26
Sometimes I amaze even myself.
.02
My
Quux26
I replied: ...is a great way to win us friends."
"I'm not sure that beating up innocents with clubs to show how insideous clubs are
You responded: ...but only styrofoam lookalikes of clubs. These kinds of hoaxes will be quickly found out: the law office doesn't actually exist, or it does exist but
doesn't know of the case, etc. Within days, service will be restored to the hoaxed users, and all it did was put lots of egg on the ISP's face. As the
action continues, the omelette will spread to more and more ISPs, and ISPs will be increasingly weary of any legalese letter, especially if the claims
are ludicrous (such as "links to links to links to links to DeCSS are illegal")."
"
Lovely. All you've done is:
force ISP's to make a few phone calls first before they take any action.
fscked a half-dozen innocent sites.
gotten yourself in a world of legal trouble if you are traced to the act somehow.
And since pretty much any ISP will ditch you rather than face legal action, the people you've theoretically made upset with their ISP will go to ...another ISP.
.02
My
Quux26
I'm not sure that beating up innocents with clubs to show how insideous clubs are ...is a great way to win us friends.
.02
My
Quux26
[please moderate this "me-too" into oblivion.]
.02
My
Quux26
A previous poster noted that if the earth collapsed into a black hole then it would be about 1mm across - which is clearly not zero.
As an aside, I think it's interesting to note how many people think that if our sun turned into a black hole that it would suck us in. Even when presented why this isn't so they still don't get it.
.02
My
Quux26