When are people going to recognize that consumer advocate law firms and union bosses are just like the pigs in Orwell's "Animal Farm"? They have gradually become that which they once set out to conquer.
Wow, you ruined a perfectly rational post by turning it into a straw-man generalisation. I suppose all CEOs are like the farmers, metaphorically enslaving, killing, and eating their workers?
And what do libertarians have against unions, anyway? It's the free market answer to economic injustice, no different than collusion between firms to raise prices.
I would say that the "invisible hand" means that when resources can move freely, they will end up in a form that will maximize their value. It is not exactly specific to the ideology of capitalism.
The real flaw here (which reflects what FascDot sort of hinted at) is that we can be really stupid about estimating something's value. It's a tragedy of the commons sort of thing, because people looking for short term gain will screw their prospects for the long term, but they feel they've got to anyway because everyone else is doing it. So instead of acting in our shared self interest, we act in a highly competative zero-sum "screw you, I've got mine" style.
So, applied to this example, the publishing industry wants to maximize its profits buy putting locks on everything. But the long term result is a decrease in the demand for textual media, which of course will lower the price they can charge for it. An indirect, though more dangerous result is a decrease education level of the population, thereby lowering the quality of our culture, the wisdom of our democratic institutions and the rate at which the economy grows.
Will the publishing industry be rational enough to undo the locks when it realizes its actually hurting business? Probably not, because the territorial "I've got mine" mindset of these people will prevent it. They'll blame the pirates for their woes, when the level of piracy is directly related to the fact that the price of media is above its actual value (largely because of the very presence of the locks!).
I don't think matters at all who controls most of the Internet. The Chinese are going to use Mandarin, Indians are going to use Hindi, and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it. There's nothing that says you must use English on the Internet.
Now, I don't think these languages will become dominant either, but it has very little to do with political, economic, or even cultural influence. It has to do with the simple fact that any language without a simple alphabet is inconvient to use with computers. And any language not based on latin characters is going have a tough time being used with current software and programming languages, as it does not translate into an 8-bit ASCII-based character mapping.
I'd put my bets on Spanish. It won't supplant English, but I think it's going to become such a strong contendor anyone would be foolish not to learn it. If only I hadn't wasted years learning, and mostly forgetting, that langue morte français...
Oh god, do you mean you actually think those extra "warranties" from such places as Circuit City and Staples are anything less than a scam? For a libertarian mouthpeace, you sure are a sucker.
How do they indend on enforcing this "Free World" license? If you've got source, you can port. If it's really free software, how can they stop you from distributing that port? "Oh, these windows ifdefs? Those are for running it under WINE, a bona-fide certified justified free software application that runs under free operating systems."
Doesn't this just become another shrink-wrap license? I think most of us are not idelogically opposed to copyright per se, but are opposed to selling things with strings attached, aka "licensed", because of the obnoxious power it gives vendors over how we use the things we buy. Even the GPL doesn't tell you how you must use a program, it simply says "give back what we hath given you".
This license is foul, for that reason, and because it almost seems to willingly encourage relegating free operating systems to the hobbyist niche. It basically says you can make a profit on your work through traditional licensing frees, and toss a bone to free software enthusiasists at the same time. But what happens to your profit when free operating systems become the norm? If your revenue model is dependent on selling to proprietary platforms, you've screwed yourself by promoting free platforms. So you won't promote those platforms. In fact, why even release a free version at all?
Users != programmers. I don't think anyone who uses the phrase "more eyes mean better security" conisder the "eyes" of people who never work with the code. His statement is FUD and flamebait, but then again, that's consistent with his reputation.
Obviously a focused audit will be more effective then casual debugging, but that scales as well.
I've noticed this as well. It is really strange how popular it is among gansta thugs to wear clothing with the name of a rich, white, effiminate fashion mogul emblazoned all over it.
Don't bother trying to argue with people like this. The basis of his values is a belief system which he can not confirm the validity of, nor demonstrate the reasoning behind its tenets. It's far more arbitrary than the ethics of us "relativists", who can actually explain and defend our ethical framework.
If only there were such a thing as tamper-proof... Blind trust in digital signatures is much more dangerious than image tampering for the purposes of disinformation. At least you can analyse an image for fakery. But who will believe your key was stolen?
Democracy relies on the ability to criticize, and that will be very difficult when every word, image, sound, or video has a cryptographic lock on it allowing only the people who pay to see it. This will be especially bad when these things are licensed rather than sold, which allows sorts of nasty things, like the no benchmarking clauses on major database software. This is definately the direction the DVD cartel is going.
Imagine this, content could be priced not on the basis of demand, not on where it sold, but on the person is buying it. "Ah, from your credit history we see that you have disposible income, that will be $100 please.'
Content could be produced with restrictions on who it may be sold to. "What, you're not a Republican, well you can't buy Rush's new book, cause, you know, you dirty liberals like to criticize."
Content could be produced with restrictions that prevent its use in an educational setting. "Sorry, mam, but you'll need to buy a copy of Democracy in America for each individual student, even if if you only refence it in your lessons. Yes mam, I know its public domain, but we own the footnotes, you'll have to buy the book to extract the text. Yes mam, I miss libraries too, but its more important for us to make money."
post, transmit or disseminate objectionable information, including, without limitation, any transmissions constituting or encouraging conduct that would constitute a criminal offense, give rise to civil liability, or otherwise violate any local, federal or international law, order or regulation;
Well, you can forget talking about drug use or legalization, DeCSS and techniques to defeat region coding or Macrovision, trade files on Napster, or even do anything that someone might sue you for. If you made a web page that criticizes @Home they'd probably nail you with this clause. Ah, welcome to the corporate republic!
In either case it is relatively unenforcable. It's all data coming out of one box as far as they're concerned, they only way they can tell is if they break into your house. I suppose they could do traffic analysis for masquerading, or just watch for packets with encrypted data conforming to the VPN protocols. But my, that would be awfully Orwellian of them, wouldn't it?
Don't worry. The market will fix it... someday. Just bend over and take it like a good consumer in the meantime.
So why is it that all the "otaku" that I know like everything, especially the tripe? Lain looks compelling, and Princess Mononoke as well, but that's about it. People tell me I'd probably like Akira too. Wow, that's quite a selection.
So what about Robotech, and the Gundam franchise? Or Sailor Moon, or Dragonball Z, or Oh My Goddess, or any of the other crap people fawn over? Even the stuff that is supposed to have adult plots and themes comes off like it was written by children, with a child's understanding of the world and a child's idea of how adults behave.
I remember even when I was kid watching Robotech, I'd change the channel because it got so bad I was embarassed to be watching it. I'd flip back to watch the robots fighting, but anytime a person was on the screen I'd go back to something decent, like Duck Tails. There's more real personality in a talking duck then there is in all of Robotech.
(And about that fantasy thing, I think the point he is making is that most anime scifi isn't real science fiction. Even the scifi they do make degenerates into magic and metaphysics. Technology or its social effects don't matter in anime. It's all about how cool robots look fighting, or how technology enables the brooding hero to vanquish his enemies.)
Ohmygod! I forgot about those Disney cartoons. Tailspin was great too. It had one of the most original settings I've ever seen in an cartoon. Duck Tails, Rescue Rangers, the Gummi Bears, they were all excellent.
I also miss the original Transformers and GI Joe. I know they were cheap commericals to sell toys, just like Pokemon, but at least they had real plots! And the characters had backgrounds and realisitic personalities.
Of course my favorite cartoon of recent memory is Exo Squad. It's what the anime studios could do if they could write as well as they can draw.
I think you're missing the point. Just because software can circumvent a security model doesn't mean it removes the responsibility of that software to play nicely.
To put it another way, criminals, or assholes, pick your degree, are not excused because their behavior was not prevented by force.
You're getting in my way which is going to make me a lot less sympathetic when a cop knocks the snot out of you.
And yes, you are infringing on my right to assembly. What if, God forbid, I was trying to get the convention and you prevented me? Wow, I appreciate your concern for my constituional rights.
Someone should write a tool that rips text out big-ass PDF or Word files. People have a right to read things as plain text, regardless of how the copyright owner thinks you should read it.
War is mostly a battle of technology and logistics. It doesn't matter how good your troops are, if you can't feed them, they're useless. If they're carring swords to fight against longbows, they're useless. If they can't get to the battle before it's over, they're useless.
Slashdot Mirror
Bah, don't you read science fiction? The fate of all space colonies is to break free from the tyranny that founded them.
When are people going to recognize that consumer advocate law firms and union bosses are just like the pigs in Orwell's "Animal Farm"? They have gradually become that which they once set out to conquer.
Wow, you ruined a perfectly rational post by turning it into a straw-man generalisation. I suppose all CEOs are like the farmers, metaphorically enslaving, killing, and eating their workers?
And what do libertarians have against unions, anyway? It's the free market answer to economic injustice, no different than collusion between firms to raise prices.
It is simply spin control, because the person's name is....
STEVE JOBS!
I would say that the "invisible hand" means that when resources can move freely, they will end up in a form that will maximize their value. It is not exactly specific to the ideology of capitalism.
The real flaw here (which reflects what FascDot sort of hinted at) is that we can be really stupid about estimating something's value. It's a tragedy of the commons sort of thing, because people looking for short term gain will screw their prospects for the long term, but they feel they've got to anyway because everyone else is doing it. So instead of acting in our shared self interest, we act in a highly competative zero-sum "screw you, I've got mine" style.
So, applied to this example, the publishing industry wants to maximize its profits buy putting locks on everything. But the long term result is a decrease in the demand for textual media, which of course will lower the price they can charge for it. An indirect, though more dangerous result is a decrease education level of the population, thereby lowering the quality of our culture, the wisdom of our democratic institutions and the rate at which the economy grows.
Will the publishing industry be rational enough to undo the locks when it realizes its actually hurting business? Probably not, because the territorial "I've got mine" mindset of these people will prevent it. They'll blame the pirates for their woes, when the level of piracy is directly related to the fact that the price of media is above its actual value (largely because of the very presence of the locks!).
I don't think matters at all who controls most of the Internet. The Chinese are going to use Mandarin, Indians are going to use Hindi, and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it. There's nothing that says you must use English on the Internet.
Now, I don't think these languages will become dominant either, but it has very little to do with political, economic, or even cultural influence. It has to do with the simple fact that any language without a simple alphabet is inconvient to use with computers. And any language not based on latin characters is going have a tough time being used with current software and programming languages, as it does not translate into an 8-bit ASCII-based character mapping.
I'd put my bets on Spanish. It won't supplant English, but I think it's going to become such a strong contendor anyone would be foolish not to learn it. If only I hadn't wasted years learning, and mostly forgetting, that langue morte français...
Oh god, do you mean you actually think those extra "warranties" from such places as Circuit City and Staples are anything less than a scam? For a libertarian mouthpeace, you sure are a sucker.
How do they indend on enforcing this "Free World" license? If you've got source, you can port. If it's really free software, how can they stop you from distributing that port? "Oh, these windows ifdefs? Those are for running it under WINE, a bona-fide certified justified free software application that runs under free operating systems."
Doesn't this just become another shrink-wrap license? I think most of us are not idelogically opposed to copyright per se, but are opposed to selling things with strings attached, aka "licensed", because of the obnoxious power it gives vendors over how we use the things we buy. Even the GPL doesn't tell you how you must use a program, it simply says "give back what we hath given you".
This license is foul, for that reason, and because it almost seems to willingly encourage relegating free operating systems to the hobbyist niche. It basically says you can make a profit on your work through traditional licensing frees, and toss a bone to free software enthusiasists at the same time. But what happens to your profit when free operating systems become the norm? If your revenue model is dependent on selling to proprietary platforms, you've screwed yourself by promoting free platforms. So you won't promote those platforms. In fact, why even release a free version at all?
Wouldn't the "viral" nature of the GPL make the song GPLed too? Where's the sheet music! :)
Users != programmers. I don't think anyone who uses the phrase "more eyes mean better security" conisder the "eyes" of people who never work with the code. His statement is FUD and flamebait, but then again, that's consistent with his reputation.
Obviously a focused audit will be more effective then casual debugging, but that scales as well.
I've noticed this as well. It is really strange how popular it is among gansta thugs to wear clothing with the name of a rich, white, effiminate fashion mogul emblazoned all over it.
Don't bother trying to argue with people like this. The basis of his values is a belief system which he can not confirm the validity of, nor demonstrate the reasoning behind its tenets. It's far more arbitrary than the ethics of us "relativists", who can actually explain and defend our ethical framework.
If only there were such a thing as tamper-proof... Blind trust in digital signatures is much more dangerious than image tampering for the purposes of disinformation. At least you can analyse an image for fakery. But who will believe your key was stolen?
Democracy relies on the ability to criticize, and that will be very difficult when every word, image, sound, or video has a cryptographic lock on it allowing only the people who pay to see it. This will be especially bad when these things are licensed rather than sold, which allows sorts of nasty things, like the no benchmarking clauses on major database software. This is definately the direction the DVD cartel is going.
Imagine this, content could be priced not on the basis of demand, not on where it sold, but on the person is buying it. "Ah, from your credit history we see that you have disposible income, that will be $100 please.'
Content could be produced with restrictions on who it may be sold to. "What, you're not a Republican, well you can't buy Rush's new book, cause, you know, you dirty liberals like to criticize."
Content could be produced with restrictions that prevent its use in an educational setting. "Sorry, mam, but you'll need to buy a copy of Democracy in America for each individual student, even if if you only refence it in your lessons. Yes mam, I know its public domain, but we own the footnotes, you'll have to buy the book to extract the text. Yes mam, I miss libraries too, but its more important for us to make money."
It's called They're Made Out of Meat by Terry Bisson.
Well, you can forget talking about drug use or legalization, DeCSS and techniques to defeat region coding or Macrovision, trade files on Napster, or even do anything that someone might sue you for. If you made a web page that criticizes @Home they'd probably nail you with this clause. Ah, welcome to the corporate republic!
In either case it is relatively unenforcable. It's all data coming out of one box as far as they're concerned, they only way they can tell is if they break into your house. I suppose they could do traffic analysis for masquerading, or just watch for packets with encrypted data conforming to the VPN protocols. But my, that would be awfully Orwellian of them, wouldn't it?
Don't worry. The market will fix it... someday. Just bend over and take it like a good consumer in the meantime.
So why is it that all the "otaku" that I know like everything, especially the tripe? Lain looks compelling, and Princess Mononoke as well, but that's about it. People tell me I'd probably like Akira too. Wow, that's quite a selection.
So what about Robotech, and the Gundam franchise? Or Sailor Moon, or Dragonball Z, or Oh My Goddess, or any of the other crap people fawn over? Even the stuff that is supposed to have adult plots and themes comes off like it was written by children, with a child's understanding of the world and a child's idea of how adults behave.
I remember even when I was kid watching Robotech, I'd change the channel because it got so bad I was embarassed to be watching it. I'd flip back to watch the robots fighting, but anytime a person was on the screen I'd go back to something decent, like Duck Tails. There's more real personality in a talking duck then there is in all of Robotech.
(And about that fantasy thing, I think the point he is making is that most anime scifi isn't real science fiction. Even the scifi they do make degenerates into magic and metaphysics. Technology or its social effects don't matter in anime. It's all about how cool robots look fighting, or how technology enables the brooding hero to vanquish his enemies.)
Ohmygod! I forgot about those Disney cartoons. Tailspin was great too. It had one of the most original settings I've ever seen in an cartoon. Duck Tails, Rescue Rangers, the Gummi Bears, they were all excellent.
I also miss the original Transformers and GI Joe. I know they were cheap commericals to sell toys, just like Pokemon, but at least they had real plots! And the characters had backgrounds and realisitic personalities.
Of course my favorite cartoon of recent memory is Exo Squad. It's what the anime studios could do if they could write as well as they can draw.
I think you're missing the point. Just because software can circumvent a security model doesn't mean it removes the responsibility of that software to play nicely.
To put it another way, criminals, or assholes, pick your degree, are not excused because their behavior was not prevented by force.
Remember that next time someone puts a trojan on your computer.
"Quit yer cryin, biotch, it's not the program's fault it wiped your pr0n clean!"
You're getting in my way which is going to make me a lot less sympathetic when a cop knocks the snot out of you.
And yes, you are infringing on my right to assembly. What if, God forbid, I was trying to get the convention and you prevented me? Wow, I appreciate your concern for my constituional rights.
those that use it - and the religious right
That's redundant...
Bad AI! Who let you out of your cage again? Now go back to anaylysing those soil erosion models and quit provoking the meat people.
Someone should write a tool that rips text out big-ass PDF or Word files. People have a right to read things as plain text, regardless of how the copyright owner thinks you should read it.
Hmm, this sounds familiar...
War is mostly a battle of technology and logistics. It doesn't matter how good your troops are, if you can't feed them, they're useless. If they're carring swords to fight against longbows, they're useless. If they can't get to the battle before it's over, they're useless.