It seems they are slowly (quickly?) retreating from each position they take. They say something, the techs or Net at large says "no way", they retreat a bit. Repeat.
It's actually kind of funny to watch. I'm just worried that they will succeed, not with the tech, I don't think the market will let them, but with legislation. The RIAA has already gotten laws passed that are favorable to them for streaming media (by favorable I mean limiting distribution thus controlling their oligopoly) By making certains type of MP3 "paraphenalia" (sp) illegal or even certain uses of it, they might retain control.
Personally I am against ANY and ALL limits on my ability to copy and use digital data that I own, probably why I hang out here.:)
Since you really need to understand something before you can create your own, I love reading about stuff like this. 12 billion light years, eh? Not too shabby for a universe.
Someone else asked "what's outside the Universe?" I say, nothing too interesting, there's a bunch more neat stuff inside IMHO. Heck, we haven't even totally explored our own oceans yet. I think our biggest chance (in our lifetimes) of finding sentient life would be down there, it's where we came from after all (if you believe in Nature). Perhaps the things that caused our great ancestors to move onto land has evolved to something......well, just something.
Re: Net as a commodity:Bad Idea or Spawn of Satan?
on
Bandwidth as Commodity
·
· Score: 1
No, not free, but I want the know how much I'm paying (flat-fee) vs. finding out how much I've spent at the end of the month (per-bit rate). Who said anything about illegal?! I download demos of games, upwards of 50-100mb apiece, it's like seeing the trailers at movies. I think most flat-rate plans are based on the average users. I'm all for that since I am not an average user and they are subsidizing my use, and I like it that way.
BTW my original post was quite murky (with hindsight) so this is clearing it up. I don't get the MickyD's analogy though, but then you didn't get my origianl post either.
The first time I found/. I was amazed, then I used it for a bit, got really high, and now I'm a junkie.
Power to the people. Reporting to the people. Moderating to the people. Flames to the people. Adminning to the admin.
Very few stories fall through the cracks and if I think they do...I submit them. Some places this model could go would be stuff like giving free cd's or software to submitters (replacing reporters). It isn't needed here, but building a following (bootstrapping for this type of site) is the more difficult step, you need consistent content and if it comes from surfers you have to give them a reason. You give them a good reason and you have next years hottest IPO. The community feel is also a big part, but I think if there was, say, a/. for doctors (pinprick.org or thiswonthurt.com), the community would build quickly.
I've called this type of site Nanomedia resoning that one) it is really small when compared to mass media, two) it's usually operated my one, two, or ten people (one-billionth the pop. of the planet), and three) it sounds cool and we're moving into the nano- age anyway.
Pay per megabit scares me because I (and I'm sure the vast majority of you) use my connection WAY more than your average Joe. While a plan that would offer him the same overall service at 1/2 the price (P-P-MB) would most likely cost me 2-3 times as much. That's scary.
Re: Net as a commodity:Bad Idea or Spawn of Satan?
on
Bandwidth as Commodity
·
· Score: 1
I just don't like any plan where I have to pay per megabit, which is what this looks like. I don't want to pay for streaming media or the fact that I download 200 MB of games a week. I also see large companies benefitting from this while average consumers are hurt. I understand how commodite trading can increase efficiency, but aren't most commodities perishable items (or limited supplies), I don't see bandwidth as either. It's a totally different beast and shouldn't it be dealt with accordingly, i.e. differently.
That's my term for the same idea. One billionth part of the collective running a medio source./.'s a perfect example. Some of the live webcasts (using shoutcast or icecast) also fit under the same umbrella, altough at present their reach is much less. I wrote a paper on it, e-mail me if curious. Basically it's a shift in the role of gatekeepers from those with the money and power, to those who build the media (from Rupert Murdoch and Scott Sassa to Rob Malda and the like) User submissions and self-moderation are also part of the model. There is a catch-22 in getting one started, but they seem to be very self-sustaining and can be applied to any demo, psycho - graphic group, from hobbyists to professional. Computer gaming also has a number of them, although in all my surfing/. seems to be the overall tightest.
Masses of honest people? Most people, when it comes down to it, are selfish. It used to be a survival trait.
My reply was to a response about making decisions for the entire Net community (roughly). Selfishness plays a very important role, in that you vote,pick,choose, how/what you want, so does everyone else, and the majority rules.
Democracy (from www.m-w.com) 1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority
.....
By true change I was referring to making or destryoing matter/energy at its base level. While topical changes happen all the time, the base nature remains the same.
- How do we build enough consensus to make decisions in a cyber free-for-all? Simple: Polls. More: True democracy. One person, one vote. Very solid security measures and the masses of honest people will make it very accurate especially on a large scale.
- In an Information Society, will we just replace the old money based elites with new knowledge based elites? Simple: Power = Power More: Power = Power. There will be a constant struggle as there is now. Money = Power, Knowledge = Power. Money/3+X56^y = Knowledge*blah, blah, blah. Change is inevitable, true change is impossible.
- If industrial age revolutionary firebrands sparked the revolutions of 1776, 1789, and 1917, (etc), who will spark the revolutions of the information age? Will we have a cabal of disgruntled sysadmins shutting down the Net until their demands are met or will their tactics and aims be more subtle? Simple: Industrial is large blocks of metal and huge physical output. Information (in this sense) is a bunch of ones and zeroes. Even more: The choas needed to effect dramatic change is beyond my power to discern, as is the future. (bows head in defeat)
- Who moderates the crazies? Simple: The loudest and the rational (the two are close to incompatible, but work together in extremes, er, sometimes) More: The people who make 100 posts. (What's this?:-0:-) )
- Who decides who the crazies are, if they are to be moderated Could you please repeat the question? Oh, you just did.:)
- Will an elite of super geniuses guide the bleating masses of sheepishly dim humans? Or will we sink to the level of majority medocrity with the voices of genius moderated out because they're crazy? Simple: Loaded assuming question, pass
How can any single human in 1999 have the slightest inkling of a clue as to what's in store for us when the _social_ effects of an information revolution finally hit with full force? Simple: Nostrawho? Thomas Jefferwhat? Gandhwhat? Linhow? More: People are capable of some pretty neat things and ideas, don't sell 'em short. We ARE thinking animals right?
Thanks for your time, I'll be here till Y2K draws the comets to Kosovo, g'night.
The average person is a LOT smarter than those of you who consider yourself to be above them. Maybe even for that simple fact.
Every person is born with free will. Certain laws have been discovered that say basically, if a thing is unchanged by an outside force, it will stay the same. This holds true for a great number of things, even to (indefinite) All things. People _like_ to have control of their lives. They go about different ways to get it, or create the illusion of it, but we all want it to some degree or another. "People" are "smart" enough to use the 'Net to "use" the "Net" to gain more control over their lives (specifically the Time of their lives). And the Net gane FREE a whole new meaning, and I do mean like BEER!! I don't go off on this often, and/. is hardly the place to gush, but it is on-topic, so....I did. Anyway, the Internet is as cool as cool can be so totally, like, learn it, man, and there's tons of free pron too!!
The average person is a LOT smarter than those of you who consider youself to be above them. Maybe even for that simple fact.
Every person is born with free will. Certain laws have been discovered that say basically, if a thing it unchanged by an outside force, it will stay the same. This holds true for a great number of things, even to (indefinite) All things. People _like_ to have control. They go about different ways to get it, or create the illusion of it, but we all want it to some degree or another. "People" are "smart" enough to use the 'Net to "use" the "Net" to gain more control over their lives (specifically the Time of their lives)
If it wasn't for the money, he wouldn't have pushed himself to be the best.
He had the money, why keep pushing so hard, it wasn't greed (which would be the motivator at that point) Then what was it?
It is cyclical, but having to choose between the two, I choose my answer. For someone who knew true loss (his father) he would surely know the relative value of money and basketball. And it wouldn't replace what he lost, he could have made more money by overcoming his (lack of) enjoyment and playing longer, but HE CHOSE NOT TO (citing phil jackson and management issues). As an example, when looked at start to finish, this one proves my point.(would have continued conversation on e-mail, but couldn't{AC})
hehe, good point. Did they say where it would be evening? That gives them the ability to say whenever it came up that's where they meant it to be evening. Or maybe they meant some distance planet, it's just so hard to pin down:)
The chapel wouldn't have been painted unless he had gotten paid,, so his motiviation was money.
..and it wouldn't have been great if he didn't love it.
He loved the game, yes, but was as good as he was because of the money.
No, he got paid the money because he was as good as he was and he was as good as he was because he loved the game. He also worked his freakin' ass off even when he was the best because he knew he could get better. But the only reason to push yourself above and beyond like that is a deep respect, love, need, for the game..and to be the best.
Re:One world, One OS - No OS. Mod that one up to 5
on
GNU Inside?
·
· Score: 1
I was talking about the main *reason* for doing things. Starting from a position of doing something you enjoy as opposed to something for personal gain _as the main reason for doing it_. Commercial art vs. "enjoyment" art, which is better to look at? Which has a heart? Which would YOU rather buy?!?
It's a simple fact. Those that do things for love do thing better than those that do it for money. A simple reason why Open Source will eventually rule all and money will one day be seen as a passing fancy.
...than on the mountaintop. I find it difficult to condemn someone for being too successful, what I condemn them for is hypocrisy. Katz with all the promotion you've done for your book, don't you think all of this falls under the same heading? Didn't you, *gasp*, do a book tour to propogate your ideas?
Of course there is another issue at stake here. Something I've heard about how Lucas has approached a particular issue. In this case it would have to be the defense of I.P. The exchange of ideas for money. "You can use this image and make money for it because you paid me, and you, who might have an actual emotional tie with this image, cannot in any way shape or form reproduce redistibute or oven think about it without sending me a royalty check, in advance."
Sure they are his ideas and he's, I guess, entitled to gettin' some, but when things reach a certain critical mass in our culture it exposes the stupidity of many arguments. When pop culture reaches religious prportions perhaps we should step back or up for a moment.
And an interesting, albeit trivial and most likely erroneous, tidbit I've picked up somewhere (could have been here)... the total merchandising bill for Star Wars Ep1-$4.5 billion. The total cost for Reagan's Star Wars initiative-$4.11 billion. Nah, we don't have too much leisure time in this county, do we?
According to a source who attended the SDMI meeting last week, participants discovered that the Internet and music industries have precious little in common.
For the RIAA it's all about controlling(read: limiting) content and distribution channels. They still seem to think that they are in a position of authority. They aren't. In my random searches for music I have *yet* to not be able to find a particular song in MP3, and I don't even have to look on IRC. The RIAA is setting itself up for a major failure by trying to fight the juggernaut that is consumer will. What happens when you put customers in the lowest priority? Maybe some MBAs out there can answer that one...
Even M$ with all their cash and tech. knowledge has had extreme difficulty controlling Internet formats, and the RIAA thinks, without extensive tech. experience, that it can control digital music? They are so severely out of touch with reality it's kind of scary, yet these are the folks that have controlled music for 30+ years!
I could go on, but the choir needs to get back to singin;^)
How about a simple link at the bottom, something along the lines of "If you appreciate this service please click here" and link to some affiliate program. Then it becomes a donation of the surfer's time to the web site owner as opposed to a "forced" banner ad impression?
Slashdot Mirror
It seems they are slowly (quickly?) retreating from each position they take. They say something, the techs or Net at large says "no way", they retreat a bit. Repeat.
:)
It's actually kind of funny to watch. I'm just worried that they will succeed, not with the tech, I don't think the market will let them, but with legislation. The RIAA has already gotten laws passed that are favorable to them for streaming media (by favorable I mean limiting distribution thus controlling their oligopoly) By making certains type of MP3 "paraphenalia" (sp) illegal or even certain uses of it, they might retain control.
Personally I am against ANY and ALL limits on my ability to copy and use digital data that I own, probably why I hang out here.
LONG LIVE DIVX!!!
Since you really need to understand something before you can create your own, I love reading about stuff like this. 12 billion light years, eh? Not too shabby for a universe.
Someone else asked "what's outside the Universe?" I say, nothing too interesting, there's a bunch more neat stuff inside IMHO. Heck, we haven't even totally explored our own oceans yet. I think our biggest chance (in our lifetimes) of finding sentient life would be down there, it's where we came from after all (if you believe in Nature). Perhaps the things that caused our great ancestors to move onto land has evolved to something......well, just something.
No, not free, but I want the know how much I'm paying (flat-fee) vs. finding out how much I've spent at the end of the month (per-bit rate). Who said anything about illegal?! I download demos of games, upwards of 50-100mb apiece, it's like seeing the trailers at movies. I think most flat-rate plans are based on the average users. I'm all for that since I am not an average user and they are subsidizing my use, and I like it that way.
BTW my original post was quite murky (with hindsight) so this is clearing it up. I don't get the MickyD's analogy though, but then you didn't get my origianl post either.
Just like the Sun ads....
/. I was amazed, then I used it for a bit, got really high, and now I'm a junkie.
/. for doctors (pinprick.org or thiswonthurt.com), the community would build quickly.
The first time I found
Power to the people. Reporting to the people. Moderating to the people. Flames to the people. Adminning to the admin.
Very few stories fall through the cracks and if I think they do...I submit them. Some places this model could go would be stuff like giving free cd's or software to submitters (replacing reporters). It isn't needed here, but building a following (bootstrapping for this type of site) is the more difficult step, you need consistent content and if it comes from surfers you have to give them a reason. You give them a good reason and you have next years hottest IPO. The community feel is also a big part, but I think if there was, say, a
I've called this type of site Nanomedia resoning that one) it is really small when compared to mass media, two) it's usually operated my one, two, or ten people (one-billionth the pop. of the planet), and three) it sounds cool and we're moving into the nano- age anyway.
12.5% of a quarter for you, mine that is
Pay per megabit scares me because I (and I'm sure the vast majority of you) use my connection WAY more than your average Joe. While a plan that would offer him the same overall service at 1/2 the price (P-P-MB) would most likely cost me 2-3 times as much. That's scary.
I just don't like any plan where I have to pay per megabit, which is what this looks like. I don't want to pay for streaming media or the fact that I download 200 MB of games a week. I also see large companies benefitting from this while average consumers are hurt. I understand how commodite trading can increase efficiency, but aren't most commodities perishable items (or limited supplies), I don't see bandwidth as either. It's a totally different beast and shouldn't it be dealt with accordingly, i.e. differently.
iterated in another post...Nanomedia (voice of a one-billionth part)
it rolls off the tongue and AFAIK isn't already a word.
but doesn't "interesting" or "insightful" cover it?
That's my term for the same idea. One billionth part of the collective running a medio source. /.'s a perfect example. Some of the live webcasts (using shoutcast or icecast) also fit under the same umbrella, altough at present their reach is much less. I wrote a paper on it, e-mail me if curious. Basically it's a shift in the role of gatekeepers from those with the money and power, to those who build the media (from Rupert Murdoch and Scott Sassa to Rob Malda and the like) User submissions and self-moderation are also part of the model. There is a catch-22 in getting one started, but they seem to be very self-sustaining and can be applied to any demo, psycho - graphic group, from hobbyists to professional. Computer gaming also has a number of them, although in all my surfing /. seems to be the overall tightest.
Masses of honest people? Most people, when it comes down to it, are selfish. It used to be a survival trait.
My reply was to a response about making decisions for the entire Net community (roughly). Selfishness plays a very important role, in that you vote,pick,choose, how/what you want, so does everyone else, and the majority rules.
Democracy (from www.m-w.com)
1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority
.....
By true change I was referring to making or destryoing matter/energy at its base level. While topical changes happen all the time, the base nature remains the same.
The great economy is more to blame for a falling crime rate, although incarcerating (sp) everyone also seems to lower it, but is pretty expensive.
- How do we build enough consensus to make decisions in a cyber free-for-all?
:-0 :-) )
:)
Simple: Polls.
More: True democracy. One person, one vote. Very solid security measures and the masses of honest people will make it very accurate especially on a large scale.
- In an Information Society, will we just replace the old money based elites with new knowledge based elites?
Simple: Power = Power
More: Power = Power. There will be a constant struggle as there is now. Money = Power, Knowledge = Power. Money/3+X56^y = Knowledge*blah, blah, blah. Change is inevitable, true change is impossible.
- If industrial age revolutionary firebrands sparked the revolutions of 1776, 1789, and 1917, (etc), who will spark the revolutions of the information age? Will we have a cabal of disgruntled sysadmins shutting down the Net until their demands are met or will their tactics and aims be more subtle?
Simple: Industrial is large blocks of metal and huge physical output. Information (in this sense) is a bunch of ones and zeroes.
Even more: The choas needed to effect dramatic change is beyond my power to discern, as is the future. (bows head in defeat)
- Who moderates the crazies?
Simple: The loudest and the rational (the two are close to incompatible, but work together in extremes, er, sometimes)
More: The people who make 100 posts. (What's this?
- Who decides who the crazies are, if they are to be moderated
Could you please repeat the question? Oh, you just did.
- Will an elite of super geniuses guide the bleating masses of sheepishly dim humans? Or will we sink to the level of majority medocrity with the voices of genius moderated out because they're crazy?
Simple: Loaded assuming question, pass
How can any single human in 1999 have the slightest inkling of a clue as to what's in store for us when the _social_ effects of an information revolution finally hit with full force?
Simple: Nostrawho? Thomas Jefferwhat? Gandhwhat? Linhow?
More: People are capable of some pretty neat things and ideas, don't sell 'em short. We ARE thinking animals right?
Thanks for your time, I'll be here till Y2K draws the comets to Kosovo, g'night.
The average person is a LOT smarter than those of you who consider yourself to be above them. Maybe even for that simple fact.
/. is hardly the place to gush, but it is on-topic, so....I did. Anyway, the Internet is as cool as cool can be so totally, like, learn it, man, and there's tons of free pron too!!
Every person is born with free will. Certain laws have been discovered that say basically, if a thing is unchanged by an outside force, it will stay the same. This holds true for a great number of things, even to (indefinite) All things. People _like_ to have control of their lives.
They go about different ways to get it, or create the illusion of it, but we all want it to some degree or another. "People" are "smart" enough to use the 'Net to "use" the "Net" to gain more control over their lives (specifically the Time of their lives). And the Net gane FREE a whole new meaning, and I do mean like BEER!!
I don't go off on this often, and
The average person is a LOT smarter than those of you who consider youself to be above them. Maybe even for that simple fact.
Every person is born with free will. Certain laws have been discovered that say basically, if a thing it unchanged by an outside force, it will stay the same. This holds true for a great number of things, even to (indefinite) All things. People _like_ to have control.
They go about different ways to get it, or create the illusion of it, but we all want it to some degree or another. "People" are "smart" enough to use the 'Net to "use" the "Net" to gain more control over their lives (specifically the Time of their lives)
The 'Net, at its core, is about communication
If it wasn't for the money, he wouldn't have pushed himself to be the best.
He had the money, why keep pushing so hard, it wasn't greed (which would be the motivator at that point) Then what was it?
It is cyclical, but having to choose between the two, I choose my answer. For someone who knew true loss (his father) he would surely know the relative value of money and basketball. And it wouldn't replace what he lost, he could have made more money by overcoming his (lack of) enjoyment and playing longer, but HE CHOSE NOT TO (citing phil jackson and management issues). As an example, when looked at start to finish, this one proves my point.(would have continued conversation on e-mail, but couldn't{AC})
hehe, good point. Did they say where it would be evening? That gives them the ability to say whenever it came up that's where they meant it to be evening. Or maybe they meant some distance planet, it's just so hard to pin down :)
The chapel wouldn't have been painted unless he had gotten paid,, so his motiviation was money.
..and it wouldn't have been great if he didn't love it.
He loved the game, yes, but was as good as he was because of the money.
No, he got paid the money because he was as good as he was and he was as good as he was because he loved the game. He also worked his freakin' ass off even when he was the best because he knew he could get better. But the only reason to push yourself above and beyond like that is a deep respect, love, need, for the game..and to be the best.
how bout a really complex and beneficial virus?
and I'll bet he loved doing it.
I was talking about the main *reason* for doing things. Starting from a position of doing something you enjoy as opposed to something for personal gain _as the main reason for doing it_. Commercial art vs. "enjoyment" art, which is better to look at? Which has a heart? Which would YOU rather buy?!?
c'mon isn't being able to read it for free enough.
It's not like you could debug it and sell it for more, right?
It's free beer!!
It's a simple fact. Those that do things for love do thing better than those that do it for money. A simple reason why Open Source will eventually rule all and money will one day be seen as a passing fancy.
first post
...than on the mountaintop. I find it difficult to condemn someone for being too successful, what I condemn them for is hypocrisy. Katz with all the promotion you've done for your book, don't you think all of this falls under the same heading? Didn't you, *gasp*, do a book tour to propogate your ideas?
Of course there is another issue at stake here. Something I've heard about how Lucas has approached a particular issue. In this case it would have to be the defense of I.P. The exchange of ideas for money. "You can use this image and make money for it because you paid me, and you, who might have an actual emotional tie with this image, cannot in any way shape or form reproduce redistibute or oven think about it without sending me a royalty check, in advance."
Sure they are his ideas and he's, I guess, entitled to gettin' some, but when things reach a certain critical mass in our culture it exposes the stupidity of many arguments. When pop culture reaches religious prportions perhaps we should step back or up for a moment.
And an interesting, albeit trivial and most likely erroneous, tidbit I've picked up somewhere (could have been here)... the total merchandising bill for Star Wars Ep1-$4.5 billion. The total cost for Reagan's Star Wars initiative-$4.11 billion. Nah, we don't have too much leisure time in this county, do we?
According to a source who attended the SDMI meeting last week, participants discovered that the Internet and music industries have precious little in common.
;^)
For the RIAA it's all about controlling(read: limiting) content and distribution channels. They still seem to think that they are in a position of authority. They aren't. In my random searches for music I have *yet* to not be able to find a particular song in MP3, and I don't even have to look on IRC.
The RIAA is setting itself up for a major failure by trying to fight the juggernaut that is consumer will. What happens when you put customers in the lowest priority? Maybe some MBAs out there can answer that one...
Even M$ with all their cash and tech. knowledge has had extreme difficulty controlling Internet formats, and the RIAA thinks, without extensive tech. experience, that it can control digital music? They are so severely out of touch with reality it's kind of scary, yet these are the folks that have controlled music for 30+ years!
I could go on, but the choir needs to get back to singin
How about a simple link at the bottom, something along the lines of "If you appreciate this service please click here" and link to some affiliate program. Then it becomes a donation of the surfer's time to the web site owner as opposed to a "forced" banner ad impression?