If Media Fusion's technology does work, it could radically shake the telecommunications market. Telephone and cable companies have invested billions of dollars to ready their networks for high-speed data transmissions.
That's a slight understatement. If the technology *does* work, look to see major U.S. Telecommunications companies go screaming to the FCC, demanding the regulation and taxation of the service in the same manner that their lines are. If that doesn't work, I'm not sure what they're going to do, because a technology like this could threaten to put them out of business.
How practical is it? Does anyone have more detailed information (perhaps information of a more technical nature) about how they're doing it? Is this just a vaporware announcement intended to scare the telcos?
While the details of actual implementation are vague, if it works, this may present yet another solution to the 'last mile' problem, which I personally see as the last major bottleneck before the true dawning of the (drumroll please) information age. Between this type of easy access to high speed broadband with existing infrastructure, and the high speed wireless stuff we read about a couple weeks ago, we might just get things *properly* wired sometime soon:)
For the free market to actually function properly, and according to the most hard core pro free market economists, 2 things (among others) are required: 1- that people have the information, and 2- that they have choice. Without information and choice, there is no free trade.
This is a very interesting point, I agree wholeheartedly. It brings the changing practice of marketing into a very interesting light. With the overabundance of information in our society and day to day lives, marketing has effectively (imho) become a kind of guerrilla (sp?!) information warfare. As with all warfare, truth is the first casualty (although I suspect marketing as we know it killed truth before it even started).
The point with this kind of marketing/advertising is not to provide the consumer with the information necessary to make a rational purchase decision, its intent is to be loud enough that you notice it amontst all the other information screaming for your attention, and therefore have a slightly greater statistical probability of buying the product (duh). It's practically subliminal. This is the same tactic used by political candidates to gain name recognition.
Brand/name recognition has become so retardedly valuable in this world of mass marketing that I feel it's significantly responsible for the IPO craze and general tech stock over-valuation these days. They're not buying traditional capital value in companies, they're just giving props to the power of name recognition...
While I do agree in principle with the anti-corporate sentiment expressed by Katz, I think he (as usual) may have gone a little bit overboard in his presentation, so, to play devil's advocate a little bit:
Corporatism has, in fact, damaged the environment by creating incalculable amounts of products that pollute and trash the earth.
The thing to keep in mind when making sweeping statements like this is that these corporations could not produce these products if we didn't buy them. I've heard the argument that we're just too ignorant to buy better products, or that there simply aren't enough alternatives available, but I think that with the advent of the "one world economy" this argument is becoming less and less relevant...
Corporate workers aren't some seperate sect of society, living in seclusion and secretly working to fuck with us all. They're you and me, average joe's just looking for a job and a few extra $$ usually.
Corporations have increasingly acquired and sought to monopolize whole elements of culture, from movies to books to the press. This has sparked an epidemic homogenization of popular culture - not a dumbing down, but a dulling down [...]
Again we come back to the question, "Who's buying this shit?" The only possible answer is: we are. I agree with Katz, it sucks, and I've spent years kicking and screaming and complaining about it and finally come to one realization: "We (for the most part) *want* to be dumbed down." It's like the end of 1984, we love big brother, as much as we'd like to deny it. Why else would so many people watch shows like Jerry Springer and Friends? Why do so many people so desperately look for any way possible to avoid the horrific burden of thinking for themselves?
Through what mass-media coverage of the protests I managed to catch, I couldn't help but be reminded of the rioting at the 1968 Democratic National Convention, one of those things that has always made me wish I'd been born one generation earlier:) In particular, I heard that there were scores of people at the protest chanting "The Whole World Is Watching" while the police moved in with tear gas and clubs.
The '68 DNC was significant not only because of the rioting, and the Chicago 7 (or 8, depending on who you ask) trial, but because it was the first time that mass media (television in particular) had allowed images like that from our own soil to be broadcast right into the living rooms of everyday american homes.
The yippies to some extent (certainly more than the policemen beating unarmed protesters on camera) realized the opportunities afforded by this new kind of media coverage, and may have sought in some ways to provoke the police into more vicious attacks (the weathermen, for example, would chant "pigs eat shit. pigs eat shit. pigs eat shit." at approaching police lines), because they knew it was all being broadcast on the NBC Nightly News. "The Whole World Is Watching" takes on new significance in this light.
While I don't think the WTO protests are anywhere near the calibre of the '68 DNC, the situation is similar in some ways, as Katz pointed out. The event seems to have centered around a new type of media, a whole new way of communicating drastically altering the way we organize ourselves . Net coverage of the event has been particularly extensive (what are we doing right here?).
To quote Robert Anton Wilson (roughly) "Marx was wrong. Society is not determined by its means of production, it's defined by its means of communication."
While I'd like some more technical information on this, my first thought was that this may be the (relatively) inexpensive solution we're looking for to solve the infamous "last mile" problem.
I'm not sure how much it costs to lay fiber, but I'm willing to bet it's not cheap. I'm betting it's even more expensive in more dense, urban areas. While your average Joe can't afford to cough up $150K for the base unit, your average telco *can*.
Imagine getting your home net access wirelessly. Your ISP could sell or lease you the receiver unit in much the same way that some people lease their cable modems. The connection speeds are higher anyway (is this 44 megabits shared? anyone know?).
The increasing use of wireless networking technology has us all focused on dinky little PDA things, dreaming of roaming connectivity. It had never even dawned on me that wireless connections might be the solution to the last mile problem.
I'd be a little worried if I was a cable provider...
Hey slashdot-terminal, we wrestled earlier over pointless trivialities, why not continue?:)
Your posts to this thread all seem to center around the same idea, which seems to be "what use is all this network stuff?" (please correct me if i've missed the point)
1. Failure. If connections on the network go down then you are screwed.
The same argument applies to your power line, your phone line, your physical computer hardware, your water pipes, your gas line... Redundant connections solve this problem for those with gobs of $$, I personally deal with it by reading a book:)
2. Expensive- not many people have money equivelent to that of small African countries and usually cannot afford the ability to do all the fancy stuff. Having a permanent connection is difficult.
As someone patiently (*patiently* i swear) waiting for ADSL or Cable connectivity, I can agree with you somewhat on this one. The Good Thing (tm) in my eyes, however, is that these technologies (and others) are becoming more and more prevalent for less and less money. In other words, they're becoming more accessable for your average Joe all the time. As always-on high-speed (maybe even wireless?) connectivity becomes more integrated into our daily lives, we'll (imho) really start to weigh in the benefits of this Information Age we're careening headlong into.
3. Unnecessary- it is far better to have something on a machine you can control versus something you cannot.
That's the one that prompted this whole reply:)
The way you termed it, I agree. I think you were really trying to say that it's better to store information locally than remotely. I *seriously* disagree with that proposition. Sometimes it's much better to store your data remotely, as it allows you to access said data from any network conected point. This enabling of one to many (and many to one, and many to many, and one to one, for that matter) is what makes networking really worth it. Look at slashdot if you need proof...
Subject line sums it up. The NSA^H^H^H bit was an attempt at a complex linguistic-emotional juxtaposition known in english speaking cultures as a "joke."
Where you concluded that the NSA created Columbine or that my teeth contain miniature radio transmitters is beyond me:)
I'm not sure how much of it is based on the same IP issues that we get all hot and bothered about, but there's an article at CNN with info about a rather large protest occuring at the WTO meeting in seattle.
Does this mean THEY do the bullying or are bullied themselves? This actually goes against what most of the slashdot community has been saying in the wake of the hellmouth series. Most of the people who fit this profile are usually BEING bullied.
I think this is semantic confusion on Katz's part. Other discussion here seems to support that theory.
As one who pretty much exactly matches the profile explained (I'm hoping the real list is *far* more detailed), I can personally attest that 99.998% of the people netted by this kind of testing are harmless, at least in the sense that most of them aren't exactly likely to assault their classmates with automatic weapons and home made pipe bombs.
What this type of profiling will isolate is people who tend to think differently. People who don't possess the type of herd-mentality preferred by the powers-that-be. People less likely to simply roll over and follow orders without thinking about it. People who actually *think* from time to time.
Safety, threat to the popular well being, has been the traditional excuse that the powers-that-be have used to take away freedoms, one piece at a time. The "evil spectre" of communism is gone. The arabs don't appear to be all that menacing of a threat any more. Those pesky Yugoslavians appear to have calmed down a bit. All they have left to make us afraid of is ourselves.
So... Here's the game plan for the impending Immanentization of the Eschaton.
The NSA^H^H^Hmedia will bombard us with a continual stream of incidents like Columbine.
The people will begin to fear the only thing left to fear in the one-world/global-village mindset created by the internet, themselves.
In fear of themselves, the people will *beg* the government to take away their freedoms, all in the name of safety.
Checkmate.
Roughly speaking, it's as simple as that...
while(1){ print "I would rather be free than safe.\n"; }
Hell, REAL hackers use the command line.:-) GUIs are for wussies...
Oh my, I hope I didn't come across as pushing for the end of the command line:) Let it be said thusly: He who takes away my command line will be hunted down and killed.
(in other words, I couldn't agree with you more)
I find that there is an easy solution to the aforementioned "problem" - shell scripting.
While I certainly wouldn't want to downlpay the sheer beauty of shell scripting/cron (couldn't live without them either), I was less talking about repeatedly performed sequences of actions and more talking about a way to describe/define 3 dimensional interaction with the computer.
Really, honest to god, all I want out of computers in my entire life is to be able to do that scene from Johnny Mnemonic (yeah yeah, it sucks, i know) where Johnny puts both hands above his head, fingers extended, like some electric bird of prey and says menacingly "I can crash your whole board from here, man."
I'm willing to support whatever it takes to get to that point:)
Neat idea, but not really useful enough imho to become a Big Thing (tm). The big obstacle to more effective computing right now (especially in the light of the portable/handheld 'revolution' going on right now) is human interface. We should be looking for faster, more efficient ways to interface with our computers, if you think RAM is a bottleneck, think about physical interface:)
What would not long ago have been considered high-end 3d technology (hardware in particular) is becoming more and more accessable for the home user. If I can play a high-demand game like quake2 in beautifully textured 3d space (complete with colored lighting, etc.) why can't my desktop and general interface with my 'puter look like that? The answer (again, imho) is the lack of a proper 3d interface device.
The mouse only describes motion in a single plane. Until we can use something more intuitive for 3d interface, such as a cyberpunk-ish data glove, we will have to wait for more effective and intuitive interface (and i [think/hope?] we'd all agree that humans more intuitively deal with 3d space).
Every time I read about someone trying to put together a 3d front-end for X, I look at the screenshots and what their goal is and think to myself "Wow, these guys are missing the point completely." A 2d window manager in 3d space is exactly what we *don't* need. There are larger issues under the surface here 'though, such as how we redefine interaction with the computer for 3 dimensions.
That will have to wait for a device to do it with...
Anthony
^X^X Segmentation fault (core dumped)
Re:Greedy Corporate Scumfucks
on
Copyright!
·
· Score: 1
So the logic goes, it's easy for me to steal it, so it should be free. I just don't get it.
Uuh, what? Where did I say anything even remotely related to that proposition? Wtf are you talking about?
Again:
All I'm saying is that our system doesn't work. It needs revision.
Anthony
^X^X Segmentation fault (core dumped)
Re:Back to philosophy school
on
Copyright!
·
· Score: 2
Tell that to all the teachers that GIVE their time and knowledge to all the students they teach, then tell me that has no value to the students.
Interesting point. An angle I hadn't considered. I think we're talking about different kinds of giving, but I agree with you:)
Honestly, I only included that "Something given has no value" bit because the sound bite from Starship Troopers popped into my head when I was writing the reply. Decided it was too good a quote to pass up.
I'd rather have quoted "They sucked his brains out." or "If you find a bug hole, nuke it." but those would have been even more off topic than my previous rant.
Anthony
^X^X Segmentation fault (core dumped)
Re:Greedy Corporate Scumfucks
on
Copyright!
·
· Score: 2
Lets see here more people attend religious services now than at any point in the last 20 years, democracy is spreading around the world, and more patents and trademarks are applied for everyday. Do you have any evidence that religion, govt and IP are crumbling around us? Looks like they are doing fine to me.
Religion is a faint glimmer of what it once was. The church in fact has already fallen, did so a couple hundred years ago as a result of this thing called the Age of Reason, you may have heard of it?
Democracy is spreading around the world. I'm with you on that one:) This is (imho) at least superficially a good thing.
Intellectual Property is obviously experiencing some rather serious upheaval, or we wouldn't be talking about it here, or using OSS software for that matter. I consider OSS to be a kind of backlash against the current IP model.
f you can make a living giving things away for free, more power to you. Why don't these Lunix companies give away support along with their software too? Here's a hint.. bankrupcy.
Here's a big hint. One a lot of people simply can't seem to grasp on any level (i'm going to use that bolding here that you love): Everything doesn't have to be about money. It seems that we've forgotten that. Sure, *some* things can be about money, that's fine by me. Ever since the OSS movement has made headlines, and linux has had some success, all the articles are asking the same question: "Wow, that's great. Now how is it going to make me rich?"
Yawn. Ideas like this are stupid, that's why they are never acted on. Got any suggestions for how to replace a money based economy? Didn't think so.
Maybe you just can't read. Which part of "just an example, don't go there;)" was difficult to comprehend? I'm not seriously proposing we abandon money, fuck, it makes the world go round. As long as it keeps my bong packed and my car running you won't hear me complain too loudly:)
Smarter people that you have tried and not thought of one either. (Not that that is a bad thing, since the current system works fine.)
Smarter people than you don't have to resort to personal attacks to get their point across.
Yeah, the current monetary system works great. I'll be sure to tell that to the next guy who bums change off me to avoid sobriety.
Anthony
^X^X Segmentation fault (core dumped)
Re:Greedy Corporate Scumfucks
on
Copyright!
·
· Score: 1
Since you're in a mood to give away things for free, can I have your computer?
Uuh, sure, drop by tonight sometime after 6 and pick it up.:)
I've always wanted to give that response to that response. Note that I didn't say give everything away for free. Didn't even hint at it in fact. Fuck, I didn't say anyone should have to do anything. I can't make you do anything. Wouldn't want to anyway.
I'm not advocating some scary new world order "collective" with no concept of individual property. Far from it in fact. I'm just saying that software, or digital data as we know it, should not be classified in the same category as physical property. It's not a *thing*, you can't hold a bitstream in your hand.
All I'm saying is that our system doesn't work. It needs revision.
I'll be happy to give you all the ideas you want 'though. Free of charge.
Anthony
^X^X Segmentation fault (core dumped)
Re:Greedy Corporate Scumfucks
on
Copyright!
·
· Score: 2
Giving things away for free is fine and dandy, but creating value means that when one person gives away something to another, the other ought to give him something of value in return. That's called justice...
Uuh, no. That's called greed.
Something GIVEN has no value. Value exists only in exchange, and even then only as a shadowy abstract concept.
If you're expecting something in return, that's not giving something away at all, that's bartering. That's an exchange, not a gift. HUGE difference: In one case, you're acting selflessly (working for the good of others), in the other case, you're acting selfishly (working for the good of yourself).
Do yourself a favor and read some R. Buckminster Fuller. I can't remember the exact quote or location, but he once said that he'd figured mathematically that in the long run, it's always in your own best interest to work for the common good (possibly because the "common good" includes, guess who, *you*).
And yes, you are supporting the artist. If you don't like it, don't buy it.
Out of a $16 CD sale, approximately $1 goes to the artist. Yeah, support that artist, defend the rights of corporations to profit from the labor of others who they've signed into indentured servitude, buy that VP another yacht.
...regardless of whether lazy bums or crybabies want something of value handed to them for free.
Giant impersonal corporation is trying to screw you.
I would say that this is a very defendable proposition. Wouldn't you? Maybe not all the time as you suggest, but my experience in the corporate sector has shown me that (for the most part) they don't give any more of a shit about you or me than they have to in order to get our money. The corporate world revolves around the bottom line. Keep that in mind at all times.
Nope, they never have a case or a legitmiate point, they are just trying to give you the bone.
I'm sure in many cases they do have legitimate points. We're just as wack as they are sometimes;) Either way, discussion forums like this are a great way for people to bring into the open and discuss/debate the relevant issues in the case.
Would you rather we just shut the fuck up about it? I'm sure they would.
Anthony
^X^X Segmentation fault (core dumped)
Greedy Corporate Scumfucks
on
Copyright!
·
· Score: 3
Rant:
I couldn't agree more that the copyright system is in need of serious modification, if not outright elimination. The rabid libertarians (and believe me, I consider myself one) will scream at me about the right of an individual to profit from their labor. Blah Blah fucking Blah. I agree in principle, but:
We're moving into a new world here, ladies and gentlemen. To paraphrase Bill Hicks, it's time to evolve ideas. The reason our cherished institutions (religion, government, intellectual property, etc.) are crumbling around us is because They Are No Longer Relevant. It's as simple as that. The ideas just don't apply any more. They're outdated. The world has changed. It's time to move on.
Unfortunately, "moving on" (at least as us idealist type geeks have envisioned it) involves radical concepts like giving things away for free. Ideas like this are dangerous. They scare the living shit out of the entrenched power structure (which tells us over and over again about how it nailed this guy to a tree about 2000 years ago for daring to suggest ideas like that) If we were to start thinking in that direction, we might do something really radical like abandon our current concept of money (just an example, don't go there;).
So, keep buying those $18 CDs guys. You're supporting the artist you know.
The Findings of Fact in the Microsoft case, and the impending decision, have sparked a lot of controversey in the last week. In addition to debate over the correctness of the findings, and the possible outcome, there has been much talk about modern antitrust law and its relation to the "free market" economic model.
While I personally disagree, sites such as microsoft.aynrand.org (among many others) staunchly maintain that the antitrust laws used in the prosecution of Microsoft are in fact inimical to a free market. They argue that Microsoft should be left alone, not because of PR Marketing BS like the "freedom to innovate", but because they feel that market forces should ultimately (and are already starting to) make the final decision.
More specifically, some propose that modern antitrust law has become less appropriate or relevant to the high pace of the technology marketplace, and may be in need of revision to more accurately perform its desired function. Do you feel that antitrust law is still effective in the changing atmosphere of modern business, and if not, what changes do you feel could be made to increase its effectiveness?
The BSA knows as well as you and I that cracking down on 1337 w4R3z h4X0r5 in IRC channels will do nothing whatsoever to combat the "problem" of software piracy. At best, raking IRC chanels will net you a few 12 year olds trading copies of software they'll never use like baseball cards.
The real "threat" to the BSA in terms of lost revenue is organized, commercial piracy, and they know it damn well. Even if you somehow counted up all the Hotline and IRC transfers of pirated software, you'd come nowhere near the supposed billions in revenue they "lose" every year.
What the BSA is doing is playing the Public Relations game. This is all a big, flashy show intended to attract a lot of attention and give us all warm fuzzy feelings about them combatting software piracy. At the same time, this is intended to distract us from the real issue: they're powerless to actually do anything about it.
Large scale pirates duplicate and re-package software en-masse, and sell it. This is what the BSA should be worried about. This is also very hard to track, and even harder to prosecute because (to my understanding) it occurs primarily in other countries.
Busting script kiddies trading video games on IRC and claiming this will help stop piracy is like busting a stoner for posession of a dime bag and and claiming this will stop the flow of illegal drugs into the country. It just makes no sense.
They're letting the industrys wildest dreams and fantasies define their product line.
Funny you should say this. After one of the recent Slashdot/Transmeta rumor fests, I was telling a friend of mine how the guys at Transmeta could have been playing Quake until now, and all they'd have to do is read the Slashdot thread to get about 10,000 incredible ideas for things they could do. Sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy.
You think Transmeta is in with the AISB? I'd always wondered to what extent the 5 were involved with the creation of Linux. My bet is that Linus is actually a deep cover agent for the ELF...
The Eschaton will shortly be Immanentized. "The Great Convergance" will imho be the vehicle this time around fnord.
For further information, consult your pineal gland. All Hail Eris. Prosecutors will be transgressicuted.
Regardless of what product Transmeta eventually produces (assuming they actually do produce a product someday), you must admit they have a brilliant, practically Zen approach to Public Relations.
It doesn't matter if their product turns out to be vaporware, or the second coming of Christ in the form of a microprocessor, they've got us all so worked up over it that Linus could just walk up to the podium and eat a bowl of cereal at Comdex and we'd provide days of analysis and discussion on what we thought his body language revealed. Fscking *brilliant*:)
In a world becoming increasingly accustomed to ridiculous amounts of needless information on simply *everything* they've distinguished themselves from the pack in the only way possible: by providing no information whatsoever.
(Note that by [not] distinguishing themselves in this way, they've actually created a higher information density...)
I'm simply in awe, and undoubtedly waiting just as eagerly as the rest of you...
This whole thing is basically about broadband access. "Our sole concern is the architecture that AT&T and MediaOne propose for broadband access."
The model proposed apparently does not allow the user to select an ISP, and the authors argue that this may unfairly (to consumers) limit the types of services available in the future, and possibly allow the AT&T/MediaOne merger to create a monopoly on services they feel ISPs should be providing.
"By bundling ISP service with access, and by not permitting users to select another ISP, the architecture removes ISP competition within the residential broadband cable market. By removing this competition, the architecture removes an important threat to any strategic behavior that AT&T might engage in once a merger is complete."
They go on to explain how this represents a threat to the very kind of open-ness that has made the internet great so far.
Interesting to note that they don't seem like the type who would actually ask for regulation. They seem to consider it as a necessary evil at this stage of the development of the net. I tend to agree, letting things get out of control (if they're right) would only mean even more regulation later.
Look, they gave us props:
35. This is not to say that the government created the innovation that the Internet has enjoyed. Nor is it to endorse government, rather than private, development of Internet-related technologies. Obviously, the extraordinary innovation of the Internet arises from the creativity of private actors from around the world. Some of these actors work within corporations. Some of the most important have been associated with the Free Software, and Open Source Software Movements. And some have been entrepreneurs operating outside of any specific structure. But the creativity that these innovators have produced would not have been enabled but for the opening of the communications network. Our only point is that the government had a significant role in that opening.
Slashdot Mirror
If Media Fusion's technology does work, it could radically shake the telecommunications market. Telephone and cable companies have invested billions of dollars to ready their networks for high-speed data transmissions.
That's a slight understatement. If the technology *does* work, look to see major U.S. Telecommunications companies go screaming to the FCC, demanding the regulation and taxation of the service in the same manner that their lines are. If that doesn't work, I'm not sure what they're going to do, because a technology like this could threaten to put them out of business.
How practical is it? Does anyone have more detailed information (perhaps information of a more technical nature) about how they're doing it? Is this just a vaporware announcement intended to scare the telcos?
While the details of actual implementation are vague, if it works, this may present yet another solution to the 'last mile' problem, which I personally see as the last major bottleneck before the true dawning of the (drumroll please) information age. Between this type of easy access to high speed broadband with existing infrastructure, and the high speed wireless stuff we read about a couple weeks ago, we might just get things *properly* wired sometime soon
Anthony
For the free market to actually function properly, and according to the most hard core pro free market economists, 2 things (among others) are required: 1- that people have the information, and 2- that they have choice. Without information and choice, there is no free trade.
:)
This is a very interesting point, I agree wholeheartedly. It brings the changing practice of marketing into a very interesting light. With the overabundance of information in our society and day to day lives, marketing has effectively (imho) become a kind of guerrilla (sp?!) information warfare. As with all warfare, truth is the first casualty (although I suspect marketing as we know it killed truth before it even started).
The point with this kind of marketing/advertising is not to provide the consumer with the information necessary to make a rational purchase decision, its intent is to be loud enough that you notice it amontst all the other information screaming for your attention, and therefore have a slightly greater statistical probability of buying the product (duh). It's practically subliminal. This is the same tactic used by political candidates to gain name recognition.
Brand/name recognition has become so retardedly valuable in this world of mass marketing that I feel it's significantly responsible for the IPO craze and general tech stock over-valuation these days. They're not buying traditional capital value in companies, they're just giving props to the power of name recognition...
or something
Anthony
^X^X
Segmentation fault (core dumped)
While I do agree in principle with the anti-corporate sentiment expressed by Katz, I think he (as usual) may have gone a little bit overboard in his presentation, so, to play devil's advocate a little bit:
Corporatism has, in fact, damaged the environment by creating incalculable amounts of products that pollute and trash the earth.
The thing to keep in mind when making sweeping statements like this is that these corporations could not produce these products if we didn't buy them. I've heard the argument that we're just too ignorant to buy better products, or that there simply aren't enough alternatives available, but I think that with the advent of the "one world economy" this argument is becoming less and less relevant...
Corporate workers aren't some seperate sect of society, living in seclusion and secretly working to fuck with us all. They're you and me, average joe's just looking for a job and a few extra $$ usually.
Corporations have increasingly acquired and sought to monopolize whole elements of culture, from movies to books to the press. This has sparked an epidemic homogenization of popular culture - not a dumbing down, but a dulling down [...]
Again we come back to the question, "Who's buying this shit?" The only possible answer is: we are. I agree with Katz, it sucks, and I've spent years kicking and screaming and complaining about it and finally come to one realization: "We (for the most part) *want* to be dumbed down." It's like the end of 1984, we love big brother, as much as we'd like to deny it. Why else would so many people watch shows like Jerry Springer and Friends? Why do so many people so desperately look for any way possible to avoid the horrific burden of thinking for themselves?
Anthony
^X^X
Segmentation fault (core dumped)
Through what mass-media coverage of the protests I managed to catch, I couldn't help but be reminded of the rioting at the 1968 Democratic National Convention, one of those things that has always made me wish I'd been born one generation earlier :) In particular, I heard that there were scores of people at the protest chanting "The Whole World Is Watching" while the police moved in with tear gas and clubs.
The '68 DNC was significant not only because of the rioting, and the Chicago 7 (or 8, depending on who you ask) trial, but because it was the first time that mass media (television in particular) had allowed images like that from our own soil to be broadcast right into the living rooms of everyday american homes.
The yippies to some extent (certainly more than the policemen beating unarmed protesters on camera) realized the opportunities afforded by this new kind of media coverage, and may have sought in some ways to provoke the police into more vicious attacks (the weathermen, for example, would chant "pigs eat shit. pigs eat shit. pigs eat shit." at approaching police lines), because they knew it was all being broadcast on the NBC Nightly News. "The Whole World Is Watching" takes on new significance in this light.
While I don't think the WTO protests are anywhere near the calibre of the '68 DNC, the situation is similar in some ways, as Katz pointed out. The event seems to have centered around a new type of media, a whole new way of communicating drastically altering the way we organize ourselves . Net coverage of the event has been particularly extensive (what are we doing right here?).
To quote Robert Anton Wilson (roughly) "Marx was wrong. Society is not determined by its means of production, it's defined by its means of communication."
Anthony
^X^X
Segmentation fault (core dumped)
While I'd like some more technical information on this, my first thought was that this may be the (relatively) inexpensive solution we're looking for to solve the infamous "last mile" problem.
I'm not sure how much it costs to lay fiber, but I'm willing to bet it's not cheap. I'm betting it's even more expensive in more dense, urban areas. While your average Joe can't afford to cough up $150K for the base unit, your average telco *can*.
Imagine getting your home net access wirelessly. Your ISP could sell or lease you the receiver unit in much the same way that some people lease their cable modems. The connection speeds are higher anyway (is this 44 megabits shared? anyone know?).
The increasing use of wireless networking technology has us all focused on dinky little PDA things, dreaming of roaming connectivity. It had never even dawned on me that wireless connections might be the solution to the last mile problem.
I'd be a little worried if I was a cable provider...
Anthony
^X^X
Segmentation fault (core dumped)
Hey slashdot-terminal, we wrestled earlier over pointless trivialities, why not continue? :)
:)
:)
Your posts to this thread all seem to center around the same idea, which seems to be "what use is all this network stuff?" (please correct me if i've missed the point)
1. Failure. If connections on the network go down then you are screwed.
The same argument applies to your power line, your phone line, your physical computer hardware, your water pipes, your gas line... Redundant connections solve this problem for those with gobs of $$, I personally deal with it by reading a book
2. Expensive- not many people have money equivelent to that of small African countries and
usually cannot afford the ability to do all the fancy stuff. Having a permanent connection is difficult.
As someone patiently (*patiently* i swear) waiting for ADSL or Cable connectivity, I can agree with you somewhat on this one. The Good Thing (tm) in my eyes, however, is that these technologies (and others) are becoming more and more prevalent for less and less money. In other words, they're becoming more accessable for your average Joe all the time. As always-on high-speed (maybe even wireless?) connectivity becomes more integrated into our daily lives, we'll (imho) really start to weigh in the benefits of this Information Age we're careening headlong into.
3. Unnecessary- it is far better to have something on a machine you can control versus something you cannot.
That's the one that prompted this whole reply
The way you termed it, I agree. I think you were really trying to say that it's better to store information locally than remotely. I *seriously* disagree with that proposition. Sometimes it's much better to store your data remotely, as it allows you to access said data from any network conected point. This enabling of one to many (and many to one, and many to many, and one to one, for that matter) is what makes networking really worth it. Look at slashdot if you need proof...
Anthony
^X^X
Segmentation fault (core dumped)
Subject line sums it up. The NSA^H^H^H bit was an attempt at a complex linguistic-emotional juxtaposition known in english speaking cultures as a "joke."
Where you concluded that the NSA created Columbine or that my teeth contain miniature radio transmitters is beyond me
Anthony
^X^X
Segmentation fault (core dumped)
I'm not sure how much of it is based on the same IP issues that we get all hot and bothered about, but there's an article at CNN with info about a rather large protest occuring at the WTO meeting in seattle.
Anthony
^X^X
Segmentation fault (core dumped)
Does this mean THEY do the bullying or are bullied themselves? This actually goes against what most of the slashdot community has been saying in the wake of the hellmouth series. Most of the people who fit this profile are usually BEING bullied.
:)
I think this is semantic confusion on Katz's part. Other discussion here seems to support that theory.
'sup john?
Anthony
^X^X
Segmentation fault (core dumped)
As one who pretty much exactly matches the profile explained (I'm hoping the real list is *far* more detailed), I can personally attest that 99.998% of the people netted by this kind of testing are harmless, at least in the sense that most of them aren't exactly likely to assault their classmates with automatic weapons and home made pipe bombs.
What this type of profiling will isolate is people who tend to think differently. People who don't possess the type of herd-mentality preferred by the powers-that-be. People less likely to simply roll over and follow orders without thinking about it. People who actually *think* from time to time.
Safety, threat to the popular well being, has been the traditional excuse that the powers-that-be have used to take away freedoms, one piece at a time. The "evil spectre" of communism is gone. The arabs don't appear to be all that menacing of a threat any more. Those pesky Yugoslavians appear to have calmed down a bit. All they have left to make us afraid of is ourselves.
So... Here's the game plan for the impending Immanentization of the Eschaton.
Roughly speaking, it's as simple as that...
while(1){
print "I would rather be free than safe.\n";
}
Anthony
^X^X
Segmentation fault (core dumped)
Hell, REAL hackers use the command line. :-) GUIs are for wussies...
:) Let it be said thusly: He who takes away my command line will be hunted down and killed.
:)
Oh my, I hope I didn't come across as pushing for the end of the command line
(in other words, I couldn't agree with you more)
I find that there is an easy solution to the aforementioned "problem" - shell scripting.
While I certainly wouldn't want to downlpay the sheer beauty of shell scripting/cron (couldn't live without them either), I was less talking about repeatedly performed sequences of actions and more talking about a way to describe/define 3 dimensional interaction with the computer.
Really, honest to god, all I want out of computers in my entire life is to be able to do that scene from Johnny Mnemonic (yeah yeah, it sucks, i know) where Johnny puts both hands above his head, fingers extended, like some electric bird of prey and says menacingly "I can crash your whole board from here, man."
I'm willing to support whatever it takes to get to that point
Anthony
^X^X
Segmentation fault (core dumped)
Neat idea, but not really useful enough imho to become a Big Thing (tm). The big obstacle to more effective computing right now (especially in the light of the portable/handheld 'revolution' going on right now) is human interface. We should be looking for faster, more efficient ways to interface with our computers, if you think RAM is a bottleneck, think about physical interface :)
What would not long ago have been considered high-end 3d technology (hardware in particular) is becoming more and more accessable for the home user. If I can play a high-demand game like quake2 in beautifully textured 3d space (complete with colored lighting, etc.) why can't my desktop and general interface with my 'puter look like that? The answer (again, imho) is the lack of a proper 3d interface device.
The mouse only describes motion in a single plane. Until we can use something more intuitive for 3d interface, such as a cyberpunk-ish data glove, we will have to wait for more effective and intuitive interface (and i [think/hope?] we'd all agree that humans more intuitively deal with 3d space).
Every time I read about someone trying to put together a 3d front-end for X, I look at the screenshots and what their goal is and think to myself "Wow, these guys are missing the point completely." A 2d window manager in 3d space is exactly what we *don't* need. There are larger issues under the surface here 'though, such as how we redefine interaction with the computer for 3 dimensions.
That will have to wait for a device to do it with...
Anthony
^X^X
Segmentation fault (core dumped)
So the logic goes, it's easy for me to steal it, so it should be free. I just don't get it.
Uuh, what? Where did I say anything even remotely related to that proposition? Wtf are you talking about?
Again:
All I'm saying is that our system doesn't work. It needs revision.
Anthony
^X^X
Segmentation fault (core dumped)
Tell that to all the teachers that GIVE their time and knowledge to all the students they teach,
:)
then tell me that has no value to the students.
Interesting point. An angle I hadn't considered. I think we're talking about different kinds of giving, but I agree with you
Honestly, I only included that "Something given has no value" bit because the sound bite from Starship Troopers popped into my head when I was writing the reply. Decided it was too good a quote to pass up.
I'd rather have quoted "They sucked his brains out." or "If you find a bug hole, nuke it." but those would have been even more off topic than my previous rant.
Anthony
^X^X
Segmentation fault (core dumped)
Lets see here more people attend religious services now than at any point in the last 20 years, democracy is spreading around the world, and more patents and trademarks are applied for everyday. Do you have any evidence that religion, govt and IP are crumbling around us? Looks like they are doing fine to me.
:) This is (imho) at least superficially a good thing.
;)" was difficult to comprehend? I'm not seriously proposing we abandon money, fuck, it makes the world go round. As long as it keeps my bong packed and my car running you won't hear me complain too loudly :)
Religion is a faint glimmer of what it once was. The church in fact has already fallen, did so a couple hundred years ago as a result of this thing called the Age of Reason, you may have heard of it?
Democracy is spreading around the world. I'm with you on that one
Intellectual Property is obviously experiencing some rather serious upheaval, or we wouldn't be talking about it here, or using OSS software for that matter. I consider OSS to be a kind of backlash against the current IP model.
f you can make a living giving things away for free, more power to you. Why don't these Lunix
companies give away support along with their software too? Here's a hint.. bankrupcy.
Here's a big hint. One a lot of people simply can't seem to grasp on any level (i'm going to use that bolding here that you love): Everything doesn't have to be about money. It seems that we've forgotten that. Sure, *some* things can be about money, that's fine by me. Ever since the OSS movement has made headlines, and linux has had some success, all the articles are asking the same question: "Wow, that's great. Now how is it going to make me rich?"
Yawn. Ideas like this are stupid, that's why they are never acted on. Got any suggestions for
how to replace a money based economy? Didn't think so.
Maybe you just can't read. Which part of "just an example, don't go there
Smarter people that you have tried and not thought of one either. (Not that that is a bad thing, since the current system works fine.)
Smarter people than you don't have to resort to personal attacks to get their point across.
Yeah, the current monetary system works great. I'll be sure to tell that to the next guy who bums change off me to avoid sobriety.
Anthony
^X^X
Segmentation fault (core dumped)
Since you're in a mood to give away things for free, can I have your computer?
Uuh, sure, drop by tonight sometime after 6 and pick it up.
I've always wanted to give that response to that response. Note that I didn't say give everything away for free. Didn't even hint at it in fact. Fuck, I didn't say anyone should have to do anything. I can't make you do anything. Wouldn't want to anyway.
I'm not advocating some scary new world order "collective" with no concept of individual property. Far from it in fact. I'm just saying that software, or digital data as we know it, should not be classified in the same category as physical property. It's not a *thing*, you can't hold a bitstream in your hand.
All I'm saying is that our system doesn't work. It needs revision.
I'll be happy to give you all the ideas you want 'though. Free of charge.
Anthony
^X^X
Segmentation fault (core dumped)
Giving things away for free is fine and dandy, but creating value means that when one person gives away something to another, the other ought to give him something of value in return. That's called justice...
...regardless of whether lazy bums or crybabies want something of value handed to them for free.
:-P
Uuh, no. That's called greed.
Something GIVEN has no value. Value exists only in exchange, and even then only as a shadowy abstract concept.
If you're expecting something in return, that's not giving something away at all, that's bartering. That's an exchange, not a gift. HUGE difference: In one case, you're acting selflessly (working for the good of others), in the other case, you're acting selfishly (working for the good of yourself).
Do yourself a favor and read some R. Buckminster Fuller. I can't remember the exact quote or location, but he once said that he'd figured mathematically that in the long run, it's always in your own best interest to work for the common good (possibly because the "common good" includes, guess who, *you*).
And yes, you are supporting the artist. If you don't like it, don't buy it.
Out of a $16 CD sale, approximately $1 goes to the artist. Yeah, support that artist, defend the rights of corporations to profit from the labor of others who they've signed into indentured servitude, buy that VP another yacht.
Sound logic. Very mature.
Anthony
^X^X
Segmentation fault (core dumped)
Giant impersonal corporation is trying to screw you.
;) Either way, discussion forums like this are a great way for people to bring into the open and discuss/debate the relevant issues in the case.
I would say that this is a very defendable proposition. Wouldn't you? Maybe not all the time as you suggest, but my experience in the corporate sector has shown me that (for the most part) they don't give any more of a shit about you or me than they have to in order to get our money. The corporate world revolves around the bottom line. Keep that in mind at all times.
Nope, they never have a case or a legitmiate point, they are just trying to give you the bone.
I'm sure in many cases they do have legitimate points. We're just as wack as they are sometimes
Would you rather we just shut the fuck up about it? I'm sure they would.
Anthony
^X^X
Segmentation fault (core dumped)
Rant:
;).
I couldn't agree more that the copyright system is in need of serious modification, if not outright elimination. The rabid libertarians (and believe me, I consider myself one) will scream at me about the right of an individual to profit from their labor. Blah Blah fucking Blah. I agree in principle, but:
We're moving into a new world here, ladies and gentlemen. To paraphrase Bill Hicks, it's time to evolve ideas. The reason our cherished institutions (religion, government, intellectual property, etc.) are crumbling around us is because They Are No Longer Relevant. It's as simple as that. The ideas just don't apply any more. They're outdated. The world has changed. It's time to move on.
Unfortunately, "moving on" (at least as us idealist type geeks have envisioned it) involves radical concepts like giving things away for free. Ideas like this are dangerous. They scare the living shit out of the entrenched power structure (which tells us over and over again about how it nailed this guy to a tree about 2000 years ago for daring to suggest ideas like that) If we were to start thinking in that direction, we might do something really radical like abandon our current concept of money (just an example, don't go there
So, keep buying those $18 CDs guys. You're supporting the artist you know.
Anthony
^X^X
Segmentation fault (core dumped)
The Findings of Fact in the Microsoft case, and the impending decision, have sparked a lot of controversey in the last week. In addition to debate over the correctness of the findings, and the possible outcome, there has been much talk about modern antitrust law and its relation to the "free market" economic model.
While I personally disagree, sites such as microsoft.aynrand.org (among many others) staunchly maintain that the antitrust laws used in the prosecution of Microsoft are in fact inimical to a free market. They argue that Microsoft should be left alone, not because of PR Marketing BS like the "freedom to innovate", but because they feel that market forces should ultimately (and are already starting to) make the final decision.
More specifically, some propose that modern antitrust law has become less appropriate or relevant to the high pace of the technology marketplace, and may be in need of revision to more accurately perform its desired function. Do you feel that antitrust law is still effective in the changing atmosphere of modern business, and if not, what changes do you feel could be made to increase its effectiveness?
Anthony
^X^X
Segmentation fault (core dumped)
The BSA knows as well as you and I that cracking down on 1337 w4R3z h4X0r5 in IRC channels will do nothing whatsoever to combat the "problem" of software piracy. At best, raking IRC chanels will net you a few 12 year olds trading copies of software they'll never use like baseball cards.
The real "threat" to the BSA in terms of lost revenue is organized, commercial piracy, and they know it damn well. Even if you somehow counted up all the Hotline and IRC transfers of pirated software, you'd come nowhere near the supposed billions in revenue they "lose" every year.
What the BSA is doing is playing the Public Relations game. This is all a big, flashy show intended to attract a lot of attention and give us all warm fuzzy feelings about them combatting software piracy. At the same time, this is intended to distract us from the real issue: they're powerless to actually do anything about it.
Large scale pirates duplicate and re-package software en-masse, and sell it. This is what the BSA should be worried about. This is also very hard to track, and even harder to prosecute because (to my understanding) it occurs primarily in other countries.
Busting script kiddies trading video games on IRC and claiming this will help stop piracy is like busting a stoner for posession of a dime bag and and claiming this will stop the flow of illegal drugs into the country. It just makes no sense.
Anthony
^X^X
Segmentation fault (core dumped)
They're letting the industrys wildest dreams and fantasies define their product line.
Funny you should say this. After one of the recent Slashdot/Transmeta rumor fests, I was telling a friend of mine how the guys at Transmeta could have been playing Quake until now, and all they'd have to do is read the Slashdot thread to get about 10,000 incredible ideas for things they could do. Sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Anthony
^X^X
Segmentation fault (core dumped)
You think Transmeta is in with the AISB? I'd always wondered to what extent the 5 were involved with the creation of Linux. My bet is that Linus is actually a deep cover agent for the ELF...
The Eschaton will shortly be Immanentized. "The Great Convergance" will imho be the vehicle this time around fnord.
For further information, consult your pineal gland. All Hail Eris. Prosecutors will be transgressicuted.
Anthony DiMarco, KSC
^X^X
Segmentation fault (core dumped)
Regardless of what product Transmeta eventually produces (assuming they actually do produce a product someday), you must admit they have a brilliant, practically Zen approach to Public Relations.
It doesn't matter if their product turns out to be vaporware, or the second coming of Christ in the form of a microprocessor, they've got us all so worked up over it that Linus could just walk up to the podium and eat a bowl of cereal at Comdex and we'd provide days of analysis and discussion on what we thought his body language revealed. Fscking *brilliant*
In a world becoming increasingly accustomed to ridiculous amounts of needless information on simply *everything* they've distinguished themselves from the pack in the only way possible: by providing no information whatsoever.
(Note that by [not] distinguishing themselves in this way, they've actually created a higher information density...)
I'm simply in awe, and undoubtedly waiting just as eagerly as the rest of you...
Anthony
^X^X
Segmentation fault (core dumped)
This whole thing is basically about broadband access. "Our sole concern is the architecture that AT&T and MediaOne propose for broadband access."
The model proposed apparently does not allow the user to select an ISP, and the authors argue that this may unfairly (to consumers) limit the types of services available in the future, and possibly allow the AT&T/MediaOne merger to create a monopoly on services they feel ISPs should be providing.
"By bundling ISP service with access, and by not permitting users to select another ISP, the architecture removes ISP competition within the residential broadband cable market. By removing this competition, the architecture removes an important threat to any strategic behavior that AT&T might engage in once a merger is complete."
They go on to explain how this represents a threat to the very kind of open-ness that has made the internet great so far.
Interesting to note that they don't seem like the type who would actually ask for regulation. They seem to consider it as a necessary evil at this stage of the development of the net. I tend to agree, letting things get out of control (if they're right) would only mean even more regulation later.
Look, they gave us props:
35. This is not to say that the government created the innovation that the Internet has enjoyed. Nor is it to endorse government, rather than private, development of Internet-related technologies. Obviously, the extraordinary innovation of the Internet arises from the creativity of private actors from around the world. Some of these actors work within corporations. Some of the most important have been associated with the Free Software, and Open Source Software Movements. And some have been entrepreneurs operating outside of any specific structure. But the creativity that these innovators have produced would not have been enabled but for the opening of the communications network. Our only point is that the government had a significant role in that opening.
Anthony
^X^X
Segmentation fault (core dumped)