Well, I'm not saying that political solutions are often ineffective. I just don't think the reason is that the problems themselves are motivation not to fix them. I think most political solutions just collapse under their own weight and by the fact that a politician has to please a wide variety of different opinions.
Remember Windows ME. I've only met a few people with that abomination on their PCs, and the common reaction was knowing shame. A Microsoft OS is not infallable.
Now, I'll grant, this is no WindowsME. There are actual real technological improvements in Vista, whereas ME was mostly window-dressing to Win98, and there's no clear alternative upgrade on the horizon.
However, XP itself-- and the idea of sticking with XP-- still has pull, respect, and a viable array of software behind it (it's not like Win3.1->Win95 or OS9->OSX). I think a fair number of the technological folk in the know are still sticking with XP, and treating Vista with the "ten-foot-pole" approach--people in corporate positions with pull, and the "family geeks" who have influence (less, but still somewhat significant) in the home market.
I have a feeling that this is going to turn out like Windows95 or 98-first-release. The first release is going to be what should have been an amazing leap forward, save for myriad bugs and deficiencies that make it an undue annoyance. In a few years, we'll see what should've been Vista-- probably Vista SP1 or SP2, or Horizon or whatever.
I would tend to disagree-- although intentional neglect to fix societal problems might help keep a mediocre norm, a politician that actually could fix them would have much more to gain, individually and for their party, by applying the solution then they would by having the problem around as a talking point.
I think most of the stickier problems come from the common cat-herding reality of representational politics. The problems aren't cut-and-dry, and any given constituency (or tax base) contains people with wildly varying ideas of how to solve various problems-- some of the opposing idealists are even smart... with research!
I disagree on that last point. I think CC actually makes creator control easier. Before CC, there were far fewer simple, common licenses under which work could be "opened". The choices before CC were self-licensing, niche public licenses, public domain, or "ask me".
I might be more willing to accept media piracy as "civil disobedience" if there was anything politically or morally demonstrative about it. For the greater bunch of illegal filesharers, though, it's pure, simple, "It's there, I want it" greed. If this was civil disobedience, it wouldn't be shrouded in anonymous protocols. It would be executed in a public and pointed manner, made to expose injustice and force the issue.
I'll agree for people like those who write the software and crack the encryption, and who host the information on it against the DMCA, as well as the people who put themselves on the line by hosting torrent trackers and other such hubs. I've found the "RIAA Sticker" and other such information campaigns to be a very innovative form of disobedient protest. Just clicking "download"? No.
Perhaps, but "copiers" then were people who actually had to put the physical time and energy into manual reproduction. The disincentive there prevented much of the problem of cheaply copying an expensive idea and undercutting the originator, which is one of the primary drivers of copyright. It's only the age of mechanical reproduction, and the fact that it's unfairly easier to reproduce than produce, that makes copyright necessary.
I like it. It's a clever play along the lines of the old "Press Alt-F4 to [do something]" trick (which, I suppose, is a less clever play of the old "Type +++ to [do something]" trick, but that's admittedly before my time).
In a more perfect world, someone would have devised a system (both procedural and mechanical) to allow responders to easily know about and route to their nearby jurisdictions. I suppose the problem of cell calls landing in the wrong person's lap just hasn't been around long enough to get a proper review.
Think "Inverse Square Law". A very weak EM field could charge something placed directly on top of it, while the effect would be negligible outside a very short distance.
Now, I'm not saying everyone is this knowledgable, capable, or motivated, but if it really did come down to proving, one could still make a strong enough case that the latter document was forged.
1.) Show the "original" file-- A pretty normal PostScript file, signed. Signature matches.
2.) Show the "forgery"-- A PostScript file with a bunch of useless cruft. Signature matches.
3.) Talk about the process of crafting cruft to break digital signature. As the cruft is most likely worthless and artificially introduced, their normal PostScript workflow would probably not be able to create the same file without manual finessing, if they were called upon to try.
This is why you need to be proactive-- mic yourself. (Of course, then you have to walk around with the stupid-looking "Audio Recording Device in Use" T-shirt.)
I agree that he did hit on a correct idea with "series of tubes", but in context with the rest of his speech, it's clear that the proper explanation was due more to coincidence than any sort of insight into the workings of the Internet. This rather-true statement was sandwiched on one side by "The Internet is not a truck, you can't just dump things on it." and on the other by "My staff tried to send me an Internet, and the enormous amounts of material clogged the tubes, making it so I got it [how ever-- I don't recall] late" (obviously paraphrased).
It is clear that he is master of neither POP, IMAP, nor analogies, and that he knows far too little to actually be speaking out on the subject. Oddly enough, though, like you mentioned, the statement coming closest to the actual truth (the Internet, and computer constructs in general, being filled with conceptual "pipes" and "sockets") was the one that became the defining phrase.
I think it'll end up like kind of a sawtooth wave-- Copy-protection mechanisms continuously one-up until the entire industry becomes so clogged with schemes that consumers get tired of it, and the industry realizes they can generate more profit with "trust" than "trusted", so "DRM Free!" becomes a positive label... until a piracy industry starts up, and they have to add some copy-protection, then a bit more...
I might be mistaken, but isn't that kind of a theme that's been played out with disk copy protection in the past? There seem to be eras of relative openness and locked-downness.
Well, first off, I'm not an anscestor-poster, but regardless...
By counterarguing nothing more than "You're using the wrong term", it's not justifying anything. Just as "theft" hopes to induce a "There it is, cut and dry, so I don't have to think about it." reaction, countering with "No, it's copyright infringement." just hopes to induce the equal-but-opposite reaction of "Well, it's some complex legal infraction, not theft, so I'll just call it 'right' and not have to think about it." It's still just pure word-lawyering, adding nothing.
And if you throw out the "If you have something, and I steal it, you lose it." as an argument... well... We've all seen this entire dance of bad analogies a thousand times before: I personally prefer the "If I hire you, and I don't pay you, you haven't lost anything... right?" counter, which is then rebutted by the "But hiring is done beforehand, not afterward". I just say it's a timeshifted and work-split form of hiring. They say "But is doing once and selling 1000 times defensible?" or suchlike. I counter with "Without that there would be only patronage. Do you know what studio time costs?" I forget where it goes from there, but you get the idea. It's practically scripted.
If you want to come off as legitimate, just a short mention of how "stealing" is a poor term (similar to my mention that I wasn't a G*PP at the top of this message), followed by an actual meaty rebuttal to your parent post, would suffice.
Because the radio stations, via various agreements, are the channels authorized to distribute the music by the performer or their assigned agents. Why not just tape it off the radio? The reasons you may cite are the natural and artificial limitations that make radio a more palatable medium for distributors who, in essence, choose to "shareware" (in a sense) the music, leaving the higher-quality recordings for those wish to buy it.
Hmm... a few I use in web-dev: HTML Validator, Web Developer Toolbar (this one's a staple). I use Extended History Manager, although that's rather niche. FoxyTunes is quite cool, and getting better all the time. I wish they'd update Download Manager Tweak, as I always used to like that one, but it's flaky-to-unusable in FF2.
As opposed to the people who immediately sidetrack, at the first possible opportunity, to the overcomplicating and oversoftening semantic argument of whether or not copyright infringement is "theft", completely distracting everyone from the more important question of whether it's "wrong" or "harmful".
Yes, my name is S.S. Boobs. My parents were hippies.
(Really though, I get a fair amount of junk mail as "Destroyer of Worlds" and "Unparalleled God of Design" from some online stuff I signed up for years ago.)
I've had issues on 2.0.0.1 for both Mac and PC, on an intermittent basis. I wouldn't be surprised if it was just a problem with an Extension, since I have both the work (Mac) and home (2 PCs) machines loaded down with a number of them. I just don't want to go through the arduous process of wiping the profile and reinstalling everything, just to have the chance of the problem cropping up again because I didn't find the offending Extension.
For now, though, disabling the typeahead find in about:config seemed to do the trick.
Slashdot Mirror
No, because someone could go over the state line and bring back light bulbs... or maybe they could shine lights over and the heat...
Oh, whatever-- it's Interstate Commerce, okay?
TechNet and "evaluating" a slew of software? I've been half-looking into it myself.
Well, I'm not saying that political solutions are often ineffective. I just don't think the reason is that the problems themselves are motivation not to fix them. I think most political solutions just collapse under their own weight and by the fact that a politician has to please a wide variety of different opinions.
Remember Windows ME. I've only met a few people with that abomination on their PCs, and the common reaction was knowing shame. A Microsoft OS is not infallable.
Now, I'll grant, this is no WindowsME. There are actual real technological improvements in Vista, whereas ME was mostly window-dressing to Win98, and there's no clear alternative upgrade on the horizon.
However, XP itself-- and the idea of sticking with XP-- still has pull, respect, and a viable array of software behind it (it's not like Win3.1->Win95 or OS9->OSX). I think a fair number of the technological folk in the know are still sticking with XP, and treating Vista with the "ten-foot-pole" approach--people in corporate positions with pull, and the "family geeks" who have influence (less, but still somewhat significant) in the home market.
I have a feeling that this is going to turn out like Windows95 or 98-first-release. The first release is going to be what should have been an amazing leap forward, save for myriad bugs and deficiencies that make it an undue annoyance. In a few years, we'll see what should've been Vista-- probably Vista SP1 or SP2, or Horizon or whatever.
I would tend to disagree-- although intentional neglect to fix societal problems might help keep a mediocre norm, a politician that actually could fix them would have much more to gain, individually and for their party, by applying the solution then they would by having the problem around as a talking point.
I think most of the stickier problems come from the common cat-herding reality of representational politics. The problems aren't cut-and-dry, and any given constituency (or tax base) contains people with wildly varying ideas of how to solve various problems-- some of the opposing idealists are even smart... with research!
I disagree on that last point. I think CC actually makes creator control easier. Before CC, there were far fewer simple, common licenses under which work could be "opened". The choices before CC were self-licensing, niche public licenses, public domain, or "ask me".
The number of proxies that intentionally allow attacks can be filtered. The proxies and zombies that don't can remedy the problem... or be filtered.
I might be more willing to accept media piracy as "civil disobedience" if there was anything politically or morally demonstrative about it. For the greater bunch of illegal filesharers, though, it's pure, simple, "It's there, I want it" greed. If this was civil disobedience, it wouldn't be shrouded in anonymous protocols. It would be executed in a public and pointed manner, made to expose injustice and force the issue.
I'll agree for people like those who write the software and crack the encryption, and who host the information on it against the DMCA, as well as the people who put themselves on the line by hosting torrent trackers and other such hubs. I've found the "RIAA Sticker" and other such information campaigns to be a very innovative form of disobedient protest. Just clicking "download"? No.
Perhaps, but "copiers" then were people who actually had to put the physical time and energy into manual reproduction. The disincentive there prevented much of the problem of cheaply copying an expensive idea and undercutting the originator, which is one of the primary drivers of copyright. It's only the age of mechanical reproduction, and the fact that it's unfairly easier to reproduce than produce, that makes copyright necessary.
I like it. It's a clever play along the lines of the old "Press Alt-F4 to [do something]" trick (which, I suppose, is a less clever play of the old "Type +++ to [do something]" trick, but that's admittedly before my time).
I'm surprised that...
No, that doesn't work.
I would think that...
No, that either.
In a more perfect world, someone would have devised a system (both procedural and mechanical) to allow responders to easily know about and route to their nearby jurisdictions. I suppose the problem of cell calls landing in the wrong person's lap just hasn't been around long enough to get a proper review.
Think "Inverse Square Law". A very weak EM field could charge something placed directly on top of it, while the effect would be negligible outside a very short distance.
Now, I'm not saying everyone is this knowledgable, capable, or motivated, but if it really did come down to proving, one could still make a strong enough case that the latter document was forged.
1.) Show the "original" file-- A pretty normal PostScript file, signed. Signature matches.
2.) Show the "forgery"-- A PostScript file with a bunch of useless cruft. Signature matches.
3.) Talk about the process of crafting cruft to break digital signature. As the cruft is most likely worthless and artificially introduced, their normal PostScript workflow would probably not be able to create the same file without manual finessing, if they were called upon to try.
"Here... I'm sending you a picture of a map. See where my finger's pointing?"
This is why you need to be proactive-- mic yourself. (Of course, then you have to walk around with the stupid-looking "Audio Recording Device in Use" T-shirt.)
I agree that he did hit on a correct idea with "series of tubes", but in context with the rest of his speech, it's clear that the proper explanation was due more to coincidence than any sort of insight into the workings of the Internet. This rather-true statement was sandwiched on one side by "The Internet is not a truck, you can't just dump things on it." and on the other by "My staff tried to send me an Internet, and the enormous amounts of material clogged the tubes, making it so I got it [how ever-- I don't recall] late" (obviously paraphrased).
It is clear that he is master of neither POP, IMAP, nor analogies, and that he knows far too little to actually be speaking out on the subject. Oddly enough, though, like you mentioned, the statement coming closest to the actual truth (the Internet, and computer constructs in general, being filled with conceptual "pipes" and "sockets") was the one that became the defining phrase.
In that case, they're not really Yahoo's "customer" either, so, apart from fallout from bad word-of-mouth, they really don't owe the freeloaders much.
Invisible pink, eh?
I think it'll end up like kind of a sawtooth wave-- Copy-protection mechanisms continuously one-up until the entire industry becomes so clogged with schemes that consumers get tired of it, and the industry realizes they can generate more profit with "trust" than "trusted", so "DRM Free!" becomes a positive label... until a piracy industry starts up, and they have to add some copy-protection, then a bit more...
I might be mistaken, but isn't that kind of a theme that's been played out with disk copy protection in the past? There seem to be eras of relative openness and locked-downness.
Well, first off, I'm not an anscestor-poster, but regardless...
By counterarguing nothing more than "You're using the wrong term", it's not justifying anything. Just as "theft" hopes to induce a "There it is, cut and dry, so I don't have to think about it." reaction, countering with "No, it's copyright infringement." just hopes to induce the equal-but-opposite reaction of "Well, it's some complex legal infraction, not theft, so I'll just call it 'right' and not have to think about it." It's still just pure word-lawyering, adding nothing.
And if you throw out the "If you have something, and I steal it, you lose it." as an argument... well... We've all seen this entire dance of bad analogies a thousand times before: I personally prefer the "If I hire you, and I don't pay you, you haven't lost anything... right?" counter, which is then rebutted by the "But hiring is done beforehand, not afterward". I just say it's a timeshifted and work-split form of hiring. They say "But is doing once and selling 1000 times defensible?" or suchlike. I counter with "Without that there would be only patronage. Do you know what studio time costs?" I forget where it goes from there, but you get the idea. It's practically scripted.
If you want to come off as legitimate, just a short mention of how "stealing" is a poor term (similar to my mention that I wasn't a G*PP at the top of this message), followed by an actual meaty rebuttal to your parent post, would suffice.
Because the radio stations, via various agreements, are the channels authorized to distribute the music by the performer or their assigned agents. Why not just tape it off the radio? The reasons you may cite are the natural and artificial limitations that make radio a more palatable medium for distributors who, in essence, choose to "shareware" (in a sense) the music, leaving the higher-quality recordings for those wish to buy it.
Hmm... a few I use in web-dev: HTML Validator, Web Developer Toolbar (this one's a staple). I use Extended History Manager, although that's rather niche. FoxyTunes is quite cool, and getting better all the time. I wish they'd update Download Manager Tweak, as I always used to like that one, but it's flaky-to-unusable in FF2.
As opposed to the people who immediately sidetrack, at the first possible opportunity, to the overcomplicating and oversoftening semantic argument of whether or not copyright infringement is "theft", completely distracting everyone from the more important question of whether it's "wrong" or "harmful".
Yes, my name is S.S. Boobs. My parents were hippies.
(Really though, I get a fair amount of junk mail as "Destroyer of Worlds" and "Unparalleled God of Design" from some online stuff I signed up for years ago.)
I've had issues on 2.0.0.1 for both Mac and PC, on an intermittent basis. I wouldn't be surprised if it was just a problem with an Extension, since I have both the work (Mac) and home (2 PCs) machines loaded down with a number of them. I just don't want to go through the arduous process of wiping the profile and reinstalling everything, just to have the chance of the problem cropping up again because I didn't find the offending Extension.
For now, though, disabling the typeahead find in about:config seemed to do the trick.