I understand that your video card brand and model number aren't as immediately important to your long range security/privacy as serial numbers and network addresses. But I think that, regardless of the number, it's the principle that's the same. Once people start grabbing some numbers off of your computer while you are unawares, they can start justifying getting more and more information.
The argument that they use to justify getting more and more info is a "slippery slope" argument; if getting some information isn't illegal, then it shouldn't be illegal to get a little more. And finally, they have access to *all* the data that they can grab from you.
Think it won't happen? Think again: information about consumers is about the hottest thing you can have in the industry today. Businesses that lose money are still popular with investors, because they have the *potential* to be in a position to gather this info. (And it's not just today too; I watched Glengarry Glenross again last night; rent it, and watch Pacino, Spacey and others fight over "leads"). The way to stop this kind of abuse is to stop it at its root. Dont' let *any* info get collected without your permission and legal safeguards. That way, you never have to worry about any slippery slope fallacies.
The "crowded theater" example fit so beautifully here. I totally agree!
Yeah.. the original URL for the website that was taken down was "crowdedtheater.com", or something like that. You're right, it's an interesting analogy for the Y2K thing. Whether it's a good analogy or not is a whole 'nother (interesting) question.
First the incident in Idaho, then, Waco. In both cases, FBI had ILLEGALLY TRAMPLED ON THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE, and NOW, with the BILL KLINGON AT THE HELM, they are doing it again.
Whoa there. Choose a side, huh? Is it the "fascist" (read: conservative) law enforcement officers at the FBI? Or is it the (more liberal) "Bill Klingon?"
Why are we letting the FBI trampling on our rights? Don't FBI understand the PRINCIPLES of which the United States Of America is built upon?
Just a guess here, but I think it's because we (as a people) really don't understand what the "Principles" of the US are... I mean, some people value personal safety, others value free speech. I think both are provided for in the Constitution, but the debate's on the degree to which they're emphasized.
Why are we, the PEOPLE, allowed such things keep on happening?!
Um, because there is no monolithic "PEOPLE" anymore, especially when it comes to an issue like this.
The "crowdedtheater" name of the website seems to be a reference to the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" example of speech which can and should be restricted; i.e., speech which can cause direct and immediate harm to other people. I think that we rightly restrict people from making *clearly* dangerous threats on the lives and health of others. But in a case like this, it's ridiculous that the FBI and local sheriff's department just went and demanded the removal of the website without any sort of external review/permission. We hire and pay officers to protect the public safety. But when their actions would impinge on other rights as citizens, you *must* have some sort of external review (like a judge who would issue a warrant, or some such) to grant some modicum of legitimacy to these kinds of dealings...
I think that, given the recent "Y2K: The Movie" from NBC, this is pretty frickin' ridiculous. I read the article; the local sheriff's department called him to intimidate him? Give me a break. I don't know where I really come down on the political spectrum, but I can only shake my head when someone confuses "safety" with "free-speech" in this way.
I think it was Oliver Wendell Holmes who originally wrote the Supreme Court opinion about "clear and present danger" being a rationale for restricting speech, especially in wartime. I think that the "crying 'fire' in a crowded theater" is the classical example. But this is not *nearly* the same thing.
You've nailed the problem: any communications channel supported by advertising owes more to any individual advertiser than to any individual reader and more to its advertisers as a group than to its readers.
I'm not so sure I agree with this... I mean, on the surface, it sounds like a good theory: Newspapers and magazines sell advertising, so they can't be impartial, right? Well, couldn't you say the same thing about Slashdot and other electronic forms of media? Wouldn't you then expect the same rule to apply to something like Slashdot, which attracts readers by commenting on the very industry that Andover.net is involved in? I don't think it's as big a problem as people would like to think, either in electronic or paper journalism. The New York Times, for instance, tries to keep a "Chinese Wall" between the advertising and journalism parts of its business. Most other newspapers and magazines do a similar deal, and when that separation is violated (like with the LA Times a while back, I seem to remember) it's a pretty big scandal. People tend to get pretty upset. Everyone understands that the integrity of the journalist is paramount, and so for the most part journalists and journalistic organizations seem to police themselves (and each other)...
I feel like Ian McClelland (the writer of the metamute article) makes some good points about the overlooked violence in sim war games, but I think that he takes the wrong overall approach to the issue. The article reads like a distraction to the rabid cultural conservatives who attack video games, "Don't attack FPS's, go after the the sim's instead." If you really believe that blaming video games for the destructive things that people do is a dodge, and a poor attempt at moral responsibility (and I do), say so upfront. No video game, realistic or not, Sim or FPS, is going to *cause* or *incite* violence in anyone not predisposed to that violence.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Larry Wall sort of address the commercialization of Perl issue in the interview he gave to Linux Journal (a few stories ago on/.)?
I think the quote was: "I'm not directly affiliated with ActiveState, but I've worked with them, and I think the problems they've solved far outweigh any problems they've created. You've got to understand their market has always been the Windows space, where you're actually doing people a favor by charging them money for things, because that's the only way to keep from confusing them. Linux users are smarter than this, of course, but some Linux users aren't quite smart enough to realize Windows is a different culture, and Perl, being a postmodern language that is sensitive to context, will look different in a different culture. "
Don't get me wrong... I'm not a big Microsoft fan. But it seems to me that if even more people use Perl, that will be good for the community in general. And it wouldn't violate any of the "sacred principles" of Perl/Linux advocates in the process....
It's probably pretty obvious by now to everyone over the age of 13 that Lucas has sold out... But clearly this isn't the first time, right? I mean, I remember buying the Star Wars cereal when I was five or six, collecting the Ewoks cards at the bottom of the box... I had Land Speeder and the Ton-Ton with the rubber belly that I could stick my Luke action figure in, and my next door neighbor had the plastic Ewok village. I don't know about Empire Strikes Back, but the Return of the Jedi had *plenty* of associated marketing. Asking for purity from Lucas at this point is probably like asking for honesty and integrity from a politician. He talks big, but when it comes time to make the decisions that make the money..... If you go in for the movies today, you go for the story and the nostalgia, and attempt to avoid the hype. That's about the best anyone can hope for...
Slashdot Mirror
Honestly: who expected Lucas to act in any way except the way that will make him the most money?
People expected integrity from a rich filmmaker? Heh.
The argument that they use to justify getting more and more info is a "slippery slope" argument; if getting some information isn't illegal, then it shouldn't be illegal to get a little more. And finally, they have access to *all* the data that they can grab from you.
Think it won't happen? Think again: information about consumers is about the hottest thing you can have in the industry today. Businesses that lose money are still popular with investors, because they have the *potential* to be in a position to gather this info. (And it's not just today too; I watched Glengarry Glenross again last night; rent it, and watch Pacino, Spacey and others fight over "leads"). The way to stop this kind of abuse is to stop it at its root. Dont' let *any* info get collected without your permission and legal safeguards. That way, you never have to worry about any slippery slope fallacies.
Yeah.. the original URL for the website that was taken down was "crowdedtheater.com", or something like that. You're right, it's an interesting analogy for the Y2K thing. Whether it's a good analogy or not is a whole 'nother (interesting) question.
Whoa there. Choose a side, huh? Is it the "fascist" (read: conservative) law enforcement officers at the FBI? Or is it the (more liberal) "Bill Klingon?"
Why are we letting the FBI trampling on our rights? Don't FBI understand the PRINCIPLES of which the United States Of America is built upon?
Just a guess here, but I think it's because we (as a people) really don't understand what the "Principles" of the US are... I mean, some people value personal safety, others value free speech. I think both are provided for in the Constitution, but the debate's on the degree to which they're emphasized.
Why are we, the PEOPLE, allowed such things keep on happening?!
Um, because there is no monolithic "PEOPLE" anymore, especially when it comes to an issue like this.
The "crowdedtheater" name of the website seems to be a reference to the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" example of speech which can and should be restricted; i.e., speech which can cause direct and immediate harm to other people. I think that we rightly restrict people from making *clearly* dangerous threats on the lives and health of others. But in a case like this, it's ridiculous that the FBI and local sheriff's department just went and demanded the removal of the website without any sort of external review/permission. We hire and pay officers to protect the public safety. But when their actions would impinge on other rights as citizens, you *must* have some sort of external review (like a judge who would issue a warrant, or some such) to grant some modicum of legitimacy to these kinds of dealings...
I think that, given the recent "Y2K: The Movie" from NBC, this is pretty frickin' ridiculous. I read the article; the local sheriff's department called him to intimidate him? Give me a break. I don't know where I really come down on the political spectrum, but I can only shake my head when someone confuses "safety" with "free-speech" in this way.
I think it was Oliver Wendell Holmes who originally wrote the Supreme Court opinion about "clear and present danger" being a rationale for restricting speech, especially in wartime. I think that the "crying 'fire' in a crowded theater" is the classical example. But this is not *nearly* the same thing.
I feel like Ian McClelland (the writer of the metamute article) makes some good points about the overlooked violence in sim war games, but I think that he takes the wrong overall approach to the issue. The article reads like a distraction to the rabid cultural conservatives who attack video games, "Don't attack FPS's, go after the the sim's instead." If you really believe that blaming video games for the destructive things that people do is a dodge, and a poor attempt at moral responsibility (and I do), say so upfront. No video game, realistic or not, Sim or FPS, is going to *cause* or *incite* violence in anyone not predisposed to that violence.
a perfect response. Thank you for putting it into words better than I ever could.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Larry Wall sort of address the commercialization of Perl issue in the interview he gave to Linux Journal (a few stories ago on /.)?
I think the quote was:
"I'm not directly affiliated with ActiveState, but I've worked with them, and I think the problems they've solved far outweigh any problems they've created. You've got to understand their market has always been the Windows space, where you're actually doing people a favor by charging them money for things, because that's the only way to keep from confusing them. Linux users are smarter than this, of course, but some Linux users aren't quite smart enough to realize Windows is a different culture, and Perl, being a postmodern language that is sensitive to context, will look different in a different culture. "
Don't get me wrong... I'm not a big Microsoft fan. But it seems to me that if even more people use Perl, that will be good for the community in general. And it wouldn't violate any of the "sacred principles" of Perl/Linux advocates in the process....
It's probably pretty obvious by now to everyone over the age of 13 that Lucas has sold out... But clearly this isn't the first time, right? I mean, I remember buying the Star Wars cereal when I was five or six, collecting the Ewoks cards at the bottom of the box... I had Land Speeder and the Ton-Ton with the rubber belly that I could stick my Luke action figure in, and my next door neighbor had the plastic Ewok village. I don't know about Empire Strikes Back, but the Return of the Jedi had *plenty* of associated marketing. Asking for purity from Lucas at this point is probably like asking for honesty and integrity from a politician. He talks big, but when it comes time to make the decisions that make the money..... If you go in for the movies today, you go for the story and the nostalgia, and attempt to avoid the hype. That's about the best anyone can hope for...