I also take issue with equating bad reasoning with a lack of ethics. He is in error, but that doesn't necessarily mean he has no integrity. He could, for example, simply be stupid. You need more evidence when you make a charge like this.
Well, I'll go with the circumstantial evidence I have:
Moody once worked for Microsoft.
Moody wrote a book praising Microsoft.
Moody inflated the number of Linux vulnerabilities by adding one distribution's stat to the aggregate. I would hope Moody would have realized in the first place that "aggregate" means "all of the flavours of this one thing."
Moody didn't bother to mention the numbers that Windows racked up. Mentioning them would have destroyed the case he tries to make.
Moody then used the useless 122 number to claim that Linux is the "worst" OS and Microsoft is the "best".
To me, that's extremely fishy, and goes way beyond bad reasoning. If he'd simply said "Linux has many bugs, thus it isn't the panacea its supporters claim it is." it could have at least been argued his reasoning was well-intentioned if flawed by being based on one stat. However, the sum of what I see from that article goes far beyond "bad reasoning".
Can you imagine an editor saying, "Gee, this guy's right. Let's sit Fred down and talk about his journalistic integrity." I guarantee you the editor will have no more interest in the rest of your comments if you make officious and condescending remarks like this.
I would hope an editor would at least try to read the next paragraph before moving on. I wouldn't expect them to decide that based on the opening paragraph, but after reading the points I (and several others, from what I can tell here) made, the editor would at least wonder what the heck is going on. Maybe I'm asking for too much, but I thought I made a well-reasoned, level (if rather stiff and, as you say, condescending) reply to an inflammatory article, and I would hope the editor would take the time to parse it.
In any event, I also took the opportunity to e-mail Moody and ask why he counted the Red Hat numbers twice, didn't mention the Windows numbers, and completely glossed over the packages section. I don't expect a reply, but I've said my piece to the people who matter here.
I think in this case, if you point out how he's twisting facts, you're making a point about his journalistic integrity. Pointing out that a bug count is a pretty bad measure of the worth of an OS is good enough - pointing out how he's fudging the numbers to support his agenda is even better.
I didn't mean to say that people should sends posts starting with "Moody has no integrity, he's a bad journalist" and going on to say nothing of value. I meant for people to point out how he used stats that even the provider said shouldn't be used to judge an OS, and then went and combined and ignored stats at will. That is clearly unethical, and pointing that out speaks volumes about his integrity.
No e-mail address, but you do have a vehicle to express your concerns. Take advantage of the ABCNews.com contact page, and let them know what you think about this.
As for the article, yes, people will be concerned with how buggy Linux is. However, Moody inflated the numbers to make Linux look bad. He added the Red Hat 1999 total of 38 to the aggregate total of 84 (which I assume would include Red Hat) to get 122 vulnerabilities. In short, he counted Red Hat twice. After doing that, he didn't mention a word about Windows' own stats - 99 for NT, 47 for 95/98. The Linux aggregate is less than NT alone.
Also, if you add the separate distro numbers, you come up with 98. I think this means vulnerabilities present across distributions were only counted once, though the page isn't too clear on that. The individual distro numbers are interesting - Red Hat is the worst at 38, Debian next at 29, yet both are lower than Win9x's total of 47.
Any way you slice it, Moody's screwing with the stats to promote his agenda.
After reading some of the blatant falsifications and b.s. in his article, I posted a comment through abcnews.com's contact page.
I would appreciate if, for the benefit of your readers, you would note that Fred Moody is a former Microsoft employee. I would also appreciate it if one of your editors would have a chat with him about journalistic integrity and how even a columnist shouldn't misrepresent statistics to further an agenda.
I refer to his column on Linux vulnerabilities, where he "uses" statistics from SecurityFocus to claim Linux is the "worst" OS of all time and Microsoft is the "best". SF states in the first paragraph of their vulnerability statistics page that the stats shouldn't be used to judge how secure an OS is, yet that's exactly what Moody proceeds to do. He then flagrantly fakes a total of "122" vulnerabilities for Linux in 1999, taking Red Hat's 38 and adding that to the aggregate (meaning all distributions, including Red Hat) total of 84. In effect, he counts Red Hat vulnerabilities twice to inflate Linux vulnerability numbers. He also fails to note that each individual distribution has fewer vulnerabilities than either Windows NT or 95/98. Were one to aggregate the Windows numbers, the total would come to 146. Windows NT alone racked up 99 vulnerabilities - higher than the Linux aggregate total.
He also glosses over the "package vulnerabilities" statistics near the bottom of the page. Microsoft products claim the first 12 spots. In 2000, MS products claim 7 of the first 12 - the various Red Hat products (which are known among Linux users as not focused on closing obvious holes) take the other 5. Only TurboLinux gets mentioned in the 2000 list, with 6 vulnerabilities in each of hte two packages mentioned at the bottom of the list.
It is clear that Moody is abusing available statistics, ignoring others, and using his pulpit to push a pro-Microsoft agenda. It is disheartening that ABC would give Moody credibility by posting his columns while they contain such falsifications and omissions. At the very least, a disclaimer noting Moody's past employment would help readers put his writing in perspective. At the most, I would like to see someone technically knowledgable review his columns before publication to ensure he can't twist facts and numbers like he did in this one.
Regards, Mark Bialkowski
If you decide to feed the troll and read the article, send a comment to ABCnews.com through the aforementioned contact page. A flood of comments questioning Moody's "integrity" might prompt action on ABC's part. Or not. Either way, take the opportunity to call out Moody on this one.
Oh, and make your comment civil. Don't flame, swear, or threaten to "fucking kill" someone. Just explain your reaction to the column and what you feel should be done.
I'll make this short and sweet, because it's late, and I need z's:
I don't think people are against copyright laws and intellectual property as a whole. I'm pretty sure we can all agree that the creators of works - artists, programmers, writers, performers - should have control over how their stuff is distributed and transmitted.
I think what we're getting angry over is the abuse of IP/copyright law and the legislative process by entities that have less interest in the creators' works, and more interest in the amount of money those works can bring in through various forms of control. For one example, take the frightening pay-per-use concept that's slowly seeping into comments made by spokespeople and executives for groups such as Seagram's, Microsoft, the RIAA, and anyone else with a vested interest in draconian control over all media they're involved in (not necessarily media they own, just involved with) and profit in those fields. They not only want consumers to accept it, they want laws in place that will allow them to force it upon the market, whether the consumers know about it up front or not, while providing an unfair legal advantage over people that dare produce art, music or software outside of their sphere of influence.
The way Brooks sounds in that ad, you'd almost expect the Defiant to sweep in and blow the shit out of Redmond after he says "the forces of openness have a powerful and unexpected new ally.":
"Worf, lock phasers and quantum torpedoes on Bill's office. Let's show him what innovation is all about."
I notice your e-mail addy places you in Canada. Did you know the CRTC backed off regulating content on the Internet for the time being until things stabilize?
I don't think the geeks here are just being "libertarian" and defending "the right of corporations" - what about the right of individuals too? There's a much better chance that a large corporation run by someone like, oh, I dunno, Rupert Murdoch, could pull together the legal fees and lawyers necessary to get a license as opposed to a couple guys running a Shoutcast or Real stream of their favourite trance hits.
After all, streaming content is broadcasting, which is something that, being of public interest, governments regulate. So in principle, there should be nothing against them doing it.
Broadcasting over airwaves is regulated because it's possible and easy to disrupt broadcasts if multiple sources try to use the same frequency at once. It would rather suck if a Top 40 station suddenly decided to use the police or EMS bands in a large city. The only limiting factor over the 'net is bandwidth, and that's an issue for ISPs to deal with.
There's also something of a "freedom principle" on the 'net, where any Joe, Bob or Suzy is able to put up their own content adhering only to criminal laws of their home countries and the terms of serivce of their ISPs. This includes streaming content; I occasionally listen to a Shoutcast stream run by a few guys out of the Canadian West for the hell of it.
They could impose good restraints on large corporations going into this-- like space for public interest spots and so on.
And individuals? Would they also have to get a license to stream using MP3 or Real or whatever? Right now, the 'net is rather close to reaching the same state the "public" airwaves are in - controlled by a few large companies, with some token gestures toward "public broadcasting". This stream licensing business sounds like another step in that direction, meant to benefit only a few who can afford it.
I say: if it makes the establishment more accountable to the general populace, more power to Australians.
Great, now how will this make the "establishment" more accountable? For that matter, what is the establishment? Just the government? Or does that include any large entities that thrive on media control? Perhaps nothing is the "establishment" - just people in power constantly jockeying for position. Either way, I think it's better that the bandwidth remain open for people to set up their own streams - at least give the public one outlet they can handle on their own without being marginalized!
Hrm...you didn't go to Belle River High in Ontario, did you? I recall seeing a Disco_Stu on BBSes long ago, and I saw one once in a while on IRC in channels populated by people from back home.
Maybe several years after the fact, we can track down the fscker and get 'em back:)
You buy a CD/get one for Christmas. You like it. You carry it around with you to some places. One day, said CD is stolen, you won't get it back because even if you reported it, no one would come forward seeing as this is a high school. Fast-forward several years, you realize you can download MP3s of the songs stolen from you years ago.
Now, keep in mind, the CD was taken from you without your permission. You never transferred rights to that music to the person who swiped it. You (or the person who bought the CD to give to you) already paid the full price to listen to the music. Was your downloading of the MP3s still illegal? Can the RIAA/CRIA still have the balls to tell you "too bad, you need to buy a new copy anyway, thanks for your previous purchase!"?
(to anyone who will say "nice hypothetical/straw man", don't bother; this is the situation I'm in with a Pearl Jam CD stolen from me back in gr. 10.)
As I recall, Courtney also said if she caught Napster allowing music she had control over to be traded over its systems, she'd go after it.
However, she did come out swinging on the side of MP3, saying it took control out of the hands of labels and "sucka VCs". What something like MP3 does (and what's really making the RIAA crap itself) is the possibility that they are no longer the gatekeepers. Finally, there is a format that can easily be distributed far and wide that the artists have control over.
After all, they write and play the music; they're the ones that should have control over how it's distributed and sold, whether releasing some songs on MP3 as teasers, releasing back-catalogue MP3s for really cheap, or not using it at all. The point is, it's the artist's choice, and the artist's control, not some hairbrained exec that thinks they should get several times what "their" artists make.
After all, it should be the artists' choice, non? Some feel getting paid is an extra on top of being heard; for them, MP3 might be ideal. Others feel they should get paid for every song.
It's the artists' choice. The fact that they now have that choice is making some people very, very scared.
I wouldn't be surprised if the RIAA tries to advocate legislation banning "music formats that do not offer copyright protection" or some such crud. And I also wouldn't be surprised to see certain software entities throw their support behind such a drive.
It's time to be afraid if you're a consumer. It's time to fight for your rights as an artist; even if you don't like having your music copied endlessly by kiddiez, at least fight to have the choice of using a free format there for those artists that wish to use it.
It's too bad I don't have moderator points right now; I'd moderate this up. I'm very glad you came out and said this; Slashdot really needs to see this particular post to get a handle on what you're talking about. I got the feeling from your article you were mostly slapping Napster for not actually giving anything back to the indie artists, or to anyone period. I think if timothy would have replaced the word "MP3" with "Napster", the synopsis would have been closer to the truth and perhaps saved you some flames/misunderstandings.
Right now, it's very important that artists, real breathing artists come out in support of free formats like MP3 that anyone, including Joe Artist, can control. I understand the RIAA and several Canadian industry groups want to replace mp3 with some form of "secure" format - in short, something Joe Artist still has to pay the label to use, and something he can't control (among many other things once that contract is signed). On the other hand, there is nothing wrong with expecting to sell CDs and make money. I mean, if you're going to work hard to create it, and you want some compensation, be my guest. (This is why I have a hard time believing Metallica's "commodity/art" ranting; you figure an artist would want their art distributed as widely as possible. Takes all kinds, I guess.)
As well, I rip my CDs for my own personal listening pleasure at home; I'm too lazy to swap CDs, and the "shuffle" function on my MP3 player makes for a nice jukebox. I dare the RIAA to take this away from me or anyone else.
Re: MP3.com, yes, there is a lot of crap on there. Perhaps a user-based rating system could be useful in helping create the first online "hit". As it stands, it's the free market in action there; people decide what's crap and what's not, and buy what they think is good. Isn't that the point of the free market in the first place; the consumer deciding who they want to hear (and, by extension, blow their hard-earned cash on), not the company deciding what the consumer gets to hear and purchase?
Eh, enough ramblling...anyway, you're going into the "pro-MP3" column on my a href=MP3 war roster.
Anti-Napster != anti-MP3, pro-RIAA
Cheers, and will be visiting one of your pages soon...
Am I the only one who finds these articles so devoid of actual information that they are pretty much worthless in terms of determining if these events actually happened?
For one thing, how did the cracker manage to penetrate NASA's communications system in the first place? I imagine they aren't stupid enough to give it any connection to the Internet - in fact, I'd hope all connections to and from the shuttle, and any computers and networks vital to the shuttle missions, are sealed from the 'net by an airwall. This would mean the cracker somehow found another way in, got past (hopefully) some sort of security...I don't know. I don't give this story much credibility. I wonder if perhaps NASA's just trying to cover up Yet Another Systems Failure.
This is probably the really obvious thing to ask...but did anyone else receive this message? I wonder if it couldn't have been someone who compiled licq with --spoof-uin (or whatever the compile-time option is) and sent a message from UIN #1 that way. It sounds much like the usual "ICQ will delete so-and-so accounts if you don't forward this message" spam that goes around once in a while.
Keep in mind why Oracle wanted Microsoft investigated.
On the surface (only Oracle and the PIs know what goes on behind the scenes and press releases), it appears the firm was hired not to try and steal info on MS technology, but find evidence that certain industry groups are, in fact, Microsoft astroturf. If the roles were reversed, Microsoft would have every right to find out who's funding their enemy's supporters. As long as no information on MS technology was handed to Oracle, they're in the clear; MS is the bad guy here for trying to fake industry and public support, and they got caught.
It would be a little easier to like Microsoft if they didn't constantly pull bully tactics and blatant attempts to pull the wool over people's eyes with things like ACT.
Because a lot of us are all hellbent on beating MSFT into the ground and thus will focus in on all the bad points.
Well, they haven't exactly been the greatest of corporate citizens, and I don't think anyone can blame their trial blunders on anyone but MS itself - I mean, faking video testimony; that would fry your credibility in any court case, civil or criminal.
I was an MS user and fan for a good five years, before I learned there were alternatives, got sick of the crashes and impenetrability, and found out about MS' actions to kill competition in the desktop PC market (and more recently, their less-successful attempts to squash competition elsewhere). I know there are good points to Microsoft (making the desktop PC more accessible to the user, "standardization" and note the quotes), but by now the bad points have heavily outweighed the good ones in my mind, and Microsoft is to blame for that. They have no one but their higher-ups and decision-makers to blame for the state they're in right now.
From now on, everyone needs to enter many fake or flawed submissions. It could be a completely made up story, it could have fake URLs, or it could be a real story with incorrect facts and misleading titles.
The general idea is that after they realize that so many submissions are flawed, the editors will be more inclined to check the sources before posting.
You wouldn't perchance be a fan of Scotsman's tactics to ensure fact-checking among Internet reporters on a different subject, would you?
His two shots at this experiment got him a lot of vitriol from Internet wrestling "reporters"...and also a lot of accolades from people sick of the pseudo-news that infest a lot of the newsboards that have little better to do than post rumours and rip off Dave Meltzer, Wade Keller and Dave Scherer.
Despite all the potential for abuse and harassment, it seems such an operation did force people to check their facts more carefully, lest they lose credibility. It's something of a nasty guerilla tactic that can easily go haywire and result in...errr...unintended consequences.
Then again, I'm sure Taco and the crew deal with at least 100 bullshit submissions a day. Like they need any more:)
Microsoft's spent a lot of time talking about "XML" and "Windows everywhere" and all kinds of software buzzwords. I don't suppose they've considered the hardware and pipes necessary to bring this "dream(?)" about.
For one thing: ASP's will require application server farms and numerous routers and firewalls that are up 24/7, with 99.99999999% uptime on each, that can handle near-100% CPU loads and lots of HD accessing without fail. Lots of RAID. Lots of 64-node machines. Expensive stuff. It seems like a bit much, but if MS expects businesses and some home users to rely on someone else's machines in another state, or even country, there'd better be some very hefty, extremely reliable hardware, running on some bloody robust OSes. I don't think we have anything yet that's up to the task; not Linux, not *BSD, not even Windows. Hell, most commerical Unices may not even be up to the task.
Then again, Win9x has trained people to believe that it's normal for computers to die at least once a week, so maybe occasional service outages won't be noticed; the blame will just shift from the home OS to the ASP.
As well...how about the connections needed? Keep in mind, the ASPs (or Microsoft itself; whoever will host these massive monster machines) will require huge pipes; they'd better be ready to take the equivalent of a Slashdotting every minute of every business day, sometimes worse. This, on top of normal network/Internet traffic. The backbone providers will make a mint, assuming their techs don't go insane from trying to handle the load. I doubt home users will accept seeing Word run at a snail's pace if their machine is an Athlon or Pentium III because they're still living off a 56k modem. MS will seriously have to put their apps on a diet if they expect info to transfer efficiently over networks. Perhaps developing cellphone and webpad thin clients will drum this into their heads, though I have little reason to believe that will happen.
What MS is demanding will require massive infrastructre improvements, and fast. Invest in chipmakers, RAM producers, and backbone companies now; they're about to become very rich along with MS.
For the record...I will use Linux even more now; I like having my data on my hard drive in my posession, where if something fails I know I can fix it myself instead of waiting for the ASP to do it. I also know I can encrypt my data if I want - what guarantees of security will MS promise for data stored elsewhere?
What I'd rather see MS pushing is a more distributed system, where "Windows everywhere" means your own devices can access each other from anywhere. I'd like something where I can still have my massive home machine to do my work and store my data, but have that machine easily accessible by my laptop, webpad, or even cell phone from anywhere else - and only by my devices through some form of cryptography and identity checking. I think that would be an even better form of distributed computing and information sharing, because the user still would have most of the control over their data and programs. It would also eliminate the subscription model problem; I absolutely refuse to drop $10 a month plus whatever so I can keep working on my essays and keep my budget up to date. I already feel sorry for university students that get suckered into this; they'll pay through the nose somehow, either directly to an ASP or to their university so the instituion can pay the charges for this scehme. That's being more tied to a software provider (either MS or an ASP) than I'd like to be.
Having not downloaded 5.2...here's my biggest beefs with 5.1.
Quite frankly, I'm always going to have some trouble with StarOffice until they either:
a) Make it disgustingly easy to install TrueType fonts, so I can share docs with my Windows-using classmates and coworkers - even with the really good help pages out there, I still run into roadblocks.
b) Do something about it's relationship with Ghostscript and XFS, or add a pile more drivers to its own printing system, or provide a pile of GS drivers, or something to improve printing under Linux.
I think at least part of my problem is Ghostscript itself. It prints plain text just fine (though not with the fonts I specified in SO...and if you try to use SO's fonts, forget it:P), but add one box or line and kaplooie - my BJC-4000 draws faint lines, no lines, fading letters, and just absolute crap. I understand GS uses the BJC-600 driver for the 4000; I wonder if perhaps it shouldn't get its own support under either SO or GS, seeing as my Windows install of SO prints just fine (and that's painful to type). And I really, really, really don't want to have to reboot - I spent a couple hours last night compiling and testing an alpha version scanner driver just so I don't have to reboot into 'bloze to scan a freaking pic. Works fine now, thanks:)
Will this work for window managers like Window Maker?
It should - I use GTK apps all the time in WindowMaker. You might want to waste the space and install the bare minimum GNOME packages anyway, just in cash the progs get huffy when you install them. However, I don't seem to have any GNOME packages on my system right now, and the GTK apps run fine.
Not just that...but aren't patents only supposed to be enforceable for 17 years after the date of issuance? Even if the patent was granted five years later, that would only give BT a couple more years to rake it in...unless some moronic legislative manoeuvreing has given them a hammerlock on hyperlinking for another 90 years or so.
MS's plans will be yet another nail in the coffin of the old practice of building your own systems. This of course just happens to be exactly what Dell and others want. It's no suprise this highly restrictive copy protection has gone through, it's in the interests of everyone involved except the consumers.
--Insert quote about "the stronger you grip, the more sand that slips through your fingers" here (or the Princess Leia quote from SW if you can remember it:)--
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I'll go with the circumstantial evidence I have:
To me, that's extremely fishy, and goes way beyond bad reasoning. If he'd simply said "Linux has many bugs, thus it isn't the panacea its supporters claim it is." it could have at least been argued his reasoning was well-intentioned if flawed by being based on one stat. However, the sum of what I see from that article goes far beyond "bad reasoning".
Can you imagine an editor saying, "Gee, this guy's right. Let's sit Fred down and talk about his journalistic integrity." I guarantee you the editor will have no more interest in the rest of your comments if you make officious and condescending remarks like this.
I would hope an editor would at least try to read the next paragraph before moving on. I wouldn't expect them to decide that based on the opening paragraph, but after reading the points I (and several others, from what I can tell here) made, the editor would at least wonder what the heck is going on. Maybe I'm asking for too much, but I thought I made a well-reasoned, level (if rather stiff and, as you say, condescending) reply to an inflammatory article, and I would hope the editor would take the time to parse it.
In any event, I also took the opportunity to e-mail Moody and ask why he counted the Red Hat numbers twice, didn't mention the Windows numbers, and completely glossed over the packages section. I don't expect a reply, but I've said my piece to the people who matter here.
I think in this case, if you point out how he's twisting facts, you're making a point about his journalistic integrity. Pointing out that a bug count is a pretty bad measure of the worth of an OS is good enough - pointing out how he's fudging the numbers to support his agenda is even better.
I didn't mean to say that people should sends posts starting with "Moody has no integrity, he's a bad journalist" and going on to say nothing of value. I meant for people to point out how he used stats that even the provider said shouldn't be used to judge an OS, and then went and combined and ignored stats at will. That is clearly unethical, and pointing that out speaks volumes about his integrity.
No e-mail address, but you do have a vehicle to express your concerns. Take advantage of the ABCNews.com contact page, and let them know what you think about this.
As for the article, yes, people will be concerned with how buggy Linux is. However, Moody inflated the numbers to make Linux look bad. He added the Red Hat 1999 total of 38 to the aggregate total of 84 (which I assume would include Red Hat) to get 122 vulnerabilities. In short, he counted Red Hat twice. After doing that, he didn't mention a word about Windows' own stats - 99 for NT, 47 for 95/98. The Linux aggregate is less than NT alone.
Also, if you add the separate distro numbers, you come up with 98. I think this means vulnerabilities present across distributions were only counted once, though the page isn't too clear on that. The individual distro numbers are interesting - Red Hat is the worst at 38, Debian next at 29, yet both are lower than Win9x's total of 47.
Any way you slice it, Moody's screwing with the stats to promote his agenda.
After reading some of the blatant falsifications and b.s. in his article, I posted a comment through abcnews.com's contact page.
I would appreciate if, for the benefit of your readers, you would note that Fred Moody is a former Microsoft employee. I would also appreciate it if one of your editors would have a chat with him about journalistic integrity and how even a columnist shouldn't misrepresent statistics to further an agenda.
I refer to his column on Linux vulnerabilities, where he "uses" statistics from SecurityFocus to claim Linux is the "worst" OS of all time and Microsoft is the "best". SF states in the first paragraph of their vulnerability statistics page that the stats shouldn't be used to judge how secure an OS is, yet that's exactly what Moody proceeds to do. He then flagrantly fakes a total of "122" vulnerabilities for Linux in 1999, taking Red Hat's 38 and adding that to the aggregate (meaning all distributions, including Red Hat) total of 84. In effect, he counts Red Hat vulnerabilities twice to inflate Linux vulnerability numbers. He also fails to note that each individual distribution has fewer vulnerabilities than either Windows NT or 95/98. Were one to aggregate the Windows numbers, the total would come to 146. Windows NT alone racked up 99 vulnerabilities - higher than the Linux aggregate total.
He also glosses over the "package vulnerabilities" statistics near the bottom of the page. Microsoft products claim the first 12 spots. In 2000, MS products claim 7 of the first 12 - the various Red Hat products (which are known among Linux users as not focused on closing obvious holes) take the other 5. Only TurboLinux gets mentioned in the 2000 list, with 6 vulnerabilities in each of hte two packages mentioned at the bottom of the list.
It is clear that Moody is abusing available statistics, ignoring others, and using his pulpit to push a pro-Microsoft agenda. It is disheartening that ABC would give Moody credibility by posting his columns while they contain such falsifications and omissions. At the very least, a disclaimer noting Moody's past employment would help readers put his writing in perspective. At the most, I would like to see someone technically knowledgable review his columns before publication to ensure he can't twist facts and numbers like he did in this one.
Regards,
Mark Bialkowski
If you decide to feed the troll and read the article, send a comment to ABCnews.com through the aforementioned contact page. A flood of comments questioning Moody's "integrity" might prompt action on ABC's part. Or not. Either way, take the opportunity to call out Moody on this one.
Oh, and make your comment civil. Don't flame, swear, or threaten to "fucking kill" someone. Just explain your reaction to the column and what you feel should be done.
Don't forget the licensed escort services.
I'll make this short and sweet, because it's late, and I need z's:
I don't think people are against copyright laws and intellectual property as a whole. I'm pretty sure we can all agree that the creators of works - artists, programmers, writers, performers - should have control over how their stuff is distributed and transmitted.
I think what we're getting angry over is the abuse of IP/copyright law and the legislative process by entities that have less interest in the creators' works, and more interest in the amount of money those works can bring in through various forms of control. For one example, take the frightening pay-per-use concept that's slowly seeping into comments made by spokespeople and executives for groups such as Seagram's, Microsoft, the RIAA, and anyone else with a vested interest in draconian control over all media they're involved in (not necessarily media they own, just involved with) and profit in those fields. They not only want consumers to accept it, they want laws in place that will allow them to force it upon the market, whether the consumers know about it up front or not, while providing an unfair legal advantage over people that dare produce art, music or software outside of their sphere of influence.
Wow.
The way Brooks sounds in that ad, you'd almost expect the Defiant to sweep in and blow the shit out of Redmond after he says "the forces of openness have a powerful and unexpected new ally.":
"Worf, lock phasers and quantum torpedoes on Bill's office. Let's show him what innovation is all about."
"Yes sir...innovate this!"
I notice your e-mail addy places you in Canada. Did you know the CRTC backed off regulating content on the Internet for the time being until things stabilize?
I don't think the geeks here are just being "libertarian" and defending "the right of corporations" - what about the right of individuals too? There's a much better chance that a large corporation run by someone like, oh, I dunno, Rupert Murdoch, could pull together the legal fees and lawyers necessary to get a license as opposed to a couple guys running a Shoutcast or Real stream of their favourite trance hits.
After all, streaming content is broadcasting, which is something that, being of public interest, governments regulate. So in principle, there should be nothing against them doing it.
Broadcasting over airwaves is regulated because it's possible and easy to disrupt broadcasts if multiple sources try to use the same frequency at once. It would rather suck if a Top 40 station suddenly decided to use the police or EMS bands in a large city. The only limiting factor over the 'net is bandwidth, and that's an issue for ISPs to deal with.
There's also something of a "freedom principle" on the 'net, where any Joe, Bob or Suzy is able to put up their own content adhering only to criminal laws of their home countries and the terms of serivce of their ISPs. This includes streaming content; I occasionally listen to a Shoutcast stream run by a few guys out of the Canadian West for the hell of it.
They could impose good restraints on large corporations going into this-- like space for public interest spots and so on.
And individuals? Would they also have to get a license to stream using MP3 or Real or whatever? Right now, the 'net is rather close to reaching the same state the "public" airwaves are in - controlled by a few large companies, with some token gestures toward "public broadcasting". This stream licensing business sounds like another step in that direction, meant to benefit only a few who can afford it.
I say: if it makes the establishment more accountable to the general populace, more power to Australians.
Great, now how will this make the "establishment" more accountable? For that matter, what is the establishment? Just the government? Or does that include any large entities that thrive on media control? Perhaps nothing is the "establishment" - just people in power constantly jockeying for position. Either way, I think it's better that the bandwidth remain open for people to set up their own streams - at least give the public one outlet they can handle on their own without being marginalized!
Well, at least the Vegan Zealotry was a change from the usual Linux Zealotry.
What? This was an article on video game violence? Could fooled me...
Hrm...you didn't go to Belle River High in Ontario, did you? I recall seeing a Disco_Stu on BBSes long ago, and I saw one once in a while on IRC in channels populated by people from back home.
Maybe several years after the fact, we can track down the fscker and get 'em back:)
Ok, I've got one:
You buy a CD/get one for Christmas. You like it. You carry it around with you to some places. One day, said CD is stolen, you won't get it back because even if you reported it, no one would come forward seeing as this is a high school. Fast-forward several years, you realize you can download MP3s of the songs stolen from you years ago.
Now, keep in mind, the CD was taken from you without your permission. You never transferred rights to that music to the person who swiped it. You (or the person who bought the CD to give to you) already paid the full price to listen to the music. Was your downloading of the MP3s still illegal? Can the RIAA/CRIA still have the balls to tell you "too bad, you need to buy a new copy anyway, thanks for your previous purchase!"?
(to anyone who will say "nice hypothetical/straw man", don't bother; this is the situation I'm in with a Pearl Jam CD stolen from me back in gr. 10.)
As I recall, Courtney also said if she caught Napster allowing music she had control over to be traded over its systems, she'd go after it.
However, she did come out swinging on the side of MP3, saying it took control out of the hands of labels and "sucka VCs". What something like MP3 does (and what's really making the RIAA crap itself) is the possibility that they are no longer the gatekeepers. Finally, there is a format that can easily be distributed far and wide that the artists have control over.
After all, they write and play the music; they're the ones that should have control over how it's distributed and sold, whether releasing some songs on MP3 as teasers, releasing back-catalogue MP3s for really cheap, or not using it at all. The point is, it's the artist's choice, and the artist's control, not some hairbrained exec that thinks they should get several times what "their" artists make.
After all, it should be the artists' choice, non? Some feel getting paid is an extra on top of being heard; for them, MP3 might be ideal. Others feel they should get paid for every song.
It's the artists' choice. The fact that they now have that choice is making some people very, very scared.
I wouldn't be surprised if the RIAA tries to advocate legislation banning "music formats that do not offer copyright protection" or some such crud. And I also wouldn't be surprised to see certain software entities throw their support behind such a drive.
It's time to be afraid if you're a consumer. It's time to fight for your rights as an artist; even if you don't like having your music copied endlessly by kiddiez, at least fight to have the choice of using a free format there for those artists that wish to use it.
It's too bad I don't have moderator points right now; I'd moderate this up. I'm very glad you came out and said this; Slashdot really needs to see this particular post to get a handle on what you're talking about. I got the feeling from your article you were mostly slapping Napster for not actually giving anything back to the indie artists, or to anyone period. I think if timothy would have replaced the word "MP3" with "Napster", the synopsis would have been closer to the truth and perhaps saved you some flames/misunderstandings.
Right now, it's very important that artists, real breathing artists come out in support of free formats like MP3 that anyone, including Joe Artist, can control. I understand the RIAA and several Canadian industry groups want to replace mp3 with some form of "secure" format - in short, something Joe Artist still has to pay the label to use, and something he can't control (among many other things once that contract is signed). On the other hand, there is nothing wrong with expecting to sell CDs and make money. I mean, if you're going to work hard to create it, and you want some compensation, be my guest. (This is why I have a hard time believing Metallica's "commodity/art" ranting; you figure an artist would want their art distributed as widely as possible. Takes all kinds, I guess.)
As well, I rip my CDs for my own personal listening pleasure at home; I'm too lazy to swap CDs, and the "shuffle" function on my MP3 player makes for a nice jukebox. I dare the RIAA to take this away from me or anyone else.
Re: MP3.com, yes, there is a lot of crap on there. Perhaps a user-based rating system could be useful in helping create the first online "hit". As it stands, it's the free market in action there; people decide what's crap and what's not, and buy what they think is good. Isn't that the point of the free market in the first place; the consumer deciding who they want to hear (and, by extension, blow their hard-earned cash on), not the company deciding what the consumer gets to hear and purchase?
Eh, enough ramblling...anyway, you're going into the "pro-MP3" column on my a href=MP3 war roster.
Anti-Napster != anti-MP3, pro-RIAA
Cheers, and will be visiting one of your pages soon...
Repeat after me, scream it for everyone to hear...
AS-TRO-TURF! AS-TRO-TURF! AS-TRO-TURF! (repeat ad nauseam)
Hey, it's not just for politicians during election years anymore!
Am I the only one who finds these articles so devoid of actual information that they are pretty much worthless in terms of determining if these events actually happened?
For one thing, how did the cracker manage to penetrate NASA's communications system in the first place? I imagine they aren't stupid enough to give it any connection to the Internet - in fact, I'd hope all connections to and from the shuttle, and any computers and networks vital to the shuttle missions, are sealed from the 'net by an airwall. This would mean the cracker somehow found another way in, got past (hopefully) some sort of security...I don't know. I don't give this story much credibility. I wonder if perhaps NASA's just trying to cover up Yet Another Systems Failure.
My $0.02 Cdn, so it's not worth that much...
I just did a quick search. I believe the lowest UIN is 10000. 10001 is Yuval Amir, the "product manager".
This smells more like a hoax by the minute, never mind what the privacy policy says.
This is probably the really obvious thing to ask...but did anyone else receive this message? I wonder if it couldn't have been someone who compiled licq with --spoof-uin (or whatever the compile-time option is) and sent a message from UIN #1 that way. It sounds much like the usual "ICQ will delete so-and-so accounts if you don't forward this message" spam that goes around once in a while.
I'm going to take a moment and burn some karma with -1, Offtopics to pimp my own little thang. I mean, it is Quickies, after all:)
You've seen the movie! You've learned the kung-fu! You've even developed your own interactive version! Now, get the alcohol poisoning!
THE MATRIX DRINKING GAME
Lose memory now! I'll show you how!
man i'm gonna pay for this one...but i couldn't resist:)
plat
Keep in mind why Oracle wanted Microsoft investigated.
On the surface (only Oracle and the PIs know what goes on behind the scenes and press releases), it appears the firm was hired not to try and steal info on MS technology, but find evidence that certain industry groups are, in fact, Microsoft astroturf. If the roles were reversed, Microsoft would have every right to find out who's funding their enemy's supporters. As long as no information on MS technology was handed to Oracle, they're in the clear; MS is the bad guy here for trying to fake industry and public support, and they got caught.
It would be a little easier to like Microsoft if they didn't constantly pull bully tactics and blatant attempts to pull the wool over people's eyes with things like ACT.
Because a lot of us are all hellbent on beating MSFT into the ground and thus will focus in on all the bad points.
Well, they haven't exactly been the greatest of corporate citizens, and I don't think anyone can blame their trial blunders on anyone but MS itself - I mean, faking video testimony; that would fry your credibility in any court case, civil or criminal.
I was an MS user and fan for a good five years, before I learned there were alternatives, got sick of the crashes and impenetrability, and found out about MS' actions to kill competition in the desktop PC market (and more recently, their less-successful attempts to squash competition elsewhere). I know there are good points to Microsoft (making the desktop PC more accessible to the user, "standardization" and note the quotes), but by now the bad points have heavily outweighed the good ones in my mind, and Microsoft is to blame for that. They have no one but their higher-ups and decision-makers to blame for the state they're in right now.
From now on, everyone needs to enter many fake or flawed submissions. It could be a completely made up story, it could have fake URLs, or it could be a real story with incorrect facts and misleading titles.
The general idea is that after they realize that so many submissions are flawed, the editors will be more inclined to check the sources before posting.
You wouldn't perchance be a fan of Scotsman's tactics to ensure fact-checking among Internet reporters on a different subject, would you?
His two shots at this experiment got him a lot of vitriol from Internet wrestling "reporters"...and also a lot of accolades from people sick of the pseudo-news that infest a lot of the newsboards that have little better to do than post rumours and rip off Dave Meltzer, Wade Keller and Dave Scherer.
Despite all the potential for abuse and harassment, it seems such an operation did force people to check their facts more carefully, lest they lose credibility. It's something of a nasty guerilla tactic that can easily go haywire and result in...errr...unintended consequences.
Then again, I'm sure Taco and the crew deal with at least 100 bullshit submissions a day. Like they need any more:)
Microsoft's spent a lot of time talking about "XML" and "Windows everywhere" and all kinds of software buzzwords. I don't suppose they've considered the hardware and pipes necessary to bring this "dream(?)" about.
For one thing: ASP's will require application server farms and numerous routers and firewalls that are up 24/7, with 99.99999999% uptime on each, that can handle near-100% CPU loads and lots of HD accessing without fail. Lots of RAID. Lots of 64-node machines. Expensive stuff. It seems like a bit much, but if MS expects businesses and some home users to rely on someone else's machines in another state, or even country, there'd better be some very hefty, extremely reliable hardware, running on some bloody robust OSes. I don't think we have anything yet that's up to the task; not Linux, not *BSD, not even Windows. Hell, most commerical Unices may not even be up to the task.
Then again, Win9x has trained people to believe that it's normal for computers to die at least once a week, so maybe occasional service outages won't be noticed; the blame will just shift from the home OS to the ASP.
As well...how about the connections needed? Keep in mind, the ASPs (or Microsoft itself; whoever will host these massive monster machines) will require huge pipes; they'd better be ready to take the equivalent of a Slashdotting every minute of every business day, sometimes worse. This, on top of normal network/Internet traffic. The backbone providers will make a mint, assuming their techs don't go insane from trying to handle the load. I doubt home users will accept seeing Word run at a snail's pace if their machine is an Athlon or Pentium III because they're still living off a 56k modem. MS will seriously have to put their apps on a diet if they expect info to transfer efficiently over networks. Perhaps developing cellphone and webpad thin clients will drum this into their heads, though I have little reason to believe that will happen.
What MS is demanding will require massive infrastructre improvements, and fast. Invest in chipmakers, RAM producers, and backbone companies now; they're about to become very rich along with MS.
For the record...I will use Linux even more now; I like having my data on my hard drive in my posession, where if something fails I know I can fix it myself instead of waiting for the ASP to do it. I also know I can encrypt my data if I want - what guarantees of security will MS promise for data stored elsewhere?
What I'd rather see MS pushing is a more distributed system, where "Windows everywhere" means your own devices can access each other from anywhere. I'd like something where I can still have my massive home machine to do my work and store my data, but have that machine easily accessible by my laptop, webpad, or even cell phone from anywhere else - and only by my devices through some form of cryptography and identity checking. I think that would be an even better form of distributed computing and information sharing, because the user still would have most of the control over their data and programs. It would also eliminate the subscription model problem; I absolutely refuse to drop $10 a month plus whatever so I can keep working on my essays and keep my budget up to date. I already feel sorry for university students that get suckered into this; they'll pay through the nose somehow, either directly to an ASP or to their university so the instituion can pay the charges for this scehme. That's being more tied to a software provider (either MS or an ASP) than I'd like to be.
Having not downloaded 5.2...here's my biggest beefs with 5.1.
Quite frankly, I'm always going to have some trouble with StarOffice until they either:
a) Make it disgustingly easy to install TrueType fonts, so I can share docs with my Windows-using classmates and coworkers - even with the really good help pages out there, I still run into roadblocks.
b) Do something about it's relationship with Ghostscript and XFS, or add a pile more drivers to its own printing system, or provide a pile of GS drivers, or something to improve printing under Linux.
I think at least part of my problem is Ghostscript itself. It prints plain text just fine (though not with the fonts I specified in SO...and if you try to use SO's fonts, forget it:P), but add one box or line and kaplooie - my BJC-4000 draws faint lines, no lines, fading letters, and just absolute crap. I understand GS uses the BJC-600 driver for the 4000; I wonder if perhaps it shouldn't get its own support under either SO or GS, seeing as my Windows install of SO prints just fine (and that's painful to type). And I really, really, really don't want to have to reboot - I spent a couple hours last night compiling and testing an alpha version scanner driver just so I don't have to reboot into 'bloze to scan a freaking pic. Works fine now, thanks:)
Will this work for window managers like Window Maker?
It should - I use GTK apps all the time in WindowMaker. You might want to waste the space and install the bare minimum GNOME packages anyway, just in cash the progs get huffy when you install them. However, I don't seem to have any GNOME packages on my system right now, and the GTK apps run fine.
Not just that...but aren't patents only supposed to be enforceable for 17 years after the date of issuance? Even if the patent was granted five years later, that would only give BT a couple more years to rake it in...unless some moronic legislative manoeuvreing has given them a hammerlock on hyperlinking for another 90 years or so.
MS's plans will be yet another nail in the coffin of the old practice of building your own systems. This of course just happens to be exactly what Dell and others want. It's no suprise this highly restrictive copy protection has gone through, it's in the interests of everyone involved except the consumers.
--Insert quote about "the stronger you grip, the more sand that slips through your fingers" here (or the Princess Leia quote from SW if you can remember it:)--