Although there is no easy possibility that the guinea pig virus will escape from Sims and cause havoc in the Internet world, the specter of software viruses in the future of computer gaming is real, Mr. Smith said. "When they introduce a future multiplayer version of Sims, it will create an interesting social dynamic," he said.
Why can't they just tell the story, and not try to inflame the public with these false potentialities? JESUS. The article was great right up until this point. One of the (many) things that I loathe about the media is how they have this uncontrollable desire to make issues appear as nasty and brutish as possible. This is a perfect example. Virus in a computer game? We must surreptitiously imply that it might affect the entire Internet! That's MUCH more interesting!
You appear to be one of the early "movers and shakers" on the web, having dealth with web technologies (client- and server-side) since almost the beginning. During the early days of the web, there was a palpable sense that imminent and vast changes were about to take place; social orders would be shaken, the nation-state would collapse, and a new economic order would arise. Now, almost ten years later, reality has brought most of those idealistic visions down to earth. What potential do you still see for the web, especially as it regards democracy, freedom, and other non-economic issues?
Absolutely not. While all visionaries are vilified, it does not stand to reason that all who are vilified are visionaries. Some are vilified for very good reasons, and Gates is a perfect example. He is vilified because he uses his wealth to buy those ideas which have been created/discovered by others. There is no respect in that.
Another good example would be talk radio hosts: Schlesinger, Limbaugh, etc. They are (rightfully so, IMHO) viciously vilified, and for good reason. They are far from being visionaries; they're "conservative", which by its very nature is somewhat static and backwards-looking.
I am pretty sure I'm going to get flamed for this, and maybe even deservedly so, BUT:
Why is it that there seems to be so much anti-profit sentiment coming from the open source community? The majority of complaints regarding TPM I have seen posted in this thread are bitching about Lucasfilm "fleecing" the viewer, or "overmarketing", or whatever. The contradiction I see is between this attitude, and that of the libertarian capitalist whose main purpose in a marketplace is to return as much of a profit as possible.
As much as I personally dislike Ayn Rand these days, I see many similarities between the way Lucas is treated by the public (of which/. is a part, like it or not) and the way Howard Roark was treated in "The Fountainhead." Consider:
Both followed what they loved
Both were vilified by the media and the public
Both were visionary in their own way
Both insist upon total creative control of their projects
Now, all of these are admirable qualities to have. And while I might disagree with some of the creative decisions made by Lucas, I certainly do not begrudge him his ability to make those decisions, nor to profit from it. I am in the minority in that I feel that Phantom Menace was actually a good movie [shock! heresy! blasphemer! mindless M$ drone!] I would certainly rather my hard earned dollars go to Lucasfilm than to the US Government, M$, Red Hat, organized religion, Old Navy, the RIAA or MPAA (of which Lucasfilm is not a member), or many other things I can think of.
Lucas is a visionary. All visionaries are vilified. You can scream that he is a sell-out, but I remind you that he is selling out to himself, which is what the game is all about, friends.
According to the US Code, the Librarian of Congress is appointed by the President. Seeing as how this is a) an election year, and b) a fairly minor matter in the broader scheme of things, I seriously doubt we could get Pres. Clinton to act on this.
However, we can forward this to our local librarians. I suggest printing off a copy, complete with the URL, and going to your local library and dropping it off. If we could get the various libary associations in on this, and convince them of the benefits of digitizing these works, a grassroots effort might be more beneficial.
It might also be beneficial to explain how the.PDF format works, and what it can (and can't) do.
Mozilla is big, behind schedule, unstable, and now developed by mostly AOL employees (sorry guys, but face the facts). Sounds like Windows almost, doesn't it? Yet everybody is so willing to prop this baby up and say it will. Well, cut the future tense crap.
Sorry, I have to totally disagree with you on this one.
AOL makes good software when they want to, namely AOLServer, which is open source, free, incredibly stable and fast.
Mozilla has morphed from being a browser to being an application deployment platform. Using XUL, ECMAScript, RPF, XML, and advanced HTML/CSS, it will be possible to deploy advanced applications to end users, opening up new areas of exploration
This will also be another chink in Microsoft's armor. It is possible that Mozilla will become a de facto standard for future application development, due to it's flexibility, stability, and (hopefully) wide user acceptance.
My two bits. I really think this software has some amazing potential. But like all techology with potential, we will have to wait to see if these potentials are actually realized.
According to Ian Hickson, image alt text is supposed to be displayed as normal text, with nothing distinguishing it from page text, unless the page specifies how broken images are supposed to be displayed.
Umm, I don't know who the hell Ian Hickson is, but according to the W3C IMG definition, alt text is "rendered when the image cannot be displayed." That definately doesn't sound like it should be displayed all the time, which is just silly.
. Very few webpages with broken or slashdotted images look good in mozilla as a result, and layout is completely messed up even when width= and height= are specified
This isn't because Gecko is off spec, it's because we're used to programming for browsers that don't conform to spec. Gecko passes (with flying colors) ALL of the tests the W3C setup to test browser compliance. If an HTML document is compliant, then Gecko/Mozilla will display it according to spec. If you don't believe me, then read the spec yourself.
FLASH: Once legendary heavy-metal band Metallica officially announced yesterday that they were discontinuing their focus on music and will instead focus exclusively on being shills to the almighty dollar. "This really started when we did that Bob Segar cover," band member Lars Ulrich said. "But we figured that for us to continue to rake in the dough, we really need to focus. I mean, that song sucked, didn't it? But those idiots bought it, and the stations played it, and we still made a shitload of money. But making original music is just too difficult for the band these days. So the music is out."
Executives at Columbia House were ecstatic over the news, proclaliming that, according to their official press release, "this is a validation of all we have been doing to the consumers over the past thirty-odd years. Money, not music, is what this business is about. BUSINESS. Repeat: BUSINESS. Money over music, yes sir, that's what rock and roll is all about." The press release went on to explain how exactly their corporate strategy would lead to the eventual domination of the world, in preparation for the aliens.
Legendary songwriter and former Beatles front-man John Lennon came down from heaven to personally vent his frustration. "Y'know, there was a time when music was meant to spread a message of love and skepticism of prevailing views. Now, with these so-called rock bands like Metallica tossing lawsuits around I rue the future of our musical heritage. Oh, and I miss you Yoko! Hurry up and die!"
Some random pundit exclaimed in reaction to the situation: "This is just another example of the breakdown of the moral fiber of America. What about the children?" When asked to elaborate he burst into flames.
The so-called "education" system of the US is a State-run propaganda organ mated to a state-subsidized day-care program. It has nothing to do with "thinking for yourself". Schools exist to promulgate conformity as practice and as virtue.
Wrong. Society itself - of which the education system is but a part - is responsible for conformity. Humans are social creatures, and the pressures to conform to the social norms around us are heavy and come from many different sources. Television, radio, movies, school, family, clubs, music, books, advertisements, Slashdot... All of these are forces which shape our minds in certain ways. Homogeneity occurs because of our inherent desire to be a part of the pack, following the alpha-males and preening ourselves to appear to be attractive and viable reproductive mates.
So we get a situation where the reader has been fully warned that the post may be full of crap, yet still we read it? And the output of unsolicited legal advice on slashdot is not only used and condoned, but promoted through moderation?
Because this is a discussion forum. People discuss ideas, debate them, rant about them, and moderate them according to how they see fit. Just because someone has passed a bar exam does not make their opinions more holy. It only means they can charge for legal advice. But being educated citizens, I firmly believe it is our civic duty to dicuss ideas such as these until we are blue in the face. We are educating ourselves as participants in a democracy.
Further, law is frequently interpretative. If a lawyer says one thing, and your random IANALer says something different, the IANALer can still be correct. Case in point: the DMCA. IANAL, but in my opinion this act is a piece of shit. Am I wrong because I do not have a law degree? Absolutely not.
In short, if you believe that political matters should be debated only by "experts", you are sadly, sadly misinformed. Political and legal matters frequently overlap, and everyone should get their feet wet in this arena.
As has been documented elsewhere, such profiling is dubious at best and harmful at worst. Further, the dubious usefulness of anonymous tips have even been questioned by our current schizophrenic Supreme Court. Anonymous tipping in the hands of angry and powerless high-school students is simply ripe with abusive potential. No program of this kind will be able to successfully prevent school shootings, no matter how good it might make us feel to know it is in place.
Maybe we'll take you seriously when you give up criminal acts, kid.
Who's "we", sweetheart? Trolling for the industry, are we? And please note that nowhere did I say I use Napster, nor encourage its use. I simply noted that it is EASY to use.
Amen to that, brother. [Note: The following is NOT an insult.] You sound like Katz. The only difference is that it took you three or four sentences to say what it would have taken him 30 or 40 paragraphs.
But as for your argument: Yes, I believe that this is the case. This is a turf war, and the gangs that currently control the distrubtion turf are fighting tooth and nail to maintain supremacy. Will they eventually succeed? Partially, but never fully. It's just too easy to get a ripper and log on to Napster. And as the availability of high bandwidth connections gets more prevalent, we'll start seeing movies, too.
I have one question: if everyone had attitudes like that, would anybody have bothered to create what you now so gleefully steal in the first place? I thought not. Or even Mattel - you so zealously defend those who steal their list of blocked websites - Mattel's OWN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY - and give anyone else the means to steal this same list and create their own software which simply leeches off Mattel's list maintenance staff and budget!
How fair is this?
Very fair. I have a right to do with code what I will on a machine that I have bought, with software I have bought. While the IP lawyers might consider their position to be morally correct, this does not necessarily make it so. If I wish to see what, exactly, software is doing on my system, through my Internet connection, then I have that right, whether the software be Installshield, Cyber-Patrol, Win2K Active Directory, or whatever. It is in my best interest to be able to determine, should I feel the need, what exactly software is doing. This is true from a security standpoint and from a personal property standpoint. As such, while Mattel et al might not like the fact that people will decode their black list, the fact is that it will AND SHOULD happen in the spirit of full-disclosure.
I know this is cliched, but information wants to be free. This is just another example of it. The older I get the more I think that that old hacker axiom is true. And IP lawyers can go screw themselves.
Gilmore's famous quote about how "the net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it" is still true, I believe. Despite the legions of IP lawyers thrashing about, I can still -- months later -- get a copy of DeCSS without too much of an effort. Similary, while Mattel has "won" the case regarding cphack, I can still rather easily get *that* program, too. And information the government doesn't want you to know is easily attainable, despite the moralistic efforts of those who would rather such information be banned.
My point is that while corporations can push for (and see passed) laws that are more and more restrictive, enforcement will be impossible without a totalitarian police state. This is something that could happen, but is in the long run unlikely. I hope. As much as the Judge in the Mattel case might like to think himself powerful, the fact is that he simply cannot control Usenet, PGP-encrypted attachments, #warez groups, and the myriad of other distribution channels available on the Net. For every "criminal" that they try to make an example of, there will be 100 script kiddies, et al., who will pop up and distribute these forbidden warez.
Oh, and my plant sprouted it's first leaf today! Hurrah!
This judgment comes in response to a bill passed by Congress a couple of years ago allowing for victims of terrorism to sue the sponsoring government. Congress was well aware that few governments would actually pay damages, so the imagined method of collection was to seize assets that are on US-controlled soil. The only problem with this is that it tends to ignore the larger picture: right now, our relations with Iran are beginning to get better. But were Jackson to send federal marshals in to seize Iranian-controlled assets, our long term relationship with that nation would be severely damaged. This might be the correct thing to do from a justice standpoint, but would be shortsighted as far as long-term diplomacy is concerned.
What would God's genetic code look like? Let's dig up His Son and find out! It would also answer the question of whether Mary really did immaculately conceive, or whether it was Joseph all along. And if it WERE divine conception, we would finally have a chance to look at the Son of God's DNA. Would it glow? Adenine, thymine, cytosine, uracil, and THE-NUCLEOTIDE-WHOSE-NAME-CANNOT-BE-SPOKEN. This would definately be a chance for medical science to move forward. We might be able to heal lepers with a glance, raise the dead, love our neighbors unconditionally, etc. This would be a perfect follow-up to Dyson's Templeton Award, as well.
Wait, let me get this straight: You're complaining because commericial TV as we know it might kick the bucket? Why would this be a BAD thing? The day that happens I'm renting Bourbon Street for me and a million of my closest friends. The best programs that get broadcast come from member supported stations anyway. (PBS if I have to spell it out.) So "Friends" might go away! Hurrah! "Popular" would become not so popular? Yippie! "7th Heaven" sent to hell? THERE IS A GOD!
Hey, maybe, JUST MAYBE people will start reading BOOKS again. Wow. Y'know. Immersing yourself in something that betters yourself as a human being, that is intellectually stimulating. But I'm just a dreamer.
Sorry. I really, really hate TV. I hate TV like Hitler hated the Jews. Except for "Frontline." And "South Park." Ok, and "Buffy" every once in a while. BUT THAT'S IT. And "The Simpsons."
IMHO, I would rather have my son looking at porno than to give up the decision on what is or is not appropriate material to corporate America. Porno is people having sex in whatever myriad fashion it might take. Mattel, et. al., are deciding for their customers what is right and wrong, and that ability to be a surrogate decision maker is much, much worse than kindergartners watching German scheize films. If people really think that they can trust corporations to make their moral decisions for them (or their children) then they are sadly, sadly ignorant.
Don't the users of these softwares realize that they are entrusting decisions on morality to organizations whose main motivation is profit, not Truth or their children's well being?
I guess this explains Dr. Laura's popularity, at least.
Generally speaking, those who wish to raise alarms about the risks of advanced technology do not want to see an all-out hiatus. Rather they would like to see mechanisms put in place that would prevent mishaps. The ban on human cloning is an example. So are most environmental regulations stemming from global warming conerns, such as the ban on CFC's.
I haven't read the Wired article yet, of course. But to say that it is impossible that homo sapiens will be extinct in 50 years is silly. We *are* making some amazing advancements. It is pretty much a given that 50 years from now computers will be so much more powerful than the most complex server-farm we have today that genuine Turing-tested intelligence will be possible. That is not so far fetched. Nor is it so far fetched that bad things will happen because of this.
And I would remind everyone that SETI@Home has yet to find anything. While the explanations for this lack of contact are legion, one of these explanations is that most intelligent societies wind up destroying themselves somehow. This was even advanced by Sagan. It is a pessimistic theory, but this pessimism is not cause for invalidation.
"This administration"? When was the last time you saw an administration--local, state, or federal--that passed up an opportunity to be "tough on crime"? The elected officials responded to the population on this one, buddy. Tough on crime gets votes, whether it's hacking/phreaking/carding or smoking that evil wacky-weed or holding up a liquor store. This administration has, like those before it (and probably after it) only done what the public wants: lock 'em up and throw away the fucking key.
If you want to see this kind of thing stopped, we have GOT to start explaining to people why this whole "tough on crime" thing has gone way overboard. The voters have responsibility in this to a GREATER degree than do the elected officials, whether they are Democrat or Republican. The electorate gets scared, they begin writing their representatives to "do something", and we draconian laws passed. The legislators are responsible for passing the laws, but more often than not it is in response to their constituents wishes.
I can't help but notice that Napster, being the epitome of software that violates the DMCA, is nevertheless flourishing. The powers that be in Congress and the recording industry have decided that their intellectual property must be protected with the full power of the law. Instead, things seem to be backfiring for them and the law is weakened in the process (something which I do not thing is a good thing.) By passing legislation that attempts to prohibit certain means of distribution the industry is engaged in a kind of Operation Foot-Bullet, bringing publicity to the fact that their goods are easily copied and even what software to use. In the process, the law that they spent so much to get passed is being proven to be largely ineffectual. This leads to decreased confidence in the ability of the nation-state to protect corporate profits, something which may or may not be a good thing in the long run. But either way, the distributed and open nature of the Net has put another small chink in the armor of the nation-state. We'll see how many chinks it takes to bring the whole fucking thing to its knees.
Fear. Governments by and large get their powers by exploiting the fears of the masses. Crypto is a perfect example: "Why, if strong crypto gets out, then those TERRRRISTS and COMMIES and CHILD PO-NOGRAFAS and DROOG DEALERS will be able to getcha, sho nuff!" By its very nature, law enforcement seeks ever greater powers. Similarly, whenever situations arise that threaten its power, it fights back vigorously.
More seriously, nation-states believe that the more intelligence information they have the better prepared they will be in the event of some military or terrorist threat. By being able to tap into any given communication channel, their abilities to prevent violent actions against the citizenry is arguably increased. Ergo we have law enforcement pushing legislatures (or parliaments) to restrict technologies that would interfere with their abilities to protect the population from external (or internal) threats.
That's the LEA line, anyway. But since they are so secretive they haven't made a very good case to support their cause. No evidence has been presented showing that crypto has come into play in a single solitary case, nor that even if it did that convential detective methods would fail thereby.
Plus, if you're LAPD you just shoot the fucker anyway, crypto or no.
Honestly I wouldn't be too surprised if Japan was pressured by someone here state-side re: the PSX2. Freeh, et al are absolutely terrified that they won't be able to listen in on our conversations, and they have the pull to be able to coerce foreign powers to make "minor adjustments" for the overall "security situation."
- rev
Well, a true to life Everquest story would suck
on
X-Files FPS Episode
·
· Score: 1
If the X-Files, or some other quote-unquote drama were to do a realistic VR story using today's technology, they would have to use Everquest or Ultima Online or something similar. That would be pretty boring.
[Cut to fat, late-twenty something girl slouched in a comfy chair, mouse in hand. The monitor shows her fishing.]
~click~...~click~...~click...
[No fish shows up. Repeat for 10 minutes.]
You could see how viewership would drop off. Let's beef it up.
[Cut to sexy leather clad Lara Croft-ish imp. Replace mouse with double-barreled shotgun. Replace monitor with cables hooked directly into her breasts, allowing her total control over her complex looking Beowulf cluster.]
It just seems to me that the whole sex angle gives this overused genre a little bit more oomph. But that's just my opinion. And fer Christ's sake DITCH THE EXISTENTIALISM. It's been done to DEATH. Gimme Baywatch-meets-the-Matrix and I'll be happy, k?
Slashdot Mirror
From the article:
Although there is no easy possibility that the guinea pig virus will escape from Sims and cause havoc in the Internet world, the specter of software viruses in the future of computer gaming is real, Mr. Smith said. "When they introduce a future multiplayer version of Sims, it will create an interesting social dynamic," he said.
Why can't they just tell the story, and not try to inflame the public with these false potentialities? JESUS. The article was great right up until this point. One of the (many) things that I loathe about the media is how they have this uncontrollable desire to make issues appear as nasty and brutish as possible. This is a perfect example. Virus in a computer game? We must surreptitiously imply that it might affect the entire Internet! That's MUCH more interesting!
FUCK THAT. Just tell the story! Grrrr....
-Rev.You appear to be one of the early "movers and shakers" on the web, having dealth with web technologies (client- and server-side) since almost the beginning. During the early days of the web, there was a palpable sense that imminent and vast changes were about to take place; social orders would be shaken, the nation-state would collapse, and a new economic order would arise. Now, almost ten years later, reality has brought most of those idealistic visions down to earth. What potential do you still see for the web, especially as it regards democracy, freedom, and other non-economic issues?
-Rev.Are you saying Bill Gates is a visionary?
Absolutely not. While all visionaries are vilified, it does not stand to reason that all who are vilified are visionaries. Some are vilified for very good reasons, and Gates is a perfect example. He is vilified because he uses his wealth to buy those ideas which have been created/discovered by others. There is no respect in that.
Another good example would be talk radio hosts: Schlesinger, Limbaugh, etc. They are (rightfully so, IMHO) viciously vilified, and for good reason. They are far from being visionaries; they're "conservative", which by its very nature is somewhat static and backwards-looking.
-Rev.I am pretty sure I'm going to get flamed for this, and maybe even deservedly so, BUT:
Why is it that there seems to be so much anti-profit sentiment coming from the open source community? The majority of complaints regarding TPM I have seen posted in this thread are bitching about Lucasfilm "fleecing" the viewer, or "overmarketing", or whatever. The contradiction I see is between this attitude, and that of the libertarian capitalist whose main purpose in a marketplace is to return as much of a profit as possible.
As much as I personally dislike Ayn Rand these days, I see many similarities between the way Lucas is treated by the public (of which /. is a part, like it or not) and the way Howard Roark was treated in "The Fountainhead." Consider:
Both followed what they loved
Both were vilified by the media and the public
Both were visionary in their own way
Both insist upon total creative control of their projects
Now, all of these are admirable qualities to have. And while I might disagree with some of the creative decisions made by Lucas, I certainly do not begrudge him his ability to make those decisions, nor to profit from it. I am in the minority in that I feel that Phantom Menace was actually a good movie [shock! heresy! blasphemer! mindless M$ drone!] I would certainly rather my hard earned dollars go to Lucasfilm than to the US Government, M$, Red Hat, organized religion, Old Navy, the RIAA or MPAA (of which Lucasfilm is not a member), or many other things I can think of.
Lucas is a visionary. All visionaries are vilified. You can scream that he is a sell-out, but I remind you that he is selling out to himself, which is what the game is all about, friends.
- Rev.According to the US Code, the Librarian of Congress is appointed by the President. Seeing as how this is a) an election year, and b) a fairly minor matter in the broader scheme of things, I seriously doubt we could get Pres. Clinton to act on this.
However, we can forward this to our local librarians. I suggest printing off a copy, complete with the URL, and going to your local library and dropping it off. If we could get the various libary associations in on this, and convince them of the benefits of digitizing these works, a grassroots effort might be more beneficial.
It might also be beneficial to explain how the .PDF format works, and what it can (and can't) do.
-Rev.Mozilla is big, behind schedule, unstable, and now developed by mostly AOL employees (sorry guys, but face the facts). Sounds like Windows almost, doesn't it? Yet everybody is so willing to prop this baby up and say it will. Well, cut the future tense crap.
Sorry, I have to totally disagree with you on this one.
AOL makes good software when they want to, namely AOLServer, which is open source, free, incredibly stable and fast.
Mozilla has morphed from being a browser to being an application deployment platform. Using XUL, ECMAScript, RPF, XML, and advanced HTML/CSS, it will be possible to deploy advanced applications to end users, opening up new areas of exploration
This will also be another chink in Microsoft's armor. It is possible that Mozilla will become a de facto standard for future application development, due to it's flexibility, stability, and (hopefully) wide user acceptance.
My two bits. I really think this software has some amazing potential. But like all techology with potential, we will have to wait to see if these potentials are actually realized.
-Rev.According to Ian Hickson, image alt text is supposed to be displayed as normal text, with nothing distinguishing it from page text, unless the page specifies how broken images are supposed to be displayed.
Umm, I don't know who the hell Ian Hickson is, but according to the W3C IMG definition, alt text is "rendered when the image cannot be displayed." That definately doesn't sound like it should be displayed all the time, which is just silly.
. Very few webpages with broken or slashdotted images look good in mozilla as a result, and layout is completely messed up even when width= and height= are specified
This isn't because Gecko is off spec, it's because we're used to programming for browsers that don't conform to spec. Gecko passes (with flying colors) ALL of the tests the W3C setup to test browser compliance. If an HTML document is compliant, then Gecko/Mozilla will display it according to spec. If you don't believe me, then read the spec yourself.
- Rev.TPM has sold over 500,000 copies in just over a month. I fail to see how this could be viewed as anything but successful.
- Rev.
FLASH: Once legendary heavy-metal band Metallica officially announced yesterday that they were discontinuing their focus on music and will instead focus exclusively on being shills to the almighty dollar. "This really started when we did that Bob Segar cover," band member Lars Ulrich said. "But we figured that for us to continue to rake in the dough, we really need to focus. I mean, that song sucked, didn't it? But those idiots bought it, and the stations played it, and we still made a shitload of money. But making original music is just too difficult for the band these days. So the music is out."
Executives at Columbia House were ecstatic over the news, proclaliming that, according to their official press release, "this is a validation of all we have been doing to the consumers over the past thirty-odd years. Money, not music, is what this business is about. BUSINESS. Repeat: BUSINESS. Money over music, yes sir, that's what rock and roll is all about." The press release went on to explain how exactly their corporate strategy would lead to the eventual domination of the world, in preparation for the aliens.
Legendary songwriter and former Beatles front-man John Lennon came down from heaven to personally vent his frustration. "Y'know, there was a time when music was meant to spread a message of love and skepticism of prevailing views. Now, with these so-called rock bands like Metallica tossing lawsuits around I rue the future of our musical heritage. Oh, and I miss you Yoko! Hurry up and die!"
Some random pundit exclaimed in reaction to the situation: "This is just another example of the breakdown of the moral fiber of America. What about the children?" When asked to elaborate he burst into flames.
(C) 2000 The Associated Press
- Rev
The so-called "education" system of the US is a State-run propaganda organ mated to a state-subsidized day-care program. It has nothing to do with "thinking for yourself". Schools exist to promulgate conformity as practice and as virtue.
Wrong. Society itself - of which the education system is but a part - is responsible for conformity. Humans are social creatures, and the pressures to conform to the social norms around us are heavy and come from many different sources. Television, radio, movies, school, family, clubs, music, books, advertisements, Slashdot... All of these are forces which shape our minds in certain ways. Homogeneity occurs because of our inherent desire to be a part of the pack, following the alpha-males and preening ourselves to appear to be attractive and viable reproductive mates.
It's cold, it's harsh, but it's true.
- Rev.
So we get a situation where the reader has been fully warned that the post may be full of crap, yet still we read it? And the output of unsolicited legal advice on slashdot is not only used and condoned, but promoted through moderation?
Because this is a discussion forum. People discuss ideas, debate them, rant about them, and moderate them according to how they see fit. Just because someone has passed a bar exam does not make their opinions more holy. It only means they can charge for legal advice. But being educated citizens, I firmly believe it is our civic duty to dicuss ideas such as these until we are blue in the face. We are educating ourselves as participants in a democracy.
Further, law is frequently interpretative. If a lawyer says one thing, and your random IANALer says something different, the IANALer can still be correct. Case in point: the DMCA. IANAL, but in my opinion this act is a piece of shit. Am I wrong because I do not have a law degree? Absolutely not.
In short, if you believe that political matters should be debated only by "experts", you are sadly, sadly misinformed. Political and legal matters frequently overlap, and everyone should get their feet wet in this arena.
- Rev.
As has been documented elsewhere, such profiling is dubious at best and harmful at worst. Further, the dubious usefulness of anonymous tips have even been questioned by our current schizophrenic Supreme Court. Anonymous tipping in the hands of angry and powerless high-school students is simply ripe with abusive potential. No program of this kind will be able to successfully prevent school shootings, no matter how good it might make us feel to know it is in place.
- Rev.
Maybe we'll take you seriously when you give up criminal acts, kid.
Who's "we", sweetheart? Trolling for the industry, are we? And please note that nowhere did I say I use Napster, nor encourage its use. I simply noted that it is EASY to use.
Yes, I did get suckered by this troll.
-Rev.
Amen to that, brother. [Note: The following is NOT an insult.] You sound like Katz. The only difference is that it took you three or four sentences to say what it would have taken him 30 or 40 paragraphs.
But as for your argument: Yes, I believe that this is the case. This is a turf war, and the gangs that currently control the distrubtion turf are fighting tooth and nail to maintain supremacy. Will they eventually succeed? Partially, but never fully. It's just too easy to get a ripper and log on to Napster. And as the availability of high bandwidth connections gets more prevalent, we'll start seeing movies, too.
- Rev.
I have one question: if everyone had attitudes like that, would anybody have bothered to create what you now so gleefully steal in the first place? I thought not. Or even Mattel - you so zealously defend those who steal their list of blocked websites - Mattel's OWN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY - and give anyone else the means to steal this same list and create their own software which simply leeches off Mattel's list maintenance staff and budget!
How fair is this?
Very fair. I have a right to do with code what I will on a machine that I have bought, with software I have bought. While the IP lawyers might consider their position to be morally correct, this does not necessarily make it so. If I wish to see what, exactly, software is doing on my system, through my Internet connection, then I have that right, whether the software be Installshield, Cyber-Patrol, Win2K Active Directory, or whatever. It is in my best interest to be able to determine, should I feel the need, what exactly software is doing. This is true from a security standpoint and from a personal property standpoint. As such, while Mattel et al might not like the fact that people will decode their black list, the fact is that it will AND SHOULD happen in the spirit of full-disclosure.
I know this is cliched, but information wants to be free. This is just another example of it. The older I get the more I think that that old hacker axiom is true. And IP lawyers can go screw themselves.
- Rev.
My point is that while corporations can push for (and see passed) laws that are more and more restrictive, enforcement will be impossible without a totalitarian police state. This is something that could happen, but is in the long run unlikely. I hope. As much as the Judge in the Mattel case might like to think himself powerful, the fact is that he simply cannot control Usenet, PGP-encrypted attachments, #warez groups, and the myriad of other distribution channels available on the Net. For every "criminal" that they try to make an example of, there will be 100 script kiddies, et al., who will pop up and distribute these forbidden warez.
Oh, and my plant sprouted it's first leaf today! Hurrah!
-Rev.
This judgment comes in response to a bill passed by Congress a couple of years ago allowing for victims of terrorism to sue the sponsoring government. Congress was well aware that few governments would actually pay damages, so the imagined method of collection was to seize assets that are on US-controlled soil. The only problem with this is that it tends to ignore the larger picture: right now, our relations with Iran are beginning to get better. But were Jackson to send federal marshals in to seize Iranian-controlled assets, our long term relationship with that nation would be severely damaged. This might be the correct thing to do from a justice standpoint, but would be shortsighted as far as long-term diplomacy is concerned.
- Rev.
What would God's genetic code look like? Let's dig up His Son and find out! It would also answer the question of whether Mary really did immaculately conceive, or whether it was Joseph all along. And if it WERE divine conception, we would finally have a chance to look at the Son of God's DNA. Would it glow? Adenine, thymine, cytosine, uracil, and THE-NUCLEOTIDE-WHOSE-NAME-CANNOT-BE-SPOKEN. This would definately be a chance for medical science to move forward. We might be able to heal lepers with a glance, raise the dead, love our neighbors unconditionally, etc. This would be a perfect follow-up to Dyson's Templeton Award, as well.
- Rev.Wait, let me get this straight: You're complaining because commericial TV as we know it might kick the bucket? Why would this be a BAD thing? The day that happens I'm renting Bourbon Street for me and a million of my closest friends. The best programs that get broadcast come from member supported stations anyway. (PBS if I have to spell it out.) So "Friends" might go away! Hurrah! "Popular" would become not so popular? Yippie! "7th Heaven" sent to hell? THERE IS A GOD!
Hey, maybe, JUST MAYBE people will start reading BOOKS again. Wow. Y'know. Immersing yourself in something that betters yourself as a human being, that is intellectually stimulating. But I'm just a dreamer.
Sorry. I really, really hate TV. I hate TV like Hitler hated the Jews. Except for "Frontline." And "South Park." Ok, and "Buffy" every once in a while. BUT THAT'S IT. And "The Simpsons."
Ah, ferget it.
- Rev.IMHO, I would rather have my son looking at porno than to give up the decision on what is or is not appropriate material to corporate America. Porno is people having sex in whatever myriad fashion it might take. Mattel, et. al., are deciding for their customers what is right and wrong, and that ability to be a surrogate decision maker is much, much worse than kindergartners watching German scheize films. If people really think that they can trust corporations to make their moral decisions for them (or their children) then they are sadly, sadly ignorant.
Don't the users of these softwares realize that they are entrusting decisions on morality to organizations whose main motivation is profit, not Truth or their children's well being?
I guess this explains Dr. Laura's popularity, at least.
-Rev.
Generally speaking, those who wish to raise alarms about the risks of advanced technology do not want to see an all-out hiatus. Rather they would like to see mechanisms put in place that would prevent mishaps. The ban on human cloning is an example. So are most environmental regulations stemming from global warming conerns, such as the ban on CFC's.
I haven't read the Wired article yet, of course. But to say that it is impossible that homo sapiens will be extinct in 50 years is silly. We *are* making some amazing advancements. It is pretty much a given that 50 years from now computers will be so much more powerful than the most complex server-farm we have today that genuine Turing-tested intelligence will be possible. That is not so far fetched. Nor is it so far fetched that bad things will happen because of this.
And I would remind everyone that SETI@Home has yet to find anything. While the explanations for this lack of contact are legion, one of these explanations is that most intelligent societies wind up destroying themselves somehow. This was even advanced by Sagan. It is a pessimistic theory, but this pessimism is not cause for invalidation.
- Rev.
"This administration"? When was the last time you saw an administration--local, state, or federal--that passed up an opportunity to be "tough on crime"? The elected officials responded to the population on this one, buddy. Tough on crime gets votes, whether it's hacking/phreaking/carding or smoking that evil wacky-weed or holding up a liquor store. This administration has, like those before it (and probably after it) only done what the public wants: lock 'em up and throw away the fucking key.
If you want to see this kind of thing stopped, we have GOT to start explaining to people why this whole "tough on crime" thing has gone way overboard. The voters have responsibility in this to a GREATER degree than do the elected officials, whether they are Democrat or Republican. The electorate gets scared, they begin writing their representatives to "do something", and we draconian laws passed. The legislators are responsible for passing the laws, but more often than not it is in response to their constituents wishes.
- Rev.
I can't help but notice that Napster, being the epitome of software that violates the DMCA, is nevertheless flourishing. The powers that be in Congress and the recording industry have decided that their intellectual property must be protected with the full power of the law. Instead, things seem to be backfiring for them and the law is weakened in the process (something which I do not thing is a good thing.) By passing legislation that attempts to prohibit certain means of distribution the industry is engaged in a kind of Operation Foot-Bullet, bringing publicity to the fact that their goods are easily copied and even what software to use. In the process, the law that they spent so much to get passed is being proven to be largely ineffectual. This leads to decreased confidence in the ability of the nation-state to protect corporate profits, something which may or may not be a good thing in the long run. But either way, the distributed and open nature of the Net has put another small chink in the armor of the nation-state. We'll see how many chinks it takes to bring the whole fucking thing to its knees.
- Rev.Fear. Governments by and large get their powers by exploiting the fears of the masses. Crypto is a perfect example: "Why, if strong crypto gets out, then those TERRRRISTS and COMMIES and CHILD PO-NOGRAFAS and DROOG DEALERS will be able to getcha, sho nuff!" By its very nature, law enforcement seeks ever greater powers. Similarly, whenever situations arise that threaten its power, it fights back vigorously.
More seriously, nation-states believe that the more intelligence information they have the better prepared they will be in the event of some military or terrorist threat. By being able to tap into any given communication channel, their abilities to prevent violent actions against the citizenry is arguably increased. Ergo we have law enforcement pushing legislatures (or parliaments) to restrict technologies that would interfere with their abilities to protect the population from external (or internal) threats.
That's the LEA line, anyway. But since they are so secretive they haven't made a very good case to support their cause. No evidence has been presented showing that crypto has come into play in a single solitary case, nor that even if it did that convential detective methods would fail thereby.
Plus, if you're LAPD you just shoot the fucker anyway, crypto or no.
Honestly I wouldn't be too surprised if Japan was pressured by someone here state-side re: the PSX2. Freeh, et al are absolutely terrified that they won't be able to listen in on our conversations, and they have the pull to be able to coerce foreign powers to make "minor adjustments" for the overall "security situation."
- rev
If the X-Files, or some other quote-unquote drama were to do a realistic VR story using today's technology, they would have to use Everquest or Ultima Online or something similar. That would be pretty boring.
[Cut to fat, late-twenty something girl slouched in a comfy chair, mouse in hand. The monitor shows her fishing.]
~click~...~click~...~click...
[No fish shows up. Repeat for 10 minutes.]
You could see how viewership would drop off. Let's beef it up.
[Cut to sexy leather clad Lara Croft-ish imp. Replace mouse with double-barreled shotgun. Replace monitor with cables hooked directly into her breasts, allowing her total control over her complex looking Beowulf cluster.]
It just seems to me that the whole sex angle gives this overused genre a little bit more oomph. But that's just my opinion. And fer Christ's sake DITCH THE EXISTENTIALISM. It's been done to DEATH. Gimme Baywatch-meets-the-Matrix and I'll be happy, k?
-REv