Our calander counts from one. If you doubt it name one event that occured in year 0 - other than the 365 day long party celebrating the transition from BCE to CE.
The west bit was hyperbole, thus the caps but there is one problem with the universal militia arguement. If you read further you will find that the States mandated that all militia members turn out for a certain number of drill days each year. Clearly that makes the militia not only well regulated as in practiced, but also well regulated as in bound by law. And no, I think the amendment says that the militia has the right to arms, it being a requirment of the job.
If everyone is armed, then so is the criminal. Most crimes are either spur of the moment acts of passion, or the actions of an individual who has decided that his needs are more important than the good of others.
If the crime is an act of passion the proximity of a firearm increases the chance of multiply deadly violence. How many times do you read about a divorcing father, just unemployed worker or man who lost it all day-trading stabbing himself, his familly and the neighbors to death? I am not claiming that these people would not commit murder without firearms, simply that the scope of their actions would be reduced.
The real issue is the consentual criminal who sets out to find a victim. This person, in our universally armed society, still does not have a job but still does need the money for whiskey. Is he going to try and strong arm some weak looking guy or just put a few bullets into someone in good old Western style? Yes, you can now execute him after capture, but frankly so what? Rather than a shaken, but living, person who has lost some cash and a guy who will spend time in jail who have two corpses.
Speaking as someone who is in favour of reading the Bill of Rights as it was written and intended, i.e. weapons are fine, if controlled by the state, not Fed, and used for the furtherance of the common good, I have to say that I think that I have much less sugar-coated view of humanity than peole who believe that once the novelty has worn off the average, untrained citizen will never abuse the weapon he's toting around when cut-off in traffic or abused by the boss. In a fully armed society we would live in a constant state of fear. No the imagined manners of the '50's would not return, rather we would all become prison guards. You could never be certain if that person over there giving you the eye is just out of sorts or thinking of making a move on your life. You may like that constant adrenal high, but no thanks.
Big companies break laws that are transparent. Ciba-Gigy dumped toxins into the ocean because they didn't think anyone would watch. These companies are out in the open and would have to pay for violating any ratings law. Worse, they would have a slavering pack-herd of multinational politicians fighting to be the first to bring the foul defilers of young children to justice; so long as the TV execs promised to shoot from the pol's good side. I have a hard time imagining any ISP leading this fight.
It is logical, if slightly extended. The 'smut hall' is by definition a stigmatized environment. By forcing any depiction of material that you, the censor, find unpleasant into a venue that is know to draw only the 'deviant and twisted' you have silenced that film-maker. Ideas are hard to keep down, but they can be easy to discredit. Remember that most people are herd animals. If some site, or book or CD, has an Official Government Label that says 'this is a bad/dangerous/unpleasant item' most people, unless between the ages of 12 and 21, will ignore the product and many will 'suggest' that the local merchant really dosen't want to carry that sort of filth. That is the heart of the argument - do we as a free people want some agency of the government to tell us what ideas are good for us and what is just too dangerous for our virgin eyes?
There was a court decision some time back that awarded intellectual property rights to the CCG concept to Garfield and by extension WotC. How long do think it will be before Hasbro starts demanding huge royalties from any and all companies that produce anything even remotely resembling a CCG?
Sorry, but I do not see how a military aircraft, even unarmed, can be seen as a prize by a reasonable person. Perhaphs I'm just a cynical Baffler reader, but isn't it an article of faith that adverts lie? Do you really believe, even for an instant, that lizards spend nights in the swamp talking about beer or that drinking soda will turn you into an extreme sports fanatic? There are so many serious advertising problems out there, like the whole of the Pharmaceuticals Industry campaign, and we spend time on whether its reasonable to expect a jet as a reward for drinking soda. I don't know if our willing blindness to serious problems, our insistance that we be protected from ourselves or our inability to grasp humor bothers me more.
First, thanks for basically not responding to his flames in kind.
Second, the question is can, under your vision of truth in advertising, any claim that is clearly in jest to any reasonable person be offered without 3000 lines of legal disclaimer? Look at those SUV adds with tea or something being served as the truck bounces down a back-country road. They have a quick disclaimer to void the inevitable lawsuit that this sort of literalist thinking would spawn, but I'm sure there is more than one lawyer hoping to meet the yutz who can't read that fast and wants to sue because he burned his little yutz when the tea spilled in his lap. We are adults and have to take responsibility for our actions, demanding that the Government be a national nanny is collective suicide.
Now, clearly Pepsi didn't mean to be offering a jet. But just as clearly, they meant people to think they were. That's the whole joke. But I think we've all met people who don't understand humor, especially subtle humor. Therefore I think that reasonable (if a little...slow) people could believe that Pepsi is offering a jet as a prize.
This is not to say that I think the plaintiff in this case is one of those people. But that's beside the point: he's trying to cash in on the stupidity of the rest of Pepsi's target audience and, as far as I'm concerned, more power to him.
So what you're saying is that we should judge things on lowest common denom? I guess that means we trash Shakespeare, Impressionist art and any OS that the idiot down the hall can't grasp in one easy lesson. You've likely read it, but pick up Kurt Vonnegut's "Harrison Bergeron". That is the direction an argument like your's leads.
Applying your standard, any add that uses humor is misleading and should be banned. What, if I let my dog eat tacos he's going to turn into a hideous, but bi-lingual, abomination? Clearly misleading! We have to enact a law to protect people from this sort of "advertising". While we're at it, why not make beepers available to the general population to remind them to breathe every second or two?
Some labels are needed, like "This is poison, don't drink", but it gets stupid. Some power mowers say something to the effect of "Don't pick this up, while it is running, and try to cut your shrubs". We have to start taking some responsibility for ourselves, or the nanny-state will continue to grow.
This is a good issue for divided loyalties. I am basically an internationalist and would like to see a truely democratic version of the UN. But culture is a powerful force and we ignore it at great peril. I cannot think of one revolution that was staged by a multinational group with the express purpose of creating a blended state. Both the US and Russian revolutions were in essence cooperative revolts by states that saw themselves as independent players. It took a Civil War in the US and brutal repression in the USSR to create the nation-states of the '70s. And, of course, the USSR disintegrated at the first opportunity - along cultural divides. So, do we keep pretending that we can all cooperate and create a single, happy entity or do we admit reality and allow the peaceful disintegration of countries into smaller, but still democratic, states?
But to the average American, Ireland, Wales and Scotland are all the same.
Yea, especially to those millions of average Americans who trace their ancestry to one of those countries. And yes, I mean countries. Invasion and conquest does not automatically revoke your national identity; just ask certain Native Americans.
Actually, that is my point. Most people don't want a Ferrari. They are, if you ask them, afraid to use that much car. All they want is to get from here to there - nice, safe and, from the hotrod perspective, boring. While the 'driving enthusiast' is not going to be happy about dumbing down the car it will happen if the car is offered to the general public at an easy price. I like CLI and prefer to configure my system to my standards, but I do not know one non-CS worker in the office who is more daring than changing the desktop theme. Hopefully, the two realms will co-exist, but I doubt even the best intentions when ca$h is involved.
A lot of the problem here is expectations. I drive a car, but really don't have much clue about what's happening under the hood. Yea, I have a rough idea how the catalytic converter works, but there is no way the car would function for long if it had to depend on me for intensive maintenance. Or if I had to do more on starting it up than turn the key. Most computer users are in that sort of relationship with the machine on the desk. They don't program, aren't sysads and have no intention of becoming either in this lifetime. If Linux is going to become the desktop standard it will have to speak to them, not us. We can debate the benefit of that step but it will have to happen. If Redhat, etc do 'sell to the masses' they are going to have to create a hands-free distro. Think about it, do the average users in your office complain that they are being restricted by Win9x, or do you only hear from them when it crashes or requires them to actually make a choice?
They are just afraid of the guy taking legal action that might get them some bad press.
This doesn't invalidate your arguement in any way, in fact I think it strengthens it, but the school knew that they were in for a run of bad press when they pulled the site, and did it anyway. Why? To avoid a possible liability action. It all comes down to money, and if you can afford to stay in court for years you can uses potential damages, including court costs, as a weapon. Here the school decided that the rights of one individual did not measure up to the potential losses to the school treasury. So much for defending free speech and academic integrity.
Three good responses, but there is still a disconnect to my way of thinking. I work with the millitary every day and I have found them to be decent men and women who I believe would honor the oath to defend the Constitution above the orders of any commander, including the CiC. So why do we need the hardware, to fend off the FBI? That sounds flippant, and yes I know that the FBI can get out of control, but I can't see another way to phrase the point. If we are to stock arms and train against potential tyrany, which I do believe could happen here, but we are also to assume that the military, or much of it, would be on our side, who is the enemy?
The fall of democracy in this country, if it happens, will be with a wimper. The majority will decide that elections and decisions are just too hard and why can't someone simply see that things get done. Voter turnout rates point in this direction. Yes, most people don't vote because they are happy with the status quo, not because they are totally apathetic, but how great a step is the last? We are raising people who have no sense of civic responsibility and think even the most basic demands of free government are an imposition. Asimov wrote a story about this, the title of which escapes me. In his future computer monitored opinion polls decided the elections with the imput of one person to represent the variables not accounted for in the other methods. That is the sort of place I see us heading toward, and armed resistance will only speed up the fall. Look how ready people were to enact draconian laws after Oklahoma City and the World Trade Center bombings. If it keeps us safe who cares about the lose of liberty?
We have the very unglorious task of not manning the trenches. Somehow people have to be convinced to become vigorous participants in our government, to stop with the ballot and reasoned action the excesses that are carried out in the name of the body politic. The very idea that armed action may be needed will only frighten the masses further into the easy sloth of a Madison Avenue dictatorship. The only way we can win this fight is by preventing the fall, not reacting to the tyrant.
This is going to get me labeled as an anti-gun liberal, again, but the question is serious. How are an untrained band of people armed with knock-off Kalishnakov's going to stop a battalion of M1 tanks? Say what you want about Vietnam, but those poor unarmed rebels, and their allies, had access to some serious hardware, like mortars, artillery, MiG's, etc. Aren't we better served by trying to change the system, in a loud and if need be obnoxious manner, than depending on ol' Bessy to take down an AH-64?
While I agree that cracker has a nasty race history and that hacker has a popular history try my situation: I work, as a civilian contractor, on a military base. One day, right around the time Melissa was scaring my bosses to death, I called myself a hacker in a casual conversation. The people behind me went quiet and when I looked back it was...two Captains. That is when you develop a sudden interest in explaining the real meaning of the word hacker.
The problem isn't so much the big, bad government as the government-industrial behemoth. Look at the data Echelon is really concerned with - it's usually economic. Companies are using the net, your bank information, etc to target you for specific purchases. Not a problem, you like recieving unsolicited ads for products that you may use? Ok, how about an HMO database that redlines on your genetic history, your food purchases and the frequency of your visits to the health club?
The loss of freedom does not require dark-cloaked men who sneak through the shrubs and say "How can we eliminate the dreaded First Amendment." There is no great X-Files conspiricy out there eroding our rights, we do too good a job of that ourselves for it to be needed. How many people do you know who even think once before providing information to just about anyone who asks? So long as the request is not for bank account numbers or credit card info, we hand it over. This info is valuable to companies that want to target, and so passivly control, your habits. Not that any of this is a threat to the cynical, old hackers that read/., but how many 10 year olds do you know who have to get the latest thing advertised on TV within 20 seconds of seeing the commerical? How many of them grow up to continue to need the ego-balms that companies spend billions of dollars to advertise, even after they have reached what we pass off as maturity? The more detailed the record the corporate structure gains, the deeper, and earlier, they can sink in the claws.
The real threat to freedom, as most people define the word, is that this 'meerly' economic attack is being employed in politics. Do you honestly believe that the James Carville created Bubba campaigns of '92 and '96 were the anomoly? In 10 years they will seem remarkably crude, and the advance will be largly because of this sort of data collection and filtering. The real problem is how to craft laws that stop this sort of thing.
Last issue: the author of this article is yet another person who needs a few calm e-mails explaining the difference between hacker and cracker.
There is the worry that another publisher will take the released content and undersell without supporting the author...Some will go with the cheaper edition, but who's to say that's bad.
If history is any guide, the vast majority of people will go with the cheaper edition. In the 19th Century most books were sold through 'unofficial' resellers. This is one of the reasons that authors serialized works: the magazines would pay the author and people would buy the magazine as soon as it appeared, rather than wait the extra weeks it would take for a cheaper source to knock-off a copy. In our situation, there will not be any real lag, certainly not in formatting a book to Rocket or other e-reader standards.
Ask anyone who has offered pamphlets for a voluntary donation how many people actually pay before grabbing. In this case it usually doesn't matter - you want people to read the work, not support your existance. The individual who is going to spent hundreds, or thousands, of hours crafting a novel is in a diferent situation. This person actually needs the support of an actual check on delivery of the work and I do not believe that will be provided by this system.
What this system will encourage is the production of 'cliffhanger' novels where each chapter ends with our hero being pressed to the giant sawblade. The old serials were written this way to produce a cheap emotional investment on the part of the reader, with the protagonist in actual danger it is easy to become re-involved with the story. Deeper, more realistically emotional works will not survive the process. Imagine The Razor's Edge, The Sun also Rises or Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? chopped into individual peices and fed to you at intervals. The novel looses most of its impact and most people probably loose interest, leaving the work unfunded and so unfinished. We have to accept that methods of selling software, which is basically an industrial product (and, yes, I am a programmer), is not the same as the method we need to use for the sale of creative works that have no actual value; other than the emotional impact they have on users. If we continue on a 'one size fits all' strategy we will never find a valid solution.
Slashdot Mirror
Our calander counts from one. If you doubt it name one event that occured in year 0 - other than the 365 day long party celebrating the transition from BCE to CE.
The west bit was hyperbole, thus the caps but there is one problem with the universal militia arguement. If you read further you will find that the States mandated that all militia members turn out for a certain number of drill days each year. Clearly that makes the militia not only well regulated as in practiced, but also well regulated as in bound by law. And no, I think the amendment says that the militia has the right to arms, it being a requirment of the job.
If everyone is armed, then so is the criminal. Most crimes are either spur of the moment acts of passion, or the actions of an individual who has decided that his needs are more important than the good of others.
If the crime is an act of passion the proximity of a firearm increases the chance of multiply deadly violence. How many times do you read about a divorcing father, just unemployed worker or man who lost it all day-trading stabbing himself, his familly and the neighbors to death? I am not claiming that these people would not commit murder without firearms, simply that the scope of their actions would be reduced.
The real issue is the consentual criminal who sets out to find a victim. This person, in our universally armed society, still does not have a job but still does need the money for whiskey. Is he going to try and strong arm some weak looking guy or just put a few bullets into someone in good old Western style? Yes, you can now execute him after capture, but frankly so what? Rather than a shaken, but living, person who has lost some cash and a guy who will spend time in jail who have two corpses.
Speaking as someone who is in favour of reading the Bill of Rights as it was written and intended, i.e. weapons are fine, if controlled by the state, not Fed, and used for the furtherance of the common good, I have to say that I think that I have much less sugar-coated view of humanity than peole who believe that once the novelty has worn off the average, untrained citizen will never abuse the weapon he's toting around when cut-off in traffic or abused by the boss. In a fully armed society we would live in a constant state of fear. No the imagined manners of the '50's would not return, rather we would all become prison guards. You could never be certain if that person over there giving you the eye is just out of sorts or thinking of making a move on your life. You may like that constant adrenal high, but no thanks.
Big companies break laws that are transparent. Ciba-Gigy dumped toxins into the ocean because they didn't think anyone would watch. These companies are out in the open and would have to pay for violating any ratings law. Worse, they would have a slavering pack-herd of multinational politicians fighting to be the first to bring the foul defilers of young children to justice; so long as the TV execs promised to shoot from the pol's good side. I have a hard time imagining any ISP leading this fight.
It is logical, if slightly extended. The 'smut hall' is by definition a stigmatized environment. By forcing any depiction of material that you, the censor, find unpleasant into a venue that is know to draw only the 'deviant and twisted' you have silenced that film-maker. Ideas are hard to keep down, but they can be easy to discredit. Remember that most people are herd animals. If some site, or book or CD, has an Official Government Label that says 'this is a bad/dangerous/unpleasant item' most people, unless between the ages of 12 and 21, will ignore the product and many will 'suggest' that the local merchant really dosen't want to carry that sort of filth. That is the heart of the argument - do we as a free people want some agency of the government to tell us what ideas are good for us and what is just too dangerous for our virgin eyes?
There was a court decision some time back that awarded intellectual property rights to the CCG concept to Garfield and by extension WotC. How long do think it will be before Hasbro starts demanding huge royalties from any and all companies that produce anything even remotely resembling a CCG?
Death is inevitable, too, but that doesn't mean you're not allowed to take medicine and try to live longer.
The exact opposite of the Priest's argument in Camus' The Plague
Sorry, but I do not see how a military aircraft, even unarmed, can be seen as a prize by a reasonable person. Perhaphs I'm just a cynical Baffler reader, but isn't it an article of faith that adverts lie? Do you really believe, even for an instant, that lizards spend nights in the swamp talking about beer or that drinking soda will turn you into an extreme sports fanatic? There are so many serious advertising problems out there, like the whole of the Pharmaceuticals Industry campaign, and we spend time on whether its reasonable to expect a jet as a reward for drinking soda. I don't know if our willing blindness to serious problems, our insistance that we be protected from ourselves or our inability to grasp humor bothers me more.
First, thanks for basically not responding to his flames in kind.
Second, the question is can, under your vision of truth in advertising, any claim that is clearly in jest to any reasonable person be offered without 3000 lines of legal disclaimer? Look at those SUV adds with tea or something being served as the truck bounces down a back-country road. They have a quick disclaimer to void the inevitable lawsuit that this sort of literalist thinking would spawn, but I'm sure there is more than one lawyer hoping to meet the yutz who can't read that fast and wants to sue because he burned his little yutz when the tea spilled in his lap. We are adults and have to take responsibility for our actions, demanding that the Government be a national nanny is collective suicide.
Now, clearly Pepsi didn't mean to be offering a jet. But just as clearly, they meant people to think they were. That's the whole joke. But I think we've all met people who don't understand humor, especially subtle humor. Therefore I think that reasonable (if a little...slow) people could believe that Pepsi is offering a jet as a prize.
This is not to say that I think the plaintiff in this case is one of those people. But that's beside the point: he's trying to cash in on the stupidity of the rest of Pepsi's target audience and, as far as I'm concerned, more power to him.
So what you're saying is that we should judge things on lowest common denom? I guess that means we trash Shakespeare, Impressionist art and any OS that the idiot down the hall can't grasp in one easy lesson. You've likely read it, but pick up Kurt Vonnegut's "Harrison Bergeron". That is the direction an argument like your's leads.
Why doesn't anyone have a sense of humor or irony anymore?
I'd hold out for the Ferrari Shumacher's not using.
Applying your standard, any add that uses humor is misleading and should be banned. What, if I let my dog eat tacos he's going to turn into a hideous, but bi-lingual, abomination? Clearly misleading! We have to enact a law to protect people from this sort of "advertising". While we're at it, why not make beepers available to the general population to remind them to breathe every second or two?
Some labels are needed, like "This is poison, don't drink", but it gets stupid. Some power mowers say something to the effect of "Don't pick this up, while it is running, and try to cut your shrubs". We have to start taking some responsibility for ourselves, or the nanny-state will continue to grow.
This is a good issue for divided loyalties. I am basically an internationalist and would like to see a truely democratic version of the UN. But culture is a powerful force and we ignore it at great peril. I cannot think of one revolution that was staged by a multinational group with the express purpose of creating a blended state. Both the US and Russian revolutions were in essence cooperative revolts by states that saw themselves as independent players. It took a Civil War in the US and brutal repression in the USSR to create the nation-states of the '70s. And, of course, the USSR disintegrated at the first opportunity - along cultural divides. So, do we keep pretending that we can all cooperate and create a single, happy entity or do we admit reality and allow the peaceful disintegration of countries into smaller, but still democratic, states?
Do you mean the Southern (as in US) version of Will Scarlet in Robin Hood, Men in Tights?
But to the average American, Ireland, Wales and Scotland are all the same.
Yea, especially to those millions of average Americans who trace their ancestry to one of those countries. And yes, I mean countries. Invasion and conquest does not automatically revoke your national identity; just ask certain Native Americans.
Actually, that is my point. Most people don't want a Ferrari. They are, if you ask them, afraid to use that much car. All they want is to get from here to there - nice, safe and, from the hotrod perspective, boring. While the 'driving enthusiast' is not going to be happy about dumbing down the car it will happen if the car is offered to the general public at an easy price. I like CLI and prefer to configure my system to my standards, but I do not know one non-CS worker in the office who is more daring than changing the desktop theme. Hopefully, the two realms will co-exist, but I doubt even the best intentions when ca$h is involved.
A lot of the problem here is expectations. I drive a car, but really don't have much clue about what's happening under the hood. Yea, I have a rough idea how the catalytic converter works, but there is no way the car would function for long if it had to depend on me for intensive maintenance. Or if I had to do more on starting it up than turn the key. Most computer users are in that sort of relationship with the machine on the desk. They don't program, aren't sysads and have no intention of becoming either in this lifetime. If Linux is going to become the desktop standard it will have to speak to them, not us. We can debate the benefit of that step but it will have to happen. If Redhat, etc do 'sell to the masses' they are going to have to create a hands-free distro. Think about it, do the average users in your office complain that they are being restricted by Win9x, or do you only hear from them when it crashes or requires them to actually make a choice?
They are just afraid of the guy taking legal action that might get them some bad press.
This doesn't invalidate your arguement in any way, in fact I think it strengthens it, but the school knew that they were in for a run of bad press when they pulled the site, and did it anyway. Why? To avoid a possible liability action. It all comes down to money, and if you can afford to stay in court for years you can uses potential damages, including court costs, as a weapon. Here the school decided that the rights of one individual did not measure up to the potential losses to the school treasury. So much for defending free speech and academic integrity.
Three good responses, but there is still a disconnect to my way of thinking. I work with the millitary every day and I have found them to be decent men and women who I believe would honor the oath to defend the Constitution above the orders of any commander, including the CiC. So why do we need the hardware, to fend off the FBI? That sounds flippant, and yes I know that the FBI can get out of control, but I can't see another way to phrase the point. If we are to stock arms and train against potential tyrany, which I do believe could happen here, but we are also to assume that the military, or much of it, would be on our side, who is the enemy?
The fall of democracy in this country, if it happens, will be with a wimper. The majority will decide that elections and decisions are just too hard and why can't someone simply see that things get done. Voter turnout rates point in this direction. Yes, most people don't vote because they are happy with the status quo, not because they are totally apathetic, but how great a step is the last? We are raising people who have no sense of civic responsibility and think even the most basic demands of free government are an imposition. Asimov wrote a story about this, the title of which escapes me. In his future computer monitored opinion polls decided the elections with the imput of one person to represent the variables not accounted for in the other methods. That is the sort of place I see us heading toward, and armed resistance will only speed up the fall. Look how ready people were to enact draconian laws after Oklahoma City and the World Trade Center bombings. If it keeps us safe who cares about the lose of liberty?
We have the very unglorious task of not manning the trenches. Somehow people have to be convinced to become vigorous participants in our government, to stop with the ballot and reasoned action the excesses that are carried out in the name of the body politic. The very idea that armed action may be needed will only frighten the masses further into the easy sloth of a Madison Avenue dictatorship. The only way we can win this fight is by preventing the fall, not reacting to the tyrant.
This is going to get me labeled as an anti-gun liberal, again, but the question is serious. How are an untrained band of people armed with knock-off Kalishnakov's going to stop a battalion of M1 tanks? Say what you want about Vietnam, but those poor unarmed rebels, and their allies, had access to some serious hardware, like mortars, artillery, MiG's, etc. Aren't we better served by trying to change the system, in a loud and if need be obnoxious manner, than depending on ol' Bessy to take down an AH-64?
While I agree that cracker has a nasty race history and that hacker has a popular history try my situation: I work, as a civilian contractor, on a military base. One day, right around the time Melissa was scaring my bosses to death, I called myself a hacker in a casual conversation. The people behind me went quiet and when I looked back it was...two Captains. That is when you develop a sudden interest in explaining the real meaning of the word hacker.
The problem isn't so much the big, bad government as the government-industrial behemoth. Look at the data Echelon is really concerned with - it's usually economic. Companies are using the net, your bank information, etc to target you for specific purchases. Not a problem, you like recieving unsolicited ads for products that you may use? Ok, how about an HMO database that redlines on your genetic history, your food purchases and the frequency of your visits to the health club?
/., but how many 10 year olds do you know who have to get the latest thing advertised on TV within 20 seconds of seeing the commerical? How many of them grow up to continue to need the ego-balms that companies spend billions of dollars to advertise, even after they have reached what we pass off as maturity? The more detailed the record the corporate structure gains, the deeper, and earlier, they can sink in the claws.
The loss of freedom does not require dark-cloaked men who sneak through the shrubs and say "How can we eliminate the dreaded First Amendment." There is no great X-Files conspiricy out there eroding our rights, we do too good a job of that ourselves for it to be needed. How many people do you know who even think once before providing information to just about anyone who asks? So long as the request is not for bank account numbers or credit card info, we hand it over. This info is valuable to companies that want to target, and so passivly control, your habits. Not that any of this is a threat to the cynical, old hackers that read
The real threat to freedom, as most people define the word, is that this 'meerly' economic attack is being employed in politics. Do you honestly believe that the James Carville created Bubba campaigns of '92 and '96 were the anomoly? In 10 years they will seem remarkably crude, and the advance will be largly because of this sort of data collection and filtering. The real problem is how to craft laws that stop this sort of thing.
Last issue: the author of this article is yet another person who needs a few calm e-mails explaining the difference between hacker and cracker.
There is the worry that another publisher will take the released content and undersell without supporting the author...Some will go with the cheaper edition, but who's to say that's bad.
If history is any guide, the vast majority of people will go with the cheaper edition. In the 19th Century most books were sold through 'unofficial' resellers. This is one of the reasons that authors serialized works: the magazines would pay the author and people would buy the magazine as soon as it appeared, rather than wait the extra weeks it would take for a cheaper source to knock-off a copy. In our situation, there will not be any real lag, certainly not in formatting a book to Rocket or other e-reader standards.
Ask anyone who has offered pamphlets for a voluntary donation how many people actually pay before grabbing. In this case it usually doesn't matter - you want people to read the work, not support your existance. The individual who is going to spent hundreds, or thousands, of hours crafting a novel is in a diferent situation. This person actually needs the support of an actual check on delivery of the work and I do not believe that will be provided by this system.
What this system will encourage is the production of 'cliffhanger' novels where each chapter ends with our hero being pressed to the giant sawblade. The old serials were written this way to produce a cheap emotional investment on the part of the reader, with the protagonist in actual danger it is easy to become re-involved with the story. Deeper, more realistically emotional works will not survive the process. Imagine The Razor's Edge, The Sun also Rises or Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? chopped into individual peices and fed to you at intervals. The novel looses most of its impact and most people probably loose interest, leaving the work unfunded and so unfinished. We have to accept that methods of selling software, which is basically an industrial product (and, yes, I am a programmer), is not the same as the method we need to use for the sale of creative works that have no actual value; other than the emotional impact they have on users. If we continue on a 'one size fits all' strategy we will never find a valid solution.