I hate to say it, but I don't know the "nuff said" part... please let me know the unfriendly tactics.
The truth is, when a business becomes as big as microsoft, it cannot afford to stand still. The software industry moves at lightspeed, and either you're an innovator or you're dead in the water. I praise MS for being on the ball and willing to grab standards by the nuts and push them forward (like XML). Microsoft's a "take a chance" kind of company, and while they may not always win, they are refusing to let technology stagnate.
That's what I think Netscape did... it relied so heavily on being the only game in town, plus the geek favorite, that it never bothered to expand its capabilities as a broswer... meanwhile Microsoft supports XML/XLS and came up with Active Server Pages. Microsoft may be big, but they aren't slow. I just wish win2k had better driver support.
Bill Gates defense should read as follows, but doesn't.
"No, I do not want my attitude to be misunderstood. I shall be glad to state it for the record. I am in full agreement with the facts of everything said about me in the newspapers - with the facts, but not with the evaluation. I work for nothing but my own profit - which I make by selling a product they need to men who are willing and able to buy it. I do not produce it for their benefit at the expense of mine, and they do not buy it for my benefit at the expense of theirs; I do not sacrifice my interests to them nor do they sacrifice theirs to me; we deal as equals by mutual consent to mutual advantage - and I am proud of every penny that I have earned in this manner. I am rich and I am proud of every penny I own. I made my money by my own effort, in free exchange and through the voluntary consent of every man I dealt with - voluntary consent of those who employed me when I started, the voluntary consent of those who work for me now, the voluntary consent of those who buy my product. I shall answer all the questions you are afraid to ask me openly. Do I wish to pay my workers more than their services are worth to me? I do not. Do I wish to sell my product for less than my customers are willing to pay me? I do not. Do I wish to sell it at a loss or give it away? I do not. If this is evil, do whatever you please about me, according to whatever standards you hold. These are mine. I am earning my own living, as every honest man must. I refuse to accept as guilt the fact of my own existence and the fact that I must work in order to support it. I refuse to accept as guilt the fact that I am able to do it better than most people - the fact that my work is of greater value than the work of my neighbours and that more men are willing to pay me. I refuse to apologise for my ability - I refuse to apologise for my success - I refuse to apologise for my money. If this is evil, make the most of it. If this is what the public finds harmful to its interests, let the public destroy me. This is my code - and I will accept no other. I could say to you that I have done more good for my fellow men than you can ever hope to accomplish - but I will not say it, because I do not seek the good of others as a sanction for my right to exist, nor do I seek the good of others as a sanction for my right to exist, nor do I recognise the good of others as a justification for their seizure of my property or their destruction of my life. I will not say that the good of others was the purpose of my work - my own good was my purpose, and I despise the man who surrenders his. I could say to you that you do not serve the public good - that nobody's good can be achieved at the price of human sacrifices - that when you violate the rights of one man, you have violated the right of all, and a public of rightless creatures is doomed to destruction. I could say to you that you will and can achieve nothing but universal devastation - as any looter must, when he runs out of victims. I could say it, but I won't. It is not your particular policy that I challenge, but your moral premise. If it were true that men could achieve their good by means of turning some men into sacrificial animals, and I were asked to immolate myself for the sake of creatures who wanted to survive at the price of my blood, if I were asked to serve the interests of society apart from, above and against my own - I would refuse. I would reject it as the most contemptible evil, I would fight it with every power I possess, I would fight the whole of mankind, if one minute were all I could last before I were murdered, I would fight in the full confidence of the justice of my battle and of a living being's right to exist. Let there be no misunderstanding about me. If it is now the belief of my fellow men, who call themselves the public, that their good requires victims, then I say: The public good be damned, I will have no part of it!"
I think most people are missing what could be the case. The truth is, AOL is not internet access. It provides some methods of getting to some internet material, but AOL is simply it's own network.
China's government will LOVE this. Why? Because it means that if many chinese use the service, the government knows exactly what people can see, by virtue of what AOL allows its users to do, not by tracking individuals specifically. It has never been about specific people seeing anti-chinese stuff, it has always been about a lot of people having access to that stuff. And China will be able to tailor, through tax / other incentives to AOL, the online experience for the Chinese. I'm sure AOL has been blocking sites on the net for years.
If anyone has ever read "Code and other laws of Cyberspace" you'd know why AOL is perfect for keeping social dissedents out of line: it's chatrooms only allow 22 users, and they have terms of service which are malleable. No one can organize a riot or view anti-chinese sentiment on a completely crafted network.
What might bother me is that a lot of people view "online" or "internet" as being just AOL. Someone should publish a pamphlet and offer it to give a basic overview of what the internet is so that computer purchasers know the difference between an ISP and a closed network with WWW access.
Personally, I think now's the time to dump my stock in "chineseschoolgirls.com"
Conclusion: Napster has not only not hurt CD sales or the music industry, but I would also argue that Napster has even helped the music industry by allowing millions of users a much greater exposure to music in general, thus the increase in CD sales.
It doesn't matter whether you burning MP3's onto a CD, or using Napster, helps or hurts the music industry, despite what Lars says. That's not the issue. The issue is: Are artists / programmers / whomever allowed to create a product, and then distribute a product as they see fit. My arguement is yes. If artists don't want their art used for something, even if it promotes their cause, they should be able to restrict it's distribution to what they want. For instance: If a painter creates a picture of a landscape or something, and sells the images as prints, for a price... can't he build some sort of license agreement, whereas if you purchase this picture, you promise not to photocopy and distribute it?
The problem is, it is very easy now to duplicate art... and all the artists are saying is, "let us control how it is used. We made it, after all"... I hate the RIAA, too... because it's acting like some lawmaking body, and it's not. But I support people who wish to sign their art over to companies to help sell it. I support people who work hard and want a fair market, where their work won't be stolen or used without their consent. I don't think that I'm being unreasonable.
I wish people would stop spending their time on Slashdot trying to prove others wrong
If an idea can be proven wrong, are you asserting that we should just pretend its not, to save the feelings of the author?
Wrong ideas should be spoken out against. If one believes an idea truely, he knows its treason and a sanction to not speak out against those ideas which are wholly against the principles he holds. Often times the "own insight" you speak of defeats the others arguement, by the sake of what it is.
Slashdot would be nothing more than gushy brother-love articles with no real substance if everyone stopped trying to defend their ideas. Ideas that are proposed and never attacked, especially when they are wrong ideas, win by default.
*sarcasm* Wow... yeah, why would we want to enable the patient to monitor his own health? It should all be in the hands of someone else */sarcasm*
I like this idea, that maybe I won't have to go to some large impersonal hospital and wait in line for a while to get my information... Why can't we automate medical services? remember those blood-pressure testers in CVS? this is the exact same thing, on a more serious scale. All it means is that instead of taking up a doctor's time which he could be treating a gunshot victim, you can do your own checkup on your pacemaker. This empowers patients, not disables them. The more we can do on our own, the more educated we become about these issues, and the less we need to rely on an often unreliable system
Yeah, I agree, but why stop there? The government spent millions of dollars developing a national highway system... I want a brand new honda civic! do any of us driving-o-philes really want to see the majority of americans view the roads as just another toy of the rich? What about the auto divide?
*sigh*
The government is NOT there to hand out things. The point of any government in a free society is to protect its citizens in their pursuits of live, liberty and property... not to provide any of those. We are free to choose how we want to spend our lives... but we are not free to demand that any folks, rich or not, MUST give us their money for computers.
If you want to give your money to a computer charity, fine, just don't force me to. If you have the government use my tax money to give stuff to people, i have no control over it. I either pay my taxes just the same or get arrested.
I think it seems mighty obvious that this would happen. Internet censorship, from the people who brought you "Students crushed under the treads of Very Large Tanks" (TM)
What makes me incredibly outraged is that everytime China perpetrates these violations of individual rights, we mull over each one, purporting its good and bad sides. No one ever has the balls to say "Wait a minute, never mind if internet censorship is good or bad. that's not the issue. the issue is : Does the Chinese gov't, or any gov't, have the right to limit human freedom, regardless of it's results?"
the answer is no. Governments, at least ones of a just nature, are there not to control, but to protect. That we will continue to argue over an extreme number of issues like this from China, because a basic premise has been accepted: That the chinese people are a means to an end, namely the government's end. Only when China is released from the stranglehold of communism, will we never see these articles again.
When and if the Chinese people do rise up amd say, "Wait a minute, I am a person, not a tool of the state", it will be bloody, I guaruntee it. but rarely are there peaceful ways out of years and years of repression. And us at slashdot sanction every action by giving it fair debate, as if slavery (to the state) deserves any fair debate. It doesn't. It's the first thing that has to go if debate is possible. Otherwise the government can simply outlaw the ideas of a certain debate.
I work for a small shop (I'm also the webmaster for this site, so please keep laughter down to a minimum) in Massachusetts that buys and resells/refurbishes semiconductor manufacturing equipment. As of the last six months, our orders for e-beam vacuum systems have practically increased 5X. Wonder if a lot more experimenting with this stuff is happening at Universities than we think. Normally, I just might attribute the increase in sales to the market, but the market is down right now, and sales are up. Well, in any event, I hope this makes Moore's law extend a bit...
how did these companies get so goddamn big? Your money. It's nice that some slashdotters posted links about who owns what, but will any of you grow the testicular fortitude to hold back your wallets? or perhaps use this most powerful medium, the internet, to protest? I didn't think so.
The truth is, the internet is exactly the kind of tool that these companies fear, because it offers diversity of entertainment. why should I watch Friends or some other corny sitcom when netizens are making hundreds of way funnier sites and movies and jpegs, etc. Using the internet, not only do we have virtually unlimited options, but we can also bring to bear the minds of millions to a cause we feel just.
P.S. I don't really mind having six or seven corporations, or whatever, personally. Doesn't bother me a bit, because they still can't force me to do anything. the only one with the legal use of physical force is the gov't. which is something you slashdotters should be outraged against. Companies may offer shitty options, but that's what they are, options. when the gov't steps in, there are no options but jail.
Unless this gets modded up bigtime, no one will ever see it.
A large problem with IP is that it is just that. Our normal economy for about 250 years depended on physical goods. Now, it doesn't.
However, I'm tempted to wonder, can I rob a bank through a modem / telnet connection and illegally transfer funds? After all, it's not money, it's zeros and ones. I should never be prosecuted for it. Oh wait, I will be. In fact, if I stole good ole u.s. greenbacks (the dollar), I'm not stealing physical property. It's actually a representation of what may exist in the U.S. Treasury. it's not really a property, but an abstraction of property. That's what software is, too. Just because I can easily duplicate software (or with a scanner and high speed color laser printer, ca$h) doesn't make it yours. Our whole economy is based on exchange of goods. Some people value abstract goods. Creators of abstractions have every right to charge for them.
Here it comes. Another "evil company article"(tm).
Which I read, by the way, on a Digital Alpha 433au workstation, which I didn't hand assemble. I think a company made it. (ack, evil!)
I think the idea that a politician can be bought into supporting such a vague set of laws like the DCMA is horrible. But I don't think the companies were unjust in wanting to protect their Intellectual Property.
Companies will, without the help of the government, forge the technology into ways that protect their IP. Losing money is a bad thing for companies, because it means they can't provide a living to themselves and their employees.
You are perfectly free to give away your ideas. But please respect those who want to charge for them. Expropriating ideas from individuals and taking them "for everyone to use" is a sweet method of totalitarianism that was seen in communist russia (tm) . If you had an invention, idea, or method in Russia, you couldn't sell it on a free market. That's scarier, and it also explains why the U.S. has better technology than Russia.
Roads can and should be privately run. Then maybe I wouldn't lose so many tires.
Imagine if we paid a company to maintain our roads, just like we do power lines, cable TV, airport runways, etc. Just because the government does 0wn roads, doesn't mean they should. Americans have been so indoctrinated to believe that the government has to do the "big things" because it would be impossible to do otherwise. Bullshit.
The real anger here is how can people not see what government sponsored television does? It supports ideas, some which people don't believe in. Like some kid said earlier, you may think it ridiculous that bert and ernie are gay. But do you want to silence others? the government is funded by all. therefore it should not engage itself in any sponsorship of ideas through public medium. it should be neutral on that respect. otherwise, by force, people will pay money into a system that propagates ideas they are ideologically opposed to.
Well, if you asked me, roads and schools should be privately owned. As for the military, it assures us that the rest of the world will respect our right to life, liberty and property, like the police. Without a military, we would have no way of arbitrating force used against us. That , my friend, is exactly the point of the U.S. government. The government is the only body legally allowed to use retalitory force against enemies, foreign and domestic. Roads and schools can and are made privately, while the use of physical force must be restricted to the government, in retalitory form only.
Why does there have to be good programming on TV? Do you own a TV station? If so, feel free to air everything except the FCC's taboo items. Otherwise, shut your mouth. I hate liberal whining hippies who love to tell other people what to do with their money and equipment/property. if you don't like some programs, don't watch. Encourage others not to. Or buy a TV station.
oh, BTW All the 'competing' cable channels are commercial ventures- designed to turn a profit. well, if you ever ran a company, you'd know profit is the only way to stay in business (and staying in business often feeds people, which in turn keeps them alive)... Profit as a concept is NOT evil. Profit by force is.
I see quite a bit of responses that allude to PBS being essential, or a necessary part of broadcasting.
the only reason that I can see provided by/. posters is "because I enjoyed it" What about those who didn't (and since it is publicly funded , payed for it regardless)?
This is the perfect oppourtunity to sell all these stations that can't comply. The government shouldn't be in the business of owning media outlets.
by the way, I enjoyed Sesame Street, too. but not enough to imply that others should pay to keep it around, even if it is educational. Mr. Wizard was on nickelodeon for quite some time, and was the best show around, as far as I was concerned.
- if it weren't for the massive failure of places like Russia, a *lot* of Slashdotters/GPLers would be promoting a communist viewpoint.
That is, if they had computers... or the internet to speak these ideas... both are free-market inventions No one ever seems to understand why communism seems to become totalitarianism. The logical progression is quite clear. When people are told that the products of their toiling labor cannot be theirs, it must be everyones, they don't buy it. the only way to make them buy it is to use force. When the government initiates the use of force against its citizens, it becomes totalitarian. Man is entitled to his own life's choices. life is given, survival is not. A man must work for his survival, whether it be planting the fields or being a network admin. When somehow, people believe that since their are a lot of people in an area, it becomes ok to take part/all of the salaray of one to give it to another. It is inherent in communism that force must be used. There is always one soul who denies (rightfully) men's attempts to take what he has made. Under communism, to prevent this one from spreading the ideas of man's entitlement to his own life, they use force.
Any Device anywhere?
Sounds a lot like the plot of "Anti-Trust"... it's a damn good idea, but not easy to get EVERYONE on the same page. because that's what it's going to require, that everyone be microsoft's biatch.
I like microsoft, I use the company's OS. (win2k) But I'm apprehensive about MS on this one.
How does someone get off saying that banning Neo-Nazi sites (and other HATE groups) is like living in Nazi Germany? How? Are DoS attacks going
to kill anyone?
How do you think Nazis were able to take power? When you silence ideas, voices, opinions through any means other than an arguement showing that they are illogical, you steal the voice of reason. Without that voice, no one can stand up for those groups. And if we can silence without arguement one group, why not another? Sure, today it might be the nazis we silence... it's easy to silence the ideas that are unpopular. but ideas and reality almost always assure us that these principles of censorship almost always lead us to broader logical conclusions.
Proof? In the 1970's five obscenity cases came before the supreme court, and all five upheld the state's rights to censor "obscenity"... the obscenity was pron. It bothered people, "offended" them, so we should be able to control local tastes, said the courts. by logical extension, today students sit-in, riot, and steal newspapers, but yet one has logically argued why David Horiwitz is wrong, or even pointed to one statement that he made that was racist.
The only way to morally suppress ideas is to logically prove how they are wrong, not to irrationally assume that "some ideas are so bad we shouldn't question them"...
Well, after developing countries stop making babies...
There's no free lunch. Developing countries need to industrialize, first. There's a good reason why Somalia probably doesn't have a whole lot of ISPs... or overweight people. And these countries should not be given free net equipment, either ... people argue there's a digital divide in the U.S. , as far as who gets access to the net... and I can't wait for the automobile divide, which says I get a free BMW paid for by someone else, of course
Getting rid of socialist controlling governments would help, too. Why do you think the U.S. was the birthplace of the modern net?
Cell phone radiation is the biggest crock of shite...
the only anyone even thought of health risks was the close proximity to the brain that cellphone users place the phones.
When will people stop being afraid of radio transmissions?
in the 50's, television broadcasts were feared
then cellphones, now wireless net
I'm moving to cheap land under power lines as a self case study to shut you all up!
Perhaps we could look at our current cellular phone infrastructure and realize it doesn't seem implausible... The Earth's curvature be damned!
Why can't we use the same idea (multiple antennaes used as repeaters ) for the wireless lan / wan idea?
the only reason not to that I could imagine is the signal strength. But cellphone's signals are relatively weak... I don't see why they're isn't any sort of talk of this.
Is there something wrong with dying?
Absoluetly. it's very difficult to drink alcohol, sleep with beautiful women, and program in C++ when we are old / dead.
I firmly believe it's our destiny to live longer, better, easier, more comfortable. If they can make me live longer, I'm all for it.
Hell, I could see applications here where we apply a little of this anti-death gene to a fatally wounded victim, to keep as much of them alive as possible, until we can fix the gunshot wound / lacerations / carpal tunnel syndrome...
Too bad Ayn Rand wasn't around for this.. *sigh*
Slashdot Mirror
The truth is, when a business becomes as big as microsoft, it cannot afford to stand still. The software industry moves at lightspeed, and either you're an innovator or you're dead in the water. I praise MS for being on the ball and willing to grab standards by the nuts and push them forward (like XML). Microsoft's a "take a chance" kind of company, and while they may not always win, they are refusing to let technology stagnate.
That's what I think Netscape did... it relied so heavily on being the only game in town, plus the geek favorite, that it never bothered to expand its capabilities as a broswer... meanwhile Microsoft supports XML/XLS and came up with Active Server Pages. Microsoft may be big, but they aren't slow. I just wish win2k had better driver support.
"No, I do not want my attitude to be misunderstood. I shall be glad to state it for the record. I am in full agreement with the facts of everything said about me in the newspapers - with the facts, but not with the evaluation. I work for nothing but my own profit - which I make by selling a product they need to men who are willing and able to buy it. I do not produce it for their benefit at the expense of mine, and they do not buy it for my benefit at the expense of theirs; I do not sacrifice my interests to them nor do they sacrifice theirs to me; we deal as equals by mutual consent to mutual advantage - and I am proud of every penny that I have earned in this manner. I am rich and I am proud of every penny I own. I made my money by my own effort, in free exchange and through the voluntary consent of every man I dealt with - voluntary consent of those who employed me when I started, the voluntary consent of those who work for me now, the voluntary consent of those who buy my product. I shall answer all the questions you are afraid to ask me openly. Do I wish to pay my workers more than their services are worth to me? I do not. Do I wish to sell my product for less than my customers are willing to pay me? I do not. Do I wish to sell it at a loss or give it away? I do not. If this is evil, do whatever you please about me, according to whatever standards you hold. These are mine. I am earning my own living, as every honest man must. I refuse to accept as guilt the fact of my own existence and the fact that I must work in order to support it. I refuse to accept as guilt the fact that I am able to do it better than most people - the fact that my work is of greater value than the work of my neighbours and that more men are willing to pay me. I refuse to apologise for my ability - I refuse to apologise for my success - I refuse to apologise for my money. If this is evil, make the most of it. If this is what the public finds harmful to its interests, let the public destroy me. This is my code - and I will accept no other. I could say to you that I have done more good for my fellow men than you can ever hope to accomplish - but I will not say it, because I do not seek the good of others as a sanction for my right to exist, nor do I seek the good of others as a sanction for my right to exist, nor do I recognise the good of others as a justification for their seizure of my property or their destruction of my life. I will not say that the good of others was the purpose of my work - my own good was my purpose, and I despise the man who surrenders his. I could say to you that you do not serve the public good - that nobody's good can be achieved at the price of human sacrifices - that when you violate the rights of one man, you have violated the right of all, and a public of rightless creatures is doomed to destruction. I could say to you that you will and can achieve nothing but universal devastation - as any looter must, when he runs out of victims. I could say it, but I won't. It is not your particular policy that I challenge, but your moral premise. If it were true that men could achieve their good by means of turning some men into sacrificial animals, and I were asked to immolate myself for the sake of creatures who wanted to survive at the price of my blood, if I were asked to serve the interests of society apart from, above and against my own - I would refuse. I would reject it as the most contemptible evil, I would fight it with every power I possess, I would fight the whole of mankind, if one minute were all I could last before I were murdered, I would fight in the full confidence of the justice of my battle and of a living being's right to exist. Let there be no misunderstanding about me. If it is now the belief of my fellow men, who call themselves the public, that their good requires victims, then I say: The public good be damned, I will have no part of it!"
Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
China's government will LOVE this. Why? Because it means that if many chinese use the service, the government knows exactly what people can see, by virtue of what AOL allows its users to do, not by tracking individuals specifically. It has never been about specific people seeing anti-chinese stuff, it has always been about a lot of people having access to that stuff. And China will be able to tailor, through tax / other incentives to AOL, the online experience for the Chinese. I'm sure AOL has been blocking sites on the net for years.
If anyone has ever read "Code and other laws of Cyberspace" you'd know why AOL is perfect for keeping social dissedents out of line: it's chatrooms only allow 22 users, and they have terms of service which are malleable. No one can organize a riot or view anti-chinese sentiment on a completely crafted network.
What might bother me is that a lot of people view "online" or "internet" as being just AOL. Someone should publish a pamphlet and offer it to give a basic overview of what the internet is so that computer purchasers know the difference between an ISP and a closed network with WWW access.
Personally, I think now's the time to dump my stock in "chineseschoolgirls.com"
It doesn't matter whether you burning MP3's onto a CD, or using Napster, helps or hurts the music industry, despite what Lars says. That's not the issue. The issue is: Are artists / programmers / whomever allowed to create a product, and then distribute a product as they see fit. My arguement is yes. If artists don't want their art used for something, even if it promotes their cause, they should be able to restrict it's distribution to what they want. For instance: If a painter creates a picture of a landscape or something, and sells the images as prints, for a price... can't he build some sort of license agreement, whereas if you purchase this picture, you promise not to photocopy and distribute it?
The problem is, it is very easy now to duplicate art... and all the artists are saying is, "let us control how it is used. We made it, after all" ... I hate the RIAA, too... because it's acting like some lawmaking body, and it's not. But I support people who wish to sign their art over to companies to help sell it. I support people who work hard and want a fair market, where their work won't be stolen or used without their consent. I don't think that I'm being unreasonable.
If an idea can be proven wrong, are you asserting that we should just pretend its not, to save the feelings of the author?
Wrong ideas should be spoken out against. If one believes an idea truely, he knows its treason and a sanction to not speak out against those ideas which are wholly against the principles he holds. Often times the "own insight" you speak of defeats the others arguement, by the sake of what it is.
Slashdot would be nothing more than gushy brother-love articles with no real substance if everyone stopped trying to defend their ideas. Ideas that are proposed and never attacked, especially when they are wrong ideas, win by default.
I like this idea, that maybe I won't have to go to some large impersonal hospital and wait in line for a while to get my information... Why can't we automate medical services? remember those blood-pressure testers in CVS? this is the exact same thing, on a more serious scale. All it means is that instead of taking up a doctor's time which he could be treating a gunshot victim, you can do your own checkup on your pacemaker. This empowers patients, not disables them. The more we can do on our own, the more educated we become about these issues, and the less we need to rely on an often unreliable system
BTW: "Randites" prefer to be called Objectivists.
*sigh*
The government is NOT there to hand out things. The point of any government in a free society is to protect its citizens in their pursuits of live, liberty and property... not to provide any of those. We are free to choose how we want to spend our lives... but we are not free to demand that any folks, rich or not, MUST give us their money for computers.
If you want to give your money to a computer charity, fine, just don't force me to. If you have the government use my tax money to give stuff to people, i have no control over it. I either pay my taxes just the same or get arrested.
What makes me incredibly outraged is that everytime China perpetrates these violations of individual rights, we mull over each one, purporting its good and bad sides. No one ever has the balls to say "Wait a minute, never mind if internet censorship is good or bad. that's not the issue. the issue is : Does the Chinese gov't, or any gov't, have the right to limit human freedom, regardless of it's results?"
the answer is no. Governments, at least ones of a just nature, are there not to control, but to protect. That we will continue to argue over an extreme number of issues like this from China, because a basic premise has been accepted: That the chinese people are a means to an end, namely the government's end. Only when China is released from the stranglehold of communism, will we never see these articles again.
When and if the Chinese people do rise up amd say, "Wait a minute, I am a person, not a tool of the state", it will be bloody, I guaruntee it. but rarely are there peaceful ways out of years and years of repression. And us at slashdot sanction every action by giving it fair debate, as if slavery (to the state) deserves any fair debate. It doesn't. It's the first thing that has to go if debate is possible. Otherwise the government can simply outlaw the ideas of a certain debate.
how did these companies get so goddamn big? Your money. It's nice that some slashdotters posted links about who owns what, but will any of you grow the testicular fortitude to hold back your wallets? or perhaps use this most powerful medium, the internet, to protest? I didn't think so.
The truth is, the internet is exactly the kind of tool that these companies fear, because it offers diversity of entertainment. why should I watch Friends or some other corny sitcom when netizens are making hundreds of way funnier sites and movies and jpegs, etc. Using the internet, not only do we have virtually unlimited options, but we can also bring to bear the minds of millions to a cause we feel just.
P.S. I don't really mind having six or seven corporations, or whatever, personally. Doesn't bother me a bit, because they still can't force me to do anything. the only one with the legal use of physical force is the gov't. which is something you slashdotters should be outraged against. Companies may offer shitty options, but that's what they are, options. when the gov't steps in, there are no options but jail.
A large problem with IP is that it is just that. Our normal economy for about 250 years depended on physical goods. Now, it doesn't.
However, I'm tempted to wonder, can I rob a bank through a modem / telnet connection and illegally transfer funds? After all, it's not money, it's zeros and ones. I should never be prosecuted for it. Oh wait, I will be. In fact, if I stole good ole u.s. greenbacks (the dollar), I'm not stealing physical property. It's actually a representation of what may exist in the U.S. Treasury. it's not really a property, but an abstraction of property. That's what software is, too. Just because I can easily duplicate software (or with a scanner and high speed color laser printer, ca$h) doesn't make it yours. Our whole economy is based on exchange of goods. Some people value abstract goods. Creators of abstractions have every right to charge for them.
Which I read, by the way, on a Digital Alpha 433au workstation, which I didn't hand assemble. I think a company made it. (ack, evil!)
I think the idea that a politician can be bought into supporting such a vague set of laws like the DCMA is horrible. But I don't think the companies were unjust in wanting to protect their Intellectual Property.
Companies will, without the help of the government, forge the technology into ways that protect their IP. Losing money is a bad thing for companies, because it means they can't provide a living to themselves and their employees.
You are perfectly free to give away your ideas. But please respect those who want to charge for them. Expropriating ideas from individuals and taking them "for everyone to use" is a sweet method of totalitarianism that was seen in communist russia (tm) . If you had an invention, idea, or method in Russia, you couldn't sell it on a free market. That's scarier, and it also explains why the U.S. has better technology than Russia.
Imagine if we paid a company to maintain our roads, just like we do power lines, cable TV, airport runways, etc. Just because the government does 0wn roads, doesn't mean they should. Americans have been so indoctrinated to believe that the government has to do the "big things" because it would be impossible to do otherwise. Bullshit.
The real anger here is how can people not see what government sponsored television does? It supports ideas, some which people don't believe in. Like some kid said earlier, you may think it ridiculous that bert and ernie are gay. But do you want to silence others? the government is funded by all. therefore it should not engage itself in any sponsorship of ideas through public medium. it should be neutral on that respect. otherwise, by force, people will pay money into a system that propagates ideas they are ideologically opposed to.
Well, if you asked me, roads and schools should be privately owned. As for the military, it assures us that the rest of the world will respect our right to life, liberty and property, like the police. Without a military, we would have no way of arbitrating force used against us. That , my friend, is exactly the point of the U.S. government. The government is the only body legally allowed to use retalitory force against enemies, foreign and domestic. Roads and schools can and are made privately, while the use of physical force must be restricted to the government, in retalitory form only.
oh, BTW All the 'competing' cable channels are commercial ventures- designed to turn a profit. ... Profit as a concept is NOT evil. Profit by force is.
well, if you ever ran a company, you'd know profit is the only way to stay in business (and staying in business often feeds people, which in turn keeps them alive)
and I'm pretty sure that the U.S. government has at least some money , maybe through grants, going to PBS.
the only reason that I can see provided by /. posters is "because I enjoyed it" What about those who didn't (and since it is publicly funded , payed for it regardless)?
This is the perfect oppourtunity to sell all these stations that can't comply. The government shouldn't be in the business of owning media outlets.
by the way, I enjoyed Sesame Street, too. but not enough to imply that others should pay to keep it around, even if it is educational. Mr. Wizard was on nickelodeon for quite some time, and was the best show around, as far as I was concerned.
That is, if they had computers... or the internet to speak these ideas... both are free-market inventions
No one ever seems to understand why communism seems to become totalitarianism. The logical progression is quite clear. When people are told that the products of their toiling labor cannot be theirs, it must be everyones, they don't buy it. the only way to make them buy it is to use force. When the government initiates the use of force against its citizens, it becomes totalitarian.
Man is entitled to his own life's choices. life is given, survival is not. A man must work for his survival, whether it be planting the fields or being a network admin. When somehow, people believe that since their are a lot of people in an area, it becomes ok to take part/all of the salaray of one to give it to another. It is inherent in communism that force must be used.
There is always one soul who denies (rightfully) men's attempts to take what he has made. Under communism, to prevent this one from spreading the ideas of man's entitlement to his own life, they use force.
Ed
I like microsoft, I use the company's OS. (win2k) But I'm apprehensive about MS on this one.
How do you think Nazis were able to take power? When you silence ideas, voices, opinions through any means other than an arguement showing that they are illogical, you steal the voice of reason. Without that voice, no one can stand up for those groups. And if we can silence without arguement one group, why not another? Sure, today it might be the nazis we silence... it's easy to silence the ideas that are unpopular. but ideas and reality almost always assure us that these principles of censorship almost always lead us to broader logical conclusions.
Proof? In the 1970's five obscenity cases came before the supreme court, and all five upheld the state's rights to censor "obscenity"... the obscenity was pron. It bothered people, "offended" them, so we should be able to control local tastes, said the courts. by logical extension, today students sit-in, riot, and steal newspapers, but yet one has logically argued why David Horiwitz is wrong, or even pointed to one statement that he made that was racist.
The only way to morally suppress ideas is to logically prove how they are wrong, not to irrationally assume that "some ideas are so bad we shouldn't question them" ...
Check your premises.
Yeah, why don't we put the 'net under FCC control?
Once the government has any say in this field, they have a say on what goes on in the net, and then... they have a right to censorship
Well, after developing countries stop making babies...
...
There's no free lunch. Developing countries need to industrialize, first. There's a good reason why Somalia probably doesn't have a whole lot of ISPs... or overweight people.
And these countries should not be given free net equipment, either
people argue there's a digital divide in the U.S. , as far as who gets access to the net... and I can't wait for the automobile divide, which says I get a free BMW
paid for by someone else, of course
Getting rid of socialist controlling governments would help, too. Why do you think the U.S. was the birthplace of the modern net?
Cell phone radiation is the biggest crock of shite...
the only anyone even thought of health risks was the close proximity to the brain that cellphone users place the phones.
When will people stop being afraid of radio transmissions?
in the 50's, television broadcasts were feared
then cellphones, now wireless net
I'm moving to cheap land under power lines as a self case study to shut you all up!
Perhaps we could look at our current cellular phone infrastructure and realize it doesn't seem implausible... The Earth's curvature be damned!
Why can't we use the same idea (multiple antennaes used as repeaters ) for the wireless lan / wan idea?
the only reason not to that I could imagine is the signal strength. But cellphone's signals are relatively weak... I don't see why they're isn't any sort of talk of this.
Is there something wrong with dying? .. *sigh*
Absoluetly. it's very difficult to drink alcohol, sleep with beautiful women, and program in C++ when we are old / dead.
I firmly believe it's our destiny to live longer, better, easier, more comfortable. If they can make me live longer, I'm all for it.
Hell, I could see applications here where we apply a little of this anti-death gene to a fatally wounded victim, to keep as much of them alive as possible, until we can fix the gunshot wound / lacerations / carpal tunnel syndrome...
Too bad Ayn Rand wasn't around for this