First, I'd like to state that I found this article to be rather good on the whole, and exactly the type of thing that *needs* to be written if this whole issue is to be exposed for the fraud that it is.
However, it contains one irritating grain of hypocrisy that for various reasons I feel I MUST point out.
quote:
"...After CNN's introduction telling us what to think - cutting straight from footage of Doom to footage of crying Columbine students - the Senator explained how violent games cause children to commit violent actions. He wants to keep dangerous weapons like Quake away from our kids.
That's how the Senator - who voted against secure handgun storage, and twice against child safety locks - positioned himself as our noble defender of children."
I agree that the introduction you describe, cutting from Doom to Columbine, was indeed designed to "tell us what to think". But in your very next paragraph you commit the same crime. By pointint out how the senator voted on these gun control issues, you have implied that voting against gun locks is as wrong-headed as censoring violent media. Regardless of how one feels about gun control, the implication that it protects children better than censorship is every bit as much "telling us what to think" as CNN's combination of imagery.
And, correlation of statistics aside, isn't this really about freedom? Content creators have an inalienable right to depict violence, and content consumers have an inalienable right to... well, consume that content, yes? Saying that you support the freedom of expression and reception of that expression while at the same time opposing the freedom of self-defense (which includes storing firearms in a way that knee-jerkers consider "unsafe" but that actually allows you rapid and sure enough access) is like saying you want more government programs with less taxes, or dry water, or any other silly example you could think of. It contains an internal contradiction.
But that's only if you take a principled look at it. But even if your perspective is purely pragmatic, it still doesn't hold water. Consider a lock with a key. To be able to access the gun when you need it, you'll need to have the key close at hand. That means either wearing it around your neck while you sleep (or similar measuers) or leaving it in a place where it could be stolen (by your gun-obsessed child, I suppose) or lost. Consider a lock with a combination. If your child has enough resolve and unsupervised time to find the gun in the first place, he has the time to go through all 1000 combinations. And if you've done the horribly irresponsible thing and not taught your child proper gun handling and firearm ethics (indeed this lack of proper training and respect is what causes most children to become fascinated with guns to the point of a fatal accident), it's likely that your child *will* either acquire the key or the combination, and cause an accident. But assuming either type of lock keeps your kid(s) from using it, it keeps *you* from using it as well. And what's the point of having a gun for self defense if when you need it, you're unable to use it?
At any rate, views and even facts about gun locks and (un)safe storage aside, my real point is that Slashdot and its authors should not condemn another media outlet, be it CNN, the NYT, or the Podunk Post for "telling us what to think", then turn around and to the exact same thing.
(on the off chance that this #800+ comment will actually be read...)
I started college a year ago knowing exactly where I wanted it to take me. I love computers, and I wanted to be a UNIX System Administrator. So I declared myself a Computer Information Systems and Management Science major (being less than excited about programming and figuring it was more relevant to a mangement setting anyway).
A lot changed in a year.
I discovered that the direction the CMS degree would take me didn't seem to line up with where I wanted to be. In fact, where I wanted to be doesn't even seem to be on the map anymore. Looking through various job listings, it seems as if the career I really wanted is rare to non-existant nowadays. But, I had discovered after taking but one class that I absolutely LOVE economics. So I had to figure out what I was going to do. Would I finish the CMS degree even though it seemed worthless? Become an economist? Something else?
My current, tentative plan is to change my major to economics (I've already started taking some of the advanced classes) and to get that degree, if for nothing else than my personal edification. Then I'll probably start at the bottom of the IT ladder and work my up the old-fashioned Andrew Carnegie way and see where I end up. Of course, if someone just happens to open up an Austrian-school economic research institute in Denver, then....;)
The point is that there are better reasons to go to school than to help you on to a career. We're computer geeks, and these blasted boxes make up a huge portion of our lives, but they're not everything. Some of us might be really interested in history, philosophy, economics (w00t!), theoretical physics, astronomy, whatever! If you jump right into a career after high school or whatever, you'll probably never have a real chance to go to college ever again. So my advice would be to go for a year. It doesn't have to be MIT or UCB, it can be a local state school, or a community college (many of the best teachers teach in these places, where students are more important than research, and 101 classes usually aren't in 200+ student lecture halls). Take 5 classes each semester, each in a different subject, and see if anything makes your mouth water. If nothing clicks, you've only wasted one year, and you can jump right into making the big bucks with the satisfaction that you were right in the first place. But maybe something/will/ strike your fancy, something so interesting you'll be willing to sacrifice 4 or 5 years learning about it (well, minus requirements...) before you join the rat race...
Wide acceptance of low-emissions vehicles is almost completely dependent on the existence of a, for lack of a better word, refueling infrastructure. People don't want to have to drive across town to the one electric recharge station (or hydrogen station, or whatever) when they could drive their combustion car 2 blocks. And they dont' want to run out of whatever fuel they're using out in the middle or nowhere, or in a bad neighborhood, etc.
But naturally, the profit motive for/constructing/ that infrastructure is basically dependent on wide acceptance of these vehicles.
Soooooo, unless there's a mad rush of early adopters, or some venture capital finds its way to a alternative-fuel-station startup, or some other wildly improbable set of circumstances come into play, we'll simply not see wide use of LEV's.... until the government steps in. Playing to the environmentalists in all of us, the gov't will justify a huge subsidy (and likely a huge tax to go with it) to the large gas station chains to get them to install electric rechargers, hydrogen dispensers, or whatever. Or worse yet, they'd create a new gov't agency for providing these services ("hmm, I don't seem to see 'LEV' in the constitution... but who cares!").
So the short answer is, its highly unlikely that in the near future, natural market forces will bring LEV's to a large number of motorists. But since economic boom has made the environment a viable concern again, we'll likely see the government use a little bit of (or a lot of) force to bring it to the market, "because they say so".
I just wanted to weigh in with the fact that I got interested in UNIX in general and Linux in particular *because* of the command line and the generally wack interface, not in spite of it. It's true that when I'm in Linux, I'm nearly always in X, but I do all my file management etc. in an rxvt, not an Explorer-type file manager.
I must say that I do lament the lack of a standard application framework that would give some consistency to most programs: same hotkeys, same type of menu bars, etc. But, if to get that I have to put up with all the extra crap that comes with GNOME or KDE, plus having to continually update such a huge and rapidly changing chunk of software, I'd rather just tolerate rampant inconsistency.
...or maybe just hella-counter-intuitive. I'm sure that being linux people, we've figured out a way to make adding a few HTML tags to plain text nearly impossible for anyone who didn't code the interface;) (*cough* --this is a JOKE)
I love programs run by the government the signing up for which "would be strictly voluntary."
Although PAYING for them with the tax money they steal from you constantly will, unfortunately, not be optional.
Unfortunately, this one is a bit hard to bitch about, as we can pretty much blame the founding fathers. They just had to write the Constitution in a way that Congress could interpret their authority to enact a postal service was an <i>exclusive</i> authority, giving them not only the power to deliver the mail, but to shoot anyone else who tries to. Worse yet, the term "post office" is not defined, so interpreting it to allow them to provide e-mail is hardly a stretch.
Since government always seeks to expand its power, I wouldn't write off the posibility, however small, of Congress eventually granting exclusive authority to provide e-mail to the USPS. It would be easy to sell to America's socialist-at-heart voters. They would only need to point out Melissa and ILOVEYOU and some yet-to-come devastating e-mail stupidity to convince Americans that they just can't trust e-mail to big-business greed or whatever, same as they all thought for phone service, cable TV, and power for decades.
As far as what "realistic" policy goals I favor, I really couldn't say. Things like the Meth bill and the profiling pullovers really make me think there's no hope whatsoever for this country. For a while, I've been shopping around for countries to move to once I'm rich and the US turns totally fascist. I'm only slightly kidding.
I suppose some things are simple. Cut taxes. Liberalize issuance of concealed carry permits. Legalize marijuana. Privatize social security. School vouchers. But aside from vouchers, which I'm rather iffy on, I doubt many of these things will actually happen, especially what with Al Gore wandering around taking credit for economic well-being that is really attributable to Reagan. Oh well. In the meantime I suppose I'll hoard guns and gold.
Though I wasn't intending to bash Nixon... You've missed the point entirely. The only acceptable drug policy I can think of would be age restrictions, like exist for alcohol and tobacco. I'm not saying even those are a good idea, just that they wouldn't drive me crazy like our current laws do.
People becoming addicted to various substances might be a problem, yes. But it's a problem for THEM, not the government. Remember, as I said, drug use is a non-violent act, and as such it cannot be legitimately prohibited.
And at any rate, though even Nixon didn't start drug prohibition (blame William Randolph Hearst and DuPont corp. for that), he does deserve blame for starting the official "war on drugs". Why? The life cycle of a government program doesn't include death. When ANY program starts, it has a simple goal. When that goal is acheived, or acheivement draws near, the scope of the program is expanded. This continues forever in a positive feedback loop. Did you know your Social Security Number was originally for "tax purposes only"? People with 50 or 60 year old plus SS cards will have this printed on them. Now what do you use your SSN for? Everything. The FDA was originally created to ensure that drugs had the quantities and purities advertised, now it has its fingers in every aspect of the food and drug industries. The 16th Amendment was originally created to allow the Feds to tax *unearned income* such as interest and dividends, not wages or salaries. Every dollar the IRS deducts from your paycheck is fraud (particularly because the 16th was never properly ratified). So even though Nixon may have had the best intentions (HAHAHA) when starting the drug war, he, like any politician cannot be excused from failing to predict its eventualities.
I don't take drugs. Nothing stronger than novocaine enters my body. That doesn't prevent me from respecting others' rights to do with THEIR bodies as THEY please.
Of course, you're obviously trolling, so why am I bothering?
Does this shock you? It's just the tip of the iceberg. A brief summary of the price of America's (originally Nixon's) War On Drugs(tm):
1. No-Knock Warrants. Any idiot can see that the police breaking down your door and charging in with guns drawn, with a warrant issued on the basis of an ANONYMOUS TIP, is a violation of our 4th Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and siezures. The whole point of "probable cause" is to protect against stuff like anonymous tips. Here in Denver, a Mr. Ismael Mena was gunned down by police executing a no-knock raid (issued on an anonymous tip) ON THE WRONG HOUSE. Unacceptable.
2. Asset Forfeiture. Do you know that if the police SUSPECT you've violated drug laws, or worse yet if they actually arrest you, THEY CAN SIEZE YOUR HOUSE, YOUR CAR, YOUR BANK ACCOUNTS, EVERYTHING YOU OWN. And what if you're found not guilty? Or released without even a trial? Do you get it back? Nope. You essentially have to prove your innocence to get it back. Even beginning the process can take more than 6 months, during which time you have to pay for your lawyer(s). You might want to read that again. These aren't paranoid ramblings, this happens, every day. They can confiscate everything you own, and keep it forever. Intolerable.
3. Roadsite searches. Two kinds, legal and, er, "extra-legal". If a cop pulls you over for speeding or running a red light, he can frisk you and search your car for drugs with no probable cause. It's unconstitutional already! But there's more. You might think "searching" you car amounts to looking under the seats, in the trunk and other storage compartments, maybe even under the hood. But it doesn't stop there, the cop can practically destroy your car in the search process. He can slash open your upholstery, your roof liner, cut open your tires, do ANYTHING to get to any part of your car that could conceivably be used to hide drugs, and more that couldn't. Again, this is not some urban legend, it happens every day. Then there's the "extra-legal" roadside search. This actually happened to a friend of mine, and is not only happening but happening right here in my own city of Denver. You're driving along, not breaking any laws, and you see flashing lights and hear sirens. You pull over. You're asked to step out of the car, you're frisked, your car is searched (thankfully not in the above way), and you're sent on your way. They're looking for drugs, and they pulled you over because you fit the profile. Apparently, while I wasn't watching, simply being a teenaged male driving at night is probable cause for drug posession. But the best part is that these searches are not explicitly authorized by law, city, state, or federal. The cops are simply doing this as a "trial run" to see if it's effective, so they can get a law passed if they like it. So now they can do ANYTHING they want, as long as they plan on legalizing it later.
4. The Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act. This is HB2987 in the House, but I've forgotten the senate version's number. It has two major provisions. One, it becomes illegal to disseminate information about the use and manufacture of meth (as if it'll only apply to meth, it'll apply to all drugs). That's right, it's illegal to SAY things. So much for freedom of speech. I cannot possibly see how this red-flags the "clear and present danger" test. Two, police are empowered to search your home while you are not home (again, anonymous tips are OK), copy your documents, copy files off your computer, seize "evidence", and NOT TELL YOU ABOUT IT FOR UP TO 6 MONTHS. So, they don't have probable cause, their warrant is not specific, they don't even have to inform you, and you receive no compensation for seizures. This breaks just about every clause in the 4th Amendment. But you know what? It passed the Senate UNANIMOUSLY. That's right, not a single senator voted against this piece of trash. The only thing I can imagine is that they just read the title, figured it'd look good to their constituents, like they were "tough on drugs" or something, and voted yes without reading the damned thing. At any rate, it's sitting in the House Judiciary Committee right now, and though it's house sponsor is considering a re-write due to the volume of correspondence opposing it, I very much doubt that it will be stopped unless it receives major mainstream media coverage, or everyone who actually cares about their rights calls their reps and senators and expresses in no uncertain terms how much they love their rights and how quickly they will vote for other people come re-election time.
These are just hilights. The story of the drug war is a story of impossibility, yet of brutality, ruthlessness, and unmitigated sacrifice of our constitutional rights. It mirrors alcohol prohibition in almost every way: 1. drug use has increased, not decreased, just as alcohol use did 2. it has brought about immeasurable amounts of organized crime 3. enforcement is extremely costly and horribly ineffective The only difference is that drug dealers are rarely considered heroes like bootleggers were (except maybe pot hook-ups;).
It's time to end the war on drugs. Not just because it's doomed to fail, but because we have no business waging it in the first place. Use of drugs is not a violent act. You have a right to put whatever you want into your own body, don't you? Under current law, you don't. Drug use can, in and of itself, harm no one but the user, who engages in the act of his own volition. Prohibition of a peaceful act can never be justified.
Sales over the internet have ALWAYS been taxed, in exactly the same way as mail-order sales. This is because, for all practical purposes, e-commerce IS mail-order. Look at all the catalogs that just add "order on our website" to mailing in your order or calling it in.
Anyway, what this means is that if you buy (over the 'net or not) from a company is based in, or has a major operation in your state, YOU PAY STATE SALES TAX. On the other hand, if you buy (over the 'net or not) from a company based in another state, that has no operations in your state, YOU PAY NO TAX. If this state tax auditor of yours is trying to tell you that you owe taxes on purchases made from out-of-state firms, then you'd best dial up a constitutional lawyer or something because he's either full of shit or Pennsylvania has some blatantly unconstitutional taxes (only the federal gov't has the power to levy taxes on interstate commerce).
(This may be the only/. post I've made re: taxes where I didn't go off on an anti-tax libertarian rant. If you hate taxes as much as I do, visit the Libertarian Party)
I have but one question re: 5.2: Can it install correctly in NFS mounted directories? I recently installed 5.1 on my computer, but not before fighting with it for several days. Attempting to install into a subdir of/usr/local would fail completely, even copying the few files needed for a user (w/ "net" install) would fail if that user's ~ was NFS mounted. I got it to work by symlinking ~/Office51 to a dir in/tmp, but honestly, I shouldn't have had to, don't you think?
So can anyone confirm if these issues have been resolved?
Some good may actually come of this. Normally, when the US government makes a riduculously unconstitutional power grab, it follows the DMCA and UCITA paradigm: it doesn't tell anyone. There is a difference, though, between are two least-favorite acts of legislation and this new cyber-policing nonsense. The former are manipulations of a corrupt system by businessmen who see no problem with using the force of law to make themselves wealthy (note: this is NOT capitalism!!!). The latter is a machination of the system *itself*. Even the most politically influential corporation is still really only after more money, when the political system itself comes crashing down on our rights its essentially because it wants to: a politician's real income isn't money, it's POWER.
Anyway, back to the good news. What I see this proposal by the US gov't as is a confession. Here are representatives of what everyone still calls "the freest nation on earth", basically admitting that they don't give a rat's ass about freedom! When they said, "we want cyber-policing powers," what they were/really/ saying is, "the US seeks to become as authoritarian as the USSR or China."
Some days, the United States takes a step towards socialism; others, it steps towards fascism (as in this case of cyber-policing). But one thing's for sure, freedom is dead here. We might as well give the Statue of Liberty a whip instead of a torch and rename here the Statue of Authority.
Just now, I'm not going to take sides. I'm not going to decry Napster for facilitating piracy, nor am I going to decry Metallica for joining the let's-abuse-the-litigation-process club. I'm posting this question to call Metallica on their hypocrisy. To wit, here is a quote:
"We're suing Napster for one reason and one reason only. Because they exist to pirate music, nothing more, nothing less. It's not just about the money at the end of the day."
Now, I don't know which of you guys said that, so you'll all have to bear its burden. Here is what you're saying: "It's not about money, it's about piracy." But what is piracy? Unauthorized copying. But why would copying be restricted? Don't artists want to get wider audiences? Of course they do, but you also need to eat, so you copyright your music and charge for it. So unless you're concerned about making money from your music, what is now "piracy" would simply be "getting our music out". So, in effect, what you are saying is this: "It's not about money, it's about money."
Here's another example, though this one could be said to be only on Lars' head:
"We take our craft -- whether it be the music, the lyrics, or the photos and artwork -- very seriously, as do most artists. It is therefore sickening to know that our art is being traded like a commodity rather than the art that it is."
I must say, that statement truly disgusts me. When music is sold for $17 a CD at Media Play or Tower Records, THEN it's being treated like a commodity. When music is freely exchanged on Napster, ftp sites, IRC, or whatever, THEN it's being treated like art. Whichever position you take on it, wanting it to be a commodity or to be art, I don't care. I just want you to own up to it. So the basic essence of what I'm asking, is for you to...
I just thought it'd be neat to point out that in the first issue of the LP News that I ever got, they had their list of the top ten libertarian movies, and Brazil was #1. It shows the beauty of liberty by, of course, showing its opposite: total authority. Having your AC fixed by a freelance handyman is a crime, for crying out loud! People are taken from their homes in black bags in the middle of the night to be interrogated and tortured, and CHARGED for it, to boot!
I'm really getting sick and tired of this whole debate about taxing the internet, mostly because both sides of the issue tend to be grievously misinformed. OK, here goes:
Internet sales ARE TAXED, in exactly the same way as mail order sales, because "E-COMMERCE" IS JUST MAIL-ORDER.
What's the difference between submitting a form on a website and filling out a paper order form? Between enumerating your purchase on your computer versus doing it over the phone? There IS no fundamental difference, and that's why 'net sales and mail-order are currently the same in the eyes of the law. To wit, if you buy from a vendor that has operations in your state, you pay your state's sales tax; if the vendor is out of state, you pay no tax. What all the whiny, inefficient, yesteryear retailers are/really/ saying is not that the 'net should be taxed, since it already is, but that it should bear the burden of an *extra* tax. If you know what sales taxes are supposedly for, you know how ridiculous this is. The point of a sales tax is to fund government actions and policies that benefit local businesses. Tourism boards are a perfect example. This is why resort towns tend to have super-high sales tax, so the gov't can subsidize seasonal businesses and other firms that would not otherwise be able to survive there.
Anyway, I'm biased by my personal belief in freedom, that being the freedom from the initiation of force. I agree with the words of Frederic Bastiat, when he called a tax that does not benefit all citizens equally, "legalized plunder". So I don't believe in 99% of the taxes levied against the citizens of this country, or most others for that matter.
More to the point, as another poster pointed out, the federal gov't has no Constitutional authority to tax the internet, so in order to do so legally they would need to amend the Constitution. I must confess that I do not expect the Supreme Court to share that interpretation, nor do I expect Congress to actually even consider whether its legal or not when they sit down to vote away our prosperity.
It seems to me that the source code to a virus or worm would most likely fall under the "clear and present danger" category of unprotected speech, much the same as yelling FIRE! in a crowded theater (as goes the classic example).
Though, I think it would depend on the context. For instance, distributing ultra-strong encryption to university students as part of a class would certainly be protected. However, selling that same code to a Chinese spy (knowingly, of course) would probably be unprotected. So if a hacker sends the code for a virus to another hacker, for the purpose of analyzing the security risk to a program they are collaborating on, that should be protected. However, if a cracker sends that code to another cracker attached to an e-mail that says "here, I bet this'll take down the IRS", that would probably be unprotected (as much as I'd like the IRS to be taken down;).
Of course, IANAL, but I truly think that Constitutional Law is much simpler than most lawyers, judges, and politicians make it out to be.
OK, here's my take on this thing: it's a popularity contest backed by the force of law. Here's my (admittedly stretched) line of reasoning: 1. government = force (in the words of G. Wash.) 2. public schools are run by the gov't 3. NC's public schools will be directing at least a part of their disciplinary measures (ie: force) based on information from WAVE 4. WAVE gets its information from students 5. the "majority" students have every incentive to phone in reports on unpopular students, such as geeks, Goths, racial minorities, religious minorities, and other miscellaneous "undesirables"
So if the NC schools take the information they get from WAVE seriously (whether out of genuine concern or knee-jerk publicism is irrelevant), there will be a popularity contest supported by the force of law. Don't like someone? Turn them in for... being different! Get your friends to turn them in too! How could WAVE ignore a dozen corroborating reports?
It really reminds me of the French Revolution. Once the real revolutionaries had taken down the tyrants and beheaded them, they set up their own gov't. But woops! Turned out there were enough people who didn't like this new regime to get/them/ beheaded as well! This continued for so long, and so many heads rolled, that it's a wonder France survived it.
As any student (prisoner) of our school system (jails for minors) could tell you, inter-clique rivalry, intra-clique rivalry, and rivalry between cliques and the clique-less ranks high among their foremost worries/concerns. It certainly is more important to most than.. gasp!.. learning. Even those who want nothing to do with it, as I didn't, have little choice in the matter. Even if one chooses to ignore it, the influence against them is still there. We should be discouraging this with all our persuasive might, not legitimizing it with rewards and incentives.
Perhaps worst of all, I see no checks or balances on this system, other than the judgment of administrators, which anyone who's had any involvement with schools can agree is worthless. Who figures out what calls are legitimate, and which are pranks? Do WAVE and the NC schools go into this with the knowledge that upwards of 99% of the calls WILL BE PRANKS? I doubt it. The reactionist nature of post-Columbine "reform" does not doubt the legitimacy of its motives or goals. WAVE and the NC schools are going into this venture fully expecting to turn up hundreds of "depressed" and "dangerous" students, and if they don't find real ones, they'll make up enough to meet their expectations, never mind how many lives get ruined in the process, or how many of our sacred rights are trampled upon.
On a related note... I remember hearing of a Supreme Court ruling handed down during the era of Vietnam protests. It concerned some students who wore black armbands to school in protest of the war, who were suspended. The ruling upheld the students' right to do this, saying somethine along the lines of "the students do not check their Constitutional rights at the door". I wonder how long it will take for this precedent to be eclipsed? For our post-Columbine reactionism to take the last vestiges of rights away from minors, to make them slaves to the first-class citizens of America, the "adults".
I recall the events at my own high school (George Washington HS, Denver, CO) immediately following Columbine. Trench coats were banned. An assistant principle and the school police officer colluded to create a "black list" of potentially dangerous (or whatever) students. Wearing shirts of the bands that the killers identified with could get you on the list. Playing Quake could get you on it. Doing or saying any number of other things that someone associated with the killers could get you blacklisted. So I wore my KMFDM and Marilyn Manson shirts with pride. I played Quake, and talked about it. If I had owned a trench coat, I'd have worn it. I did my best to show everyone how ignorant they were. I even confronted the principal with the blacklist (about which he didn't even know). I learned a few things. Mainly, that many of the ignorant masses are just that, ignorant. And when confronted with the truth, will accept it. But we must lose no ground, concede no defeats. As Capt. Picard said in "First Contact", THE LINE MUST BE DRAWN HERE, THIS FAR AND NO FURTHER!!!
First, let's assume that such a technology is possible, and furthermore, possible to implement at near-perfect quality.
So iCraveTV uses this tech to restrict access to their site to Canadian users. BFD. They're a private company, they can choose to sell or not sell to whomever they choose, right? Even the normal market mechanism of "voting with your wallet" need not be employed, since iCrave has voted for you. Surely if they proved successful, another company would spring up that did not employ those regional controls, and claim some, if not the bulk of iCrave's market share. The 'net has become largely corporate since its deregulation, and to some extent revolves around commerce now, but I feel that even if such regionalization became pervasive, the "important" part of the 'net - the underground - would survive, and "we" - the underground - wouldn't care, or perhaps even notice.
However, what happens if the US gov't gets irrirated that their laws don't apply to Canadian companies, as other posters have noted? It bugs them, and the MPAA of course, that some Canadians can use the international nature of the internet to break/our/ laws from within/their/ borders. So what does the gov't do? What does it always do? Expand its power. Using a regulatory agency such as the FCC to circumvent the "formality" of legislation, our gov't mandates the filtering of any foreign content that violates US laws. Of course, since it would be managed with typical gov't (in)efficiency, it would hardly be a barrier to the technically minded. But to the great unwashed (y'know, the people that think AOL = the internet), this would become commonplace, and accepted. Anyone who wanted change would by now have lost the ability to vote with their wallets, and be left to the far less effective method of voting in a booth. Oppressive governments: too many to count Peaceful people: 0
Anyway, my point is that I could give a damn if iCraveTV allows only Canadians to use their service. At leat, compared to the damn I would be giving if my government decided that we couldn't have any of that subversive Canadian (or Chinese, or Middle-Eastern, or Dutch, or....) content on/our/ part of the network. Only governments command the full force of law. Thankfully, they tend to forget just how expansive that power is, especially since they stamped "VOID WHERE PROHIBITED" on the Constitution. Unfortunately, nasty corporatist organizations like the MPAA are all too aware of the extent of that power, and will employ any number of lobbyists and any amount of money to bend that force to their will.
G27 Radio, do you *honestly believe* that the "primary use" of MP3 is legitimate distribution by unsigned artists? Because I sure don't.
One thing we can only really speculate about is what MP3's actual *purpose* is. If I recall, the format was developed by the Fraunhofer institute, who patented it. I doubt they were interested in facilitating either piracy or independent distribution.
Now, given that we do not know what MP3 was intended to be used for, what we DO know is what it IS used for. My question to you is, for each song by an independent unsigned artist that is downloaded in MP3 format, how many copyrighted songs by signed artists are downloaded? 1,000? 1,000,000? More? Go to www.oth.net, to mp3.palaquest.com, to any MP3 search engine, and search for copyrighted songs. Now search for indy music. Repeat with Napster. Napster, MP3 search engines, and irc channels like #mp3/dalnet exist as tools of piracy.
Note that this is reflected in the RIAA's actions. Why is the RIAA suing MP3.com? Is it for their hosting of indy music? No, it's for Beam-It, which, as far as I can tell (I know little about it), is a tool for piracy to some degree. Is there an RIAA lawsuit pending against Riffage.com? Not as far as I know. Why? Because they distribute only indy music. The RIAA may not like that, but they (currently) have no authority to quash it.
That said, I hate the RIAA as much as the next person. I believe they are truly evil. They're giving capitalism a bad name, and I hate that. If you believed all their rhetoric and propaganda, you'd think there was something inherently horrible about MP3 itself. This is obviously not true. Personally, my primary use of MP3 is to put my music collection on my computer so I don't have to deal with CD's. For every song on my playlist that I downloaded, there are a dozen that I ripped from my own discs. But I do not deny that I have downloaded MP3's "illegitimately".
[flamebait] You contend that MP3 is facilitating some kind of music revolution. Ha ha funny. Even ignoring piracy: if the only MP3's people downloaded were by indy artists trying to be heard, there would/still/ be no "revolution". I am staunchly opposed to the RIAA-centric monopolistic system of music distribution, I really am. It really screws a lot of the artists. But what has to be admitted is that to a large degree and for a long time, it has *worked*. I would contend that the biggest reason all those artists can only distribute via MP3 (ie: they can't get a contract) is that they're music SUCKS. I don't claim to have heard every indy track on the 'net, or that/all/ of it is bad, but a lot of it sure is. Sure, some of it is better than some acts that do have contracts (eg: Zebrahead, Bush, &c), but there's no accounting for taste, right? Anyway, my flame-bastic point is that MP3 is not about a musical revolution where all the indy artists come out of the woodwork and purvey their wondrous works of art, it's about an easy and nearly unstoppable way of stealing music. Whether it's stealing from the artists or the labels or whatever is another question. That the bulk of MP3 exchange is directed at piracy, however, is an undeniable fact. [/flamebait]
First, there was indeed little suspense. The plot "twists" were pretty much perfectly predictable. If there were other redeeming features, this would be excusable. There were not.
Second, it suffered from what I like to call "'Hackers' disease", ie: it portrayed computers in that surrealistic, super-dramatic way that we all know is bullshit. The characters were slinging buzzwords like there was no tomorrow. Even the name of the company, First Person Shooter, was a blatant attempt to hook into a word someone might have read in some article. It wasn't quite at the level of the "hacking" scene from South Park, but it was pretty bad.
Third, and most important, was that it gave precious little airtime to *our* side of the story: that violent games are an OUTLET for violent urges, that we would be MORE violent without the release they give. There was what? one line from Mulder suggestion that idea? And Scully even cut him off and made him sound like some kind of adolescent (doncha love how that's a pejorative?) fool. To me, it seemed that the point of that episode was that violent video games destroy society, and that the greedy game developers know this and don't care. Bullshit.
I would have been able to excuse this episode if it had given at least equal air time to the idea that violent games are anything other than the toolbox of Satan. But as it stood, it seemed that the show whose motto is "The Truth Is Out There" was promoting/censorship/, what a bunch of suck.
OK, I have a very limited understanding of how US patent law works, but I was under the impression that if other people have done / are doing what you're trying to patent, your patent is rejected. Am I right? If so, it seems the patent office is being run by 3 preschool kids and a trained mouse. The fact that we can all think of at least *one* "affiliate program" not run by Amazon should make it obvious that this patent is bogus.
OTOH, if "other people are doing it" isn't a valid reason to reject a patent then: 1. heaven help us 2. yet another reason for me to oppose ALL patents
(There are nearly 450 comments already posted on this story, so I don't really know why I'm even bothering. But hey.)
Here in Colorado, we have three major papers: The Rocky Mountain News The Denver Post The Onion
No, I'm not joking. The Onion has a HUGE circulation. You KNOW you've heard of it. Hell, you probably read it. It's Coloradan, baby. Boo-yah.
In a way, The Onion is the best of the three. Sure, it doesn't provide any actual news (aside from concert listings and music/movie/book reviews), but it puts more humor in one place than any website I've ever visited, and for free to boot. But The Onion is also conscious of the web, so you can read the issue from one or two weeks ago online (The website also allows Coloradans to read their Columbine spoof, which was edited out of our region's hardcopy papers.). There's nothing like picking up an Onion at one of the campus newsstands to read on the bus ride home;)
Anyway, considering the "real papers". For me, the Post basically flunks out on general principle, since it's a two-fold paper, meaning it's well over 4 square feet when unfolded, making it basically impossible to read. And if that weren't enough, it's articles tend to be less articulate, about less important issues, and of a generally lower quality. But it does carry Dilbert;)
The News, OTOH, is a one-fold paper, has clearly written articles on topics of importance, and carries Garfield, Peanuts, Robotman, and Shoe.
But no one really cares about that. The point is the *function* of the paper. From my POV, papers are the best source of local news. If I want to get local news from TV, I have to: 1. sit through commercials 2. sit through sports 3. sit through human interest stories 4. sit through the barrage of violent crime reports Plus more crap that doesn't come readily to mind, I'm sure. And I can only get it at 4, 5, 9, and 10 o'clock. What a bunch of suck. The paper I can read anytime I want. I can ignore the ads and the lame stories. Plus there's the classifieds. No online job search lists as many jobs as the paper. All the used car search engines put together don't total a tenth of the auto listings. And eBay is the only even marginal substitute (that I know of) for the misc stuff, like musical instruments, pool tables, yadda yadda yadda.
Anyway, if I had a point, it's forgotten. Take it or leave it;)
MoNsTeR
mistaking correlation for causality
on
LonelyNet
·
· Score: 3
I don't think that spending lots of time online causes people to spend less time with friends and family. Rather, people who tend to spend little time with friends & family are the ones who spend lots of time online. If the internet had been widely available when I was in middle school, I would have spent immeasureable time on it, because I had few friends or other interests. Even now in college, I spend a lot of time on the 'net simply because I have nothing else to do.
Slashdot Mirror
First, I'd like to state that I found this article to be rather good on the whole, and exactly the type of thing that *needs* to be written if this whole issue is to be exposed for the fraud that it is.
However, it contains one irritating grain of hypocrisy that for various reasons I feel I MUST point out.
quote:
"...After CNN's introduction telling us what to think - cutting straight from footage of Doom to footage of crying Columbine students - the Senator explained how violent games cause children to commit violent actions. He wants to keep dangerous weapons like Quake away from our kids.
That's how the Senator - who voted against secure handgun storage, and twice against child safety locks - positioned himself as our noble defender of children."
I agree that the introduction you describe, cutting from Doom to Columbine, was indeed designed to "tell us what to think". But in your very next paragraph you commit the same crime. By pointint out how the senator voted on these gun control issues, you have implied that voting against gun locks is as wrong-headed as censoring violent media. Regardless of how one feels about gun control, the implication that it protects children better than censorship is every bit as much "telling us what to think" as CNN's combination of imagery.
And, correlation of statistics aside, isn't this really about freedom? Content creators have an inalienable right to depict violence, and content consumers have an inalienable right to... well, consume that content, yes? Saying that you support the freedom of expression and reception of that expression while at the same time opposing the freedom of self-defense (which includes storing firearms in a way that knee-jerkers consider "unsafe" but that actually allows you rapid and sure enough access) is like saying you want more government programs with less taxes, or dry water, or any other silly example you could think of. It contains an internal contradiction.
But that's only if you take a principled look at it. But even if your perspective is purely pragmatic, it still doesn't hold water. Consider a lock with a key. To be able to access the gun when you need it, you'll need to have the key close at hand. That means either wearing it around your neck while you sleep (or similar measuers) or leaving it in a place where it could be stolen (by your gun-obsessed child, I suppose) or lost. Consider a lock with a combination. If your child has enough resolve and unsupervised time to find the gun in the first place, he has the time to go through all 1000 combinations. And if you've done the horribly irresponsible thing and not taught your child proper gun handling and firearm ethics (indeed this lack of proper training and respect is what causes most children to become fascinated with guns to the point of a fatal accident), it's likely that your child *will* either acquire the key or the combination, and cause an accident. But assuming either type of lock keeps your kid(s) from using it, it keeps *you* from using it as well. And what's the point of having a gun for self defense if when you need it, you're unable to use it?
At any rate, views and even facts about gun locks and (un)safe storage aside, my real point is that Slashdot and its authors should not condemn another media outlet, be it CNN, the NYT, or the Podunk Post for "telling us what to think", then turn around and to the exact same thing.
MoNsTeR
(on the off chance that this #800+ comment will actually be read...)
;)
/will/ strike your fancy, something so interesting you'll be willing to sacrifice 4 or 5 years learning about it (well, minus requirements...) before you join the rat race...
I started college a year ago knowing exactly where I wanted it to take me. I love computers, and I wanted to be a UNIX System Administrator. So I declared myself a Computer Information Systems and Management Science major (being less than excited about programming and figuring it was more relevant to a mangement setting anyway).
A lot changed in a year.
I discovered that the direction the CMS degree would take me didn't seem to line up with where I wanted to be. In fact, where I wanted to be doesn't even seem to be on the map anymore. Looking through various job listings, it seems as if the career I really wanted is rare to non-existant nowadays. But, I had discovered after taking but one class that I absolutely LOVE economics. So I had to figure out what I was going to do. Would I finish the CMS degree even though it seemed worthless? Become an economist? Something else?
My current, tentative plan is to change my major to economics (I've already started taking some of the advanced classes) and to get that degree, if for nothing else than my personal edification. Then I'll probably start at the bottom of the IT ladder and work my up the old-fashioned Andrew Carnegie way and see where I end up. Of course, if someone just happens to open up an Austrian-school economic research institute in Denver, then....
The point is that there are better reasons to go to school than to help you on to a career. We're computer geeks, and these blasted boxes make up a huge portion of our lives, but they're not everything. Some of us might be really interested in history, philosophy, economics (w00t!), theoretical physics, astronomy, whatever! If you jump right into a career after high school or whatever, you'll probably never have a real chance to go to college ever again. So my advice would be to go for a year. It doesn't have to be MIT or UCB, it can be a local state school, or a community college (many of the best teachers teach in these places, where students are more important than research, and 101 classes usually aren't in 200+ student lecture halls). Take 5 classes each semester, each in a different subject, and see if anything makes your mouth water. If nothing clicks, you've only wasted one year, and you can jump right into making the big bucks with the satisfaction that you were right in the first place. But maybe something
MoNsTeR
Wide acceptance of low-emissions vehicles is almost completely dependent on the existence of a, for lack of a better word, refueling infrastructure. People don't want to have to drive across town to the one electric recharge station (or hydrogen station, or whatever) when they could drive their combustion car 2 blocks. And they dont' want to run out of whatever fuel they're using out in the middle or nowhere, or in a bad neighborhood, etc.
/constructing/ that infrastructure is basically dependent on wide acceptance of these vehicles.
But naturally, the profit motive for
Soooooo, unless there's a mad rush of early adopters, or some venture capital finds its way to a alternative-fuel-station startup, or some other wildly improbable set of circumstances come into play, we'll simply not see wide use of LEV's.... until the government steps in. Playing to the environmentalists in all of us, the gov't will justify a huge subsidy (and likely a huge tax to go with it) to the large gas station chains to get them to install electric rechargers, hydrogen dispensers, or whatever. Or worse yet, they'd create a new gov't agency for providing these services ("hmm, I don't seem to see 'LEV' in the constitution... but who cares!").
So the short answer is, its highly unlikely that in the near future, natural market forces will bring LEV's to a large number of motorists. But since economic boom has made the environment a viable concern again, we'll likely see the government use a little bit of (or a lot of) force to bring it to the market, "because they say so".
MoNsTeR
...is my question. Y'know, like Corel's *cough*, "port" of WordPerfect Office?
Of course, the worst part is that if they did do it the Corel-style easy way and use an emulation layer, millions of copies would sell anyway.
Doesn't matter much to me, though, I've been using StarOffice since 3.1 and it's just BETTER than MSOffice, no matter what platform it's running on.
MoNsTeR
I just wanted to weigh in with the fact that I got interested in UNIX in general and Linux in particular *because* of the command line and the generally wack interface, not in spite of it. It's true that when I'm in Linux, I'm nearly always in X, but I do all my file management etc. in an rxvt, not an Explorer-type file manager.
I must say that I do lament the lack of a standard application framework that would give some consistency to most programs: same hotkeys, same type of menu bars, etc. But, if to get that I have to put up with all the extra crap that comes with GNOME or KDE, plus having to continually update such a huge and rapidly changing chunk of software, I'd rather just tolerate rampant inconsistency.
MoNsTeR
...or maybe just hella-counter-intuitive. I'm sure that being linux people, we've figured out a way to make adding a few HTML tags to plain text nearly impossible for anyone who didn't code the interface ;) (*cough* --this is a JOKE)
MoNsTeR
I love programs run by the government the signing up for which "would be strictly voluntary."
Although PAYING for them with the tax money they steal from you constantly will, unfortunately, not be optional.
Unfortunately, this one is a bit hard to bitch about, as we can pretty much blame the founding fathers. They just had to write the Constitution in a way that Congress could interpret their authority to enact a postal service was an <i>exclusive</i> authority, giving them not only the power to deliver the mail, but to shoot anyone else who tries to. Worse yet, the term "post office" is not defined, so interpreting it to allow them to provide e-mail is hardly a stretch.
Since government always seeks to expand its power, I wouldn't write off the posibility, however small, of Congress eventually granting exclusive authority to provide e-mail to the USPS. It would be easy to sell to America's socialist-at-heart voters. They would only need to point out Melissa and ILOVEYOU and some yet-to-come devastating e-mail stupidity to convince Americans that they just can't trust e-mail to big-business greed or whatever, same as they all thought for phone service, cable TV, and power for decades.
MoNsTeR
Very glad to know we agree on the basics.
As far as what "realistic" policy goals I favor, I really couldn't say. Things like the Meth bill and the profiling pullovers really make me think there's no hope whatsoever for this country. For a while, I've been shopping around for countries to move to once I'm rich and the US turns totally fascist. I'm only slightly kidding.
I suppose some things are simple. Cut taxes. Liberalize issuance of concealed carry permits. Legalize marijuana. Privatize social security. School vouchers. But aside from vouchers, which I'm rather iffy on, I doubt many of these things will actually happen, especially what with Al Gore wandering around taking credit for economic well-being that is really attributable to Reagan. Oh well. In the meantime I suppose I'll hoard guns and gold.
MoNsTeR
Though I wasn't intending to bash Nixon...
You've missed the point entirely. The only acceptable drug policy I can think of would be age restrictions, like exist for alcohol and tobacco. I'm not saying even those are a good idea, just that they wouldn't drive me crazy like our current laws do.
People becoming addicted to various substances might be a problem, yes. But it's a problem for THEM, not the government. Remember, as I said, drug use is a non-violent act, and as such it cannot be legitimately prohibited.
And at any rate, though even Nixon didn't start drug prohibition (blame William Randolph Hearst and DuPont corp. for that), he does deserve blame for starting the official "war on drugs". Why? The life cycle of a government program doesn't include death. When ANY program starts, it has a simple goal. When that goal is acheived, or acheivement draws near, the scope of the program is expanded. This continues forever in a positive feedback loop. Did you know your Social Security Number was originally for "tax purposes only"? People with 50 or 60 year old plus SS cards will have this printed on them. Now what do you use your SSN for? Everything. The FDA was originally created to ensure that drugs had the quantities and purities advertised, now it has its fingers in every aspect of the food and drug industries. The 16th Amendment was originally created to allow the Feds to tax *unearned income* such as interest and dividends, not wages or salaries. Every dollar the IRS deducts from your paycheck is fraud (particularly because the 16th was never properly ratified). So even though Nixon may have had the best intentions (HAHAHA) when starting the drug war, he, like any politician cannot be excused from failing to predict its eventualities.
MoNsTeR
I don't take drugs. Nothing stronger than novocaine enters my body. That doesn't prevent me from respecting others' rights to do with THEIR bodies as THEY please.
Of course, you're obviously trolling, so why am I bothering?
MoNsTeR
Does this shock you? It's just the tip of the iceberg. A brief summary of the price of America's (originally Nixon's) War On Drugs(tm):
;).
1. No-Knock Warrants. Any idiot can see that the police breaking down your door and charging in with guns drawn, with a warrant issued on the basis of an ANONYMOUS TIP, is a violation of our 4th Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and siezures. The whole point of "probable cause" is to protect against stuff like anonymous tips.
Here in Denver, a Mr. Ismael Mena was gunned down by police executing a no-knock raid (issued on an anonymous tip) ON THE WRONG HOUSE. Unacceptable.
2. Asset Forfeiture. Do you know that if the police SUSPECT you've violated drug laws, or worse yet if they actually arrest you, THEY CAN SIEZE YOUR HOUSE, YOUR CAR, YOUR BANK ACCOUNTS, EVERYTHING YOU OWN. And what if you're found not guilty? Or released without even a trial? Do you get it back? Nope. You essentially have to prove your innocence to get it back. Even beginning the process can take more than 6 months, during which time you have to pay for your lawyer(s).
You might want to read that again. These aren't paranoid ramblings, this happens, every day. They can confiscate everything you own, and keep it forever. Intolerable.
3. Roadsite searches. Two kinds, legal and, er, "extra-legal". If a cop pulls you over for speeding or running a red light, he can frisk you and search your car for drugs with no probable cause. It's unconstitutional already! But there's more. You might think "searching" you car amounts to looking under the seats, in the trunk and other storage compartments, maybe even under the hood. But it doesn't stop there, the cop can practically destroy your car in the search process. He can slash open your upholstery, your roof liner, cut open your tires, do ANYTHING to get to any part of your car that could conceivably be used to hide drugs, and more that couldn't. Again, this is not some urban legend, it happens every day.
Then there's the "extra-legal" roadside search. This actually happened to a friend of mine, and is not only happening but happening right here in my own city of Denver. You're driving along, not breaking any laws, and you see flashing lights and hear sirens. You pull over. You're asked to step out of the car, you're frisked, your car is searched (thankfully not in the above way), and you're sent on your way. They're looking for drugs, and they pulled you over because you fit the profile. Apparently, while I wasn't watching, simply being a teenaged male driving at night is probable cause for drug posession. But the best part is that these searches are not explicitly authorized by law, city, state, or federal. The cops are simply doing this as a "trial run" to see if it's effective, so they can get a law passed if they like it. So now they can do ANYTHING they want, as long as they plan on legalizing it later.
4. The Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act. This is HB2987 in the House, but I've forgotten the senate version's number. It has two major provisions. One, it becomes illegal to disseminate information about the use and manufacture of meth (as if it'll only apply to meth, it'll apply to all drugs). That's right, it's illegal to SAY things. So much for freedom of speech. I cannot possibly see how this red-flags the "clear and present danger" test. Two, police are empowered to search your home while you are not home (again, anonymous tips are OK), copy your documents, copy files off your computer, seize "evidence", and NOT TELL YOU ABOUT IT FOR UP TO 6 MONTHS. So, they don't have probable cause, their warrant is not specific, they don't even have to inform you, and you receive no compensation for seizures. This breaks just about every clause in the 4th Amendment.
But you know what? It passed the Senate UNANIMOUSLY. That's right, not a single senator voted against this piece of trash. The only thing I can imagine is that they just read the title, figured it'd look good to their constituents, like they were "tough on drugs" or something, and voted yes without reading the damned thing. At any rate, it's sitting in the House Judiciary Committee right now, and though it's house sponsor is considering a re-write due to the volume of correspondence opposing it, I very much doubt that it will be stopped unless it receives major mainstream media coverage, or everyone who actually cares about their rights calls their reps and senators and expresses in no uncertain terms how much they love their rights and how quickly they will vote for other people come re-election time.
These are just hilights. The story of the drug war is a story of impossibility, yet of brutality, ruthlessness, and unmitigated sacrifice of our constitutional rights. It mirrors alcohol prohibition in almost every way:
1. drug use has increased, not decreased, just as alcohol use did
2. it has brought about immeasurable amounts of organized crime
3. enforcement is extremely costly and horribly ineffective
The only difference is that drug dealers are rarely considered heroes like bootleggers were (except maybe pot hook-ups
It's time to end the war on drugs. Not just because it's doomed to fail, but because we have no business waging it in the first place. Use of drugs is not a violent act. You have a right to put whatever you want into your own body, don't you? Under current law, you don't. Drug use can, in and of itself, harm no one but the user, who engages in the act of his own volition. Prohibition of a peaceful act can never be justified.
http://www.lp.org
http://www.self-gov.org/quiz.html
MoNsTeR
Sales over the internet have ALWAYS been taxed, in exactly the same way as mail-order sales. This is because, for all practical purposes, e-commerce IS mail-order. Look at all the catalogs that just add "order on our website" to mailing in your order or calling it in.
/. post I've made re: taxes where I didn't go off on an anti-tax libertarian rant. If you hate taxes as much as I do, visit the Libertarian Party)
Anyway, what this means is that if you buy (over the 'net or not) from a company is based in, or has a major operation in your state, YOU PAY STATE SALES TAX. On the other hand, if you buy (over the 'net or not) from a company based in another state, that has no operations in your state, YOU PAY NO TAX. If this state tax auditor of yours is trying to tell you that you owe taxes on purchases made from out-of-state firms, then you'd best dial up a constitutional lawyer or something because he's either full of shit or Pennsylvania has some blatantly unconstitutional taxes (only the federal gov't has the power to levy taxes on interstate commerce).
(This may be the only
MoNsTeR
I have but one question re: 5.2: /usr/local would fail completely, even copying the few files needed for a user (w/ "net" install) would fail if that user's ~ was NFS mounted. I got it to work by symlinking ~/Office51 to a dir in /tmp, but honestly, I shouldn't have had to, don't you think?
Can it install correctly in NFS mounted directories? I recently installed 5.1 on my computer, but not before fighting with it for several days. Attempting to install into a subdir of
So can anyone confirm if these issues have been resolved?
MoNsTeR
Some good may actually come of this. Normally, when the US government makes a riduculously unconstitutional power grab, it follows the DMCA and UCITA paradigm: it doesn't tell anyone. There is a difference, though, between are two least-favorite acts of legislation and this new cyber-policing nonsense. The former are manipulations of a corrupt system by businessmen who see no problem with using the force of law to make themselves wealthy (note: this is NOT capitalism!!!). The latter is a machination of the system *itself*. Even the most politically influential corporation is still really only after more money, when the political system itself comes crashing down on our rights its essentially because it wants to: a politician's real income isn't money, it's POWER.
/really/ saying is, "the US seeks to become as authoritarian as the USSR or China."
Anyway, back to the good news. What I see this proposal by the US gov't as is a confession. Here are representatives of what everyone still calls "the freest nation on earth", basically admitting that they don't give a rat's ass about freedom! When they said, "we want cyber-policing powers," what they were
Some days, the United States takes a step towards socialism; others, it steps towards fascism (as in this case of cyber-policing). But one thing's for sure, freedom is dead here. We might as well give the Statue of Liberty a whip instead of a torch and rename here the Statue of Authority.
MoNsTeR
(ps: Freud was an idiot)
Just now, I'm not going to take sides. I'm not going to decry Napster for facilitating piracy, nor am I going to decry Metallica for joining the let's-abuse-the-litigation-process club.
I'm posting this question to call Metallica on their hypocrisy. To wit, here is a quote:
"We're suing Napster for one reason and one reason only. Because they exist to pirate music, nothing more, nothing less. It's not just about the money at the end of the day."
Now, I don't know which of you guys said that, so you'll all have to bear its burden. Here is what you're saying: "It's not about money, it's about piracy." But what is piracy? Unauthorized copying. But why would copying be restricted? Don't artists want to get wider audiences? Of course they do, but you also need to eat, so you copyright your music and charge for it. So unless you're concerned about making money from your music, what is now "piracy" would simply be "getting our music out". So, in effect, what you are saying is this: "It's not about money, it's about money."
Here's another example, though this one could be said to be only on Lars' head:
"We take our craft -- whether it be the music, the
lyrics, or the photos and artwork -- very seriously, as do most artists. It is therefore sickening to know that our art is being traded
like a commodity rather than the art that it is."
I must say, that statement truly disgusts me. When music is sold for $17 a CD at Media Play or Tower Records, THEN it's being treated like a commodity. When music is freely exchanged on Napster, ftp sites, IRC, or whatever, THEN it's being treated like art. Whichever position you take on it, wanting it to be a commodity or to be art, I don't care. I just want you to own up to it. So the basic essence of what I'm asking, is for you to...
EXPLAIN YOURSELVES.
MoNsTeR
I just thought it'd be neat to point out that in the first issue of the LP News that I ever got, they had their list of the top ten libertarian movies, and Brazil was #1. It shows the beauty of liberty by, of course, showing its opposite: total authority. Having your AC fixed by a freelance handyman is a crime, for crying out loud! People are taken from their homes in black bags in the middle of the night to be interrogated and tortured, and CHARGED for it, to boot!
MoNsTeR
I'm really getting sick and tired of this whole debate about taxing the internet, mostly because both sides of the issue tend to be grievously misinformed. OK, here goes:
/really/ saying is not that the 'net should be taxed, since it already is, but that it should bear the burden of an *extra* tax. If you know what sales taxes are supposedly for, you know how ridiculous this is. The point of a sales tax is to fund government actions and policies that benefit local businesses. Tourism boards are a perfect example. This is why resort towns tend to have super-high sales tax, so the gov't can subsidize seasonal businesses and other firms that would not otherwise be able to survive there.
Internet sales ARE TAXED, in exactly the same way as mail order sales, because "E-COMMERCE" IS JUST MAIL-ORDER.
What's the difference between submitting a form on a website and filling out a paper order form? Between enumerating your purchase on your computer versus doing it over the phone? There IS no fundamental difference, and that's why 'net sales and mail-order are currently the same in the eyes of the law. To wit, if you buy from a vendor that has operations in your state, you pay your state's sales tax; if the vendor is out of state, you pay no tax.
What all the whiny, inefficient, yesteryear retailers are
Anyway, I'm biased by my personal belief in freedom, that being the freedom from the initiation of force. I agree with the words of Frederic Bastiat, when he called a tax that does not benefit all citizens equally, "legalized plunder". So I don't believe in 99% of the taxes levied against the citizens of this country, or most others for that matter.
More to the point, as another poster pointed out, the federal gov't has no Constitutional authority to tax the internet, so in order to do so legally they would need to amend the Constitution. I must confess that I do not expect the Supreme Court to share that interpretation, nor do I expect Congress to actually even consider whether its legal or not when they sit down to vote away our prosperity.
MoNsTeR
It seems to me that the source code to a virus or worm would most likely fall under the "clear and present danger" category of unprotected speech, much the same as yelling FIRE! in a crowded theater (as goes the classic example).
;).
Though, I think it would depend on the context. For instance, distributing ultra-strong encryption to university students as part of a class would certainly be protected. However, selling that same code to a Chinese spy (knowingly, of course) would probably be unprotected. So if a hacker sends the code for a virus to another hacker, for the purpose of analyzing the security risk to a program they are collaborating on, that should be protected. However, if a cracker sends that code to another cracker attached to an e-mail that says "here, I bet this'll take down the IRS", that would probably be unprotected (as much as I'd like the IRS to be taken down
Of course, IANAL, but I truly think that Constitutional Law is much simpler than most lawyers, judges, and politicians make it out to be.
MoNsTeR
OK, here's my take on this thing: it's a popularity contest backed by the force of law. Here's my (admittedly stretched) line of reasoning:
/them/ beheaded as well! This continued for so long, and so many heads rolled, that it's a wonder France survived it.
1. government = force (in the words of G. Wash.)
2. public schools are run by the gov't
3. NC's public schools will be directing at least a part of their disciplinary measures (ie: force) based on information from WAVE
4. WAVE gets its information from students
5. the "majority" students have every incentive to phone in reports on unpopular students, such as geeks, Goths, racial minorities, religious minorities, and other miscellaneous "undesirables"
So if the NC schools take the information they get from WAVE seriously (whether out of genuine concern or knee-jerk publicism is irrelevant), there will be a popularity contest supported by the force of law. Don't like someone? Turn them in for... being different! Get your friends to turn them in too! How could WAVE ignore a dozen corroborating reports?
It really reminds me of the French Revolution. Once the real revolutionaries had taken down the tyrants and beheaded them, they set up their own gov't. But woops! Turned out there were enough people who didn't like this new regime to get
As any student (prisoner) of our school system (jails for minors) could tell you, inter-clique rivalry, intra-clique rivalry, and rivalry between cliques and the clique-less ranks high among their foremost worries/concerns. It certainly is more important to most than.. gasp!.. learning. Even those who want nothing to do with it, as I didn't, have little choice in the matter. Even if one chooses to ignore it, the influence against them is still there. We should be discouraging this with all our persuasive might, not legitimizing it with rewards and incentives.
Perhaps worst of all, I see no checks or balances on this system, other than the judgment of administrators, which anyone who's had any involvement with schools can agree is worthless. Who figures out what calls are legitimate, and which are pranks? Do WAVE and the NC schools go into this with the knowledge that upwards of 99% of the calls WILL BE PRANKS? I doubt it. The reactionist nature of post-Columbine "reform" does not doubt the legitimacy of its motives or goals. WAVE and the NC schools are going into this venture fully expecting to turn up hundreds of "depressed" and "dangerous" students, and if they don't find real ones, they'll make up enough to meet their expectations, never mind how many lives get ruined in the process, or how many of our sacred rights are trampled upon.
On a related note...
I remember hearing of a Supreme Court ruling handed down during the era of Vietnam protests. It concerned some students who wore black armbands to school in protest of the war, who were suspended. The ruling upheld the students' right to do this, saying somethine along the lines of "the students do not check their Constitutional rights at the door". I wonder how long it will take for this precedent to be eclipsed? For our post-Columbine reactionism to take the last vestiges of rights away from minors, to make them slaves to the first-class citizens of America, the "adults".
I recall the events at my own high school (George Washington HS, Denver, CO) immediately following Columbine. Trench coats were banned. An assistant principle and the school police officer colluded to create a "black list" of potentially dangerous (or whatever) students. Wearing shirts of the bands that the killers identified with could get you on the list. Playing Quake could get you on it. Doing or saying any number of other things that someone associated with the killers could get you blacklisted. So I wore my KMFDM and Marilyn Manson shirts with pride. I played Quake, and talked about it. If I had owned a trench coat, I'd have worn it. I did my best to show everyone how ignorant they were. I even confronted the principal with the blacklist (about which he didn't even know). I learned a few things. Mainly, that many of the ignorant masses are just that, ignorant. And when confronted with the truth, will accept it. But we must lose no ground, concede no defeats. As Capt. Picard said in "First Contact", THE LINE MUST BE DRAWN HERE, THIS FAR AND NO FURTHER!!!
MoNsTeR
...not corporate use.
/our/ laws from within /their/ borders. So what does the gov't do? What does it always do? Expand its power. Using a regulatory agency such as the FCC to circumvent the "formality" of legislation, our gov't mandates the filtering of any foreign content that violates US laws. Of course, since it would be managed with typical gov't (in)efficiency, it would hardly be a barrier to the technically minded. But to the great unwashed (y'know, the people that think AOL = the internet), this would become commonplace, and accepted. Anyone who wanted change would by now have lost the ability to vote with their wallets, and be left to the far less effective method of voting in a booth.
/our/ part of the network. Only governments command the full force of law. Thankfully, they tend to forget just how expansive that power is, especially since they stamped "VOID WHERE PROHIBITED" on the Constitution. Unfortunately, nasty corporatist organizations like the MPAA are all too aware of the extent of that power, and will employ any number of lobbyists and any amount of money to bend that force to their will.
First, let's assume that such a technology is possible, and furthermore, possible to implement at near-perfect quality.
So iCraveTV uses this tech to restrict access to their site to Canadian users. BFD. They're a private company, they can choose to sell or not sell to whomever they choose, right? Even the normal market mechanism of "voting with your wallet" need not be employed, since iCrave has voted for you. Surely if they proved successful, another company would spring up that did not employ those regional controls, and claim some, if not the bulk of iCrave's market share. The 'net has become largely corporate since its deregulation, and to some extent revolves around commerce now, but I feel that even if such regionalization became pervasive, the "important" part of the 'net - the underground - would survive, and "we" - the underground - wouldn't care, or perhaps even notice.
However, what happens if the US gov't gets irrirated that their laws don't apply to Canadian companies, as other posters have noted? It bugs them, and the MPAA of course, that some Canadians can use the international nature of the internet to break
Oppressive governments: too many to count
Peaceful people: 0
Anyway, my point is that I could give a damn if iCraveTV allows only Canadians to use their service. At leat, compared to the damn I would be giving if my government decided that we couldn't have any of that subversive Canadian (or Chinese, or Middle-Eastern, or Dutch, or....) content on
MoNsTeR
G27 Radio, do you *honestly believe* that the "primary use" of MP3 is legitimate distribution by unsigned artists? Because I sure don't.
/still/ be no "revolution". I am staunchly opposed to the RIAA-centric monopolistic system of music distribution, I really am. It really screws a lot of the artists. But what has to be admitted is that to a large degree and for a long time, it has *worked*. I would contend that the biggest reason all those artists can only distribute via MP3 (ie: they can't get a contract) is that they're music SUCKS. I don't claim to have heard every indy track on the 'net, or that /all/ of it is bad, but a lot of it sure is. Sure, some of it is better than some acts that do have contracts (eg: Zebrahead, Bush, &c), but there's no accounting for taste, right? Anyway, my flame-bastic point is that MP3 is not about a musical revolution where all the indy artists come out of the woodwork and purvey their wondrous works of art, it's about an easy and nearly unstoppable way of stealing music. Whether it's stealing from the artists or the labels or whatever is another question. That the bulk of MP3 exchange is directed at piracy, however, is an undeniable fact.
One thing we can only really speculate about is what MP3's actual *purpose* is. If I recall, the format was developed by the Fraunhofer institute, who patented it. I doubt they were interested in facilitating either piracy or independent distribution.
Now, given that we do not know what MP3 was intended to be used for, what we DO know is what it IS used for. My question to you is, for each song by an independent unsigned artist that is downloaded in MP3 format, how many copyrighted songs by signed artists are downloaded? 1,000? 1,000,000? More? Go to www.oth.net, to mp3.palaquest.com, to any MP3 search engine, and search for copyrighted songs. Now search for indy music. Repeat with Napster. Napster, MP3 search engines, and irc channels like #mp3/dalnet exist as tools of piracy.
Note that this is reflected in the RIAA's actions. Why is the RIAA suing MP3.com? Is it for their hosting of indy music? No, it's for Beam-It, which, as far as I can tell (I know little about it), is a tool for piracy to some degree. Is there an RIAA lawsuit pending against Riffage.com? Not as far as I know. Why? Because they distribute only indy music. The RIAA may not like that, but they (currently) have no authority to quash it.
That said, I hate the RIAA as much as the next person. I believe they are truly evil. They're giving capitalism a bad name, and I hate that. If you believed all their rhetoric and propaganda, you'd think there was something inherently horrible about MP3 itself. This is obviously not true. Personally, my primary use of MP3 is to put my music collection on my computer so I don't have to deal with CD's. For every song on my playlist that I downloaded, there are a dozen that I ripped from my own discs. But I do not deny that I have downloaded MP3's "illegitimately".
[flamebait]
You contend that MP3 is facilitating some kind of music revolution. Ha ha funny. Even ignoring piracy: if the only MP3's people downloaded were by indy artists trying to be heard, there would
[/flamebait]
MoNsTeR
It was a crappy episode on many levels.
/censorship/, what a bunch of suck.
First, there was indeed little suspense. The plot "twists" were pretty much perfectly predictable. If there were other redeeming features, this would be excusable. There were not.
Second, it suffered from what I like to call "'Hackers' disease", ie: it portrayed computers in that surrealistic, super-dramatic way that we all know is bullshit. The characters were slinging buzzwords like there was no tomorrow. Even the name of the company, First Person Shooter, was a blatant attempt to hook into a word someone might have read in some article. It wasn't quite at the level of the "hacking" scene from South Park, but it was pretty bad.
Third, and most important, was that it gave precious little airtime to *our* side of the story: that violent games are an OUTLET for violent urges, that we would be MORE violent without the release they give. There was what? one line from Mulder suggestion that idea? And Scully even cut him off and made him sound like some kind of adolescent (doncha love how that's a pejorative?) fool. To me, it seemed that the point of that episode was that violent video games destroy society, and that the greedy game developers know this and don't care. Bullshit.
I would have been able to excuse this episode if it had given at least equal air time to the idea that violent games are anything other than the toolbox of Satan. But as it stood, it seemed that the show whose motto is "The Truth Is Out There" was promoting
MoNsTeR
OK, I have a very limited understanding of how US patent law works, but I was under the impression that if other people have done / are doing what you're trying to patent, your patent is rejected. Am I right? If so, it seems the patent office is being run by 3 preschool kids and a trained mouse. The fact that we can all think of at least *one* "affiliate program" not run by Amazon should make it obvious that this patent is bogus.
OTOH, if "other people are doing it" isn't a valid reason to reject a patent then:
1. heaven help us
2. yet another reason for me to oppose ALL patents
MoNsTeR
(There are nearly 450 comments already posted on this story, so I don't really know why I'm even bothering. But hey.)
;)
;)
;)
Here in Colorado, we have three major papers:
The Rocky Mountain News
The Denver Post
The Onion
No, I'm not joking. The Onion has a HUGE circulation. You KNOW you've heard of it. Hell, you probably read it. It's Coloradan, baby. Boo-yah.
In a way, The Onion is the best of the three. Sure, it doesn't provide any actual news (aside from concert listings and music/movie/book reviews), but it puts more humor in one place than any website I've ever visited, and for free to boot. But The Onion is also conscious of the web, so you can read the issue from one or two weeks ago online (The website also allows Coloradans to read their Columbine spoof, which was edited out of our region's hardcopy papers.). There's nothing like picking up an Onion at one of the campus newsstands to read on the bus ride home
Anyway, considering the "real papers". For me, the Post basically flunks out on general principle, since it's a two-fold paper, meaning it's well over 4 square feet when unfolded, making it basically impossible to read. And if that weren't enough, it's articles tend to be less articulate, about less important issues, and of a generally lower quality. But it does carry Dilbert
The News, OTOH, is a one-fold paper, has clearly written articles on topics of importance, and carries Garfield, Peanuts, Robotman, and Shoe.
But no one really cares about that. The point is the *function* of the paper. From my POV, papers are the best source of local news. If I want to get local news from TV, I have to:
1. sit through commercials
2. sit through sports
3. sit through human interest stories
4. sit through the barrage of violent crime reports
Plus more crap that doesn't come readily to mind, I'm sure. And I can only get it at 4, 5, 9, and 10 o'clock. What a bunch of suck. The paper I can read anytime I want. I can ignore the ads and the lame stories. Plus there's the classifieds. No online job search lists as many jobs as the paper. All the used car search engines put together don't total a tenth of the auto listings. And eBay is the only even marginal substitute (that I know of) for the misc stuff, like musical instruments, pool tables, yadda yadda yadda.
Anyway, if I had a point, it's forgotten. Take it or leave it
MoNsTeR
I don't think that spending lots of time online causes people to spend less time with friends and family. Rather, people who tend to spend little time with friends & family are the ones who spend lots of time online. If the internet had been widely available when I was in middle school, I would have spent immeasureable time on it, because I had few friends or other interests. Even now in college, I spend a lot of time on the 'net simply because I have nothing else to do.
MoNsTeR