an os, for a different model phone, unapproved by verizon, from sprint, i download to my different model, different cell provider phone... i'll have no problems
i smoked marijuana. why should i be ashamed of that? why must i pander to weakminded shrill people i don't even like whose opinions on making marijuana illegal i consider wrong?
furthermore, why should we pander to over judgmental assholes who would hold against somebody some indiscretion of their from high school?
i understand what i did in high school should not be held against me, you understand that, anyone of any moral integriy does too. in which case, who are we really trying to pander too? oh: weak minds, overjudgmental minds: people who would find something wrong with you anyway, regardless of your ability to white wash your past in the pre-internet age
and in fact, it is GOOD it is hard to hide now. if no one can hide that they tried marijuana, if everyone has to come out and admit they tried it, the sheer preponderance of the weight of the hypocrisy of it all begins to collapse this whole rotten veneer that some people actually believe this stuff is bad for you, and some other assholes pay such fools lip service
let it all come out, let it stay out, and let it prove what is really right and what is really wrong
in short, the persistence of this information is a good thing. the judgment of something being bad or good is not dependent upon your ability to hide something in shame. my judgment of you will be fair base don your character as it is today, now, not as when you were a high schooler, and so will anyone else with a solid morality, and as for anyone who is not, to hell with them, and they would find something wrong about you in the hysterical minds anyways
the internet is a series of servers and wires beyond your control. please note: BEYOND YOUR CONTROL. therefore, regardless of any law, written in bold 72 pt font in blood, no one can reasonably expect anything to be private on this system. buried in your deskdrawer, in your house, there you can find privacy. on the wide open internet, the very notion of privacy is philosophically impossible, like oil and water, the two concepts
furthermore, much of what people are shocked to find that the internet can know about them is detritus. pointless bits and pieces. in other words, no facts about yourself that anyone would consider seriously private in terms of anything that can damage you, unless you are some sort of hysteric. were it even to be found and associated with you, needle in a haystack this stuff is, the very effort that be mustered to even care is ridiculous. yeah, its "private" facts about you in that it is associated with you personally. but the to me the notion of privacy includes some sort of horrible damagin facts about you
and even beyond that, much of this detritus wouldn't exist without the internet in the first place. its not like you had some sort of private facts about yourself, then the internet came along and stole them from you. no, these random bits and pieces about your life only exist because YOU choose to go out on the internet and PUT it there
finally, it is entirely possible to manage your online identity in such a way that what goes on there, behind this moniker or on that site or in this newsgroup or on that facebook page or with that avatar or in that email: you consciously manage what is disclosed and what isn't under that rubrik. this really is nothing new or weird. people, in real life, long before the internet, often managed different parts of their identity in different social spheres of their life
in short, privacy on the internet is:
1. impossible. not legally impossible, but beyond that: philosophically impossible 2. pointless. mediocre bits of flotsam and jetsam where you have to be quite a hysterical person to even care that someone else knows this about you 3. native to the internet. without the internet, this detritus wouldn't exist in the first place. no privacy was "stolen" from you. its the same half-witted reasoning that calls file sharing "stealing" and "piracy". you PUT the information there, with your full conscious authorization of the implications involved 4. completely normal and in line with the entire human history of identity plasticity, manipulation, and management
in short, why the HELL do people get so worked up over this bullshit concept of privacy on the internet. there is none! just accept reality, move on
i honestly believe that kids in their teens, and younger, would find this entire conversation just plain weird. that if you grow up with the internet, this entire issue is beyond understanding, simply because what you do on the internet and privacy is i think natively understood by those who grow up with the internet to be disconnected concepts
tempest in a teapot. an absurd and pointless topic
1. like i knew they did that beforehand 2. uh yeah, i'm a l33t hardware hacker extraordinaire, like everyone else, and have the 50 hours a week to tinker 3. who said i was venting to make a difference? i was respinding to a guy's point in an ongoing internet thread, like hanging out in a bar. why do my words have to have some sort of utility expected of them? to turn your question on yourself: why the hell are you venting?
the gps is disabled. why? because verizon wants me to buy their retarded cell phone tower triangulation location service for $10/ month. the gps chip is sitting right on my phone. free. locked. i downloaded the free gmail app (amazing they let me do that, huh?), and all i can do is a get a rough approximation of my location. i've got the hardware, on the phone, to get the free signal. and verizon won't let me
fucking evil, fucking retarded. it does nothing, dear verizon, except fill me with a burning hatred for you
now i can understand a cell company competing with the services of another cell company, and blocking this or that signal that is a PAID service
but when they go out and start squashing well-established FREE signal services, WHEN THE HARDWARE TO GET IT IS ALREADY ON THE FUCKING PHONE, i begin to channel my inner communist. that is the most evil retarded bullshit there is. free market business practices at their most evil
so i agree with you, i can see them blocking the free hdtv digital signals. 100% possible
the only redoubt i can consider is that, being a free market, t-mobile, sprint, etc., should unlock free gps and unlock free tv signals, if they aren't already, and make a marketing bonanza on that fact
you'd see verizon quickly lose customers, and quietly reverse their fucking evil shit sucking behavior
they already lost me, i totally hate them for that, and have told them in no uncertain terms
evil motherfuckers. blocking free gps in order to sell me their half assed triangulation service. the hardware is already built into THE DAMN PHONE you fucking asswipes
you hadn't noticed the us govt basically shouldering the entire banking system lately?
as for market regulation, oh brother is a huge giant plateload coming
class warfare meanwhile, is a phantom bogey man of yours dredged up from a distant past. the upper middle class and the lower middle class all pretty much rise and fall on the same eocnomic indicators nowadays
as for hatred of the rich, yes, that is alive and well and always has been and always will be. but again, you hadn't noticed them being grilled in washington lately with the implosion of the financial system?
did you just step out a time capsule from the late 1800s?
that's fine, and normal, and i agree with you. most entertaining hollywood movies are nothing but harebrained conspiracy plots. all james bond movies, the da vinci code, most any movie involving politics, etc., etc.
as long as you can tell the difference between fantasy and reality, there is nothing wrong with dabbling in conspiracy strategizing, and its quite fun, and i like to too
you need that mental agility that says no dogma is absolute and unquestionable, to be a good scientist, yes, 100% that is what i am saying and i don't understand how you could disagree with me
as for edison and tesla... i don't know what you are getting at. they had very different personalities, and certainly had radically different business sense, but i don't know how you are differentiating between the two in terms of their mental agility. certainly tesla was rather superstitious and edison was an egomaniac, but superstition and egomania neither foretell or deny a liberal mental agility
its a game of diminishing returns this ridiculous impossible enforcement of all these tiny little gates
in the new world order, anything that can be digitally consumed: books, movies, music, code, will be nothing more than free advertising. the precedent for this not so earth shattering status quo is called television, radio: free content (supported by advertising, but on the internet the content IS the advertising)
advertising for what?
the creators!
creators will make their living off of ancillary benefits of wide adoption of their creative output:
1. the musician will derive a livelihood from live concerts 2. the book writer will get a nice check for the movie adaptation 3. and the movie itself will still be consumed in movie theatres. television was supposed to kill movie theatres, the vcr was supposed to kill movie theatres, and now the internet is supposed to kill movie theatres. no: people like to go, even with the babies and cell phones. its true. the movie theatre is not dying, its very healthy. with imax, 3d: it has a bright future 4. and the coder will simply have one awesome resume in which to get a really good high paying job
thats the future: digital content IS the advertising, for the creators
please note: no distributor needed. the internet replaces bertelsmann, harlequin, virgin, barnes&noble, the dvd aftermarket, etc.: all history, all dead. all gone
well, they probably will morph into shadows of their former selves, 1/10th to 1/100th of their previous economic footprint. someone will still make money promoting teenie bopper bands and pulp fiction, and receiving a share of income for the hype
in which my creative output, which includes code, is consumed according to a strict legal regimen
i reject this strict regimen, i wish my creative output to be consumed however anyone likes
so far, we are both on the same page
this is where we differ:
you assert that this rejection of a strict legal regimen only occurs because the strict legal regimen exists in the first place, that it creates the desire to be free of it
i assert that the desire to be free of the strict legal regimen exists organically, regardless of the existence of the strict legal regimen or not
there are questions which science can never answer
simply because the nature of the question is completely immune to scientific investigation
science is nothing more than the formal outlining of a modest hypothesis, a testing of that hypothesis, and a statement of the results within a framework of modest incremental gain in knowledge
there are questions you can ask- how many angels fit on the head of a pin, for example, that cannot be logically conjectured or tested for
in other words, the question is completely immune to scientific investigation
and, for some reason, most probably complete ignorance of what the scientific method is, you say science REFUSES to answer certain questions
what? you ask me a question i can't coherently answer, and you interpret that as a willful desire not to answer it?
in your scenario, there's more freedom of choice. so linux would be downloaded more, and would be on more desktops. you posit that the FLOSS wouldn't exist. bullshit
linus built linux initially not as some grand experiment in intellectual property, he built it because it was neato. so sorry, but you are wrong, we'd still have FLOSS, and we'd have more linux on the desktop. your reasoning is flawed, because you completely do not understand what really motivates people to write open source
that change, in any society, on any issue, occurs in one of two ways:
1. gradual, progressive, incremental change 2. stagnation, followed by massive revolution
#1 occurs when the system is such that it can absord gradual challenges to the status quo
#2 occurs when some sort of challenge, say, a technological one, such as the internet, represents such a dramatic fundamental modification to the order of a system, say, intellectual property law, that there is no way for the system to digest and incorporate
so this cc0 license, while laudable, seems to me like putting a bandaid on the stump of a severed hand: fruitless
no, he only thing that is going to happen here is revolution: individuals, not because they are amorla pirates, but just because they want to consume their culture (and it is their culture) within suitable parameters of inconvenience, will just reject the entire intellectual property legal system
currently, this is a very hot topic on slashdot, has been for years, but we are the canaries in the coal mine. none of this has really trickled down as a conceptual challenge to the average joe on the street. and when it does, and it is going to, the average joe on the street will, en masse, completely ignore current intellectual property law. he is doing so now, in dribs and drabs, subconsciously and not explicitly. but the tension will increase, and then boom: a veritable new legal landscape. change bubbling up form the bottom, rather than imposed from above
pharmacology: give me a pill that makes my penis hard!
industry can give great minds strong bucks up front because the incentive and reward cycle is tightly coupled. not so for university
people who study cosmology or evolutionary genetics are also rewarding mankind like the guys putting octane in your car or little blue pills in your mouth. but they do so in such a way where the payoff is centuries away. and so their contributions cannot be rationally monetized in the span of a human lifetime
and so such scientists by necessity must toil in poverty, modern day monks
but not in obscurity: make a great leap in a field of science that is not easily monetized, and your reward is fame
all those who sold out and became financial analysts to live in mansions will be forgotten, while your name and your mind will live for centuries, even though you ate cabbage and ramen your whole life
its a different kind of payoff: fame instead of money
Slashdot Mirror
an os, for a different model phone, unapproved by verizon, from sprint, i download to my different model, different cell provider phone... i'll have no problems
you're going to warranty that?
its an 8830 world edition, not a curve
i have 4.2
you go to the website, you ask to download the latest software, verizon says 4.2
why do you somehow think you know my own business better than i do?
you want me to download something from sprint onto my verizon phone?
you tell me what happens, you're the expert
zzz
its locked
gps hardware, locked out by the software
its 4.2
no 4.5 available
thanks for playing
my blackberry world edition
gps locked
purchased oct 07
replaced jul 08
locked, locked, locked
locked you arrogant assumptive motherfucker. understand?
you want me to fucking bring it over to you and show you you fucking twatstain?
grammar nazis know i've smoked pot
my life is ruined
i smoked marijuana. why should i be ashamed of that? why must i pander to weakminded shrill people i don't even like whose opinions on making marijuana illegal i consider wrong?
furthermore, why should we pander to over judgmental assholes who would hold against somebody some indiscretion of their from high school?
i understand what i did in high school should not be held against me, you understand that, anyone of any moral integriy does too. in which case, who are we really trying to pander too? oh: weak minds, overjudgmental minds: people who would find something wrong with you anyway, regardless of your ability to white wash your past in the pre-internet age
and in fact, it is GOOD it is hard to hide now. if no one can hide that they tried marijuana, if everyone has to come out and admit they tried it, the sheer preponderance of the weight of the hypocrisy of it all begins to collapse this whole rotten veneer that some people actually believe this stuff is bad for you, and some other assholes pay such fools lip service
let it all come out, let it stay out, and let it prove what is really right and what is really wrong
in short, the persistence of this information is a good thing. the judgment of something being bad or good is not dependent upon your ability to hide something in shame. my judgment of you will be fair base don your character as it is today, now, not as when you were a high schooler, and so will anyone else with a solid morality, and as for anyone who is not, to hell with them, and they would find something wrong about you in the hysterical minds anyways
the internet is a series of servers and wires beyond your control. please note: BEYOND YOUR CONTROL. therefore, regardless of any law, written in bold 72 pt font in blood, no one can reasonably expect anything to be private on this system. buried in your deskdrawer, in your house, there you can find privacy. on the wide open internet, the very notion of privacy is philosophically impossible, like oil and water, the two concepts
furthermore, much of what people are shocked to find that the internet can know about them is detritus. pointless bits and pieces. in other words, no facts about yourself that anyone would consider seriously private in terms of anything that can damage you, unless you are some sort of hysteric. were it even to be found and associated with you, needle in a haystack this stuff is, the very effort that be mustered to even care is ridiculous. yeah, its "private" facts about you in that it is associated with you personally. but the to me the notion of privacy includes some sort of horrible damagin facts about you
and even beyond that, much of this detritus wouldn't exist without the internet in the first place. its not like you had some sort of private facts about yourself, then the internet came along and stole them from you. no, these random bits and pieces about your life only exist because YOU choose to go out on the internet and PUT it there
finally, it is entirely possible to manage your online identity in such a way that what goes on there, behind this moniker or on that site or in this newsgroup or on that facebook page or with that avatar or in that email: you consciously manage what is disclosed and what isn't under that rubrik. this really is nothing new or weird. people, in real life, long before the internet, often managed different parts of their identity in different social spheres of their life
in short, privacy on the internet is:
1. impossible. not legally impossible, but beyond that: philosophically impossible
2. pointless. mediocre bits of flotsam and jetsam where you have to be quite a hysterical person to even care that someone else knows this about you
3. native to the internet. without the internet, this detritus wouldn't exist in the first place. no privacy was "stolen" from you. its the same half-witted reasoning that calls file sharing "stealing" and "piracy". you PUT the information there, with your full conscious authorization of the implications involved
4. completely normal and in line with the entire human history of identity plasticity, manipulation, and management
in short, why the HELL do people get so worked up over this bullshit concept of privacy on the internet. there is none! just accept reality, move on
i honestly believe that kids in their teens, and younger, would find this entire conversation just plain weird. that if you grow up with the internet, this entire issue is beyond understanding, simply because what you do on the internet and privacy is i think natively understood by those who grow up with the internet to be disconnected concepts
tempest in a teapot. an absurd and pointless topic
as traditionally understood: everyone owns it
its more like open source, as in the government, our representatives, literally own the source
along with every other financial institution and all of their intellectual property since they all went belly up
(the term "intellectual" property as applied to the product of financial analysts being used very loosely)
fuck you verizon
1. like i knew they did that beforehand
2. uh yeah, i'm a l33t hardware hacker extraordinaire, like everyone else, and have the 50 hours a week to tinker
3. who said i was venting to make a difference? i was respinding to a guy's point in an ongoing internet thread, like hanging out in a bar. why do my words have to have some sort of utility expected of them? to turn your question on yourself: why the hell are you venting?
in short, fuck off
read please:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/27/business/economy/27policy.html
i have a blackberry with built in gps
the gps is disabled. why? because verizon wants me to buy their retarded cell phone tower triangulation location service for $10/ month. the gps chip is sitting right on my phone. free. locked. i downloaded the free gmail app (amazing they let me do that, huh?), and all i can do is a get a rough approximation of my location. i've got the hardware, on the phone, to get the free signal. and verizon won't let me
fucking evil, fucking retarded. it does nothing, dear verizon, except fill me with a burning hatred for you
now i can understand a cell company competing with the services of another cell company, and blocking this or that signal that is a PAID service
but when they go out and start squashing well-established FREE signal services, WHEN THE HARDWARE TO GET IT IS ALREADY ON THE FUCKING PHONE, i begin to channel my inner communist. that is the most evil retarded bullshit there is. free market business practices at their most evil
so i agree with you, i can see them blocking the free hdtv digital signals. 100% possible
the only redoubt i can consider is that, being a free market, t-mobile, sprint, etc., should unlock free gps and unlock free tv signals, if they aren't already, and make a marketing bonanza on that fact
you'd see verizon quickly lose customers, and quietly reverse their fucking evil shit sucking behavior
they already lost me, i totally hate them for that, and have told them in no uncertain terms
evil motherfuckers. blocking free gps in order to sell me their half assed triangulation service. the hardware is already built into THE DAMN PHONE you fucking asswipes
die you sleazy shitsucking verizon, die
circa 1923
you hadn't noticed the us govt basically shouldering the entire banking system lately?
as for market regulation, oh brother is a huge giant plateload coming
class warfare meanwhile, is a phantom bogey man of yours dredged up from a distant past. the upper middle class and the lower middle class all pretty much rise and fall on the same eocnomic indicators nowadays
as for hatred of the rich, yes, that is alive and well and always has been and always will be. but again, you hadn't noticed them being grilled in washington lately with the implosion of the financial system?
did you just step out a time capsule from the late 1800s?
that's fine, and normal, and i agree with you. most entertaining hollywood movies are nothing but harebrained conspiracy plots. all james bond movies, the da vinci code, most any movie involving politics, etc., etc.
as long as you can tell the difference between fantasy and reality, there is nothing wrong with dabbling in conspiracy strategizing, and its quite fun, and i like to too
without a mind that doubts everything
you just won't be a very good one
you need that mental agility that says no dogma is absolute and unquestionable, to be a good scientist, yes, 100% that is what i am saying and i don't understand how you could disagree with me
as for edison and tesla... i don't know what you are getting at. they had very different personalities, and certainly had radically different business sense, but i don't know how you are differentiating between the two in terms of their mental agility. certainly tesla was rather superstitious and edison was an egomaniac, but superstition and egomania neither foretell or deny a liberal mental agility
with the switch to digital tv signals in the usa this month, putting a receiver in cellphones for that signal is a no brainer
its a game of diminishing returns this ridiculous impossible enforcement of all these tiny little gates
in the new world order, anything that can be digitally consumed: books, movies, music, code, will be nothing more than free advertising. the precedent for this not so earth shattering status quo is called television, radio: free content (supported by advertising, but on the internet the content IS the advertising)
advertising for what?
the creators!
creators will make their living off of ancillary benefits of wide adoption of their creative output:
1. the musician will derive a livelihood from live concerts
2. the book writer will get a nice check for the movie adaptation
3. and the movie itself will still be consumed in movie theatres. television was supposed to kill movie theatres, the vcr was supposed to kill movie theatres, and now the internet is supposed to kill movie theatres. no: people like to go, even with the babies and cell phones. its true. the movie theatre is not dying, its very healthy. with imax, 3d: it has a bright future
4. and the coder will simply have one awesome resume in which to get a really good high paying job
thats the future: digital content IS the advertising, for the creators
please note: no distributor needed. the internet replaces bertelsmann, harlequin, virgin, barnes&noble, the dvd aftermarket, etc.: all history, all dead. all gone
well, they probably will morph into shadows of their former selves, 1/10th to 1/100th of their previous economic footprint. someone will still make money promoting teenie bopper bands and pulp fiction, and receiving a share of income for the hype
in which my creative output, which includes code, is consumed according to a strict legal regimen
i reject this strict regimen, i wish my creative output to be consumed however anyone likes
so far, we are both on the same page
this is where we differ:
you assert that this rejection of a strict legal regimen only occurs because the strict legal regimen exists in the first place, that it creates the desire to be free of it
i assert that the desire to be free of the strict legal regimen exists organically, regardless of the existence of the strict legal regimen or not
there are questions which science can never answer
simply because the nature of the question is completely immune to scientific investigation
science is nothing more than the formal outlining of a modest hypothesis, a testing of that hypothesis, and a statement of the results within a framework of modest incremental gain in knowledge
there are questions you can ask- how many angels fit on the head of a pin, for example, that cannot be logically conjectured or tested for
in other words, the question is completely immune to scientific investigation
and, for some reason, most probably complete ignorance of what the scientific method is, you say science REFUSES to answer certain questions
what? you ask me a question i can't coherently answer, and you interpret that as a willful desire not to answer it?
read, please:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
you don't even know what science is. please stop talking about science. you simply don't understand the concept
educate yourself as to what science is, start with the link i provided you, and then open your mouth
but currently, you have a pretty galling ignorance of the basic concepts of the subject matter you are involving yourself in
you are saying the desire to be free is only dependent upon dogmatic control as a contrasting agent
i assert to you that the desire to be free is an organic desire in its own right, with no preconditions
freedom is not a product of slavery. freedom is an original impulse
i really don't know how else to articulate how completely and utterly wrong you are. your idea of cause and effect is completely bogus
in your scenario, there's more freedom of choice. so linux would be downloaded more, and would be on more desktops. you posit that the FLOSS wouldn't exist. bullshit
linus built linux initially not as some grand experiment in intellectual property, he built it because it was neato. so sorry, but you are wrong, we'd still have FLOSS, and we'd have more linux on the desktop. your reasoning is flawed, because you completely do not understand what really motivates people to write open source
therefore i must also support pedophilia
there, i can smear myself with retarded bullshit interpretations. i don't need you
there are questions that are permanently beyond the realm of science
or did you think i thought science answered all questions?
i'm not the one making absurd pronouncements here, you are
science is not dogmatic, religion is
that change, in any society, on any issue, occurs in one of two ways:
1. gradual, progressive, incremental change
2. stagnation, followed by massive revolution
#1 occurs when the system is such that it can absord gradual challenges to the status quo
#2 occurs when some sort of challenge, say, a technological one, such as the internet, represents such a dramatic fundamental modification to the order of a system, say, intellectual property law, that there is no way for the system to digest and incorporate
so this cc0 license, while laudable, seems to me like putting a bandaid on the stump of a severed hand: fruitless
no, he only thing that is going to happen here is revolution: individuals, not because they are amorla pirates, but just because they want to consume their culture (and it is their culture) within suitable parameters of inconvenience, will just reject the entire intellectual property legal system
currently, this is a very hot topic on slashdot, has been for years, but we are the canaries in the coal mine. none of this has really trickled down as a conceptual challenge to the average joe on the street. and when it does, and it is going to, the average joe on the street will, en masse, completely ignore current intellectual property law. he is doing so now, in dribs and drabs, subconsciously and not explicitly. but the tension will increase, and then boom: a veritable new legal landscape. change bubbling up form the bottom, rather than imposed from above
petrogeology: we need more oil man
pharmacology: give me a pill that makes my penis hard!
industry can give great minds strong bucks up front because the incentive and reward cycle is tightly coupled. not so for university
people who study cosmology or evolutionary genetics are also rewarding mankind like the guys putting octane in your car or little blue pills in your mouth. but they do so in such a way where the payoff is centuries away. and so their contributions cannot be rationally monetized in the span of a human lifetime
and so such scientists by necessity must toil in poverty, modern day monks
but not in obscurity: make a great leap in a field of science that is not easily monetized, and your reward is fame
all those who sold out and became financial analysts to live in mansions will be forgotten, while your name and your mind will live for centuries, even though you ate cabbage and ramen your whole life
its a different kind of payoff: fame instead of money