bmetzler writes: "No, it's like letting people have a private viewing of the painting if they sit through a 5 minute sales pitch first. They don't have to see the painting, but if they try to slip in through the back door, they are stealing from the artist."
You're muddying the issue. In your example there is an agreement with sales organization. I have no agreement with site X and yet I'm branded a thief.
You cannot compare a contract situation to a situation in which no contract exists. Apples and oranges, and extremely obviously so.
I was writing a reply to the anti-leech website when I realized that using the same logic, I could charge the site for my content!
I realize, of course, that the owner of anti-leech.com did not request the content in question, but this fact seems largely irrelevant to Mr. Wennberg. After all, much like the "thieves" who "steal" from his clients, he did not actually ask that I compose a reply, but I did and it did cost me bandwidth to post, time to create, etc., and as such I expect Mr. Wennberg to pay for the resources that have been expended.
It is in this vein that I have billed Mr. Wennberg for my rebuttal (content) on a net-30 basis and fully intend to collect. I really hope that Mr. Wennberg is consistent with his application of fairness. After all, I did spend a lot of time putting together my response and if he does not pay my bill, it might very well cause me to go out of business altogether.
---------------------
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 19:42:05 -0500 (EST) From: Jason Desjardins <jason@macross.com> To: johan.wennberg@swipnet.se Bcc: Jason Desjardins <jason@macross.com> Subject: Crashspace: Invoice #0001
Anti-leech.com,
Thank you for your recent content purchase! Here is your order confirmation.
Invoice: 0001
Content: ----[%begin]---- From the FAQ [anti-leech.com]: "A website cost time and money to run. Every time you visit a website you will cost the webmaster behind that website money as they have to pay for the bandwidth you use when downloading images, information etc. Most websites depend completely on revenue from advertising through banners and pop ups. If you start trying to block that income you will still cost the webmaster the same amount of money as before, but the webmaster won't earn any money from advertsing to cover the expence. The result is obvious as this get more and more common today. In the end this can mean that the website has to shut down!"
Whoa. Chill out there, spanky.
The internet is not your (or anyone elses) personal toll booth. You don't get to plop your ass down and start demanding fees. Nobody forced you to put up a website. Nobody forced you to put up content and expend effort making that content. Hell, I don't even care if you deny me your content if I don't jump through your hoops. That isn't the issue.
The issue here is simple; your branding of those who do not enthusiastically play your game as 'thieves.' On your front page [anti-leech.com] there is a graphic [anti-leech.com] which states, "15% of your visitors are thieves."
This is a little bit like having a store and thrusting pamphlets into the hands of people who enter the store, then calling them thieves if they refuse the material. Does it make sense to say that by refusing the pamphlet they are denying you a revenue stream? Do you think you would be kicked or merely laughed out of court with this argument?
Your argument that you've paid for content and people are stealing it is a bit like painting a picture, displaying it on the street and then charging people who look at it, calling those who refuse "thieves." It doesn't have any real-world analogue whatsoever and you're a fool if you think that the internet is your sandbox to do with as you please. Doubly so if you plan on trying to enforce it.
And while I'm here, what the hell makes you think you have the right, the right to control how my browser -- and my computer by extension -- acts?
Heck. I think I'm going to send you a bill right now for the time it took to write this content. I imagine you'll be happy to pay it, it's entirely consistent with your argument...
My.02,
Limekiller ----[%end ]----
Total Charge: $90.00 USD
We bill on a net-30 basis. Past due accounts are charged an additional 18% annual APR fee, accrued every 30 days (1.5%).
Again, thank you for using Crashspace content!
Regards, Jason
-- ----
"I speak Spanish to God, Italian to women, French to men and German to my horse." - Charles V
From the FAQ: "A website cost time and money to run. Every time you visit a website you will cost the webmaster behind that website money as they have to pay for the bandwidth you use when downloading images, information etc. Most websites depend completely on revenue from advertising through banners and pop ups. If you start trying to block that income you will still cost the webmaster the same amount of money as before, but the webmaster won't earn any money from advertsing to cover the expence. The result is obvious as this get more and more common today. In the end this can mean that the website has to shut down!"
Whoa. Chill out there, spanky.
The internet is not your (or anyone elses) personal toll booth. You don't get to plop your ass down and start demanding fees. Nobody forced you to put up a website. Nobody forced you to put up content and expend effort making that content. Hell, I don't even care if you deny me your content if I don't jump through your hoops. That isn't the issue.
The issue here is simple; your branding of those who do not enthusiastically play your game as 'thieves.' On your front page there is a graphic which states, "15% of your visitors are thieves."
This is a little bit like having a store and thrusting pamphlets into the hands of people who enter the store, then calling them thieves if they refuse the material. Does it make sense to say that by refusing the pamphlet they are denying you a revenue stream? Do you think you would be kicked or merely laughed out of court with this argument?
Your argument that you've paid for content and people are stealing it is a bit like painting a picture, displaying it on the street and then charging people who look at it, calling those who refuse "thieves." It doesn't have any real-world analogue whatsoever and you're a fool if you think that the internet is your sandbox to do with as you please. Doubly so if you plan on trying to enforce it.
And while I'm here, what the hell makes you think you have the right, the right to control how my browser -- and my computer by extension -- acts?
Heck. I think I'm going to send you a bill right now for the time it took to write this content. I imagine you'll be happy to pay it, it's entirely consistent with your argument...
kmellis writes: "Did your dad give up his share of the copyright on your face for your mother's share of the trademark on your name? And don't these expire after eighteen years? Or is it twenty-one?"
Apparently my parents made the deal; dad "got some" in exchange for giving up his half of the copyright. As for the second question, she's a congresswoman. Just my luck.
I was planning on mapping my own face in case I ever needed to replace it due to some unfortunate accident (and science could manage it), but I just got a cease and desist letter from my mother. Apparently she holds the copyright. =(
The article states, in part: "APG monitored the file sharing networks for available files with Danish IP addresses - and went to court to get the users' personal details from their ISPs, armed with screen shots of, for example, the KaZaA window showing the files on the user's hard- drive."
First, since when did naming a file after a popular song become illegal? Second, were the files checked to make sure that the associated file did, in fact, violate copyright? Third, did the people submitting these screenshots swear to the authenticity of the screenshot (ie, not forged)?
Second, what does getting your contact information have to do with the sales clerk getting a commission? They're mutually exclusive; the clerk does not get less if they don't get your info.
I know because I used to work for that hellhole. I say "hellhole" merely because they tend to be irrational (eg, expecting a manager to meet + beat last year's numbers despite the Stop & Shop next door closing down) and expect blood as a matter of course.
RadioShack has gone through different phases which seemed, to me, to be pretty much directly affected by which President was installed at the moment. In the mid-90's, your rate of success in obtaining the name of a customer, IIRC, was supposed to be in the high 90th percentile. Also, I've had managers that were super anal about the whole thing, some who didn't much care.
Personally, I'm glad to see this tossed to the curb, but I'm sure it was prompted by the fiscal realization that it was actually making people not buy things there rather than some sort of new respect for privacy. There is a difference between a good decision being reached by moral analyses and otherwise. Some people just aren't comfortable with saying, "no," so rather than being made to feel uncomfortable, they didn't get it or got it elsewhere.
Or maybe, just maybe, the information obtained by CueCat is giving them far more valuable data?
From the article: "More worrisome than the risk of escape, they acknowledged, is that the project could lay the scientific groundwork for a new generation of biological weapons, a risk that may force them to be selective about publishing technical details. But they said the project could also help advance the nation's ability to detect and counter existing biological weapons."
It used to be that you'd have to have a clear goal and some ethics to get funding and public good will. I guess all you need these days is to mention that it'll help protect the motherla, er, I mean assist Homeland Security.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not at all sqeamish about this project, I think it's great. I'm just wary of every science project...every any project latching itself unto this Third Reich wünderclone speedboat and heelhauling itself into existence and the public faith.
protonman writes: "So this all doesn't mean the Democrats would be far right in Holland, and also doesn't mean the Netherlands do not have right-wing (by American standards) parties. It just means the political climate in the USA is more right-wing than in the Netherlands (or in Europe, AFAIK)."
This seems to be precisely what the original article stated, but perhaps you think it gave a different impression? What you just wrote is how I took it, anyway.
Raetsel writes: "Boy, that "from the lawn-dart dept." crack is painfully accurate. I just got the video (at ~12K/s), and that thing came almost straight down! (Yes, there was much tumbling involved, but at impact it was pointed pretty much 180 from the way it started.)
Maybe I'm reading too much into the motion of the rocket, but it looks like it tried and almost caught itself coming out of the first loop. Dunno. Maybe that was just good ole' physics at work.
Peter writes: "This strikes me as funny. Like "Just a smidge to the right of The 700 Club.":-) No flames, please. I like Salon, too."
Well, they are fairly leftist, but still not quite as leftist as, say, Indymedia.org. =)
Speaking of which, here is an interesting blurb from an article on Alternet regarding the relationship of America to off-center politics:
"I remember in Antwerp one night, there was a debate set-up by the major Dutch language paper in Belgium... it was me, the former Prime Minister of Belgium -- who is a center-right politician -- and the former head of NATO, who is another Belgian. Of course we all talked in English and I couldn't help noticing that this center-right politician was farther to the left than any of the mainstream Democrats in this country. That just shows you how utterly anomalous the American political system is. We think here that we've got two parties and one's conservative and one's liberal. In the European context, the Republicans would be a right- wing party and the Democrats would be maybe a center-right party. I also think back to a guy I interviewed in Holland who said, "Look, I vote for the most conservative party in Holland and they're way to the left of your Democrats."
Thanks for your reply. I mean what I say in my sig. Too much moderating, not enough discussion.
Gah! I forgot to post the link for the blurb I quoted. Viz:
"The greatest weakness of Internet users -- all of us -- is our failure to recognize the value of intellectual property. Of course we love free access to information -- the more the better. For years, those of us who are information junkies have been like pigs in mud. It has been fun, but those something-for- nothing days are over. There is a difference between the Internet mantra that "information loves to be free" and free information."
It has been noted that Salon's financial woes (how the hell did they rack up 80M in debt?) stems from them hiring good writers. Excellent writers, in fact, top-of-the-line. Noam Chomsky comes to mind. But I have to point out that Alternet.org has writing that is, IMO, and just a smidge to the left of Salon.
So I have to ask, was the 80M in debt really necessary? Personally, I like Salon, and it is one of only three news sites in my bookmarks (along with the BBC and the aforementioned Alternet.org), and I am a subscriber to their premium service. But the idea that writers won't write unless they're paid is a lot like the RIAA saying people won't make songs if they can't !@#$ you in the butt for $16.99/cd. Just doesn't make any sense. But it sure seems to make sense to Salon:
"The greatest weakness of Internet users -- all of us -- is our failure to recognize the value of intellectual property. Of course we love free access to information -- the more the better. For years, those of us who are information junkies have been like pigs in mud. It has been fun, but those something-for- nothing days are over. There is a difference between the Internet mantra that "information loves to be free" and free information."
There is a large talent pool in the world, Salon. Use it. Big names are nice but big names are why you won't exist in a few years. The notion that talented writers only write if you lob a lot of money at them is just as false for the written word as it is for music.
Over the years I've read a good number of neo-luddite vs. the technopop set. I never could identify with the luddites much less imagine I'd side with them. Well I'm starting to.
"There's the TV. It's all right there. Commercials. We are not productive anymore, they don't need us to make things anymore, it's all automated. What are we for then? We're consumers. Okay, buy a lot of stuff, you're a good citizen. But if you don't buy a lot of stuff, you know what? You're mentally ill! That's a fact! If you don't buy things...toilet paper, new cars, computerized blenders, electrically operated sexual devices... SCREWDRIVERS WITH MINIATURE BUILT-IN RADAR DEVICES, STEREO SYSTEMS WITH BRAIN IMPLANTED HEADPHONES, VOICE- ACTIVATED COMPUTERS,..." - Jeffrey, 12 Monkeys
I'm sick of all this crap. I want to walk through my !@#$ing local grocery store, unmolested, and enjoy the process. Is this so hard to understand?
...and so then the Fox says to the farmer, "you know, you shold relax a little. Go ahead, take a nap. I'll watch the chickens. We should Work Together."
krinsh writes: "I wonder if this is something we should really be focusing time and energy on. You know, there are, at a minimum, eight other planets in this solar system that we should investigate - maybe not colonize, maybe not exploit for mineral or chemical (gas or liquid) resources; but we should look at with humans - not robots. I think we'd gain considerable real insight if we looked beyond our terrestrial sphere."
I'm just taking a wild guess, but I'd suspect that the energy and effort required to make one of the other planets (Mars?) habitable AND to get even a fraction of the populace there would (a) require just as much lead-time to execute, nevermind pre-plan, and (b) a lot more money than keeping our butts parked and just obliterating/deflecting the thing.
"But then again; don't we have a few major telescopes in orbit; and thousands more both professional and personal (like mine) on the surface? Shouldn't we be able to note anything on an obvious trajectory here and consider our options at that point?"
First you need to get funding. Right now we cover a very, very small fraction of the sky and if memory serves that got slashed a year or two back. Second, there are things that telescopes cannot see. For example, asteroids coming from the direction of the sun. Just a guess, but perhaps by the time that doppler could spot the thing, it would be far too late (on the order of weeks).
Slashdot Mirror
An AC writes:
"Did you email that to them? Thats the best written argument and analogy I've seen yet..."
Yep. Check it.
bmetzler writes:
"No, it's like letting people have a private viewing of the painting if they sit through a 5 minute sales pitch first. They don't have to see the painting, but if they try to slip in through the back door, they are stealing from the artist."
You're muddying the issue. In your example there is an agreement with sales organization. I have no agreement with site X and yet I'm branded a thief.
You cannot compare a contract situation to a situation in which no contract exists. Apples and oranges, and extremely obviously so.
I was writing a reply to the anti-leech website when I realized that using the same logic, I could charge the site for my content!
.02,
I realize, of course, that the owner of anti-leech.com did not request the content in question, but this fact seems largely irrelevant to Mr. Wennberg. After all, much like the "thieves" who "steal" from his clients, he did not actually ask that I compose a reply, but I did and it did cost me bandwidth to post, time to create, etc., and as such I expect Mr. Wennberg to pay for the resources that have been expended.
It is in this vein that I have billed Mr. Wennberg for my rebuttal (content) on a net-30 basis and fully intend to collect. I really hope that Mr. Wennberg is consistent with his application of fairness. After all, I did spend a lot of time putting together my response and if he does not pay my bill, it might very well cause me to go out of business altogether.
---------------------
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 19:42:05 -0500 (EST)
From: Jason Desjardins <jason@macross.com>
To: johan.wennberg@swipnet.se
Bcc: Jason Desjardins <jason@macross.com>
Subject: Crashspace: Invoice #0001
Anti-leech.com,
Thank you for your recent content purchase! Here is your order confirmation.
Invoice: 0001
Content:
----[%begin]----
From the FAQ [anti-leech.com]:
"A website cost time and money to run. Every time you visit a website you will cost the webmaster behind that website money as they have to pay for the bandwidth you use when downloading images, information etc. Most websites depend completely on revenue from advertising through banners and pop ups. If you start trying to block that income you will still cost the webmaster the same amount of money as before, but the webmaster won't earn any money from advertsing to cover the expence. The result is obvious as this get more and more common today. In the end this can mean that the website has to shut down!"
Whoa. Chill out there, spanky.
The internet is not your (or anyone elses) personal toll booth. You don't get to plop your ass down and start demanding fees. Nobody forced you to put up a website. Nobody forced you to put up content and expend effort making that content. Hell, I don't even care if you deny me your content if I don't jump through your hoops. That isn't the issue.
The issue here is simple; your branding of those who do not enthusiastically play your game as 'thieves.' On your front page [anti-leech.com] there is a graphic [anti-leech.com] which states, "15% of your visitors are thieves."
This is a little bit like having a store and thrusting pamphlets into the hands of people who enter the store, then calling them thieves if they refuse the material. Does it make sense to say that by refusing the pamphlet they are denying you a revenue stream? Do you think you would be kicked or merely laughed out of court with this argument?
Your argument that you've paid for content and people are stealing it is a bit like painting a picture, displaying it on the street and then charging people who look at it, calling those who refuse "thieves." It doesn't have any real-world analogue whatsoever and you're a fool if you think that the internet is your sandbox to do with as you please. Doubly so if you plan on trying to enforce it.
And while I'm here, what the hell makes you think you have the right, the right to control how my browser -- and my computer by extension -- acts?
Heck. I think I'm going to send you a bill right now for the time it took to write this content. I imagine you'll be happy to pay it, it's entirely consistent with your argument...
My
Limekiller
----[%end ]----
Total Charge: $90.00 USD
We bill on a net-30 basis. Past due accounts are charged an additional 18% annual APR fee, accrued every 30 days (1.5%).
Again, thank you for using Crashspace content!
Regards,
Jason
--
----
"I speak Spanish to God, Italian to women, French to men and German to my horse." - Charles V
From the FAQ:
"A website cost time and money to run. Every time you visit a website you will cost the webmaster behind that website money as they have to pay for the bandwidth you use when downloading images, information etc. Most websites depend completely on revenue from advertising through banners and pop ups. If you start trying to block that income you will still cost the webmaster the same amount of money as before, but the webmaster won't earn any money from advertsing to cover the expence. The result is obvious as this get more and more common today. In the end this can mean that the website has to shut down!"
Whoa. Chill out there, spanky.
The internet is not your (or anyone elses) personal toll booth. You don't get to plop your ass down and start demanding fees. Nobody forced you to put up a website. Nobody forced you to put up content and expend effort making that content. Hell, I don't even care if you deny me your content if I don't jump through your hoops. That isn't the issue.
The issue here is simple; your branding of those who do not enthusiastically play your game as 'thieves.' On your front page there is a graphic which states, "15% of your visitors are thieves."
This is a little bit like having a store and thrusting pamphlets into the hands of people who enter the store, then calling them thieves if they refuse the material. Does it make sense to say that by refusing the pamphlet they are denying you a revenue stream? Do you think you would be kicked or merely laughed out of court with this argument?
Your argument that you've paid for content and people are stealing it is a bit like painting a picture, displaying it on the street and then charging people who look at it, calling those who refuse "thieves." It doesn't have any real-world analogue whatsoever and you're a fool if you think that the internet is your sandbox to do with as you please. Doubly so if you plan on trying to enforce it.
And while I'm here, what the hell makes you think you have the right, the right to control how my browser -- and my computer by extension -- acts?
Heck. I think I'm going to send you a bill right now for the time it took to write this content. I imagine you'll be happy to pay it, it's entirely consistent with your argument...
kmellis writes:
"Did your dad give up his share of the copyright on your face for your mother's share of the trademark on your name? And don't these expire after eighteen years? Or is it twenty-one?"
Apparently my parents made the deal; dad "got some" in exchange for giving up his half of the copyright. As for the second question, she's a congresswoman. Just my luck.
I was planning on mapping my own face in case I ever needed to replace it due to some unfortunate accident (and science could manage it), but I just got a cease and desist letter from my mother. Apparently she holds the copyright. =(
The article states, in part:
"APG monitored the file sharing networks for available files with Danish IP addresses - and went to court to get the users' personal details from their ISPs, armed with screen shots of, for example, the KaZaA window showing the files on the user's hard- drive."
First, since when did naming a file after a popular song become illegal? Second, were the files checked to make sure that the associated file did, in fact, violate copyright? Third, did the people submitting these screenshots swear to the authenticity of the screenshot (ie, not forged)?
From page 3 of the review:
"I would defiantly advice of wearing in a dark room, with nobody in sight,..."
I'm all for this "pubishing power to the people" meme but jeepers, can't they get someone to at least give it a once-over for stuff like this? Sloppy.
But to be fair, the review is well-done. Just poorly edited.
First, this is not a flame.
Second, what does getting your contact information have to do with the sales clerk getting a commission? They're mutually exclusive; the clerk does not get less if they don't get your info.
I know because I used to work for that hellhole. I say "hellhole" merely because they tend to be irrational (eg, expecting a manager to meet + beat last year's numbers despite the Stop & Shop next door closing down) and expect blood as a matter of course.
RadioShack has gone through different phases which seemed, to me, to be pretty much directly affected by which President was installed at the moment. In the mid-90's, your rate of success in obtaining the name of a customer, IIRC, was supposed to be in the high 90th percentile. Also, I've had managers that were super anal about the whole thing, some who didn't much care.
Personally, I'm glad to see this tossed to the curb, but I'm sure it was prompted by the fiscal realization that it was actually making people not buy things there rather than some sort of new respect for privacy. There is a difference between a good decision being reached by moral analyses and otherwise. Some people just aren't comfortable with saying, "no," so rather than being made to feel uncomfortable, they didn't get it or got it elsewhere.
Or maybe, just maybe, the information obtained by CueCat is giving them far more valuable data?
red_dragon writes:
"Ah, kamisama! Ore no atama ni ono ga arimasu yo!."
"Oh my god, my head has been opened!"?
From the article:
...every any project latching itself unto this Third Reich wünderclone speedboat and heelhauling itself into existence and the public faith.
"More worrisome than the risk of escape, they acknowledged, is that the project could lay the scientific groundwork for a new generation of biological weapons, a risk that may force them to be selective about publishing technical details. But they said the project could also help advance the nation's ability to detect and counter existing biological weapons."
It used to be that you'd have to have a clear goal and some ethics to get funding and public good will. I guess all you need these days is to mention that it'll help protect the motherla, er, I mean assist Homeland Security.
Maybe I can get a grant to play America's Army: Operations.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not at all sqeamish about this project, I think it's great. I'm just wary of every science project
Can the spam writers claim copyright infringement?
protonman writes:
"So this all doesn't mean the Democrats would be far right in Holland, and also doesn't mean the Netherlands do not have right-wing (by American standards) parties. It just means the political climate in the USA is more right-wing than in the Netherlands (or in Europe, AFAIK)."
This seems to be precisely what the original article stated, but perhaps you think it gave a different impression? What you just wrote is how I took it, anyway.
Raetsel writes:
"Boy, that "from the lawn-dart dept." crack is painfully accurate. I just got the video (at ~12K/s), and that thing came almost straight down! (Yes, there was much tumbling involved, but at impact it was pointed pretty much 180 from the way it started.)
Maybe I'm reading too much into the motion of the rocket, but it looks like it tried and almost caught itself coming out of the first loop. Dunno. Maybe that was just good ole' physics at work.
I only have a three-word reply:
"4,000 milisecond latency."
Just ask India, because that's all they have.
I wrote:
:-) No flames, please. I like Salon, too."
"...just a smidge to the left of Salon."
Peter writes:
"This strikes me as funny. Like "Just a smidge to the right of The 700 Club."
Well, they are fairly leftist, but still not quite as leftist as, say, Indymedia.org. =)
Speaking of which, here is an interesting blurb from an article on Alternet regarding the relationship of America to off-center politics:
"I remember in Antwerp one night, there was a debate set-up by the major Dutch language paper in Belgium... it was me, the former Prime Minister of Belgium -- who is a center-right politician -- and the former head of NATO, who is another Belgian. Of course we all talked in English and I couldn't help noticing that this center-right politician was farther to the left than any of the mainstream Democrats in this country. That just shows you how utterly anomalous the American political system is. We think here that we've got two parties and one's conservative and one's liberal. In the European context, the Republicans would be a right- wing party and the Democrats would be maybe a center-right party. I also think back to a guy I interviewed in Holland who said, "Look, I vote for the most conservative party in Holland and they're way to the left of your Democrats."
Thanks for your reply. I mean what I say in my sig. Too much moderating, not enough discussion.
Email me, pls. You might have some insight on a project i'm working on.
jason@macross.com
Gah! I forgot to post the link for the blurb I quoted. Viz:
"The greatest weakness of Internet users -- all of us -- is our failure to recognize the value of intellectual property. Of course we love free access to information -- the more the better. For years, those of us who are information junkies have been like pigs in mud. It has been fun, but those something-for- nothing days are over. There is a difference between the Internet mantra that "information loves to be free" and free information."
Sorry about that.
It has been noted that Salon's financial woes (how the hell did they rack up 80M in debt?) stems from them hiring good writers. Excellent writers, in fact, top-of-the-line. Noam Chomsky comes to mind. But I have to point out that Alternet.org has writing that is, IMO, and just a smidge to the left of Salon.
So I have to ask, was the 80M in debt really necessary? Personally, I like Salon, and it is one of only three news sites in my bookmarks (along with the BBC and the aforementioned Alternet.org), and I am a subscriber to their premium service. But the idea that writers won't write unless they're paid is a lot like the RIAA saying people won't make songs if they can't !@#$ you in the butt for $16.99/cd. Just doesn't make any sense. But it sure seems to make sense to Salon:
"The greatest weakness of Internet users -- all of us -- is our failure to recognize the value of intellectual property. Of course we love free access to information -- the more the better. For years, those of us who are information junkies have been like pigs in mud. It has been fun, but those something-for- nothing days are over. There is a difference between the Internet mantra that "information loves to be free" and free information."
There is a large talent pool in the world, Salon. Use it. Big names are nice but big names are why you won't exist in a few years. The notion that talented writers only write if you lob a lot of money at them is just as false for the written word as it is for music.
Over the years I've read a good number of neo-luddite vs. the technopop set. I never could identify with the luddites much less imagine I'd side with them. Well I'm starting to.
..." - Jeffrey, 12 Monkeys
"There's the TV. It's all right there. Commercials. We are not productive anymore, they don't need us to make things anymore, it's all automated. What are we for then? We're consumers. Okay, buy a lot of stuff, you're a good citizen. But if you don't buy a lot of stuff, you know what? You're mentally ill! That's a fact! If you don't buy things...toilet paper, new cars, computerized blenders, electrically operated sexual devices... SCREWDRIVERS WITH MINIATURE BUILT-IN RADAR DEVICES, STEREO SYSTEMS WITH BRAIN IMPLANTED HEADPHONES, VOICE- ACTIVATED COMPUTERS,
I'm sick of all this crap. I want to walk through my !@#$ing local grocery store, unmolested, and enjoy the process. Is this so hard to understand?
...and so then the Fox says to the farmer, "you know, you shold relax a little. Go ahead, take a nap. I'll watch the chickens. We should Work Together."
I can't wait until they come out with a game in which you take control of a salaryman who plays The Sims.
Then I wouldn't play that, either.
krinsh writes:
"I wonder if this is something we should really be focusing time and energy on. You know, there are, at a minimum, eight other planets in this solar system that we should investigate - maybe not colonize, maybe not exploit for mineral or chemical (gas or liquid) resources; but we should look at with humans - not robots. I think we'd gain considerable real insight if we looked beyond our terrestrial sphere."
I'm just taking a wild guess, but I'd suspect that the energy and effort required to make one of the other planets (Mars?) habitable AND to get even a fraction of the populace there would (a) require just as much lead-time to execute, nevermind pre-plan, and (b) a lot more money than keeping our butts parked and just obliterating/deflecting the thing.
"But then again; don't we have a few major telescopes in orbit; and thousands more both professional and personal (like mine) on the surface? Shouldn't we be able to note anything on an obvious trajectory here and consider our options at that point?"
First you need to get funding. Right now we cover a very, very small fraction of the sky and if memory serves that got slashed a year or two back. Second, there are things that telescopes cannot see. For example, asteroids coming from the direction of the sun. Just a guess, but perhaps by the time that doppler could spot the thing, it would be far too late (on the order of weeks).
Just call Bruce Willis. Duh.