You must be a AAA member to use their TripTik service, which is available online, but I find them to be by far the best. MapQuest and Yahoo! Maps have gotten me in hot water by making errors, and also often don't give the most efficient routes. It is possible that the routes they give are the shortest distances, but often take longer due to traffic patterns (I can think of at least two examples of this within ten minutes of my house).
In contrast, AAA has never steered me wrong, supports multiple stops, and has features like the ability to select the easiest route to drive, and nearby attractions and restaurants. They also provide maps for every step of the way and highlight your route on them.
That's an MPAA-imposed restriction, I believe -- they say, "If you want to show our movies, enforce these rules." AFAIK the government has nothing to do with it.
The minors weren't stopped because the ESRB rating system is nothing more than a voluntary sticker -- to which, insofar as I recall, game manufacters are not required to submit -- so that parents know what they're buying. Stores are not supposed to refuse to sell M-rated games, etc. to minors.
Also, buzzword catchphrases like "pac man generation" aside, you haven't really proven in any way why it should be necessary to keep them out of the hands of kids, or why it shouldn't be the parent's job.
I organized exactly that at my high school. We started with a few games, but eventually settled in to Tribes. We had to accept time restrictions (twice a week, after school), but they allowed it. Eventually they wanted us to get a faculty member to keep an eye on the lab after it got trashed (not by us), and no faculty member was willing, so it died, but not from lack of sanction.
If you're trying to do the same, some advice: write a formal charter and present it to your administration. I wrote ours myself, in two parts: Description and Justification.
It's a question of attitude. What Your_Mom is suggesting is that the phrasing of the statement indicates the RIAA's real position, which belies their "We're here for the artists" official position.
While they may technically own the legal rights to the music (and whether they should or not is a hot issue), they've been claiming the moral high ground based on that position. Unless Mr. Oppenhim 'misspoke' -- and if he's actually called on that (he won't be), he'll probably claim he did -- his choice of language is a clear indicator of where the RIAA really stands.
I'll admit I'm not all that well-informed about the DNS system, but I think this idea makes a lot of sense... Has anybody given any thought to the idea of multiple existing DNS systems, with the ability to specify which DNS you're using?
For example, say you have two websites, run by Siteowners Bob and Tom, who each want the domain "blah.com," and Siteowner Bob gets into the ICANN-run DNS before Siteowner Tom. So Tom goes to (and I'm pulling this name from nowhere -- I doubt it exists) CheeseDNS. The (hypothetical) newest versions of browsers are written under the assumption that there are multiple DNS' out there, and that functionality is written into them.
So to get to Siteowner Bob's blah.com, you might type:
icann://www.blah.com
... whereas to get to Siteowner Tom's blah.com, you might type:
cheese://www.blah.com
... or something to that effect.
This would probably necessitate maintaing an active list of DNS' -- that could be kept by ISPs, or some regulating body (hopefully not ICANN -- preferably some newly-created regulating body whose members are voted on REGULARLY, to avoid problems like the ones we're having with ICANN.
Like I said, this issue is not my area of expertise, so by all means tell me why it will or will not work.
There's a lot of reasons why I won't pay for content. There's also some reasons I will. It all depends on the circumstances.
Reasons I won't pay:
1. What am I getting for my money?
When someone pays for something, an assumption is made about the quality of the purchased item, be it information, software, books or what-have you. This is based on the fact that real-life businesses are subject to a host of regulations, and it's easy to enforce. A real-life business owner can't just make his building disappear when the feds get wind of his fraud. So if he sells you an empty box, you're gonna be back -- not only that, but you're gonna be back pissed, and you're gonna be back with the cops.
In contrast, websites, even ones which are just selling information, have a serious problem in that area: if they screw up, it's easy to take a website offline fast. Sure, you might be able to track down the original owner, but that's a lot of work, and a whole host of techniques are available to muddy the waters if you're on the hiding end. This leads us to the second problem:
2. Are they liable? Hell, are they accurate?
There's no guarantee if you buy medical advice from a website that it won't kill little Jimmy in the ICU. There's no guarantee if you buy car advice that your engine won't blow up in your face. All bets are off.
Basically, whereas brick-and-mortar businesses are subject to laws and litigation (so they HAVE to verify their information, and they CAN be sued), online content providers aren't. But don't rush to legislate -- people who actually make the laws have demonstrable short-sightedness towards that sort of thing (*coughcough*DMCA*coughcough*). Do you really want your personal video game tips fined because you didn't verify a tip a reader sent in? Laws filtered through government bodies tend to accumulate problems as they go. For that matter, do you really want your government feeling like they can meddle freely? Personally, I suspect that any attempt to legislate such things would be (a) internationally unenforceable and (b) host to a staggering number of problems.
3. How much is it gonna cost me?
People have an overinflated sense of their own self-worth, as demonstrated by things like shareware pricing. I'm not likely to pay $20 for a webpage -- any webpage.
Furthermore, do I have to subscribe? I'm not likely to pay $5 a month either. I don't like recurring charges.
4. What happens if the site folds?
Sites are temporary things. They're arbitrarily killed off all the time. If I've paid for content, what happens if it goes away?
5. Who am I paying?
If I'm paying, say, Pete Abrams, I'm happy to do so (Sluggy's stayed free and is now Pete's full time career -- see, it does work). If I'm gonna be lining the pockets of some RIAA fatcat, I'm more likely to decide that they've already got more than a fair amount of my money.
6. How easy is it to pay?
I'm not willing to put a lot of effort into the deal. If you want me to give you money, you'd better make it easy for me to do so.
7. What's the atmosphere of the site? (This one sounds weird, I know, but humor me.)
I don't like being pestered incessantly. Pop-ups and the like irritate the bejeezus out of me. Make me like your site, and I'm more willing to help out. Also, if I'm paying, I don't want to see banner ads -- or any ads, really. The whole point of paying is to create a revenue stream, after all. Lots of sites are latching on to this idea -- for example, for a fee you can get Sluggy ad-free. Lots of us still use the free, ad-supported version, but Pete reports that ad-free Sluggy is doing very well.
8. What am I getting for my money, anyway?
Lots of sites insist on a prior payment method, where you pay before you actually see the content. And this makes sense, to a degree -- why would you pay for content you can get in a demo? Some sites realize this, and provide a sample, but others go the all-or-nothing route. And even if you've seen the sample, you have no way of knowing that the rest of the site's as good.
And last but not least: 9. Does your site WORK?
Everyone hates broken links. Everyone hates missing files. Take better care of your sites, folks, or you'll never get anyone to pay you.
(There are people who do a good job with this. They're just outweighed by the crap.)
I have paid for things before. Tipjars and optional payments and such do work. But if you want mandatory payments from me, you'd better make sure that I'm gonna get something for my money -- and that I know it.
The venerable Ms. Underwood is apparently a jackass. Here I will review (some of) her perpetrated idiocies. All italics denote quotation from the article.
She said the appeals court has perhaps fatally restricted the power of Congress to address ``that serious problem'' and called the ruling ``dramatic and extraordinary in its scope.''
Who says it's serious? It only affects people with children, and of those people, only those who have irresponsible children, and of those, only those who haven't properly undertaken their responsibilities with their children -- by talking to them.
Adult verification services that cost $16.95 a year represent an acceptable ``price to pay for protecting children from the harmful effects of graphic pornographic images,'' she said.
GAHHHHHHHH! You IDIOT. So... stupid... must... restrain... fist... of... death....
It may well be worth YOUR $16.95 to you. It sure as hell ain't to me. And what about those people who DON'T have kids? They'd have to use an AVS too, thereby paying for something they don't need but would nevertheless be required to purchase.
And all to block out something which you claim is "harmful." Show me some proof of harm or shut your hole.
That's not even getting into the problems with AVSs. First off, would YOU trust YOUR credit card number to one? Second, minors can get credit cards too. They generally have to be tied to a parental account, but they're still credit cards, and they're in the minor's name.
So Ms. Underwood recommends the following: a government-mandated, but corporate-run age verification system which is unreliable and, in fact, nonfunctional, in order to solve a nonexistent problem.
My $16.95 is worth enough to me that I don't want the government forcing me to give it to a worthless pile of steaming feces (in the form of an AVS). I'm sorry, Ms. Underwood, but you don't have the right to tell me that protecting someone else's kids -- I'll actually talk responsibly with mine, thanks -- is worth giving you $16.95 a head.
I'm no lawyer, but I have made a priority of studying individual rights issues.
As I understand things, the burden of proof ought to be on whoever wants to remove something from public access, and they must prove that P2P software has basically NO legitimate use. I don't think that can be done -- for example, just off the top of my head I came up with this example, and I'm sure there are more:
-- example begin --
As Programmer Bob, I run a service for the Quake community. I've developed an app with the following functionality:
1. Provides a chat area with multiple channels for people to talk, meet people and look for other people to play with.
2. Serves as a central server repository, for people who don't want to bother with hand-picking their players in the chat area.
3. Designed to integrate with game setup -- game options can be changed from within the app, the game can be launched directly from the app, etc.
4. (this is where the P2P part comes in) Facilitates a mod/skin trading service. Different users can share mods and skins by dropping them all in a directory and sharing it. The app can then be used to search for different mods, a là Napster/Gnutella/SMA/what-have-you, which are being served by OTHER USERS. There is no charge for the service (which prevents any problem of indirectly charging for the work of others, i.e., mods), and if any mod authors request that their mod be removed from the service, that mod can be filtered.
... and make the assumption that Bob has iD's blessing. I don't see why they'd care -- if anything, I would think they'd choose to support it, since it will add to the experience of the game, and in so doing drive more sales.
-- example end --
(This is of course a fictional app -- I don't know of one that includes all those functions. But then, I don't play Quake much.)
It seems to me that such a beneficial, community-serving, perfectly legal thing ought to AT LEAST justify not outlawing P2P software as a blanket statement.
And we shouldn't even be required to justify it (although I suppose some examples are required to combat allegations that it HAS no non-infringing uses). But this seems like a perfectly plausible example.
Based on the ease with which the P2P class of software can be collectively justified, I don't see how it can legitimately be banned. There may be some specific instances with which certain P2P apps can be used for illegal purposes, but I don't see anyone trying to ban copy machines. Or scanners. Or VCRs.
The issue is not the quality of the plaintiff's arguments; rather, it is the priorities of the court. Plaintiff's arguments make perfect sense -- IF you place a higher priority on corporate intellectual property than on private citizens' rights. The reason it seems that their arguments are faulty is that, like most of the/. crew, you and I place a higher priority on the individual rights.
The plaintiff's arguments center around the idea that, while it may well cost us some rights -- at least, rights that you and I choose to interpret in a relatively broad way fashion, relative to the MPAA -- preservation of those rights would require potential damage to the MPAA's cash intake. And make no mistake -- the damage is potential only. Dean Sullivan specifically noted that there are NO infringing uses of DeCSS on the record. (At the same time, bear in mind that, as the plaintiff argued, that may be because we have no way of tracking such infringment).
Now, the way I see things is that individual rights have been watered down plenty by previous cases and really don't need any more of such treatment. I place a higher priority on those rights than on the MPAA's (faulty) business model, especially since they're in no real danger of dying. To be more precise, than on the business models of the studios which comprise the MPAA.
The real question we should be asking here is not who made the more compelling arguments. Instead, the question to ask is where the judges will place their priorities.
Not quite true. Later Constitutional law battles essentially extended the power of the Amendments to state governments as well. Since state legislatures control the public education system, that First Amendment protection DOES extend to them. The Supreme Court, however, has ruled repeatedly that since schools have such a narrow purpose, much of that Constitutional protection gets taken away. Personally, I think that's stupid, since you're required to go to school up through 10th grade -- you're being coerced into giving up Constitutional rights.
This is all a moot point anyway, since the case deals with a private school.
Also, I'm not a lawyer, so take what I say with a grain of salt. I think it's all correct, though.
While free speech is protected by the First Amendment, there must be drawn a limit to which this umbrella of protection is stopped. That limit is drawn where your speech (or in this case, writings) causes harm to another individual.
Parody and satire are expressly protected forms of speech. Unfortunately I can't point you to specific case law, but any lawyer worth his salt should be able to tell you that.
A philosopher once said "I may not agree with what you're saying, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" and this holds true in most cases. We have the First Amendment not to protect the conformists and conservatives in our society, but to protect those who hold minority or contriversial opinions that would otherwise be persecuted for their beliefs.
Oh, come on, people! Try applying that to the kid. It doesn't make any sense otherwise. The principal falls into that "conformists and conservatives" category you mentioned, while the kid is the one who's being persecuted. This is back-assward.
Oh, and I think it was Voltaire.
This is a good thing, and I fully support the student's right to exercise his rights, however in this particular case, the student has crossed the line, and was right to have his website censored by the school system. When speech causes harm, whether it be physical injuries, or mental anguish, to another person, the speaker has violated the rights of the target of the speech and therefore, not protected by the First Amendment.
No. No, no, no, no, no, no. I hope I'm making myself clear here. You're WRONG. Parody and satire are protected categories.
What do you mean, you "fully support the student's right to express his rights?" You quite obviously DON'T support that right, or you wouldn't be talking such nonsense. I believe that's called talking out of both sides of your mouth at once.
Specifically which of the Asst. Principal's rights was he violating?
This is called slander or libel and is punishable by law. Just ask the National Inquirer. Deliberately spreading rumors or insulting another person is against the law and I am truly saddened at the opressive power the ACLU wields over this country's courts. I can only hope that justice will be served in an appeal.
Wrong again. Insulting people isn't against the law. If it were, we'd have a REAL prison space problem on our hands. And as has been pointed out, it's the job of the law to deal with slander and libel, not school districts who want to throw their weight around. That's what we pay 'em for.
The ACLU has too much power? The hell you say! They don't have enough. I can't speak for you, but I'm not willing to trade away my constitutional rights for the sake of some assistant principal's dignity.
All e-mail, phone calls, and video monitoring are now standard for most companies, so why not universities and colleges? Get use to it, privacy is no longer an issue.
If, as you say, privacy is no longer an issue, then the root cause of it is that the general public, like yourself, has adopted a defeatist attitude. It is precisely this kind of outlook that makes it possible to take away privacy like that. We haven't lost yet, and I won't let it go without a fight just because someone thinks we already have.
It is a threat to bandwidth and system stability(much like Napster and Gnutella are). If I were in charge of a large LAN (over 1000 clients connected), then I would develop a blacklist of smut websites for the router to block out.
Sex has no place in the workplace. Period.
Erm... near as I can tell, the issue of sex in the workplace was never brought up. Most porn/sex-type stuff, I believe I can state with some certainty, is done at home. Workplace issues are irrelevant; you're attacking an issue outside the scope of the article.
Your choice of games should depend on what exactly you're trying to test. RTS games like StarCraft do test strategy skills, but they also require good reflexes and fast mouse movement. If that's OK, try Myth or Myth II. The system works a bit like StarCraft, but plays much differently. They weren't as popular as Warcraft II or StarCraft, so it's less likely (though certainly not impossible) that your sample will have played them.
If you JUST want to test strategy, especially for business school students, try the old Super Nintendo game Aerobiz. The basic idea is to run a profitable airline company against either human or computer competitors. Aerobiz is commonly found online if you're unable to procure cartridges (legal stupidies prevent me from offering links, and the same stupidities force me to say that I advise against and disclaim all responsibility for any illegal action which you may be considering as a result of this post).
Maybe someone can explain this to me, cos I'm not getting it. OK, so the fingerprint is rendered down to an algorithm. True, the kid doesn't have an algorithm engraved in his finger, but why can't cops just run the finger through the same process for ID purposes?
Goddamn, I hate us. Note that this will probably get worse before it gets better -- our friendly voters in Florida helped get a pro-business, anti-environment President elected.
I've seen people poking around the edges, but no one's come out and said this yet...
Is it just me, or is Sony hyping (not building, not yet) a computer rather than a console? The article on GameSpot describes some of the features Sony is reportedly planning to include in the PS3: online shopping, banking and "other Internet services." Whatever happened to the good old days when a gaming console just played games? I'm not griping over change -- it's not necessarily a bad thing to add new features to a console, and the PS2's DVD-playing function was probably a slick move -- but it seems to me that when gaming consoles were just that -- GAMING consoles -- the games were far superior. Sony needs to quit pumping new features into its products until they figure out what to do with the ones they've got. (Nintendo, by the way, has publicly stated that they are planning to make the upcoming GameCube games-only. This is why they have a history of excellent games, and why they rarely make a bad in-house game: they let themselves focus on the games alone.)
As for other insights, most of them have already been stated: The PS2 just came out, so why the hell do we have PS3 hype; the Dreamcast is a superior console; so on so forth. These are all true. Go spend your money on a REAL gaming console.
Despite what the GOP has been telling you, taxes and fines are not the same thing. A tax can be burdensome, unfair, ill-conceived, and unreasonably high but that does not make it into a fine or form of punishment.
Let's look at it another way: Since your local tax dollars pay to repair vandalism at public buildings, does that mean that everyone who lives in your locality is facing a pre-fine or collective punishment for vandalism? Of course not.
Of course not. But, as you've pointed out, taxes and fines aren't the same thing. This may be called a tax, because it's pre-collected, but come on now, be reasonable. This is a punishment for piracy. How can one possibly misconstrue that? And as was pointed out above, collective punishments are illegal (although I suppose I don't actually know about France's laws on the issue).
Happily, Tasca withdrew the proposal, so we're all happy now =)
From the article: "It seems to me that the emergence of new technologies has undermined artists' earnings... there is no business model for culture unless artists are paid. Without them there is neither music nor video images," the minister was quoted as saying.
Uhm... Excuse me? Is the esteemed Ms. Tasca saying that all of this money is going directly to the artists? I can just see the headlines now: "Culture Minister Feeds Starving Artists in the Streets."
Unfortunately, no. The article says that about 75% of the money will go to "artists and producers" (Babelfish translation from "Bullshit" to "English:" "producers"), while the other 25% goes to promote "fresh talent" (More from the 'fish from Bullshit to English: "We're going to make more record industry-created bands to pick your pocket, just like we've been doing, and we're going to do it with your money! Stop us if you can, suckers!").
More from the article: "A tax on decoders, advanced video recorders and computers, in other words any device that allows such works to be recorded... should be looked into," she [Minister Tasca] added.
No, again. Christ, why do none of these people get it? THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CAPACITY AND ACTUALITY. Just because something "can" be used to do something doesn't mean it *will*, and therefore it is (or, rather, would be, if these people had a brain in their heads) untaxable. I'm completely failing to understand why no legislators seems to understand this issue.
Hell, last I checked, VOTERS lobbied, not industries.
How does France get their Ministers? They need to get one with a clue.
If the government spends your tax money on a shelter for battered women, does that mean that it should be legal for you to beat your wife? If they levy a tax to clean up a waterway, does that mean that you should be legally allowed to dump your trash in it because you paid the tax?
That argument doesn't quite hold water. Those things are used as remedies. If this tax is to compensate artists for lost sales due to copyright infringement (and statistical surveys show [and statistical surveys are valid if they're done properly] that, if anything, the opposite is true), then the assumption is being made that YOU, Joe Consumer, are a pirate. If they're wrong(!) about Mr. Consumer, it is not compensation for a crime you've committed (a là the O.J. analogy), but for a crime that they THINK you MIGHT be committing -- purely on the basis of the fact that you bought some CD-Rs. Y'know, there are actual uses for those things besides music piracy.
Don't you DARE tell poor Joe that he has to pay out the nose because the record execs have linked CD-R purchases to music piracy. That would be like a statistical survey showing a correlation between... I don't know, say, root beer consumption and liver cancer. Correlation is not proof of causation -- anyone who's ever studied statistics at any depth knows that, or should. There are perfectly valid, legal reasons to buy CD-Rs.
Hope I didn't miss someone else posting this, I skimmed subject tags...
I'm not sure if this has anything to do with it, but I have a friend who has reported to me that his (old-ish) DVD drive has a tendency to not just refuse to read CD-Rs, but to actually erase them. If this player utilizes an old-school DVD mechanism, that could be it. (Note that it doesn't do it to *all* of his CD-Rs, just at random, so that might explain continued functionality in those CD-Rs.)
Also, one thing to keep in mind is that if you are on AOL, and you get e-mail from blah@aol.com (unless it's from a mailing list or something) then the address is most likely forged.
To clarify: not all spam you get from AOL-based email addresses actually comes from AOL members. They're often forged. I have seen AOL in action, as it were, and since AOL-based email addresses are shown to AOL members without the domain, the presence of the domain in the source address proves more or less conclusively that spammers often forge their headers to fake an AOL source.
You might think that spammers would realize they shouldn't spam AOL members with obviously faked AOL source addresses, but apparently they're not a bright lot.
Slashdot Mirror
You must be a AAA member to use their TripTik service, which is available online, but I find them to be by far the best. MapQuest and Yahoo! Maps have gotten me in hot water by making errors, and also often don't give the most efficient routes. It is possible that the routes they give are the shortest distances, but often take longer due to traffic patterns (I can think of at least two examples of this within ten minutes of my house).
In contrast, AAA has never steered me wrong, supports multiple stops, and has features like the ability to select the easiest route to drive, and nearby attractions and restaurants. They also provide maps for every step of the way and highlight your route on them.
That's an MPAA-imposed restriction, I believe -- they say, "If you want to show our movies, enforce these rules." AFAIK the government has nothing to do with it.
inigima
The minors weren't stopped because the ESRB rating system is nothing more than a voluntary sticker -- to which, insofar as I recall, game manufacters are not required to submit -- so that parents know what they're buying. Stores are not supposed to refuse to sell M-rated games, etc. to minors.
Also, buzzword catchphrases like "pac man generation" aside, you haven't really proven in any way why it should be necessary to keep them out of the hands of kids, or why it shouldn't be the parent's job.
inigima
I organized exactly that at my high school. We started with a few games, but eventually settled in to Tribes. We had to accept time restrictions (twice a week, after school), but they allowed it. Eventually they wanted us to get a faculty member to keep an eye on the lab after it got trashed (not by us), and no faculty member was willing, so it died, but not from lack of sanction.
If you're trying to do the same, some advice: write a formal charter and present it to your administration. I wrote ours myself, in two parts: Description and Justification.
It's a question of attitude. What Your_Mom is suggesting is that the phrasing of the statement indicates the RIAA's real position, which belies their "We're here for the artists" official position.
While they may technically own the legal rights to the music (and whether they should or not is a hot issue), they've been claiming the moral high ground based on that position. Unless Mr. Oppenhim 'misspoke' -- and if he's actually called on that (he won't be), he'll probably claim he did -- his choice of language is a clear indicator of where the RIAA really stands.
For the record, I had exactly the same reaction.
Technically, doesn't that right to a speedy trial only apply to US citizens?
Besides, they might be hoping that if they wait long enough, all the fuss will die down and they can do what they please.
inigima
I'll admit I'm not all that well-informed about the DNS system, but I think this idea makes a lot of sense... Has anybody given any thought to the idea of multiple existing DNS systems, with the ability to specify which DNS you're using?
For example, say you have two websites, run by Siteowners Bob and Tom, who each want the domain "blah.com," and Siteowner Bob gets into the ICANN-run DNS before Siteowner Tom. So Tom goes to (and I'm pulling this name from nowhere -- I doubt it exists) CheeseDNS. The (hypothetical) newest versions of browsers are written under the assumption that there are multiple DNS' out there, and that functionality is written into them.
So to get to Siteowner Bob's blah.com, you might type:
icann://www.blah.com
... whereas to get to Siteowner Tom's blah.com, you might type:
cheese://www.blah.com
... or something to that effect.
This would probably necessitate maintaing an active list of DNS' -- that could be kept by ISPs, or some regulating body (hopefully not ICANN -- preferably some newly-created regulating body whose members are voted on REGULARLY, to avoid problems like the ones we're having with ICANN.
Like I said, this issue is not my area of expertise, so by all means tell me why it will or will not work.
inigima
There's a lot of reasons why I won't pay for content. There's also some reasons I will. It all depends on the circumstances.
Reasons I won't pay:
1. What am I getting for my money?
When someone pays for something, an assumption is made about the quality of the purchased item, be it information, software, books or what-have you. This is based on the fact that real-life businesses are subject to a host of regulations, and it's easy to enforce. A real-life business owner can't just make his building disappear when the feds get wind of his fraud. So if he sells you an empty box, you're gonna be back -- not only that, but you're gonna be back pissed, and you're gonna be back with the cops.
In contrast, websites, even ones which are just selling information, have a serious problem in that area: if they screw up, it's easy to take a website offline fast. Sure, you might be able to track down the original owner, but that's a lot of work, and a whole host of techniques are available to muddy the waters if you're on the hiding end. This leads us to the second problem:
2. Are they liable? Hell, are they accurate?
There's no guarantee if you buy medical advice from a website that it won't kill little Jimmy in the ICU. There's no guarantee if you buy car advice that your engine won't blow up in your face. All bets are off.
Basically, whereas brick-and-mortar businesses are subject to laws and litigation (so they HAVE to verify their information, and they CAN be sued), online content providers aren't. But don't rush to legislate -- people who actually make the laws have demonstrable short-sightedness towards that sort of thing (*coughcough*DMCA*coughcough*). Do you really want your personal video game tips fined because you didn't verify a tip a reader sent in? Laws filtered through government bodies tend to accumulate problems as they go. For that matter, do you really want your government feeling like they can meddle freely? Personally, I suspect that any attempt to legislate such things would be (a) internationally unenforceable and (b) host to a staggering number of problems.
3. How much is it gonna cost me?
People have an overinflated sense of their own self-worth, as demonstrated by things like shareware pricing. I'm not likely to pay $20 for a webpage -- any webpage.
Furthermore, do I have to subscribe? I'm not likely to pay $5 a month either. I don't like recurring charges.
4. What happens if the site folds?
Sites are temporary things. They're arbitrarily killed off all the time. If I've paid for content, what happens if it goes away?
5. Who am I paying?
If I'm paying, say, Pete Abrams, I'm happy to do so (Sluggy's stayed free and is now Pete's full time career -- see, it does work). If I'm gonna be lining the pockets of some RIAA fatcat, I'm more likely to decide that they've already got more than a fair amount of my money.
6. How easy is it to pay?
I'm not willing to put a lot of effort into the deal. If you want me to give you money, you'd better make it easy for me to do so.
7. What's the atmosphere of the site?
(This one sounds weird, I know, but humor me.)
I don't like being pestered incessantly. Pop-ups and the like irritate the bejeezus out of me. Make me like your site, and I'm more willing to help out. Also, if I'm paying, I don't want to see banner ads -- or any ads, really. The whole point of paying is to create a revenue stream, after all. Lots of sites are latching on to this idea -- for example, for a fee you can get Sluggy ad-free. Lots of us still use the free, ad-supported version, but Pete reports that ad-free Sluggy is doing very well.
8. What am I getting for my money, anyway?
Lots of sites insist on a prior payment method, where you pay before you actually see the content. And this makes sense, to a degree -- why would you pay for content you can get in a demo? Some sites realize this, and provide a sample, but others go the all-or-nothing route. And even if you've seen the sample, you have no way of knowing that the rest of the site's as good.
And last but not least:
9. Does your site WORK?
Everyone hates broken links. Everyone hates missing files. Take better care of your sites, folks, or you'll never get anyone to pay you.
(There are people who do a good job with this. They're just outweighed by the crap.)
I have paid for things before. Tipjars and optional payments and such do work. But if you want mandatory payments from me, you'd better make sure that I'm gonna get something for my money -- and that I know it.
The venerable Ms. Underwood is apparently a jackass. Here I will review (some of) her perpetrated idiocies. All italics denote quotation from the article.
She said the appeals court has perhaps fatally restricted the power of Congress to address ``that serious problem'' and called the ruling ``dramatic and extraordinary in its scope.''
Who says it's serious? It only affects people with children, and of those people, only those who have irresponsible children, and of those, only those who haven't properly undertaken their responsibilities with their children -- by talking to them.
Adult verification services that cost $16.95 a year represent an acceptable ``price to pay for protecting children from the harmful effects of graphic pornographic images,'' she said.
GAHHHHHHHH! You IDIOT. So... stupid... must... restrain... fist... of... death....
It may well be worth YOUR $16.95 to you. It sure as hell ain't to me. And what about those people who DON'T have kids? They'd have to use an AVS too, thereby paying for something they don't need but would nevertheless be required to purchase.
And all to block out something which you claim is "harmful." Show me some proof of harm or shut your hole.
That's not even getting into the problems with AVSs. First off, would YOU trust YOUR credit card number to one? Second, minors can get credit cards too. They generally have to be tied to a parental account, but they're still credit cards, and they're in the minor's name.
So Ms. Underwood recommends the following: a government-mandated, but corporate-run age verification system which is unreliable and, in fact, nonfunctional, in order to solve a nonexistent problem.
My $16.95 is worth enough to me that I don't want the government forcing me to give it to a worthless pile of steaming feces (in the form of an AVS). I'm sorry, Ms. Underwood, but you don't have the right to tell me that protecting someone else's kids -- I'll actually talk responsibly with mine, thanks -- is worth giving you $16.95 a head.
inigima
Reaching for a mouse sucks, but the other half of that is playing a video game with anything besides a mouse is impossible.
... what, am I the only one who uses a trackball?
inigima
I'm no lawyer, but I have made a priority of studying individual rights issues.
As I understand things, the burden of proof ought to be on whoever wants to remove something from public access, and they must prove that P2P software has basically NO legitimate use. I don't think that can be done -- for example, just off the top of my head I came up with this example, and I'm sure there are more:
-- example begin --
As Programmer Bob, I run a service for the Quake community. I've developed an app with the following functionality:
1. Provides a chat area with multiple channels for people to talk, meet people and look for other people to play with.
2. Serves as a central server repository, for people who don't want to bother with hand-picking their players in the chat area.
3. Designed to integrate with game setup -- game options can be changed from within the app, the game can be launched directly from the app, etc.
4. (this is where the P2P part comes in) Facilitates a mod/skin trading service. Different users can share mods and skins by dropping them all in a directory and sharing it. The app can then be used to search for different mods, a là Napster/Gnutella/SMA/what-have-you, which are being served by OTHER USERS. There is no charge for the service (which prevents any problem of indirectly charging for the work of others, i.e., mods), and if any mod authors request that their mod be removed from the service, that mod can be filtered.
... and make the assumption that Bob has iD's blessing. I don't see why they'd care -- if anything, I would think they'd choose to support it, since it will add to the experience of the game, and in so doing drive more sales.
-- example end --
(This is of course a fictional app -- I don't know of one that includes all those functions. But then, I don't play Quake much.)
It seems to me that such a beneficial, community-serving, perfectly legal thing ought to AT LEAST justify not outlawing P2P software as a blanket statement.
And we shouldn't even be required to justify it (although I suppose some examples are required to combat allegations that it HAS no non-infringing uses). But this seems like a perfectly plausible example.
Based on the ease with which the P2P class of software can be collectively justified, I don't see how it can legitimately be banned. There may be some specific instances with which certain P2P apps can be used for illegal purposes, but I don't see anyone trying to ban copy machines. Or scanners. Or VCRs.
inigima
The issue is not the quality of the plaintiff's arguments; rather, it is the priorities of the court. Plaintiff's arguments make perfect sense -- IF you place a higher priority on corporate intellectual property than on private citizens' rights. The reason it seems that their arguments are faulty is that, like most of the /. crew, you and I place a higher priority on the individual rights.
The plaintiff's arguments center around the idea that, while it may well cost us some rights -- at least, rights that you and I choose to interpret in a relatively broad way fashion, relative to the MPAA -- preservation of those rights would require potential damage to the MPAA's cash intake. And make no mistake -- the damage is potential only. Dean Sullivan specifically noted that there are NO infringing uses of DeCSS on the record. (At the same time, bear in mind that, as the plaintiff argued, that may be because we have no way of tracking such infringment).
Now, the way I see things is that individual rights have been watered down plenty by previous cases and really don't need any more of such treatment. I place a higher priority on those rights than on the MPAA's (faulty) business model, especially since they're in no real danger of dying. To be more precise, than on the business models of the studios which comprise the MPAA.
The real question we should be asking here is not who made the more compelling arguments. Instead, the question to ask is where the judges will place their priorities.
inigima
Not quite true. Later Constitutional law battles essentially extended the power of the Amendments to state governments as well. Since state legislatures control the public education system, that First Amendment protection DOES extend to them. The Supreme Court, however, has ruled repeatedly that since schools have such a narrow purpose, much of that Constitutional protection gets taken away. Personally, I think that's stupid, since you're required to go to school up through 10th grade -- you're being coerced into giving up Constitutional rights.
This is all a moot point anyway, since the case deals with a private school.
Also, I'm not a lawyer, so take what I say with a grain of salt. I think it's all correct, though.
inigima
While free speech is protected by the First Amendment, there must be drawn a limit to which this umbrella of protection is stopped. That limit is drawn where your speech (or in this case, writings) causes harm to another individual.
Parody and satire are expressly protected forms of speech. Unfortunately I can't point you to specific case law, but any lawyer worth his salt should be able to tell you that.
A philosopher once said "I may not agree with what you're saying, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" and this holds true in most cases. We have the First Amendment not to protect the conformists and conservatives in our society, but to protect those who hold minority or contriversial opinions that would otherwise be persecuted for their beliefs.
Oh, come on, people! Try applying that to the kid. It doesn't make any sense otherwise. The principal falls into that "conformists and conservatives" category you mentioned, while the kid is the one who's being persecuted. This is back-assward.
Oh, and I think it was Voltaire.
This is a good thing, and I fully support the student's right to exercise his rights, however in this particular case, the student has crossed the line, and was right to have his website censored by the school system. When speech causes harm, whether it be physical injuries, or mental anguish, to another person, the speaker has violated the rights of the target of the speech and therefore, not protected by the First Amendment.
No. No, no, no, no, no, no. I hope I'm making myself clear here. You're WRONG. Parody and satire are protected categories.
What do you mean, you "fully support the student's right to express his rights?" You quite obviously DON'T support that right, or you wouldn't be talking such nonsense. I believe that's called talking out of both sides of your mouth at once.
Specifically which of the Asst. Principal's rights was he violating?
This is called slander or libel and is punishable by law. Just ask the National Inquirer. Deliberately spreading rumors or insulting another person is against the law and I am truly saddened at the opressive power the ACLU wields over this country's courts. I can only hope that justice will be served in an appeal.
Wrong again. Insulting people isn't against the law. If it were, we'd have a REAL prison space problem on our hands. And as has been pointed out, it's the job of the law to deal with slander and libel, not school districts who want to throw their weight around. That's what we pay 'em for.
The ACLU has too much power? The hell you say! They don't have enough. I can't speak for you, but I'm not willing to trade away my constitutional rights for the sake of some assistant principal's dignity.
inigima
All e-mail, phone calls, and video monitoring are now standard for most companies, so why not universities and colleges? Get use to it, privacy is no longer an issue.
If, as you say, privacy is no longer an issue, then the root cause of it is that the general public, like yourself, has adopted a defeatist attitude. It is precisely this kind of outlook that makes it possible to take away privacy like that. We haven't lost yet, and I won't let it go without a fight just because someone thinks we already have.
inigima
It is a threat to bandwidth and system stability(much like Napster and Gnutella are). If I were in charge of a large LAN (over 1000 clients connected), then I would develop a blacklist of smut websites for the router to block out.
Sex has no place in the workplace. Period.
Erm... near as I can tell, the issue of sex in the workplace was never brought up. Most porn/sex-type stuff, I believe I can state with some certainty, is done at home. Workplace issues are irrelevant; you're attacking an issue outside the scope of the article.
inigima
Your choice of games should depend on what exactly you're trying to test. RTS games like StarCraft do test strategy skills, but they also require good reflexes and fast mouse movement. If that's OK, try Myth or Myth II. The system works a bit like StarCraft, but plays much differently. They weren't as popular as Warcraft II or StarCraft, so it's less likely (though certainly not impossible) that your sample will have played them.
If you JUST want to test strategy, especially for business school students, try the old Super Nintendo game Aerobiz. The basic idea is to run a profitable airline company against either human or computer competitors. Aerobiz is commonly found online if you're unable to procure cartridges (legal stupidies prevent me from offering links, and the same stupidities force me to say that I advise against and disclaim all responsibility for any illegal action which you may be considering as a result of this post).
inigima
Maybe someone can explain this to me, cos I'm not getting it. OK, so the fingerprint is rendered down to an algorithm. True, the kid doesn't have an algorithm engraved in his finger, but why can't cops just run the finger through the same process for ID purposes?
Kudos to the kids who refused fingerprinting.
inigima
Goddamn, I hate us. Note that this will probably get worse before it gets better -- our friendly voters in Florida helped get a pro-business, anti-environment President elected.
inigima
I've seen people poking around the edges, but no one's come out and said this yet...
Is it just me, or is Sony hyping (not building, not yet) a computer rather than a console? The article on GameSpot describes some of the features Sony is reportedly planning to include in the PS3: online shopping, banking and "other Internet services." Whatever happened to the good old days when a gaming console just played games? I'm not griping over change -- it's not necessarily a bad thing to add new features to a console, and the PS2's DVD-playing function was probably a slick move -- but it seems to me that when gaming consoles were just that -- GAMING consoles -- the games were far superior. Sony needs to quit pumping new features into its products until they figure out what to do with the ones they've got. (Nintendo, by the way, has publicly stated that they are planning to make the upcoming GameCube games-only. This is why they have a history of excellent games, and why they rarely make a bad in-house game: they let themselves focus on the games alone.)
As for other insights, most of them have already been stated: The PS2 just came out, so why the hell do we have PS3 hype; the Dreamcast is a superior console; so on so forth. These are all true. Go spend your money on a REAL gaming console.
inigima
Despite what the GOP has been telling you, taxes and fines are not the same thing. A tax can be burdensome, unfair, ill-conceived, and unreasonably high but that does not make it into a fine or form of punishment.
Let's look at it another way: Since your local tax dollars pay to repair vandalism at public buildings, does that mean that everyone who lives in your locality is facing a pre-fine or collective punishment for vandalism? Of course not.
Of course not. But, as you've pointed out, taxes and fines aren't the same thing. This may be called a tax, because it's pre-collected, but come on now, be reasonable. This is a punishment for piracy. How can one possibly misconstrue that? And as was pointed out above, collective punishments are illegal (although I suppose I don't actually know about France's laws on the issue).
Happily, Tasca withdrew the proposal, so we're all happy now =)
inigima
From the article:
"It seems to me that the emergence of new technologies has undermined artists' earnings... there is no business model for culture unless artists are paid. Without them there is neither music nor video images," the minister was quoted as saying.
Uhm... Excuse me? Is the esteemed Ms. Tasca saying that all of this money is going directly to the artists? I can just see the headlines now: "Culture Minister Feeds Starving Artists in the Streets."
Unfortunately, no. The article says that about 75% of the money will go to "artists and producers" (Babelfish translation from "Bullshit" to "English:" "producers"), while the other 25% goes to promote "fresh talent" (More from the 'fish from Bullshit to English: "We're going to make more record industry-created bands to pick your pocket, just like we've been doing, and we're going to do it with your money! Stop us if you can, suckers!").
More from the article:
"A tax on decoders, advanced video recorders and computers, in other words any device that allows such works to be recorded... should be looked into," she [Minister Tasca] added.
No, again. Christ, why do none of these people get it? THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CAPACITY AND ACTUALITY. Just because something "can" be used to do something doesn't mean it *will*, and therefore it is (or, rather, would be, if these people had a brain in their heads) untaxable. I'm completely failing to understand why no legislators seems to understand this issue.
Hell, last I checked, VOTERS lobbied, not industries.
How does France get their Ministers? They need to get one with a clue.
inigima
If the government spends your tax money on a shelter for battered women, does that mean that it should be legal for you to beat your wife? If they levy a tax to clean up a waterway, does that mean that you should be legally allowed to dump your trash in it because you paid the tax?
That argument doesn't quite hold water. Those things are used as remedies. If this tax is to compensate artists for lost sales due to copyright infringement (and statistical surveys show [and statistical surveys are valid if they're done properly] that, if anything, the opposite is true), then the assumption is being made that YOU, Joe Consumer, are a pirate. If they're wrong(!) about Mr. Consumer, it is not compensation for a crime you've committed (a là the O.J. analogy), but for a crime that they THINK you MIGHT be committing -- purely on the basis of the fact that you bought some CD-Rs. Y'know, there are actual uses for those things besides music piracy.
Don't you DARE tell poor Joe that he has to pay out the nose because the record execs have linked CD-R purchases to music piracy. That would be like a statistical survey showing a correlation between... I don't know, say, root beer consumption and liver cancer. Correlation is not proof of causation -- anyone who's ever studied statistics at any depth knows that, or should. There are perfectly valid, legal reasons to buy CD-Rs.
inigima
Hope I didn't miss someone else posting this, I skimmed subject tags...
I'm not sure if this has anything to do with it, but I have a friend who has reported to me that his (old-ish) DVD drive has a tendency to not just refuse to read CD-Rs, but to actually erase them. If this player utilizes an old-school DVD mechanism, that could be it. (Note that it doesn't do it to *all* of his CD-Rs, just at random, so that might explain continued functionality in those CD-Rs.)
inigima
Also, one thing to keep in mind is that if you are on AOL, and you get e-mail from blah@aol.com (unless it's from a mailing list or something) then the address is most likely forged.
To clarify: not all spam you get from AOL-based email addresses actually comes from AOL members. They're often forged. I have seen AOL in action, as it were, and since AOL-based email addresses are shown to AOL members without the domain, the presence of the domain in the source address proves more or less conclusively that spammers often forge their headers to fake an AOL source.
You might think that spammers would realize they shouldn't spam AOL members with obviously faked AOL source addresses, but apparently they're not a bright lot.
inigima