1) Quality of service. Regardless of commercial interests, the net is glaringly without any quality of service. I thought people were looking into merging ATM and the net somehow to solve this. Maybe that's Internet2. Whatever.
2) Big business can't make money. Holy fuck batman, cry me a goddamn river! This would almost be comical if there weren't actually businesses COMPLAINING about government utilities *preventing* them from say, *selling* you water to your house! That evil government!
I understand the whole QoS problem. Yes it sucks that the net has no way to distinguish between my large download, and a real time video stream. But QoS services should not be hijacked ("leveraged") to enable big business to start putting proprietary wedges in the net. Perhaps the only saving grace, is that the internet is already global, meaning, if worse comes to worst, you can always move somewhere else where big business doesn't own the government (those places still exist right?).
...so does this mean nobody will now be able to distinguish "ssssshhh! sssshhh!" among the din of "chussshh! chussshh!"...I can't wait for ringers that sound like "shudupgodamu! shudupgodamu!"....
"I have yet to hear a convincing argument that an absolutely perfect hassel free copy that can again be copied perfectly is required for any sort of "fair use"."
You don't HAVE to hear a convincing argument. All you have to hear is a presentation by a guy who figured out how to circumvent some hokey obnoxious "protection" that was denying users their right to the content they purchased. Nobody said that it has to be hassle free or "perfect"...we just declare that once it IS figured out, you can't run crying to the government that somebody broke your invincible technological copyright "protection" measure. DMCA makes no sense. If it is illegal to "circumvent" a copyright control measure, why even HAVE the control measures??? Since you can slap any arbitrary code on something and call it copyright protection technology, why not just declare that it is illegal to do arbitrary things that we don't want you to do? Why even throw money into technology? It's ridiculous. My car hood could be an intellectual property protection device for chrissakes.
4) Get sued for entrapment and invasion of privacy by the thieves. Curse the stupidity of our legal system while you rot in jail with a Russian who demonstrated the flaws in some ebook software.
But I "compulsory licensing" aside...one should still NOT be able to patent something in the first place which one does not intend to use commercially. Unless you are implying that "compulsory licensing" is the commercial endeavor to begin with...but that's somewhat circuitous. In the end, Macrovision should NOT be able to patent something they do NOT intend to market, just to keep others from doing it. Of course I realize that what "should" and what "is" are very different things.
People who are worried that users taught bad habits will actually force them away from being able to write elegant, intuitive systems. Easiest is not always best, etc. (Hardest is not always best either). Seems like GNOME needs a "novice" mode, which like Windows 98 hides all the advanced stuff (like scary black windows my god!), but can be displayed with a click of a button (or by a permanent setting). This way both novices and advanced users can be happy. Maybe every GUI feature can have an experience rating, and the user can set what experience level the GUI should display itself up to.
The first artificial intelligences would probably need a lot less computation power than that. Not being real organisms, they wouldn't have to concern themselves with the biological systems we do (digestive, cardiovascular, endocrine, nervous, reproductive, limbic, movement/navigation, etc, etc).
Slashdot is already slammed as an Open Source mouthpiece, and is blatently, obviously, unashamedly pro-Open Source. On the other hand, newspapers like the New York times are trusted, and religiously read by people all over for general news, and claim to be neutral. I sure would be pissed off if the New York times masqueraded pieces paid by other companies as "news" (and NOT tell me about it). This is exactly what's going on with the search engines. They should at least say something like: "We sneak paid advertisements into search results, so don't really trust our results". Of course they are not going to do that.
Search: lung cancer
Results:
* Phillip Morris page claiming there is no relation to cigarettes and lung cancer
* Phillip Morris page announcing that YOU are the lucky winner of $2.00 off your next carton!
...
Search: open source
* Microsoft page spreading FUD
* Microsoft page unveiling their new "Shared Source" program
...
Are they trying to spread.NET far and wide in an ostensible gesture of magnanimity, all the while planning to use their monopoly on the desktop to wed users to a spider web of Microsoft owned/created/licensed services in the future?
"Privacy is managed by not giving out your fucking personal info."
Which, due to the fact that registrars are not required to provide an opt-out, may not be possible. The analogy to a home or business is flawed (like most internet analogies) - if I have a home, I can locate it in a remote, obscure place, and put a big tall fence around it. That protects my privacy. There is no such thing on the net. Once you information is known, that is *all* one needs. Driving through every city in the world trying to match up names in a phonebook with addresses is a LOT more difficult than performing, or buying, a WHOIS query.
This reminds me of the GA-designed circuits story...in which a researched ran an GA program to design a circuit for a specific purpose, and after some evolution got a circuit which did the job correctly. It was composed of a main circuit which appeared to do all the work, and a totally seperate, isolated loop disconnected from the rest of the circuit, which for all intents and purposes appeared to do nothing and be completely useless. So he removed this "useless" loop, and suddenly the circuit as a whole stopped functioning. This seemingly useless piece was actually manifesting some spooky effect on the rest of the circuit. It just goes to show that evolution cares only about results, not process. Which explains the amount of "drivel" we have in our genome, and the gross energetic inefficiency of most life. Sometimes I wonder what would happen if we engineered our own organism from scratch, and left out all of the cruft. It would probably be super-efficient, except it may not be so robust against "unenvisioned" problems (ambiant radiation?). That "junk" must serve some buffering purpose (think of algorithms which employ randomness - they're not as omptimal under the best circumstances, but they completely avoid pathological cases).
Until I get real scientists displaying real data everything is just scare tactics of the invironmental publicity Corperations (earth first, and the other scare for profit groups) to get more money.
So the National Academy of Sciences' report on global warming that Bush requested, was not written by "real" enough scientists, and did not display "real" enough data for you (there's at least one known skeptic on the credits)? And last I checked, Earth First was a non-profit organization, not an "invironmental" publicity "Corperation".
we'll probably tell you before everyone is dead. (as we get into our rocket and leave)
Hey, that's a great attitude! Your true colors show through. "Fuck 'em all - I want to continue my high-on-the-hog lifestyle!" (Oh, excuse me, in the words of the president's spokesperson Ari Fleischer conspicuous consumption is the "American way of life...a blessed one")
"Of course, they won't necessarily know who YOU are since product REGISTRATION is separate from product ACTIVATION"
And you completely trust MS to never cross-reference this information? We know how well that worked out with the ad agencies *cough*.
Anyway, even if they don't know WHO you are, they still can track what modifications and upgrades you've done to your system, and all the serial numbers of your equipment. That itself is alarming. I bet it's not that hard to find out from equipment manufacturers, where their products ended up, especially if those parts are individually registered.
"Well, I don't think there is much value in making a machine that can print out the same titles that you can get from your local B&N (or online, for that matter)"
That's not the point. The *point* is that your local B&N, does not have to order physical copies of books brought in truck loads. They just have one (or several) of these machines, and create a book just for you "on-demand". That reduces storage overhead, and risk for them, when they buy 1 Gazillion copies of _Peer_to_Peer_Will_Never_Amount_to_Anything_.
And speaking of P2P, this is yet another technology where the digital world is invading the real world and breaking down artificial barriers. First it was music. Now it's going to be books. Publishers will have to bring prices down (or, even further, might not have any reason to exist, now that the "distribution channel" is digital). Publishers, like the music industry, will (or should), move to a role of 3rd party services, all competing for the author's/artist's business, as opposed to being in positions of near absolute authority and treating authors and artists as migrant workers to be used and spit out. Decentralization is a good thing (well, at least in the case of control of information).
"Funny" how RMS used copyright law for the basis of "copyleft". The point is that you use the system in place, whether it is good or not. "copyleft" happens to be a subversion, or at least inversion, of copyright. Linux trademarked "Linux" so that people who aren't doing anything related to it can't slap that on their product. AFAIK, he allows pretty liberal usage of the "Linux" mark. What "other team" are you talking about?
Holy shite man, all you had to say was "they don't want customers reusing their equipment with competitors' services". I knew what you meant after the first paragraph. An MBA must really teach you to bloat up what is otherwise straightforward.
The LinuxTag which is the German largest Linux event is held from today. The Oliver of the slash team leader carrying the PS2 Linux Kit and the Dreamcast, the person who knows that it participates it probably will be many. From Japan to in addition to the kernel developer - with the g new section person and type God bamboo Oka of the famous ax, the cormorant fishing person of the DebiancJp leader the ã we have gone on a journey to ã Germany, now the time where event first day is entered safely is. The position it was for the present and solved this pattern, already the happening occurred in their bodies. The accommodations which are the expectation where their everyone stays were the original vagabond housing, furthermore lodging failure in the sanitary reason was ascertained. After all they are with the hacker of the European product the sleeping bag line up, to pass one night at the gymnasium. Participation to the European Linux event seems that outdoor experience is necessary.
Slashdot Mirror
I swear, Sesame Street needs to hire Oog poste haste!
1) Quality of service. Regardless of commercial interests, the net is glaringly without any quality of service. I thought people were looking into merging ATM and the net somehow to solve this. Maybe that's Internet2. Whatever.
2) Big business can't make money. Holy fuck batman, cry me a goddamn river! This would almost be comical if there weren't actually businesses COMPLAINING about government utilities *preventing* them from say, *selling* you water to your house! That evil government!
I understand the whole QoS problem. Yes it sucks that the net has no way to distinguish between my large download, and a real time video stream. But QoS services should not be hijacked ("leveraged") to enable big business to start putting proprietary wedges in the net. Perhaps the only saving grace, is that the internet is already global, meaning, if worse comes to worst, you can always move somewhere else where big business doesn't own the government (those places still exist right?).
...so does this mean nobody will now be able to distinguish "ssssshhh! sssshhh!" among the din of "chussshh! chussshh!"...I can't wait for ringers that sound like "shudupgodamu! shudupgodamu!"....
"I have yet to hear a convincing argument that an absolutely perfect hassel free copy that can again be copied perfectly is required for any sort of "fair use"."
You don't HAVE to hear a convincing argument. All you have to hear is a presentation by a guy who figured out how to circumvent some hokey obnoxious "protection" that was denying users their right to the content they purchased. Nobody said that it has to be hassle free or "perfect"...we just declare that once it IS figured out, you can't run crying to the government that somebody broke your invincible technological copyright "protection" measure. DMCA makes no sense. If it is illegal to "circumvent" a copyright control measure, why even HAVE the control measures??? Since you can slap any arbitrary code on something and call it copyright protection technology, why not just declare that it is illegal to do arbitrary things that we don't want you to do? Why even throw money into technology? It's ridiculous. My car hood could be an intellectual property protection device for chrissakes.
The RIAA used them to nuke Napster.
4) Get sued for entrapment and invasion of privacy by the thieves. Curse the stupidity of our legal system while you rot in jail with a Russian who demonstrated the flaws in some ebook software.
But I "compulsory licensing" aside...one should still NOT be able to patent something in the first place which one does not intend to use commercially. Unless you are implying that "compulsory licensing" is the commercial endeavor to begin with...but that's somewhat circuitous. In the end, Macrovision should NOT be able to patent something they do NOT intend to market, just to keep others from doing it. Of course I realize that what "should" and what "is" are very different things.
I think the space is courtesy of Slashdot. It always munges links.
"Who gives a shit?"
People who are worried that users taught bad habits will actually force them away from being able to write elegant, intuitive systems. Easiest is not always best, etc. (Hardest is not always best either). Seems like GNOME needs a "novice" mode, which like Windows 98 hides all the advanced stuff (like scary black windows my god!), but can be displayed with a click of a button (or by a permanent setting). This way both novices and advanced users can be happy. Maybe every GUI feature can have an experience rating, and the user can set what experience level the GUI should display itself up to.
The first artificial intelligences would probably need a lot less computation power than that. Not being real organisms, they wouldn't have to concern themselves with the biological systems we do (digestive, cardiovascular, endocrine, nervous, reproductive, limbic, movement/navigation, etc, etc).
Slashdot is already slammed as an Open Source mouthpiece, and is blatently, obviously, unashamedly pro-Open Source. On the other hand, newspapers like the New York times are trusted, and religiously read by people all over for general news, and claim to be neutral. I sure would be pissed off if the New York times masqueraded pieces paid by other companies as "news" (and NOT tell me about it). This is exactly what's going on with the search engines. They should at least say something like: "We sneak paid advertisements into search results, so don't really trust our results". Of course they are not going to do that.
Hmm...here's some example:
Search: lung cancer
Results:
* Phillip Morris page claiming there is no relation to cigarettes and lung cancer
* Phillip Morris page announcing that YOU are the lucky winner of $2.00 off your next carton!
...
Search: open source
* Microsoft page spreading FUD
* Microsoft page unveiling their new "Shared Source" program
...
Search: Emacs
Results:
* vi
* vi
* vi
* vi
Yeah, they're passing out nooses for free (and helping others with their efforts to make them), in order to hang us all in the future.
Yea, that's it $)
"Privacy is managed by not giving out your fucking personal info."
Which, due to the fact that registrars are not required to provide an opt-out, may not be possible. The analogy to a home or business is flawed (like most internet analogies) - if I have a home, I can locate it in a remote, obscure place, and put a big tall fence around it. That protects my privacy. There is no such thing on the net. Once you information is known, that is *all* one needs. Driving through every city in the world trying to match up names in a phonebook with addresses is a LOT more difficult than performing, or buying, a WHOIS query.
This reminds me of the GA-designed circuits story...in which a researched ran an GA program to design a circuit for a specific purpose, and after some evolution got a circuit which did the job correctly. It was composed of a main circuit which appeared to do all the work, and a totally seperate, isolated loop disconnected from the rest of the circuit, which for all intents and purposes appeared to do nothing and be completely useless. So he removed this "useless" loop, and suddenly the circuit as a whole stopped functioning. This seemingly useless piece was actually manifesting some spooky effect on the rest of the circuit. It just goes to show that evolution cares only about results, not process. Which explains the amount of "drivel" we have in our genome, and the gross energetic inefficiency of most life. Sometimes I wonder what would happen if we engineered our own organism from scratch, and left out all of the cruft. It would probably be super-efficient, except it may not be so robust against "unenvisioned" problems (ambiant radiation?). That "junk" must serve some buffering purpose (think of algorithms which employ randomness - they're not as omptimal under the best circumstances, but they completely avoid pathological cases).
So the National Academy of Sciences' report on global warming that Bush requested, was not written by "real" enough scientists, and did not display "real" enough data for you (there's at least one known skeptic on the credits)? And last I checked, Earth First was a non-profit organization, not an "invironmental" publicity "Corperation".
we'll probably tell you before everyone is dead. (as we get into our rocket and leave)
Hey, that's a great attitude! Your true colors show through. "Fuck 'em all - I want to continue my high-on-the-hog lifestyle!" (Oh, excuse me, in the words of the president's spokesperson Ari Fleischer conspicuous consumption is the "American way of life...a blessed one")
"Of course, they won't necessarily know who YOU are since product REGISTRATION is separate from product ACTIVATION"
And you completely trust MS to never cross-reference this information? We know how well that worked out with the ad agencies *cough*.
Anyway, even if they don't know WHO you are, they still can track what modifications and upgrades you've done to your system, and all the serial numbers of your equipment. That itself is alarming. I bet it's not that hard to find out from equipment manufacturers, where their products ended up, especially if those parts are individually registered.
"Well, I don't think there is much value in making a machine that can print out the same titles that you can get from your local B&N (or online, for that matter)"
That's not the point. The *point* is that your local B&N, does not have to order physical copies of books brought in truck loads. They just have one (or several) of these machines, and create a book just for you "on-demand". That reduces storage overhead, and risk for them, when they buy 1 Gazillion copies of _Peer_to_Peer_Will_Never_Amount_to_Anything_.
And speaking of P2P, this is yet another technology where the digital world is invading the real world and breaking down artificial barriers. First it was music. Now it's going to be books. Publishers will have to bring prices down (or, even further, might not have any reason to exist, now that the "distribution channel" is digital). Publishers, like the music industry, will (or should), move to a role of 3rd party services, all competing for the author's/artist's business, as opposed to being in positions of near absolute authority and treating authors and artists as migrant workers to be used and spit out. Decentralization is a good thing (well, at least in the case of control of information).
MS Rep: "...Yes, sir, please wait a moment while I pull up your system configuration..."
H1 0: 0x119
H1 10: 0x154
H1 20: 0x1a
H1 27: 0xb
H2 0: 0x2
H2 3: 0x32
H2 9: 0x4f
H2 16: 0xa
H2 21: 0xa
H2 25: 0x2
H2 28: 0x0
H2 31: 0x1
MS Rep: "....Uhh...sir..."
"Funny" how RMS used copyright law for the basis of "copyleft". The point is that you use the system in place, whether it is good or not. "copyleft" happens to be a subversion, or at least inversion, of copyright. Linux trademarked "Linux" so that people who aren't doing anything related to it can't slap that on their product. AFAIK, he allows pretty liberal usage of the "Linux" mark. What "other team" are you talking about?
Holy shite man, all you had to say was "they don't want customers reusing their equipment with competitors' services". I knew what you meant after the first paragraph. An MBA must really teach you to bloat up what is otherwise straightforward.
...because the true center of gravity is below the ground quite a ways...
Now, *that* clears things up.
Hey, no "Telly"?