maybe Loki doesn't want these companies to realize how profitable Linux ports are going to become. If companies like Blizzard start doing their OWN Linux ports, Loki will loose out.
You see, it's not the documented APIs that are the problem. It's the undocumented ones that MS uses and keeps hidden that give them (another monopolistic) competitve edge.
I don't think there are many of us ENCOURAGING people to look up porn in public places. The whole point is that the same programs that block out porn also block out first amendment protected speach. There is NO consideration being given to free speach issue because the "Bigots for Jesus" (apologies to the good, open-minded Christians out there) think that little kids will be corrupted forever if they happen to see an adult nude body.
That's exactly what I am wondering. Is something like that possible? (Feasability is a different issue).
If you had enough people that were mad enough and knew the "right things to do" (DVDCCALawsuitHOWTO, anyone?) could you get 100s of people filing lawsuits at the same time?
Okay... but do we need lawyers to intermediate on our behalf?
I know you can file suit yourself without the aid of a lawyer (by just by going down to the courthouse and filing the appropriate paperwork). Last time I did this it cost $30 or whatever to file.
What is to prevent a situation where hundreds (or thousands?) of people go and file suit individually?
Possibly off-topic, I just wanted to mention that "broadcast.com" (now owned by Yahoo!) uses Windows Media Player and Real Player EXCLUSIVELY for their media streaming.
I just wrote them a letter asking when they plan on supporting MP3 streaming using Shoutcast or Icecast. After all, MP3 streaming can be done for free, and there are TONS of potential listeners out there that have Win/X11/MacAMP installed.
I know broadcast.com is only one company, but it's part of yahoo now. I honestly expect them to not bother with a response to one geek complaining about streamed media formats, but if enough people would write letters (in their own NICE way of course), maybe we could see some change of attitude.
...that this is even the person? Or if it IS the person, how do you know HE isn't making shit up to make Katz seem like the bad guy?
If someone is willing to (verbally) treat another human being in the fashion he has treated Jon they are scum. Free speech or not, Talisman (or whever wrote it) was out to CAUSE PAIN. Your message was not about intelligent discussion. It's quite possible you had perfectly valid points, but the obnoxious flammage makes you seem like an intelligent jerk that never grew up...and that automatically makes your opinion questionable.
Katz was right about at least one thing in his article. Flamers squelch free speech. You keep others from expressing THEMSELVES by your little nasty-grams.
My suggestion: grow up a little, start replacing those harsh flames with intelligent discourse. Possibly even see someone about your anger problem.
The whole point is that you have first amendment RIGHTS and those rights cannot be taken away, even if the people vote and enact laws on it.
Also, it DOES apply to us because many of us come from similar towns and hopefully seeing this type of thing may inspire us to go out and help try to maintain our rights/freedoms.
I look at this article as perhaps a seed to get some grassroots "activism" going in other communitites that DO NOT want to give away our "God given rights" by enacting Unconstitutional legislation.
This cornerstone is what you have to look at. Murder is illegal because it intrudes on your constitutional right to ALL THREE of these things.
Get over it. Privacy is a facade that causes more problems than it helps. We are headed into a future where nothing is private. It is a scary future ONLY as long as we let government intrude on our God-given freedoms.
So you are not a slashdotter? You just posted a comment on/., got modertated up (to 5 at this point) on/., and obviously you read/.
The point is, with the number of people that read slashdot every day, you will ALWAYS find people that will support anything. Don't bash slashdot because of this./. didn't do ANYTHING. They just posted the story.
Next time you (and those of your ilk) think in terms of "slashdotters", just remember there are thousands or very intelligent people all posting from their own unique viewpoints. When you say "slashdotters do this" or "slashdotters do that", you are making no useful statement at all.
We are NOT guaranteed privacy in our constitution. We ARE however, guaranteed a couple things, including FREEDOM and security from illegal search and seizure.
Someone can video tape you or record you and even though you may feel violated, they haven't taken away your freedom. Once government is able to come in to your PRIVATE place of business and harass you (without impunity) you have lost your freedom.
I agree that Ramsey's products are very bad for privacy, but privacy is not the most important issue here.
This may sound bad, but SCREW THE LAWYERS. Decide for yourself what is right and what is wrong...it may take a lot of work, but isn't freedom worth it? Don't you see the wrong-sightedness so many people have when it comes to law? WE (the citizens) are power behind the law. Unfortunately, we view law as this big entity that is separate from us. THAT IS NOT THE WAY IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE.
Look at it this way. You are responsable for following and knowing the law, but then at the same time you are discouraged (by lawyers) from trying to comprehend it. Then you are told (again, by the lawyers) that you are unable to interpret the law and you need THEM in order to deal with the court system.
Put in another way,
You are responsable for knowing the law. Ignorance is no excuse. (you have to follow the rules)
You are told by lawyers that you need to go through them to deal with the Law. (you cannot know the rules...that's lawyers jobs)
Certainly people other than me just see how wrong this is. And this will never change until people like YOU and I aren't afraid to look at the law ourselves.
I'll stop now. I admit, I hate our current system. So often the current system takes away ower from individual citizens and gives it to institutions. Sick sick sick... ok, finished.
Good points, and I understand where you are coming from.
However, your post seams to bring up points that would discourage "laymen" from ever getting involved with the system because it is "too complicated".
"Special Powers". By this I mean that currently there are those "inside" the power circle (those with a law degree), who are given special treatment over Joe Schmoe off the street. No individual lawyer (necessarily) possesses any special powers (favors?). However, as a collective, government has granted lawyers a LOT more power than any other group in society.
"Equalizing Powers". The free exchange of information will ALWAYS equalize power. That is why the First Amendment is so important. Some feel obligated to say IANAL before they comment on law out of fear of liability issues. Isn't it obvious that this is just a way for lawyers to protect themselves as a group? In fact, it's a subtle way of using fear to keep layman from getting involved with the court system. If everyone knew enough law to defend themselves, lawyers would not be needed as much.
Your whole post is basically making the point I was arguing against in the first place. Do we have to know everything a lawyer does in order to understand law well enough to make a difference? I think we can and should freely discuss law whenever we want.
Note I am not saying law is an easy thing to understand. I'm just saying that we shouldn't be afraid to try to understand it.
Final thought: In our government, people are supposed to be the center of power. Unfortunately, our government has moved the focus of power away from it's citizens and put it in the hands of government agencies and private corporations. I could go into all the ways it has done this, but for time's sake I will not. As a people, we have a RIGHT (if not an obligation) to question those that have been given authority over us.
I know, perhaps slightly off topic, but I want to know something.
Why do people always start off a statement with IANAL? It seems to me that we as a society have become dependant on lawyers to tell us what is right and what is wrong. When dealing with the very technical, aren't WE the ones who know "right vs. wrong"? WE are the ones who know what is best technically.
Now, imagine a government where all people were created equal. You didn't have a class of citizens that had "special powers" within the power structure that is the government. (talking about the lawyers here)
The internet is equalizing these powers by making information FREE and EASILY ACCESSABLE. There are going to be battles (like this DVD thing) between those who want to keep the freedoms of speech and information exchange we enjoy, and those with money and power who stand to loose it by free exchange of information.
My point? Don't be afraid to learn about, interpret and question law. The lawyers hold special power in government because the citizens let them. If smart people (like us programmers) learn how the system works, there is no reason we cannot deal with the system ourselves, rather than having lawyers as an "intermediary" between us and government.
Do we actually fear speaking out against our government? I think many of us do, but we aren't supposed to.
These issues are vitally important. This is all about your and my *personal* freedom. It is important that we FIGHT if necessary to hold onto the freedom we know is right.
I'll step down from my little soap box for now. Just realize, there are plenty of us willing to get in some trouble for what we believe in.
The lawsuit alleges consumers already have suffered from hacking of the DVD encryption code. A related product, DVD audio, was scheduled for release in December of 1999 but it was delayed for at least six months while a new copyright protection system is developed
How stupid is that? THEY are the ones who implemented a crappy encryption scheme. THEY are the ones who decided to delay DVD audio.
The DVD CCA has caused more harm to consumers than hackers EVER will. If anything, customers have benefited from the hacking of the DVD code.
...into thinking that taxes are a good thing? I see so many people that actually WANT more taxes and I don't understand why that is.
Maybe it's because it's a sales tax and not income or property tax?
I'm serious, do you "tax me please" folk really think the government will do better things with your money than you would?
Now this "you have to pay taxes at a real store, so why not online" argument is ridiculous. Buying online IS NOT like buying at a regular store.
You don't need to drive your gas guzzling car to shop online (causing environmental hazards, potential auto accident injuries)
You don't need to heat up (or cool down) a big building so online shoppers are comfortable. (uses lots of fuel-more environmental problems)
You don't need police and security personel to patrol an online web site. (to protect against thievery, shoplifters, crazed lunatics with guns)
You can't eat fast food online (gastro-intestinal hazards)
Overall, online transactions pretty much don't pose the same cost-issues. For local and regional governments.
The ONLY way in which an online store costs the local government any money is by the usage roads by delivery companies (UPS, etc). These companies already pay taxes (on gas, profits, who knows what else), and possibly tolls, or whatever else.
They are getting their money, don't worry. It sounds as if you think Almighty Government will come crashing down if it doesn't take more and more money away from it's citizens.
Could someone explain *WHY* everyone so worked up about this? I've read the patent in question. It is more than a simple database credit-card lookup. Read it for yourself without spoutting out the usual mantra.
But from a technical standpoint, no matter WHAT data you obtain, it's still a simple matter of looking up customer information based on a single key. I don't care if you store the customers family history, credit card num, employment info, retina scan, penis size or whatever else. It all links back to a customer code stored at amazon.com. This is so damn obvious it makes me sick.
Secondly, Amazon is actually sueing someone here. This is DISTINCTLY different than playing bully demanding money for the patent rights (eg, LZW/GIF debate). If the courts determine that Amazon's patent is prior art or vague - then they lost the patent.
Thirdly, patents *DO* have a place. People need to make money off their inventions. You can't make a living by spending years perfecting some hardware or software, then have your next door neighbor look at it and say, "Dang, thats obvious - i guess i'll rip off that idea and make millions without worrying about recouping the development expense. Thanks neighbor!"
This is exactly what RMS is addressing. Do you not find it ironic that one of the richest internet companies owns the idea for something so obvious? We are discussing the very assertion that THIS IDEA IS AMAZON'S TO OWN.
Now, if you disagree with the *LAW* of patents (duration of coverage, scope, etc) Then don't complain/boycott Amazon. Write your congressperson and explain, in a calm manner, the problems you perceive with patents in a rapidly advancing industry!
Sorry, but the US Govt does not act in "internet time". By the time anything useful is determined (we are talking YEARS here), Amazon.com (or whatever ultra-rich internet meg-corp) would own all the "cool, unique ideas" available and everyone else would be under threats of lawsuits. It is a much better idea for us to protect ourselves, and a boycott is one of our best means for doing this.
Think for yourself for once. Don't take RMS's word, think about it logically. This is just plain wrong.
Slashdot can never go back to it's old innocence. Way too big now. It's just the way things work.
However, if you want something smaller and more innocent, roll your own site. In fact, you could focus on stuff YOU are interested in, there are always more people out there and/. doesn't have a monopoly...
Once you make your own site, then put the URL and a little teaser in your sig about it.
Why make your own fun, when you can buy it for cheap?!
Remember, you have to go by what you think FUTURE evaluation is going to be. If you believe (as I do) that Linux is indeed headed toward the "big time" (ie. REAL competition for MS), this is not THAT inflated. After all, MS is more than 40x RHAT's valuation.
Also, just for reference, YHOO - 85 billion AMZN - 35 billion AOL - 180 billion
Now that I look at it, I think RHAT has a ways to go still. IMHO think RHAT will ultimately be worth more than AMZN and YHOO.
BTW, I have a vague understanding of what the market cap means (in the real world, not investor-speak), but would like more info.
...if you only read/. you would never have found out...they never mentioned it.
I wish I could have gotten in on it. These Linux IPOs are making me look like a financial wiz or something to my family. Of course, Linux is (almost sickeningly) THE buzzword for investors now.
I don't think the "real protesters" views got obscured. Personally, I know ten times more about the WTO than I did a week ago (both good and bad). With all the information I've read, I've decided that the protesters WERE correct, and if I were in Seattle, I probably would have been carrying a sign. The WTO is just a mouthpiece for big corps and it hurts the individual...and they have to much unaccountable power.
The "tragedy" you speak of has gotten countless millions of people to look at the issue. It has brought into the light the new power system that is sprouting up around big corporations (and at the expense of the individual).
Congrats to Katz for doing a good job focusing our attention on this extremely important issue.
I would say go the exact opposite direction altogether. "The Mall" could _embrace_ the internet. They could set up public web-cams and link with other malls, whatever. Just ADD to the social atmosphere in some "internet" fashion.
Also, set up an infrastructure for internet access to it's stores. This would actually increase the mall's appeal. Customers could check "online" if they didn't find what they wanted. All the benefits of online, but you don't have to sit at home alone.
Slashdot Mirror
maybe Loki doesn't want these companies to realize how profitable Linux ports are going to become. If companies like Blizzard start doing their OWN Linux ports, Loki will loose out.
I could be totally wrong, of course...
You see, it's not the documented APIs that are the problem. It's the undocumented ones that MS uses and keeps hidden that give them (another monopolistic) competitve edge.
I don't think there are many of us ENCOURAGING people to look up porn in public places. The whole point is that the same programs that block out porn also block out first amendment protected speach. There is NO consideration being given to free speach issue because the "Bigots for Jesus" (apologies to the good, open-minded Christians out there) think that little kids will be corrupted forever if they happen to see an adult nude body.
If you had enough people that were mad enough and knew the "right things to do" (DVDCCALawsuitHOWTO, anyone?) could you get 100s of people filing lawsuits at the same time?
Okay... but do we need lawyers to intermediate on our behalf?
I know you can file suit yourself without the aid of a lawyer (by just by going down to the courthouse and filing the appropriate paperwork). Last time I did this it cost $30 or whatever to file.
What is to prevent a situation where hundreds (or thousands?) of people go and file suit individually?
How does a class action suit work? I hear the term ALL the time, but I've never gotten a good explaination as to what/when/where/how of them...
I just wrote them a letter asking when they plan on supporting MP3 streaming using Shoutcast or Icecast. After all, MP3 streaming can be done for free, and there are TONS of potential listeners out there that have Win/X11/MacAMP installed.
I know broadcast.com is only one company, but it's part of yahoo now. I honestly expect them to not bother with a response to one geek complaining about streamed media formats, but if enough people would write letters (in their own NICE way of course), maybe we could see some change of attitude.
If someone is willing to (verbally) treat another human being in the fashion he has treated Jon they are scum. Free speech or not, Talisman (or whever wrote it) was out to CAUSE PAIN. Your message was not about intelligent discussion. It's quite possible you had perfectly valid points, but the obnoxious flammage makes you seem like an intelligent jerk that never grew up...and that automatically makes your opinion questionable.
Katz was right about at least one thing in his article. Flamers squelch free speech. You keep others from expressing THEMSELVES by your little nasty-grams.
My suggestion: grow up a little, start replacing those harsh flames with intelligent discourse. Possibly even see someone about your anger problem.
Also, it DOES apply to us because many of us come from similar towns and hopefully seeing this type of thing may inspire us to go out and help try to maintain our rights/freedoms.
I look at this article as perhaps a seed to get some grassroots "activism" going in other communitites that DO NOT want to give away our "God given rights" by enacting Unconstitutional legislation.
This cornerstone is what you have to look at. Murder is illegal because it intrudes on your constitutional right to ALL THREE of these things.
Get over it. Privacy is a facade that causes more problems than it helps. We are headed into a future where nothing is private. It is a scary future ONLY as long as we let government intrude on our God-given freedoms.
So you are not a slashdotter? You just posted a comment on /., got modertated up (to 5 at this point) on /., and obviously you read /.
The point is, with the number of people that read slashdot every day, you will ALWAYS find people that will support anything. Don't bash slashdot because of this. /. didn't do ANYTHING. They just posted the story.
Next time you (and those of your ilk) think in terms of "slashdotters", just remember there are thousands or very intelligent people all posting from their own unique viewpoints. When you say "slashdotters do this" or "slashdotters do that", you are making no useful statement at all.
Someone can video tape you or record you and even though you may feel violated, they haven't taken away your freedom. Once government is able to come in to your PRIVATE place of business and harass you (without impunity) you have lost your freedom.
I agree that Ramsey's products are very bad for privacy, but privacy is not the most important issue here.
Look at it this way. You are responsable for following and knowing the law, but then at the same time you are discouraged (by lawyers) from trying to comprehend it. Then you are told (again, by the lawyers) that you are unable to interpret the law and you need THEM in order to deal with the court system.
Put in another way,
You are responsable for knowing the law. Ignorance is no excuse. (you have to follow the rules)
You are told by lawyers that you need to go through them to deal with the Law. (you cannot know the rules...that's lawyers jobs)
Certainly people other than me just see how wrong this is. And this will never change until people like YOU and I aren't afraid to look at the law ourselves.
I'll stop now. I admit, I hate our current system. So often the current system takes away ower from individual citizens and gives it to institutions. Sick sick sick... ok, finished.
However, your post seams to bring up points that would discourage "laymen" from ever getting involved with the system because it is "too complicated".
"Special Powers". By this I mean that currently there are those "inside" the power circle (those with a law degree), who are given special treatment over Joe Schmoe off the street. No individual lawyer (necessarily) possesses any special powers (favors?). However, as a collective, government has granted lawyers a LOT more power than any other group in society.
"Equalizing Powers". The free exchange of information will ALWAYS equalize power. That is why the First Amendment is so important. Some feel obligated to say IANAL before they comment on law out of fear of liability issues. Isn't it obvious that this is just a way for lawyers to protect themselves as a group? In fact, it's a subtle way of using fear to keep layman from getting involved with the court system. If everyone knew enough law to defend themselves, lawyers would not be needed as much.
Your whole post is basically making the point I was arguing against in the first place. Do we have to know everything a lawyer does in order to understand law well enough to make a difference? I think we can and should freely discuss law whenever we want.
Note I am not saying law is an easy thing to understand. I'm just saying that we shouldn't be afraid to try to understand it.
Final thought: In our government, people are supposed to be the center of power. Unfortunately, our government has moved the focus of power away from it's citizens and put it in the hands of government agencies and private corporations. I could go into all the ways it has done this, but for time's sake I will not. As a people, we have a RIGHT (if not an obligation) to question those that have been given authority over us.
Why do people always start off a statement with IANAL? It seems to me that we as a society have become dependant on lawyers to tell us what is right and what is wrong. When dealing with the very technical, aren't WE the ones who know "right vs. wrong"? WE are the ones who know what is best technically.
Now, imagine a government where all people were created equal. You didn't have a class of citizens that had "special powers" within the power structure that is the government. (talking about the lawyers here)
The internet is equalizing these powers by making information FREE and EASILY ACCESSABLE. There are going to be battles (like this DVD thing) between those who want to keep the freedoms of speech and information exchange we enjoy, and those with money and power who stand to loose it by free exchange of information.
My point? Don't be afraid to learn about, interpret and question law. The lawyers hold special power in government because the citizens let them. If smart people (like us programmers) learn how the system works, there is no reason we cannot deal with the system ourselves, rather than having lawyers as an "intermediary" between us and government.
Thank you, I'll step down now...
Do we actually fear speaking out against our government? I think many of us do, but we aren't supposed to.
These issues are vitally important. This is all about your and my *personal* freedom. It is important that we FIGHT if necessary to hold onto the freedom we know is right.
I'll step down from my little soap box for now. Just realize, there are plenty of us willing to get in some trouble for what we believe in.
How stupid is that? THEY are the ones who implemented a crappy encryption scheme. THEY are the ones who decided to delay DVD audio.
The DVD CCA has caused more harm to consumers than hackers EVER will. If anything, customers have benefited from the hacking of the DVD code.
Maybe it's because it's a sales tax and not income or property tax?
I'm serious, do you "tax me please" folk really think the government will do better things with your money than you would?
Now this "you have to pay taxes at a real store, so why not online" argument is ridiculous. Buying online IS NOT like buying at a regular store.
You don't need to drive your gas guzzling car to shop online (causing environmental hazards, potential auto accident injuries)
You don't need to heat up (or cool down) a big building so online shoppers are comfortable. (uses lots of fuel-more environmental problems)
You don't need police and security personel to patrol an online web site. (to protect against thievery, shoplifters, crazed lunatics with guns)
You can't eat fast food online (gastro-intestinal hazards)
Overall, online transactions pretty much don't pose the same cost-issues. For local and regional governments.
The ONLY way in which an online store costs the local government any money is by the usage roads by delivery companies (UPS, etc). These companies already pay taxes (on gas, profits, who knows what else), and possibly tolls, or whatever else.
They are getting their money, don't worry. It sounds as if you think Almighty Government will come crashing down if it doesn't take more and more money away from it's citizens.
But from a technical standpoint, no matter WHAT data you obtain, it's still a simple matter of looking up customer information based on a single key. I don't care if you store the customers family history, credit card num, employment info, retina scan, penis size or whatever else. It all links back to a customer code stored at amazon.com. This is so damn obvious it makes me sick.
Secondly, Amazon is actually sueing someone here. This is DISTINCTLY different than playing bully demanding money for the patent rights (eg, LZW/GIF debate). If the courts determine that Amazon's patent is prior art or vague - then they lost the patent.
Thirdly, patents *DO* have a place. People need to make money off their inventions. You can't make a living by spending years perfecting some hardware or software, then have your next door neighbor look at it and say, "Dang, thats obvious - i guess i'll rip off that idea and make millions without worrying about recouping the development expense. Thanks neighbor!"
This is exactly what RMS is addressing. Do you not find it ironic that one of the richest internet companies owns the idea for something so obvious? We are discussing the very assertion that THIS IDEA IS AMAZON'S TO OWN.
Now, if you disagree with the *LAW* of patents (duration of coverage, scope, etc) Then don't complain/boycott Amazon. Write your congressperson and explain, in a calm manner, the problems you perceive with patents in a rapidly advancing industry!
Sorry, but the US Govt does not act in "internet time". By the time anything useful is determined (we are talking YEARS here), Amazon.com (or whatever ultra-rich internet meg-corp) would own all the "cool, unique ideas" available and everyone else would be under threats of lawsuits. It is a much better idea for us to protect ourselves, and a boycott is one of our best means for doing this.
Think for yourself for once. Don't take RMS's word, think about it logically. This is just plain wrong.
However, if you want something smaller and more innocent, roll your own site. In fact, you could focus on stuff YOU are interested in, there are always more people out there and /. doesn't have a monopoly ...
Once you make your own site, then put the URL and a little teaser in your sig about it.
Why make your own fun, when you can buy it for cheap?!
MSFT: Market Cap: ~470 billion
RHAT: Market Cap: ~ 20 billion
Remember, you have to go by what you think FUTURE evaluation is going to be. If you believe (as I do) that Linux is indeed headed toward the "big time" (ie. REAL competition for MS), this is not THAT inflated. After all, MS is more than 40x RHAT's valuation.
Also, just for reference,
YHOO - 85 billion
AMZN - 35 billion
AOL - 180 billion
Now that I look at it, I think RHAT has a ways to go still. IMHO think RHAT will ultimately be worth more than AMZN and YHOO.
BTW, I have a vague understanding of what the market cap means (in the real world, not investor-speak), but would like more info.
I wish I could have gotten in on it. These Linux IPOs are making me look like a financial wiz or something to my family. Of course, Linux is (almost sickeningly) THE buzzword for investors now.
ANDN already did it's thing earlier today... did ya miss it?
The "tragedy" you speak of has gotten countless millions of people to look at the issue. It has brought into the light the new power system that is sprouting up around big corporations (and at the expense of the individual).
Congrats to Katz for doing a good job focusing our attention on this extremely important issue.
Also, set up an infrastructure for internet access to it's stores. This would actually increase the mall's appeal. Customers could check "online" if they didn't find what they wanted. All the benefits of online, but you don't have to sit at home alone.