I think the accusations against google are a bit overblown... but I still think you're suggestion isn't a bad one. Just because Google behaves itself reasonably well today, doesn't mean it will tomorrow. It's just another corporation--it's not good for the entire web to become as dependent on it as we have (or at least I am;))
Right now, when I think "let's see what the internet has to say about this!" my fingers always say "google". Maybe everyonce in a while I'll catch myself and go to teoma or something else instead, just for giggles.
I had a Natural Elite as my main keyboard for a few months, but in the end there was only one way to use that blasted thing--pry out the freaking insert key that they put where the page down key was supposed to be. Then it was wonderful.
I wrote these as templates for common Slashdot stories. So you'll see originality from me when you see originality from them.
That said, I suppose I could write more than one template for the case where we get two MacOS (or whatever) stories back to back like this.
So any story about MacOS is unoriginal? Or is it any story about computers? Any story about news for nerds, maybe?;)
Even the most gun-loving American Redneck would agree that nuclear missiles for everybody would be a bad idea. Even they draw the line somewhere.
Perhaps they just don't want the few to be able to control the many. A populace armed to the teeth with rifles is slightly harder to dominate with a government people are not sympathetic to. Empower the masses.
But in a world in which civilian nukes where legal, one guy could control everyone around him like that nuke-in-my-motorcycle dude in Snow Crash. Enslave the masses.
See the difference?
Where automatic weapons would fall in such an argument is harder to say--they do allow a minority to control a majority, but since regular armies use them as standard-issue weapons...
p2p file services have one specific use, to share files. Sometimes legally, sometimes illegally.
I hope no one is saying "if you support napster, you must arm yourself!!!", but the given line of argument applies equally well to guns and p2p. Obviously not all other arguments for one will apply to the other--there is no reason to enumerate them here.
On a somewhat related note, have you noticed that people have been using the word "actually" to start any kind of negative response? i.e. Actually your dog is purple; actually I don't think so; actually you are wrong. And it's not just on slashdot either. Popular culture seems to have reserved the word "actually" as a standard term for disagreement. On any given slashdor story one can grep for "actually" and find that in 90& of the cases it is the first word in the post.
I have to wonder about people who notice stuff like this. Did your parents lock you in the closet with a dictionary so that you had to learn the meanings of words by reading their definitions? Because everyone I know learns what words mean by hearing how other people use them. So if everyone uses "actually" in a certain way, that's what we think it means (until someone points it out otherwise).
Since no one but a linguist bothers to lookup stuff like "ironic" or "actually", is it just one linguist who's looking up all these words, comparing them to modern usage trends, then writing letters to the editor to get everyone pissed off about it? Because if it is, I'd really like to punch that linguist.
That's because the PC freaks are almost as anal retentive as the Dictionary freaks.
But when the average person needs a pronoun, they know what to use.
Besides, even if you are a dictionary freak, "she" certainly has absolutely no more linguistic correctness than "they". The rules of the language say "he", the thinking people say "they", the people afraid of feminists say "she".
Yeah, year, everyone always points out how much more tolerant of piracy software makers are...
But imagine a copy protection scheme for CDs and DVDs that forced you to run THEIR executable code on your computer. Such a scheme would really tick me off--maybe I don't trust their program, maybe I'd like to run their program under linux.
But it would have great benefits for the content industries(at least they would think so)--you couldn't download songs without worrying whether someone stuck a virus into it.
But compare this nightmare world with the state of software as it is today... to run software, I have to run their code. Sure, software can be pirated, but to download the copied version you always run the risk that someone (by intention or otherwise) got a virus into the file. Worse, I have to use Windows, or maybe a Mac if I'm lucky.
True, there is no possible way to make software for which I don't have to run their code (although with Java, at least it wouldn't have portability/trust problems....), but that doesn't make it any more of a model for the content industries to follow.
It's like AI - every time one of the problems in AI is solved, someone says "that's not AI"...
I hate when people say that! We only say that because there are problems we naively think "this problem is so hard, once I solve this problem I should be able to solve any problem!" So, of course, when we make a program that defeats humans at chess butstill can't drive my car properly, chess will no longer be considered AI.
With intelligence, you're supposed to be able to ADAPT to any problem. If you've solved your problem, but you don't have that ability, your problem was not an AI problem.
Besides, AI has nothing to complain about compared to Philosophy. Basically every intellectual discipline was once worked on only by philosophers, only when a philosophers manage to get some material benefit out of it does it leave the domain of philosophy.
Obviously, if every thing on your computer is open source, there is no possible way for copy protection to work. Because you just change the one line of code that prohibits copying.
I was surpised to see open source mentioned specifically, but in any case that open source is only referring to the security system. So for instance, you could have an open source security system that only allows closed source programs endorsed by the creator to access content. I'm not convinced that's even possible, and I'm curious what would happen if a bill that was simply impossible to implement became law.
In any event, the problem isn't this specific law, as there is no way this thing is going to even be considered by the House or the President. The problem is that while this bill won't procede simply because Dems proposed it and Reps hate Dems, maybe someone will make a compromise version or Democrats could totally sweep the House next election and pass whatever they want.
By the time they do that, we'll need to have gotten our act together and be able to oppose it a lot more forcefully then we're opposing this.
Hey, maybe we'll still be able to buy computers, but only if they can not possibly view any multimedia content at all. We'll have 333 Ghz processors with only punch cards for input and ticker tape for output.
I always wondered if I'd actually be more productive without graphics available --no video games, no web comics--nothing but productive work to do on my computer. Maybe next century we'll live on the moon, and we'll have the MPAA to thank!
From the user's perspective, there is way more variety of stuff to listen to broadcasted online then you can pick up with that $2.25 device. To a lesser extent, the same is likely true of satellite radio.
Not to mention, eventually computers will just cost $2.25.;)
I have a hard time knowing how to explain to non-technical people why I find copy prevention solutions so heinous, even if said copy protection respects my fair use rights.
It's simple to us. We know closed source means untrusted programs having control of our computers. We know that means stolen data and lost privacy (e.g. spyware). But all copy protection must be closed source. Why? Because computers can't distinguish between reading a file to view and reading a file to copy/steal/share it. So only certain programs can be allowed to view the file. You cannot be permitted to change these programs, because then you can make copies of the content. You cannot be permitted to understand these programs, because then you can make replacements of the viewing program, and thus make copies of protected content.
Therefore, Copy protection = untrusted software on my computer.
It's NOT about the Fair Use doctrine. It's about who controls your computer.
So how the heck am I supposed to explain this to my senator? Or to the average constiuent of my senator?
Therefore violent games, as a whole, may outsell non-violent ones.
But individual violent titles, with more competition, fail to sell as well as individual non-violent titles.
Yeah, but there is the flip side: there (supposedly) aren't as many nonviolent games, therefore potential gamers interested in nonviolent games don't get into games, therefore nonviolent games don't sell.
I dunno, I'd always heard networks people liked to use standard decimal metric prefixes too. Especially if they're talking about bits rather than bytes--those powers of two are probably more useful for software than hardware, and people who think about software think more in terms of bytes than bits, so usually when I see someone say bit, I assume they're talking decimal powers..
Was there something I missed that lead you to think they meant a binary power?
You're completely wrong. If Blizzard weren't invoking the four letters of evil "DMCA", but found some other way to stop people from reverse engineering their servers (especially a tech-only solution), I think a lot of people wouldn't be upset at all--they are just trying to stop piracy, after all. Not everyone would be satisfied--but I certainly would.
Since I have no idea what the heck a "power monopoly" is, I can't make any sense of your next sentence, though I have some vague suspicion it's confusing anarchism with libertarianism, and not using a particularly reasonable form of anarchism at that.
Your point would make more sense if you were talking about environmental pollution or network effect or other more standard market failures. I'm not a libertarian, I'm just pointing out that this attack on libertarianism is flawed.
A libertarian is NOT required to believe that the market can correct the errors of the government--if that were their belief, why would they be so upset about government intervention in the first place?
It doesn't refute libertarianism, because the DMCA is an act of government intervention. Libertarians believe the free market has problems mitigating the effects of government intervention, and this illustrates that perfectly.
On the one hand, you're right. We're all upset that we don't have fair use rights for using Blizzard's products. So what good are fair use rights if we're not using Blizzard's products? It's just cutting off your nose to spite your face. The market place isn't supposed to be our solution for unjust laws, the voting booth is.
On the other hand, I have to respect people who are willing to put their short term pleasure aside for the sake of their ideals. And of all the high profile DMCA cases I've heard of, Blizzard seems like the one most vulnerable to consumer backlash--they're only selling one product, one video game. You've got hundreds and hundreds of video games this year to choose from, can't you just pick a different one? Heck, there are even many 3d realtime strategy games.
Personally, I'd encourage anyone who absolutely must have this game to steal it. Steal it even if it's the first game you've ever pirated. The message needs to be "If you use the DMCA to stop us from stealing your stuff, we'll steal your stuff."
Slashdot Mirror
Right now, when I think "let's see what the internet has to say about this!" my fingers always say "google". Maybe everyonce in a while I'll catch myself and go to teoma or something else instead, just for giggles.
I've gotten a bunch of panics on my iBook (that's bsd, right?)--certainly far more often then i've gotten panics in linux.
I had a Natural Elite as my main keyboard for a few months, but in the end there was only one way to use that blasted thing--pry out the freaking insert key that they put where the page down key was supposed to be. Then it was wonderful.
That said, I suppose I could write more than one template for the case where we get two MacOS (or whatever) stories back to back like this. So any story about MacOS is unoriginal? Or is it any story about computers? Any story about news for nerds, maybe? ;)
Perhaps they just don't want the few to be able to control the many. A populace armed to the teeth with rifles is slightly harder to dominate with a government people are not sympathetic to. Empower the masses.
But in a world in which civilian nukes where legal, one guy could control everyone around him like that nuke-in-my-motorcycle dude in Snow Crash. Enslave the masses.
See the difference?
Where automatic weapons would fall in such an argument is harder to say--they do allow a minority to control a majority, but since regular armies use them as standard-issue weapons...
p2p file services have one specific use, to share files. Sometimes legally, sometimes illegally.
I hope no one is saying "if you support napster, you must arm yourself!!!", but the given line of argument applies equally well to guns and p2p. Obviously not all other arguments for one will apply to the other--there is no reason to enumerate them here.
I have to wonder about people who notice stuff like this. Did your parents lock you in the closet with a dictionary so that you had to learn the meanings of words by reading their definitions? Because everyone I know learns what words mean by hearing how other people use them. So if everyone uses "actually" in a certain way, that's what we think it means (until someone points it out otherwise).
Since no one but a linguist bothers to lookup stuff like "ironic" or "actually", is it just one linguist who's looking up all these words, comparing them to modern usage trends, then writing letters to the editor to get everyone pissed off about it? Because if it is, I'd really like to punch that linguist.
That's because the PC freaks are almost as anal retentive as the Dictionary freaks. But when the average person needs a pronoun, they know what to use. Besides, even if you are a dictionary freak, "she" certainly has absolutely no more linguistic correctness than "they". The rules of the language say "he", the thinking people say "they", the people afraid of feminists say "she".
What are you talking about?!! Everyone who gets intellectual property issues understands that LORD OF THE RINGS is the only good movie ever made!!!!!
;)
Yeah, year, everyone always points out how much more tolerant of piracy software makers are...
... to run software, I have to run their code. Sure, software can be pirated, but to download the copied version you always run the risk that someone (by intention or otherwise) got a virus into the file. Worse, I have to use Windows, or maybe a Mac if I'm lucky.
But imagine a copy protection scheme for CDs and DVDs that forced you to run THEIR executable code on your computer. Such a scheme would really tick me off--maybe I don't trust their program, maybe I'd like to run their program under linux.
But it would have great benefits for the content industries(at least they would think so)--you couldn't download songs without worrying whether someone stuck a virus into it.
But compare this nightmare world with the state of software as it is today
True, there is no possible way to make software for which I don't have to run their code (although with Java, at least it wouldn't have portability/trust problems....), but that doesn't make it any more of a model for the content industries to follow.
Yeah, you're totally right, I just thought of a cutesy aphorism and I needed to stick somewhere on slashdot. ;)
Regardless of whatever anyone is trying to see, the simple fact remains. People who have better things to do than understand UNIX deserve freedom too.
I hate when people say that! We only say that because there are problems we naively think "this problem is so hard, once I solve this problem I should be able to solve any problem!" So, of course, when we make a program that defeats humans at chess butstill can't drive my car properly, chess will no longer be considered AI.
With intelligence, you're supposed to be able to ADAPT to any problem. If you've solved your problem, but you don't have that ability, your problem was not an AI problem.
Besides, AI has nothing to complain about compared to Philosophy. Basically every intellectual discipline was once worked on only by philosophers, only when a philosophers manage to get some material benefit out of it does it leave the domain of philosophy.
I was surpised to see open source mentioned specifically, but in any case that open source is only referring to the security system. So for instance, you could have an open source security system that only allows closed source programs endorsed by the creator to access content. I'm not convinced that's even possible, and I'm curious what would happen if a bill that was simply impossible to implement became law.
In any event, the problem isn't this specific law, as there is no way this thing is going to even be considered by the House or the President. The problem is that while this bill won't procede simply because Dems proposed it and Reps hate Dems, maybe someone will make a compromise version or Democrats could totally sweep the House next election and pass whatever they want.
By the time they do that, we'll need to have gotten our act together and be able to oppose it a lot more forcefully then we're opposing this.
I always wondered if I'd actually be more productive without graphics available --no video games, no web comics--nothing but productive work to do on my computer. Maybe next century we'll live on the moon, and we'll have the MPAA to thank!
Truly you have shown us: out of every conflict beauty is born!
Not to mention, eventually computers will just cost $2.25. ;)
It's simple to us. We know closed source means untrusted programs having control of our computers. We know that means stolen data and lost privacy (e.g. spyware). But all copy protection must be closed source. Why? Because computers can't distinguish between reading a file to view and reading a file to copy/steal/share it. So only certain programs can be allowed to view the file. You cannot be permitted to change these programs, because then you can make copies of the content. You cannot be permitted to understand these programs, because then you can make replacements of the viewing program, and thus make copies of protected content.
Therefore, Copy protection = untrusted software on my computer.
It's NOT about the Fair Use doctrine. It's about who controls your computer.
So how the heck am I supposed to explain this to my senator? Or to the average constiuent of my senator?
But individual violent titles, with more competition, fail to sell as well as individual non-violent titles.
Yeah, but there is the flip side: there (supposedly) aren't as many nonviolent games, therefore potential gamers interested in nonviolent games don't get into games, therefore nonviolent games don't sell.
Geez, "put the kibosh"? The only person I know who talks like that is my grandpa!
Grandpa, is that you?
You should use file extensions because how the heck else is my computer supposed to know how to view this file I just downloaded from you ftp server?
Was there something I missed that lead you to think they meant a binary power?
Since I have no idea what the heck a "power monopoly" is, I can't make any sense of your next sentence, though I have some vague suspicion it's confusing anarchism with libertarianism, and not using a particularly reasonable form of anarchism at that.
Your point would make more sense if you were talking about environmental pollution or network effect or other more standard market failures. I'm not a libertarian, I'm just pointing out that this attack on libertarianism is flawed.
A libertarian is NOT required to believe that the market can correct the errors of the government--if that were their belief, why would they be so upset about government intervention in the first place?
It doesn't refute libertarianism, because the DMCA is an act of government intervention. Libertarians believe the free market has problems mitigating the effects of government intervention, and this illustrates that perfectly.
On the one hand, you're right. We're all upset that we don't have fair use rights for using Blizzard's products. So what good are fair use rights if we're not using Blizzard's products? It's just cutting off your nose to spite your face. The market place isn't supposed to be our solution for unjust laws, the voting booth is.
On the other hand, I have to respect people who are willing to put their short term pleasure aside for the sake of their ideals. And of all the high profile DMCA cases I've heard of, Blizzard seems like the one most vulnerable to consumer backlash--they're only selling one product, one video game. You've got hundreds and hundreds of video games this year to choose from, can't you just pick a different one? Heck, there are even many 3d realtime strategy games.
Personally, I'd encourage anyone who absolutely must have this game to steal it. Steal it even if it's the first game you've ever pirated. The message needs to be "If you use the DMCA to stop us from stealing your stuff, we'll steal your stuff."