Of course, now that I actually read the damn editorial, I see that the author is not actually proposing that posting virus information be made illegal.
The question, as one highly insightful reader opined earlier, is whether such code should be shut away in a box or put out where anyone can use it.
Same issues as those that face topics like how to turn a legal rifle into an illegal automatic, or how to build a bomb out of fertilizer, or how to override copyright protection mechanisms.
Whether it's free speech or not, is it a good idea to publicize this information?
While I'm not at all in favor of censorship, perhaps the rule of thumb should be similar to voting and guns and pornography: You aren't allowed access it until you're of a majority age and (in theory) mature enought to know right from wrong.
Thus, the information still gets out to those who can use it, and in theory we have more mature, responsible people using it.
Is there anything more damning to this bill than the fact that now we are seeing political commercials from corporate entities on both sides of the issue?
When this is the case, clearly the issue is not one of laws, and the government should not be involved.
Where pray tell did the vast majority of raw materials and cheap (e.g. slave) labor that powered the industreal revolution come from? Hmmm... the third wold.
Well, not really.
The "industrial revolution," at least in the United States, was fueled primarily from within. At the time of the industrial revolution, the cheapest labor and best resources were to be found right here, among the immigrants and homelands of the great U.S. of A. In a time when it was difficult even to travel to Asia, it would have been economic suicide to try to offshore manufacturing or assembly of anything.
No, the Industrial Revolution was forged right here. And the exploited workers fought back, hard, winning the rights that form the basis of all our labor laws today.
It has only been in the last 40 years that it has become economically feasible to offshore manufacturing of all kinds of things, from athletic shoes to blue jeans to soccer balls to computers.
The fundamental problem with the points and topics in this article is that they all assume that the world is at least somewhat like the United States.
The fact is that most of the world is tribal in nature. (Even the US is, though our tribalism manifests in a different way.) Look at pretty much any nation in the world outside the US and you will see a deeply embedded culture of tribalism, whether that is religious, familial, racial, economic, or whatever.
So, the point is a good one: open source can not help where there is not "open government." But the problem lies much deeper in that it is generally against human nature to treat those outside your own tribe fairly, equitably, and humanely. (One only has to read/. for a while to see the tribal boundaries of this particular community and how its members view and treat outsiders such as the Senator from Disney.)
With the world getting smaller (not literally of course), tribal boundaries are shifting. As more communication and cultural cross-pollination occurs throughout the world (as it has in the US), certain tribal boundaries may be blurred (familial, religious, ethnic) but others will be enhanced (economic, political). We are, however, many generations and probably several major wars away from the point at which we can really begin talking about how an economic or technical phenomenon such as open source can change the economic and political status of the "have nots" tribes.
But first, people have to stop killing each other over religious and ethnic differences.
You'd think that Fox or CBS or someone might buy this and trick it out with cameras etc. Imagine the coverage you could get of the America's Cup, imagine the new reality TV shows...
$78 million is a pretty penny, though. At the going market price, you could buy over 30,000 acres of prime farm and orchard land in California's central valley.
But with digital content and the Internet, a home computer user can share a perfect copy of any content with potentially millions of other people, with minimal time and effort. Doesn't that pose an immediate danger to copyright holders?
New technology does necessitate the advent of new rules. Easy reproduction of printed material in the 1700's, and the abuse of that power, caused the first copyright laws to be enacted (statute of Anne). It is quite important to note that nearly all copyright laws, starting with this one, intend to protect the author of the work, not the producer of the work.
At the time, the author of a book contracted with a printer to print the book. Today's entertainment industry in the US has turned that on its head: the artist is nearly forced to give up entirely their copy rights to their work in order to get someone to publish it.
Today, the power now rests with those who control the distribution rather than with those who create the product. The proposed legislation wrests even more control from the creator, handing it over to the distributors.
Now we can branch this line of thought into a few different directions:
"creator" is now a vague term: Who is the real "creator" of a Britney Spears song or video? She couldn't do that on her own. Someone wrote the song, the musicians performed it. Britney Spears is not truly the artist so much as a brand name attached to an entire conglomeration of products from various creators. Yet, only the song and the video are actually copyrighted--the performance can not be copy protected, and someone else is free to perform their own version (they're just not allowed to record and sell it because it would be a derivative work). Thus, perhaps it's not the digital nature of the recording but the muddyness of branding, artist, producer, distributor, performance, etc.
digital technology makes copying easier than ever before: So what? If you're caught, there's a penalty. Printing presses and photocopiers do not include technology to restrict reprinting of copyrighted materials. No legislation demands that they include such technology. The government has not decided that the photocopier industry needs a "kick start" to protect the copy rights of Random House and Houghton Mifflin and Viking etc. HP and Epson printers do not check to see whether the text you're printing is copyrighted by Disney or the Washington Post or Playboy. Imagine what would have happened to the computer industry if the government had mandated such technology!
who does this bill protect? This bill is not about artists getting a fair shake from their creations. It is about forcing one industry to do something to protect the profit margins of another industry. If it were about consumers or artists, it would have stemmed from grass roots and would have happened in the industry organically, as virus protection has. Instead, it comes from the leaders of a single industry's largest companies, who are complaining about potential revenues lost rather than actual damages done. Some of this money may make it to the artists, but most will likely go to overhead costs of production and distribution and enforcement and shareholders.
This content could not exist without the new digital technology that they say threatens it so soundly. It is exactly because copies are so easy to make and distribute that Hollywood has their panties in a bunch about piracy. Piracy is a blip. They are more worried about losing control of the channel, losing control of the audience, losing control of distribution. Instead of clinging to their buggy-whip distribution mechanisms, they should remake themselves into more modern companies utilizing the new technologies. If this were the cretaceous age, Congress would be trying to outlaw mammals because they posed a threat to the existing life forms. These companies must evolve or get out of the way for the next generation.
I mostly wrote this as I thought it through, but I am now even more opposed to the theory and practice of this legislation than ever before. I certainly will vote against any supporter of this bill (or anyone they endorse) in upcoming elections.
Are you reading it to mean that if you buy something, you cannot modify it?
Indeed, that is how I read it. This would be because if you were legally allowed to remove the copy protection technology from your device, then you could simply do so and begin making copies. They have to do this or the entire law is laughably meaningless.
If it weren't so insidious and Draconian, it would already be laughable.
Beyond safety regulations, the US Government cannot force a company to prevent users from modifying their equipment for other purposes.
I quote the bill itself:
SEC. 6. PROHIBITION ON REMOVAL OR ALTERATION OF SECURITY TECHNOLOGY; VIOLATION OF ENCODING RULES.
(a) REMOVAL OR ALTERATION OF SECURITY TECHNOLOGY. -- No person may --
(1) knowingly remove or alter any standard security technology in a digital media device lawfully transported in interstate commerce, or
(2) knowingly transmit or make available to the public any copyrighted material where the security measure associated with a standard security technology has been removed or altered, without the authority of the copyright owner.
Thus, you become a criminal if you alter the device to remove the copyright protection component.
The really intriguing thing in this statement, of course, is the definition of "interstate commerce."
The government should be very wary of trying to manipulate industries. According to Sen. Hollings, he believes that the entertainment and tech sectors can eventually work things out, but that his bill will give the process a needed kick. The fundamental flaw in this bill is the idea that government lawmakers are smarter than the market as a whole. That is, if the market does not provide its own reasons for adoption of a new technology, perhaps that new technology should not be adopted.
But that's a philosophical argument. On more practical terms, the following things will result from this bill (in my opinion). (I am assuming that when I create digital content, I can choose to turn off the copy protection feature.)
shifting the market clout overseas
This law only affects electronics sold in the US. It does not affect electronics sold in, say, France or Brazil or China. With so many developing nations becoming gaining technical savvy, this law will make those markets more attractive and the US market less attractive to technology vendors. Electronics makers will certainly still see the US as the single most lucrative market in the world, but other markets will now look even better. Some major electronics manufacturers may put more emphasis on other markets. The rate and quality of new technical innovation hitting the US market will be slowed, and other countries will begin to catch up even more quickly. The US will slip in its leadership position.
an enforcement burden and legal quagmire
The law deals only with devices shipped or imported through interstate commerce. In theory, components could be shipped to a state, then they could be assembled in that state with the copy protection module built in such a way as to be easily removed. The consumer could then legally remove the copy protection module. The unit becomes more expensive, the law fails to protect anything, and consumers are inconvenienced. In addition, customs agents will be unduly burdened by trying to enforce this law. I am pretty sure that they are busy with more important things.
a creativity deficit
This law does not actually protect the author of a work but rather the copyright holder, or in practice the production company. In fact, it may hurt the artist. Why? Because recording and copying will become more expensive, limiting the ability of small-time artists to produce their own materials. I think this will, over time, end up shifting a lot of creativity overseas, essentially by suppressing it here. (US artists won't move overseas, but again, the US market will be harder to reach.)
In addition, there are celebrated examples of precedent where the government chose to stay the hell out of copy protection. Notably the software industry.
The software industry has a self-run organization to monitor, police, and enforce copyright agreements. This has helped eliminate the worst abuses while keeping the innovation of the software industry at a fever pace. Basically, the industry itself pays to enforce its own agreements with its users. Is money "lost" to software piracy? Sure! But no one in the software industry is complaining to the government about it (any more).
For me, it all comes down to the idea that the market will correct itself and that the government should generally not try to impose contrived rules of this magnitude, particularly to protect a few entrenched giants.
In a piece written by Rep. Schiff, he refers to his own election as "the most costly race for the U.S. House of Representatives in history." The piece promotes the recently passed law regarding campaign finance reform.
Apparently he's not as cheap as that $19,000 figure would have us believe.
Soft money ads do not use the "magic words." They don't tell you to vote for or vote against Adam Schiff, they tell you to call him. And, believe it or not, it is generally no more than this ethereal difference that allows contributors of soft money to avoid disclosure and accountability, and to spend as much at it takes - millions if they choose - to influence federal elections. As long as they don't use the magic words, they can do, say and spend as they please.
Schiff even basically says, if you read between the lines, that he was as bad as the other guy in this election. But now that he's in, he changed the law so no one else can use the same tactics against him, thus making it harder to oust him from office.
I'm not sure what this has to do with the actual bill. Maybe I'm just trying to understand how someone could end up being so anti-freedom, anti-creativity, anti-information.
The only motivation I can come up with is basically greed. Eisner wants to keep making $700 million every five years (that's even more than Barry Bonds!). Schiff wants to stay elected.
I bet with the creativity and resourcefulness of/., we could actually create a bit of software that would approximate a real senator. Then the trick would be to get him elected.
I bet Minnesota would go for it. After all, they elected Jesse "The Mind" Ventura as governor.
No... it actually is on the op-ed page of the Contra Costa (CA) Times every day, and I liked it for several reasons. One is that it is insightful and True. Another is that it reminds people of the roots of America's freedoms and government policies. Another is that it reminds me of the type of moral and ethical strength it took to form this country, a strength which our current political leaders unfortunately lack in record amounts.
One other thing that makes paper & pen so great is that the learning curve is basically nonexistent.
It really is so easy a child could use it. My 2-year-old is doing at least as well with paper and Crayolas as some of my former bosses ever did with their computers.
<seriously>No matter how good computer interfaces get, until they interact with us via speech, posture, gesture, and touch in the same way that we interact with each other, there will be a learning curve prior to adoption, and this will have a negative impact on adoption.</seriously>
It all comes down to "the right tool for the job." Or perhaps also, "the right tool for the skill set."
For me, I am always looking for ways to eliminate paper, but I find it critical in three ways:
reloading from saved state
When I walk into my office each morning, my brain instantly recognizes things I left out on my desk or my chair, prioritizing things by location, color, proximity to other things, etc. When I turn on my PC, I have to wade through the emails and documents to remember everything as I had left it last night.
analog virtual memory
I can't remember everything, and I certainly can't remember where I put everything in my file system. My desk, and all the paper on it, is basically my brain's virtual memory; it's easier and faster to swap things in and out by jotting and scanning notes on paper.
retaining freedom and extending creativity
When you type stuff into a document, you (I) have a tendency to think about formatting as well as the content. I waste time and enslave myself to the look of the thing, even if it's only notes for myself for later! Ridiculous. People generally don't do that (as much) with paper, so I think there is generally more of a creative flow when using paper.
Again, much of this goes back to what job you're doing. I try to eliminate paper if I don't have to use it, but after all I am an analog creature in a physical world, and I relate to my surroundings in complex ways. My relationship with the computer is so much more simplified that it is not always right to refuse to use paper.
The problem, of course, is that you can do all those things. In general, the point of installing content management is so you can continue doing important things instead of changing the order and size of the execs' photos on the "about our company" page.
If instead you gather everyone together and say,
"Hey, since we are moving we have a choice of how we arange the office. What would you like?"
wow, I totally disagree.
The problem is that no matter what you choose, someone will have a problem with it, even if you mix it up. You will never reach concensus, and going full democracy on an issue like this will kill ALL productivity (a) until the decision is actually made AND (b) after everyone moves in. This is because everyone will stop what they're doing and focus on the cube debate.
I, like others, recommend the book Peopleware. I've worked in all kinds of environments and have found myself most productive (long term) in quiet places. I may go through periods of regression, but overall I am able to concentrate better.
The open floorplan is a joke because true concentration is simply not possible. Someone is always interrupting, often because they think they found a funny mp3 they just HAVE to share with the "team." Without concentration, people may be more BUSY, but they certainly won't be more productive.
But back to the democratic voting idea: don't go there. Definitely solicit input from everyone, but make your own decision and then tell people what they're getting. They will get used to it, and they will feel happy grumbling about what a poor choice you made, but at least they won't be spending all their work time debating and politicking for their own personal choice.
Unless I misunderstood section 6A: Individuals are not allowed to tamper with any device transported via interstate commerce, but you can tamper with a device that was NOT transported via interstate commerce.
Dell, HP, et. al. should hate this bill. Why?
Component manufacturers will build components with an easy-to-remove copy protection module.
Components will be shipped lawfully via interstate commerce to facilities in each and every state.
All electronic devices will be assembled from the components in these facilities and sold to consumers in the state.
Consumers will lawfully remove the copy protection module.
The net result: Loss of economy of scale in manufacture of electronic devices. Prices go up. Content remains unprotected. Legal chaos ensues.
This whole thing is so ludicrous. How could anyone be so blind to think this bill will actually HELP ANYONE?
Should we pave the way for that future, however? No; a few speed bumps along the way will give us, as a society, some time to mature as to how we consume and use that information, and how we build up defenses against its abuse.
<offtopic>Your analogy was completely understood and completely unappreciated (by me anyway) since receiving a few unwanted coupons in your mail box is not really in the same category as being raped.</offtopic>
Good luck in your quest to do what you can to prevent such intrusive uses of technology. Such an attitude plays an important role in ensuring that abuse is minimized in the long run.
I maintain, however, that the technology is not inherently bad, and even the collection and use of the data is not inherently a bad thing, even for marketing purposes. When such information is abused (and I admit that "abuse" is a poorly defined thing) is when trouble arises.
Slashdot Mirror
"No, no... we meant 'virile'! Not 'viral'!"
Of course, now that I actually read the damn editorial, I see that the author is not actually proposing that posting virus information be made illegal.
The question, as one highly insightful reader opined earlier, is whether such code should be shut away in a box or put out where anyone can use it.
Same issues as those that face topics like how to turn a legal rifle into an illegal automatic, or how to build a bomb out of fertilizer, or how to override copyright protection mechanisms.
Whether it's free speech or not, is it a good idea to publicize this information?
While I'm not at all in favor of censorship, perhaps the rule of thumb should be similar to voting and guns and pornography: You aren't allowed access it until you're of a majority age and (in theory) mature enought to know right from wrong.
Thus, the information still gets out to those who can use it, and in theory we have more mature, responsible people using it.
Of course, the perfect virus in this case would be one that
Suddenly everyone who has ever been infected becomes a criminal for posting the virus' replication mechanism!
Is there anything more damning to this bill than the fact that now we are seeing political commercials from corporate entities on both sides of the issue?
When this is the case, clearly the issue is not one of laws, and the government should not be involved.
Well, not really.
The "industrial revolution," at least in the United States, was fueled primarily from within. At the time of the industrial revolution, the cheapest labor and best resources were to be found right here, among the immigrants and homelands of the great U.S. of A. In a time when it was difficult even to travel to Asia, it would have been economic suicide to try to offshore manufacturing or assembly of anything.
No, the Industrial Revolution was forged right here. And the exploited workers fought back, hard, winning the rights that form the basis of all our labor laws today.
It has only been in the last 40 years that it has become economically feasible to offshore manufacturing of all kinds of things, from athletic shoes to blue jeans to soccer balls to computers.
The fundamental problem with the points and topics in this article is that they all assume that the world is at least somewhat like the United States.
The fact is that most of the world is tribal in nature. (Even the US is, though our tribalism manifests in a different way.) Look at pretty much any nation in the world outside the US and you will see a deeply embedded culture of tribalism, whether that is religious, familial, racial, economic, or whatever.
So, the point is a good one: open source can not help where there is not "open government." But the problem lies much deeper in that it is generally against human nature to treat those outside your own tribe fairly, equitably, and humanely. (One only has to read /. for a while to see the tribal boundaries of this particular community and how its members view and treat outsiders such as the Senator from Disney.)
With the world getting smaller (not literally of course), tribal boundaries are shifting. As more communication and cultural cross-pollination occurs throughout the world (as it has in the US), certain tribal boundaries may be blurred (familial, religious, ethnic) but others will be enhanced (economic, political). We are, however, many generations and probably several major wars away from the point at which we can really begin talking about how an economic or technical phenomenon such as open source can change the economic and political status of the "have nots" tribes.
But first, people have to stop killing each other over religious and ethnic differences.
Wake me up when it's over.
You'd think that Fox or CBS or someone might buy this and trick it out with cameras etc. Imagine the coverage you could get of the America's Cup, imagine the new reality TV shows...
$78 million is a pretty penny, though. At the going market price, you could buy over 30,000 acres of prime farm and orchard land in California's central valley.
Huh.
Ah! An interesting point. Let's explore it.
copyright historical timeline
New technology does necessitate the advent of new rules. Easy reproduction of printed material in the 1700's, and the abuse of that power, caused the first copyright laws to be enacted (statute of Anne). It is quite important to note that nearly all copyright laws, starting with this one, intend to protect the author of the work, not the producer of the work.
At the time, the author of a book contracted with a printer to print the book. Today's entertainment industry in the US has turned that on its head: the artist is nearly forced to give up entirely their copy rights to their work in order to get someone to publish it.
Today, the power now rests with those who control the distribution rather than with those who create the product. The proposed legislation wrests even more control from the creator, handing it over to the distributors.
Now we can branch this line of thought into a few different directions:
This content could not exist without the new digital technology that they say threatens it so soundly. It is exactly because copies are so easy to make and distribute that Hollywood has their panties in a bunch about piracy. Piracy is a blip. They are more worried about losing control of the channel, losing control of the audience, losing control of distribution. Instead of clinging to their buggy-whip distribution mechanisms, they should remake themselves into more modern companies utilizing the new technologies. If this were the cretaceous age, Congress would be trying to outlaw mammals because they posed a threat to the existing life forms. These companies must evolve or get out of the way for the next generation.
I mostly wrote this as I thought it through, but I am now even more opposed to the theory and practice of this legislation than ever before. I certainly will vote against any supporter of this bill (or anyone they endorse) in upcoming elections.
Indeed, that is how I read it. This would be because if you were legally allowed to remove the copy protection technology from your device, then you could simply do so and begin making copies. They have to do this or the entire law is laughably meaningless.
If it weren't so insidious and Draconian, it would already be laughable.
I quote the bill itself:
Thus, you become a criminal if you alter the device to remove the copyright protection component.
The really intriguing thing in this statement, of course, is the definition of "interstate commerce."
The government should be very wary of trying to manipulate industries. According to Sen. Hollings, he believes that the entertainment and tech sectors can eventually work things out, but that his bill will give the process a needed kick. The fundamental flaw in this bill is the idea that government lawmakers are smarter than the market as a whole. That is, if the market does not provide its own reasons for adoption of a new technology, perhaps that new technology should not be adopted.
But that's a philosophical argument. On more practical terms, the following things will result from this bill (in my opinion). (I am assuming that when I create digital content, I can choose to turn off the copy protection feature.)
This law only affects electronics sold in the US. It does not affect electronics sold in, say, France or Brazil or China. With so many developing nations becoming gaining technical savvy, this law will make those markets more attractive and the US market less attractive to technology vendors. Electronics makers will certainly still see the US as the single most lucrative market in the world, but other markets will now look even better. Some major electronics manufacturers may put more emphasis on other markets. The rate and quality of new technical innovation hitting the US market will be slowed, and other countries will begin to catch up even more quickly. The US will slip in its leadership position.
The law deals only with devices shipped or imported through interstate commerce. In theory, components could be shipped to a state, then they could be assembled in that state with the copy protection module built in such a way as to be easily removed. The consumer could then legally remove the copy protection module. The unit becomes more expensive, the law fails to protect anything, and consumers are inconvenienced. In addition, customs agents will be unduly burdened by trying to enforce this law. I am pretty sure that they are busy with more important things.
This law does not actually protect the author of a work but rather the copyright holder, or in practice the production company. In fact, it may hurt the artist. Why? Because recording and copying will become more expensive, limiting the ability of small-time artists to produce their own materials. I think this will, over time, end up shifting a lot of creativity overseas, essentially by suppressing it here. (US artists won't move overseas, but again, the US market will be harder to reach.)
In addition, there are celebrated examples of precedent where the government chose to stay the hell out of copy protection. Notably the software industry.
The software industry has a self-run organization to monitor, police, and enforce copyright agreements. This has helped eliminate the worst abuses while keeping the innovation of the software industry at a fever pace. Basically, the industry itself pays to enforce its own agreements with its users. Is money "lost" to software piracy? Sure! But no one in the software industry is complaining to the government about it (any more).
For me, it all comes down to the idea that the market will correct itself and that the government should generally not try to impose contrived rules of this magnitude, particularly to protect a few entrenched giants.
Or how about
Oh, wait, sorry... that would be the whole history of Dilbert strips, wouldn't it?
oh, never mind, it's an octopus
and I guess if you're a political activist, this page is for you
In a piece written by Rep. Schiff, he refers to his own election as "the most costly race for the U.S. House of Representatives in history." The piece promotes the recently passed law regarding campaign finance reform.
Apparently he's not as cheap as that $19,000 figure would have us believe.
In another piece by Schiff about campaign finance reform, he describes soft money's use:
Schiff even basically says, if you read between the lines, that he was as bad as the other guy in this election. But now that he's in, he changed the law so no one else can use the same tactics against him, thus making it harder to oust him from office.
I'm not sure what this has to do with the actual bill. Maybe I'm just trying to understand how someone could end up being so anti-freedom, anti-creativity, anti-information.
The only motivation I can come up with is basically greed. Eisner wants to keep making $700 million every five years (that's even more than Barry Bonds!). Schiff wants to stay elected.
Sigh.
Better yet, let's CREATE a senator.
I bet with the creativity and resourcefulness of /., we could actually create a bit of software that would approximate a real senator. Then the trick would be to get him elected.
I bet Minnesota would go for it. After all, they elected Jesse "The Mind" Ventura as governor.
No... it actually is on the op-ed page of the Contra Costa (CA) Times every day, and I liked it for several reasons. One is that it is insightful and True. Another is that it reminds people of the roots of America's freedoms and government policies. Another is that it reminds me of the type of moral and ethical strength it took to form this country, a strength which our current political leaders unfortunately lack in record amounts.
Oh, so THAT's why every single new movie release has its own full multimedia web site to promote it.
And here I thought they were hesitant because the uneducated are typically afraid of what they don't understand.
One other thing that makes paper & pen so great is that the learning curve is basically nonexistent.
It really is so easy a child could use it. My 2-year-old is doing at least as well with paper and Crayolas as some of my former bosses ever did with their computers.
<seriously>No matter how good computer interfaces get, until they interact with us via speech, posture, gesture, and touch in the same way that we interact with each other, there will be a learning curve prior to adoption, and this will have a negative impact on adoption.</seriously>
I think you mean, "Where the hell did I put that damn thing?"
When my computer can interpret THAT without saying, "What damn thing?" then we'll be closer to a paperless office.
It all comes down to "the right tool for the job." Or perhaps also, "the right tool for the skill set."
For me, I am always looking for ways to eliminate paper, but I find it critical in three ways:
When I walk into my office each morning, my brain instantly recognizes things I left out on my desk or my chair, prioritizing things by location, color, proximity to other things, etc. When I turn on my PC, I have to wade through the emails and documents to remember everything as I had left it last night.
I can't remember everything, and I certainly can't remember where I put everything in my file system. My desk, and all the paper on it, is basically my brain's virtual memory; it's easier and faster to swap things in and out by jotting and scanning notes on paper.
When you type stuff into a document, you (I) have a tendency to think about formatting as well as the content. I waste time and enslave myself to the look of the thing, even if it's only notes for myself for later! Ridiculous. People generally don't do that (as much) with paper, so I think there is generally more of a creative flow when using paper.
Again, much of this goes back to what job you're doing. I try to eliminate paper if I don't have to use it, but after all I am an analog creature in a physical world, and I relate to my surroundings in complex ways. My relationship with the computer is so much more simplified that it is not always right to refuse to use paper.
The problem, of course, is that you can do all those things. In general, the point of installing content management is so you can continue doing important things instead of changing the order and size of the execs' photos on the "about our company" page.
wow, I totally disagree.
The problem is that no matter what you choose, someone will have a problem with it, even if you mix it up. You will never reach concensus, and going full democracy on an issue like this will kill ALL productivity (a) until the decision is actually made AND (b) after everyone moves in. This is because everyone will stop what they're doing and focus on the cube debate.
I, like others, recommend the book Peopleware. I've worked in all kinds of environments and have found myself most productive (long term) in quiet places. I may go through periods of regression, but overall I am able to concentrate better.
The open floorplan is a joke because true concentration is simply not possible. Someone is always interrupting, often because they think they found a funny mp3 they just HAVE to share with the "team." Without concentration, people may be more BUSY, but they certainly won't be more productive.
But back to the democratic voting idea: don't go there. Definitely solicit input from everyone, but make your own decision and then tell people what they're getting. They will get used to it, and they will feel happy grumbling about what a poor choice you made, but at least they won't be spending all their work time debating and politicking for their own personal choice.
that the spectorsoft web site has a privacy policy?
I mean... what's the point?
Unless I misunderstood section 6A: Individuals are not allowed to tamper with any device transported via interstate commerce, but you can tamper with a device that was NOT transported via interstate commerce.
Dell, HP, et. al. should hate this bill. Why?
The net result: Loss of economy of scale in manufacture of electronic devices. Prices go up. Content remains unprotected. Legal chaos ensues.
This whole thing is so ludicrous. How could anyone be so blind to think this bill will actually HELP ANYONE ?
and I quote my original post:
<offtopic>Your analogy was completely understood and completely unappreciated (by me anyway) since receiving a few unwanted coupons in your mail box is not really in the same category as being raped.</offtopic>
Good luck in your quest to do what you can to prevent such intrusive uses of technology. Such an attitude plays an important role in ensuring that abuse is minimized in the long run.
I maintain, however, that the technology is not inherently bad, and even the collection and use of the data is not inherently a bad thing, even for marketing purposes. When such information is abused (and I admit that "abuse" is a poorly defined thing) is when trouble arises.