They're already pirates on a grand scale, so what revenue would Microsoft be *losing* if they switch to Linux?
I think that the greatest danger to MS in the so called developing world is the use of open standards. When open standards are the norm (http, smtp, etc), MS products *always* show their inferiority (probably a very biased evaluation, but a fairly decent one). Unless they control standards, there is no way for them to force the use of their products. They lose, in a fell swoop, their entire marketing strategy! Not just for China, but for all of the companies that do business in and with (China|India|Peru|(Germany)?)...
That's the real difference between freedom fighters and terrorists, not their tactics, not their strategy, but their choice of target.
The terrain might have some impact on this classification as well. It is difficult to target civilian populations successfully when you are fighting over political control of those civilian populations. That is, a war of rebellion will tend not to target it's own members (even in the case, as in the US Revolution when only 1/3 of the populace could have been considered supporters of the cause).
Otherwise, the firebombing of Tokyo in WWII could properly be labeled as a terrorist act. (Hmmm....was the US the first to use Nukes in a terrorist attack at Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Interesting flip of the mind-switch...)
The quote is smashed together to save space and for quotting ease. I apologise for the injustice it does to your original formatting.
Ironically, by campaigning against agricultural subsidies and for "fair prices" for the developing world, the anti-globalization movement is agitating in favor of more globalization! That would homogenize prices across the market.
Actually, the whole movement is like that. They are anti-profit, but pro-tax. Anti-monopoly, but pro-government. Anti-capitalist, but pro-freedom.
Really, the corporate CEO and the tree-hugger want the same things, neither of which are in the interests of the government, which does its best to set them against each other.
IMO, you are correct at the simplest level, but miss the point at any sophisticated level. Yes there are similarities between certain standpoints, but the differences by far drown them out. The CEO (the mythical abstract CEO) cares not a whit for the local economy, nor for the local environmental conditions. The environmentalist (a mythical abstract environmentalist) cares not a whit for any particular corporations profits, and may actually be anti-corporate or anti-capitalist (gee, strange how it is easier to abstract a couple thousand CEOs into a single mythical CEO than it is to abstract many million environmentalists into a single mythical tree-hugger, but don't let that stop you).
Certain aspects of free trade fit the mythical environmentalists agenda quite well. There are so few CEOs (at the multi-national level, that is) who feel sympathetic to the causes of labor and environmental rights that it is a stretch to include that in your definition of the mythical CEO.
Yes, I know that you were only considering the environmentalist side of the equation and had not thought about the CEOs at all. I know that your whole argument (in this matter at least, for your point about subsidies are well reasoned) is simply an attempt to discredit the so called anti-globalisation movement by over-generalization and ridicule. I know that by your inherent argument for the CEOs (who you arbitrarily seperate from the governments) is because of a vested interest that has made you blind to your slant. That is kind of what compelled me to respond to your bit of verbal slight of hand.
But seriously do these 200,000 refugees need google?
Disclaimer I'm a normal pampared USian and have no first hand or even second hand exposure to this issue.
I have read reports that this kind of connectivity is a god-send for refugees. The power of email in those circumpstances is related to be irreplacable. The ability to get messages from or to friends, family, or other loved ones is the difference between years of wondering whether some person you care about is alive, and knowing for sure that they are at least breathing and relatively safe (or not, depending on the circumpstances). Since many of these refugees may have family who are working in other countries, it allows them to get messages about state of affairs and to express worries, love, etc. Additionally, the ability to get news from some other source than the camp rumor mill should not be under-estimated.
Not saying you're wrong, just pointing out that there are many non-trivial uses for technology and that what we take for granted can be a very different experience in contexts that we can not even imagine.
But don't confuse that with the general notion that competition is always good, especially in software, which many people would say has tendencies towards natural (and in practice sometimes not so natural) monopolies.
That is precisely where free software saunters into town. All of a sudden the entry barrier to the market plumetts towards zero (asymtotically?) and tons of people try to get a piece of the pie (however small or large the pie is, any piece is better than null). Price becomes a fluctuating issue as variables like quality and features begin to diffrentiate the products. Wow, a healthy product ecosystem with the customer benefitting!
I began to dislike AOL (hate is too strong a word) when they first started to let their customers on the Internet. Newsgroups that I frequented started to see messages like the following, and I more or less quote:
HEY GUYS!! I THINK A BOARD ABOUT SCIENCE FICTION IS COOL!! HAS ANYBODY HEARD OF ROBERT HEINLEIN?? HE IS MY FAVORITE! HA-HA! SEE YOU!
By no means a terrible crime, but after waiting 45+ minutes for my newsfeed to download, and finding many of such messages...well...you can understand why @aol became synonomous with stupid.
I think that you understand the way that the iPod works, and how this could be construed as DRM or what-have-you. The iPod does not work as a DRM device. It does work as a digital hub device. That is, a device that is designed to add value to the computer it is used along side. You can play any song you want, legally or illegally acquired with no difference between them. You do not need to name them by numbers or whatever, unless you are trying to play them without importing them into your music library. You have probably never used iTunes, so I won't continue the point except to state that the way the iPod works is nothing but an encouragement to use iTunes. Apple wants you to import your music into iTunes because that means that you are using an Apple computer! Try not to fall over from shock that Apple wants you to use Apple hardware.
The Congressman is correct when he states that there is no way that Record Companies can drag 150 million downloaders into court.
I am hesitant to draw paralells between this issue and grander civil-rights issues such as those in India, the US South, or South Africa. Unfortunately, this has gotten to the point that the parallels must be drawn. I'm not going to harp on the point, but remember the quote from a very wise person about filling the jails to make more arrests ridiculously difficult and costly. Seems that certain parties are trying to find a way around the ultimate power of the people.
What this legislation does is allow the record companies to take matters into their own hands and then see who has the stones to come back and sue the record company if they go too far.
Exactly. They want to supplant the popular will with their economic might. This bill highlights exactly what the whole issues of p2p are about. In a word (or two synonyms), Power and Money. The power to decide who listens/watches/etc to what how, when, and for how much money.
The point that forces a comparison between this issue and larger issues of human rights is the point where the government grants one entity power over another entity's person or property without consent or legal due process. Make no mistake, the slippery slope began with the consideration of this as a legitimate claim. That was the moment when some basic hypocrisies (sp?) in our liberal (classic liberal, not leftist) republican structures became painfully obvious. Such is the inescapable evidence of cultural shift.
I think barring a class action suit or a really rich person who gets a vital business document wiped out, the companies are pretty safe from anybody watchdogging excessive vigilantism.
First, I think it necesary to state that IMO, any vigilantism is excessive. If hairs are split, the issue is a lost one. We have a legal system to prevent vigilantism, 'nuff said. Secondly, there are groups oout there whose entire reason for existance is to watchdog this stuff. You obviously havn't heard of them from your talk of taking up collections, etc. I suggest that you seek them out and invest your time and money there rather than in a vain attempt at personal cross vendetas (a few search terms to begin with: ACLU, EFF).
As much as I love Macs, I have to point out that trust aint got nothing to do with it. What are they trusting or not trusting (apart from MS which is anti-trusting...)? I don't see the connection between Rights and Trust (two scary capital letters in one sentence!).
From my probably flawed perspective, the issue is about Art (too many capitals!). I like music, I like movies, I like poetry/comics/whatever. I like them on my computer for whatever reason. For them it seems to be about Power. Power and Control, that is.
That's perhaps an extreme example, although you can take it further (what if they start adding scenes?). But it illustrates the limits of fair use rather nicely. While I'm fiercely in favour of individual fair use, I do not believe that fair use covers commercial editing and duplication, simply because allowing it for arguably good intentions opens it up to abuse for rather henious ones as well.
I don't think that intentions matter here. By releasing the hypothetical work into the domain of public awareness artists opens themselves to many risks: ridicule, misunderstandings, laughter, scandal, and even mis-apropriation. The example you give of MS using the works in a context that may even be opposite of the intentions of the creator, or edited to give a different meaning or impression, or even simply mutilated to fit someone elses esthetic sense may be a gross violation of the work, it may even be deeply hurtful and destructive to the artist, but that doesn't really matter. The work is out there for anyone to do with as they choose (short of changing the by-line and re-selling it). That is the nature of art. You can no more control how someone uses your work than you can how they interpret it.
Any artist who publishes art in any form without understanding that is seriously mis-informed about the nature of creation and interpretation. I don't mean to digress into a discussion on the nature of art and artistry (too late now), but mis-understanding their place in the process of creation and interpretation will cause most artists a tremendous amount of pain. Any use is fair as long as it is not re-distribution of the work in question. IOW, the only loss involved in this situation (either yours or the real one) is internal to the artist, an arena that the law is uninterested in, right-fully(ha-ha) so.
The tough thing about activism in the 21st century, is, how the HELL do you choose?
I don't think that you can choose (you in a non-specific, general person in the audience sense, rather than in a Chris Johnson or 3Bees sense) as all of these are merely symptoms of the larger struggle. All of these problems, and the millions of other problems that fly under our respective radars every day, are the surface manifestations of the fight between different modes of production within our culture and civilization. The monopolists have had the head of our production ever since WWII, the last great capitalist engagement, and are either approaching hegemony, or struggling to maintain it (wich is hard to say). Hegemony being used in a Gramscian sense (cf Gramsci, the Italian Commie locked in prison by Mussolini) of total control of the state (from the structures or formal politics, all the way to the super-structures, the ideas that we use to fram the debate).
One of the chief opposing forces to the monopolist ideals is represented through agents like Punk Rock, open source software, the EFF, and a host of related and conflicting elements doing battle against Monopoly capital at different fronts and to different goals. Some are pushing towards a more humane system, some are pushing for their own power, and some are just pushing cause that is the only way not to become totally alienated from thier own lives and experiences (Boredom is the alienation of oneself from ones one experiences -Marshal McCluen, I believe). But in any case, the monopolists can not win forever, and we (the people in a concrete sense) will find ourselves in the future hopefully sooner rather than later. And, hopefully, with less blood than WWII.
The point of this over long post is that the fight is not against any particular issue (though that is certainly a part crucial part of the strugle), but takes place in how we (as individuals and as a spontaneous collective) live our respective and collective lives. The personal is political in that every action that involves at least two people (and try to think of more than one or two things that doesn't) is a concretely political action.
Since I wanted this post to be optimistic I won't dwell on the fact that the fuckers at Monsanto have been directly implicated in the serious maiming and high death rates of Anniston yet not only escaped *any* sort of meaningful punishment, but were totally forgoten about by the media after less than a week. It is very frustrating when people tell me that I am exagerating that story, or even accuse me of making the story up. They don't understand that the truth is more sinister than my imagination. Humans have such short memories and such maleable natures...but now I'm rambling off topic.
There are many things that are so unlikely that, for practical purposes, they simply do not occur in this universe. For example, all the air molecules in a room don't all get on one half of the room, leaving the other half with a vacuum. Statistically, this arrangement is (approximately) as probable as any other
There are reasons why this won't happen, reasons that have nothing to do with probability and everything to do with physics. Think pressure for a second and choose another example.
Russia's hardly in great shape (no disrespect to their pioneering work in the past)
They may not be in great shape, but I think that they are doing the most exciting near Earth stuff right now, and will continue to do so. Space Tourism is pretty damn cool (even if a bunch of hosers are the only ones who have gone so far), and is a pretty big cash inflow to their program. I and my Nevr-Wrong(TM) Magic Ball predict we will see more cool stuff coming from the Ruskies in the near future.
As to your point about the EU's space program, quite a few of the ISS modules are coming from EU countries (France and Italy, Spain has one (? I think ?), Germany...not too sure about the rest)
IMO, there is a lot of validity to your comments, but I think that they may be a little bit off. The GUI does not necesarily obfuscate the computer interface, or hide the background. It does, necesarily, metaphorize the interaction (to move a file, pick it up and put it in a new place) which makes complex actions simpler, and tasks easier to understand for a new user (I'm sure that there is a distinction between those two ideas). I think that rather than some new system, we will see greater interaction between the command line and the GUI, as both have their applicable moments. Tighter metaphores and greater scriptablility will probably be the way that this will move.
But, that doesn't mean that it will become simpler or more complex. Perhaps the scale between them will become more fluid, allowing new users to more easily become experts. An interface that naturally teaches about itself through the day to day processes of its use would be the goal of this vaguely articulated development.
On the Outer Solar System Graph it appears that the comets move in some sort of cyclic pattern (meaning that they seem to converge and then disperse in tune). Is this accurate? Are there any good links to explain theories about this?
Gosh I'm woefully ignorant about our neighborhood!
Aqua's keyboard navigability...Moving from one widget to the next, scrolling, opening menus, starting applications et.c. should all be possible via the keyboard. Text widgets would also benefit from having more shortcut keys, like ^U for "kill line", ^W for "erase word" et.c. In many of the applications of MacOS X, most of this functionality is non-existant.
Most of these do exist. Command arrow moves that direction to the largest extent possible (beginning/end of line, beginning/end of document). Holding shift at the same time selects the text. Option does the same movement, but by the word. Many developers choose not to use these shortcuts, but that is hardly the fault of the GUI. (indeed, Apple has gone out of there way to make Cocoa easy to use and design to their standards).
Scriptability: You mention AppleScript, and claims it is like having shellscript for GUI. No it isn't: you are bound to use that specific language
Wrong again. You do not need Applescript. You only need to use an OSA (Open Scripting Architecture) compatible script. Applescript just happens to be Apple's branded solution that they (duh) ship with the machine and support.
Stupid messages...
This whole complaint translates to "It doesn't do things the way that I'm used to *wah**wah*"
Many of your complaints seem justifed to me, i.e. themes and multiple desktops, but I think that on the others you should learn more about the OS (and the conventions/metaphors behind it) before you complain. Different doesn't mean worse
There is no "Linux" to defeat this. There are only distributions. The big commercial distros are the ones that will end up on ordinary people's desktops and they can either play along or not play - it'll be that simple. When it comes to pleasing shareholders I can guarantee that they will chose to play along.
If they do "play along" and support Palladium they can, pardon my French, go fuck themselves. Who cares? That is the wonderful thing about freedom, you don't need to save them and they don't need to listen to you. They are free to give away their freedoms left and right in exchange for a few shiny gadgets, and we (meaning anyone who values their freedom more than they value the latest pop single) are free to use, modify, develop, and play with open source and its derivatives.
I'm not saying that this issue is not serious, but it is not that serious. All of the FUD is built around the idea of a rock solid authentication mechanism. Since when has MS done anything in a rock solid manner? Uh...never? If there is enough of a reason to want to defeat this new affront to liberty, it will be defeated. There is not need for a monolithic idea of community and there is no need for some sort of united action to stop this.
But then again, I've always been too lazy and self-occupied to consider Victory a pre-condition for Freedom.
Don't get me wrong, nothing brightens my day more than an Orwellian dystopia where people are reduced to robotic flesh and emotions have been run through an authoraritarian meat grinder
I think that you misunderstand the nature of this book. While parts of it definately have a dystopian nature, that is just one of the many facets. This excellent novel is also a wonderful philosophical discourse that explained the central ideas behind Post-Modernism to me better than a stack of formal treatises (how Post-Modern is that!!). What's more, the protagonist himself does not go on a dystopian style quest against/with the structures of the Building as is characteristic of most Dystopian novels. As is typical of many Eastern European and Slavic novels, he seems to be unaware of many of the greatest absurdities in his life while dwelling (absurdly dwelling you might say) on others.
I'm not arguing against non-fiction, or for fiction, or whatever; but this has got to be one of the greatest novels of all time. The contradiction that "Gloom and Doom" never enter into the story and are integral to it is just one of the many pleasures that this tomb holds.
Imediatly after reading this novel (several years ago) I was surprised to notice that I was keeping all of my notes and hand-outs for the semester in a Yellow Folder!:-)
A history teacher I once took some courses from in High School (Military History and US History) subscribed to an interesting theory; The fall of Russian Communism resulted from McDonalds.
I pity anyone who had to suffer through this kind of crap presented as history. This is nothing more than history distorted in order to form a cute phrase to repeat at coctail parties. It reduces 75+ years of history for 11 time-zones of people into a single image designed for the consumption of an ignorant populace (US). The cute saying and distorted half-ass analysis that is behind it totally ignores the many years of growing corruption that preceded the fall of Russian Communism, as well as misrepresenting or ignoring the history of the Russian revolution and the people behind it (do a bit of research into the number of peoples who were involved in the Soviet Union, examine the numbers of totally distinct ethnologies and language groups in this ex-state and you will, maybe, begin to see the shallow-ness of your analysis).
Before I get modded down as off-topic I will connect this with the article under discussion. The Soviet peoples did not embark on an experiment in Utopianism, they were not an informed populace who voted to play with communism. They were peasants, there was a small industrial prolitariat, and a fabulously wealthy aristocracy. This same generalization can be made about the Chinese (overwhelmingly peasant, small pockets of industrialization, wealthy aristocracy), as can a generalization about the growth of an educated middle-class that arose post-revolution.
As another poster comments, there is far more influence on the course of Chinese history from inside of China than from outside; as was also true with the USSR (look at a map and an almanac to guage the relative sizes and populations of the US in comparason to either of them).
I will hasten to add the your critique of the efforts to distort reality in favor of the ruling powers of China is a valid one, but don't limit yourself there. Keep thinking and apply that same critisicm to your own situation. We have far more influnce on our own history than either China or the Soviets, as our literature and our cultural view plainly show.
So Sony is leaving it up to the developers. Which means some games may be free to play online, and others will cost money.
Wonderful argument for monopoly capital. There are several points that you are overlooking, however.
Sony has left the field open for other companies to create an on-line gaming network, or not. There is not guarantee that each game will use a different on-line system, and market forces would tend to indicate otherwise. Why shouldn't they all use a common online API should one become available?
MS' model relies on every developer turning control of their game over to MS. Many companies won't give a damn, as long as there is some assurance of profit, but many will care (EA, ie:-) )
MS' system is inherently limited to XBox, MSN games. Evaluate this limitation as you will.
There is, at this point, absolutely no idea, much less guarantee, about how much the MSN service and various PS2 on line services will cost.
MS' reputation, who wants to stake their business on just one partner, much less MS?
The (long-winded) point that I am making is that the console market is far more complex than your evaluation makes it seem.
Yes, as a few others have said, this list leaves out some obvious classics in favor of some obvious blockbusters
Definately agree. A large number of these "best" movies were nothing more than bubble-gum eye-candy (i.e. Jurassic Park, give me a break). It was also decidedly English only. No mention of Stalker or Solaris???
But, come on, Gattaca being a "yawn" ??
Yes! It was a gawdafful movie! Everything was wonderful; story, acting, scenery, etc, but why did they have to make it so long! The entire story could have been done in 45min with far better results and far less filler. I mean they had repeat stuff so many times to pad time, and throw in stupid and gratitous enemies and love interests just to add justification for well over half the damn movie! Would have been great, had it not been over twice as long as it should have been...
This confirms the worries I have seen here over and over: That lawmakers believe the only solution to a problem is more laws. It is completely inconceiveable to them that a problem may exist that is not best solved by increased legislation.
I think that you missed the point. He was very correctly pointing out that as a member of the US House of Repesentatives the only thing that he can do is make laws. He has no choice about enforcement or propreity of laws. Legislatures legislate, hence the name.
It's frustrating when even the champions of the e-distribution campaign don't give us the chance to show how lucrative sales of uncrippled, high quality, correctly labelled, untruncated, non-radio edit mp3's could be - if they were only given a chance.
Some anecdotal evidence to support this is that some buddies of mine pay the rent on their practice space and make enough to consider cutting another CD off of the money they make from MP3.com. Here is their link: Catholic School Girls. They are total fans of MP3s, but then they are pretty far from major label too.
If the community has a lot of younger professionals, maybe it works. But if there are a lot of older retirees, maybe it doesn't.
I think that you would be surprised how many older people really enjoy discussion boards and such. Once they get used to the idea, many people love 'em. I wish I could remember the site, but in Portland Oregon they have some sort of community forum that is dominated by older folks (meaning retired or semi-retired).
Some searching...here it is. Not a traditional forum, but the idea is similar.
Well, I wasn't going to respond, but since you asked for it:-)
What makes this a GOOD idea is that identity theft would be much more difficult. Right now, if someone gets a hold of your SSN, they can screw you over. It's much more difficult to recreate a retinal pattern
The only reason that the SSN is so dangerous is because it is illegally being used for so many things. The Social Security Act specifically provided that the SSN was never to be used for identification purposes beyond payroll deductions. It works quite well for this, and while it is dangerous if somone gets your SSN, little damage can be done via the original intent. The question that I have whenever I hear this sort of proposal is: where does the urge for identification come from? Why do we want/need some sort of secure identification? Some parts of our "modern" or "post-modern" society depend on a certain extent of identification (purchasing on credit, for example) but they seem to work just fine as they are. Sure there is fraud, but the amount lessens all the time and in general the amount that the credit companies make from their operations dwarf the amount the lose from fraduluant exchanges. Otherwise they wouldn't be in business.
Please present me with a counter-view, but it seems like the drive to more certain identification comes from a combined fear/greed motive (maybe with a spot of ego-fraility thrown in for good measure).
Slashdot Mirror
I think that the greatest danger to MS in the so called developing world is the use of open standards. When open standards are the norm (http, smtp, etc), MS products *always* show their inferiority (probably a very biased evaluation, but a fairly decent one). Unless they control standards, there is no way for them to force the use of their products. They lose, in a fell swoop, their entire marketing strategy! Not just for China, but for all of the companies that do business in and with (China|India|Peru|(Germany)?)...
The terrain might have some impact on this classification as well. It is difficult to target civilian populations successfully when you are fighting over political control of those civilian populations. That is, a war of rebellion will tend not to target it's own members (even in the case, as in the US Revolution when only 1/3 of the populace could have been considered supporters of the cause).
Otherwise, the firebombing of Tokyo in WWII could properly be labeled as a terrorist act. (Hmmm....was the US the first to use Nukes in a terrorist attack at Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Interesting flip of the mind-switch...)
The quote is smashed together to save space and for quotting ease. I apologise for the injustice it does to your original formatting.
IMO, you are correct at the simplest level, but miss the point at any sophisticated level. Yes there are similarities between certain standpoints, but the differences by far drown them out. The CEO (the mythical abstract CEO) cares not a whit for the local economy, nor for the local environmental conditions. The environmentalist (a mythical abstract environmentalist) cares not a whit for any particular corporations profits, and may actually be anti-corporate or anti-capitalist (gee, strange how it is easier to abstract a couple thousand CEOs into a single mythical CEO than it is to abstract many million environmentalists into a single mythical tree-hugger, but don't let that stop you).
Certain aspects of free trade fit the mythical environmentalists agenda quite well. There are so few CEOs (at the multi-national level, that is) who feel sympathetic to the causes of labor and environmental rights that it is a stretch to include that in your definition of the mythical CEO.
Yes, I know that you were only considering the environmentalist side of the equation and had not thought about the CEOs at all. I know that your whole argument (in this matter at least, for your point about subsidies are well reasoned) is simply an attempt to discredit the so called anti-globalisation movement by over-generalization and ridicule. I know that by your inherent argument for the CEOs (who you arbitrarily seperate from the governments) is because of a vested interest that has made you blind to your slant. That is kind of what compelled me to respond to your bit of verbal slight of hand.
Disclaimer I'm a normal pampared USian and have no first hand or even second hand exposure to this issue.
I have read reports that this kind of connectivity is a god-send for refugees. The power of email in those circumpstances is related to be irreplacable. The ability to get messages from or to friends, family, or other loved ones is the difference between years of wondering whether some person you care about is alive, and knowing for sure that they are at least breathing and relatively safe (or not, depending on the circumpstances). Since many of these refugees may have family who are working in other countries, it allows them to get messages about state of affairs and to express worries, love, etc. Additionally, the ability to get news from some other source than the camp rumor mill should not be under-estimated.
Not saying you're wrong, just pointing out that there are many non-trivial uses for technology and that what we take for granted can be a very different experience in contexts that we can not even imagine.
That is precisely where free software saunters into town. All of a sudden the entry barrier to the market plumetts towards zero (asymtotically?) and tons of people try to get a piece of the pie (however small or large the pie is, any piece is better than null). Price becomes a fluctuating issue as variables like quality and features begin to diffrentiate the products. Wow, a healthy product ecosystem with the customer benefitting!
I began to dislike AOL (hate is too strong a word) when they first started to let their customers on the Internet. Newsgroups that I frequented started to see messages like the following, and I more or less quote:
By no means a terrible crime, but after waiting 45+ minutes for my newsfeed to download, and finding many of such messages...well...you can understand why @aol became synonomous with stupid.
I think that you understand the way that the iPod works, and how this could be construed as DRM or what-have-you. The iPod does not work as a DRM device. It does work as a digital hub device. That is, a device that is designed to add value to the computer it is used along side. You can play any song you want, legally or illegally acquired with no difference between them. You do not need to name them by numbers or whatever, unless you are trying to play them without importing them into your music library. You have probably never used iTunes, so I won't continue the point except to state that the way the iPod works is nothing but an encouragement to use iTunes. Apple wants you to import your music into iTunes because that means that you are using an Apple computer! Try not to fall over from shock that Apple wants you to use Apple hardware.
I am hesitant to draw paralells between this issue and grander civil-rights issues such as those in India, the US South, or South Africa. Unfortunately, this has gotten to the point that the parallels must be drawn. I'm not going to harp on the point, but remember the quote from a very wise person about filling the jails to make more arrests ridiculously difficult and costly. Seems that certain parties are trying to find a way around the ultimate power of the people.
Exactly. They want to supplant the popular will with their economic might. This bill highlights exactly what the whole issues of p2p are about. In a word (or two synonyms), Power and Money. The power to decide who listens/watches/etc to what how, when, and for how much money.
The point that forces a comparison between this issue and larger issues of human rights is the point where the government grants one entity power over another entity's person or property without consent or legal due process. Make no mistake, the slippery slope began with the consideration of this as a legitimate claim. That was the moment when some basic hypocrisies (sp?) in our liberal (classic liberal, not leftist) republican structures became painfully obvious. Such is the inescapable evidence of cultural shift.
First, I think it necesary to state that IMO, any vigilantism is excessive. If hairs are split, the issue is a lost one. We have a legal system to prevent vigilantism, 'nuff said. Secondly, there are groups oout there whose entire reason for existance is to watchdog this stuff. You obviously havn't heard of them from your talk of taking up collections, etc. I suggest that you seek them out and invest your time and money there rather than in a vain attempt at personal cross vendetas (a few search terms to begin with: ACLU, EFF).
As much as I love Macs, I have to point out that trust aint got nothing to do with it. What are they trusting or not trusting (apart from MS which is anti-trusting...)? I don't see the connection between Rights and Trust (two scary capital letters in one sentence!).
From my probably flawed perspective, the issue is about Art (too many capitals!). I like music, I like movies, I like poetry/comics/whatever. I like them on my computer for whatever reason. For them it seems to be about Power. Power and Control, that is.
I don't think that intentions matter here. By releasing the hypothetical work into the domain of public awareness artists opens themselves to many risks: ridicule, misunderstandings, laughter, scandal, and even mis-apropriation. The example you give of MS using the works in a context that may even be opposite of the intentions of the creator, or edited to give a different meaning or impression, or even simply mutilated to fit someone elses esthetic sense may be a gross violation of the work, it may even be deeply hurtful and destructive to the artist, but that doesn't really matter. The work is out there for anyone to do with as they choose (short of changing the by-line and re-selling it). That is the nature of art. You can no more control how someone uses your work than you can how they interpret it.
Any artist who publishes art in any form without understanding that is seriously mis-informed about the nature of creation and interpretation. I don't mean to digress into a discussion on the nature of art and artistry (too late now), but mis-understanding their place in the process of creation and interpretation will cause most artists a tremendous amount of pain. Any use is fair as long as it is not re-distribution of the work in question. IOW, the only loss involved in this situation (either yours or the real one) is internal to the artist, an arena that the law is uninterested in, right-fully(ha-ha) so.
I don't think that you can choose (you in a non-specific, general person in the audience sense, rather than in a Chris Johnson or 3Bees sense) as all of these are merely symptoms of the larger struggle. All of these problems, and the millions of other problems that fly under our respective radars every day, are the surface manifestations of the fight between different modes of production within our culture and civilization. The monopolists have had the head of our production ever since WWII, the last great capitalist engagement, and are either approaching hegemony, or struggling to maintain it (wich is hard to say). Hegemony being used in a Gramscian sense (cf Gramsci, the Italian Commie locked in prison by Mussolini) of total control of the state (from the structures or formal politics, all the way to the super-structures, the ideas that we use to fram the debate).
One of the chief opposing forces to the monopolist ideals is represented through agents like Punk Rock, open source software, the EFF, and a host of related and conflicting elements doing battle against Monopoly capital at different fronts and to different goals. Some are pushing towards a more humane system, some are pushing for their own power, and some are just pushing cause that is the only way not to become totally alienated from thier own lives and experiences (Boredom is the alienation of oneself from ones one experiences -Marshal McCluen, I believe). But in any case, the monopolists can not win forever, and we (the people in a concrete sense) will find ourselves in the future hopefully sooner rather than later. And, hopefully, with less blood than WWII.
The point of this over long post is that the fight is not against any particular issue (though that is certainly a part crucial part of the strugle), but takes place in how we (as individuals and as a spontaneous collective) live our respective and collective lives. The personal is political in that every action that involves at least two people (and try to think of more than one or two things that doesn't) is a concretely political action.
Since I wanted this post to be optimistic I won't dwell on the fact that the fuckers at Monsanto have been directly implicated in the serious maiming and high death rates of Anniston yet not only escaped *any* sort of meaningful punishment, but were totally forgoten about by the media after less than a week. It is very frustrating when people tell me that I am exagerating that story, or even accuse me of making the story up. They don't understand that the truth is more sinister than my imagination. Humans have such short memories and such maleable natures...but now I'm rambling off topic.
There are reasons why this won't happen, reasons that have nothing to do with probability and everything to do with physics. Think pressure for a second and choose another example.
They may not be in great shape, but I think that they are doing the most exciting near Earth stuff right now, and will continue to do so. Space Tourism is pretty damn cool (even if a bunch of hosers are the only ones who have gone so far), and is a pretty big cash inflow to their program. I and my Nevr-Wrong(TM) Magic Ball predict we will see more cool stuff coming from the Ruskies in the near future.
As to your point about the EU's space program, quite a few of the ISS modules are coming from EU countries (France and Italy, Spain has one (? I think ?), Germany...not too sure about the rest)
IMO, there is a lot of validity to your comments, but I think that they may be a little bit off. The GUI does not necesarily obfuscate the computer interface, or hide the background. It does, necesarily, metaphorize the interaction (to move a file, pick it up and put it in a new place) which makes complex actions simpler, and tasks easier to understand for a new user (I'm sure that there is a distinction between those two ideas). I think that rather than some new system, we will see greater interaction between the command line and the GUI, as both have their applicable moments. Tighter metaphores and greater scriptablility will probably be the way that this will move.
But, that doesn't mean that it will become simpler or more complex. Perhaps the scale between them will become more fluid, allowing new users to more easily become experts. An interface that naturally teaches about itself through the day to day processes of its use would be the goal of this vaguely articulated development.
On the Outer Solar System Graph it appears that the comets move in some sort of cyclic pattern (meaning that they seem to converge and then disperse in tune). Is this accurate? Are there any good links to explain theories about this?
Gosh I'm woefully ignorant about our neighborhood!
Most of these do exist. Command arrow moves that direction to the largest extent possible (beginning/end of line, beginning/end of document). Holding shift at the same time selects the text. Option does the same movement, but by the word. Many developers choose not to use these shortcuts, but that is hardly the fault of the GUI. (indeed, Apple has gone out of there way to make Cocoa easy to use and design to their standards).
Wrong again. You do not need Applescript. You only need to use an OSA (Open Scripting Architecture) compatible script. Applescript just happens to be Apple's branded solution that they (duh) ship with the machine and support.
This whole complaint translates to "It doesn't do things the way that I'm used to *wah**wah*"
Many of your complaints seem justifed to me, i.e. themes and multiple desktops, but I think that on the others you should learn more about the OS (and the conventions/metaphors behind it) before you complain. Different doesn't mean worse
If they do "play along" and support Palladium they can, pardon my French, go fuck themselves. Who cares? That is the wonderful thing about freedom, you don't need to save them and they don't need to listen to you. They are free to give away their freedoms left and right in exchange for a few shiny gadgets, and we (meaning anyone who values their freedom more than they value the latest pop single) are free to use, modify, develop, and play with open source and its derivatives.
I'm not saying that this issue is not serious, but it is not that serious. All of the FUD is built around the idea of a rock solid authentication mechanism. Since when has MS done anything in a rock solid manner? Uh...never? If there is enough of a reason to want to defeat this new affront to liberty, it will be defeated. There is not need for a monolithic idea of community and there is no need for some sort of united action to stop this.
But then again, I've always been too lazy and self-occupied to consider Victory a pre-condition for Freedom.
I think that you misunderstand the nature of this book. While parts of it definately have a dystopian nature, that is just one of the many facets. This excellent novel is also a wonderful philosophical discourse that explained the central ideas behind Post-Modernism to me better than a stack of formal treatises (how Post-Modern is that!!). What's more, the protagonist himself does not go on a dystopian style quest against/with the structures of the Building as is characteristic of most Dystopian novels. As is typical of many Eastern European and Slavic novels, he seems to be unaware of many of the greatest absurdities in his life while dwelling (absurdly dwelling you might say) on others.
I'm not arguing against non-fiction, or for fiction, or whatever; but this has got to be one of the greatest novels of all time. The contradiction that "Gloom and Doom" never enter into the story and are integral to it is just one of the many pleasures that this tomb holds.
Imediatly after reading this novel (several years ago) I was surprised to notice that I was keeping all of my notes and hand-outs for the semester in a Yellow Folder! :-)
I pity anyone who had to suffer through this kind of crap presented as history. This is nothing more than history distorted in order to form a cute phrase to repeat at coctail parties. It reduces 75+ years of history for 11 time-zones of people into a single image designed for the consumption of an ignorant populace (US). The cute saying and distorted half-ass analysis that is behind it totally ignores the many years of growing corruption that preceded the fall of Russian Communism, as well as misrepresenting or ignoring the history of the Russian revolution and the people behind it (do a bit of research into the number of peoples who were involved in the Soviet Union, examine the numbers of totally distinct ethnologies and language groups in this ex-state and you will, maybe, begin to see the shallow-ness of your analysis).
Before I get modded down as off-topic I will connect this with the article under discussion. The Soviet peoples did not embark on an experiment in Utopianism, they were not an informed populace who voted to play with communism. They were peasants, there was a small industrial prolitariat, and a fabulously wealthy aristocracy. This same generalization can be made about the Chinese (overwhelmingly peasant, small pockets of industrialization, wealthy aristocracy), as can a generalization about the growth of an educated middle-class that arose post-revolution.
As another poster comments, there is far more influence on the course of Chinese history from inside of China than from outside; as was also true with the USSR (look at a map and an almanac to guage the relative sizes and populations of the US in comparason to either of them).
I will hasten to add the your critique of the efforts to distort reality in favor of the ruling powers of China is a valid one, but don't limit yourself there. Keep thinking and apply that same critisicm to your own situation. We have far more influnce on our own history than either China or the Soviets, as our literature and our cultural view plainly show.
Wonderful argument for monopoly capital. There are several points that you are overlooking, however.
The (long-winded) point that I am making is that the console market is far more complex than your evaluation makes it seem.
Definately agree. A large number of these "best" movies were nothing more than bubble-gum eye-candy (i.e. Jurassic Park, give me a break). It was also decidedly English only. No mention of Stalker or Solaris???
Yes! It was a gawdafful movie! Everything was wonderful; story, acting, scenery, etc, but why did they have to make it so long! The entire story could have been done in 45min with far better results and far less filler. I mean they had repeat stuff so many times to pad time, and throw in stupid and gratitous enemies and love interests just to add justification for well over half the damn movie! Would have been great, had it not been over twice as long as it should have been...
I think that you missed the point. He was very correctly pointing out that as a member of the US House of Repesentatives the only thing that he can do is make laws. He has no choice about enforcement or propreity of laws. Legislatures legislate, hence the name.
Some anecdotal evidence to support this is that some buddies of mine pay the rent on their practice space and make enough to consider cutting another CD off of the money they make from MP3.com. Here is their link: Catholic School Girls. They are total fans of MP3s, but then they are pretty far from major label too.
I think that you would be surprised how many older people really enjoy discussion boards and such. Once they get used to the idea, many people love 'em. I wish I could remember the site, but in Portland Oregon they have some sort of community forum that is dominated by older folks (meaning retired or semi-retired).
Some searching...here it is. Not a traditional forum, but the idea is similar.
Well, I wasn't going to respond, but since you asked for it :-)
The only reason that the SSN is so dangerous is because it is illegally being used for so many things. The Social Security Act specifically provided that the SSN was never to be used for identification purposes beyond payroll deductions. It works quite well for this, and while it is dangerous if somone gets your SSN, little damage can be done via the original intent. The question that I have whenever I hear this sort of proposal is: where does the urge for identification come from? Why do we want/need some sort of secure identification? Some parts of our "modern" or "post-modern" society depend on a certain extent of identification (purchasing on credit, for example) but they seem to work just fine as they are. Sure there is fraud, but the amount lessens all the time and in general the amount that the credit companies make from their operations dwarf the amount the lose from fraduluant exchanges. Otherwise they wouldn't be in business.
Please present me with a counter-view, but it seems like the drive to more certain identification comes from a combined fear/greed motive (maybe with a spot of ego-fraility thrown in for good measure).