The DMCA shouldn't have been invoked here. It's not applicable.
BUT everyone here knows that whoever put that video out there was engaging in an attack on that woman, and they should be taken to task for it. I personally would be in favour of having them publicly flogged for doing this.
One of the pillars of a healthy society is freedom. Another is respect. Neither is less important than the other.
Personally, I think the idea of a "we're going to link to this resource, and when you're figuring out the topographical/popularity metrics of the interweb, we want you to count it and give us and them "points", but when we link to that resource, we want you to pretend that we didn't link to it and not give them any points." system is retarded.
Spam and whatnot may be a problem, but this is not the solution. This is just dumb.
Here's an idea:
If any site has "no-follow" links on it, that means that not only are they not verifying the quality of the links I might click on should I choose to go to the site, they have a general assumption that those links will be bad links. That being the fact of the matter, I already don't want them to show up in my search results at all.
Has anyone else around here ever though that Feminism is like Post-tramatic Stress Syndrome, except for a society not a person, bought on by having all the providers ripped away around the time of the second world war?
IF you took it as established that there were going to be these systematic invasions of privacy and compilations of databases and whatnot...
As is currently being done by organizations within both government and corporate sectors...
Would you rather have this information legally protected and made obscure so only those with government authority or enough money and resources to assemble it themselves have access to this information?
Or commercialized so the rich and powerful get more access to it?
Or made public and available to everyone with universal access?
How many days after a site has been transformed by hijackers/forum spammers/whoever into a pile of crap should it come off the top of googles search results? A day? A week?
If they'd maintained their site properly, it wouldn't have happened.
Business functions on exchange. Without it, it collapses.
Business owners who use their newfound information to exclude others on the basis of misplaced morality will quickly find they are out of business.
It's far more likely that this type of environment will result in people refusing to buy from those they don't feel should be trusted with any authority, financial or otherwise, because they're lying immoral antisocial scumbags.
You also have to weigh the cost (tying access to culture and education to financial capacity) against the benefit (paying people to create new "creative works").
We're getting to the point where we'll have the technology to put the entire sum of human creativity to this date on a single device and giving one to everyone on earth. Copyright would prevent that.
We simply need to find a better way to entice people to create. The cost of our existing structures continuance is too high.
These are not inevitabilities, but rather unfortunate side effects of how our society is structured. The more we destroy artifical scarcities and create situations of plenty instead of scarcity, the less significant that will become.
When there is not enough food for everyone, stealing someones meal card is a rational act. When there is plenty of food for all, meal cards become irrelevant.
Secrets, in principle, are an attack on the mind. They're an attempt to force others to flail about blindly in an uninformed fashion, damaging their ability to make intelligent decisions and care for themselves. They're a passive-aggressive act, and fundimentally wrong.
Aside from all that...
There existed a time in human history when people in western societies were so bogged down with the labour of survival that it was necessary for society to subsidise creations of the mind if there were to be any of them, and the machination of that subsidy was the root of intellectual property law.
That time is passed.
The time has arrived where there are many idle hands and minds in the world, and we will reap more rewards as a society in these areas by removing barriers and putting more powerful tools to create and share into the hands of the masses than we will by systematically isolating people from them by imposing barriers to entry.
Personally, I oppose DRM in every possible fashion and in every concievable use.
LMAO. Nice to know there is a voice of reason in the world...
I was right here yesterday getting modded down to -1 Flamebait for expressing these types of opinions, and was starting to think the world had gone insane. There must be fanboys crying into their Mountain Dew this morning...
Did you see the keynote. It's not just a phone + iPod, it's a smartphone (with all of the features you expect when you hear "smartphone") + iPod with an interface that doesn't suck. A smartphone with an interface that doesn't suck is truly newsworthy, as the industry has been trying to build that for years and failing miserably.
Agreed: it's the "doesn't suck" that's key.
So:
Being that we all agree that it's nothing new,
and that the entirity of its strength as a product lies in the "non-suckitude" of its user interface,
and that none of us has actually used one and can speak to its ease of use,
and being that it replaces tactile phone buttons you can easily use in dim light while you're on the side of the road with a flat in the rain...
with a touch screen..
What is it exactly that makes this thing so interesting again?
Cause it looks like an overpriced hunk of junk to me.
What an absolutely ridiculous statement.
I haven't looked at any spec sheets, and I can tell you what it does. It makes phone calls and plays music. I didn't need any wild guesses to do that.
This fanboyism is such tripe it's making me ill.
I know you can use these types of technologies to print cell phones out and put the batteries in and call a friend with it. They used to use them in the industrial fab shop attached to the promotional company I worked for, and the guys there did it with the same sort of tools kids are using to create video game and Second Life characters. This is evenutally going to do to manufacturing what the Internet is still in the process of doing to mass media.
Sounds great... I get into the car in a big rush, not noticing that my girlfriend unchecked the "Invert Mouse" setting under "Interface Options", and end up backing my car into a wall.
You are right. You shouldn't be forced to participate. You should have the option to not participate, and choose exile, rather than being forced to participate in a society with the rest of us.
And yet providing an exclusive right to a subset of that information (creative works) for a limited time seems to benefit the whole more than it costs them.
Exactly.
You know what the problem with a religion is? It's not that the advice it gives is good or bad, it's that the absence of the consideration of why it's good or bad that goes with wholesale acceptance of it leads people to not realize when the world has changed and the good advice is no longer good advice.
As a way to administer who in a population you entice to create, it's not an entirely bad idea. But it has limits on its effectiveness and costs that must be considered, and it must be allowed to become obsolete and die as a cultural meme if we are going to grow and progress.
The time is fast approaching where you could fit the sum of all human creativity into a small cheap piece of material with a reader no more sophisticated than a cheap electronic toy and put one in the hands of every man, woman and child on earth. Copyright law would make this impossible. That's a pretty big cost to pay. Particularly in consideration that copyright isn't what supports those artists, but rather one possible mechanism to determine who we collectively support.
We need to create a practical mechansim that would allow for humanity to support creativity in people in a fair and sustainable fashion that doesn't carry the necessity to deprive humanity of access to the majority of works, as the current system does.
To choose to do otherwise is to needlessly transform (maintain?) our neighbours into (as) ignorant, dependent and uneducated peasants that, rather than participating in mutually beneficial civilized exchange out of enlightened self-interest, instead attack their oppressors in an attempt to break free of a structure that separates them from culture, education and the capacity for more intelligent behavior, again, out of enlightened self-interest.
If he gives you fishes but refuses to teach you to fish and refuses to let you try and teach yourself, the enlightened person will gather their neighbours, stab him spears, pillage his hut for his equipment, then try to muddle it out for themselves and enable everyone in the village to be empowered.
Yep... 20 years from now, when they release the "Blood Phishing" movie and everyone knows what happened, that class action lawsuit is going to tear em a new one. Then we'll all start surfing on "Conflict-Free Browsers" and life will be good.
I've always liked using JScript on the server when I'm working in IIS, easier to remember the syntax when you're jumping around from client to server.
JavaScript client code is like ninjas on an away team mission. They're not bound to their environment, you write them to intelligently investigate it before they act. Fun stuff to build.
Slashdot Mirror
The DMCA shouldn't have been invoked here. It's not applicable.
BUT everyone here knows that whoever put that video out there was engaging in an attack on that woman, and they should be taken to task for it. I personally would be in favour of having them publicly flogged for doing this.
One of the pillars of a healthy society is freedom. Another is respect. Neither is less important than the other.
I fixed it... I added Wikipedia to my filter list.
Personally, I think the idea of a "we're going to link to this resource, and when you're figuring out the topographical/popularity metrics of the interweb, we want you to count it and give us and them "points", but when we link to that resource, we want you to pretend that we didn't link to it and not give them any points." system is retarded.
Spam and whatnot may be a problem, but this is not the solution. This is just dumb.
Here's an idea:
If any site has "no-follow" links on it, that means that not only are they not verifying the quality of the links I might click on should I choose to go to the site, they have a general assumption that those links will be bad links. That being the fact of the matter, I already don't want them to show up in my search results at all.
The question is... how do you go about avoiding US airports if you wish to travel internationally and live in the Americas?
Has anyone else around here ever though that Feminism is like Post-tramatic Stress Syndrome, except for a society not a person, bought on by having all the providers ripped away around the time of the second world war?
Here's another interesting question:
IF you took it as established that there were going to be these systematic invasions of privacy and compilations of databases and whatnot...
As is currently being done by organizations within both government and corporate sectors...
Would you rather have this information legally protected and made obscure so only those with government authority or enough money and resources to assemble it themselves have access to this information?
Or commercialized so the rich and powerful get more access to it?
Or made public and available to everyone with universal access?
And why?
How many days after a site has been transformed by hijackers/forum spammers/whoever into a pile of crap should it come off the top of googles search results? A day? A week?
If they'd maintained their site properly, it wouldn't have happened.
Business functions on exchange. Without it, it collapses.
Business owners who use their newfound information to exclude others on the basis of misplaced morality will quickly find they are out of business.
It's far more likely that this type of environment will result in people refusing to buy from those they don't feel should be trusted with any authority, financial or otherwise, because they're lying immoral antisocial scumbags.
You also have to weigh the cost (tying access to culture and education to financial capacity) against the benefit (paying people to create new "creative works").
We're getting to the point where we'll have the technology to put the entire sum of human creativity to this date on a single device and giving one to everyone on earth. Copyright would prevent that.
We simply need to find a better way to entice people to create. The cost of our existing structures continuance is too high.
These are not inevitabilities, but rather unfortunate side effects of how our society is structured. The more we destroy artifical scarcities and create situations of plenty instead of scarcity, the less significant that will become. When there is not enough food for everyone, stealing someones meal card is a rational act. When there is plenty of food for all, meal cards become irrelevant.
Since this is a "what's your opinion" topic...
Secrets, in principle, are an attack on the mind. They're an attempt to force others to flail about blindly in an uninformed fashion, damaging their ability to make intelligent decisions and care for themselves. They're a passive-aggressive act, and fundimentally wrong.
Aside from all that...
There existed a time in human history when people in western societies were so bogged down with the labour of survival that it was necessary for society to subsidise creations of the mind if there were to be any of them, and the machination of that subsidy was the root of intellectual property law.
That time is passed.
The time has arrived where there are many idle hands and minds in the world, and we will reap more rewards as a society in these areas by removing barriers and putting more powerful tools to create and share into the hands of the masses than we will by systematically isolating people from them by imposing barriers to entry.
Personally, I oppose DRM in every possible fashion and in every concievable use.
LMAO. Nice to know there is a voice of reason in the world...
I was right here yesterday getting modded down to -1 Flamebait for expressing these types of opinions, and was starting to think the world had gone insane. There must be fanboys crying into their Mountain Dew this morning...
To those who released this information, I say, show a working example or STFU. How much longer till they start wanting to search us for WMDs?
The US Government can fuck off.
Sounds like my 6 year old daughters next computer. As of now, the money to buy this is already set aside. Good job guys.
Did you see the keynote. It's not just a phone + iPod, it's a smartphone (with all of the features you expect when you hear "smartphone") + iPod with an interface that doesn't suck. A smartphone with an interface that doesn't suck is truly newsworthy, as the industry has been trying to build that for years and failing miserably.
Agreed: it's the "doesn't suck" that's key.
So:
Being that we all agree that it's nothing new,
and that the entirity of its strength as a product lies in the "non-suckitude" of its user interface,
and that none of us has actually used one and can speak to its ease of use,
and being that it replaces tactile phone buttons you can easily use in dim light while you're on the side of the road with a flat in the rain...
with a touch screen..
What is it exactly that makes this thing so interesting again?
Cause it looks like an overpriced hunk of junk to me.
What an absolutely ridiculous statement. I haven't looked at any spec sheets, and I can tell you what it does. It makes phone calls and plays music. I didn't need any wild guesses to do that. This fanboyism is such tripe it's making me ill.
It's a phone. We've already got phones.
It plays music. We've already got things that play music. Including phones.
Who gives a flying fuck about this product? This is about as newsworthy as a new marshmallow shape in my lucky charms.
I know you can use these types of technologies to print cell phones out and put the batteries in and call a friend with it. They used to use them in the industrial fab shop attached to the promotional company I worked for, and the guys there did it with the same sort of tools kids are using to create video game and Second Life characters. This is evenutally going to do to manufacturing what the Internet is still in the process of doing to mass media.
A 3D printer in every house.
With wireless networking that automatically shares every design with every other unit within range.
Including the community ones that can print cars and furniture.
Which are also wired into the backbone.
With socialized raw materials, energy, transportation and food.
And a more truly representative view of democracy.
Like the ability to vote for my mom.
And have her vote for her doctor speak for me.
And his vote for the brilliant guy he knew in school speak for us both.
Until such time as enough people, or trusted respected people who speak for enough people cease to trust, at which point power shifts.
With no elections.
And transparency systematically built right in.
This type of technology can take down centralized manufacturing and marketing.
It could take down capitalism.
This is the most exciting stuff going on in the world.
Sounds great... I get into the car in a big rush, not noticing that my girlfriend unchecked the "Invert Mouse" setting under "Interface Options", and end up backing my car into a wall.
Liberty starts with the right to equal voice in what goes on and ends at your right to leave and go live outside the borders.
Societies are about participation, which unfortunately seems for most to start and end at taxation these days.
If you want privacy, you better build a spaceship or a time machine, because you're not getting any in the here and now.
You are right. You shouldn't be forced to participate. You should have the option to not participate, and choose exile, rather than being forced to participate in a society with the rest of us.
But if we catch you on our land, we shoot you.
And yet providing an exclusive right to a subset of that information (creative works) for a limited time seems to benefit the whole more than it costs them.
Exactly.
You know what the problem with a religion is? It's not that the advice it gives is good or bad, it's that the absence of the consideration of why it's good or bad that goes with wholesale acceptance of it leads people to not realize when the world has changed and the good advice is no longer good advice.
As a way to administer who in a population you entice to create, it's not an entirely bad idea. But it has limits on its effectiveness and costs that must be considered, and it must be allowed to become obsolete and die as a cultural meme if we are going to grow and progress.
The time is fast approaching where you could fit the sum of all human creativity into a small cheap piece of material with a reader no more sophisticated than a cheap electronic toy and put one in the hands of every man, woman and child on earth. Copyright law would make this impossible. That's a pretty big cost to pay. Particularly in consideration that copyright isn't what supports those artists, but rather one possible mechanism to determine who we collectively support.
We need to create a practical mechansim that would allow for humanity to support creativity in people in a fair and sustainable fashion that doesn't carry the necessity to deprive humanity of access to the majority of works, as the current system does.
To choose to do otherwise is to needlessly transform (maintain?) our neighbours into (as) ignorant, dependent and uneducated peasants that, rather than participating in mutually beneficial civilized exchange out of enlightened self-interest, instead attack their oppressors in an attempt to break free of a structure that separates them from culture, education and the capacity for more intelligent behavior, again, out of enlightened self-interest.
If he gives you fishes but refuses to teach you to fish and refuses to let you try and teach yourself, the enlightened person will gather their neighbours, stab him spears, pillage his hut for his equipment, then try to muddle it out for themselves and enable everyone in the village to be empowered.
Progress occurs when they finally succeed.
Yep... 20 years from now, when they release the "Blood Phishing" movie and everyone knows what happened, that class action lawsuit is going to tear em a new one. Then we'll all start surfing on "Conflict-Free Browsers" and life will be good.
I've always liked using JScript on the server when I'm working in IIS, easier to remember the syntax when you're jumping around from client to server.
JavaScript client code is like ninjas on an away team mission. They're not bound to their environment, you write them to intelligently investigate it before they act. Fun stuff to build.