E.M. Forster wrote a story call The Machine Stops in which humans have become so isolated as to live in individual cells with all their needs provided by machinery that delivers everything to their isolated habitats. It is considered weird to actually meet someone in person. It's a great read and the parallels to the internet are a little eerie.
Another example of a physically and emotionally disconnected population would be the Solarians from Isaac Asimov's Future History novels. They actually carried it to the point where they became extinct.
And no one quite knows what it means to a generation of 2-year-olds to have slightly pixelated versions of their grandparents as regular fixtures in their lives.
Three of my grandparents died long before I was born, and the last one (my grandmother on my mother's side) died when I was a teenager. Pixelated or not, I wish she was still around.
Your ideas about about ten years ahead of where most people are and they will sound extremist to them.
I doubt that very much. And (as I've already repeated twice in this thread) I am not promoting the end of copyright. What I AM saying is that government has no place providing wide-scale law enforcement services to private entities at taxpayer expense. That's what I'm talking about. That, and the fact that copyright, as it has existed for so long, is not sustainable in the Internet era without seeing the kind of overreaching laws and unreasonable extensions of government power that are going on all over the world. Believe me, when you tell people who are accustomed to doing something en masse that they can't any longer, and furthermore they'll be royally screwed when they do... well. They'll understand.
While it is understandable that prople may complain that big media / entertainment companies abuse their dominant position and lead to a price point that is unacceptable, it is difficult to me to accept that no creator deserve any protection
Why must people always go to the extremes? I said nothing whatsoever about eliminating copyright. Nothing. Zip. Nada. What I did say is that it's a very BAD IDEA for big government to be subverted to performing law enforcement activities for private-sector organizations, ones which are (so far as the U.S. is concerned) foreign entities anyway. They have the same rights under copyright law as you and I do, yet they want to have government perform monitoring for any infringement, real, potential or imagined, conscript ISPs to serve as copyright cops, and generally restrict any use of the Internet to what they feel is acceptable. THAT IS UNACCEPTABLE, and is itself in direct contravention to the basic mandate of copyright.
Why should government enforce the rights of creators?
Why should governments enforce the rights of anybody, really? Because, you know, that's exactly what they're there for. Or should we resort to mob rules to enforce rights?
You entirely miss the point. The laws already on the books provide remedies for copyright infringement, it's just the that copyright owner has to be the one to go to court to defend his or her rights. Hence the RIAA lawsuit mill. That's a far different affair from having big government perform that function for them at taxpayer expense. I don't think you really understand the issues here, but this is very serious.
So you're saying that all companies that need to generate revenue are evil? That's pretty cynical.
You're generalizing my comment. I didn't call anyone or anything evil, I even put the word in quotes so you'd know I was using the term loosely. I was primarily commenting on the irrationality of people's surprise at Google's efforts here, given that they're an advertising company first, and search engine provider second. Google's out to make money selling ads, and this is just a logical extension of their existing business.
Whether that's evil is another matter. I wasn't addressing that.
"Anyone who surreptitiously installs a rootkit in anyone else's computers thrice shall be kicked out of business"
In that case, it should be "Anyone who surreptitiously installs a rootkit on anyone else's computer should be locked up." Yeah, Sony, I'm talking about you.
Ok, I guess my karma will suffer from the opinion above but please, could someone explain we what would be a balanced approach that would enforce right of creators and freedoms of Internet users?
I think you've managed to ignore a far more important point. Why should government enforce the rights of creators? If they don't like what people are doing with their creations, then sue them. Oh, people are doing it by the millions and there's no practical way to sue them all? Tough... time for societies and content creators to adjust to a new reality, and not try to force the old one upon the vast majority of the world's citizens: people that don't want it.
In what way is Firefox bloated? Does it do anything else apart from being a browser? Honest question.
I'm not real sure what he meant either, unless he's referring to memory use or something. And I don't think you can blame the browser itself for user's choices of add-ons: if they'd made all those capabilities standard features then it would be bloated.
If you think of the programmer as a creative artist (actually, in many ways there's more truth to this than seeing them as engineers) then this is fully justified.
Most programmers (like most engineers) are paper-pushers: they do routine things, provide support and maintenance functions, but haven't a creative bone in their collective body. That's not intrinsically bad, it's just human nature, and the truth is that there are many aspects of complex systems engineering that are not best served by artistic types. In both groups, however, there is that subset of creative minds that can push the envelope, who can take matters to the next level. The problem is, the best and brightest need an environment conducive to performing great work, and that's rarely found. Managing software engineers has been compared to "herding cats", but that's only because typical software management is incapable of any real understanding of the minds they hire. Still, you don't need to understand someone in order to give them what they need to do their jobs. You just have to be able to listen.
Open source has improved matters by allowing talented developers to flourish, individuals who otherwise would have had the creativity squeezed out of them by corporate management that is possibly well-meaning, but ignorant of the software development process. Put it this way: it's long been known how to get the best out of your software people, but most companies that employ such people haven't a clue.
Eventually we'll find ourselves in a world where it's not sufficient to have done some valuable work at some point, and then sit around and collect money for the rest of your life.
Here in the U.S., we were in that world, for centuries. It was changed only very recently, and not for the better I might add..
So since when the hell is our credit card buying habits, open info to be sold to be highest bidder?!
Since those leeches first began acquiring and mining such data in order to insulate other companies from the normal costs and risks of doing business: for a fee. This is unadulterated pure bullshit... but it's very much in line with what the Big Three have been doing since their inception. Advancing technology has simply offered them more opportunities to market that which does not belong to them.
Slashdot Mirror
I know someone personally who has a boob job, she got them inserted through her navel.
She must be very ... short.
Heh, I think you're underestimating how *tiny* lazor beams can get.
I don't think I've ever seen laser spelled quite like that before.
I'm sure that the prey prays that it won't die.
Yes, prey tell us what you meant by that.
I chucked at this.
I thought he was off-base too, but I didn't throw up.
And yes, I agree that Christians and Jews can be lumped in the same boat.
Sure, bring the whole Chrew along with you.
You can hate and love something at the same time, for different reasons.
Yes, that pretty much defines "marriage", I think.
I think a better analogy would be that this is like soldering for the body.
Can anyone translate this to car analogy?
One word: Bondo.
E.M. Forster wrote a story call The Machine Stops in which humans have become so isolated as to live in individual cells with all their needs provided by machinery that delivers everything to their isolated habitats. It is considered weird to actually meet someone in person. It's a great read and the parallels to the internet are a little eerie.
Another example of a physically and emotionally disconnected population would be the Solarians from Isaac Asimov's Future History novels. They actually carried it to the point where they became extinct.
And no one quite knows what it means to a generation of 2-year-olds to have slightly pixelated versions of their grandparents as regular fixtures in their lives.
Three of my grandparents died long before I was born, and the last one (my grandmother on my mother's side) died when I was a teenager. Pixelated or not, I wish she was still around.
"What are we going to do today, Brin?"
"Same thing we do every day, Larry... try and take over the world!"
There, fixed that for ya. Hold on, I actually did fix that for ya! Weird.
Yeah, yeah. I hit SUBMIT and then said a bad word.
True, and then there's also the Nazgul. No patent troll in his right mind would take them on. Not if he knows what's good for him.
Can someone verify the whereabouts of Pinky and The Brain please? I'm getting a little nervous.
"What are we going to do today, Brin?"
... try and take over the world!"
"Same thing we do every day, Sergey
Your ideas about about ten years ahead of where most people are and they will sound extremist to them.
I doubt that very much. And (as I've already repeated twice in this thread) I am not promoting the end of copyright. What I AM saying is that government has no place providing wide-scale law enforcement services to private entities at taxpayer expense. That's what I'm talking about. That, and the fact that copyright, as it has existed for so long, is not sustainable in the Internet era without seeing the kind of overreaching laws and unreasonable extensions of government power that are going on all over the world. Believe me, when you tell people who are accustomed to doing something en masse that they can't any longer, and furthermore they'll be royally screwed when they do ... well. They'll understand.
While it is understandable that prople may complain that big media / entertainment companies abuse their dominant position and lead to a price point that is unacceptable, it is difficult to me to accept that no creator deserve any protection
Why must people always go to the extremes? I said nothing whatsoever about eliminating copyright. Nothing. Zip. Nada. What I did say is that it's a very BAD IDEA for big government to be subverted to performing law enforcement activities for private-sector organizations, ones which are (so far as the U.S. is concerned) foreign entities anyway. They have the same rights under copyright law as you and I do, yet they want to have government perform monitoring for any infringement, real, potential or imagined, conscript ISPs to serve as copyright cops, and generally restrict any use of the Internet to what they feel is acceptable. THAT IS UNACCEPTABLE, and is itself in direct contravention to the basic mandate of copyright.
Why should government enforce the rights of creators?
Why should governments enforce the rights of anybody, really? Because, you know, that's exactly what they're there for. Or should we resort to mob rules to enforce rights?
You entirely miss the point. The laws already on the books provide remedies for copyright infringement, it's just the that copyright owner has to be the one to go to court to defend his or her rights. Hence the RIAA lawsuit mill. That's a far different affair from having big government perform that function for them at taxpayer expense. I don't think you really understand the issues here, but this is very serious.
So you're saying that all companies that need to generate revenue are evil? That's pretty cynical.
You're generalizing my comment. I didn't call anyone or anything evil, I even put the word in quotes so you'd know I was using the term loosely. I was primarily commenting on the irrationality of people's surprise at Google's efforts here, given that they're an advertising company first, and search engine provider second. Google's out to make money selling ads, and this is just a logical extension of their existing business.
Whether that's evil is another matter. I wasn't addressing that.
"Anyone who surreptitiously installs a rootkit in anyone else's computers thrice shall be kicked out of business"
In that case, it should be "Anyone who surreptitiously installs a rootkit on anyone else's computer should be locked up." Yeah, Sony, I'm talking about you.
Ok, I guess my karma will suffer from the opinion above but please, could someone explain we what would be a balanced approach that would enforce right of creators and freedoms of Internet users?
I think you've managed to ignore a far more important point. Why should government enforce the rights of creators? If they don't like what people are doing with their creations, then sue them. Oh, people are doing it by the millions and there's no practical way to sue them all? Tough ... time for societies and content creators to adjust to a new reality, and not try to force the old one upon the vast majority of the world's citizens: people that don't want it.
Repeat offender laws are remarkably effective in normal crime control; what makes this different?
Actually, they're not.
> I imagine the target market is people who live off the grid...
Such people usually use a clever invention called a well.
> ...a backup in case the grid fails.
It comes with a hand crank?
Good point. There are plenty of cranks who are off the grid.
In what way is Firefox bloated? Does it do anything else apart from being a browser? Honest question.
I'm not real sure what he meant either, unless he's referring to memory use or something. And I don't think you can blame the browser itself for user's choices of add-ons: if they'd made all those capabilities standard features then it would be bloated.
Can I just say that
No, you can't just say that.
If you think of the programmer as a creative artist (actually, in many ways there's more truth to this than seeing them as engineers) then this is fully justified.
Most programmers (like most engineers) are paper-pushers: they do routine things, provide support and maintenance functions, but haven't a creative bone in their collective body. That's not intrinsically bad, it's just human nature, and the truth is that there are many aspects of complex systems engineering that are not best served by artistic types. In both groups, however, there is that subset of creative minds that can push the envelope, who can take matters to the next level. The problem is, the best and brightest need an environment conducive to performing great work, and that's rarely found. Managing software engineers has been compared to "herding cats", but that's only because typical software management is incapable of any real understanding of the minds they hire. Still, you don't need to understand someone in order to give them what they need to do their jobs. You just have to be able to listen.
Open source has improved matters by allowing talented developers to flourish, individuals who otherwise would have had the creativity squeezed out of them by corporate management that is possibly well-meaning, but ignorant of the software development process. Put it this way: it's long been known how to get the best out of your software people, but most companies that employ such people haven't a clue.
Eventually we'll find ourselves in a world where it's not sufficient to have done some valuable work at some point, and then sit around and collect money for the rest of your life.
Here in the U.S., we were in that world, for centuries. It was changed only very recently, and not for the better I might add..
has an EULA that prohibits reverse engineering.
Not really a big deal to those of us in the EU since we have a legally guaranteed right to reverse engineer stuff for interoperability purposes.
Don't get cocky. It's only presently guaranteed. Laws change, and there's a whole lot of pressure to make that change.
So since when the hell is our credit card buying habits, open info to be sold to be highest bidder?!
Since those leeches first began acquiring and mining such data in order to insulate other companies from the normal costs and risks of doing business: for a fee. This is unadulterated pure bullshit ... but it's very much in line with what the Big Three have been doing since their inception. Advancing technology has simply offered them more opportunities to market that which does not belong to them.