What do you mean? How do you define "Windows 2000" -- do you mean "my [unspecified] email software that runs on Windows 2000" or "my TCP/IP support in Windows 2000" or "my Windows 2000 kernel" or "the ISP I connect to from my Windows 2000 box" or...? Accuracy in questioning leads to accuracy in answers; the same can be said of ambiguity.
A positive review can imply mindlessness -- the person was "sold" on whatever it is they're reviewing, which could just mean that the marketing around the product was effective on their weak mind. (Yes, it might also mean that they made a critical evaluation, but you won't necessarily know which is the case.)
A negative review implies thoughtfulness, because the reviewer is rejecting the marketing (formal and social) and going against the grain. Sometimes it's just a rant to be ignored, but often there are clues to flaws that might be critical in my overall evaluation.
So, I also tend to only look at negative reviews, which I compare against the seller's (or manufacturer's) specs/feature list. If I'm still undecided, I might look at positive reviews to see if they're intelligently written and provide concrete examples of benefits.
If it's implemented in a way that I can decide to use this identification, when, where, and how I want, without any possibility of being forced to do so, there is no privacy problem.
Indeed -- and if I can win the lottery I will have no financial problems. These are nice things to fantasize about, but they're not wise to plan on when the odds are so fundamentally against them happening.
Remember, the Social Security Number in the US was originally supposed to be only for the purposes of administering Social Security. Now it is "mandatory" for a wide range of things including just having a place to live (e.g., as part of an application for an apartment, a mortgage, etc.). When I was growing up (and I'm only in my 30s so this isn't ancient history!), I didn't need an SSN until I was ready to get a job. We applied for them as part of a 9th grade class; none of my fellow students had one. Scant decades later, my children were required to have an SSN application submitted almost immediately upon birth.
Maybe it's time we blow of the dust of the (e.g.) pgp protocol, and try to find a way to make a official central directory in which we can be sure anybody is who he claims to be.
Probably because "average" people don't understand it and the principles of trust surrounding it. Nor do they want to learn, because, as Thomas Edison put it, "Five percent of the people think; ten percent of the people think they think; and the other eighty-five percent would rather die than think."
...does this mean you're going around the workplace railing against this? At home? On the subway? Every waking moment? Of course not. If you read my post the point is I believe this is not the place to discuss it.
There is a concept of audience -- my home, my workplace, and the subway do not provide an appropriate audience for a variety of reasons that are specific to the particular audience in each venue. The audience here -- with over 400 comments -- has by its own actions clearly shown that Slashdot is the place to discuss it, your misguided notion to the contrary notwithstanding.
What's next, Ma Bell won't be able to make a public announcement when they put a wiretap on a suspect? How is this different?
Again, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you're not really that stupid (although you certainly play the part effectively). The proper question is not how this is different, but how is this the same? There is obviously no valid analogy between the communication model of the phone system and the communication model represented by the publishing industry, the libraries as consumers of that industry, and library patrons as end-users. (This is not to imply that I agree with your other premise regarding the validity of wiretaps or their secrecy.)
As for how the chilling effect -- or lack thereof in the past, when we have been lucky enough to avoid it -- on research and publication would affect everything from the medical procedures used during your birth to the handling of your body after death, I will leave it to what I hope is a grain of intelligence to analyze that without playing stupid on the point further. It is fundamental enough to not warrant further comment.
...but I know the cowards will come out to respond.
Who's the greater coward, the one who won't stand up for what's right even if a problem doesn't affect him directly, or one who will speak out against all evil?
I suppose the criminal nerds and terrorist nerds have reason to be concerned but this is off topic for the average nerd.
Nice troll, but I'll assume that even you aren't stupid enough to actually believe this only affects criminals and terrorists. It affects the very system and society that has presumably provided you with safety and comfort since you were born. (I am, admittedly, making some assumptions regarding your history since you have the ability to post flamebait here -- you're apparently not living in a cardboard box in a country lacking any significant technology infrastructure, sanitation, etc.)
Re:Musicians, CD-Rs, and the RIAA boycott
on
Ebay vs. Musician
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
The most important thing we can do is be vigilant against the notion that if something doesn't come out of mainstream channels, it's somehow inferior or illegal.
Indeed -- this has become a significant focus for me lately, as I've had significant difficulties getting even my own family members to stop by and look at the Open Music Registry -- my sister, for example, claimed she and her husband weren't interested because they don't pay attention to "new" artists (meaning, those lacking the corporate seal of approval). It's one thing for a typical Slashdot user to understand this; however, getting Joe/Jane Average to "get it" is something else.
Last night I posted a short Ogg audio file promoting free entertainment, which I hope people will either pick up for use directly or will take the idea and make their own, to include in Internet radio broadcasts, Free music compilations, etc. It's a long uphill battle, though.
In the medical profession this attitude would be a serious liablility methinks though - patients would probably quickly defect to a company that would offer them data security.
Sure, that would be the case for informed, motivated patients. That probably accounts for, say, 1% of all patients. The rest will either be ignorant or apathetic or both (i.e., willfully ignorant) and won't "defect to a [better] company" unless they are led by the hand.
The typical consumer pays virtually zero attention to how their money (or information) is used once their purchase/transaction is complete. They're just focused on the immediate result. That's why massive corporations just keep on growing while small businesses that try to "compete" struggle until they collapse, and only those small businesses that find a niche unserved by the massive corporations can expect to survive and have a chance to thrive.
Oh, I'm sure we learned from it, and we're so "clever" about applying what we learned, we still have the threat of nuclear war hanging over us today, even if it's not popular to discuss anymore (following the breakup of the Soviet Union) unless it's to get funding for the missile defense farce.
There are several Open/Free music licenses, and a growing number of works licensed with them. However...
Is there enough non-RIAA-ontrolled content to make web radio, son-of-napster, etc viable again?
I would suggest that such a point of viability is subjective. Someone who intends to boycott "corporate music" will perceive that viability at a much lower quantity of available work than someone who is still mostly sold on entertainment with the corporate stamp of approval.
If so, someone please post links!
The link in my.sig, to the Open Music Registry, is one starting point for you. There are hundreds of songs listed in it, all licensed with the EFF's Open Audio License. But are "hundreds" of songs "enough" to be viable for the stated purposes? (Luckily there are works licensed with similar licenses, but I don't know how many are actually available.)
Open Audio and other Free entertainment
on
Dealing with the RIAA?
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Any direct "fight" against the RIAA or other corporate entertainment interests is virtually guaranteed to lose. This is also true for trying to "work with them" beyond the scope of what they have already approved. They don't have to care about those who argue or want something beyond the trash entertainment conveyor belt, because those who don't abide by the corporate "rules" are too few, and the bulk of their paying audience either does not understand, or does not care about, their rights. To make a real impact, one must undercut the corporate entertainment foundation by actively doing three things:
Promote the enjoyment of Free entertainment to people who might not otherwise pay attention to something that lacks the "corporate seal of approval."
Produce every type of Free entertainment your talents allow, and make it very clear that it is Free.
Lead by example: Stop -- completely stop -- paying third parties for entertainment, and encourage others to do the same. (I have no disagreement with paying artists directly.)
Are any of those easy? No. Are all of them critical to making any inroads against corporate entertainment, and the attacks on our rights? Yes, I believe so.
My new mantra is "Enjoy some Free entertainment, and keep your money in your pocket." Feel free to borrow that whenever and wherever appropriate!:-)
If you choose a Free license, remember that's only one step -- the next step is to make sure that people know about their Freedom, and making sure they can find your work. Assuming you have the resources to build a Web site, even a simplistic one, you should have a page that links to the.ogg (or.mp3 or whatever) audio files, and links to the license relevant to those files. Make sure that you have lots of "interesting keywords" in the text of those pages, and make sure they're listed by search engines.
If you choose the Open Audio License published by the EFF, I would strongly recommending listing the music in the Open Music Registry (see link in my.sig). If you so choose, you can use that listing to request tips/donations from listeners.
(This is directed to nometa, not Milo Fungus, who provides an example of what I'm describing in the 2nd paragraph above.)
My question is whether you think the masses could ever get the attention of the likes of the RIAA if we approached music in an open source / no copyright way?
"The masses" are music consumers, not music creators. It is their attention, not the RIAA's, that needs to be won. As long as the masses only accept what the RIAA (&c.) provide, to the exclusion of non-commercial music, "open source" or public domain (i.e., "no copyright") music will always be a niche.
As my sister put it, when I suggested that she check out the Open Music Registry to see what it had to offer, she "just isn't interested in new musicians" -- meaning, more to the point, that she is uninterested in music that hasn't been given the commercial stamp of approval. This was a depressing revelation for me, but a worthwhile one at that. There's a serious message here:
If you want to defeat the RIAA, you must pull their audience away. This does not mean working around the law to share commercial music without the license to do so, it means convincing the masses that commercial entertainment is more likely to be trash, and to give Free entertainment their attention instead. This is more challenging than just making Free entertainment available -- it means making Joe and Jane Citizen think that all of their friends and neighbors are going over to Free entertainment, so they can feel "safe" in making the same change. Whether or not you deride them as sheep, pack animals, lemmings, or whatever, Joe and Jane Citizen comprise the rope in a tug of war against the RIAA.
I noticed that you are offering free MP3 downloads from your Web site, but I didn't see a specific license associated with those files. To me, this implies that I can download them and enjoy them on my own system, but I have no rights beyond that. For example, I couldn't give a copy to a friend -- he or she would need to download their own copy. However, another person might interpret their rights much more freely; they might, for example, use portions of the audio in their own music.
Have you considered providing a specific license for those downloads? If so, would you use your own license, or would you use an existing "open music" license such as the Open Audio License published by the EFF? If you didn't use an existing license, what would your primary reason(s) be for using your own?
But when was the last time someone other than a lawyer used Word Perfect...
I do all the time (or did, before installing OpenOffice.org), and I'm not a lawyer. I'd much rather have a word processor where I can see the "source" (through the "reveal codes" feature) than one where I have to struggle against the black box (e.g., Word), which forces the user to either agree with invalid assumptions about what the user wants to do, or go through grotesque convolutions to work around those assumptions. Word is a terrible mess of counter-intuitive design; WordPerfect empowers the user. Unfortunately, the fatal-error bugginess prevents me from calling WP "superior" to Word, because stability is a mighty important "feature." (That's a lesson that Opera still needs to learn, IMHO, but I digress...)
...Quattro oh yuck...
Heh, no argument there!
So when they need to learn Word and Excel because they need to know them to get a job in the real world they will have to by MS Office.
Why? Because "they" are such cretins that they can't learn one word processor and apply the same general concepts to another? I learned on WP, and I work at a place that requires Word. Did I do what your assumption implies, and go out and buy Word? Nope, I still use WP. Somebody who can't take the basics from one word processor to another has bigger problems to face in getting a job than learning the "wrong" word processor!
It would seem logical for the EFF to specifically release the MP3 under the EFF's Open Audio License, using the (O) notation specified in that license. Admittedly, I've only been able to acquire the MP3 and haven't been able to get through to the EFF's own page or the Flash animation and thus might be missing an (O) notice, but I did check Radio EFF and CAFE and saw nothing of this MP3.
And, of course, once released as Open Audio it would then be appropriate for listing in the Open Music Registry.:-)
Maybe I'm missing something (in fact, in a sense I hope I am), but there appears to be no database of works, just information on "open" licenses that can be used. This is good, but not as helpful as providing access to the actual works themselves. The latter function is apparently the intent behind Creative Commons, as well as the Open Music Registry (with a narrower focus, of course).
After spending far too much time at a really crappy university, where they had a nearly fraudulent (IMNSHO) attitude toward not scheduling classes necessary to complete a degree without spending more money by staying an extra year or two, I still -- surprisingly -- favor going to college rather than delving into a career. It's important to attend the best college you can find for your intended field, so shop around, and don't decide based on social issues, etc. Get value for your money. (I didn't and hate the university for it.)
I think the importance of college, assuming you get value for your money in classes for your major, is in the "mind-opening" classes that you'll end up taking, in and out of your major area. You may groan about having to take a geology class if you're a computer major, for example, but there is immense value in having a broader perspective than just the technical issues for what you hope will be your eventual career. If you only know those technical details, you bring less value to future employers who will need a well-rounded individual, not just a monkey who knows what buttons to push. (For this reason, I also favor at least a short term of military service, especially overseas. The personal growth makes you a more valuable contributor in a wider range of scenarios.)
Don't cut yourself short, either. Realize that your idea of a "great career" may change drastically in the next ten years. If you only learn what you need to perform a job, of what value are you to yourself if you decide to switch to an entirely different career?
If you can manage to work part-time (in your intended career area) while attending school, I would recommend that. But I do mean "manage" it, don't trash your grades because you enjoy work more. (Speaking from experience there!)
Attending a bad school is probably worse than attending no school, but I believe attending a valuable school is better than delving directly into the work force full-time.
Not limited to IT, but try James G. Murphy
on
IT Auction Sites?
·
· Score: 2
Conventional auctioneer James G. Murphy Co. auctions off a lot of stuff, and I believe they have locations around the US. I've seen a lot of ex-dot-com stuff for auction through them, but what they have to offer varies depending on availability of lots.
Then again, if you don't find the hardware you're looking for, they usually have backhoes for doing your own trenching...:)
Where the hell can I download the album? I don't even see a place to preview the songs...
I was wondering how they meant "free" -- apparently (judging from that site) it was free-as-in-beer, and only for a limited time. Maybe that's a good way for an artist to encourage future sales. Maybe it doesn't make a difference once the horse is out of the barn. Either way, it would've been nice if they'd released it (or even just a track or two) as Open Audio, to clarify that yes, it really is legal to pass around. (Since I missed out on the "free" download, it's possible they did use some license of that nature -- but I see no indication of that now.)
Flash is a tool. Many (perhaps all) tools can be abused. Saying that Flash is bad because too many monkeys use it in ways that are totally inappropriate is like saying e-mail is bad because too many monkeys use it for spam (i.e., a way that is totally inappropriate).
An ATM tried to show me a commercial for something today.
Gas pumps have been doing that (with sound now, not just the scrolling "come in for a cup of coffee" display), so maybe the ATMs felt left behind.;-)
Does it seem to anybody else that we're in a handbasket going you know where?
As it relates to commercialization, I think we were in the handbasket through much of the 20th Century, and now we've already arrived. Or at least we're in free-fall with not much time left. Taking the example of my "favorite peeve" of commercial entertainment, when was it that people starting thinking that entertainment can only be good if it has a well-recognized logo?
Some have asked why this should be done without paper. One answer that springs to mind is that paper doesn't hold enough data about the populace. If it's done with a techie gadget with lots of functionality and (more importantly) storage, the government can intrude even further into our lives.
Heck, make it into a game and have people answer the questions while entertaining themselves, and they'll have no qualms about providing their most intimate details. "Hmm, do I conceal the fact that I snitched money from the church offering plate or do I kill the big boss for this level? Uh... Maximum points!"
Sorry, feeling just a wee bit cynical this evening...
Dummy. Taxes are to distribute the wealth of your economy to those less fortunate.
OK, probably a troll, but just in case you're really that misguided... Let's just presume that your idealistic notion is accurate (although it's demonstrably false; see below, where this rather-long response ties back to the SEC site topic). What are the real implications? The surface implication for those who can't think more deeply is that taxes are a fairy tale come true -- steal from the rich and give to the poor, very Robin Hood. But how noble is that really? There are some deeper implications that many taxpayers might find immoral, such as:
Promotion of Force/Violence. Robin Hood is holding an arrow to your head with the force of a bent bow behind it. The more modern picture is the government enforcing taxes at gunpoint (try not paying your taxes and resisting arrest when they come for you -- the guns will eventually be made visible, whether during the arrest or carried by guards after you've been dragged off to a detention facility).
Promotion of Sloth. By rewarding most those who contribute least and punishing those who contribute the most, there is no more logical action than to cease to contribute. Yes, that means that the only logical route is to immediately stop contributing -- don't work another moment. The only reason people continue to work is emotional -- they have ethical problems with sloth, they don't want to be seen as freeloaders, etc. But the very system they support with their work promotes the vice (sloth) which they are loathe to accept for themselves.
Actually I could go on but I'm on my lunch break and must wrap this up before it is time to go back "on the clock" to support those on welfare. (Actually, I'm being partially sarcastic; read on for the debunking of that notion, along with the debunking of your original idea about what taxes mean.)
So if, as you incorrectly state, taxes are to take from the rich and give to the poor (where 'poor' -- according to you -- includes poor in mind as well as bank), this "noble" idea is only noble on the surface, and evil lurks not far beneath.
Luckily, taxpayers can rest assured that taxes don't mean what you say they mean...
...but they should be made uneasy again by seeing, below, what they should mean versus what they do mean at present (speaking from the US perspective, to stay on topic of the SEC). By the way, what you implied matches neither what taxes are nor what they should be.
I stated above that your concept of taxes is demonstrably false. How could that be demonstrated? Follow the bouncing penny! Follow the funds to see where they really go. The bulk of tax funds go to government programs that are ostensibly for the common good. Not the good of just those unwilling or unable to contribute to society and the economy, but everyone. (Maybe it's different where you are, but around here we don't have roads and highways set aside for 'poor' people only.)
Had I not said "ostensibly," there would be no difference between what taxes are and what they should be. The difference is in the beneficiary. Ask yourself, who creates taxes (generally speaking; I realize there is some complexity, but it can be bypassed safely at the moment)? From an entirely selfish perspective, would it not make sense for taxes to benefit those who create them? Of course, our taxes don't go directly to our elected "representatives" (other than in the form of regularly-increased and already-very-large salaries), but taxes we pay do go, indirectly, to support the political careers of incumbents.
This really should be obvious by now, but you might miss it, since you claim to believe in something that is obviously not the case. So let me illustrate: Pat Senator wants to be re-elected. Pat Senator knows that a certain government program for the "common" good is particularly good for constituents in the district responsible for that re-election. Pat Senator also knows that the program needs funding, and that the burden of funding for it can be spread over a much wider population than the Senator's constituents. Time for a new tax!
Tax funds are only marginally used to "take from the rich and give to the poor." Vastly, they are used to support political careers, by supporting businesses that make campaign contributions and by supporting constituents who vote. So what should be for the common good, really is for the good of politicians.
This isn't news, by the way. I'm not telling anybody anything they don't already know -- just what they might prefer to ignore.
The question originally was, who pays for the SEC web sites? The implication, I believe, is why should taxpayers pay for these sites? It's a valid question -- for reasons already noted beyond the scope of my message, the SEC sites will do little or nothing to "help the poor." Are they part of a program to help the common good (really)? Are they part of a program that will help a politician's career? Or are they the result of a side-effect of a corrupt political system, that being insufficient "change control." In other words, perhaps they're just the result of somebody saying, "Hey, I've got an idea" and there being insufficient structure to prevent the idea from taking form without proof of validity.
Regardless, it sounds like a government-spec government program: An ineffective use (a.k.a., waste) of resources.
That's my first thought too, but... what if "that company" is the power company, or the garbage company, or the phone company (the only one to provide service in my area), or something like that? As much as I would love to live "off the grid" I'm not in position to do it yet, so if "essential" -- but privately owned -- services start forcing consumers to use Passport "to provide betteer service" (puke), I'm screwed, as would many people be.
Slashdot Mirror
What do you mean? How do you define "Windows 2000" -- do you mean "my [unspecified] email software that runs on Windows 2000" or "my TCP/IP support in Windows 2000" or "my Windows 2000 kernel" or "the ISP I connect to from my Windows 2000 box" or...? Accuracy in questioning leads to accuracy in answers; the same can be said of ambiguity.
A negative review implies thoughtfulness, because the reviewer is rejecting the marketing (formal and social) and going against the grain. Sometimes it's just a rant to be ignored, but often there are clues to flaws that might be critical in my overall evaluation.
So, I also tend to only look at negative reviews, which I compare against the seller's (or manufacturer's) specs/feature list. If I'm still undecided, I might look at positive reviews to see if they're intelligently written and provide concrete examples of benefits.
If I had my way about it, any taxi I rode in would only play Free (i.e., "copyleft") music. No need to travel down the corporate music road...
Indeed -- and if I can win the lottery I will have no financial problems. These are nice things to fantasize about, but they're not wise to plan on when the odds are so fundamentally against them happening.
Remember, the Social Security Number in the US was originally supposed to be only for the purposes of administering Social Security. Now it is "mandatory" for a wide range of things including just having a place to live (e.g., as part of an application for an apartment, a mortgage, etc.). When I was growing up (and I'm only in my 30s so this isn't ancient history!), I didn't need an SSN until I was ready to get a job. We applied for them as part of a 9th grade class; none of my fellow students had one. Scant decades later, my children were required to have an SSN application submitted almost immediately upon birth.
Maybe it's time we blow of the dust of the (e.g.) pgp protocol, and try to find a way to make a official central directory in which we can be sure anybody is who he claims to be.
You mean, like a keyserver?
I wonder why PGP isn't more popular.
Probably because "average" people don't understand it and the principles of trust surrounding it. Nor do they want to learn, because, as Thomas Edison put it, "Five percent of the people think; ten percent of the people think they think; and the other eighty-five percent would rather die than think."
There is a concept of audience -- my home, my workplace, and the subway do not provide an appropriate audience for a variety of reasons that are specific to the particular audience in each venue. The audience here -- with over 400 comments -- has by its own actions clearly shown that Slashdot is the place to discuss it, your misguided notion to the contrary notwithstanding.
Again, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you're not really that stupid (although you certainly play the part effectively). The proper question is not how this is different, but how is this the same? There is obviously no valid analogy between the communication model of the phone system and the communication model represented by the publishing industry, the libraries as consumers of that industry, and library patrons as end-users. (This is not to imply that I agree with your other premise regarding the validity of wiretaps or their secrecy.)
As for how the chilling effect -- or lack thereof in the past, when we have been lucky enough to avoid it -- on research and publication would affect everything from the medical procedures used during your birth to the handling of your body after death, I will leave it to what I hope is a grain of intelligence to analyze that without playing stupid on the point further. It is fundamental enough to not warrant further comment.
Who's the greater coward, the one who won't stand up for what's right even if a problem doesn't affect him directly, or one who will speak out against all evil?
Nice troll, but I'll assume that even you aren't stupid enough to actually believe this only affects criminals and terrorists. It affects the very system and society that has presumably provided you with safety and comfort since you were born. (I am, admittedly, making some assumptions regarding your history since you have the ability to post flamebait here -- you're apparently not living in a cardboard box in a country lacking any significant technology infrastructure, sanitation, etc.)
Indeed -- this has become a significant focus for me lately, as I've had significant difficulties getting even my own family members to stop by and look at the Open Music Registry -- my sister, for example, claimed she and her husband weren't interested because they don't pay attention to "new" artists (meaning, those lacking the corporate seal of approval). It's one thing for a typical Slashdot user to understand this; however, getting Joe/Jane Average to "get it" is something else.
Last night I posted a short Ogg audio file promoting free entertainment, which I hope people will either pick up for use directly or will take the idea and make their own, to include in Internet radio broadcasts, Free music compilations, etc. It's a long uphill battle, though.
Sure, that would be the case for informed, motivated patients. That probably accounts for, say, 1% of all patients. The rest will either be ignorant or apathetic or both (i.e., willfully ignorant) and won't "defect to a [better] company" unless they are led by the hand.
The typical consumer pays virtually zero attention to how their money (or information) is used once their purchase/transaction is complete. They're just focused on the immediate result. That's why massive corporations just keep on growing while small businesses that try to "compete" struggle until they collapse, and only those small businesses that find a niche unserved by the massive corporations can expect to survive and have a chance to thrive.
Oh, I'm sure we learned from it, and we're so "clever" about applying what we learned, we still have the threat of nuclear war hanging over us today, even if it's not popular to discuss anymore (following the breakup of the Soviet Union) unless it's to get funding for the missile defense farce.
Is there enough non-RIAA-ontrolled content to make web radio, son-of-napster, etc viable again?
I would suggest that such a point of viability is subjective. Someone who intends to boycott "corporate music" will perceive that viability at a much lower quantity of available work than someone who is still mostly sold on entertainment with the corporate stamp of approval.
If so, someone please post links!
The link in my .sig, to the Open Music Registry, is one starting point for you. There are hundreds of songs listed in it, all licensed with the EFF's Open Audio License. But are "hundreds" of songs "enough" to be viable for the stated purposes? (Luckily there are works licensed with similar licenses, but I don't know how many are actually available.)
- Promote the enjoyment of Free entertainment to people who might not otherwise pay attention to something that lacks the "corporate seal of approval."
- Produce every type of Free entertainment your talents allow, and make it very clear that it is Free.
- Lead by example: Stop -- completely stop -- paying third parties for entertainment, and encourage others to do the same. (I have no disagreement with paying artists directly.)
Are any of those easy? No. Are all of them critical to making any inroads against corporate entertainment, and the attacks on our rights? Yes, I believe so.My new mantra is "Enjoy some Free entertainment, and keep your money in your pocket." Feel free to borrow that whenever and wherever appropriate! :-)
If you choose the Open Audio License published by the EFF, I would strongly recommending listing the music in the Open Music Registry (see link in my .sig). If you so choose, you can use that listing to request tips/donations from listeners.
(This is directed to nometa, not Milo Fungus, who provides an example of what I'm describing in the 2nd paragraph above.)
"The masses" are music consumers, not music creators. It is their attention, not the RIAA's, that needs to be won. As long as the masses only accept what the RIAA (&c.) provide, to the exclusion of non-commercial music, "open source" or public domain (i.e., "no copyright") music will always be a niche.
As my sister put it, when I suggested that she check out the Open Music Registry to see what it had to offer, she "just isn't interested in new musicians" -- meaning, more to the point, that she is uninterested in music that hasn't been given the commercial stamp of approval. This was a depressing revelation for me, but a worthwhile one at that. There's a serious message here:
If you want to defeat the RIAA, you must pull their audience away. This does not mean working around the law to share commercial music without the license to do so, it means convincing the masses that commercial entertainment is more likely to be trash, and to give Free entertainment their attention instead. This is more challenging than just making Free entertainment available -- it means making Joe and Jane Citizen think that all of their friends and neighbors are going over to Free entertainment, so they can feel "safe" in making the same change. Whether or not you deride them as sheep, pack animals, lemmings, or whatever, Joe and Jane Citizen comprise the rope in a tug of war against the RIAA.
Have you considered providing a specific license for those downloads? If so, would you use your own license, or would you use an existing "open music" license such as the Open Audio License published by the EFF? If you didn't use an existing license, what would your primary reason(s) be for using your own?
I do all the time (or did, before installing OpenOffice.org), and I'm not a lawyer. I'd much rather have a word processor where I can see the "source" (through the "reveal codes" feature) than one where I have to struggle against the black box (e.g., Word), which forces the user to either agree with invalid assumptions about what the user wants to do, or go through grotesque convolutions to work around those assumptions. Word is a terrible mess of counter-intuitive design; WordPerfect empowers the user. Unfortunately, the fatal-error bugginess prevents me from calling WP "superior" to Word, because stability is a mighty important "feature." (That's a lesson that Opera still needs to learn, IMHO, but I digress...)
Heh, no argument there!
So when they need to learn Word and Excel because they need to know them to get a job in the real world they will have to by MS Office.
Why? Because "they" are such cretins that they can't learn one word processor and apply the same general concepts to another? I learned on WP, and I work at a place that requires Word. Did I do what your assumption implies, and go out and buy Word? Nope, I still use WP. Somebody who can't take the basics from one word processor to another has bigger problems to face in getting a job than learning the "wrong" word processor!
And, of course, once released as Open Audio it would then be appropriate for listing in the Open Music Registry. :-)
Maybe I'm missing something (in fact, in a sense I hope I am), but there appears to be no database of works, just information on "open" licenses that can be used. This is good, but not as helpful as providing access to the actual works themselves. The latter function is apparently the intent behind Creative Commons, as well as the Open Music Registry (with a narrower focus, of course).
After spending far too much time at a really crappy university, where they had a nearly fraudulent (IMNSHO) attitude toward not scheduling classes necessary to complete a degree without spending more money by staying an extra year or two, I still -- surprisingly -- favor going to college rather than delving into a career. It's important to attend the best college you can find for your intended field, so shop around, and don't decide based on social issues, etc. Get value for your money. (I didn't and hate the university for it.)
I think the importance of college, assuming you get value for your money in classes for your major, is in the "mind-opening" classes that you'll end up taking, in and out of your major area. You may groan about having to take a geology class if you're a computer major, for example, but there is immense value in having a broader perspective than just the technical issues for what you hope will be your eventual career. If you only know those technical details, you bring less value to future employers who will need a well-rounded individual, not just a monkey who knows what buttons to push. (For this reason, I also favor at least a short term of military service, especially overseas. The personal growth makes you a more valuable contributor in a wider range of scenarios.)
Don't cut yourself short, either. Realize that your idea of a "great career" may change drastically in the next ten years. If you only learn what you need to perform a job, of what value are you to yourself if you decide to switch to an entirely different career?
If you can manage to work part-time (in your intended career area) while attending school, I would recommend that. But I do mean "manage" it, don't trash your grades because you enjoy work more. (Speaking from experience there!)
Attending a bad school is probably worse than attending no school, but I believe attending a valuable school is better than delving directly into the work force full-time.
Then again, if you don't find the hardware you're looking for, they usually have backhoes for doing your own trenching... :)
I was wondering how they meant "free" -- apparently (judging from that site) it was free-as-in-beer, and only for a limited time. Maybe that's a good way for an artist to encourage future sales. Maybe it doesn't make a difference once the horse is out of the barn. Either way, it would've been nice if they'd released it (or even just a track or two) as Open Audio, to clarify that yes, it really is legal to pass around. (Since I missed out on the "free" download, it's possible they did use some license of that nature -- but I see no indication of that now.)
Flash is a tool. Many (perhaps all) tools can be abused. Saying that Flash is bad because too many monkeys use it in ways that are totally inappropriate is like saying e-mail is bad because too many monkeys use it for spam (i.e., a way that is totally inappropriate).
Gas pumps have been doing that (with sound now, not just the scrolling "come in for a cup of coffee" display), so maybe the ATMs felt left behind. ;-)
Does it seem to anybody else that we're in a handbasket going you know where?
As it relates to commercialization, I think we were in the handbasket through much of the 20th Century, and now we've already arrived. Or at least we're in free-fall with not much time left. Taking the example of my "favorite peeve" of commercial entertainment, when was it that people starting thinking that entertainment can only be good if it has a well-recognized logo?
"All the better to violate your privacy with."
Some have asked why this should be done without paper. One answer that springs to mind is that paper doesn't hold enough data about the populace. If it's done with a techie gadget with lots of functionality and (more importantly) storage, the government can intrude even further into our lives.
Heck, make it into a game and have people answer the questions while entertaining themselves, and they'll have no qualms about providing their most intimate details. "Hmm, do I conceal the fact that I snitched money from the church offering plate or do I kill the big boss for this level? Uh... Maximum points!"
Sorry, feeling just a wee bit cynical this evening...
Dummy. Taxes are to distribute the wealth of your economy to those less fortunate.
OK, probably a troll, but just in case you're really that misguided... Let's just presume that your idealistic notion is accurate (although it's demonstrably false; see below, where this rather-long response ties back to the SEC site topic). What are the real implications? The surface implication for those who can't think more deeply is that taxes are a fairy tale come true -- steal from the rich and give to the poor, very Robin Hood. But how noble is that really? There are some deeper implications that many taxpayers might find immoral, such as:
Actually I could go on but I'm on my lunch break and must wrap this up before it is time to go back "on the clock" to support those on welfare. (Actually, I'm being partially sarcastic; read on for the debunking of that notion, along with the debunking of your original idea about what taxes mean.)
So if, as you incorrectly state, taxes are to take from the rich and give to the poor (where 'poor' -- according to you -- includes poor in mind as well as bank), this "noble" idea is only noble on the surface, and evil lurks not far beneath.
Luckily, taxpayers can rest assured that taxes don't mean what you say they mean...
...but they should be made uneasy again by seeing, below, what they should mean versus what they do mean at present (speaking from the US perspective, to stay on topic of the SEC). By the way, what you implied matches neither what taxes are nor what they should be.
I stated above that your concept of taxes is demonstrably false. How could that be demonstrated? Follow the bouncing penny! Follow the funds to see where they really go. The bulk of tax funds go to government programs that are ostensibly for the common good. Not the good of just those unwilling or unable to contribute to society and the economy, but everyone. (Maybe it's different where you are, but around here we don't have roads and highways set aside for 'poor' people only.)
Had I not said "ostensibly," there would be no difference between what taxes are and what they should be. The difference is in the beneficiary. Ask yourself, who creates taxes (generally speaking; I realize there is some complexity, but it can be bypassed safely at the moment)? From an entirely selfish perspective, would it not make sense for taxes to benefit those who create them? Of course, our taxes don't go directly to our elected "representatives" (other than in the form of regularly-increased and already-very-large salaries), but taxes we pay do go, indirectly, to support the political careers of incumbents.
This really should be obvious by now, but you might miss it, since you claim to believe in something that is obviously not the case. So let me illustrate: Pat Senator wants to be re-elected. Pat Senator knows that a certain government program for the "common" good is particularly good for constituents in the district responsible for that re-election. Pat Senator also knows that the program needs funding, and that the burden of funding for it can be spread over a much wider population than the Senator's constituents. Time for a new tax!
Tax funds are only marginally used to "take from the rich and give to the poor." Vastly, they are used to support political careers, by supporting businesses that make campaign contributions and by supporting constituents who vote. So what should be for the common good, really is for the good of politicians.
This isn't news, by the way. I'm not telling anybody anything they don't already know -- just what they might prefer to ignore.
The question originally was, who pays for the SEC web sites? The implication, I believe, is why should taxpayers pay for these sites? It's a valid question -- for reasons already noted beyond the scope of my message, the SEC sites will do little or nothing to "help the poor." Are they part of a program to help the common good (really)? Are they part of a program that will help a politician's career? Or are they the result of a side-effect of a corrupt political system, that being insufficient "change control." In other words, perhaps they're just the result of somebody saying, "Hey, I've got an idea" and there being insufficient structure to prevent the idea from taking form without proof of validity.
Regardless, it sounds like a government-spec government program: An ineffective use (a.k.a., waste) of resources.
There goes my lunch hour...
That's my first thought too, but... what if "that company" is the power company, or the garbage company, or the phone company (the only one to provide service in my area), or something like that? As much as I would love to live "off the grid" I'm not in position to do it yet, so if "essential" -- but privately owned -- services start forcing consumers to use Passport "to provide betteer service" (puke), I'm screwed, as would many people be.