According to the article (i.e., may/may not be true), the content of the offending web site was not threatening, just offensive. A threat to initiate violence is a different animal from defaming someone (whether what is being alleged is true or not).
Tell that to residents around Love Canal...
on
At The Crossroads
·
· Score: 1
...and Bhopal India. Illness and death can "harm freedom" too.
Sure, government is inherently a much greater threat to freedom, and I agree with the gist of what you write, but to say that corporations are not a danger ignores too many harsh realities.
And Amazon is willing to ban Mein Kampf
on
Fahrenheit 451
·
· Score: 2
Late last year I published a spoof interview with Adolph Hiter regarding the requested ban of his own biography in Germany. Supposed to be semi-humorous, but I think I got the point across as well.
Exactly! I never did understand what all the hooraw was about anyway. Probably I'm missing something important about the issue, but it seemed that a community of people professing to believe in open source...the gifting of your work to the common good, etc. were suddenly disturbed that someone might make a little money off their responses to a story. Huh?!
Greed is apparently a strong instinct, even here. Not to mention that it is unlikely that anybody is going to make money on this book, in any case.
Even though I don't own any of those posts, I agree wholeheartedly! Gates and Co has now officially weighed in on Free Speech and censorship. If they had any quiet supporters among slashdotters (it could happen), they now have fewer.
We know what a hacker is: someone who can make furniture with an axe, or the technological equivalent. We know that a cracker doesn't necessarily have that much skill, but that their intent is malicious.
If Oxford, et al won't list a cracker as a malicious son-of-a-bitch with a script, surely they could fit fucker -- which already has a long historical meaning of being a wankerous person -- around the kind of moron who screws up a computer or network.
Of course, the trick is getting news services to print the word in it's new context. (Yes, I'm kidding.)
In our computer manufacturing company, IT is unresponsive as a doorknob and worship at the feet of Gates. They own the infonet as a whole, but our group develops and maintains some of the more important internal applications on a couple of our own servers.
We found enough equipment lying around to put together a third server, asked IT to hook it into the Infonet (while there were only Windoze apps on it), then installed Linux and started developing with that. I assume IT could figure it out, if they look hard enough. But since our two NT servers have to be rebooted every day just to avoid problems, and whatever we're doing with the new server, it's as reliable as a Timex, if they know, they aren't griping.
how innovative this patent proves MS to be. I probably wouldn't know a patent from a patient from a pentacle, but I do know what Microsoft Innovation means.
...they can block any other content that ABC/Disney carries, including the news. This is uncool, for pretty much the same reason why One Official News Source of totalitarian states is uncool. The more options for information (and broadcasting creative content) that are available, the more free we are.
If TimeWarner is willing to do this in meatspace, what would they be willing to do when they get more cyberspace influence as part of the AOL consortium?
Sometimes they get what they deserve by opening executables. Sometimes others get what the ignoramus deserves, when it's doing the address book lookup. Education about using email is the answer. Too bad it's not 100% effective.
The fact that Corley is a 2600 journalist, not a hacker, works for us. This reinforces the idea that this is a free speech issue. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act was ill-conceived from the beginning, the result of allowing feebs to write laws.
Until this is resolved in favour of Truth and Justice (tm), even without considering free speech issues, my fallback position is that if MPAA isn't interested in my business as a Linux user, I'm not interested in their products.
Both are necessary to write intelligently and fairly about technology. The Open Source community has in its favour that we understand the subject, and many of us can 'fake' being a journalist (or can at least write well).
Taschek is probably a decent enough writer, but he couldn't fake the knowledge he didn't have. Nothing basic research -- taught in journalism class -- wouldn't have fixed.
However, I firmly believe in an anonymous Internet (which Metallica's actions discourage) at all costs. Breaking the law, Net-wise, includes writing and reading about democracy (if you're a citizen of mainland China, for example).
I realize it is sometimes problematic for what we consider to be more reasonable laws. The concept of intellectual property hasn't yet caught up with what technology makes available, and needs to rethought.
Katz' wrote: "Metallica has every right to fight for its interests" and "Artists are perfectly justified in worrying about how they will get paid for their work as the sharing of online music grows". It seems pretty clear to me that protecting their property is not the problem that he's writing about. It's their methods that Katz takes issue with.
Unless you believe it's OK to track down surfers on the web; sic attorneys on them (many of whom assumed that if the music was available, it was OK to download it); and to use intimidation as punishment while the 'jury is still out'... then perhaps your obvious disenchantment with Katz over other issues is coloring how you read this particular article.
My latest Totalitarian Burger comic -- Superpredator Seniors -- is a parady of what would happen if the same reaction to Columbine happened to another sector of our population. Drawn from current events, it's not so much funny as ironic, I think.
I get so much crap from newbies and morons...
on
Hoax-a-go-go!
·
· Score: 1
...I decided to write a more effective email etiquette guide. The ones I'd seen were way too nice, and nice doesn't work on the more feeble offenders: http://unquietmind.com/email.html
Last September, I published a Totalitarian Burger (sort of a political cartoon, BTW), about government's tendency to stick their noses in everything. The better encrypted we become, the better.
None of this would happen if people assumed that some things are not government's business. Instead, the assumption is that everything is.
BTW, I tried DoubleDlick's opt-out script using Netscape 4.7 under Linux (Gnome, Redhat 6.1) and it didn't work. Maybe something just glitched, but I ended up editing cookies manually.
...one that still has its nose firmly implanted in Bill Gates' arse. I've written extensively about some of my company's experiences with Micro$oft, and it sickens me. I wish my corporate masters would figure out where the future lies, like Dell has.
Good for Dell -- and it's customers. My next new consumer computer purchase will probably be from them, just as a matter of principle.
Slashdot Mirror
According to the article (i.e., may/may not be true), the content of the offending web site was not threatening, just offensive. A threat to initiate violence is a different animal from defaming someone (whether what is being alleged is true or not).
Sure, government is inherently a much greater threat to freedom, and I agree with the gist of what you write, but to say that corporations are not a danger ignores too many harsh realities.
Maybe it works different, but if I had any reason to view Bank of Amerika's pages now, it would be through the zippy filter. Fuck 'em!
Exactly! I never did understand what all the hooraw was about anyway. Probably I'm missing something important about the issue, but it seemed that a community of people professing to believe in open source...the gifting of your work to the common good, etc. were suddenly disturbed that someone might make a little money off their responses to a story. Huh?!
Greed is apparently a strong instinct, even here. Not to mention that it is unlikely that anybody is going to make money on this book, in any case.
The third level of hades is opening a new wing.
If Oxford, et al won't list a cracker as a malicious son-of-a-bitch with a script, surely they could fit fucker -- which already has a long historical meaning of being a wankerous person -- around the kind of moron who screws up a computer or network.
Of course, the trick is getting news services to print the word in it's new context. (Yes, I'm kidding.)
In our computer manufacturing company, IT is unresponsive as a doorknob and worship at the feet of Gates. They own the infonet as a whole, but our group develops and maintains some of the more important internal applications on a couple of our own servers.
We found enough equipment lying around to put together a third server, asked IT to hook it into the Infonet (while there were only Windoze apps on it), then installed Linux and started developing with that. I assume IT could figure it out, if they look hard enough. But since our two NT servers have to be rebooted every day just to avoid problems, and whatever we're doing with the new server, it's as reliable as a Timex, if they know, they aren't griping.
There's a difference: ignorance can usually be cured. If not, it's also idiocy.
Regards to your mum from a complete stranger. <g>
If TimeWarner is willing to do this in meatspace, what would they be willing to do when they get more cyberspace influence as part of the AOL consortium?
Until this is resolved in favour of Truth and Justice (tm), even without considering free speech issues, my fallback position is that if MPAA isn't interested in my business as a Linux user, I'm not interested in their products.
Taschek is probably a decent enough writer, but he couldn't fake the knowledge he didn't have. Nothing basic research -- taught in journalism class -- wouldn't have fixed.
I realize it is sometimes problematic for what we consider to be more reasonable laws. The concept of intellectual property hasn't yet caught up with what technology makes available, and needs to rethought.
Unless you believe it's OK to track down surfers on the web; sic attorneys on them (many of whom assumed that if the music was available, it was OK to download it); and to use intimidation as punishment while the 'jury is still out'... then perhaps your obvious disenchantment with Katz over other issues is coloring how you read this particular article.
None of this would happen if people assumed that some things are not government's business. Instead, the assumption is that everything is.
BTW, I tried DoubleDlick's opt-out script using Netscape 4.7 under Linux (Gnome, Redhat 6.1) and it didn't work. Maybe something just glitched, but I ended up editing cookies manually.
The article is somewhat dated. Since writing it, I have loaded Linux on all but one of my systems -- a notebook, and use it 90% of the time.
The article is somewhat dated. Since writing it, I have loaded Linux on all but one of my systems, and use it 90% of the time.
Good for Dell -- and it's customers. My next new consumer computer purchase will probably be from them, just as a matter of principle.