This is a difficult issue to take a side on. While you have the strong dislike for a unified organizing international body deciding the fate and practice of the internet, globally, there's also a strong dislike for certain countries (China) who practice an internal totalitarianism of online use for their citizens.
Could an international committee alleviate that? Probably not. I think an international organization would be more likely to turn the net into just another global social program, of sorts. And worse, I doubt they'll be as accountable as, say, our own governments.
When Senator so and so votes to uphold the CDA or CDA2, I know who to hold accountable come the next elections, in America. Same in Australia. But what do I do if some UN Chartered (or similar) group who's members are relatively unknown and are not voted into office, decides that some random rule must be enforced and that I just have to live with it?
Further, what if the United States Government decides that they are not going to require their populace to follow said rule(s)?
I'm not a huge fan of 'government' in any form, but I have to say that I prefer the internationally independant choices of each country and jurisdiction over some half-assed elitist group of eighty-year-old computer-illiterate white-haired international internet committee. I thought the glory of the internet was supposedly the lack of need for government and the stretching of physical political boundaries -- not mass netizen unification under some group who proclaims total online governance.
But that's just me . .. --- icq:2057699 seumas.com
Let's put aside the fact that, at best, I will have 144kbps where I live (if it is installed within the six weeks I'm told I will have to wait).
Let's put aside the fact that I can't tolerate cable programming, except some of the more high-prices services like CineMax, Encore, HBO and so on.
Also, let's put aside the fact that since the only decent cable channels are those which play movies which I could simply rent for far less per month from a local movie store (or subscribe to over ugh DivX, if I had it).
And, finally, let's put aside the fact that I haven't watched television since January 27th, 2000.
Why on earth would I pay $10 and up to watch grainy, choppy television on my 21" computer screen? Seriously, what legitimate reasons are there for sitting in front of a computer screen on at your desk, watching a handful of television channels that you could get on your television a few feet away? This whole idea seems like it's just destined to fail, even if almost a million people signed up when it was originally offered.
Give me some unique content, a promise that I will not find your servers constantly bogged down and that I can make use of TiVo-like services to record, pause and replay content and maybe -- just maybe I could comprehend that I might possibly be interested.
...But probably not...
I'll be interested in television again when I can completley choose the content and time of viewing -- and not just from four channels and eight movies. I want to be able to watch four episodes of Dr. Who (which episodes, left to me to choose), an episode of FarScape and then, finally, an episode of The Munsters and perhaps a couple Muppet's shows. (Well, perhaps not those shows specifically, but you get the point.)
I'm a dynamic person in a changing world and I don't want to sit passively in front of a television, hoping that the networking gods have decided to grant me something entertaining from their static programming for the evening -- and then keep my fat ass glued to the sofa watching some Meridith Baxter Bernie HallMark chick-flick just because I'm too lazy to get up or too mind-numbed to turn off the tube.
So maybe it's "big news" because it's television broadcast over the internet. Whoo. Amazing. Staggering. Imagine that... Porn sites have been doing this for years now, only without exactly the same content or content providers, of course. But if Paying $10 or $20 or $50 bucks per month to watch television on your fancy $1500 iMac makes you feel like you're a techno-god or getting the full use out of your over-priced computer, then go for it.
By the way, I wonder what plans they have for moving this service to the US? I know they have a lot of battles to fight before trying to do so, but if I recall, they have an office in Mountain View (California). Now, what would they be doing there? --- icq:2057699 seumas.com
Sorry, but pinball videogame style is just really pathetic. You might as well sit and watch television or listen to NPR or, for that matter, read Cosmopolitan magazine.
There is a lot more to pinball than pressing a left and right button to nudge a couple levers. But in a digital version, that's all there is. I want the audio pointing in my face and the scoreboard glowing in my eyes off the backplate. I want the plink! and smack! of the sliver ball whacking the glass when flipped too hard. I want to see things spin and whirl and launch the ball around. I want to be able to throw my weight into the game and control, for just a little while, that 200lb piece of wood, metal and glass.
I don't imagine I will ever touch the digital version anymore than I'll play a football or baseball videogame. If I want to play football, I'll go find some friends and get the pigskin out. I'll play videogames when I want to fire a plasma rifle at stinky aliens and start wars with other countries; things I can't do in real life. --- icq:2057699 seumas.com
No, it was part of a Science Fiction / Fantasy Anthology, as previously mentioned, about a man who stops an an arcade and becomes addicted to a pinball game called Dante's Inferno (which, coincidentally is also a real pinball game from around 1986 I believe).
Something about wagering his soul... Certainly higher stakes than I would place on a game of pinball, but what the hell. --- icq:2057699 seumas.com
If they're dying, it's probably because most new pinball games are just so damn lame. The old games (reads, late seventies, when I was barely a toddler) are the ones that I enjoy at arcades. These days, they're just rip-offs of really bad movies and television shows.
Terminator The Simpsons GhostBusters Adams Family Twister Jurasic Park Batman Friends
And then there are the obligatory Amusement Park variations of Pin-Ball. There must be three hundred of those games, where a clown laughs, a barker taunts you and you smack the ball around a makeshift amusement park or thrill-ride.
If they'd try to make some genuinely interesting pin-ball titles, perhaps they would stick around longer. Pin-ball isn't dead in people's hearts -- it's just not as prevalent in society. If there were a pin-ball machine in half the locations that arcade machines are (your local grocery store, your gas-station, your cafe and mall, etc.) people would naturally pop more quarters in, and a lot would probably grow semi-addicted. As it is, I'm sure there are a lot of grade-school kids who wouldn't be able to describe to you what a pin-ball machine is, let alone ever played one.
This also reminds me of a great story I read in a Science-Fiction/Fantasy anthology (I wish I could remember the title of the book or the authors), called Dante's Inferno, all about this guy addicted to this pinball machine in an arcade. I haven't read the story since I was about twelve, but I wish I could find it again. It was such a great tale.
Now that I'm making a handsome salary, I need to consider buying a vintage pinball machine for my apartment. Every eccentric geek needs one. --- icq:2057699 seumas.com
We at Celera are pleased to be informed that you are willing to be a live participant in our modification and augmentation programs in light of our recent completion of the human genome map.
Please take a moment and indicate your interest in the following augmentations.
[ ] Increase in neural density (useful for writing entire program code in your head, bit for bit before actually reaching for the keyboard).
[ ] Duck brain (useful for shutting half of your brain down, for resting, without requiring any actual sleep. Great for month-long coding frenzies).
[ ] Nocturnal eye enhancement (allowing for indefinite periods sitting in front of your computer terminal without turning the lights on or opening the blinds in your office).
[ ] Bladder enhancement (through minor chemical alteration of your digestion system and bladder, your urine may instantly be recycled into Mt. Dew(tm), ready for consumption upon urination).
[ ] Moose sweat glands (never leave your office for a shower, but smell like you've just splashed on your favorite musk. An absolute must for any male in a work environment where he may occasionally encounter attractive females).
[ ] Vulcan Mind-Meld (communicate with fellow programmers and friends without risk of misinterpretation, but be sure not to meld with your female companion as she will use all information received as ammunition against you in future arguments. Note: mind-meld is far from perfected at this point and does result in the occasional paralysis or permanent psychosis).
[ ] Massive horse penis (self-explanatory).
[ ] Rob Malda dream-date (Natalie Portman physique, hot-grits-producing mammary glands, Anime hair... non-descriminate sense of humor.)
(Due to scientific needs and demands and available participants, we may not be able to cater to all desires perfectly and some modifications may be made which were not requested by you, the participant.)
Again, thank you for your interest and do contact us as soon as possible. We look forward to working with you!
Napster, this really is *not* the way to win people over to your side. OffSpring -- what can I say but "heheheheheh".
For a group whose music I can only half-heartedly tolerate, they sure are a bunch of whacky guys. If I ever have a daughter and she insists on dating a real creep, I hope it's one of the OffSpring-type creeps.
After all, just like freely distributing pirated music supposedly generates great publicity for artists, distributing clothing with Napster logos and such should only further Napster's cause, right? . . . Right?
I'm really tired of this Napster deal. You know what? If you want commercialized music (ie, not free), then go BUY it. If you don't like the fact that you have to pay so much for it ($20 is a lot!) then protest by not buying it. Or set yourself on fire like the Tibetan monks or something. Just, for god's sake, quit whining about information wanting to be free and how evil the RIAA is and so forth. I agree, to a point, with all the points made by the pro-Napster side, but eventually it all get's so rediculous that you just can't support it anymore.
Sure, maybe you feel art should not be restricted or available only for a fee -- but it is. Art is a commodity and that is what keeps artists producing it. As much heart as a creative person may have, they need to eat, too. And if they are so successful that they can afford a gold Ferrari with sex slaves and a mexican house-boy, then cool -- I'm glad they could have such an impact on so many people and they deserve their cash.
The point being that two wrong's rarely make a right, and just ripping off music that someone else created -- when they have made it plainly obvious that they do not want their music distributed in such a way, is WRONG. Many people have posted before claiming "well, it's only wrong if you inject morality". No -- it's wrong if you inject common-sense, too. How many of you who are so steadfastly against the record industry ("They steal from the artists and don't pay them a dime!") have ever actually sent any money directly to an artist because you appreciated the great material they produced -- that you pirated? Never? That's what I thought.
The biggest problem our world seems to be facing in this arena is that when you sell oranges -- you have a set number of oranges to sell -- thus a limit to how many can be purchased. Someone can't buy an orange from you and then make ten more oranges out of that and give them to friends (who will then not buy oranges from you -- because they get them free from their friend). Oranges are tangible (not tangerinable) -- they cannot be replicated like an MP3 or photocopy can. With intellectual property, it almost feels like we're breaking a fundamental law of nature by not allowing it to be completely free -- only because a thought, video, song, game can be so quickly and easily reproduced for anyone who wants it -- at no cost. Still, as we've deemed art to be a commodity, whether or not something is easily replicable doesn't really impact on whether or not you are purchasing that unit and the rights to do what you will with it in entirety, but the rights to experience and own that copy of that information and share it with those you are able to -- so long as it is bound by that single existing copy. In other words, treat it like the oranges -- if you want all of your friends to see what an orange is like, let them taste yours -- but if they want their own oranges, they have to go buy them.
What it comes right down to is that you did not create this material. Someone else did. Who the fuck are you to decide how their work should be distributed? Don't rape the artist anymore than their record company already is, for christ's sake.
Just for the record, yes I have used Napster. I find it to be a pretty unreliable service with a poor selection (unless you're looking for hip-hop) that belches up half-recorded MP3's most of the time. So I'm not wholly innocent here. But I also do not have a single MP3 of a group that I have not purchased the album of. If I like a group well enough to keep their MP3's around, I usually decide to go drop the $20 or so for each of their albums (as my large collection will attest to). But there are a lot of people who will grab every MP3 they can from an artist and never think twice -- or ever purchase any of the group's releases, let alone ever consider paying the group for the tunes. --- icq:2057699 seumas.com
Who the hell said anything about environmentalism? It must suck going through life with a such a big chip on your shoulder that you find a target to push your agenda on, even where there is no target. Just because you have a hammer in your hand doesn't make everything you see a nail.
Blowing up the moon would wreak ecological havoc on this planet, but that doesn't have anything to do with environmentalism. When you change things, there are effects. You can't just change the entire ecology of a several billion-year-old planet and expect there to be absolutely no side-effect. And if your narrow field of view only takes into account environmental possibilities in the sense of happy little squirrels and blooming flowers, you're missing an entire field of potential. As another poster pointed out, with the very imperfect spin of Mars, it would be difficult to successfully terraform, and even if we accomplished some manner of change, there's no telling what the actual result would be. Your small farming and research community in the desert one day could be flooded the next, or swept away in a massive storm.
Maybe you'd like to live there. In fact, I'd like you to live there, too. But I'll happily stay here where I know that Portland is going to be rainy, San Jose is going to be dry and hot, and there's a McDonald's on the corner of every street in both cities. --- icq:2057699 seumas.com
Although we're dealing specifically with making breathable air, the topic of terraforming has been brought up. This article is a step toward it, of course.
It seems to me that altering an entire ecosystem (even a likely dead one like Mars) could have dire consequences that we may not be foresee. Maybe there would be no detrimental effect of doing such a thing, but plopping some people on a big planet and turning it from a poisonous atmosphere into Yellowstone Park is just too great an alteration to pass without somehow negatively affecting things.
Anyway, if anyone has ideas on how that could be, I'd be interested in reading them. Sure, it's a planet out in space and changing it shouldn't have any effect because, well, it's sort of in a bubble, but I'm still curious... --- icq:2057699 seumas.com
$90 seems fairly steep for 144kbps or even 128kbps, but it's better than being stuck at sub-56k. My apartment complex offers dual-ISDN hook-ups, but who wants to pay for (as I understand it) two phonelines, an ISP and a per-minute fee? Even at fractions of a penny per-connection-minute, I'd go broke.
It sounds like even if at 20,000+ feet, if I can get reliable 128k (or around there), it may be my best bet, to beat out the per-minute rate of ISDN.
Due to the nature of my work, it is imperative that I have a very fast connection at home.
When I contacted AT&T, they said that they hadn't gotten around to installing digital cable for internet access in my area yet, but that they would do so probably by the end of July. I wasn't thrilled with this prospect, since I spent almost seven months in my previous residence in Portland, Oregon where I would be told it was available in my area one day and that it was still a mile away the next. I gave up after half a year.
PacificBell claims that there is absolutely no way I can get DSL in my area at this time and that they have absolutely no idea when or if I'll ever be able to.
Now, keep in mind, I live in the absolute heart of the Silicon Valley. A short drive from everything from Netscape and Sun to 3COM, HP, Apple, Cisco... In fact, I am within walking distance of Covad at this very moment. Yet for the life of me, I can't get anything beyond a 56k dial-up account.
Someone recently reccomended I look at Covad, but having just spent this evening browsing their site, I'm not quite sure how they fit into the picture. Is my phone company still involved? Does this mean I have to deal with Covad (they provide the DSL lines, perhaps?), my ISP and the phone company? Wow. Talk about beauracracy. For $90, plus tax, I can get 144kbps bi-directional DSL from some area DSL providers, according to links I found from Covad (But I'm not sure if this $90 is just the fee for the ISP or if it includes the DSL line, too? how does Covad get paid on this?). Unfortunately, higher speed seems to be impossible since I'm slightly over 20,000 feet from the main switches.
I'd really like to know what some experiences are with Covad and some DSL providers as I don't have much choice where I am and I'd be interested to know what process, what fees and what kudos or rants anyone may have with specific relation to Covad (and how they fit into my actual physical DSL and my ISP). Perhaps much of this is RTFM, but I kinda gave up on their site for the evening and moved on until tomorrow when I have more energy. --- icq:2057699 seumas.com
Great, now I can find myself confronted with the blue screen of death just as I'm fighting the final boss in some new game.
I wonder if I'll have to sign an EULA every time I launch a game. Or if I'll have to pay a yearly license for the right to play the game I already bought.
I wouldn't waste money on a game console -- but if I did, it wouldn't be this one. Maybe once someone creates a clone knock-off... --- icq:2057699 seumas.com
Hell if I know. I don't use eBay. They're evil, which is why I have my site!
I honestly think this girl was drunk or on crack or something. Or maybe just the result of too many free AOL CD's. But the point still stands that some people expect to just have to hand out their personal information. Or even want to. It's rediculous. When so many people are so careless with their rights, it makes me fear for the respect mine will be given. --- icq:2057699 seumas.com
In the appropriation of intellectual property, myMP3.com, Napster, and Gnutella (which has stolen from the breakfasts of 100 million European children even its name) are, in my opinion, the ringleaders, the exemplars of theft, of piracy, of the illegal and willful appropriation of someone else's property.
How about Seagram's, who in the appropriation of money has stolen mother's, fathers, brothers, sisters from the lives of tens or hundreds of millions of children with the willful distribution of an addictive and impairing 'drug'(alchohol)?
Of course, why fight for tougher drinking laws and greater penalties for crimes perpetrated while under intoxication instead of seeking tougher laws on privacy and anonymity, which effects the might-dollar you value so much? --- icq:2057699 seumas.com
Sure, it can be similar to wearing a ski-mask when you're robbing a bank. But that doesn't mean that every person who steps into the bank is a thief. And just because someone who steps into that bank might steal something doesn't give you the right to force them to hand over their photo ID, their social security card, their passport, their medical history, their address, their phone number, how many children they have, etc. Maybe they're just coming in to use the restroom or to ask for directions or to say that someone outside left their lights on.
If the only logic these corporations have behind removing your privacy is "*pout*.. we're losing money... boo hoo!" then they can blow me. My personal privacy is more valuable than your corporate ledger any day, no matter how many thieves are out there.
The fact is, privacy won't stop people from stealing. How many people walk into a store and shoplift even though they know cameras are surrounding them? How many people speed even though they know there are patrol men potentially lurking around every corner? How many people cheat on their taxes? The truth is, the less privacy individuals have, the easier it is for Seagram's and others to steal from us. Easier to track where we go, what we do, what we buy, how much we make, what they can sell to us,when they can sell it, whether or not to give us health coverage...
Just to further prove my point, an AOL user recently complained to me because, unlike eBay, my auction site doesn't require people to send me a photocopy of their driver's license, their social security number and their credit card number.
I was floored. This person thought it was improper business practice (nevermind the fact that the site is not a business, but a FREE non profit-site) not to collect this extremely sensative data on every one of our 3,000 members.
If people expect that from the places they do business with, I'm afraid to know what the average person would sacrifice for the "sake of government" or the "sake of children" or the "sake of corporate pockets" or the "sake of jesus" or whatever else is this month's "for the sake of...". --- icq:2057699 seumas.com
The first set of paragraphs on the web page state "If it is true that an 'OTP' cypher is being used in a Numbers Station transmission, then you had better read this."
...Only, http://www.clark.net/pub/mjr/pubs/otpfaq/ does not exist and produces a 404. Someone is out there destroying the information needed to pin the bastards down! I bet it is part of that one world order thingy that I've been hearing so much about! --- icq:2057699 seumas.com
It would seem that there must somehow be a way to implement distribute.net into solving this (if there is any solution). Why work against each other if we can all work together and nail this?
I'm not a crytpo-expert, but my guess is that you would need to use a wide variety of formulaes to even ever discern that there is a pattern, let alone what the patterns signify. But the formulae could be well-tested on a mass-scale via distributed.net and then once a group of likely candidates is discovered, attack them on a massive scale and see if anything hits.
But like I say, I'm not an expert whatsoever. This just sounds like a way to approach it. But, unlike RC5 and DSS, this doesn't have a known answer hiding somewhere with any manner of known mathamatical processes of resolution, so brute-force would be out of the question, no? Unless there is a way to massively process *methods* and *formulaes* to see if they're even appropriate to ever do brute-force decryption along side. --- icq:2057699 seumas.com
Hm. This seems just another step toward widening the availability of more in-depth, personal, as-it-happens news coverage from those "outside of the mainstream news media".
The possibilities, as these utilities improve and drop in price, are magnificent. A kid in school could suddenly have more than just a 'voice' on a website. A protestor could share with the world, first-hand, what is occuring between him and the police (such as during the WTO incident). If you're stopped by an office, you can just flip the switch on this baby and have instant proof if anything unprofessional occurs. You could share your daughter's soccer game with her father who is across the country -- in real time.
But one of the greatest things I can envision about this would be for urgent situations such as natural disasters and military operations. Imagine cheap, unlimited access to what is basically a high-fi webcam to tell your wife goodnight, while you're getting under the covers, instead of from some busy commons or mess-hall that you have to share with a million other people.
Most importantly, imagine Mardi Gras . . . No more waiting for the photos of naked breasts to appear randomly on the internet. Suddenly, they're streaming from Joe Schmoe's MiniDisc recorder right to his website... Like I said, the possibilities are pretty endless.
The problem right now, of course, is that $2500 is a lot to spend. Even $1000 would seem pricey. And the camera itself doesn't look very comfortable. Perhaps if there were a way to easily transition it from a standard handy-cam setup to a more typical flat-standing camera that you could set on a surface somewhere and get in front of (like you would with a little Logitech webcam, strapped to the top of your computer, or elsewhere), it would be easier to handle.
It also says that images, once transferred to your computer, are in 640x480 resolution. That isn't horrible, but it doesn't say whether it can achieve higher resolution than that. In other words, do they mean that if you want to store 4500 images, it has to be done at 640x480? Or is 640x480 literally the highest resolution any single image can reach? For $2500, I'd want a finer quality. --- icq:2057699 seumas.com
I'm a Metallica fan, but I expected Lars to be more of a dumbass with regard to this topic.
I did not expect such candor from Metallica. Lars made points which were completely valid. As Utopian as free-exchange-of-information and globally accessible libraries of music via Napster and Gnutella and such is, it still comes down to the fact that it is their product. Their music and art.
I cannot walk into a store and say that I feel the television they are selling is outrageously overpriced, and thereby justify walking out with it in my arms, thumbing my nose at the clerks and owners.
In addition, the fact that Metallica only went after those they believed (although I still believe screen and file names are not wholly legitimate forms of proof) to be trading in *their* music, suggests that they are not in favor of destroying Napster and those like it, but enforcing copyrights which are infringed through it.
As an example, let's say that someone posts the full text of an entire collection of novels on Usenet. The author of those novels finds the owner of the account who is responsible for posting them and, instead of targetting Usenet and seeking to 'shut it down', takes action against the individual responsible for the distcint criminal act.
All I see Lars promoting is the right to do with your music as you wish. Contesting that right is rediculous. And as he points out, the fact that the price of a CD is unjustifiably high and that musicians earn a very small amount of the overall profit, is a seperate discussion entirely.
The act of music piracy cannot be justified by the legal (but unethical and grossly immoral) practices of the music industry.
I've been a Metallica fan for a long time. They're the only 'metal' band that I listen to. So I've followed this thing pretty closely and even felt rather enraged at Metallica over the way they've handled many parts of this fiasco. But in the end, their views and reasons are just. I no more want to see James' and Lars' creative work traded around like a cracked copy of StarCraft than I do anything I've written or created.
Just because Metallica is unbelievably successful doesn't mean they own anyone a damn thing. Not the record companies and not Johnny College Boy bogging down his school's bandwidth downloading Metallica's S&M. If Johnny were downloading, say, Beethoven or Mozart -- or even modern compositions or alternative music from new bands who have expressely made their work publically available without cost, then that's great. But just because Napster and Gnutella can be used for this, doesn't mean that they are being used for it. (I do not, however, support holding Napster any more responsible for this than I do the manufacturer of a newsreader program that allows you to post anything you want to Usenet -- the violation is still an individual act and should be treated as such).
Anyway, Metallica makes great music. I don't believe this should diminish their respectability as musicians or 'rebels'. Just because they don't sell their CD's with the same sort of legal agreement that would allow you to freely distribute the contents of a RedHat CD that you may buy, doesn't mean they're some sort of corporate vulture praying on music-lovers. (Their record company is a different thing all together, though...) --- icq:2057699 seumas.com
Well, they don't mention anything about just patenting the process or anything else as far as I can tell. The brief article really does seem to suggest they've literally patented the scent of grass.
My dog figured this out years ago. Fresh pile of cut grass. Roll in it. There you go. Now you smell like grass. Whoo. My dog deserves royalties now, you corporate whores. Of course, he also does the same thing with dead birds and other really gross stuff.
Of all the stupid things I've seen, this is probably the absolute stupidest in a very long time. If there is a god, I hope he or she has deep pockets or else patents like these are going to put him or her out of business.
Of course, I suppose gods could claim prior-art. --- icq:2057699 seumas.com
It's nice, for once, to see Microsoft walking into things with the mentality that they've always carried. Instead of helping them here, it makes the situation worse. It's like the little kid who's parents let him get away with practically anything. Parents go away for the weekend and hire an old-bitty of a babysitter and the little kid suddenly finds himself being scolded every time he turns around. He just isn't used to this and doesn't know how to react.
Eventually, like the little spoiled kid, Microsoft will run off and pout in the corner -- maybe bully a few of the other little kids while they're at it, just to get their rocks off and feel a like they have a little manhood left.
I'm really surprised by the way Judge Jackson and the rest of the government has handled this case. It is very impressive.
I'd be interested to see a book by this Judge a few years after all of this is over. I'm not sure what his history is before practicing law, but he seems to be rather wise in the way he approaches these issues, even if they may not be within the average judge's grasp. I mean, for god's sake, how many other judges would have spent a night personally removing MSIE from Windows95 on their own just to see if it could be done?
Now, granted, I wouldn't want a lawyer to try the same thing in a medical malpractice suit, but . .. --- icq:2057699 seumas.com
All I saw was 'Nodes' and thought Cool! A post about Everything2!
Bah. It sounded cool, but the server is pegged out with too many users. So my comment will end up being off topic, even though I intended to make the smart-ass remark and then read the article, then add something relevant and interesting to my post. --- icq:2057699 seumas.com
This is a great idea. The site ties in a little too much with the book to be useful on its own, but it is great to see someone who played such a part in history -- even in the background of it, share it on the internet.
I'm not about to compare Kranz to other great people like Genghis Khan or Napoleon or Beethoven or Patton, but could you imagine if all of our great thinkers and leaders had websites where they could share their views and experiences and 'inside stories'? It's too late for the past, but what will it be like 100 years from now when everyone from heads of state to poets and writers, musicians, architects and scientists share what was really behind the scenes.
Christ, imagine what it would be like to have the likes of Leonardo DaVinchi on the web, in his own words, pictures and creations! (I wonder if Leo would have dug Java or PHP3?).
I think we're just breaking the tip of the ice-berg. There are a million stories to be told and with the anonymity of the Internet (or the potential anonymity as the case may be if you take precaution) may encourage even more of them to share.
I'm not sure if these things exist, but I'd love to know more about (and from the mouths of) test pilots, nuclear scientists who were involved with projects in the 50's, officers in the Vietnam war and Word War Two and many other events. The pictures, stories, intricate details... It could be a very impressive thing!
Okay, I know -- this is all a little too utopian, but I've seen a few good sites like these and this one sparked the excitement along a little further... --- icq:2057699 seumas.com
Slashdot Mirror
Could an international committee alleviate that? Probably not. I think an international organization would be more likely to turn the net into just another global social program, of sorts. And worse, I doubt they'll be as accountable as, say, our own governments.
When Senator so and so votes to uphold the CDA or CDA2, I know who to hold accountable come the next elections, in America. Same in Australia. But what do I do if some UN Chartered (or similar) group who's members are relatively unknown and are not voted into office, decides that some random rule must be enforced and that I just have to live with it?
Further, what if the United States Government decides that they are not going to require their populace to follow said rule(s)?
I'm not a huge fan of 'government' in any form, but I have to say that I prefer the internationally independant choices of each country and jurisdiction over some half-assed elitist group of eighty-year-old computer-illiterate white-haired international internet committee. I thought the glory of the internet was supposedly the lack of need for government and the stretching of physical political boundaries -- not mass netizen unification under some group who proclaims total online governance.
But that's just me . . .
---
icq:2057699
seumas.com
Let's put aside the fact that, at best, I will have 144kbps where I live (if it is installed within the six weeks I'm told I will have to wait).
Let's put aside the fact that I can't tolerate cable programming, except some of the more high-prices services like CineMax, Encore, HBO and so on.
Also, let's put aside the fact that since the only decent cable channels are those which play movies which I could simply rent for far less per month from a local movie store (or subscribe to over ugh DivX, if I had it).
And, finally, let's put aside the fact that I haven't watched television since January 27th, 2000.
Why on earth would I pay $10 and up to watch grainy, choppy television on my 21" computer screen? Seriously, what legitimate reasons are there for sitting in front of a computer screen on at your desk, watching a handful of television channels that you could get on your television a few feet away? This whole idea seems like it's just destined to fail, even if almost a million people signed up when it was originally offered.
Give me some unique content, a promise that I will not find your servers constantly bogged down and that I can make use of TiVo-like services to record, pause and replay content and maybe -- just maybe I could comprehend that I might possibly be interested.
I'll be interested in television again when I can completley choose the content and time of viewing -- and not just from four channels and eight movies. I want to be able to watch four episodes of Dr. Who (which episodes, left to me to choose), an episode of FarScape and then, finally, an episode of The Munsters and perhaps a couple Muppet's shows. (Well, perhaps not those shows specifically, but you get the point.)
I'm a dynamic person in a changing world and I don't want to sit passively in front of a television, hoping that the networking gods have decided to grant me something entertaining from their static programming for the evening -- and then keep my fat ass glued to the sofa watching some Meridith Baxter Bernie HallMark chick-flick just because I'm too lazy to get up or too mind-numbed to turn off the tube.
So maybe it's "big news" because it's television broadcast over the internet. Whoo. Amazing. Staggering. Imagine that... Porn sites have been doing this for years now, only without exactly the same content or content providers, of course. But if Paying $10 or $20 or $50 bucks per month to watch television on your fancy $1500 iMac makes you feel like you're a techno-god or getting the full use out of your over-priced computer, then go for it.
By the way, I wonder what plans they have for moving this service to the US? I know they have a lot of battles to fight before trying to do so, but if I recall, they have an office in Mountain View (California). Now, what would they be doing there?
---
icq:2057699
seumas.com
There is a lot more to pinball than pressing a left and right button to nudge a couple levers. But in a digital version, that's all there is. I want the audio pointing in my face and the scoreboard glowing in my eyes off the backplate. I want the plink! and smack! of the sliver ball whacking the glass when flipped too hard. I want to see things spin and whirl and launch the ball around. I want to be able to throw my weight into the game and control, for just a little while, that 200lb piece of wood, metal and glass.
I don't imagine I will ever touch the digital version anymore than I'll play a football or baseball videogame. If I want to play football, I'll go find some friends and get the pigskin out. I'll play videogames when I want to fire a plasma rifle at stinky aliens and start wars with other countries; things I can't do in real life.
---
icq:2057699
seumas.com
Something about wagering his soul... Certainly higher stakes than I would place on a game of pinball, but what the hell.
---
icq:2057699
seumas.com
Terminator
The Simpsons
GhostBusters
Adams Family
Twister
Jurasic Park
Batman
Friends
And then there are the obligatory Amusement Park variations of Pin-Ball. There must be three hundred of those games, where a clown laughs, a barker taunts you and you smack the ball around a makeshift amusement park or thrill-ride.
If they'd try to make some genuinely interesting pin-ball titles, perhaps they would stick around longer. Pin-ball isn't dead in people's hearts -- it's just not as prevalent in society. If there were a pin-ball machine in half the locations that arcade machines are (your local grocery store, your gas-station, your cafe and mall, etc.) people would naturally pop more quarters in, and a lot would probably grow semi-addicted. As it is, I'm sure there are a lot of grade-school kids who wouldn't be able to describe to you what a pin-ball machine is, let alone ever played one.
This also reminds me of a great story I read in a Science-Fiction/Fantasy anthology (I wish I could remember the title of the book or the authors), called Dante's Inferno, all about this guy addicted to this pinball machine in an arcade. I haven't read the story since I was about twelve, but I wish I could find it again. It was such a great tale.
Now that I'm making a handsome salary, I need to consider buying a vintage pinball machine for my apartment. Every eccentric geek needs one.
---
icq:2057699
seumas.com
We at Celera are pleased to be informed that you are willing to be a live participant in our modification and augmentation programs in light of our recent completion of the human genome map.
Please take a moment and indicate your interest in the following augmentations.
[ ] Increase in neural density (useful for writing entire program code in your head, bit for bit before actually reaching for the keyboard).
[ ] Duck brain (useful for shutting half of your brain down, for resting, without requiring any actual sleep. Great for month-long coding frenzies).
[ ] Nocturnal eye enhancement (allowing for indefinite periods sitting in front of your computer terminal without turning the lights on or opening the blinds in your office).
[ ] Bladder enhancement (through minor chemical alteration of your digestion system and bladder, your urine may instantly be recycled into Mt. Dew(tm), ready for consumption upon urination).
[ ] Moose sweat glands (never leave your office for a shower, but smell like you've just splashed on your favorite musk. An absolute must for any male in a work environment where he may occasionally encounter attractive females).
[ ] Vulcan Mind-Meld (communicate with fellow programmers and friends without risk of misinterpretation, but be sure not to meld with your female companion as she will use all information received as ammunition against you in future arguments. Note: mind-meld is far from perfected at this point and does result in the occasional paralysis or permanent psychosis).
[ ] Massive horse penis (self-explanatory).
[ ] Rob Malda dream-date (Natalie Portman physique, hot-grits-producing mammary glands, Anime hair... non-descriminate sense of humor.)
(Due to scientific needs and demands and available participants, we may not be able to cater to all desires perfectly and some modifications may be made which were not requested by you, the participant.)
Again, thank you for your interest and do contact us as soon as possible. We look forward to working with you!
Kind regards,
Celera
---
icq:2057699
seumas.com
For a group whose music I can only half-heartedly tolerate, they sure are a bunch of whacky guys. If I ever have a daughter and she insists on dating a real creep, I hope it's one of the OffSpring-type creeps.
After all, just like freely distributing pirated music supposedly generates great publicity for artists, distributing clothing with Napster logos and such should only further Napster's cause, right? . . . Right?
I'm really tired of this Napster deal. You know what? If you want commercialized music (ie, not free), then go BUY it. If you don't like the fact that you have to pay so much for it ($20 is a lot!) then protest by not buying it. Or set yourself on fire like the Tibetan monks or something. Just, for god's sake, quit whining about information wanting to be free and how evil the RIAA is and so forth. I agree, to a point, with all the points made by the pro-Napster side, but eventually it all get's so rediculous that you just can't support it anymore.
Sure, maybe you feel art should not be restricted or available only for a fee -- but it is. Art is a commodity and that is what keeps artists producing it. As much heart as a creative person may have, they need to eat, too. And if they are so successful that they can afford a gold Ferrari with sex slaves and a mexican house-boy, then cool -- I'm glad they could have such an impact on so many people and they deserve their cash.
The point being that two wrong's rarely make a right, and just ripping off music that someone else created -- when they have made it plainly obvious that they do not want their music distributed in such a way, is WRONG. Many people have posted before claiming "well, it's only wrong if you inject morality". No -- it's wrong if you inject common-sense, too. How many of you who are so steadfastly against the record industry ("They steal from the artists and don't pay them a dime!") have ever actually sent any money directly to an artist because you appreciated the great material they produced -- that you pirated? Never? That's what I thought.
The biggest problem our world seems to be facing in this arena is that when you sell oranges -- you have a set number of oranges to sell -- thus a limit to how many can be purchased. Someone can't buy an orange from you and then make ten more oranges out of that and give them to friends (who will then not buy oranges from you -- because they get them free from their friend). Oranges are tangible (not tangerinable) -- they cannot be replicated like an MP3 or photocopy can. With intellectual property, it almost feels like we're breaking a fundamental law of nature by not allowing it to be completely free -- only because a thought, video, song, game can be so quickly and easily reproduced for anyone who wants it -- at no cost. Still, as we've deemed art to be a commodity, whether or not something is easily replicable doesn't really impact on whether or not you are purchasing that unit and the rights to do what you will with it in entirety, but the rights to experience and own that copy of that information and share it with those you are able to -- so long as it is bound by that single existing copy. In other words, treat it like the oranges -- if you want all of your friends to see what an orange is like, let them taste yours -- but if they want their own oranges, they have to go buy them.
What it comes right down to is that you did not create this material. Someone else did. Who the fuck are you to decide how their work should be distributed? Don't rape the artist anymore than their record company already is, for christ's sake.
Just for the record, yes I have used Napster. I find it to be a pretty unreliable service with a poor selection (unless you're looking for hip-hop) that belches up half-recorded MP3's most of the time. So I'm not wholly innocent here. But I also do not have a single MP3 of a group that I have not purchased the album of. If I like a group well enough to keep their MP3's around, I usually decide to go drop the $20 or so for each of their albums (as my large collection will attest to). But there are a lot of people who will grab every MP3 they can from an artist and never think twice -- or ever purchase any of the group's releases, let alone ever consider paying the group for the tunes.
---
icq:2057699
seumas.com
Blowing up the moon would wreak ecological havoc on this planet, but that doesn't have anything to do with environmentalism. When you change things, there are effects. You can't just change the entire ecology of a several billion-year-old planet and expect there to be absolutely no side-effect. And if your narrow field of view only takes into account environmental possibilities in the sense of happy little squirrels and blooming flowers, you're missing an entire field of potential. As another poster pointed out, with the very imperfect spin of Mars, it would be difficult to successfully terraform, and even if we accomplished some manner of change, there's no telling what the actual result would be. Your small farming and research community in the desert one day could be flooded the next, or swept away in a massive storm.
Maybe you'd like to live there. In fact, I'd like you to live there, too. But I'll happily stay here where I know that Portland is going to be rainy, San Jose is going to be dry and hot, and there's a McDonald's on the corner of every street in both cities.
---
icq:2057699
seumas.com
It seems to me that altering an entire ecosystem (even a likely dead one like Mars) could have dire consequences that we may not be foresee. Maybe there would be no detrimental effect of doing such a thing, but plopping some people on a big planet and turning it from a poisonous atmosphere into Yellowstone Park is just too great an alteration to pass without somehow negatively affecting things.
Anyway, if anyone has ideas on how that could be, I'd be interested in reading them. Sure, it's a planet out in space and changing it shouldn't have any effect because, well, it's sort of in a bubble, but I'm still curious...
---
icq:2057699
seumas.com
It sounds like even if at 20,000+ feet, if I can get reliable 128k (or around there), it may be my best bet, to beat out the per-minute rate of ISDN.
Thanks.
---
icq:2057699
seumas.com
When I contacted AT&T, they said that they hadn't gotten around to installing digital cable for internet access in my area yet, but that they would do so probably by the end of July. I wasn't thrilled with this prospect, since I spent almost seven months in my previous residence in Portland, Oregon where I would be told it was available in my area one day and that it was still a mile away the next. I gave up after half a year.
PacificBell claims that there is absolutely no way I can get DSL in my area at this time and that they have absolutely no idea when or if I'll ever be able to.
Now, keep in mind, I live in the absolute heart of the Silicon Valley. A short drive from everything from Netscape and Sun to 3COM, HP, Apple, Cisco... In fact, I am within walking distance of Covad at this very moment. Yet for the life of me, I can't get anything beyond a 56k dial-up account.
Someone recently reccomended I look at Covad, but having just spent this evening browsing their site, I'm not quite sure how they fit into the picture. Is my phone company still involved? Does this mean I have to deal with Covad (they provide the DSL lines, perhaps?), my ISP and the phone company? Wow. Talk about beauracracy. For $90, plus tax, I can get 144kbps bi-directional DSL from some area DSL providers, according to links I found from Covad (But I'm not sure if this $90 is just the fee for the ISP or if it includes the DSL line, too? how does Covad get paid on this?). Unfortunately, higher speed seems to be impossible since I'm slightly over 20,000 feet from the main switches.
I'd really like to know what some experiences are with Covad and some DSL providers as I don't have much choice where I am and I'd be interested to know what process, what fees and what kudos or rants anyone may have with specific relation to Covad (and how they fit into my actual physical DSL and my ISP). Perhaps much of this is RTFM, but I kinda gave up on their site for the evening and moved on until tomorrow when I have more energy.
---
icq:2057699
seumas.com
Well, there are the Raven screenshots, which are exactly that...
---
icq:2057699
seumas.com
I wonder if I'll have to sign an EULA every time I launch a game. Or if I'll have to pay a yearly license for the right to play the game I already bought.
I wouldn't waste money on a game console -- but if I did, it wouldn't be this one. Maybe once someone creates a clone knock-off...
---
icq:2057699
seumas.com
I honestly think this girl was drunk or on crack or something. Or maybe just the result of too many free AOL CD's. But the point still stands that some people expect to just have to hand out their personal information. Or even want to. It's rediculous. When so many people are so careless with their rights, it makes me fear for the respect mine will be given.
---
icq:2057699
seumas.com
How about Seagram's, who in the appropriation of money has stolen mother's, fathers, brothers, sisters from the lives of tens or hundreds of millions of children with the willful distribution of an addictive and impairing 'drug'(alchohol)?
Of course, why fight for tougher drinking laws and greater penalties for crimes perpetrated while under intoxication instead of seeking tougher laws on privacy and anonymity, which effects the might-dollar you value so much?
---
icq:2057699
seumas.com
If the only logic these corporations have behind removing your privacy is "*pout*.. we're losing money... boo hoo!" then they can blow me. My personal privacy is more valuable than your corporate ledger any day, no matter how many thieves are out there.
The fact is, privacy won't stop people from stealing. How many people walk into a store and shoplift even though they know cameras are surrounding them? How many people speed even though they know there are patrol men potentially lurking around every corner? How many people cheat on their taxes? The truth is, the less privacy individuals have, the easier it is for Seagram's and others to steal from us. Easier to track where we go, what we do, what we buy, how much we make, what they can sell to us,when they can sell it, whether or not to give us health coverage...
Just to further prove my point, an AOL user recently complained to me because, unlike eBay, my auction site doesn't require people to send me a photocopy of their driver's license, their social security number and their credit card number.
I was floored. This person thought it was improper business practice (nevermind the fact that the site is not a business, but a FREE non profit-site) not to collect this extremely sensative data on every one of our 3,000 members.
If people expect that from the places they do business with, I'm afraid to know what the average person would sacrifice for the "sake of government" or the "sake of children" or the "sake of corporate pockets" or the "sake of jesus" or whatever else is this month's "for the sake of...".
---
icq:2057699
seumas.com
---
icq:2057699
seumas.com
...As read by James Earl Jones... ;)
---
icq:2057699
seumas.com
It would seem that there must somehow be a way to implement distribute.net into solving this (if there is any solution). Why work against each other if we can all work together and nail this?
I'm not a crytpo-expert, but my guess is that you would need to use a wide variety of formulaes to even ever discern that there is a pattern, let alone what the patterns signify. But the formulae could be well-tested on a mass-scale via distributed.net and then once a group of likely candidates is discovered, attack them on a massive scale and see if anything hits.
But like I say, I'm not an expert whatsoever. This just sounds like a way to approach it. But, unlike RC5 and DSS, this doesn't have a known answer hiding somewhere with any manner of known mathamatical processes of resolution, so brute-force would be out of the question, no? Unless there is a way to massively process *methods* and *formulaes* to see if they're even appropriate to ever do brute-force decryption along side.
---
icq:2057699
seumas.com
The possibilities, as these utilities improve and drop in price, are magnificent. A kid in school could suddenly have more than just a 'voice' on a website. A protestor could share with the world, first-hand, what is occuring between him and the police (such as during the WTO incident). If you're stopped by an office, you can just flip the switch on this baby and have instant proof if anything unprofessional occurs. You could share your daughter's soccer game with her father who is across the country -- in real time.
But one of the greatest things I can envision about this would be for urgent situations such as natural disasters and military operations. Imagine cheap, unlimited access to what is basically a high-fi webcam to tell your wife goodnight, while you're getting under the covers, instead of from some busy commons or mess-hall that you have to share with a million other people.
Most importantly, imagine Mardi Gras . . . No more waiting for the photos of naked breasts to appear randomly on the internet. Suddenly, they're streaming from Joe Schmoe's MiniDisc recorder right to his website... Like I said, the possibilities are pretty endless.
The problem right now, of course, is that $2500 is a lot to spend. Even $1000 would seem pricey. And the camera itself doesn't look very comfortable. Perhaps if there were a way to easily transition it from a standard handy-cam setup to a more typical flat-standing camera that you could set on a surface somewhere and get in front of (like you would with a little Logitech webcam, strapped to the top of your computer, or elsewhere), it would be easier to handle.
It also says that images, once transferred to your computer, are in 640x480 resolution. That isn't horrible, but it doesn't say whether it can achieve higher resolution than that. In other words, do they mean that if you want to store 4500 images, it has to be done at 640x480? Or is 640x480 literally the highest resolution any single image can reach? For $2500, I'd want a finer quality.
---
icq:2057699
seumas.com
I did not expect such candor from Metallica. Lars made points which were completely valid. As Utopian as free-exchange-of-information and globally accessible libraries of music via Napster and Gnutella and such is, it still comes down to the fact that it is their product. Their music and art.
I cannot walk into a store and say that I feel the television they are selling is outrageously overpriced, and thereby justify walking out with it in my arms, thumbing my nose at the clerks and owners.
In addition, the fact that Metallica only went after those they believed (although I still believe screen and file names are not wholly legitimate forms of proof) to be trading in *their* music, suggests that they are not in favor of destroying Napster and those like it, but enforcing copyrights which are infringed through it.
As an example, let's say that someone posts the full text of an entire collection of novels on Usenet. The author of those novels finds the owner of the account who is responsible for posting them and, instead of targetting Usenet and seeking to 'shut it down', takes action against the individual responsible for the distcint criminal act.
All I see Lars promoting is the right to do with your music as you wish. Contesting that right is rediculous. And as he points out, the fact that the price of a CD is unjustifiably high and that musicians earn a very small amount of the overall profit, is a seperate discussion entirely.
The act of music piracy cannot be justified by the legal (but unethical and grossly immoral) practices of the music industry.
I've been a Metallica fan for a long time. They're the only 'metal' band that I listen to. So I've followed this thing pretty closely and even felt rather enraged at Metallica over the way they've handled many parts of this fiasco. But in the end, their views and reasons are just. I no more want to see James' and Lars' creative work traded around like a cracked copy of StarCraft than I do anything I've written or created.
Just because Metallica is unbelievably successful doesn't mean they own anyone a damn thing. Not the record companies and not Johnny College Boy bogging down his school's bandwidth downloading Metallica's S&M. If Johnny were downloading, say, Beethoven or Mozart -- or even modern compositions or alternative music from new bands who have expressely made their work publically available without cost, then that's great. But just because Napster and Gnutella can be used for this, doesn't mean that they are being used for it. (I do not, however, support holding Napster any more responsible for this than I do the manufacturer of a newsreader program that allows you to post anything you want to Usenet -- the violation is still an individual act and should be treated as such).
Anyway, Metallica makes great music. I don't believe this should diminish their respectability as musicians or 'rebels'. Just because they don't sell their CD's with the same sort of legal agreement that would allow you to freely distribute the contents of a RedHat CD that you may buy, doesn't mean they're some sort of corporate vulture praying on music-lovers. (Their record company is a different thing all together, though...)
---
icq:2057699
seumas.com
My dog figured this out years ago. Fresh pile of cut grass. Roll in it. There you go. Now you smell like grass. Whoo. My dog deserves royalties now, you corporate whores. Of course, he also does the same thing with dead birds and other really gross stuff.
Of all the stupid things I've seen, this is probably the absolute stupidest in a very long time. If there is a god, I hope he or she has deep pockets or else patents like these are going to put him or her out of business.
Of course, I suppose gods could claim prior-art.
---
icq:2057699
seumas.com
Eventually, like the little spoiled kid, Microsoft will run off and pout in the corner -- maybe bully a few of the other little kids while they're at it, just to get their rocks off and feel a like they have a little manhood left.
I'm really surprised by the way Judge Jackson and the rest of the government has handled this case. It is very impressive.
I'd be interested to see a book by this Judge a few years after all of this is over. I'm not sure what his history is before practicing law, but he seems to be rather wise in the way he approaches these issues, even if they may not be within the average judge's grasp. I mean, for god's sake, how many other judges would have spent a night personally removing MSIE from Windows95 on their own just to see if it could be done?
Now, granted, I wouldn't want a lawyer to try the same thing in a medical malpractice suit, but . . .
---
icq:2057699
seumas.com
Bah. It sounded cool, but the server is pegged out with too many users. So my comment will end up being off topic, even though I intended to make the smart-ass remark and then read the article, then add something relevant and interesting to my post.
---
icq:2057699
seumas.com
I'm not about to compare Kranz to other great people like Genghis Khan or Napoleon or Beethoven or Patton, but could you imagine if all of our great thinkers and leaders had websites where they could share their views and experiences and 'inside stories'? It's too late for the past, but what will it be like 100 years from now when everyone from heads of state to poets and writers, musicians, architects and scientists share what was really behind the scenes.
Christ, imagine what it would be like to have the likes of Leonardo DaVinchi on the web, in his own words, pictures and creations! (I wonder if Leo would have dug Java or PHP3?).
I think we're just breaking the tip of the ice-berg. There are a million stories to be told and with the anonymity of the Internet (or the potential anonymity as the case may be if you take precaution) may encourage even more of them to share.
I'm not sure if these things exist, but I'd love to know more about (and from the mouths of) test pilots, nuclear scientists who were involved with projects in the 50's, officers in the Vietnam war and Word War Two and many other events. The pictures, stories, intricate details... It could be a very impressive thing!
Okay, I know -- this is all a little too utopian, but I've seen a few good sites like these and this one sparked the excitement along a little further...
---
icq:2057699
seumas.com