Advancement always has winners and losers. We have become a two-tiered ecomomy. At one end there are service jobs - which are low-paying, have similar skill sets and pay little. People in this set are interchangeable, even if they are good at their jobs, because the cost of training and the benefit of ability to the bottom line is small. For lots of technical jobs, the skills to learn them take a long time. They are not as exchangeable over time, because the knowledge is harder to attain and can only be gotten through experience. These jobs make a lot of money, so they are targets for downsizing if possible.
The problem is that the technical class is expected to specialize - the specialized knowledge is how they keep their jobs in the first place. Of course, when you spend time specializing, it's hard to get a broad skill set, and when your line of work goes under, the time it takes to retrain into another specialized field is long. When a specialty goes under, you have a large amount of instant un(der)employment which takes a long time to remedy and even then usually ends with the people making less than before (which was the point, I guess). The kind of in-depth knowledge that is need to keep a technical job is inconsistent with the kind of broad knowledge required to have a hedge against job loss. At the other end, people in service jobs don't have much incentive to be good - being good doesn't necessarily result in higher pay, but takes time away from generating broad based skills that will be needed because of the transient nature of the labor market. Where we encourage people to be good at what they do, we hold them responsible for not having broad skills, and where we view people as replaceable, we're unhappy that they don't take the time to do them well. I've left out the managerial set, which is small but seems the only potential class to benefit from this structure - the transience of service labor makes them necessary there, while at technical jobs coordination between specialties is necessary. Money generated by cutting jobs or outsourcing goes disproportionately to this class.
Things change, and that is good - we don't make buggy whips because there are better and more useful things to be done. The system that we are building is one where neither particular knowledge nor satisfaction in work quality is valued. There may be lots of interesting things to do, but if they're done badly or slowly by a population constantly looking over its shoulder, I'm not certain that we've improved ourselves. People focus on the old fields because their loss highlights the risks of specialization - when outsourcing of jobs in a technical field happens, lots of people are likely to be jobless for a long time. The risk weighs on anyone in a similar field, and the way to mitigate that risk makes it more likely that one will lose one's job. Hence the wailing and gnashing of teeth - we're in a Catch-22 and don't see a way out that isn't counterproductive to us,.
I don't like almost anything that President Bush has done - that probably colors my (and others) opinion of this idea. That being said, the merits of the idea are determined by more than just a speech.
1) What is the plan for getting this done? Is the plan technically feasible?
2) Will there be enough money to fund it? Will the money go to the right people? Will the right people have authority to make decisions on the execution?
3) What is the long-term purpose?
The problem with this is President Bush's execution of some of his other plans hasn't been so hot. It would have been hard to find OBL anyway, but committing Afghanistan-based troops to it probably doesn't help to find him. The war in Iraq was an effective military move (except that it strained the military significantly - while the state of unpreparedness isn't due to GWB, he planned extensive military missions knowing that state) but less effective at stabilizing Iraq. It doesn't seem that he (or his staff) had an effective plan for the aftermath of the Iraq war - while whatever good that has been achieved in Iraq has been ill-publicized, the disorder currently in force makes it difficult for that good to endure long, and the disorder doesn't seem to have been anticipated by the GWB administration. The furor over the Halliburton deals to rebuild Iraqi infrastructure also seems relevant here. Running a deficit in times of recession wouldn't be so bad, but the current deficit is rather large, and the amount of actual spending in the budget has probably been helped further by low interest rates (lowering the interest payments on the debt accrued). Neither Reagan or Bush Sr. were able to effectively take steps to decrease the size of the federal gov't, one of the reasons for lowering taxes in the first place. From the way things have gone, I don't see GWB decreasing the size of the federal gov't either - thus the "fiscally responsible" Republicans are spending money without an idea of how it will be repaid.
Given the poor execution or thought in the plans GWB has put into play, there are some reasons to distrust this plan. I would also have mistrusted this plan under Clinton - Clinton seemed great at coming up with things but not so good at executing them. Bad execution of a plan of this sort will make it more difficult to achieve those goals later, and so it is a good idea to make sure it is done right. Since I don't trust GWB to do so, an attempt to go to the moon now (IMO) might be counterproductive.
I think that the point of Palladium ("trusted computing") and upload restrictions via ISPs is to do precisely that - to destroy the ability of individuals to publish on the Internet and replace it with a broadcasting medium in which only the privileged few can afford to publish, thus creating a world where content providers (if you can call it content, but I guess since people want it it must be) can feel safe from any potential copyright infringement. Of course, their safety is bought at our expense (by negating much of the Internet's utility) but that's a small price to pay to hear more RIAA-assisted Britney Spears clones.
...occurs whether or not I buy the music defended by the RIAA. Even if we manage to drag the music companies into their well-deserved graves, the restrictions that the legislators they bought and paid for will still be there. The material they copyrighted will never become public domain as the law intended because the copy protection they intend to force can't be broken legally - when they die it dies. The laws that altered copyright to make this possible will still exist, ready to be used by another generation of (soon-to-be) failed businesses.
The widespread disregard for property rights you attribute to infringers is not limited to them. The music industry has "copy protected" CDs, making them harder or impossible for their legal purchasers to use while not impeding the ability of commercial infringers to copy. The DMCA manages not only to withdraw a host of Bill of Rights protections, but also effectively negates a large portion of copyright law - rights explicitly given or requiring explicit denial in law. The RIAA and its component labels have not shown respect for these rights - considering their actions (raising CD prices while denigrating content and making it harder to use) they haven't shown much respect for their customers either. It's hard to expect respect from your customers (or potential customers) for your rights when your business has shown either utter disregard or contempt for the similar rights of others.
The laws that the RIAA has bought or paid for will last long after they are dead, and we will pay for them, regardless of whether we cease buying their products. Complaining to and through the government to prevent these laws is necessary so that we can get back to the main entertainment of watch the music industry rot.
...it's just another way of looking at it. The food chain for content providers is problematic, whether in how CPs obtain the money from products or in what they use the money for (for example, for advertising and "making stars"). CPs forget that it's the customers' money, not theirs, and to get it, they have to convince customers to give it to them for what they have. To get him to come back, they have to give him enough that he feels the trade was fair. Instead, they want to make him to think the product is great (through advertising) while taking more from him for the product to pay for the image they sell. This technique isn't working so well, but instead of changing, CP have decided that forcing the consumers to give them more money for less product with more restriction is what consumers really want. They seem to think that their money is a natural phenomenon, and that people will continue to buy their content at their price. It helps if you control distribution, as CP have been accused of doing before. If that were true, then a conspiracy theory is not required because when one group makes the rules, they don't need to conspire with anyone else. If there isn't anywhere else to get music, your customers have to like what you sell or get nothing at all. Now, however, they can go elsewhere, and the assumptions that underpin that sales model fail miserably.
The CP (in particular, the music industry) is a dinosaur overwhelmed by small rodents. It needs a lot of energy just to stay alive, and yet it's not fast enough to run and catch its own food. When the rodents stop showing up, it can't chase them, and it certainly can't stop them from surviving. Its only hope is to cooperate with the rodents for its survival, but it has spent its life eating them and so that is not possible. The illusion of dominance is all it has, and cooperation would force it to give that illusion up.
Mr. Morrissey can think and write as he wishes - but I should not be obligated to read his output (or that of the millions of spamming brethren he represents) or have either me or my business pay for them. Spam forces others to listen to the author's viewpoint and forces the unwilling listener to pay for it. Spam as free speech is a method not entirely consistent with the 1st Amendment you claim to defend.
If spam is free speech, then there's nothing wrong with Mr. Morrissey getting some. If it's wrong, then there's something wrong with his defense of it. Your defense of his stance is thus not consistent. Don't worry, though, there's still time for you to join the SCO legal team before they go out of business - they could use your incisive wit to support their further incursions into legal insanity.
most businesses live or die by attracting customers - either by providing a cheaper product, or a better product, or better service. Content providers have instead raised the prices of their products, lowered their quality, and made them more difficult to use, and are then surprised when sales decrease. The same businesspeople now wish to use copyright law and the DMCA to further increase their profits. None of these changes benefit the consumers - all hurt them. Theft/copyright infringement (depending on the business) won't go away, but as long as screwing over your customers is your business model, you can expect both of them to increase dramatically.
Trust shouldn't be an issue - if people are happy with the product, not many will steal or copy it, because they will be happy with what they get for their money. Since there is another method (the Internet) to copy music, and people are frustrated with content providers, they copy, because they can. The content providers act to increase people's anger with them, and instead of providing people with what they want at a price they will pay, they threaten and try to force compliance, increasing the frustration of their customers while publicizing the circumvention method. Brilliant.
Business models don't require trust - to be sustainable, their simply require an exchange both sides see as fair. The content industries have tried to force deals on their customers that their customers see as unfair. A fair business model doesn't require unbounded naivete or ignorance of theft/copyright infringement, but a simple understanding that both the customers and the sellers should walk away feeling treated fairly. The seller has a right to protect himself, but if he does so at my expense I have the right to walk away. The price-fixing investigations in the music industry indicate that the music industry and other content providers want to limit other (legal) sources of content to force their deals on the consumer. Thus, "trust" is required (or feigned) because consumers have already decided that the deals presented are not in their best interest, and some other method is required to compel their acceptance.
When gas prices go up, there are a lot more "drive-offs" or thefts of gasoline. Why? Most people have the money to afford gas (or shouldn't be driving if they can't). I believe that people don't trust gasoline companies (and, by analogy, the selling agents, gas stations) - they believe that the gasoline companies will take advantage of them to their detriment without corresponding benefits to them. The users (gasoline purchasers) aren't trusted and have no say. They steal in part as a misguided response to their disadvantagement - they don't feel that there is another way to make their feelings known and respected or that the ways available to them are pointless.
The content providers (CPs) have never trusted their audience. If you trust your audience, screwing them over is not an option. Instead, CPs have raised the prices of their content while lowering its quality and making it harder to use. The defenses (warranties) that users have for other products don't work for music. Do I own the physical disc or licence its content? CPs say both and neither - essentially whatever protects them at my expense is their answer. The people who infringe copyrights are wrong, but they are not betraying any sort of trust - by their actions, the CPs have shown no respect for or willingness to give trust. The CPs are now receiving the fruits of their labors. Paybacks are a b**ch.
particularly wrt the unfortunate comments of the Diebold president...
considering the (what should be) massive security on bank machines, does this give any further pause to the added "safety" of "trusted computing"? Given that you can't secure critical applications to users, what makes me think that TCP will be able to secure my computer from anything but me?
I'd like to believe this, but if the economy comes around (and in some ways it seems to be doing so) people may be inclined to vote with their wallets, particularly if they don't see the bill coming later. While the frustration over Iraq may linger, I think people will forget about it, swallow hard, and vote for W.
Not that this is good, mind you, but it could easily happen.
I dislike Bush and the wonders he's wrought, but the problems are not exclusively Republican - after all, the RIAA's attack dog for destruction of copyright is a Democrat, as well as many of those who backed Patriot Act I - The Abortion; the DMCA, I think (but don't know), was a bipartisan production. While the Democrats haven't had the open-mouthed fantasy of fascism that President Bush and his chosen brethren appear to have, people will take as much power as they can, particularly if they think no one's looking.
There is plenty to indict the Republicans for, but power-hungriness is probably a bipartisan sin, countered only by watching government like a hawk and making sure the voters know what their government is doing.
UF could have monitored bandwidth only (cutting off those who use too much) which would not have required any sort of monitoring and could have effectively addressed the problems. Furthermore, bandwidth access doesn't require the administrator maintenance that keeping up with the Jones (or Kazaa variants) will inevitably require. Instead, UF chose an extraordinarily intrusive system to monitor usage. The concept behind ICARUS is similar to that supporting all DRM. I pay money to restrict my behavior to protect someone else from a reality (the ability of digital media to be copied) they refuse to acknowledge. I get no benefit, other than the "right" to buy disabled goods at an increased price while allowing others access to my life in ways that I would willingly give very few people. Unlike TCMP and the other trusted computing variants, where I (theoretically) have a choice not to buy their products, UF students have no choice but to support this - even if they choose to use other methods of web access, their tuition still supports it.
When someone chooses a restrictive method to achieve an end when a less restrictive one would do as well, the restriction is part of the goal. The potential of a government entity to decide what is good usage and what is bad usage with very little say (and even less for those with insufficient money to afford off-campus Internet access) is not good for anyone - if they can do it to them, they can do it to you. The fact that UF wishes to support the RIAA's mass delusion that they can control media absolutely should not require me (if I were a UF student) to support it as well.
..and SCO is naked and covered in fermented sardines.
I think this is even better than the SCO execs-go-to-hardcore-federal-prison outcome - kind of like the scene in the book Jurassic Park where the clueless exec is tranquilized and the devoured by carrion-eating dinosaurs. SCO can fulfill its ultimate purpose - to be food for something more useful than itself.
I believe that most virus species use DNA rather than RNA to replicate - this is why AIDS was (is) difficult to deal with at first, because RNA viruses aren't as common, and so people weren't as familiar with their behavior. Reverse transcriptase isn't present in most viruses because they use DNA, rather than RNA, to carry information - once the DNA gets into the cell, the virus uses the cell to reproduce (DNA is copied to DNA, RNA read from the DNA is read to generate proteins) just as in the cell normally. Retroviruses use reverse transcriptase to copy RNA to DNA - the cell can then integrate the DNA into its own DNA and replicate the virus. Reverse transcriptase in HIV is a target for inhibitors because most species don't read from RNA to DNA, but only the reverse (DNA --> RNA ---> protein) - thus inhibiting RT wouldn't kill normal cells (or most viruses), only HIV (and other retroviruses).
I think that most viruses contain proteins to gain entry into the cell as part of the output from their DNA. If the virus is duplicated, the protein controlling entry into the cell must also be duplicated. I didn't RTA. but the authors may have left that protein out so that it couldn't reproduce in the wild - if it can't infect cells, it will replicate only slowly (as fast as its DNA is naturally taken up by cells) and thus not mutate very fast (so that it can't overcome its inability to enter cells). The ability of the assembled DNA to form a coherent package would in itself be significant.
I thought that the 2nd Amendment has been specifically affirmed by the Supreme Court (in 1934?) to refer to the individual's right to bear arms rather than simply the right to bear arms as an element of a state-sponsored armed force. If not, it is likely to be so soon (the SC is set to review a related case soon). Unfortunately, no such luck with the 4th.
I think it's called the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (the "cruel and unusual punishment" amendment).
On the other hand since we've decided that the 1st (speech - DMCA) and 4th (illegal search and seizure - the Patriot Act and lots of Supreme Court decisions) Amendments aren't really that important* anyway, this concept may remain just that - a principle to which lip service is given but which is ignored in practice.
* There may be other amendments that have been conveniently ignored in recent years - these are just the ones I'm pretty sure of.
when someone has a combover, they know that they're losing their hair, and the people that see them know they're losing their hair. Combovers are an attempt to deny reality - everyone can see what the underlying truth is (they're losing their hair) - but the person using it is hoping that if they deny it no one will notice.
The RIAA has attempted to silence people who have said that anything digital for viewing or listening by humans can be copied. We know it, they know it, and they know we know it. The RIAA hopes that by denying the reproducibility of digital media, we'll forget about it, and then see duplication as unnatural and evil when it happens. DRM can be circumvented, and it only has to be beaten once. If the DRM can't be beaten, then listeners can feed the analog input into a digital device and convert it to digital with no DRM. (DRM is effective at controlling computer-only media, as long as no one takes a photo of the screen.) DRM is likely to be as effective at changing the underlying reality of digital media as a combover is at changing my hair growth (or lack thereof).
Of course, to get to the point where the media companies with try to encase this new media with DRM, someone has to show that it is more effective than what is around now. From other posts, this may not be the case (blueray DVD, etc. are likely to have higher storage capacities) - so worrying about DRM is somewhat premature with respect to this storage medium.
Mass infringers ignore the DMCA, so it doesn't affect nearly all of the duplication for profit. It doesn't protect the artists/programmers/etc. whose copyrights are violated - that's a separate issue, and the money from those violations probably will never see the bank account of an actual artist or programmer in this universe. The DMCA is present to control access to media - to circumvent other laws (copyright laws) which allow works to enter the domain after a period of time once the author has been permitted to sell them for a limited period of time. The DMCA forces users not to circumvent access control measures which can then be installed. indefinitely. Once access control can be made permanent, the bargain between the people and the author that made copyright worthwhile to the public is negated. Access to works can be denied to many groups who are supposed to benefit from its use, such as poor people or libraries who may not have the money to pay for continuous rental of a work that by all rights (and by copyright law) should have defaulted to public domain. It allows the copyright business model to be replaced by one in which information is hoarded by those with money and restricted from those without. If law is supposed to protect the weak from the strong, the DMCA is contrary to this conception, by allowing the strong (the wealthy, information holders) to prey on the weak (the poor, the people) by taking away public domain and restricting their access to information paid for by them (through the gov't and the Copyright Office and the bargain on which copyright is based).
The DMCA protects no one who isn't already protected by copyright law - it however allows people (artists/programmers and their respective corporations) to rewrite copyright law without the consent of the people. The effort (and intent, since its means don't protect anyone not already protected by copyright) is to guarantee permanent copyright, thus rewriting copyright law in addition to the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution - by forbidding the dissemination of means, the DMCA is a significant abridgment of free speech. The DMCA destroys rights that benefit all citizens while giving legal rights previously exercised only by Congress to a few (whose output was already protected by other laws). I see no reason to support a law which takes away rights given me by Congress and gives them to private individuals, and in the bargain takes away rights deemed necessary to the existence of a free nation, all to benefit people whose output is already protected by law. This seems more than merely "inconvenient".
wouldn't that assume a level of competence from SCO's lawyers that they haven't yet managed to show? Attempting to invalidate the GPL while distributing GPL'd software in violation of the GPL and without the permission of the original authors seems like an original and painful way to commit suicide - while SCO and its lawyers seem competent at self-assassination, I'm not certain that they are competent enough to actually assassinate anything or anyone else.
Companies and committees are not individuals and in many cases do not value individuals in the same way that most people are expected to value other people. This makes it much easier for a company to depersonalize others - to negate the humanity of those who may have values or goals that conflict with those it has. Once this occurs, it's very easy to decide that if killing others generates money for the company, or at least allowing others to die, then the action that causes this is appropriate (e.g. Ford and the Pinto - deciding that the costs of settlements and lawsuits was outweighed by the costs of necessary repairs).
Sociopaths are people who have effectively depersonalized others into means for what they desire; they are the appropriate analogy for companies who commit evil for profit. They are not necessarily socially maladroit - they need to manipulate others to get what they want. Sociopathic companies are likely to look down on hackers and nerds because, to them, other people are valuable in on what they can get from them. In the eyes of a sociopath, nerds don't have humanity - they are simply ineffective at doing what sociopaths are effective at doing, getting what they desire from others. Since getting what they want from others is all that matters, sociopaths might look down on nerds because nerds are unsuccessful at (to sociopaths) the only thing that matters. Sociopathy doesn't require people to seem like "nutcases" or "psychopaths" - people with those characteristics don't work well as sociopaths because others don't want to associate with them and so can't be manipulated. Sociopaths simply don't factor the value of other people into their calculations for what they want - criminal sociopaths have ends which require harm to others.
Sociopaths need as a rule to be attractive to others so that they can get what they want from others. Stereotypical nerds are unattractive to others, or at least not good at communicating their needs to others. It is easy for others to perceive the lack of social aptitude of stereotypical nerds, whereas perceiving the sociopathic nature of a person is harder because they are adept at the social norms (and the pieces of character they lack are hard for others to perceive in any case until it is too late).
Obviously, not all companies behave sociopathically - but it seems to be easier for groups of people to dehumanize others than for individuals to dehumanize others. SCO is behaving more like the "nerd" stereotype than the "sociopath" stereotype (really they behave like a disorganized sociopath)- they're trying to (and starting to fail at) manipulate others into giving them what they want but they aren't very good at it.
I'm not knowledgeable at psychology (so I could be wrong) but I think that this is a reasonable framework. Sociopathic entities aren't insane - they are capable of distinguishing right or wrong and in doing the right. They simply don't care about right or wrong so long as what they do fulfills their goals. They do not behave as the the "raving lunatic" stereotypes of insanity would imply - that would impede their ability to achieve their ends. Social ineptitude and active evil are two different things, but social ineptitude is much easier to perceive than evil in most cases.
by the broadcast flag? Is she willing to change her schedule around and sit through commercials to watch these shows? If so, then the BF will work for her, but I think a lot of people will be less than willing to going back to living on broadcast time once they have been able to do otherwise. This is a choice the the broadcast flag appears to mandate, and I think that it's a much harder choice than others consumers are/will be faced with, such as (for example) either getting music from KaZaa or from a DRMd (but convenient) music service.
You can't unring a bell, and you can't will yourself to unlearn knowledge. Forgetting that they didn't have to sit through commercials or schedule their lives around TV shows is something that a lot of people will find hard to do - and the people who will likely find it hardest to do are people with the money to choose other entertainment, the people that TV wants desperately not to do so. Nothing like alienating a large portion of the target audience, particularly a lot of those with the money to buy the products advertised on the networks, to send yourself into bankruptcy.
You fools^H^H^H^H^Hconsumers will buy anything we tell you to. If that means you can't skip commercials, watch your old tapes, or time-shift programming, we'll just sell you neutered technology to do part of what you used to get for free at an inflated price.
This seems to be the frame of mind of the people who came up with this incipient CF - an arrogant assumption that people will accept what the networks give them, and will forget anything that they want people to forget. The problem is, people have the money that the networks want, and they aren't likely to forget the fact that they used to watch their shows when they wanted without commercials and now they can't. People have short memories, but changes such as this are precisely what people are likely to remember. Unless they can write laws forcing people to buy HDTV and keep them on, they can't make people buy their neutering of content. If the TV networks stop nondigital broadcast in 2006, then people may find out they can live without TV, thus guaranteeing the networks a fast, painful death. If they don't then the broadcast flag is irrelevant. Either way, they lose.
Since the airlines have had financial problems, a lot of routes have been shifted to budget airlines - these airlines, I believe, have less restrictive flight rules (pilots fly more) while paying significantly less. In addition, pilots (and air traffic controllers) are in some of the highest stress jobs around - at least if a bus gets in an accident, you can jump off, an option not usually available to airline passengers.
and 2? Yes, they're overpaid, but why were they signed to those deals in the first place? In football (the NFL), the ability to negate contracts makes long-term deals (even for washed-up athletes) reasonable - if the athletes do well, the contract probably is financially OK, and if they do badly, they can be cut. In other sports, most high-money deals involve the stupidity of the owners in addition to the greed of the players. This is particularly true with the biggest contracts (for example, Alex Rodriguez got his 12 year, $252M contract by getting Tom Hicks to bid against himself and lose). In sports with guaranteed contracts, one would hope that the people making the contracts would take significant care in making long-term financial committments, but that is not necessarily true.
The real overpaid people in both of these cases are the people who made the bad business decisions that have caused these problems. Do you think airline CEO's aren't getting paid a lot to complain to Congress and squeeze their employees? Sports franchise owners at least put their money on the line, only to forget everything they knew about business once they do so.
it might not be so much to prevent pirating or Linux computing on the X-box as a way to get into chip design and knowledge for the hardware required to implement Palladium - if MS is solely dependent upon Intel or AMD for implementation of "trusted computing" it may not be as able to control the implementation effectively, while if they have an internal resource to design and fabricate chips, they can compete more effectively with competing standards from chip manufacturers. Since the evil that is trusted computing is a centerpiece for Microsoft's future, knowledge of the technologies required for it makes sense for MS. (this is assuming that Microsoft doesn't already have internal resources for DRM - even in that case, this may be another way to try DRM out in the field and to see how it works/doesn't work before they release it as part of Palladium).
Slashdot Mirror
Advancement always has winners and losers. We have become a two-tiered ecomomy. At one end there are service jobs - which are low-paying, have similar skill sets and pay little. People in this set are interchangeable, even if they are good at their jobs, because the cost of training and the benefit of ability to the bottom line is small. For lots of technical jobs, the skills to learn them take a long time. They are not as exchangeable over time, because the knowledge is harder to attain and can only be gotten through experience. These jobs make a lot of money, so they are targets for downsizing if possible.
The problem is that the technical class is expected to specialize - the specialized knowledge is how they keep their jobs in the first place. Of course, when you spend time specializing, it's hard to get a broad skill set, and when your line of work goes under, the time it takes to retrain into another specialized field is long. When a specialty goes under, you have a large amount of instant un(der)employment which takes a long time to remedy and even then usually ends with the people making less than before (which was the point, I guess). The kind of in-depth knowledge that is need to keep a technical job is inconsistent with the kind of broad knowledge required to have a hedge against job loss. At the other end, people in service jobs don't have much incentive to be good - being good doesn't necessarily result in higher pay, but takes time away from generating broad based skills that will be needed because of the transient nature of the labor market. Where we encourage people to be good at what they do, we hold them responsible for not having broad skills, and where we view people as replaceable, we're unhappy that they don't take the time to do them well. I've left out the managerial set, which is small but seems the only potential class to benefit from this structure - the transience of service labor makes them necessary there, while at technical jobs coordination between specialties is necessary. Money generated by cutting jobs or outsourcing goes disproportionately to this class.
Things change, and that is good - we don't make buggy whips because there are better and more useful things to be done. The system that we are building is one where neither particular knowledge nor satisfaction in work quality is valued. There may be lots of interesting things to do, but if they're done badly or slowly by a population constantly looking over its shoulder, I'm not certain that we've improved ourselves. People focus on the old fields because their loss highlights the risks of specialization - when outsourcing of jobs in a technical field happens, lots of people are likely to be jobless for a long time. The risk weighs on anyone in a similar field, and the way to mitigate that risk makes it more likely that one will lose one's job. Hence the wailing and gnashing of teeth - we're in a Catch-22 and don't see a way out that isn't counterproductive to us,.
I don't like almost anything that President Bush has done - that probably colors my (and others) opinion of this idea. That being said, the merits of the idea are determined by more than just a speech.
1) What is the plan for getting this done? Is the plan technically feasible?
2) Will there be enough money to fund it? Will the money go to the right people? Will the right people have authority to make decisions on the execution?
3) What is the long-term purpose?
The problem with this is President Bush's execution of some of his other plans hasn't been so hot. It would have been hard to find OBL anyway, but committing Afghanistan-based troops to it probably doesn't help to find him. The war in Iraq was an effective military move (except that it strained the military significantly - while the state of unpreparedness isn't due to GWB, he planned extensive military missions knowing that state) but less effective at stabilizing Iraq. It doesn't seem that he (or his staff) had an effective plan for the aftermath of the Iraq war - while whatever good that has been achieved in Iraq has been ill-publicized, the disorder currently in force makes it difficult for that good to endure long, and the disorder doesn't seem to have been anticipated by the GWB administration. The furor over the Halliburton deals to rebuild Iraqi infrastructure also seems relevant here. Running a deficit in times of recession wouldn't be so bad, but the current deficit is rather large, and the amount of actual spending in the budget has probably been helped further by low interest rates (lowering the interest payments on the debt accrued). Neither Reagan or Bush Sr. were able to effectively take steps to decrease the size of the federal gov't, one of the reasons for lowering taxes in the first place. From the way things have gone, I don't see GWB decreasing the size of the federal gov't either - thus the "fiscally responsible" Republicans are spending money without an idea of how it will be repaid.
Given the poor execution or thought in the plans GWB has put into play, there are some reasons to distrust this plan. I would also have mistrusted this plan under Clinton - Clinton seemed great at coming up with things but not so good at executing them. Bad execution of a plan of this sort will make it more difficult to achieve those goals later, and so it is a good idea to make sure it is done right. Since I don't trust GWB to do so, an attempt to go to the moon now (IMO) might be counterproductive.
I think that the point of Palladium ("trusted computing") and upload restrictions via ISPs is to do precisely that - to destroy the ability of individuals to publish on the Internet and replace it with a broadcasting medium in which only the privileged few can afford to publish, thus creating a world where content providers (if you can call it content, but I guess since people want it it must be) can feel safe from any potential copyright infringement. Of course, their safety is bought at our expense (by negating much of the Internet's utility) but that's a small price to pay to hear more RIAA-assisted Britney Spears clones.
...occurs whether or not I buy the music defended by the RIAA. Even if we manage to drag the music companies into their well-deserved graves, the restrictions that the legislators they bought and paid for will still be there. The material they copyrighted will never become public domain as the law intended because the copy protection they intend to force can't be broken legally - when they die it dies. The laws that altered copyright to make this possible will still exist, ready to be used by another generation of (soon-to-be) failed businesses.
The widespread disregard for property rights you attribute to infringers is not limited to them. The music industry has "copy protected" CDs, making them harder or impossible for their legal purchasers to use while not impeding the ability of commercial infringers to copy. The DMCA manages not only to withdraw a host of Bill of Rights protections, but also effectively negates a large portion of copyright law - rights explicitly given or requiring explicit denial in law. The RIAA and its component labels have not shown respect for these rights - considering their actions (raising CD prices while denigrating content and making it harder to use) they haven't shown much respect for their customers either. It's hard to expect respect from your customers (or potential customers) for your rights when your business has shown either utter disregard or contempt for the similar rights of others.
The laws that the RIAA has bought or paid for will last long after they are dead, and we will pay for them, regardless of whether we cease buying their products. Complaining to and through the government to prevent these laws is necessary so that we can get back to the main entertainment of watch the music industry rot.
...it's just another way of looking at it. The food chain for content providers is problematic, whether in how CPs obtain the money from products or in what they use the money for (for example, for advertising and "making stars"). CPs forget that it's the customers' money, not theirs, and to get it, they have to convince customers to give it to them for what they have. To get him to come back, they have to give him enough that he feels the trade was fair. Instead, they want to make him to think the product is great (through advertising) while taking more from him for the product to pay for the image they sell. This technique isn't working so well, but instead of changing, CP have decided that forcing the consumers to give them more money for less product with more restriction is what consumers really want. They seem to think that their money is a natural phenomenon, and that people will continue to buy their content at their price. It helps if you control distribution, as CP have been accused of doing before. If that were true, then a conspiracy theory is not required because when one group makes the rules, they don't need to conspire with anyone else. If there isn't anywhere else to get music, your customers have to like what you sell or get nothing at all. Now, however, they can go elsewhere, and the assumptions that underpin that sales model fail miserably.
The CP (in particular, the music industry) is a dinosaur overwhelmed by small rodents. It needs a lot of energy just to stay alive, and yet it's not fast enough to run and catch its own food. When the rodents stop showing up, it can't chase them, and it certainly can't stop them from surviving. Its only hope is to cooperate with the rodents for its survival, but it has spent its life eating them and so that is not possible. The illusion of dominance is all it has, and cooperation would force it to give that illusion up.
Mr. Morrissey can think and write as he wishes - but I should not be obligated to read his output (or that of the millions of spamming brethren he represents) or have either me or my business pay for them. Spam forces others to listen to the author's viewpoint and forces the unwilling listener to pay for it. Spam as free speech is a method not entirely consistent with the 1st Amendment you claim to defend.
If spam is free speech, then there's nothing wrong with Mr. Morrissey getting some. If it's wrong, then there's something wrong with his defense of it. Your defense of his stance is thus not consistent. Don't worry, though, there's still time for you to join the SCO legal team before they go out of business - they could use your incisive wit to support their further incursions into legal insanity.
most businesses live or die by attracting customers - either by providing a cheaper product, or a better product, or better service. Content providers have instead raised the prices of their products, lowered their quality, and made them more difficult to use, and are then surprised when sales decrease. The same businesspeople now wish to use copyright law and the DMCA to further increase their profits. None of these changes benefit the consumers - all hurt them. Theft/copyright infringement (depending on the business) won't go away, but as long as screwing over your customers is your business model, you can expect both of them to increase dramatically.
Trust shouldn't be an issue - if people are happy with the product, not many will steal or copy it, because they will be happy with what they get for their money. Since there is another method (the Internet) to copy music, and people are frustrated with content providers, they copy, because they can. The content providers act to increase people's anger with them, and instead of providing people with what they want at a price they will pay, they threaten and try to force compliance, increasing the frustration of their customers while publicizing the circumvention method. Brilliant.
Business models don't require trust - to be sustainable, their simply require an exchange both sides see as fair. The content industries have tried to force deals on their customers that their customers see as unfair. A fair business model doesn't require unbounded naivete or ignorance of theft/copyright infringement, but a simple understanding that both the customers and the sellers should walk away feeling treated fairly. The seller has a right to protect himself, but if he does so at my expense I have the right to walk away. The price-fixing investigations in the music industry indicate that the music industry and other content providers want to limit other (legal) sources of content to force their deals on the consumer. Thus, "trust" is required (or feigned) because consumers have already decided that the deals presented are not in their best interest, and some other method is required to compel their acceptance.
When gas prices go up, there are a lot more "drive-offs" or thefts of gasoline. Why? Most people have the money to afford gas (or shouldn't be driving if they can't). I believe that people don't trust gasoline companies (and, by analogy, the selling agents, gas stations) - they believe that the gasoline companies will take advantage of them to their detriment without corresponding benefits to them. The users (gasoline purchasers) aren't trusted and have no say. They steal in part as a misguided response to their disadvantagement - they don't feel that there is another way to make their feelings known and respected or that the ways available to them are pointless.
The content providers (CPs) have never trusted their audience. If you trust your audience, screwing them over is not an option. Instead, CPs have raised the prices of their content while lowering its quality and making it harder to use. The defenses (warranties) that users have for other products don't work for music. Do I own the physical disc or licence its content? CPs say both and neither - essentially whatever protects them at my expense is their answer. The people who infringe copyrights are wrong, but they are not betraying any sort of trust - by their actions, the CPs have shown no respect for or willingness to give trust. The CPs are now receiving the fruits of their labors. Paybacks are a b**ch.
particularly wrt the unfortunate comments of the Diebold president...
considering the (what should be) massive security on bank machines, does this give any further pause to the added "safety" of "trusted computing"? Given that you can't secure critical applications to users, what makes me think that TCP will be able to secure my computer from anything but me?
I'd like to believe this, but if the economy comes around (and in some ways it seems to be doing so) people may be inclined to vote with their wallets, particularly if they don't see the bill coming later. While the frustration over Iraq may linger, I think people will forget about it, swallow hard, and vote for W.
Not that this is good, mind you, but it could easily happen.
I dislike Bush and the wonders he's wrought, but the problems are not exclusively Republican - after all, the RIAA's attack dog for destruction of copyright is a Democrat, as well as many of those who backed Patriot Act I - The Abortion; the DMCA, I think (but don't know), was a bipartisan production. While the Democrats haven't had the open-mouthed fantasy of fascism that President Bush and his chosen brethren appear to have, people will take as much power as they can, particularly if they think no one's looking.
There is plenty to indict the Republicans for, but power-hungriness is probably a bipartisan sin, countered only by watching government like a hawk and making sure the voters know what their government is doing.
UF could have monitored bandwidth only (cutting off those who use too much) which would not have required any sort of monitoring and could have effectively addressed the problems. Furthermore, bandwidth access doesn't require the administrator maintenance that keeping up with the Jones (or Kazaa variants) will inevitably require. Instead, UF chose an extraordinarily intrusive system to monitor usage. The concept behind ICARUS is similar to that supporting all DRM. I pay money to restrict my behavior to protect someone else from a reality (the ability of digital media to be copied) they refuse to acknowledge. I get no benefit, other than the "right" to buy disabled goods at an increased price while allowing others access to my life in ways that I would willingly give very few people. Unlike TCMP and the other trusted computing variants, where I (theoretically) have a choice not to buy their products, UF students have no choice but to support this - even if they choose to use other methods of web access, their tuition still supports it.
When someone chooses a restrictive method to achieve an end when a less restrictive one would do as well, the restriction is part of the goal. The potential of a government entity to decide what is good usage and what is bad usage with very little say (and even less for those with insufficient money to afford off-campus Internet access) is not good for anyone - if they can do it to them, they can do it to you. The fact that UF wishes to support the RIAA's mass delusion that they can control media absolutely should not require me (if I were a UF student) to support it as well.
..and SCO is naked and covered in fermented sardines.
I think this is even better than the SCO execs-go-to-hardcore-federal-prison outcome - kind of like the scene in the book Jurassic Park where the clueless exec is tranquilized and the devoured by carrion-eating dinosaurs. SCO can fulfill its ultimate purpose - to be food for something more useful than itself.
I believe that most virus species use DNA rather than RNA to replicate - this is why AIDS was (is) difficult to deal with at first, because RNA viruses aren't as common, and so people weren't as familiar with their behavior. Reverse transcriptase isn't present in most viruses because they use DNA, rather than RNA, to carry information - once the DNA gets into the cell, the virus uses the cell to reproduce (DNA is copied to DNA, RNA read from the DNA is read to generate proteins) just as in the cell normally. Retroviruses use reverse transcriptase to copy RNA to DNA - the cell can then integrate the DNA into its own DNA and replicate the virus. Reverse transcriptase in HIV is a target for inhibitors because most species don't read from RNA to DNA, but only the reverse (DNA --> RNA ---> protein) - thus inhibiting RT wouldn't kill normal cells (or most viruses), only HIV (and other retroviruses).
I think that most viruses contain proteins to gain entry into the cell as part of the output from their DNA. If the virus is duplicated, the protein controlling entry into the cell must also be duplicated. I didn't RTA. but the authors may have left that protein out so that it couldn't reproduce in the wild - if it can't infect cells, it will replicate only slowly (as fast as its DNA is naturally taken up by cells) and thus not mutate very fast (so that it can't overcome its inability to enter cells). The ability of the assembled DNA to form a coherent package would in itself be significant.
I thought that the 2nd Amendment has been specifically affirmed by the Supreme Court (in 1934?) to refer to the individual's right to bear arms rather than simply the right to bear arms as an element of a state-sponsored armed force. If not, it is likely to be so soon (the SC is set to review a related case soon). Unfortunately, no such luck with the 4th.
I think it's called the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (the "cruel and unusual punishment" amendment).
On the other hand since we've decided that the 1st (speech - DMCA) and 4th (illegal search and seizure - the Patriot Act and lots of Supreme Court decisions) Amendments aren't really that important* anyway, this concept may remain just that - a principle to which lip service is given but which is ignored in practice.
* There may be other amendments that have been conveniently ignored in recent years - these are just the ones I'm pretty sure of.
what quality movies to share?
when someone has a combover, they know that they're losing their hair, and the people that see them know they're losing their hair. Combovers are an attempt to deny reality - everyone can see what the underlying truth is (they're losing their hair) - but the person using it is hoping that if they deny it no one will notice.
The RIAA has attempted to silence people who have said that anything digital for viewing or listening by humans can be copied. We know it, they know it, and they know we know it. The RIAA hopes that by denying the reproducibility of digital media, we'll forget about it, and then see duplication as unnatural and evil when it happens. DRM can be circumvented, and it only has to be beaten once. If the DRM can't be beaten, then listeners can feed the analog input into a digital device and convert it to digital with no DRM. (DRM is effective at controlling computer-only media, as long as no one takes a photo of the screen.) DRM is likely to be as effective at changing the underlying reality of digital media as a combover is at changing my hair growth (or lack thereof).
Of course, to get to the point where the media companies with try to encase this new media with DRM, someone has to show that it is more effective than what is around now. From other posts, this may not be the case (blueray DVD, etc. are likely to have higher storage capacities) - so worrying about DRM is somewhat premature with respect to this storage medium.
Mass infringers ignore the DMCA, so it doesn't affect nearly all of the duplication for profit. It doesn't protect the artists/programmers/etc. whose copyrights are violated - that's a separate issue, and the money from those violations probably will never see the bank account of an actual artist or programmer in this universe. The DMCA is present to control access to media - to circumvent other laws (copyright laws) which allow works to enter the domain after a period of time once the author has been permitted to sell them for a limited period of time. The DMCA forces users not to circumvent access control measures which can then be installed. indefinitely. Once access control can be made permanent, the bargain between the people and the author that made copyright worthwhile to the public is negated. Access to works can be denied to many groups who are supposed to benefit from its use, such as poor people or libraries who may not have the money to pay for continuous rental of a work that by all rights (and by copyright law) should have defaulted to public domain. It allows the copyright business model to be replaced by one in which information is hoarded by those with money and restricted from those without. If law is supposed to protect the weak from the strong, the DMCA is contrary to this conception, by allowing the strong (the wealthy, information holders) to prey on the weak (the poor, the people) by taking away public domain and restricting their access to information paid for by them (through the gov't and the Copyright Office and the bargain on which copyright is based).
The DMCA protects no one who isn't already protected by copyright law - it however allows people (artists/programmers and their respective corporations) to rewrite copyright law without the consent of the people. The effort (and intent, since its means don't protect anyone not already protected by copyright) is to guarantee permanent copyright, thus rewriting copyright law in addition to the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution - by forbidding the dissemination of means, the DMCA is a significant abridgment of free speech. The DMCA destroys rights that benefit all citizens while giving legal rights previously exercised only by Congress to a few (whose output was already protected by other laws). I see no reason to support a law which takes away rights given me by Congress and gives them to private individuals, and in the bargain takes away rights deemed necessary to the existence of a free nation, all to benefit people whose output is already protected by law. This seems more than merely "inconvenient".
wouldn't that assume a level of competence from SCO's lawyers that they haven't yet managed to show? Attempting to invalidate the GPL while distributing GPL'd software in violation of the GPL and without the permission of the original authors seems like an original and painful way to commit suicide - while SCO and its lawyers seem competent at self-assassination, I'm not certain that they are competent enough to actually assassinate anything or anyone else.
Companies and committees are not individuals and in many cases do not value individuals in the same way that most people are expected to value other people. This makes it much easier for a company to depersonalize others - to negate the humanity of those who may have values or goals that conflict with those it has. Once this occurs, it's very easy to decide that if killing others generates money for the company, or at least allowing others to die, then the action that causes this is appropriate (e.g. Ford and the Pinto - deciding that the costs of settlements and lawsuits was outweighed by the costs of necessary repairs).
Sociopaths are people who have effectively depersonalized others into means for what they desire; they are the appropriate analogy for companies who commit evil for profit. They are not necessarily socially maladroit - they need to manipulate others to get what they want. Sociopathic companies are likely to look down on hackers and nerds because, to them, other people are valuable in on what they can get from them. In the eyes of a sociopath, nerds don't have humanity - they are simply ineffective at doing what sociopaths are effective at doing, getting what they desire from others. Since getting what they want from others is all that matters, sociopaths might look down on nerds because nerds are unsuccessful at (to sociopaths) the only thing that matters. Sociopathy doesn't require people to seem like "nutcases" or "psychopaths" - people with those characteristics don't work well as sociopaths because others don't want to associate with them and so can't be manipulated. Sociopaths simply don't factor the value of other people into their calculations for what they want - criminal sociopaths have ends which require harm to others.
Sociopaths need as a rule to be attractive to others so that they can get what they want from others. Stereotypical nerds are unattractive to others, or at least not good at communicating their needs to others. It is easy for others to perceive the lack of social aptitude of stereotypical nerds, whereas perceiving the sociopathic nature of a person is harder because they are adept at the social norms (and the pieces of character they lack are hard for others to perceive in any case until it is too late).
Obviously, not all companies behave sociopathically - but it seems to be easier for groups of people to dehumanize others than for individuals to dehumanize others. SCO is behaving more like the "nerd" stereotype than the "sociopath" stereotype (really they behave like a disorganized sociopath)- they're trying to (and starting to fail at) manipulate others into giving them what they want but they aren't very good at it.
I'm not knowledgeable at psychology (so I could be wrong) but I think that this is a reasonable framework. Sociopathic entities aren't insane - they are capable of distinguishing right or wrong and in doing the right. They simply don't care about right or wrong so long as what they do fulfills their goals. They do not behave as the the "raving lunatic" stereotypes of insanity would imply - that would impede their ability to achieve their ends. Social ineptitude and active evil are two different things, but social ineptitude is much easier to perceive than evil in most cases.
by the broadcast flag? Is she willing to change her schedule around and sit through commercials to watch these shows? If so, then the BF will work for her, but I think a lot of people will be less than willing to going back to living on broadcast time once they have been able to do otherwise. This is a choice the the broadcast flag appears to mandate, and I think that it's a much harder choice than others consumers are/will be faced with, such as (for example) either getting music from KaZaa or from a DRMd (but convenient) music service.
You can't unring a bell, and you can't will yourself to unlearn knowledge. Forgetting that they didn't have to sit through commercials or schedule their lives around TV shows is something that a lot of people will find hard to do - and the people who will likely find it hardest to do are people with the money to choose other entertainment, the people that TV wants desperately not to do so. Nothing like alienating a large portion of the target audience, particularly a lot of those with the money to buy the products advertised on the networks, to send yourself into bankruptcy.
You fools^H^H^H^H^Hconsumers will buy anything we tell you to. If that means you can't skip commercials, watch your old tapes, or time-shift programming, we'll just sell you neutered technology to do part of what you used to get for free at an inflated price.
This seems to be the frame of mind of the people who came up with this incipient CF - an arrogant assumption that people will accept what the networks give them, and will forget anything that they want people to forget. The problem is, people have the money that the networks want, and they aren't likely to forget the fact that they used to watch their shows when they wanted without commercials and now they can't. People have short memories, but changes such as this are precisely what people are likely to remember. Unless they can write laws forcing people to buy HDTV and keep them on, they can't make people buy their neutering of content. If the TV networks stop nondigital broadcast in 2006, then people may find out they can live without TV, thus guaranteeing the networks a fast, painful death. If they don't then the broadcast flag is irrelevant. Either way, they lose.
Since the airlines have had financial problems, a lot of routes have been shifted to budget airlines - these airlines, I believe, have less restrictive flight rules (pilots fly more) while paying significantly less. In addition, pilots (and air traffic controllers) are in some of the highest stress jobs around - at least if a bus gets in an accident, you can jump off, an option not usually available to airline passengers.
and 2? Yes, they're overpaid, but why were they signed to those deals in the first place? In football (the NFL), the ability to negate contracts makes long-term deals (even for washed-up athletes) reasonable - if the athletes do well, the contract probably is financially OK, and if they do badly, they can be cut. In other sports, most high-money deals involve the stupidity of the owners in addition to the greed of the players. This is particularly true with the biggest contracts (for example, Alex Rodriguez got his 12 year, $252M contract by getting Tom Hicks to bid against himself and lose). In sports with guaranteed contracts, one would hope that the people making the contracts would take significant care in making long-term financial committments, but that is not necessarily true.
The real overpaid people in both of these cases are the people who made the bad business decisions that have caused these problems. Do you think airline CEO's aren't getting paid a lot to complain to Congress and squeeze their employees? Sports franchise owners at least put their money on the line, only to forget everything they knew about business once they do so.
it might not be so much to prevent pirating or Linux computing on the X-box as a way to get into chip design and knowledge for the hardware required to implement Palladium - if MS is solely dependent upon Intel or AMD for implementation of "trusted computing" it may not be as able to control the implementation effectively, while if they have an internal resource to design and fabricate chips, they can compete more effectively with competing standards from chip manufacturers. Since the evil that is trusted computing is a centerpiece for Microsoft's future, knowledge of the technologies required for it makes sense for MS. (this is assuming that Microsoft doesn't already have internal resources for DRM - even in that case, this may be another way to try DRM out in the field and to see how it works/doesn't work before they release it as part of Palladium).