I must admit that whenever I hear a song that's been poorly encoded or has obvious compression errors (the modern equivalent of a skipping record, I guess) I think of the first days at an old job position... because that's what the state of the art was at the time.
That said, I do prefer high-quality Flac, Ogg, or analogue (ahh, the hisses and pops of an actual record player).
Is the prospect of having a picture associated with an email address really creepy and disturbing? The 100M+ people who use Myspace and Facebook to associate their email with their picture, contacts, relationship status and favorite foods don't seem to think so.
Maybe not, but then I don't care how they associate *their* identity -- but they better stay the hell away from putting MY data in there....not that I have any say in the matter.
Talking about facebook, I guess soon people will not need to label you. Facebook will label you automatically. Recognition error rates can be reduced by making sure you are in the same circle of friends.
That's the problem. There's no real way for people to opt out unless they agree to sign up, and the people who do sign up are more likely to not care about it. How to make some service abide by a EULA of *non-customers* ? No way...
This is their #1 achievement in my book. Screw all the data centers, IT advancements, and what have you -- that they have been able to sell *and hold on to* the notion of "oh no, we're just your friendly neighbourhood helpers" while doing all that dubious business. Nooooo evil here, siree!
A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it.
It does not matter if you want to opt out. Your friends (all it takes is one) will helpfully tag their data on you for you (err, for them, really, but who's counting).
I know I'm paranoid that way, but at least I'm aware.
I can't tell if you were aiming for a Funny rating, but I'll elaborate in case you weren't.
They started out as a number of individuals tinkering in a garage, partaking in the creation of a totally new market that changed the whole perspective of 'computing'. I guess these guys are doing the same for 'gadgets'.
And, well, I won't say they did NOT borrow bits from here and there. But then again, those were the days when neat tricks were shared in the computer club instead of (as nowadays) taken to the patents office at the earliest opportunity, and I do think that that was a good thing overall (if not for the original inventors of the ideas).
Especially since they are doing more than just plain copies, they are producing products that are, arguably, "improved" models.
If they are as good as that, then surely they don't need to rip off Apple's branding to be a success?
No, but they might the "free" marketing provided by piggybacking on top of established brand recognition.
And oh yes, I'm quite sure the governments of the Asian countries that are currently hot with piracy will reverse their positions on IP once the companies in those countries mature enough to "go legit". They want a piece of the cake now, but they will not want to share with others later. (Not to troll, but is this not similar to what the US has been doing since they became sovereign?)
I did look into the prices of equipment in china and they are about 20-50% that of used equipment bought in the US.
The problem is that shipping an SMT machine in one piece to the US would not be cheap; compound onto that the tariff Iâ(TM)d have to pay, the zoning issues of putting an SMT line in your house, and the 20-30x cost of labor to maintain and run the machines, and itâ(TM)s not looking as attractive.
The other important thing about that setup is the retail store on the bottom floor. Not only can that guy make stuff, he can move it â" I imagine the equivalent would be getting a retail store in downtown San Francisco with this equipment in there. The rent would be astronomical, and the landlord probably wouldnâ(TM)t allow (or be zoned for) mixed living, manufacturing, and selling.
But you have to supply a sellable idea that's not been done yet, and bear the cost of iterating the bugs out of the design.
Also, and more to the point, the burden of IP is on your shoulders; at least, they're just punching out parts on your behalf and AFAIK that's not been contested in court as of yet.
I think that this sounds more like a new type of consumer-producer than just piracy, and that the "mash-up" is an apt comparison. These guys may end up revamping a part of the market with their "hardware shareware", and if they do, I say more power to them. Especially since they are doing more than just plain copies, they are producing products that are, arguably, "improved" models.
Quoth the article, "contemporary shanzhai are rebellious, individualistic, underground, and self-empowered innovators"... which one of those does the marketplace *not* need? (Mark you, I say "need", not "want"; I'm quite sure they want none of it, but will nonetheless have more of it than they like.)
Appleseed gets it mostly Right on paper -- but it's hardly successful in the real world.
In comparison, projects like Elgg are more successful even though they seem to be designed to be walled gardens. Strange. Well, not really strange, just "only useful within confined spaces". But Elgg is just one example out of many; all of which fail the criterion of being able to talk to each other (the one core feature of Appleseed).
The problem with Facebook, and Google (for all their goodness) is that even though they arguably do a lot of good, they keep it all very close to their own turf. All of Google's solutions integrate with one another; that's only natural and good business sense. In a social context, openness and trust should weigh heavier than they currently do, and wanting to do business tends to be an opposing force. That's why we need an open redesign, and that's what grass-root projects like Appleseed and FOAF are trying to do.
The problem is aptly explained by Mark Zuckerberg as "There is no system today that enables me to share my email address with you and then simultaneously lets me control who you share it with and also lets you control what services you share it with" and "When a person shares something like a message with a friend, two copies of that information are createdâ"one in the person's sent messages box and the other in their friend's inbox. Even if the person deactivates their account, their friend still has a copy of that message".
I disagree. Okay, it's true enough that that's how Facebook works, but saying that "there is no system" is just too narrow-minded. If you think of different social sites as different tables in a relational database (which is really no huge abstraction), then you will see that, when Alice for instance grabs Bobs email address, all I really get is a link to it. In Mark's example, Bob cancels his account and Alice retains his address; in a relational system the link would die and her "file" on Bob would diminish. But that's just looking at one perspective, another is that, when Bob updates his email address, then all his friends will automatically use the new one because they are relying on a living link instead of a static copy. There's good stuff all around in this model.
"All" that's needed is a standardized way to take this relational model and "solve" it in the sense that the records and tables are all over the place and need protocols to talk to one another.
I believe that's what the Appleseed project is trying to do. And yes, that's a one-man show, one that's been lying dormant for some time, but that's no measure of it's quality or it's potential. The Friend of a Friend project is in the same sort of state. They may not need anything but a little PR!
The reason something like facebook or google is a problem is that ALL the information in the network is owned by one entity
I'd put this the other way around -- if it *was* all owned by a single person, such as the pictures on your sister's cubicle wall, it would be easy to "issue a take-down notice", as it were. As it is, you'll have to address it to some anonymous lawyer deep within a great big network of corporations. And therein, if you ask me, lies the rub.
The problem is that you need to force people to listen to what is, to them, essentially technobabble, in order to make them understand how basic principles of privacy are affected by modern technology.
It's astonishingly difficult to talk someone out of the "if you don't have anything to hide" mindset without coming across as a tinfoil-wrapped paranoid total dork.
It's one of the reasons why my (few) real-life friends tend to wonder if I'm a paranoid luddite (which is just fine by me) and my online friends are an entirely different demographic altogether -- I don't even have any online connection with my wife.
None of these systems have a checkbox too stop my idiot sister forwarding crap to me and implicitly enrolling me in her facebook centric lifestyle.
I can turn it off but I can't turn off the people who turn it on.
The only submission of mine to make it was about this exact point. Bluntly put, I was told to shut up, quit being such a luddite, and drop any pretence of having any privacy in the first place.
But I'm still not on Facebook, nor do I plan to. On the contrary, I'm looking interestedly at things like the Appleseed project which have the right attitude (but not much traction).
I'm probably going to sound like a complete prig here but anyway... I don't have, nor have I ever had, a Facebook account. However I have regularly seen a friend's account when I've been at his place and as we grew up together I'd say it is representative of what I would have to endure. [...] The thing is, these people often didn't want to know me back then [yet] being chummy online [now] is somehow OK. To be frank I have no interest in 're-'hooking up with these people.
You're not the only one who feels that way (good to know I'm not alone, either). I think you make your point very well, and it does not come across as prudish or technophobic; just very sensible in a way that is becoming increasingly rare.
(I do want to point out that obviously not everyone who has an account is an idiot - my friend for one is certainly not, nor I would say are my ex-colleagues who also had accounts - but it does tend to attract a certain shall we say, demographic.)
Neither would I call most of my acquaintances "idiots". But I am, regrettably, honestly inclined to call the majority of them "sheep", in the sense of "if all your friends were to jump off of a bridge, would you, too?" (actually, if that were a real-life scenario, I'd take a careful look around to see what the heck I should be fleeing from, but I hope you get my point).
It's human nature to follow the herd, so a large amount of flocking behaviour is not only to be expected but very probably futile to dispute. The thing is, though, that the technological advances of the last couple of decades has very clearly outpaced the social ditto -- the force with which one is impelled to make use of the latest fashion is far greater than the urge for thoughtful consideration whether it's really such a good idea. This is evidenced in how "common sense", as a term, falls ever more out of sync with what people currently deem sensible, and is consistently brought into play as an example of something archaic.
I'm not just talking about Facebook or the 'net; it's just as much the software EULA's which people routinely click through, the giving of cell phones to 8-year-olds, the dumbness of the tv shows that are broadcast (and watched), and other such "modern" behaviour. Okay, now I sound technophobic; I'm not, but I do yearn for a more thoughtful state of mind in the general public.
Would you be equally scared of a gated community set up in the manner of the fictitious X-net described in Little Brother?
That is to say that, in some respects, a gated community is a Good Thing, it's just that it depends on what kind of gates you use. If you use personal trust relationships, it may not be so big and useful (to begin with), but it should not be very scary, should it?
And it *is* an option, and would not "create a 'gated community' where users would give up their anonymity and certain freedoms in return for safety" -- the article even states that that is just one alternative, in fact, quite the opposite is just as possible.
If there was a new web that was based on security AND privacy (very likely via heavy encryption right out of the box), I'd "hit it so hard, whoever pulls me outa that would be crowned the king of England" as they say.
It's just that there does not seem to be much of an incentive for ISPs to do this. We *can* (and do) build a second-generation Internet (one that's secure) on top of the old infrastructure, but because it's not a separate network it's still being bogged down even if it's not itself being directly affected.
What's needed is a completely separate network, very possibly with improved routing from the lowest layers. This can be done with embedded routers in the home, but requires ISPs to upgrade or replace a good deal of their gear, driving up cost (in a time where a 'net connection is all but regarded as a utility, same as power and water). And for what? For a new Internet that's technically superior in a way that, sadly, only a minority of users are interested in or even able to comprehend. As I said, there's not much incentive for ISPs.
If this ever happens, it's going to be a grass-roots movement as in the old BBS days.
Slashdot Mirror
You know the saying "you can lead a horse to water..."?
This is the same.
I find the big blue room so much nicer when there's a sun in it. Don't you?
Stripping detail does not make art but it may make pop.
+1, That quote is very in tune with the present.
I must admit that whenever I hear a song that's been poorly encoded or has obvious compression errors (the modern equivalent of a skipping record, I guess) I think of the first days at an old job position ... because that's what the state of the art was at the time.
That said, I do prefer high-quality Flac, Ogg, or analogue (ahh, the hisses and pops of an actual record player).
Cat, meet A-GPS. A-GPS, meet cat.
Is the prospect of having a picture associated with an email address really creepy and disturbing? The 100M+ people who use Myspace and Facebook to associate their email with their picture, contacts, relationship status and favorite foods don't seem to think so.
Maybe not, but then I don't care how they associate *their* identity -- but they better stay the hell away from putting MY data in there. ...not that I have any say in the matter.
Talking about facebook, I guess soon people will not need to label you. Facebook will label you automatically. Recognition error rates can be reduced by making sure you are in the same circle of friends.
That's the problem. There's no real way for people to opt out unless they agree to sign up, and the people who do sign up are more likely to not care about it. How to make some service abide by a EULA of *non-customers* ? No way...
This is their #1 achievement in my book. Screw all the data centers, IT advancements, and what have you -- that they have been able to sell *and hold on to* the notion of "oh no, we're just your friendly neighbourhood helpers" while doing all that dubious business. Nooooo evil here, siree!
Why are you being hostile to the ones that don't want it?
Why go through all that extra work when they can get away with what they do now?
a superb technical job has been done to get an unwanted result
The thought comes to mind: Done by whom, and unwanted by whom? Probably not the same.
What's that movie line again? Ah, here it is:
A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it.
It does not matter if you want to opt out. Your friends (all it takes is one) will helpfully tag their data on you for you (err, for them, really, but who's counting).
I know I'm paranoid that way, but at least I'm aware.
I can't tell if you were aiming for a Funny rating, but I'll elaborate in case you weren't.
They started out as a number of individuals tinkering in a garage, partaking in the creation of a totally new market that changed the whole perspective of 'computing'. I guess these guys are doing the same for 'gadgets'.
And, well, I won't say they did NOT borrow bits from here and there. But then again, those were the days when neat tricks were shared in the computer club instead of (as nowadays) taken to the patents office at the earliest opportunity, and I do think that that was a good thing overall (if not for the original inventors of the ideas).
If they are as good as that, then surely they don't need to rip off Apple's branding to be a success?
No, but they might the "free" marketing provided by piggybacking on top of established brand recognition.
And oh yes, I'm quite sure the governments of the Asian countries that are currently hot with piracy will reverse their positions on IP once the companies in those countries mature enough to "go legit". They want a piece of the cake now, but they will not want to share with others later. (Not to troll, but is this not similar to what the US has been doing since they became sovereign?)
bunnie says:
I did look into the prices of equipment in china and they are about 20-50% that of used equipment bought in the US.
The problem is that shipping an SMT machine in one piece to the US would not be cheap; compound onto that the tariff Iâ(TM)d have to pay, the zoning issues of putting an SMT line in your house, and the 20-30x cost of labor to maintain and run the machines, and itâ(TM)s not looking as attractive.
The other important thing about that setup is the retail store on the bottom floor. Not only can that guy make stuff, he can move it â" I imagine the equivalent would be getting a retail store in downtown San Francisco with this equipment in there. The rent would be astronomical, and the landlord probably wouldnâ(TM)t allow (or be zoned for) mixed living, manufacturing, and selling.
There are already a number of small-amount manufacturers, as you call them. Some are prototyping shops, some will build any number of items for you.
http://www.emachineshop.com/
http://www.tapplastics.com/
http://www.pad2pad.com/
http://www.olimex.com/
http://www.eurocircuits.com/
(no affiliation to any of them)
But you have to supply a sellable idea that's not been done yet, and bear the cost of iterating the bugs out of the design.
Also, and more to the point, the burden of IP is on your shoulders; at least, they're just punching out parts on your behalf and AFAIK that's not been contested in court as of yet.
Remind me again, how did Apple start?
I think that this sounds more like a new type of consumer-producer than just piracy, and that the "mash-up" is an apt comparison.
These guys may end up revamping a part of the market with their "hardware shareware", and if they do, I say more power to them. Especially since they are doing more than just plain copies, they are producing products that are, arguably, "improved" models.
Quoth the article, "contemporary shanzhai are rebellious, individualistic, underground, and self-empowered innovators" ... which one of those does the marketplace *not* need? (Mark you, I say "need", not "want"; I'm quite sure they want none of it, but will nonetheless have more of it than they like.)
Oblig sig. Sorry, but I just gotta.
Appleseed gets it mostly Right on paper -- but it's hardly successful in the real world.
In comparison, projects like Elgg are more successful even though they seem to be designed to be walled gardens. Strange. Well, not really strange, just "only useful within confined spaces". But Elgg is just one example out of many; all of which fail the criterion of being able to talk to each other (the one core feature of Appleseed).
The problem with Facebook, and Google (for all their goodness) is that even though they arguably do a lot of good, they keep it all very close to their own turf. All of Google's solutions integrate with one another; that's only natural and good business sense. In a social context, openness and trust should weigh heavier than they currently do, and wanting to do business tends to be an opposing force. That's why we need an open redesign, and that's what grass-root projects like Appleseed and FOAF are trying to do.
The problem is aptly explained by Mark Zuckerberg as "There is no system today that enables me to share my email address with you and then simultaneously lets me control who you share it with and also lets you control what services you share it with" and "When a person shares something like a message with a friend, two copies of that information are createdâ"one in the person's sent messages box and the other in their friend's inbox. Even if the person deactivates their account, their friend still has a copy of that message".
I disagree. Okay, it's true enough that that's how Facebook works, but saying that "there is no system" is just too narrow-minded. If you think of different social sites as different tables in a relational database (which is really no huge abstraction), then you will see that, when Alice for instance grabs Bobs email address, all I really get is a link to it. In Mark's example, Bob cancels his account and Alice retains his address; in a relational system the link would die and her "file" on Bob would diminish. But that's just looking at one perspective, another is that, when Bob updates his email address, then all his friends will automatically use the new one because they are relying on a living link instead of a static copy. There's good stuff all around in this model.
"All" that's needed is a standardized way to take this relational model and "solve" it in the sense that the records and tables are all over the place and need protocols to talk to one another.
I believe that's what the Appleseed project is trying to do. And yes, that's a one-man show, one that's been lying dormant for some time, but that's no measure of it's quality or it's potential. The Friend of a Friend project is in the same sort of state. They may not need anything but a little PR!
The reason something like facebook or google is a problem is that ALL the information in the network is owned by one entity
I'd put this the other way around -- if it *was* all owned by a single person, such as the pictures on your sister's cubicle wall, it would be easy to "issue a take-down notice", as it were. As it is, you'll have to address it to some anonymous lawyer deep within a great big network of corporations. And therein, if you ask me, lies the rub.
The problem is that you need to force people to listen to what is, to them, essentially technobabble, in order to make them understand how basic principles of privacy are affected by modern technology.
It's astonishingly difficult to talk someone out of the "if you don't have anything to hide" mindset without coming across as a tinfoil-wrapped paranoid total dork.
It's one of the reasons why my (few) real-life friends tend to wonder if I'm a paranoid luddite (which is just fine by me) and my online friends are an entirely different demographic altogether -- I don't even have any online connection with my wife.
None of these systems have a checkbox too stop my idiot sister forwarding crap to me and implicitly enrolling me in her facebook centric lifestyle.
I can turn it off but I can't turn off the people who turn it on.
The only submission of mine to make it was about this exact point. Bluntly put, I was told to shut up, quit being such a luddite, and drop any pretence of having any privacy in the first place.
But I'm still not on Facebook, nor do I plan to. On the contrary, I'm looking interestedly at things like the Appleseed project which have the right attitude (but not much traction).
I'm probably going to sound like a complete prig here but anyway... I don't have, nor have I ever had, a Facebook account. However I have regularly seen a friend's account when I've been at his place and as we grew up together I'd say it is representative of what I would have to endure. [...] The thing is, these people often didn't want to know me back then [yet] being chummy online [now] is somehow OK. To be frank I have no interest in 're-'hooking up with these people.
You're not the only one who feels that way (good to know I'm not alone, either). I think you make your point very well, and it does not come across as prudish or technophobic; just very sensible in a way that is becoming increasingly rare.
(I do want to point out that obviously not everyone who has an account is an idiot - my friend for one is certainly not, nor I would say are my ex-colleagues who also had accounts - but it does tend to attract a certain shall we say, demographic.)
Neither would I call most of my acquaintances "idiots". But I am, regrettably, honestly inclined to call the majority of them "sheep", in the sense of "if all your friends were to jump off of a bridge, would you, too?" (actually, if that were a real-life scenario, I'd take a careful look around to see what the heck I should be fleeing from, but I hope you get my point).
It's human nature to follow the herd, so a large amount of flocking behaviour is not only to be expected but very probably futile to dispute. The thing is, though, that the technological advances of the last couple of decades has very clearly outpaced the social ditto -- the force with which one is impelled to make use of the latest fashion is far greater than the urge for thoughtful consideration whether it's really such a good idea. This is evidenced in how "common sense", as a term, falls ever more out of sync with what people currently deem sensible, and is consistently brought into play as an example of something archaic.
I'm not just talking about Facebook or the 'net; it's just as much the software EULA's which people routinely click through, the giving of cell phones to 8-year-olds, the dumbness of the tv shows that are broadcast (and watched), and other such "modern" behaviour. Okay, now I sound technophobic; I'm not, but I do yearn for a more thoughtful state of mind in the general public.
Have you read Wells' short story? I only ask because the guy wasn't actually crucified...
I like your sig, though. True visionaries, if you'll excuse the pun, rarely gain anything but scorn.
Would you be equally scared of a gated community set up in the manner of the fictitious X-net described in Little Brother?
That is to say that, in some respects, a gated community is a Good Thing, it's just that it depends on what kind of gates you use. If you use personal trust relationships, it may not be so big and useful (to begin with), but it should not be very scary, should it?
And it *is* an option, and would not "create a 'gated community' where users would give up their anonymity and certain freedoms in return for safety" -- the article even states that that is just one alternative, in fact, quite the opposite is just as possible.
If there was a new web that was based on security AND privacy (very likely via heavy encryption right out of the box), I'd "hit it so hard, whoever pulls me outa that would be crowned the king of England" as they say.
It's just that there does not seem to be much of an incentive for ISPs to do this. We *can* (and do) build a second-generation Internet (one that's secure) on top of the old infrastructure, but because it's not a separate network it's still being bogged down even if it's not itself being directly affected.
What's needed is a completely separate network, very possibly with improved routing from the lowest layers. This can be done with embedded routers in the home, but requires ISPs to upgrade or replace a good deal of their gear, driving up cost (in a time where a 'net connection is all but regarded as a utility, same as power and water). And for what? For a new Internet that's technically superior in a way that, sadly, only a minority of users are interested in or even able to comprehend. As I said, there's not much incentive for ISPs.
If this ever happens, it's going to be a grass-roots movement as in the old BBS days.