Re: PC Gamer, yeah, I hated it when they got bought out. I remember there was a 500+ page issue in January of 1999 or something, but since then the pages steadily shrunk... and when they got bought out, the quality took a nosedive as well. Really unfortunate. I wonder what has become of Coconut Monkey?
Good for them. If they don't want to share, that's their prerogative. If Vint Cerf or anyone else does want to share, that's their prerogative as well. Or don't you believe in free speech?
Interesting stuff. They have a point in that there is no automatic requirement to take down content upon receipt of a letter. That said, YouTube has a point in that they should not be forced to be the judge and jury as to whether or not the content is, in fact, infringement. What if they didn't take it down and the original complainant went to court, and the court found it infringing? YouTube would then be liable for the infringement as well, when it would be much cheaper for them in the long run to simply take down the video in the first place.
The main problem with the DMCA takedown provisions is that they force the provider to assume guilt on the part of the uploader, lest they become liable for the possible infringement later shown in court.
In every call center I've ever dealt with, there have been two things I've noticed.
One is that the floor supervisors (the actual ones, not the second level people who pose as them when callers ask for them) usually care about the agents working under them, and will do what they can to improve their ability to do their jobs.
The second is that higher management cares about their clients, and want to match whatever metrics their clients are setting for them, often to the exclusion of the needs of the agents.
Needless to say, the dissonance between group A and group B results in chaos, and I think is a big reason why most call centers have huge turnover.
So my guess is that among those who actually work on the floor, you'll find a lot of support for this idea. Among those who manage the floor indirectly, you'll find exactly the opposite.
You're extending a generality into a specific case, which isn't necessarily how they'd do it. They could implement, say, a DMCA-style approach to this sort of thing.
I agree that they should be more specific, but let's not make straw men.
Full disclosure, I was heavily leaning toward voting NDP anyway, but this has won me over. While there's a little bit of me that considers that this may just be pandering, I think Jack Layton would make a great leader, I agree with just about all of their policies, and I think that they tap into what most Canadians want from their government.
If you saw the debate a while back, it was pretty much Harper attacking and everyone else attacking back, but Layton seemed to have the most concrete plans and platform for what they'd actually do when elected. None of the other parties can really say that (and especially not the Conservatives).
Also, I know that they're not going to actually win the election, but like my signature says, they most closely fit my political viewpoint, so they've got my vote.
Having control of the root zone would let us give ourselves more TLDs.
Basically, think of it as having control of one level up from TLDs, a hidden . at the end of every domain (like slashdot.org. - not the dot at the end).
In reality, it wouldn't affect too much of the normal use of the internet. Basically, whoever has control of this has control of creation and modification of top-level domains, like.com,.net, and.org, to a certain degree, in that they could enable or disable them, but not modify them directly (unless they disabled them and created their own modified version).
In theory, they could bring down the internet with such access though, so it is something worth serious consideration.
People weren't educated enough, and because of that, pride in our system and the belief that "nothing could be wrong with democracy" won out. I think a lot of people who didn't know any better saw it as a weird radical idea from some unknown party that would mess with the system, rather than fix issues they didn't know about.
It's definitely unfortunate, and I really hope they're able to bring it back to another vote and further educate people as to what it would actually mean.
The problem is that that theoretical hosts file is already split among different entities; for example, Verisign controls the.com and.net registries, not ICANN. So, if you wanted to do that, you'd have to convince all of them to give up their control.
Quite a bit of money, stability likely wouldn't be a problem
Cons:
Puts a private company in control of a very, very important part of the internet
Has previously fucked with DNS, would likely do so again if considered a wise business decision
US Government
Pros:
Wouldn't dare let it go down since business in their country is very dependent upon it
Puts elected officials in charge of a very important part of the internet
Cons:
Nationalizes an important part of an international network
Puts elected officials in charge of a very important part of the internet
ICANN
Pros:
Has been doing this a long time
Is a non-profit company so isn't driven by the same business needs as, say, Verisign
Cons:
Still somewhat national
I'm definitely of the opinion that ICANN should be running it. That said, I don't know everything about the matter, so perhaps there's something that would change my mind. I figure, though, that if it's not broken, don't fix it.
Which is one reason that proportional representation is a good thing, or a mixed system like the one Ontario tried to move to last year.
In addition, usually the pluses and minuses will not be so greatly varied; often A will be +1000, in which case statistically it may be slightly better to vote for B, but that's assuming that A will never win and that voting for B will guarantee a win for them, which are two huge assumptions to be making.
But yeah, we agree that the system needs some definite changes so peoples' votes actually match up with the power they're supposed to have.
Slashdot Mirror
Well done, sir.
What, do they show up in some holodeck malfunction or something?
The short version of this argument is, and has been for a long while now, don't buy EA.
Re: PC Gamer, yeah, I hated it when they got bought out. I remember there was a 500+ page issue in January of 1999 or something, but since then the pages steadily shrunk... and when they got bought out, the quality took a nosedive as well. Really unfortunate. I wonder what has become of Coconut Monkey?
That's an acronym, not a word.
Frequently Asked Questions.
Good for them. If they don't want to share, that's their prerogative. If Vint Cerf or anyone else does want to share, that's their prerogative as well. Or don't you believe in free speech?
Interesting stuff. They have a point in that there is no automatic requirement to take down content upon receipt of a letter. That said, YouTube has a point in that they should not be forced to be the judge and jury as to whether or not the content is, in fact, infringement. What if they didn't take it down and the original complainant went to court, and the court found it infringing? YouTube would then be liable for the infringement as well, when it would be much cheaper for them in the long run to simply take down the video in the first place.
The main problem with the DMCA takedown provisions is that they force the provider to assume guilt on the part of the uploader, lest they become liable for the possible infringement later shown in court.
In every call center I've ever dealt with, there have been two things I've noticed.
One is that the floor supervisors (the actual ones, not the second level people who pose as them when callers ask for them) usually care about the agents working under them, and will do what they can to improve their ability to do their jobs.
The second is that higher management cares about their clients, and want to match whatever metrics their clients are setting for them, often to the exclusion of the needs of the agents.
Needless to say, the dissonance between group A and group B results in chaos, and I think is a big reason why most call centers have huge turnover.
So my guess is that among those who actually work on the floor, you'll find a lot of support for this idea. Among those who manage the floor indirectly, you'll find exactly the opposite.
America: Uh, heard of the War on Drugs?
The World: Y'know, on second thought, maybe you need to just get some better weed and chill out a little.
You're extending a generality into a specific case, which isn't necessarily how they'd do it. They could implement, say, a DMCA-style approach to this sort of thing.
I agree that they should be more specific, but let's not make straw men.
And let's not talk about what Mike Harris actually did to this province. My brain has still blocked that particular memory to protect itself.
Full disclosure, I was heavily leaning toward voting NDP anyway, but this has won me over. While there's a little bit of me that considers that this may just be pandering, I think Jack Layton would make a great leader, I agree with just about all of their policies, and I think that they tap into what most Canadians want from their government.
If you saw the debate a while back, it was pretty much Harper attacking and everyone else attacking back, but Layton seemed to have the most concrete plans and platform for what they'd actually do when elected. None of the other parties can really say that (and especially not the Conservatives).
Also, I know that they're not going to actually win the election, but like my signature says, they most closely fit my political viewpoint, so they've got my vote.
I was thinking of having i.spoom, for that Asimov feel.
Yeah.
Having control of the root zone would let us give ourselves more TLDs.
Basically, think of it as having control of one level up from TLDs, a hidden . at the end of every domain (like slashdot.org. - not the dot at the end).
In reality, it wouldn't affect too much of the normal use of the internet. Basically, whoever has control of this has control of creation and modification of top-level domains, like .com, .net, and .org, to a certain degree, in that they could enable or disable them, but not modify them directly (unless they disabled them and created their own modified version).
In theory, they could bring down the internet with such access though, so it is something worth serious consideration.
On behalf of Canada, I accept.
*gives himself a TLD for the hell of it*
People weren't educated enough, and because of that, pride in our system and the belief that "nothing could be wrong with democracy" won out. I think a lot of people who didn't know any better saw it as a weird radical idea from some unknown party that would mess with the system, rather than fix issues they didn't know about.
It's definitely unfortunate, and I really hope they're able to bring it back to another vote and further educate people as to what it would actually mean.
See, I thought about that too, but then I thought... well, that's basically ICANN.
CAPS LOCK IS CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL.
(even cruise control [and slashdot filters] you still have to steer)
I did, if you noticed. :^P
Addendum:
UN
Pros:
Cons:
I'd be interested in hearing reasons why people believe this is a good thing as well though.
The problem is that that theoretical hosts file is already split among different entities; for example, Verisign controls the .com and .net registries, not ICANN. So, if you wanted to do that, you'd have to convince all of them to give up their control.
Verisign
Pros:
Cons:
US Government
Pros:
Cons:
ICANN
Pros:
Cons:
I'm definitely of the opinion that ICANN should be running it. That said, I don't know everything about the matter, so perhaps there's something that would change my mind. I figure, though, that if it's not broken, don't fix it.
Which is one reason that proportional representation is a good thing, or a mixed system like the one Ontario tried to move to last year.
In addition, usually the pluses and minuses will not be so greatly varied; often A will be +1000, in which case statistically it may be slightly better to vote for B, but that's assuming that A will never win and that voting for B will guarantee a win for them, which are two huge assumptions to be making.
But yeah, we agree that the system needs some definite changes so peoples' votes actually match up with the power they're supposed to have.
You're missing the point.
They might not want DRM, but they do want their previous purchased music to not suddenly become worthless.