I agree. Exactly what would your response be if you saw a kid walking around in a t-shirt with the image of your son or daughter with a knife through their skull with the message "Kill xxxx!". I'm pretty sure your reaction wouldn't "Oh those silly kids!".
Thanks for that idea Mr. Cringley. Now let me tell you how it would work in the real world.
The telecos would quickly pay for laws and regulations that would prevent people from creating a last mile infrastructure. As an example, look at how the telecos are preventing municipal ISPs and other "community" networks.
You see, it's not that the telecos "need" incentives. They have plenty. They just want to milk every single dollar from both government and consumer. This is similar to how the oil companies operate ( we made x billion dollars last year, but we just can't afford to build any more refineries without government money).
Besides, with the whole tiered internet thinking the telecos have been pushing lately is there really any doubt that they have anything but greed on their minds?
No, the kids can't play Silent Hill. But there seems to be little reservation in training them to kill and then shipping them off to other countries where vibrant young minds get to witness their friends innards splayed across a road from a local improvised explosive device.
But better they see that, than something like XXX porn. God, that stuff will ruin you for life.
Exactly. It is not the consumer's responsibility to subsidize the telcos for expansion of their networks. The bulk of us "last milers" already pay an arm and leg for broadband.
The telcos charge ISPs and consumers already. We already pay more for higher bandwidth. This QoS is total and pure bullshit so the corporate execs can build their new houses out of money, without having to pay for the expansion of there networks.
There is one and only one way I would ever legitimately subsidize the telecos, and that is if we treat the internet like any other public service: We get to vote on what the telecos do with our money.
When a town needs a new road, a wider road, or roadwork, the people of the town vote on whether it is needed and how much it will cost (how much to raise taxes to cover the cost).
If we, the consumers, do not have a say in how the telecos expand their infrastructure then we have no idea on whether the money is being used for that purpose.
This is nothing more than an extortion scheme. It would give the telecos more power than they already have. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that this BS "tiered internet service" would be abused to the fullest extent law. And when that wasn't good enough, they'd have more than enough money to by laws. Though at that point, buying laws wouldn't be necessary since they could make any "non-complying" politician's web-sites load like a 14.4k modem.
Agent Teleco: "Mr Senator, we understand that you hav been contacted by a certain organization, and orginization called the EFF. Now what you may think you know about this orginization is irrelevant. It is regarded by many telecommunications industries as the most dangerous orginzations alive."
Agent Teleco: "My colleagues believe I am wasting my time with you, but I believe you wish to do the right thing. Now we are willing to give your website and blog full access to the internet on our highest tier, and all that we ask in return is your cooperation in passing this legislation."
Mr. Senator: "Wow. That sounds like a really good deal. But I got a better one. How about I give you the finger, and I blog about this on my website."
Agent Teleco: "Well Mr. Senator, you disappoint me..."
Mr. Senator: "You can't scare me with this gestapo crap, I know my rights. I want my website."
Agent Teleco: "Tell me Mr. Senator...what good is a website if people are unable to see it?"
Yeah right. In real life.....
Agent Teleco: "Here's a bag of money and a bill."
Mr. Senator: "Alrighty, all attach this to some protect the children or terrorist legislation and get this rammed through congress for ya."
In other news, the NSA has mandated that all sitting surfaces be fitted with retractable anal probes. The director of the NSA, speaking through a voice garbler and embedded in a block of concrete,"We decided to stop all this seruptitous nonesense and just do in reality what we've been wanting to do for years."
The new device called RAMROD (Rapid Anal Monitoring Retractable Observation Device) is the latest in anal exploratory technology. The new anal probes, with their 10,000 psi hydraulic titanium ejector pyles can penetrate up to 1 inch of steel and extend a full 12 inches. "Let's see a terrorist try to block that!", The director said emphatically.
"This new device will help protect americans, because even terrorists have to sit down at some point", the director explained.
As a sanitary measure, after the probe is retracted it is heated to more than 1000 degrees F and rinsed in a chlorine based solution.
The distribution of RAMROD enable devices has been quite rapid, and even older households are being retrofitted with RAMRODS.
"You get used to it," one 85 year-old man said with a shrug.
While some hail this as the most revolutionary security device invented, others are not so sure about it's safety.
"I had a RAMROD that wouldn't retract," one woman complained. "I was stuck on a bench for over an hour until a crew from the Department of Homeland Security arrived and manually retracted the RAMROD."
"With all new technology, your bound to run into some kinks," the director said. "We have had some reports that the probes were firing while still heated, or with the chemical mixture still on them and such but they are few and far between," the director stated.
"Besides, even with these little glitches, it makes us safer from the terrorists," he added.
RAMRODs, coming to chair near you. Back to you John.
Microsoft is jumping up and down throwing chairs. Sun is jumping up and down throwing a tantrum. SCO is the sleazy sixth grader asking if you want to buy some fake drugs, just before the principle (IBM) grabs him by the scruff of the neck and beats his ass bloody with a splintered smacking board.
Your phone records are clean, and there are no suspicious activities in any of your accounts. You also never detour from any of your travel plans, and have yet to dwell in any questionable places.
Sincerely,
Department of Homeland Security
PS - Your out of mayo, your upstairs toilet leaks, you haven't vacuumed in 9 days, and you might have better luck bringing your girlfriend to orgasm if you try position 32 of the Kama Sutra.
Correction on the libertarians. Like any political party, they have their extremists. The minarchist/anarchist crowd are what most people think of when they hear libertarian.
But the moderate libertarians (most libertarians) are for increasing personal liberties, personal responsibility, and less intrusive, smaller government.
I would think that a majority of us on here can appreciate those ideals.:)
So let me get this straight...a game that allows you to shoot people in the head at point-blank range, bounce them of your car, or bludgeon them to death is getting reemed for having a little sex thrown in?
It's good to know we got our priorities in order:P
Copyright law USED to be about stealing stuff. It isn't any longer, and it hasn't been for some time now. There is no reason a company (or person for that matter) to maintain control of content for 90 years + life.
Perhaps I should have been a little clearer in that regard. The original copyright law was created to prevent willful copying by those who did not pay for the privilige. The copyright extensions had no moral basis, but definately a corporate basis.
As for your second argument, you make the assumption that laws governing "controlled" substances is moral. You can get a wide variety of opinions on whether or not marijuana is bad, but the same can be said for smoking or alcohol. To be clear, why is marijuana illegal and alcohol/tobacco is not? Do you honestly believe it's just because it's a "controlled" substance?
If you do, then how about this for a test of morality. Hemp is a strong fiberous plant. It can be used for everything from clothing to cardboard. It grows quickly, can be cultivated easily, and isn't nearly as hard on soil as cotton. More useful fiber comes out of hemp, and it can be regrown every year.
So where does our current paper come from. Trees, and lots of them. Deforestation is a big problem, and even with replanting it takes many years for an area to recover. Lumbering is quite ecologically devasting.
And tree fiber doesn't make good clothing.
So, strictly from a moralistic point of view, is it not better that we grow hemp to curb lumbering, get more efficient crop, and reduce waste? Or does the supposed "negative" of people getting high outweigh the vast positives of incorporating hemp crops?
Logically, the decision seems quite obvious. Even from a moral standpoint it makes sense (unless you're the type of person who likes double standards). So why is it not legal to have a hemp crop?
It's not morality. There are big lobbyist on the hill that make real sure that hemp will not be legalized, and it has very little to do with the "War on Drugs".
Just so my my viewpoint is clear, I don't advocate smoking mj. Then again, I don't advocate drinking either. However, it is not my right to tell you how to live your life.
"So the "don't legislate morality" argument is a canard."
Ok, now let me tell how it works in the real world. Morality is subjective, guided by what the particular society views as moral. There are even differences within the same culture.
For example, person A may view prostituion as moral, because that individual believes that two adults entering into a consensual contract is totally up to the individuals. Person B may view it as immoral, because it violates a tenet of their particular faith. Person A may view smoking marijuana as perfectly moral, because he believes that a person should be accountable for their own actions, while person B may view as immoral because they believe it's better that no such substances should be allowed due to the potential for harm.
Then there are laws that don't have much moral justification. Copyright law, for instance isn't necessarily based in morality. Another example is the law against hemp (non-THC). There really is no reason for hemp to be illegal to cultivate, other than it would piss off a lot of cotton growers.
Plenty of laws exist outside of what one would call morality.
Seriously, though, if a full scale nuclear attack were launched or some other disaster was about hit the US, do you honestly think for one second this government would tell everyone?
Ken ah git a big "Hell NO!"?
Doing so would create a mass panic, which would hinder "those that need to be saved" from getting saved. As several have pointed out, most of these would be rich and powerful (people with connections).
In reality, if a big disaster were about to hit, the evacuations would happen with a whisper.
Better yet, vote Libertarian. Libertarians are against government intervention into personal lives. The R&D crew on the hill both want to dictate how people live their lives. Get rid of them both.
As "piracy" continues to increase, a wise studio would put in more product placement in their shows. A really wise studio would eliminate commericials all together, choose several products to advertise, and place them conveniently in the show.
Before each season began, there would be sort of a show "draft". The advertisers, having previewed the show or knowing it's previous ratings, would place bids on shows to carry their product lines. The most popular shows would be able to demand the highest prices.
After the draft, the show would work the products into the show. Cars, computers, under-arm deoderant, etc. are common enough items in real life that seeing them in a show really wouldn't be a shock. Now I'm not saying they should do "in-show" commercials (that would be very annoying), but how often do people drive, take a shower, do something recreational (like golf), have a beer, etc.
It just seems to make sense. Then it wouldn't matter if th show were pirated or not, the advertisers would still know their products are reaching the populace.
Then the only "sufferers" might be the cable companies, if they don't provide broadband.
The illegal immigrants risk crossing the border not because they think we're the land of milk and honey, they cross because they have nothing to lose. Many die just trying to get here. Why? Because if they're succesfull they can have a better life than where they are now. If they die, it's better than living they way they are.
When even death is no longer a deterrent there is really not much you can do to stop people.
Violence or imprisonment will not halt the tide. Neither will walls, or cameras, or the National Guard, or gun turrets. They will come by boat. They will stow away in planes. They are desperate people, and will go to desperate measures.
Making things more difficult will slow the tide, to be sure, but it won't stop them.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I gues that makes you a republican then. ;)
~X~
It doesn't surprise me that people assume the worst, given the media blitzkrieg of fear we're bombarded with every single day.
Remember, most people don't see through the hysteria.
~X~
I agree. Exactly what would your response be if you saw a kid walking around in a t-shirt with the image of your son or daughter with a knife through their skull with the message "Kill xxxx!". I'm pretty sure your reaction wouldn't "Oh those silly kids!".
~X~
Thanks for that idea Mr. Cringley. Now let me tell you how it would work in the real world.
The telecos would quickly pay for laws and regulations that would prevent people from creating a last mile infrastructure. As an example, look at how the telecos are preventing municipal ISPs and other "community" networks.
You see, it's not that the telecos "need" incentives. They have plenty. They just want to milk every single dollar from both government and consumer. This is similar to how the oil companies operate ( we made x billion dollars last year, but we just can't afford to build any more refineries without government money).
Besides, with the whole tiered internet thinking the telecos have been pushing lately is there really any doubt that they have anything but greed on their minds?
~X~
Well, you know, like you can't beat your wife until the bitch doesn't bring you another beer. That sort of thing.
~X~
Inappropriate violence? What you mean like Iraq?
No, the kids can't play Silent Hill. But there seems to be little reservation in training them to kill and then shipping them off to other countries where vibrant young minds get to witness their friends innards splayed across a road from a local improvised explosive device.
But better they see that, than something like XXX porn. God, that stuff will ruin you for life.
~X~
Exactly. It is not the consumer's responsibility to subsidize the telcos for expansion of their networks. The bulk of us "last milers" already pay an arm and leg for broadband.
The telcos charge ISPs and consumers already. We already pay more for higher bandwidth. This QoS is total and pure bullshit so the corporate execs can build their new houses out of money, without having to pay for the expansion of there networks.
There is one and only one way I would ever legitimately subsidize the telecos, and that is if we treat the internet like any other public service: We get to vote on what the telecos do with our money.
When a town needs a new road, a wider road, or roadwork, the people of the town vote on whether it is needed and how much it will cost (how much to raise taxes to cover the cost).
If we, the consumers, do not have a say in how the telecos expand their infrastructure then we have no idea on whether the money is being used for that purpose.
This is nothing more than an extortion scheme. It would give the telecos more power than they already have. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that this BS "tiered internet service" would be abused to the fullest extent law. And when that wasn't good enough, they'd have more than enough money to by laws. Though at that point, buying laws wouldn't be necessary since they could make any "non-complying" politician's web-sites load like a 14.4k modem.
Agent Teleco: "Mr Senator, we understand that you hav been contacted by a certain organization, and orginization called the EFF. Now what you may think you know about this orginization is irrelevant. It is regarded by many telecommunications industries as the most dangerous orginzations alive."
Agent Teleco: "My colleagues believe I am wasting my time with you, but I believe you wish to do the right thing. Now we are willing to give your website and blog full access to the internet on our highest tier, and all that we ask in return is your cooperation in passing this legislation."
Mr. Senator: "Wow. That sounds like a really good deal. But I got a better one. How about I give you the finger, and I blog about this on my website."
Agent Teleco: "Well Mr. Senator, you disappoint me..."
Mr. Senator: "You can't scare me with this gestapo crap, I know my rights. I want my website."
Agent Teleco: "Tell me Mr. Senator...what good is a website if people are unable to see it?"
Yeah right. In real life.....
Agent Teleco: "Here's a bag of money and a bill."
Mr. Senator: "Alrighty, all attach this to some protect the children or terrorist legislation and get this rammed through congress for ya."
~X~
~X~
Well, if we wanted electric cars without 5 tons of lead acid batteries, I think we can do it with these ultra capacitors. :)
~X~
In other news, the NSA has mandated that all sitting surfaces be fitted with retractable anal probes. The director of the NSA, speaking through a voice garbler and embedded in a block of concrete,"We decided to stop all this seruptitous nonesense and just do in reality what we've been wanting to do for years."
The new device called RAMROD (Rapid Anal Monitoring Retractable Observation Device) is the latest in anal exploratory technology. The new anal probes, with their 10,000 psi hydraulic titanium ejector pyles can penetrate up to 1 inch of steel and extend a full 12 inches. "Let's see a terrorist try to block that!", The director said emphatically.
"This new device will help protect americans, because even terrorists have to sit down at some point", the director explained.
As a sanitary measure, after the probe is retracted it is heated to more than 1000 degrees F and rinsed in a chlorine based solution.
The distribution of RAMROD enable devices has been quite rapid, and even older households are being retrofitted with RAMRODS.
"You get used to it," one 85 year-old man said with a shrug.
While some hail this as the most revolutionary security device invented, others are not so sure about it's safety.
"I had a RAMROD that wouldn't retract," one woman complained. "I was stuck on a bench for over an hour until a crew from the Department of Homeland Security arrived and manually retracted the RAMROD."
"With all new technology, your bound to run into some kinks," the director said. "We have had some reports that the probes were firing while still heated, or with the chemical mixture still on them and such but they are few and far between," the director stated.
"Besides, even with these little glitches, it makes us safer from the terrorists," he added.
RAMRODs, coming to chair near you. Back to you John.
~X~
Get your facts straight, man!
Microsoft is jumping up and down throwing chairs. Sun is jumping up and down throwing a tantrum. SCO is the sleazy sixth grader asking if you want to buy some fake drugs, just before the principle (IBM) grabs him by the scruff of the neck and beats his ass bloody with a splintered smacking board.
Kids these days...
~X~
Everytime someone pirates, a terrorist gets a suicide bomb vest.
~X~
So...all you guys are still running the linux kernal from near 8 or 9 years ago, right?
And I suppose the latest version of firefox/KDE/gnome runs just fine on that kernel as well, along with all your other favorite programs?
I'm as pro-linux as the next person, but this is little more than a bash M$ troll.
Can we a get a mod for -1 pointless?
~X~
Hello,
Your phone records are clean, and there are no suspicious activities in any of your accounts. You also never detour from any of your travel plans, and have yet to dwell in any questionable places.
Sincerely,
Department of Homeland Security
PS - Your out of mayo, your upstairs toilet leaks, you haven't vacuumed in 9 days, and you might have better luck bringing your girlfriend to orgasm if you try position 32 of the Kama Sutra.
Correction on the libertarians. Like any political party, they have their extremists. The minarchist/anarchist crowd are what most people think of when they hear libertarian.
:)
But the moderate libertarians (most libertarians) are for increasing personal liberties, personal responsibility, and less intrusive, smaller government.
I would think that a majority of us on here can appreciate those ideals.
~X~
I believe Dubya would call him an activist judge, but since it is furthering his goals I'm guessing he won't say much.
~X~
That is cruel and unusual punishment for an exercise bike.
~X~
So let me get this straight...a game that allows you to shoot people in the head at point-blank range, bounce them of your car, or bludgeon them to death is getting reemed for having a little sex thrown in?
:P
It's good to know we got our priorities in order
~X~
Copyright law USED to be about stealing stuff. It isn't any longer, and it hasn't been for some time now. There is no reason a company (or person for that matter) to maintain control of content for 90 years + life.
Perhaps I should have been a little clearer in that regard. The original copyright law was created to prevent willful copying by those who did not pay for the privilige. The copyright extensions had no moral basis, but definately a corporate basis.
As for your second argument, you make the assumption that laws governing "controlled" substances is moral. You can get a wide variety of opinions on whether or not marijuana is bad, but the same can be said for smoking or alcohol. To be clear, why is marijuana illegal and alcohol/tobacco is not? Do you honestly believe it's just because it's a "controlled" substance?
If you do, then how about this for a test of morality. Hemp is a strong fiberous plant. It can be used for everything from clothing to cardboard. It grows quickly, can be cultivated easily, and isn't nearly as hard on soil as cotton. More useful fiber comes out of hemp, and it can be regrown every year.
So where does our current paper come from. Trees, and lots of them. Deforestation is a big problem, and even with replanting it takes many years for an area to recover. Lumbering is quite ecologically devasting.
And tree fiber doesn't make good clothing.
So, strictly from a moralistic point of view, is it not better that we grow hemp to curb lumbering, get more efficient crop, and reduce waste? Or does the supposed "negative" of people getting high outweigh the vast positives of incorporating hemp crops?
Logically, the decision seems quite obvious. Even from a moral standpoint it makes sense (unless you're the type of person who likes double standards). So why is it not legal to have a hemp crop?
It's not morality. There are big lobbyist on the hill that make real sure that hemp will not be legalized, and it has very little to do with the "War on Drugs".
Just so my my viewpoint is clear, I don't advocate smoking mj. Then again, I don't advocate drinking either. However, it is not my right to tell you how to live your life.
~X~
Dat's 'cuz we gots to fights da terrerisms on thar intarwebs.
Don'cha werry tho', we ain't leavin' no children 'hind us.
~X~
"So the "don't legislate morality" argument is a canard."
Ok, now let me tell how it works in the real world. Morality is subjective, guided by what the particular society views as moral. There are even differences within the same culture.
For example, person A may view prostituion as moral, because that individual believes that two adults entering into a consensual contract is totally up to the individuals. Person B may view it as immoral, because it violates a tenet of their particular faith. Person A may view smoking marijuana as perfectly moral, because he believes that a person should be accountable for their own actions, while person B may view as immoral because they believe it's better that no such substances should be allowed due to the potential for harm.
Then there are laws that don't have much moral justification. Copyright law, for instance isn't necessarily based in morality. Another example is the law against hemp (non-THC). There really is no reason for hemp to be illegal to cultivate, other than it would piss off a lot of cotton growers.
Plenty of laws exist outside of what one would call morality.
~X~
Seriously, though, if a full scale nuclear attack were launched or some other disaster was about hit the US, do you honestly think for one second this government would tell everyone?
Ken ah git a big "Hell NO!"?
Doing so would create a mass panic, which would hinder "those that need to be saved" from getting saved. As several have pointed out, most of these would be rich and powerful (people with connections).
In reality, if a big disaster were about to hit, the evacuations would happen with a whisper.
~X~
Better yet, vote Libertarian. Libertarians are against government intervention into personal lives. The R&D crew on the hill both want to dictate how people live their lives. Get rid of them both.
~X~
As "piracy" continues to increase, a wise studio would put in more product placement in their shows. A really wise studio would eliminate commericials all together, choose several products to advertise, and place them conveniently in the show.
Before each season began, there would be sort of a show "draft". The advertisers, having previewed the show or knowing it's previous ratings, would place bids on shows to carry their product lines. The most popular shows would be able to demand the highest prices.
After the draft, the show would work the products into the show. Cars, computers, under-arm deoderant, etc. are common enough items in real life that seeing them in a show really wouldn't be a shock. Now I'm not saying they should do "in-show" commercials (that would be very annoying), but how often do people drive, take a shower, do something recreational (like golf), have a beer, etc.
It just seems to make sense. Then it wouldn't matter if th show were pirated or not, the advertisers would still know their products are reaching the populace.
Then the only "sufferers" might be the cable companies, if they don't provide broadband.
~X~
Because we're trying to get information from a hole on the ass end of earth, not getting information from an asshole.
~X~
I think most people may be missing the point.
The illegal immigrants risk crossing the border not because they think we're the land of milk and honey, they cross because they have nothing to lose. Many die just trying to get here. Why? Because if they're succesfull they can have a better life than where they are now. If they die, it's better than living they way they are.
When even death is no longer a deterrent there is really not much you can do to stop people.
Violence or imprisonment will not halt the tide. Neither will walls, or cameras, or the National Guard, or gun turrets. They will come by boat. They will stow away in planes. They are desperate people, and will go to desperate measures.
Making things more difficult will slow the tide, to be sure, but it won't stop them.
~X~