One of the favorite criticisms on/.'s Threads is that nothing is really new (translation: I'm so smart that nothing is new to ME). There's some truth to this...murder, fires, hurricanes aren't new either, but we still tend to pay attention to them. What's new is the evolution of this tracking software, which is going far beyond the ability of governments or companies to track information on people. There is something new about software every single day, and this evolution is very new and very important. The more I read these posts, the better I feel about having written this column.
But half the country DOES use the Internet, and by next spring, according to the Computer Industry Almanac, more than 133 million people will have access to the Net. I find the idea strange that privacy isn't important, if only half the country loses it. And those not online can still be tracked, just in different ways.
AC, you're trying to hard to be snide that it's easy to miss your good point. Governments are definitely a threat, though at the moment corporations are invading privacy much more intensely. But sure, obviously that's where all this goes one day, potentially. As I said in the column, the line between companies and governments getting this info is pretty thin...
So my writing is no good, but you don't read it? Love to get you on the stand with that admission. Sorry you feel that way, but your tone of above-it-all-boredom seems pretty tiresome to me. But I'm glad to see you concede that you don't read what I write, even though you seem to feel pretty free to characterize it.
I find this distinction pretty much of a stretch. People are what they read, buy and see. I can't see sloughing off the loss of privacy as insignificant because it only..for now..relates to products. Besides, history is unpredictable. Nobody knows how this information ultimately will be used..It's a huge loss for society.. And you can see from many of the sadly arrogant comments here that people are willing to give privacy up without much of a tussle. In fact, they have.
If it's simple for you to protect your privacy, good luck to you. I'd love to hear how you are so sure you've done it. But for most people, it's not so simple, and they don't even know their privacy is gone. It's striking how many ofyou have lost consciousness of the level of technological understanding ordinary people have..or don't have. Perhaps because I'm one of the techno-ignorant, it seems more disturbing to me.
The idea expressed above, that we can all protect our privacy if only we wish it to be so, is definitely junior high level..But I love the name Captain Obvious. It works.
The fact that companies don't get info on us 100 per cent correctly is besides the point. For one thing, they're getting better all the time. Does their info have to be 100 per cent correct before it becomes a problem? Knowledgeable people shouldn't have to take steps to protect privacy that is constitutionally guaranteed them...And people who are not knowledgeable, which is still most Americans when it comes to the Net, have no way of protecting themselves. I think we can do a lot about it, BTW.But that's not for me to dictate.
I don't quite get the point of a post like this. If you aren't interested in the subject, why not just skip it? Or if you disagree with the point, why not just say why? I have trouble imagining why anybody would take the time to write a post like this, but then, I guess I won't ever figure that. Also, I don't know what you're talking about..What media outlets?
It's not true that I don't post replies to articles on Threads. I do. I don't know why they don't show up. But I have to survive in a practical way as well. I get hundreds of e-mails a day, write several columns a week, plus books and articles. I can't also go online all day and respond to every single post on Threads. I can't do it.But I do go on as often as I can, and that is regularly.
This is a very tough choice for an artist. As a writer, I hate to be my own businessperson, but increasingly, I have no choice. And the Web makes this palatable for the lst time.The problem is hardly any single artists have any power to market or publicize. Maybe if some banded together.
Do you think people are conscious of this as a political issue? People have accepted the rise of these corporations without a peep? I wonder when they will really organize..
I think Jordan's fears are well founded. The MPA is a very skilled (PR wise) lobbying group that is already presenting this issue as a major intellectual property battleground..they are presenting people like Jon in the same way they present video pirates who get busted by the FBI. Remember as you get your expectations in check, that ABC is owned by Disney.
You're mistaking corporations with corporatism. The latter is very new, very different. Theres' nothing wrong with making money, and these issues of responsibility you're raising have nothing to do with my piece that I can see.
You've got more question marks than I do in my columns. The mistake you're making (why should you be moderated down, BTW?) is you're confusing corporations with corporatism. As I and others have written, they are two very different things. Corporatism is much-driven by de-regulation, venture capital markets and the explosion of the Net and the Web. The old corporations..AT and T, IBM, Ford, were very different. Not as global, or as synergistic, not nearly as big, not seeking to be as dominant. Companies like Microsoft and AOL/Time-Warner thing are very new to the world. There's been nothing like them before. The fact that peple don't see this is disturbing, and very much part of the problem. There' s nothing wrong with c orporations or capitalism, but on this site, after all the stuff with Microsoft, can you really believe that this kind of company and legal stress isn't new?
But unlike most companies, this foot-shooting habit doesn't seem to bring these companies down or even slow them up. They just continue to acquire and monopolize culture..Still, these stats are very surprising. There are several credible ones from several different sources and they all add up to the conclusion that these companies have been hurting artists as well missing the whole point of file-sharing.
But the interesting thing is that these companies don't suffer any consequences for this dunderheadedness. In the Corporate Republic, they just get bigger and fatter.
I didn't pick Stalin, Time did. Like him or not, he sure influenced the world. Hitler was a Man of the Year too, not because he was a great guy, but because he influenced life. Get it?
I made the point in the column that the selection is the most significant person of the year, not the best. The point of the column is that he isn't nearly the most influential...
Slashdot Mirror
One of the favorite criticisms on
But half the country DOES use the Internet, and by next spring, according to the Computer Industry
Almanac, more than 133 million people will have access to the Net. I find the idea strange that privacy isn't important, if only half the country loses it. And those not online can still be tracked, just in different ways.
AC, you're trying to hard to be snide that it's easy to miss your good point. Governments are definitely a threat, though at the moment corporations are invading privacy much more intensely. But sure, obviously that's where all this goes one day, potentially. As I said in the column, the line between companies and governments getting this info is pretty thin...
So my writing is no good, but you don't read it? Love to get you on the stand with that admission. Sorry you feel that way, but your tone of above-it-all-boredom seems pretty tiresome to me.
But I'm glad to see you concede that you don't read what I write, even though you seem to feel pretty free to characterize it.
I find this distinction pretty much of a stretch. People are what they read, buy and see. I can't see sloughing off the loss of privacy as insignificant because it only..for now..relates to products. Besides, history is unpredictable. Nobody knows how this information ultimately will be used..It's a huge loss for society.. And you can see from many of the sadly arrogant comments here that people are willing to give privacy up without much of a tussle. In fact, they have.
He's handsome, wise and a legendary programmer (though secretly)
If it's simple for you to protect your privacy, good luck to you. I'd love to hear how you are so sure you've done it. But for most people, it's not so simple, and they don't even know their privacy is gone. It's striking how many ofyou have lost consciousness of the level of technological understanding ordinary people have..or don't have. Perhaps because I'm one of the techno-ignorant, it seems more disturbing to me.
Ah yes, Signal ll. It's called following up. Sort of my job..It's not a pattern to my writings. It's the point of my writings.
Think about this..This is all correct. But is it really easy for most people?
The idea expressed above, that we can all protect our privacy if only we wish it to be so, is definitely junior high level..But I love the name Captain Obvious. It works.
Perhaps a start is to not do business online with companies that don't have clearly stated privacy policies...
The fact that companies don't get info on us 100 per cent correctly is besides the point. For one thing, they're getting better all the time. Does their info have to be 100 per cent correct before it becomes a problem?
Knowledgeable people shouldn't have to take steps to protect privacy that is constitutionally guaranteed them...And people who are not knowledgeable, which is still most Americans when it comes to the Net, have no way of protecting themselves. I think we can do a lot about it, BTW.But that's not for me to dictate.
I don't quite get the point of a post like this. If you aren't interested in the subject, why not just skip it? Or if you disagree with the point, why not just say why? I have trouble imagining why anybody would take the time to write a post like this, but then, I guess I won't ever figure that. Also, I don't know what you're talking about..What media outlets?
It's not true that I don't post replies to articles on Threads. I do. I don't know why they don't show up. But I have to survive in a practical way as well. I get hundreds of e-mails a day, write several columns a week, plus books and articles. I can't also go online all day and respond to every single post on Threads. I can't do it.But I do go on as often as I can, and that is regularly.
This is a very tough choice for an artist. As a writer, I hate to be my own businessperson, but increasingly, I have no choice. And the Web makes this palatable for the lst time.The problem is hardly any single artists have any power to market or publicize. Maybe if some banded together.
..Who will educate people, since the mainstream media has been almost wholly purchased by these same corporations?
Do you think people are conscious of this as a political issue? People have accepted the rise of these corporations without a peep? I wonder when they will really organize..
I think Jordan's fears are well founded. The MPA is a very skilled (PR wise) lobbying group that is already presenting this issue as a major intellectual property battleground..they are presenting people like Jon in the same way they present video pirates who get busted by the FBI. Remember as you get your expectations in check, that ABC is owned by Disney.
You're mistaking corporations with corporatism. The latter is very new, very different. Theres' nothing wrong with making money, and these issues of responsibility you're raising have nothing to do with my piece that I can see.
You've got more question marks than I do in my columns. The mistake you're making (why should you be moderated down, BTW?) is you're confusing corporations with corporatism. As I and others have written, they are two very different things. Corporatism is much-driven by de-regulation, venture capital markets and the explosion of the Net and the Web.
The old corporations..AT and T, IBM, Ford, were very different. Not as global, or as synergistic, not nearly as big, not seeking to be as dominant. Companies like Microsoft and AOL/Time-Warner thing are very new to the world. There's been nothing like them before. The fact that peple don't see this is disturbing, and very much part of the problem. There' s nothing wrong with c orporations or capitalism, but on this site, after all the stuff with Microsoft, can you really believe that this kind of company and legal stress isn't new?
But unlike most companies, this foot-shooting habit doesn't seem to bring these companies down or even slow them up. They just continue to acquire and monopolize culture..Still, these stats are very surprising. There are several credible ones from several different sources and they all add up to the conclusion that these companies have been hurting artists as well missing the whole point of file-sharing.
But the interesting thing is that these companies don't suffer any consequences for this dunderheadedness. In the Corporate Republic, they just get bigger and fatter.
I didn't pick Stalin, Time did. Like him or not, he sure influenced the world. Hitler was a Man of the Year too, not because he was a great guy, but because he influenced life. Get it?
And one could argue these troops had more influence than Bezos as well.
I don't see any smart quote problems in this column, less somebody else on /. changed them..where are they?
I made the point in the column that the selection is the most significant person of the year, not the best. The point of the column is that he isn't nearly the most influential...