I've never heard of any exploits targeting DirectX or someone breaking in via GPU. In a same way someone could exploit Windows sound driver via flash applet to break in. I dont think I've used any ActiveX objects for 10 years, and times have changed. Obviously security has also come up too.
Speaking of ActiveX, am I missing something or does that part about "apps outside the browser" sound like a more modern reimplementation of the old ActiveX? By that I mean, whether it's "inside the browser" or in a different window, this still amounts to running executable code from remote hosts. Let's hope this isn't the security nightmare that ActiveX proved to be, and yes, it's reasonable to look at a company's track record when speculating about these matters.
Like too many articles linked on Slashdot, this is more like a press release and is extremely light on details. You'd really think that whether or not they avoided repeating the mistakes that gravely plagued the last similar idea would be worthy of mention. Anyway, I would like to know what kind of sandboxing and other security measures are in place to handle the untrusted executables.
And when their music and movie industries do not fall apart, can this prove once and for all that the way the USA and several other nations are handling copyright is unnecessary and causes far too much harm?
Getting these things up and running is no surprise to me. It seems that they used quality stuff in them days. I have loads of these oldies that haven't been booted for 10+ years and upon plugging them in they start off as if nothing ever happened. Drives with a ST-506 interface in particular seem to be of an indistructible kind of quality-make.
Feel free to contact me for disks, or as stated; check eBay of contact Bruce Damer of the DigiBarn [http://www.digibarn.com/].
Is it really quality, or is it more like that engineering principle that the more complex a thing is, the more likely it is to break down? Because today's machines are one hell of a lot more complex...
What humanity could stand to lose is the "we know what's best for you" mentality. Humanity could stand to lose that, the same way that a cancer patient could stand to lose a tumor.
...So you know what's best for us?
Way to go after the low-hanging fruit. As in, that has to be the least useful interpretation of what I said.
To answer you, I know what's best for *me*. I expect other adults can make a similar determination *for themselves*. This concept can't be that hard.
The law often makes up legal principles (usually giving them Latin names to try to make them seem magical and justified) to override other legal principles. Obscenity is a great way to override freedom of speech by taking speech, labeling it "obscenity," and then claiming that it's "not really speech."
I have often said that the actual principles of freedom and why those principles are correct is quite easy to understand. All of the mystique and the complication and the increasingly "priesthood" status of the lawyers and courts is because you need a great deal of complication before there is room for ever-increasing restrictions to seem like valid options. "You and other consenting adults may do whatever the hell you want, until and unless you affect another person against their will." Really, how difficult is that? The only objection people have is that it might mean others engage in behavior of which they disapprove, like responsible drug use for example, and unfortunately immature people care more about that than they do about freedom. It's like they are personally offended that someone would want to do something that they would not do, which is supreme arrogance disguised as concern for health. The reason why those people are wrong is easy to sum up, as their beliefs go like this: "it's not enough that I don't use drugs; I am not satisfied until I prevent you from using them too."
I'll answer a really obvious objection just because some people raise it believing that it's anything other than obvious and shallow. Drugs should be handled just like we currently handle another drug, alcohol. Stay at home, use them responsibly, don't create a disturbance? Have at it. Use them irresponsibly, try to drive while severely impaired, or otherwise harm or potentially harm others with your usage of them, and then we have a reason to stop you. I feel this way about all victimless crimes. Personally, I want to have a meaningful relationship with a woman I truly care about; however, that doesn't give me the right to stop someone from hiring a prostitute if that's really what he wants to do. If he asked me, I'd tell him that I disagree with what he's doing but if he didn't ask me, then what consenting adults want to do behind closed doors is none of my damned business. That's because I am not his master and don't care to dictate to him how he should live. It's that simple.
A problem with the constitution colliding with the rights of minors and school? No problem! "En loco parentis," is right up your alley (whether you agree with the concept or not).
You have to appreciate the message this sends to the children. From a young age, they are taught in history or "social studies" classes that the rights enumerated in the Constitution are inalienable rights that human beings have by virtue of being human. Then they are shown that those rights can be reduced or removed at will, by a government agency (public schools), so long as a good enough excuse is provided. This is to our great shame. How many countless examples of such hypocrisy have to occur before we start wondering why young people don't respect authority?
I'm kind of failing to see what the loss to humanity is if some commercial sex games aren't made.
I can definitely see that a game with strong sexuality can have artistic merit, that's not what this is about. On the other hand, I think most games like that would never, ever be made by anything other than an individual or small group that would make it regardless of whether it would be commercially viable.
What humanity could stand to lose is the "we know what's best for you" mentality. Humanity could stand to lose that, the same way that a cancer patient could stand to lose a tumor.
It does amaze me that we live in a society where realistically depicted violence, and in the case of some news stories, actual violence, is considered acceptable. Meanwhile, a single breast being exposed during a Superbowl half-time show resulted in outrage and a strong desire to "crack down" on obscenity. The message there is that violence is normal and acceptable while sexuality is obscene and must be censored.
You are quite right about a chilling effect. That tells me we are doing things the hard way. Rather than censorship, I'd much rather we teach people that fictional depictions like video games can be appreciated for what they are without also being idolized and emulated. Any adult who can't understand what that means is not really an adult but an overgrown child. So I assume this must be about children. If parents are worried about their children being exposed to the more severe video games or movies or any other media, I fully support their right to act as the "benevolent dictators" that they are and control what their children have access to. However, I expect them to actually be parents instead of relying on institutional censorship to carry out their responsibility for them.
Do you know what a false dichotomy is? Your post is a shining example of one.
In your argument, I am either 'unconcerned' with my health, and want this device to cover for that. Or I live a healthy lifestyle and shun this.
Perfectly healthy people have strokes. A lady I worked with in her 60's had one. She was perfectly health and coul out-exercise most of the 30-somethings in the office. The first stroke was minor. However, she had a second that was worse, partially due to not having someone there to report it. If you have a stroke, you may be unaware of it because it is affecting your brain. An observer would notice right away something was wrong.
So while you can feel good about yourself and your superior eating habits, there are reasons a device like this may be useful to those who aren't fat and lazy.
So you mention a rather rare occurrence and believe that this better represents the typical case than my scenario which clearly described people who could be taking much better care of themselves? Sure, there are people who eat perfectly, run five miles a day, lift weights, and then drop dead from heart attacks at relatively young ages. Do you know why they're noteworthy? Because they're rare. That's not generally how things work out. For that matter, non-smokers get lung cancer sometimes, but I would hazard a (completely unqualified, not-a-doctor) guess that not smoking is still one of the best ways to make sure that you don't get lung cancer.
It's not a matter of feeling good or superior. If those are the only terms accessible to your imagination for why I said what I said, then I hope you outgrow that one day. Benefit of a doubt is a beautiful, though sometimes costly, thing.
Even if I were 200lbs overweight, smoked 2 packs of cigarettes a day, and drank like a fish, I would still prefer to take my chances than be monitored like this. I hope that better explains to you where I'm coming from. Meanwhile, I'd rather people take a little more responsibility for their own well-being than come up with clever monitoring devices to enable somebody else to look after that for them.
Really, to hear some of these debates you'd think that humanity has had such technologies since the Neolithic Age. We have managed to get by without them. They are not essential to life. "Because we can" is not a good enough reason. It's perfectly valid to feel that there are good alternatives to invasive technologies.
That could be an early possibility. This technology could also be used to monitor your body in real-time, ensuring that you are staying healthy. This would allow for prevention of heart attacks and strokes, instead of allowing for fast treatment after the problems occur.
I am not a doctor of any kind so this obviously is not a medical opinion. I am just saying what I believe to be common sense. This is one of those where I say "I have karma to burn." I don't expect it will be well-received because people who don't take responsibility for their well-being really seem to hate being reminded that they can. They regard you as something of a religious infidel for thinking that people aren't nearly so helpless as they tend to believe.
If I were worried about my health, I would eat mostly fruits and vegetables with some meat, I would exercise regularly, and I would learn how to handle problems without being stressed out by them (it's amazing how important that one is). If I were fat, I would work hard and do something about it until I were no longer fat. If I smoked, I would take steps to quit. Every day I would take a moment to really enjoy the hell out of something, even if it's some small thing. I would do all of those things, and then and only then, would I go to the medical system to resolve any remaining issues.
I see the obesity statistics and things of that nature. I go outside and I see some very heavy people everywhere. Most of them aren't doing anything about it; they are too busy trying to be "accepted" for it. Then I see all of the problems that folks with that lifestyle have to deal with, all the suffering they tend to have later in life, and I think of one word: "preventable."
I don't want real-time health monitoring devices. I want a society that can achieve a basic level of well-being without them.
When I wrote the original post, I knew this would be the first response (outside of a goofy troll, I was right). Basically, every advance has the potential to be used for evil purposes. It is up to us as a society to stand up against that. That has nothing to do with the technology itself.
Here's the difference: did it come from top-down edicts, or from the overwhelming demand of the people? That is, is it something most people have wanted for a long time now that has finally become possible/economical, or is it something that must be sold to them? Is it a solution looking for a problem? Is its participation entirely voluntary and opt-on only or will people be coerced in some way into accepting it whether they want it or not? After all, if it's "for my own good" you should have no stake in whether I use it or not, and thus no problem with my refusal to use it.
The other side of the coin is that there are some technologies with marginal or dubious benefits and extremely terrible potential abuses. What do you call something that can only benefit you a little bit but might really hurt you a lot? Poor decision-making. The problem is that surveillance in general, the uses to which it can be put, and just how much power it represents, are not terribly well known. I'll gladly take my chances with whether I can reach a telephone and dial 911 before I'll wear any sort of monitoring device. That's because I am weighing the unlikely scenario of dying because I could not get to a doctor fast enough against the very likely scenario of this technology being abused when it becomes widespread. I'd much rather have a slightly higher chance of dying in a freer country than a slightly higher chance of surviving in a more tyrannical country. Any day.
Imagine having advice hooked up that could monitor for a heart attack or a stroke. If detected, emergency could be called automatically. If reliable, what would this do for survival rates? In many cases, survival or simply the degree of damage is determined by how quickly treatment begins. I think something like this, if reliable and unobtrusive, would be a major leap forward for health treatment.
You do know that tyranny and the invasion of privacy is always "for the good of the land," right? I'm going to engate in some speculation here, something you might call a plausible scenario.
The problem is that if this health monitor becomes available and reasonably cheap, it will probably become difficult to obtain health insurance without it. The stated reason will be cost. So, in that way it's going to be required of everyone whether or not they care about the privacy aspects. I find that scenario a little too likely. That probable lack of voluntary, opt-in-only participation is one of your first clues that you are dealing with something the goals of which deviate from its stated purpose.
No, your grammar nazi-ing is not even correct. Co-conspirator and conspirator indicate different things, like specificity. If I am involved in a computer conspiracy, and another person is involved in a highway tax conspiracy, we are both conspirators. We are not, however, co-conspirators. We are not partners, we are not involved in the same conspiracy.
Also, it is possible for a conspirator to have a partner who is not part of the conspiracy. If a conspirator goes to someone and is able to get them to do a job with them, but withhold information regarding the conspiracy or its goals, then the conspirators new partner is not a co-conspirator.
The use of co-conspirator is used to denote the relation of one conspirator to another. It would actually be improper grammar to remove the "co", as it would imply ownership of one to the other. "His conspirator" and "his co-conspirator" have obviously different meanings. The use of co-conspirator removes ownership from the previous statement, and is therefore not redundant.
The first rule of the grammar nazi is only to make corrections when they are themselves correct. You, sir, and an epic fail.
P.S. Feel free to correct the poor grammar in that last sentence as if it were English, so I can call you wrong again. It's fun.
Wait, you mentioned the word "conspiracy" or one of its derivatives. That means that whatever you said is automatically invalid and will be dismissed without examination, particularly if it involved or could involve the government!
Really though, thanks for providing the first real explanation of "co-conspirator" I have ever heard. I admit I did wonder why people used this term, probably because I only ever hear it on the news.
Again: "are you implying that dumb users suddenly become intelligent...?"
In other words, is the user intelligence variable dependant upon the OS variable? if you change the OS, does the user IQ change with it?
Dispite the GPP being an AC, I think you missed his point (which was valid).
In the sense that I could not prove it, I cannot tell you about the causation. I can tell you about the correlation, however.
It's not so much that *nix users tend to be more technically knowledgable. That is true, but I don't think that's the biggest difference. It's that *nix users more strongly feel that you should not use a tool without at least trying to understand it. Among other things, that means you become a little better at it or more skillful with it the more you use it. It's not about assuming that you're an expert; rather, it's about assuming that eventually you might become one. It follows that the difference between average users and advanced users is that advanced users take less time to get there because they have an aptitude for it.
You just don't see that sort of personal involvement with most Windows installations. In a way it would contradict the "easiest thing to use EVER!" marketing that goes along with it. In another way, that marketing is an attempt to accommodate this (IMHO misinformed) idea that becoming personally involved in what you spend your time doing is some kind of undesirable event to be avoided whenever possible, like some kind of tax. I really think that people who see this as a burden have no idea what they are missing.
I don't see this as being about pure computing at all. To me it's more like a philosophy of life and involvement. There are also elements concerning the willingness to assume a little responsibility. While the actual "mechanics" of it may be difficult to elucidate, I believe that these abstract, philosophical ideas are reflected in the design and culture of the various OSes and that different users who have different ideas of "how this should be" will gravitate towards different platforms as a result.
The only thing this assumes is an awareness of the various platforms, which the situation with Windows can complicate because of its overall dominance and subsequent ubiquity. So, this can be seen as limiting my observation to those who are aware of the alternatives. It could also be seen as strong confirmation for the philosophical nature of the point.
The one right that should be explicitly denied to them is participation in the political process (particularly lobbying and campaign donations).
You do realize that the only way the lower- and middle-classes get a say in our political process is because of these "evil" corporations, right? Without the ability to pool their limited funds toward a common goal, no one would be able to lobby the government, save the rich. Organizations like the AARP, NRA, NAACP, etc. are not diabolical "special interests". They're common people who have gotten together to make their voices heard.
Without those corporations, only the people with individual wealth would be in that position.
What I am proposing is in the spirit of no one but the common person being able to lobby the government. Taking coporations out of the political equation would mean that the rich find themselves greatly outnumbered by the other 90+ percent of the population and thus, their particular political views would be nearly irrelevant. What we have right now is quite the opposite, which is why so many people can be against the RIAA and the RIAA can be composed of such a small fraction of the overall society and still wield so much clout (i.e. if they want a new law, they will probably have it)
In fact I'd be willing to consider the idea of eliminating all lobbying and all campaign contributions of every sort, outlawing them as either corruption or bribery (respectively). Then give political candidates an extremely generous (lest there be excuses) grant of public money and let them use that as the sole legal means by which they run their campaigns. That way, the politicians would care about one thing and only one thing: our vote and how to obtain it. Right now they care about two things, money and votes, and the former can be used to buy the latter so they care much more about the money. Right now that's a big part of why they don't represent us.
But we can't just stop consuming their products. The RIAA does nothing but produce horrible music that no one wants and that I just can't stop downloading because I'm entitled to it for free because... I don't remember but I'm sure you already know the reason so it's cool. I deserve happiness and the only way I can get it is free entertainment and I'm gonna bitch on the Internet until the whole world agrees with me and copyright is abolished and the only people who make music or movies die by age 20 of horrific malnutrition because I can't be bothered to reach into my wallet for a buck to thank them for their effort. My listening is thanks enough, because I say it is.
I do think the question of whether copyright itself is outdated is much more interesting. My bet is that this would not kill off music and movies, only commercial music and movies. What that would actually mean is an open question. I think it would be much more viable for music than it would be for movies, because with music you can now do things with a home PC that once required a full studio and extremely expensive equipment. It is now technologically feasible for a band to handle their own production and distribution, which is something that the older "middleman" system did not anticipate (or anticipated and doesn't like). For movies this is starting to happen but not nearly to the same degree, for the obvious reason that they are more complex to make.
It makes me wish that we could just try it out and see how it works, maybe in a single US state or something. I know copyright is a federal law but what I wish for can be quite different from what's realistic:-).
I think he's deeply involved in a worldview where pretty much everyone looks evil. This means he'll be tempted to treat opposing council, grumpy judges and uppity clients like they're evil. That's a bad thing.
Pretty much everyone DOES look evil, and properly so. Mostly because they care more about the approval of others than their own integrity, are petty, easily upset, manipulative, domineering towards those who are weaker than they but meek towards those who are stronger, and make excuses for doing things that they know are wrong if they want to do them badly enough. You can file all of that away under "not really leading your own life but instead being far too subject to outside influences which do not have your best interests at heart." It's evil, though it's not malicious as most people don't understand why this is wrong or the tremendous suffering it leads to and they think it's normal because it is common.
The way you said "treating opposing council, grumpy judges, and uppity clients like they're evil" reveals how normal people think this is. If you are not part of the problem I just summarized, then you treat everyone by the same standard. That standard is simple and also hard to explain but the basic idea is "if they force you to defend yourself in some way (i.e. legally in this case), then do it reasonably, without hesitation or malice, while regretting that things had to be that way. Otherwise, treat them with compassion and loving-kindness not because they do or don't deserve it, but because of who you are." The reason why returning evil for evil does not work is that it only increases the amount of evil in the world. The problem is that people can see how self-evident that is, and then they go and get the idea that being "good" means being a push-over or a doormat. There's a right way to stand up for yourself. You can do it while taking on none of the negative traits of those who made you do so.
It's funny how you don't follow your own logic - no one forced you to read any of my posts. And yet apparently you've read many. And you needed to post to complain about them. This same urge is what led me to complain about the story. It's pretty common human nature. Not going to put you down for it, but I hope you realize that you've displayed the same mentality.
There's one thing critical to this discussion, so far as it concerns me, that you are missing. I was not complaining. I was telling you what I believe to be the truth of the matter, the actual underlying thing behind the otherwise superficial and uninteresting subject of whether or not you are enjoying Slashdot's editorial decisions.
I was trying to make you aware of something that I consider to be far more important than which story Slashdot decides to put on the front page. That's because I don't think Slashdot's editorial decisions have much of an impact on your well-being. However, I have never seen that entitlement mentality displayed by a happy person whose attitude towards life can be described as "joyous." Occasionally I encounter people who aren't satisfied with that and are grateful to learn that the decisions they make can change it. I am perceptive but I am not a mind-reader, so I don't know if you are such a person until after I try and show you what you are doing.
So, I am following my own logic. It just wasn't the logic you were expecting. I did tell you what that logic was, however. To quote myself:
Now I will tell you one occurrence that is extremely rare, as in it nearly never happens: pointing out to someone in a non-inflammatory, reasonable way that they are displaying an entitlement mentality, and then having them appreciate it and understand that there are more graceful ways. I'm betting you won't appreciate this, but what the hell, thought I'd give it a shot.
If you think I have something to gain by deceiving you, then I celebrate your right to go on believing that I am a hypocrite who is obtuse enough to complain about your complaining as you have indicated. If someone wanted to take that right away from you, I would be against that person and would explain to them why they are wrong for wanting to do so. That's easy for me, however, because whether you see my point or not is entirely your gain or your loss. The people who need you to agree with them are not coming from a position that could possibly hope to show you much of anything that you didn't already see yourself.
I've seen some news regarding some lawsuits over ringtones being "a public performance." I wonder what would happen if we printed off 1000 copies of the RIAA's Top 10 Billboard Chart songs and gathered around the courthouse each break to sing these copyrighted songs publicly.
DDoS the judicial system by doing public performances of all these copyrighted songs. There's no fucking way the courts could keep up with even 100 of these new cases a day...
What you're advocating there is civil disobedience. That's very much in line with both Henry David Thoreau and Mahatma Ghandi and how they handled injustice. There is one thing however, that must be kept in mind: both of those men fully expected to be prosecuted and were prepared to pay that price.
Didn't the Radiohead Experiment teach us that most people don't care about cost or RIAA business tactics? They just want stuff for free.
Radiohead made some good sales despite the option of downloading that album ("In Rainbows") for free. If that proved anything, it proved that when you offer to give away free music, many people will not pay but more than enough will decide to support you. By "more than enough" I mean that it was definitely a profitable venture for them, by any standard. You may find this an interesting read.
Only consume music that can be purchased directly from the artists themselves.
Convince two others to do the same.
This might actually solve the real problem. It would also send the right message.
Nope. What will happen should this actually occur, is that the RIAA will go crying to Congress: "The Evil Content Pirates(tm) are stealing our profits!!!!! We need even nastier laws!!!"
I was tempted to ask if you even read the comment, but I suppose that isn't very reasonable. So I'll ask you an alternate question: why do you think the part about "not using ("consuming") their products, neither legally nor illegally" would fail to address that? It would help me to understand you if you can be as specific as possible.
So far, the fact that piracy does occur and is taking place has been the main excuse behind many of these bad laws. Personally, I think their failure to handle digital distribution in a way that people like is responsible for every last problem they are having and that their current business model deserves to fail. The problem is that piracy therefore does benefit them in a way because it gives them an easy excuse, something they can blame other than themselves. What I would like is for them to either take responsibility for their own failures or go bankrupt. I think at least one of those, possibly both, is what needs to happen. What I do not understand is why you believe that making them as irrelevant as possible in a perfectly legal fashion would be counterproductive towards either goal.
The better question is: do we really need the RIAA???
No, we don't. But we already all agree on that. Either that, or those who feel otherwise are set in their ways. So most of your post is just more preaching to the choir. Would you say you see any actual insight coming about from this new information? Would it in any way have helped you to read a single post about this order, rather than getting an update once the order has been responded to and the topic has been mostly decided?
That's my main beef. I like to hear updates, but we've just gotten too fine grained. We don't really need to know about every specific motion and order and legal maneuver. Lawyers on both sides in every trial do tons of shit, not expecting a lot of it to work but just trying it out. For people who are really obsessed with legal maneuvering, Ray's blog is a fine source of daily info.
I consider that, so far as I know, no one has forced you to read this story. I consider as well that you have probably made more posts in this story than any other single poster. Further, there are stories here on the Slashdot main page which really don't interest me; you won't see me posting in them.
In light of that, I believe that what you're doing here is like going into a Mexican restaurant and then complaining to the staff that you really don't like Mexican food. Further, you're getting outraged that said restaurant won't accommodate you when they point out that another restaurant serving food that you do like is across the street. It's something of an entitlement mentality. Now I will tell you one occurrence that is extremely rare, as in it nearly never happens: pointing out to someone in a non-inflammatory, reasonable way that they are displaying an entitlement mentality, and then having them appreciate it and understand that there are more graceful ways. I'm betting you won't appreciate this, but what the hell, thought I'd give it a shot.
A more constructive approach would be to write to the Slashdot staff and ask for more flexible story categories, that way you can just set up your own preferences so that you don't have to be so bothered by headlines that don't interest you. I've written them on a couple of things myself and have found them to be quite reasonable and accommodating. That's even though I am not a paid subscriber. I have no idea if they'd help you with this since I cannot speak for them, but coming from a paid subscriber like you it would definitely be worth a shot.
This is of course not easy, since they can go to court and refer to laws and acts that they themselves either wrote or lobbied for!
The way I see things, that one is the actual problem. If they did not have so much undue influence over the political process they very well may have been forced to adapt to the Information Age already. Even if that isn't true at all, I would still say it's a much bigger and more serious problem that our politicians are doing a better job of representing monied interests like the RIAA/MPAA than they are of representing the people.
I think the biggest single mistake we made was to give corporations all of the rights of a real person. The one right that should be explicitly denied to them is participation in the political process (particularly lobbying and campaign donations). That should be against the law, with the penalty being the revocation of their corporate charter, the public auctioning of all assets, and the proceeds returning to the shareholders. If they participate in politics by means of front groups, that should be against the same law with the addition of criminal fraud charges, personally applicable to any members of management who helped to arrange it.
Slashdot Mirror
I've never heard of any exploits targeting DirectX or someone breaking in via GPU. In a same way someone could exploit Windows sound driver via flash applet to break in. I dont think I've used any ActiveX objects for 10 years, and times have changed. Obviously security has also come up too.
Speaking of ActiveX, am I missing something or does that part about "apps outside the browser" sound like a more modern reimplementation of the old ActiveX? By that I mean, whether it's "inside the browser" or in a different window, this still amounts to running executable code from remote hosts. Let's hope this isn't the security nightmare that ActiveX proved to be, and yes, it's reasonable to look at a company's track record when speculating about these matters.
Like too many articles linked on Slashdot, this is more like a press release and is extremely light on details. You'd really think that whether or not they avoided repeating the mistakes that gravely plagued the last similar idea would be worthy of mention. Anyway, I would like to know what kind of sandboxing and other security measures are in place to handle the untrusted executables.
And when their music and movie industries do not fall apart, can this prove once and for all that the way the USA and several other nations are handling copyright is unnecessary and causes far too much harm?
Getting these things up and running is no surprise to me. It seems that they used quality stuff in them days. I have loads of these oldies that haven't been booted for 10+ years and upon plugging them in they start off as if nothing ever happened. Drives with a ST-506 interface in particular seem to be of an indistructible kind of quality-make. Feel free to contact me for disks, or as stated; check eBay of contact Bruce Damer of the DigiBarn [http://www.digibarn.com/].
Is it really quality, or is it more like that engineering principle that the more complex a thing is, the more likely it is to break down? Because today's machines are one hell of a lot more complex ...
What humanity could stand to lose is the "we know what's best for you" mentality. Humanity could stand to lose that, the same way that a cancer patient could stand to lose a tumor.
...So you know what's best for us?
Way to go after the low-hanging fruit. As in, that has to be the least useful interpretation of what I said.
To answer you, I know what's best for *me*. I expect other adults can make a similar determination *for themselves*. This concept can't be that hard.
I have often said that the actual principles of freedom and why those principles are correct is quite easy to understand. All of the mystique and the complication and the increasingly "priesthood" status of the lawyers and courts is because you need a great deal of complication before there is room for ever-increasing restrictions to seem like valid options. "You and other consenting adults may do whatever the hell you want, until and unless you affect another person against their will." Really, how difficult is that? The only objection people have is that it might mean others engage in behavior of which they disapprove, like responsible drug use for example, and unfortunately immature people care more about that than they do about freedom. It's like they are personally offended that someone would want to do something that they would not do, which is supreme arrogance disguised as concern for health. The reason why those people are wrong is easy to sum up, as their beliefs go like this: "it's not enough that I don't use drugs; I am not satisfied until I prevent you from using them too."
I'll answer a really obvious objection just because some people raise it believing that it's anything other than obvious and shallow. Drugs should be handled just like we currently handle another drug, alcohol. Stay at home, use them responsibly, don't create a disturbance? Have at it. Use them irresponsibly, try to drive while severely impaired, or otherwise harm or potentially harm others with your usage of them, and then we have a reason to stop you. I feel this way about all victimless crimes. Personally, I want to have a meaningful relationship with a woman I truly care about; however, that doesn't give me the right to stop someone from hiring a prostitute if that's really what he wants to do. If he asked me, I'd tell him that I disagree with what he's doing but if he didn't ask me, then what consenting adults want to do behind closed doors is none of my damned business. That's because I am not his master and don't care to dictate to him how he should live. It's that simple.
You have to appreciate the message this sends to the children. From a young age, they are taught in history or "social studies" classes that the rights enumerated in the Constitution are inalienable rights that human beings have by virtue of being human. Then they are shown that those rights can be reduced or removed at will, by a government agency (public schools), so long as a good enough excuse is provided. This is to our great shame. How many countless examples of such hypocrisy have to occur before we start wondering why young people don't respect authority?
I'm kind of failing to see what the loss to humanity is if some commercial sex games aren't made.
I can definitely see that a game with strong sexuality can have artistic merit, that's not what this is about. On the other hand, I think most games like that would never, ever be made by anything other than an individual or small group that would make it regardless of whether it would be commercially viable.
What humanity could stand to lose is the "we know what's best for you" mentality. Humanity could stand to lose that, the same way that a cancer patient could stand to lose a tumor.
It does amaze me that we live in a society where realistically depicted violence, and in the case of some news stories, actual violence, is considered acceptable. Meanwhile, a single breast being exposed during a Superbowl half-time show resulted in outrage and a strong desire to "crack down" on obscenity. The message there is that violence is normal and acceptable while sexuality is obscene and must be censored.
You are quite right about a chilling effect. That tells me we are doing things the hard way. Rather than censorship, I'd much rather we teach people that fictional depictions like video games can be appreciated for what they are without also being idolized and emulated. Any adult who can't understand what that means is not really an adult but an overgrown child. So I assume this must be about children. If parents are worried about their children being exposed to the more severe video games or movies or any other media, I fully support their right to act as the "benevolent dictators" that they are and control what their children have access to. However, I expect them to actually be parents instead of relying on institutional censorship to carry out their responsibility for them.
Do you know what a false dichotomy is? Your post is a shining example of one.
In your argument, I am either 'unconcerned' with my health, and want this device to cover for that. Or I live a healthy lifestyle and shun this.
Perfectly healthy people have strokes. A lady I worked with in her 60's had one. She was perfectly health and coul out-exercise most of the 30-somethings in the office. The first stroke was minor. However, she had a second that was worse, partially due to not having someone there to report it. If you have a stroke, you may be unaware of it because it is affecting your brain. An observer would notice right away something was wrong.
So while you can feel good about yourself and your superior eating habits, there are reasons a device like this may be useful to those who aren't fat and lazy.
So you mention a rather rare occurrence and believe that this better represents the typical case than my scenario which clearly described people who could be taking much better care of themselves? Sure, there are people who eat perfectly, run five miles a day, lift weights, and then drop dead from heart attacks at relatively young ages. Do you know why they're noteworthy? Because they're rare. That's not generally how things work out. For that matter, non-smokers get lung cancer sometimes, but I would hazard a (completely unqualified, not-a-doctor) guess that not smoking is still one of the best ways to make sure that you don't get lung cancer.
It's not a matter of feeling good or superior. If those are the only terms accessible to your imagination for why I said what I said, then I hope you outgrow that one day. Benefit of a doubt is a beautiful, though sometimes costly, thing.
Even if I were 200lbs overweight, smoked 2 packs of cigarettes a day, and drank like a fish, I would still prefer to take my chances than be monitored like this. I hope that better explains to you where I'm coming from. Meanwhile, I'd rather people take a little more responsibility for their own well-being than come up with clever monitoring devices to enable somebody else to look after that for them.
Really, to hear some of these debates you'd think that humanity has had such technologies since the Neolithic Age. We have managed to get by without them. They are not essential to life. "Because we can" is not a good enough reason. It's perfectly valid to feel that there are good alternatives to invasive technologies.
That could be an early possibility. This technology could also be used to monitor your body in real-time, ensuring that you are staying healthy. This would allow for prevention of heart attacks and strokes, instead of allowing for fast treatment after the problems occur.
I am not a doctor of any kind so this obviously is not a medical opinion. I am just saying what I believe to be common sense. This is one of those where I say "I have karma to burn." I don't expect it will be well-received because people who don't take responsibility for their well-being really seem to hate being reminded that they can. They regard you as something of a religious infidel for thinking that people aren't nearly so helpless as they tend to believe.
If I were worried about my health, I would eat mostly fruits and vegetables with some meat, I would exercise regularly, and I would learn how to handle problems without being stressed out by them (it's amazing how important that one is). If I were fat, I would work hard and do something about it until I were no longer fat. If I smoked, I would take steps to quit. Every day I would take a moment to really enjoy the hell out of something, even if it's some small thing. I would do all of those things, and then and only then, would I go to the medical system to resolve any remaining issues.
I see the obesity statistics and things of that nature. I go outside and I see some very heavy people everywhere. Most of them aren't doing anything about it; they are too busy trying to be "accepted" for it. Then I see all of the problems that folks with that lifestyle have to deal with, all the suffering they tend to have later in life, and I think of one word: "preventable."
I don't want real-time health monitoring devices. I want a society that can achieve a basic level of well-being without them.
When I wrote the original post, I knew this would be the first response (outside of a goofy troll, I was right). Basically, every advance has the potential to be used for evil purposes. It is up to us as a society to stand up against that. That has nothing to do with the technology itself.
Here's the difference: did it come from top-down edicts, or from the overwhelming demand of the people? That is, is it something most people have wanted for a long time now that has finally become possible/economical, or is it something that must be sold to them? Is it a solution looking for a problem? Is its participation entirely voluntary and opt-on only or will people be coerced in some way into accepting it whether they want it or not? After all, if it's "for my own good" you should have no stake in whether I use it or not, and thus no problem with my refusal to use it.
The other side of the coin is that there are some technologies with marginal or dubious benefits and extremely terrible potential abuses. What do you call something that can only benefit you a little bit but might really hurt you a lot? Poor decision-making. The problem is that surveillance in general, the uses to which it can be put, and just how much power it represents, are not terribly well known. I'll gladly take my chances with whether I can reach a telephone and dial 911 before I'll wear any sort of monitoring device. That's because I am weighing the unlikely scenario of dying because I could not get to a doctor fast enough against the very likely scenario of this technology being abused when it becomes widespread. I'd much rather have a slightly higher chance of dying in a freer country than a slightly higher chance of surviving in a more tyrannical country. Any day.
Imagine having advice hooked up that could monitor for a heart attack or a stroke. If detected, emergency could be called automatically. If reliable, what would this do for survival rates? In many cases, survival or simply the degree of damage is determined by how quickly treatment begins. I think something like this, if reliable and unobtrusive, would be a major leap forward for health treatment.
You do know that tyranny and the invasion of privacy is always "for the good of the land," right? I'm going to engate in some speculation here, something you might call a plausible scenario.
The problem is that if this health monitor becomes available and reasonably cheap, it will probably become difficult to obtain health insurance without it. The stated reason will be cost. So, in that way it's going to be required of everyone whether or not they care about the privacy aspects. I find that scenario a little too likely. That probable lack of voluntary, opt-in-only participation is one of your first clues that you are dealing with something the goals of which deviate from its stated purpose.
No, your grammar nazi-ing is not even correct. Co-conspirator and conspirator indicate different things, like specificity. If I am involved in a computer conspiracy, and another person is involved in a highway tax conspiracy, we are both conspirators. We are not, however, co-conspirators. We are not partners, we are not involved in the same conspiracy.
Also, it is possible for a conspirator to have a partner who is not part of the conspiracy. If a conspirator goes to someone and is able to get them to do a job with them, but withhold information regarding the conspiracy or its goals, then the conspirators new partner is not a co-conspirator.
The use of co-conspirator is used to denote the relation of one conspirator to another. It would actually be improper grammar to remove the "co", as it would imply ownership of one to the other. "His conspirator" and "his co-conspirator" have obviously different meanings. The use of co-conspirator removes ownership from the previous statement, and is therefore not redundant.
The first rule of the grammar nazi is only to make corrections when they are themselves correct. You, sir, and an epic fail.
P.S. Feel free to correct the poor grammar in that last sentence as if it were English, so I can call you wrong again. It's fun.
Wait, you mentioned the word "conspiracy" or one of its derivatives. That means that whatever you said is automatically invalid and will be dismissed without examination, particularly if it involved or could involve the government!
Really though, thanks for providing the first real explanation of "co-conspirator" I have ever heard. I admit I did wonder why people used this term, probably because I only ever hear it on the news.
So if they were foreign locals, they would be deeply concerned?
You're making me feel like I need a long disclaimer before the next time that I start talking shit...
Again: "are you implying that dumb users suddenly become intelligent...?"
In other words, is the user intelligence variable dependant upon the OS variable? if you change the OS, does the user IQ change with it?
Dispite the GPP being an AC, I think you missed his point (which was valid).
In the sense that I could not prove it, I cannot tell you about the causation. I can tell you about the correlation, however.
It's not so much that *nix users tend to be more technically knowledgable. That is true, but I don't think that's the biggest difference. It's that *nix users more strongly feel that you should not use a tool without at least trying to understand it. Among other things, that means you become a little better at it or more skillful with it the more you use it. It's not about assuming that you're an expert; rather, it's about assuming that eventually you might become one. It follows that the difference between average users and advanced users is that advanced users take less time to get there because they have an aptitude for it.
You just don't see that sort of personal involvement with most Windows installations. In a way it would contradict the "easiest thing to use EVER!" marketing that goes along with it. In another way, that marketing is an attempt to accommodate this (IMHO misinformed) idea that becoming personally involved in what you spend your time doing is some kind of undesirable event to be avoided whenever possible, like some kind of tax. I really think that people who see this as a burden have no idea what they are missing.
I don't see this as being about pure computing at all. To me it's more like a philosophy of life and involvement. There are also elements concerning the willingness to assume a little responsibility. While the actual "mechanics" of it may be difficult to elucidate, I believe that these abstract, philosophical ideas are reflected in the design and culture of the various OSes and that different users who have different ideas of "how this should be" will gravitate towards different platforms as a result.
The only thing this assumes is an awareness of the various platforms, which the situation with Windows can complicate because of its overall dominance and subsequent ubiquity. So, this can be seen as limiting my observation to those who are aware of the alternatives. It could also be seen as strong confirmation for the philosophical nature of the point.
The one right that should be explicitly denied to them is participation in the political process (particularly lobbying and campaign donations).
You do realize that the only way the lower- and middle-classes get a say in our political process is because of these "evil" corporations, right? Without the ability to pool their limited funds toward a common goal, no one would be able to lobby the government, save the rich. Organizations like the AARP, NRA, NAACP, etc. are not diabolical "special interests". They're common people who have gotten together to make their voices heard.
Without those corporations, only the people with individual wealth would be in that position.
What I am proposing is in the spirit of no one but the common person being able to lobby the government. Taking coporations out of the political equation would mean that the rich find themselves greatly outnumbered by the other 90+ percent of the population and thus, their particular political views would be nearly irrelevant. What we have right now is quite the opposite, which is why so many people can be against the RIAA and the RIAA can be composed of such a small fraction of the overall society and still wield so much clout (i.e. if they want a new law, they will probably have it)
In fact I'd be willing to consider the idea of eliminating all lobbying and all campaign contributions of every sort, outlawing them as either corruption or bribery (respectively). Then give political candidates an extremely generous (lest there be excuses) grant of public money and let them use that as the sole legal means by which they run their campaigns. That way, the politicians would care about one thing and only one thing: our vote and how to obtain it. Right now they care about two things, money and votes, and the former can be used to buy the latter so they care much more about the money. Right now that's a big part of why they don't represent us.
But we can't just stop consuming their products. The RIAA does nothing but produce horrible music that no one wants and that I just can't stop downloading because I'm entitled to it for free because... I don't remember but I'm sure you already know the reason so it's cool. I deserve happiness and the only way I can get it is free entertainment and I'm gonna bitch on the Internet until the whole world agrees with me and copyright is abolished and the only people who make music or movies die by age 20 of horrific malnutrition because I can't be bothered to reach into my wallet for a buck to thank them for their effort. My listening is thanks enough, because I say it is.
I do think the question of whether copyright itself is outdated is much more interesting. My bet is that this would not kill off music and movies, only commercial music and movies. What that would actually mean is an open question. I think it would be much more viable for music than it would be for movies, because with music you can now do things with a home PC that once required a full studio and extremely expensive equipment. It is now technologically feasible for a band to handle their own production and distribution, which is something that the older "middleman" system did not anticipate (or anticipated and doesn't like). For movies this is starting to happen but not nearly to the same degree, for the obvious reason that they are more complex to make.
:-).
It makes me wish that we could just try it out and see how it works, maybe in a single US state or something. I know copyright is a federal law but what I wish for can be quite different from what's realistic
Pretty much everyone DOES look evil, and properly so. Mostly because they care more about the approval of others than their own integrity, are petty, easily upset, manipulative, domineering towards those who are weaker than they but meek towards those who are stronger, and make excuses for doing things that they know are wrong if they want to do them badly enough. You can file all of that away under "not really leading your own life but instead being far too subject to outside influences which do not have your best interests at heart." It's evil, though it's not malicious as most people don't understand why this is wrong or the tremendous suffering it leads to and they think it's normal because it is common.
The way you said "treating opposing council, grumpy judges, and uppity clients like they're evil" reveals how normal people think this is. If you are not part of the problem I just summarized, then you treat everyone by the same standard. That standard is simple and also hard to explain but the basic idea is "if they force you to defend yourself in some way (i.e. legally in this case), then do it reasonably, without hesitation or malice, while regretting that things had to be that way. Otherwise, treat them with compassion and loving-kindness not because they do or don't deserve it, but because of who you are." The reason why returning evil for evil does not work is that it only increases the amount of evil in the world. The problem is that people can see how self-evident that is, and then they go and get the idea that being "good" means being a push-over or a doormat. There's a right way to stand up for yourself. You can do it while taking on none of the negative traits of those who made you do so.
There's one thing critical to this discussion, so far as it concerns me, that you are missing. I was not complaining. I was telling you what I believe to be the truth of the matter, the actual underlying thing behind the otherwise superficial and uninteresting subject of whether or not you are enjoying Slashdot's editorial decisions.
I was trying to make you aware of something that I consider to be far more important than which story Slashdot decides to put on the front page. That's because I don't think Slashdot's editorial decisions have much of an impact on your well-being. However, I have never seen that entitlement mentality displayed by a happy person whose attitude towards life can be described as "joyous." Occasionally I encounter people who aren't satisfied with that and are grateful to learn that the decisions they make can change it. I am perceptive but I am not a mind-reader, so I don't know if you are such a person until after I try and show you what you are doing.
So, I am following my own logic. It just wasn't the logic you were expecting. I did tell you what that logic was, however. To quote myself:
If you think I have something to gain by deceiving you, then I celebrate your right to go on believing that I am a hypocrite who is obtuse enough to complain about your complaining as you have indicated. If someone wanted to take that right away from you, I would be against that person and would explain to them why they are wrong for wanting to do so. That's easy for me, however, because whether you see my point or not is entirely your gain or your loss. The people who need you to agree with them are not coming from a position that could possibly hope to show you much of anything that you didn't already see yourself.
I've seen some news regarding some lawsuits over ringtones being "a public performance." I wonder what would happen if we printed off 1000 copies of the RIAA's Top 10 Billboard Chart songs and gathered around the courthouse each break to sing these copyrighted songs publicly. DDoS the judicial system by doing public performances of all these copyrighted songs. There's no fucking way the courts could keep up with even 100 of these new cases a day...
What you're advocating there is civil disobedience. That's very much in line with both Henry David Thoreau and Mahatma Ghandi and how they handled injustice. There is one thing however, that must be kept in mind: both of those men fully expected to be prosecuted and were prepared to pay that price.
Didn't the Radiohead Experiment teach us that most people don't care about cost or RIAA business tactics? They just want stuff for free.
Radiohead made some good sales despite the option of downloading that album ("In Rainbows") for free. If that proved anything, it proved that when you offer to give away free music, many people will not pay but more than enough will decide to support you. By "more than enough" I mean that it was definitely a profitable venture for them, by any standard. You may find this an interesting read.
Only consume music that can be purchased directly from the artists themselves.
Convince two others to do the same.
This might actually solve the real problem. It would also send the right message.
Nope. What will happen should this actually occur, is that the RIAA will go crying to Congress: "The Evil Content Pirates(tm) are stealing our profits!!!!! We need even nastier laws!!!"
I was tempted to ask if you even read the comment, but I suppose that isn't very reasonable. So I'll ask you an alternate question: why do you think the part about "not using ("consuming") their products, neither legally nor illegally" would fail to address that? It would help me to understand you if you can be as specific as possible.
So far, the fact that piracy does occur and is taking place has been the main excuse behind many of these bad laws. Personally, I think their failure to handle digital distribution in a way that people like is responsible for every last problem they are having and that their current business model deserves to fail. The problem is that piracy therefore does benefit them in a way because it gives them an easy excuse, something they can blame other than themselves. What I would like is for them to either take responsibility for their own failures or go bankrupt. I think at least one of those, possibly both, is what needs to happen. What I do not understand is why you believe that making them as irrelevant as possible in a perfectly legal fashion would be counterproductive towards either goal.
The better question is: do we really need the RIAA???
No, we don't. But we already all agree on that. Either that, or those who feel otherwise are set in their ways. So most of your post is just more preaching to the choir. Would you say you see any actual insight coming about from this new information? Would it in any way have helped you to read a single post about this order, rather than getting an update once the order has been responded to and the topic has been mostly decided?
That's my main beef. I like to hear updates, but we've just gotten too fine grained. We don't really need to know about every specific motion and order and legal maneuver. Lawyers on both sides in every trial do tons of shit, not expecting a lot of it to work but just trying it out. For people who are really obsessed with legal maneuvering, Ray's blog is a fine source of daily info.
I consider that, so far as I know, no one has forced you to read this story. I consider as well that you have probably made more posts in this story than any other single poster. Further, there are stories here on the Slashdot main page which really don't interest me; you won't see me posting in them.
In light of that, I believe that what you're doing here is like going into a Mexican restaurant and then complaining to the staff that you really don't like Mexican food. Further, you're getting outraged that said restaurant won't accommodate you when they point out that another restaurant serving food that you do like is across the street. It's something of an entitlement mentality. Now I will tell you one occurrence that is extremely rare, as in it nearly never happens: pointing out to someone in a non-inflammatory, reasonable way that they are displaying an entitlement mentality, and then having them appreciate it and understand that there are more graceful ways. I'm betting you won't appreciate this, but what the hell, thought I'd give it a shot.
A more constructive approach would be to write to the Slashdot staff and ask for more flexible story categories, that way you can just set up your own preferences so that you don't have to be so bothered by headlines that don't interest you. I've written them on a couple of things myself and have found them to be quite reasonable and accommodating. That's even though I am not a paid subscriber. I have no idea if they'd help you with this since I cannot speak for them, but coming from a paid subscriber like you it would definitely be worth a shot.
Disconnect from the RIAA. - Do not provide them with money, directly or indirectly. - Do not consume their products, legally or illegally.
As a bad faith actor, the RIAA must be exiled from our community.
Only consume music that can be purchased directly from the artists themselves.
Convince two others to do the same.
This might actually solve the real problem. It would also send the right message.
The way I see things, that one is the actual problem. If they did not have so much undue influence over the political process they very well may have been forced to adapt to the Information Age already. Even if that isn't true at all, I would still say it's a much bigger and more serious problem that our politicians are doing a better job of representing monied interests like the RIAA/MPAA than they are of representing the people.
I think the biggest single mistake we made was to give corporations all of the rights of a real person. The one right that should be explicitly denied to them is participation in the political process (particularly lobbying and campaign donations). That should be against the law, with the penalty being the revocation of their corporate charter, the public auctioning of all assets, and the proceeds returning to the shareholders. If they participate in politics by means of front groups, that should be against the same law with the addition of criminal fraud charges, personally applicable to any members of management who helped to arrange it.