Well the hacker girl Acid Burn becomes the most sought after cyber sex symbol in the world. Coincidence? I think not. She's sexy... and made geeks around the world think that any gorgeous woman will fall for you if you talk about RISC chips and hack the gibson. Ohh yeah and beat plague
Chicks dig Linux. I found the proof on ECLiPt's website. It's got to be true (please be true...)
That Steve Albini article was very enlightening (and depressing). He doesn't propose any alternatives or solutions to the major label problems. With his experience in the music biz, shouldn't he have more to say? Is the answer to simply avoid major label deals and work with indie labels? Or is his answer to simply work for 7-11?
The alternative may mean a more modest income than Maddonna's, but I don't think it has to be US$7.50/hr. Local musicians have a lot to offer their fans that you just can't get anywhere else. For example, I love Pink Floyd, but none of them have ever bought me a beer:) In addition to that you don't have to wait for local musicians to tour to see a live performance.
The same thing that has the major labels screaming now offers a great opportunity for musicians to possibly make enough to earn a living doing what they love. There's no need for a major label to distribute your music for you. It's pretty easy to do it yourself now, and it's only going to get easier.
The big labels have a lot of power to promote the music over the airwaves and cable TV, but if you can download a full CD without paying in less time than it takes to buy one in the store then why go to the store? I'd wager that if it's still easier for you to run to the store and buy a CD, that will change soon. I guess one reason to go buy a CD anyway would be that you like the CD enough to want to own it even though you can download the music for free. Complaining about people sharing the music without paying for it is like complaining about the weather...you might not like it but there's not a damned thing you can do about it. This sucks for the people making a decent living off their music. For those that aren't (the majority of musicians) it's a good thing. They now have a way to get their music to their fans without a major label. Musicians can still sell their music, but now they'll only be able to count on their loyal fans to pay them for it.
It will probably be harder to make millions off their music but at least they'll have a better chance at making a living from their work. There's a much better opportunity to maintain contact with fans and potential fans now than there ever was in the past.
Promoting the music is the hardest part because it takes money. Sponsorships from local businesses would help a lot. It helps local businesses if people spend their money on music locally. If the local musicians are making money, the local music stores, bars, and coffee shops (to name a few) are making money. Think of it this way: it might be hard for a single band to promote their music, but it would be a lot easier for local businesses to promote the local music scene.
Better promotion of local music, more contact between musicians and fans, and independence from the major labels could all lead to a solution.
When people stop trying to control the thoughts of net users then things might change, but until then communist ideals of everyone being alike (or "getting it") will hold these changes back.
Yeah those damn commies again...
Cluetrain Thesis #79: We want you to drop your trip, come out of your neurotic self-involvement, join the party.
Apparrently they're not just commies, but dirty drug-addled hippies as well.
I'm not familiar with the problem, since I never use those networks. Still, I find it hard to imagine that one more DoS will improve things. I guess this is a sign of desparation, rather than a reasoned response? If someone who is responsible for this decision reads this column, I hope you'll enlighten us.
When I still used to use public IRC servers one of the main reasons to DoS an IRC server was the create a split in the network of servers. Once the split was there you could could connect to the opposite side of the split with another client using the same nick(name) as the person(s) you wanted to knock off the network (presumably to gain operator status on a channel they controlled.) When the DoS'd server came back online the split would rejoin and a nick collision would occur--knocking your fake client and the other guy's real client offline simultaneously. Then you could steal his nick and/or his channel. I think most servers have added some form of timestamping to stop this but I didn't really pay much attention to it then, and none at all now.
I imagine the DoS attacks on IRC servers are still probably a tool in the little kiddie's turf wars. Considerring that the same kiddies are using IRC servers to coordinate their efforts (and as a replacement for real lives) they're kind of screwing themselves. Also, since the server operators are providing their services for free on a voluntary basis I see no problem with them DoS'ing back as a protest. Will it change things? Probably not. Will it piss of the kiddies? Yeah probably if they're cut off from the only lives they have.
numb
Re:COmpetition? There is no competition!
on
1.4-1.6 GHz Alphas
·
· Score: 2
Maybe for what you're using it for but when I ran Povray on my 275mhz alpha w/2MB cache it ran slower than it did on my girlfriend's new PII-266. And the Alpha had twice as much memory. Not that that would have mattered--it was a fairly simple raytracing.
True though, Alpha's rock.
numb
Re:ok, this is just plain wrong
on
Homebrew S/ADSL
·
· Score: 2
Why is it illegal for good reason? What is legal/illegal about connecting up stuff to a copper wire pair?
Nothing as long as you own the wire and aren't violating FCC regs. If there were no laws regarding what is hooked into the public network people would hook up whatever they wanted without regard to who else in the bundle they are interfering with. It's not just extra long wave radio transmissions you have to worry about when wires are bundled so tightly together.
I can understand not running a charge of a million volts down the wire and using it to send out extra long wave radio tranmissions of stuff, but as long as your equipment at both ends falls into spec what does it matter what signal you send over it?
You can understand, but don't count on every idiot with a telephone line to understand. If the wire can handle it without screwing everyone else up, then I personally have no problem with hooking the device up.
So: 1) Having laws restricting what you may hook up to the public telephone network is a good thing. 2) Telco's using that law soley to prevent people from obtaining cheap high speed Net access is a bad thing. 3) Apparently some telcos care more about making money than whether something is a good thing or bad thing.
numb
Re:ok, this is just plain wrong
on
Homebrew S/ADSL
·
· Score: 2
Not as funny as you think. I know I read about people doing this a couple years ago with one of the big baby Bell companies (I think it was in comp.dcom.telecom.) After they found out what was going on they nipped it in the bud.
The problem is that you can't just get a dry pair and hook anything you like up to it. That's actually illegal for a good reason. So the telco (damn I wish I could find that article) has a right to tell you that you can't hook up DSL to a dry pair. This sucks because they use this for an excuse to prevent people doing exactly as this guy is.
Perhaps CenturyTel is as cool as this guy says, but trust me, the big guys ARE NOT.
Some of [us] can write and have written programs directly in machine code, by toggling switches, or punching in hex, etc..
The end result is that the "source code" is no different that the executable machine code. Why shouldn't that also be protected speech?
I have to write in a high-level language to have protected speech?
Even if you have the capacity to enter the bytes through a hex editor, ALT-#-#-#, use punch cards, use toggle switches, or whistle a stream of bits into a 300 baud modem it should still be protected as speech. I think the resulting collection of bits (which I referred to as binaries) should be protected as well. My point, though, was that protecting your chosen method of expressing your ideas, and keeping them available to others if you so choose, is more important than protecting the resulting executable string of bits. The resulting string of bits should be protected as well. But, as I mentioned earlier, that's another battle.
I agree. But the important thing is that the source would be legal under this interpretation. It bothers me much less that the compiled version could still be illegal...No, not because I'm a Linux zealot used to compiling code, but because SOURCE CODE IS EXPRESSION.
Even a mediocre programmer can see the beauty of a well written program, and gain enlightenment through it. This judge does seem to understand that aspect of it.
While the legality of using the resulting compilation may still be in doubt to some, at least the judge understands the most important part--that source is expression. Binaries may be just a tool easily constructed by the instructions the source code provides and that leaves the use of DeCSS in question--but that's another battle.
If the DeCSS source is illegal then we can not use it to build the tools we need to use the new wave of physically distributed media (DVD) to it's fullest potential. If the binary of DeCSS is illegal while the source is not then it only makes it slightly harder to produce those tools--it will just mean that we have to compile it into a bigger program which will play it or analyze it or whatever. I realize that this hinders the modularity required to make DeCSS utilize DVD in the most efficient manner but at least it doesn't make it impossible. Like I said, that's another battle.
DTV will be a reality in the near future (here in finland they are starting broadcasts real soon), now imagine that broadcasting companies start embedding a copyprotection into the bit stream of their broadcasts, as with CSS it needn't be perfect it could even be blantanly easy to crack but thanks to the DMCA, videotaping these kind of transmissions would be illegal. (well at least in the states, not here though)
This is right on the money except for the part where you think it will only by illegal in the US. If it happens here it will spread.
The idea is to make everyone pay every single time they watch something. No more going out and buying that movie your kids want to watch 500 times. If they want to watch it 500 times, you pay 500 times. No more 5 day video rentals. If mom, pop, bro, and sis all want to watch the movie but can't on the same schedule, too bad--pay 4X. You get an important phone call or are called out on an emergency, too bad you can pay again to watch the rest later (2X)... theoretically. But perhaps they don't intend to rip us off that bad. who knows...
By the way, this part is very important: If you must pay each time you watch something, then there will need to be a way to track each thing you watch. And circumventing the tracking will be illegal as well. Privacy concerns anyone?
I hope I'm wrong, but I think this is where their heading with this whole DMCA thing.
It really disgusts me the way the DMCA is being used to control information. It's been said for years that information would become the center of our economy. Just as our information infrastructure really starts taking off we get slipped a law that tilts the playing field even further in favor of big corporations. This is not coincidental. It's not about piracy, and it's not even about money as much as it is about control of information. To be specific: in the "digital millenium" gain control of the information first, then the power and money will follow. The Linux/OSS industry serves as a great example of how powerful a force information (knowledge, data, code, etc) is and how it can be so effectively turned into money and power.
And the big guys aren't as stupid or short-sighted as they'd like us to believe. They know that most power and money will be derived from information now. This is why they're all fighting for control of the flow of imformation be it through controlling distribution, controlling production, censorship. Businesses and government have plenty of people that are all about power and money and understand the new way to get it. Control of information and/or it's distribution in any way automatically gives you power and as I said the money will follow. This is not a new idea, nor is it my own. It just happens to be truer than ever these days.
One can only hope that the aggressive bullying going on by Mattel, the RIAA, the MPAA, etc will backfire on them. Maybe eventually people will see what's going on and get pissed off about it. Getting the word out is the hard part. The sad thing is that the major news outlets probably have more to gain by being able to stake a claim on their area of distribution so they're unlikely to go out of their way to encourage freedom of information distribution for the small guys.
How about lobbying for laws to protect our freedom? It seems like all the laws I hear of are all about taking away freedoms. Are we too free or something? Is that why? I'd personally like to see some new laws protecting the free flow of information. There's just way too much incentive to control the flow of information these days. And how do you convince the average person that information is that important? Sorry for the rheotoric but I'm a little aggravated right now.
I think they'll break Microsoft up. The attitude will be "it worked with IBM, it'll work with Microsoft." My gut feeling is they're not going to get creative and try something new.
All I can say is "duh" about this part. I was just thinking, "wait, what the hell was I talking about? They didn't break up IBM."
I do think they'll stick with something more traditional than opening up the source though, so I'm sticking with the "breaking up Microsoft" guess. I'll try not to post on two hours sleep next time.:)
I'll go out on a limb here and speculate a possible outcome. Who knows how it will really turn out in the long run?
I think they'll break Microsoft up. The attitude will be "it worked with IBM, it'll work with Microsoft." My gut feeling is they're not going to get creative and try something new.
The baby bill that continues development of applications will probably do well. They'll start to develop for other platforms than Win and Mac. I don't use anything from MS Office very often, but most people that do seem to really like it.
The OS itself is doomed though. I don't want to rehash all the same old stuff, but does anyone really still believe they'll be able to turn Windows around? If they couldn't do it with all the money they've had over the years it's never going to happen. If you haven't installed and used both Win2k Pro and Redhat 6.2 yet, please don't talk to me about ease of installation and availability of drivers. I'm not going to deny that there are plenty of things about Linux that still suck, but it gets better every day. I honestly can't say the same for Windows.
I'd even consider that Microsoft may have already figured this out. They must've known a while ago that their flagship product was sick and dying. So they made as much money as they possibly could off of it before it died. As punishment for their sins, MS will have the dead weight of Windows amputated, along with the other crap they've accumulated over the years but never did anything hugely important with (other than stopping competition.)
So, I feel the only really worthwhile piece of Microsoft will end up being it's apps. I'm not sure if IE will get to stay with Office. In the end, I think losing the dead weight of Windows will be good for the apps.
Anyway I'll reiterate the part about this being speculation in case anyone missed that. I don't see the future so I know that I'm more likely wrong than right. I'm not a legal or business wizard either. I'm just some guy.
Imagine that, the MS OS is a better client to Microsoft's own proprietary protocol than anyone else - commercial or open source. Slap me with a fish, I think I'm gonna faint!
Wyse has to deal with reality, *today*, and others have pointed out that the Linux support might have been nothing more than a high-stakes gambit to force MS's to change its licensing terms.
Well said my friend. Also the article points out:
...Wyse will be entering a crowded arena. Just about everybody, including consumer electronics giants, established PC companies and many start-ups, is coming out with a limited-purpose home computing appliance.
With new thin clients coming from Sun Microsystems, Neoware, Hewlett-Packard, IBM and Compaq, the corporate market is no walk in the park, either
Sun, HP, and IBM aren't exactly Microsoft's biggest fans. I imagine they are going to stick with Linux for their thin clients. Perhaps Wyse feels that WinCE will be able to better support all the legacy Windows software that will be laying around in a couple years. There's a market that Sun, HP, and IBM aren't already gunning for (or maybe they are.)
And from the originator of this thread:
Instead of acting like immature snots and running around chanting "Winsux" and "M$" while recalling wonderous anecdotes of NT crashing every thirty seconds, why not look into establishing better partnerships with IHVs so in the future Linux will be a viable option?
OK, OK. I'll cut out the running around and chanting, but I'm not going to shut up with the anecdotes...
Well, I guess we're not done with Babelfish for the day yet. And yeah, this has got to be another April Fools day joke. One would think that if the CSS designers were talented enough to be able to encode secret messages within their encryption algorithm they'd also be able to make their encryption secure...
If the NAB is really so pissed off at the RIAA, then why is it that they play so little music that doesn't come from the RIAA? I do understand that the RIAA promotes music heavily so it has a fan base that the radio stations can count on. But would it hurt them to take a chance and start playing more of their local bands that aren't under the control of the RIAA? This is what I can't figure out--why doesn't the NAB encourage it's members to fight back by playing more non-RIAA music and helping promote it themselves? I can understand why a lone radio station would not want to do this--they count on all the promotional stuff they get from RIAA labels. But if they acted in concert (no pun) couldn't they hit the RIAA pretty hard and at the same time reduce their dependence
puh-lease. we all dont have to 'piss in a jar'. I've only worked at one place that required a urine test for drug screening and that place had a lot of people operating dangerous machinery. There are plenty of good and valid reasons to have drug screening. That is not to say that it couldn't be abused but please don't make it out that we're all being watched by Big Brother either.
I find this to be extremely odd... Yes, you are correct that we don't all have to piss in a jar. However, I've had to piss in a jar for all but one IT related job--no heavy machinery was involved in any of them. Of course my experience only ranges over 5 jobs and ~7 years.
So is my perspective skewed or something here? Is your experience primarily with small companies? The one company that didn't test was a start-up. When I talk to people about pre-employment drug testing, companies that don't test seem to be the exception and those that do are the norm. Those that don't usually pay less and have trouble keeping positions filled.
Any stats on what percentage of US jobs require drug testing?
The whole intent of the GPL has been to make an irrevocable free license. The FSF has gone through a lot of trouble to do this. If this fails does that mean that there is no legal way to do such a thing? That would be truly sad. I mean seriously, how can you tell people that they're not allowed to release software under a free irrevocable license.
The spirit of the GPL is that the license is irrevocable. The authors of CPHack released it under the GPL with this spirit in mind. This is the best irrevocable free license available to my knowledge and the 'irrevocable' part is exactly what makes it work. I can't see how any judge or government can justify saying that such a license is not legally available in the US.
Here in the 'land of the free' things are changing incrementally, just slowly enough to let us refer to those who would point it out as alarmists and extremists.
A fine example of that tactic was when those who fought to cap the new federal income tax at 10% were called alarmists -- because the number they chose for the cap was so absurdly high!;)
Alas, sometimes the 'paranoid' are right...
I have to admit that history was never one of my stronger subjects but even to me this slow erosion of rights, privacy, and freedom seems so obvious.
What really annoys me is that kids starting school today will graduate pre-profiled as conformist, non-conformist, trouble-makers, etc... What happens if someone starts selling that data to employers? Don't say it won't happen. Who would've thought 20 years ago that we'd all have to piss in a jar in the name of creating a safe working environment? Corporations with a lot of money have every right to know every detail they can find out about their employees lives right? How much of the shit in Gattacca would be fiction if corporations/govt had the technology and freedom to do such things? Where's the wording one my 'urine sample analysis authorization' that says "The Corporation agrees not to save this sample for future DNA analysis and will not store it in corporate database or resell it. Furthermore we agree the the owner of said DNA retains the right to control all future reproduction of said DNA." I'm sure a lawyer could word it bettter, but I'm just a paranoid geek:P
Here's a truly paranoid idea... suppose in the next 20 years or so our government has changed for the worse and has become truly oppressive. The kids we raise today and teach to think for themselves will be flagged in databases and easy targets for an oppressive government. Will this happen? Maybe, maybe not. Is it possible? Absolutely. Is it worth the risk? NO!
Too bad that being 'naive', 'short-sighted', 'oblivious', or 'uninformed' doesn't carry the same stigma as being 'paranoid' or 'alarmist.' I personally prefer 'clueful', 'aware', or even 'visionary' to describe those that use the past to recognize the negative side effects that our present actions will likely have on our future.
numb
The greatest weapon of the facist is the tolerance of the pacifist. --Suicidal Tendencies (hmm, that one will get me added to a database somewhere I'm sure;)
Yes this works for a few bands. But most of the bands out there are *NOT* the Greatful Dead and do not have and never will have as large a faitfull following.
The Grateful Dead certainly earned that following. They toured constantly and really gave their fans a lot more than just some CD's and a couple videos on MTV. Honestly though, I think the recording industry, in its current state, prefers bands that they can sell in a box. I don't think we'll see any more bands like the Dead coming from members of the RIAA. When I say "like the Dead" I'm refering to their consistant dedication to their music and fans, not the type of music.
The truth of the matter is that it takes money to make music and that money has to come from somewhere, unless we want to go back to the time when the only music was what kings and princes felt like paying for.
In effect this is what's been happening. Most people only get to hear what the record companies feel like paying for. And they only feel like paying for what will make them more money than they spend. Of course, this is not the "only music" now, nor was it then.
The artists that 'survive in the new media' will be a lot more like the Dead and a lot less than the crap the music cartel is pushing on us today.
Support artists by paying them directly, the best way to do this IS GO WHERE THEY ARE!
Amen brother! That's what my friends and I are trying to accomplish in Jacksonville--get the fans out to see the local bands. It's a hell of a lot more fun than seeing a band in a stadium or arena. The aggravating thing is the local radio stations won't play local bands (ok, one station in a city of ~1 million people puts out one CD a year with local bands on it, but still that's not enough.)
Fortunately Jax is a pretty wired town $40/month for cable, and I've heard ADSL also dropped from $60 to $40. So a lot of fans can listen to near-CD quality music online. So we're putting together the web site now. The musicians are spreading the word because I've been going out to record them to put them online. I've had people express interest in sponsoring equipment, ADSL for live broadcasting of events, and even a billboard.
The long term goal is to convince people that spending their money on local music has a much better return on investment than sending your money off to the big corporations.
BTW, I just got the software for 'gigs' part of the site up on Sourceforge. Only in available via CVS at this point if anyone wants to check it out. It needs work but it's fairly functional already.
I personally am learning a lot simply from reading the articles and comments received from Slashdot's "Your Rights Online" area. This is a great first step--we're lucky to have such a great forum here on Slashdot to discuss such things. A lot of people on here have already started their own political activism in one way or another so I think we're already headed in the right direction. There's a long way to go though.
Subversion:
It's definately to our benefit that we understand the 'nuts and bolts' of the Internet, the information infrastructure of the world, better than those that are trying to control it. This gives us a lot of room to change things without anyone being able to effectively stop us (think gnutella; how easily did technology overcome the obstacles that were placed in the way of MP3 distribution?)
I always see people on here saying, "We can't just sit around and talk about it--we have to do something!" and they're absolutely right. At the same time, the discussions we're having here are probably the most important part of changing things.
numb
No matter how much or hard you try you can never ever make this martyr die. --Suicidal Tendencies, Give it Revolution
I'd love to see a libel judgement as well. Especially since this they are deliberately and willfully claiming that these web sites contain something that they do not.
As I understand it the Cyber Patrol software asks Mattel, who owns the list of sites, "Does this site contain nudity/violence/profanity/etc?" and Mattel is intentionally answering in an untruthful and harmful way. There has to be a libel case there (not that I know anything about law.)
Take this a step further and consider cases where Mattel (and others) are slandering sites due to negligence as well. For instance if I said something like "Mattel sells kiddie porn on their web site" and never even checked to make sure, wouldn't that be considered libelous even if I was just mistaken about the facts?
Slashdot Mirror
Well the hacker girl Acid Burn becomes the most sought after cyber sex symbol in the world. Coincidence? I think not. She's sexy... and made geeks around the world think that any gorgeous woman will fall for you if you talk about RISC chips and hack the gibson. Ohh yeah and beat plague
Chicks dig Linux. I found the proof on ECLiPt's website. It's got to be true (please be true...)
numb
That Steve Albini article was very enlightening (and depressing). He doesn't propose any alternatives or solutions to the major label problems. With his experience in the music biz, shouldn't he have more to say? Is the answer to simply avoid major label deals and work with indie labels? Or is his answer to simply work for 7-11?
:) In addition to that you don't have to wait for local musicians to tour to see a live performance.
The alternative may mean a more modest income than Maddonna's, but I don't think it has to be US$7.50/hr. Local musicians have a lot to offer their fans that you just can't get anywhere else. For example, I love Pink Floyd, but none of them have ever bought me a beer
The same thing that has the major labels screaming now offers a great opportunity for musicians to possibly make enough to earn a living doing what they love. There's no need for a major label to distribute your music for you. It's pretty easy to do it yourself now, and it's only going to get easier.
The big labels have a lot of power to promote the music over the airwaves and cable TV, but if you can download a full CD without paying in less time than it takes to buy one in the store then why go to the store? I'd wager that if it's still easier for you to run to the store and buy a CD, that will change soon. I guess one reason to go buy a CD anyway would be that you like the CD enough to want to own it even though you can download the music for free. Complaining about people sharing the music without paying for it is like complaining about the weather...you might not like it but there's not a damned thing you can do about it. This sucks for the people making a decent living off their music. For those that aren't (the majority of musicians) it's a good thing. They now have a way to get their music to their fans without a major label. Musicians can still sell their music, but now they'll only be able to count on their loyal fans to pay them for it.
It will probably be harder to make millions off their music but at least they'll have a better chance at making a living from their work. There's a much better opportunity to maintain contact with fans and potential fans now than there ever was in the past.
Promoting the music is the hardest part because it takes money. Sponsorships from local businesses would help a lot. It helps local businesses if people spend their money on music locally. If the local musicians are making money, the local music stores, bars, and coffee shops (to name a few) are making money. Think of it this way: it might be hard for a single band to promote their music, but it would be a lot easier for local businesses to promote the local music scene.
Better promotion of local music, more contact between musicians and fans, and independence from the major labels could all lead to a solution.
numb
When people stop trying to control the thoughts of net users then things might change, but until then communist ideals of everyone being alike (or "getting it") will hold these changes back.
Yeah those damn commies again...
Cluetrain Thesis #79: We want you to drop your trip, come out of your neurotic self-involvement, join the party.
Apparrently they're not just commies, but dirty drug-addled hippies as well.
numb
I'm not familiar with the problem, since I never use those networks. Still, I find it hard to imagine that one more DoS will improve things. I guess this is a sign of desparation, rather than a reasoned response? If someone who is responsible for this decision reads this column, I hope you'll enlighten us.
When I still used to use public IRC servers one of the main reasons to DoS an IRC server was the create a split in the network of servers. Once the split was there you could could connect to the opposite side of the split with another client using the same nick(name) as the person(s) you wanted to knock off the network (presumably to gain operator status on a channel they controlled.) When the DoS'd server came back online the split would rejoin and a nick collision would occur--knocking your fake client and the other guy's real client offline simultaneously. Then you could steal his nick and/or his channel. I think most servers have added some form of timestamping to stop this but I didn't really pay much attention to it then, and none at all now.
I imagine the DoS attacks on IRC servers are still probably a tool in the little kiddie's turf wars. Considerring that the same kiddies are using IRC servers to coordinate their efforts (and as a replacement for real lives) they're kind of screwing themselves. Also, since the server operators are providing their services for free on a voluntary basis I see no problem with them DoS'ing back as a protest. Will it change things? Probably not. Will it piss of the kiddies? Yeah probably if they're cut off from the only lives they have.
numb
Maybe for what you're using it for but when I ran Povray on my 275mhz alpha w/2MB cache it ran slower than it did on my girlfriend's new PII-266. And the Alpha had twice as much memory. Not that that would have mattered--it was a fairly simple raytracing.
True though, Alpha's rock.
numb
Why is it illegal for good reason? What is legal/illegal about connecting up stuff to a copper wire pair?
Nothing as long as you own the wire and aren't violating FCC regs. If there were no laws regarding what is hooked into the public network people would hook up whatever they wanted without regard to who else in the bundle they are interfering with. It's not just extra long wave radio transmissions you have to worry about when wires are bundled so tightly together.
I can understand not running a charge of a million volts down the wire and using it to send out extra long wave radio tranmissions of stuff, but as long as your equipment at both ends falls into spec what does it matter what signal you send over it?
You can understand, but don't count on every idiot with a telephone line to understand. If the wire can handle it without screwing everyone else up, then I personally have no problem with hooking the device up.
So: 1) Having laws restricting what you may hook up to the public telephone network is a good thing. 2) Telco's using that law soley to prevent people from obtaining cheap high speed Net access is a bad thing. 3) Apparently some telcos care more about making money than whether something is a good thing or bad thing.
numb
Not as funny as you think. I know I read about people doing this a couple years ago with one of the big baby Bell companies (I think it was in comp.dcom.telecom.) After they found out what was going on they nipped it in the bud.
The problem is that you can't just get a dry pair and hook anything you like up to it. That's actually illegal for a good reason. So the telco (damn I wish I could find that article) has a right to tell you that you can't hook up DSL to a dry pair. This sucks because they use this for an excuse to prevent people doing exactly as this guy is.
Perhaps CenturyTel is as cool as this guy says, but trust me, the big guys ARE NOT.
numb
Some of [us] can write and have written programs directly in machine code, by toggling switches, or punching in hex, etc..
The end result is that the "source code" is no different that the executable machine code. Why shouldn't that also be protected speech?
I have to write in a high-level language to have protected speech?
Even if you have the capacity to enter the bytes through a hex editor, ALT-#-#-#, use punch cards, use toggle switches, or whistle a stream of bits into a 300 baud modem it should still be protected as speech. I think the resulting collection of bits (which I referred to as binaries) should be protected as well. My point, though, was that protecting your chosen method of expressing your ideas, and keeping them available to others if you so choose, is more important than protecting the resulting executable string of bits. The resulting string of bits should be protected as well. But, as I mentioned earlier, that's another battle.
numb
I agree. But the important thing is that the source would be legal under this interpretation. It bothers me much less that the compiled version could still be illegal...No, not because I'm a Linux zealot used to compiling code, but because SOURCE CODE IS EXPRESSION.
Even a mediocre programmer can see the beauty of a well written program, and gain enlightenment through it. This judge does seem to understand that aspect of it.
While the legality of using the resulting compilation may still be in doubt to some, at least the judge understands the most important part--that source is expression. Binaries may be just a tool easily constructed by the instructions the source code provides and that leaves the use of DeCSS in question--but that's another battle.
If the DeCSS source is illegal then we can not use it to build the tools we need to use the new wave of physically distributed media (DVD) to it's fullest potential. If the binary of DeCSS is illegal while the source is not then it only makes it slightly harder to produce those tools--it will just mean that we have to compile it into a bigger program which will play it or analyze it or whatever. I realize that this hinders the modularity required to make DeCSS utilize DVD in the most efficient manner but at least it doesn't make it impossible. Like I said, that's another battle.
numb
DTV will be a reality in the near future (here in finland they are starting broadcasts real soon), now imagine that broadcasting companies start embedding a copyprotection into the bit stream of their broadcasts, as with CSS it needn't be perfect it could even be blantanly easy to crack but thanks to the DMCA, videotaping these kind of transmissions would be illegal. (well at least in the states, not here though)
This is right on the money except for the part where you think it will only by illegal in the US. If it happens here it will spread.
The idea is to make everyone pay every single time they watch something. No more going out and buying that movie your kids want to watch 500 times. If they want to watch it 500 times, you pay 500 times. No more 5 day video rentals. If mom, pop, bro, and sis all want to watch the movie but can't on the same schedule, too bad--pay 4X. You get an important phone call or are called out on an emergency, too bad you can pay again to watch the rest later (2X)... theoretically. But perhaps they don't intend to rip us off that bad. who knows...
By the way, this part is very important: If you must pay each time you watch something, then there will need to be a way to track each thing you watch. And circumventing the tracking will be illegal as well. Privacy concerns anyone?
I hope I'm wrong, but I think this is where their heading with this whole DMCA thing.
numb
It really disgusts me the way the DMCA is being used to control information. It's been said for years that information would become the center of our economy. Just as our information infrastructure really starts taking off we get slipped a law that tilts the playing field even further in favor of big corporations. This is not coincidental. It's not about piracy, and it's not even about money as much as it is about control of information. To be specific: in the "digital millenium" gain control of the information first, then the power and money will follow. The Linux/OSS industry serves as a great example of how powerful a force information (knowledge, data, code, etc) is and how it can be so effectively turned into money and power.
And the big guys aren't as stupid or short-sighted as they'd like us to believe. They know that most power and money will be derived from information now. This is why they're all fighting for control of the flow of imformation be it through controlling distribution, controlling production, censorship. Businesses and government have plenty of people that are all about power and money and understand the new way to get it. Control of information and/or it's distribution in any way automatically gives you power and as I said the money will follow. This is not a new idea, nor is it my own. It just happens to be truer than ever these days.
One can only hope that the aggressive bullying going on by Mattel, the RIAA, the MPAA, etc will backfire on them. Maybe eventually people will see what's going on and get pissed off about it. Getting the word out is the hard part. The sad thing is that the major news outlets probably have more to gain by being able to stake a claim on their area of distribution so they're unlikely to go out of their way to encourage freedom of information distribution for the small guys.
How about lobbying for laws to protect our freedom? It seems like all the laws I hear of are all about taking away freedoms. Are we too free or something? Is that why? I'd personally like to see some new laws protecting the free flow of information. There's just way too much incentive to control the flow of information these days. And how do you convince the average person that information is that important? Sorry for the rheotoric but I'm a little aggravated right now.
numb
I think they'll break Microsoft up. The attitude will be "it worked with IBM, it'll work with Microsoft." My gut feeling is they're not going to get creative and try something new.
:)
All I can say is "duh" about this part. I was just thinking, "wait, what the hell was I talking about? They didn't break up IBM."
I do think they'll stick with something more traditional than opening up the source though, so I'm sticking with the "breaking up Microsoft" guess. I'll try not to post on two hours sleep next time.
numb
I'll go out on a limb here and speculate a possible outcome. Who knows how it will really turn out in the long run?
I think they'll break Microsoft up. The attitude will be "it worked with IBM, it'll work with Microsoft." My gut feeling is they're not going to get creative and try something new.
The baby bill that continues development of applications will probably do well. They'll start to develop for other platforms than Win and Mac. I don't use anything from MS Office very often, but most people that do seem to really like it.
The OS itself is doomed though. I don't want to rehash all the same old stuff, but does anyone really still believe they'll be able to turn Windows around? If they couldn't do it with all the money they've had over the years it's never going to happen. If you haven't installed and used both Win2k Pro and Redhat 6.2 yet, please don't talk to me about ease of installation and availability of drivers. I'm not going to deny that there are plenty of things about Linux that still suck, but it gets better every day. I honestly can't say the same for Windows.
I'd even consider that Microsoft may have already figured this out. They must've known a while ago that their flagship product was sick and dying. So they made as much money as they possibly could off of it before it died. As punishment for their sins, MS will have the dead weight of Windows amputated, along with the other crap they've accumulated over the years but never did anything hugely important with (other than stopping competition.)
So, I feel the only really worthwhile piece of Microsoft will end up being it's apps. I'm not sure if IE will get to stay with Office. In the end, I think losing the dead weight of Windows will be good for the apps.
Anyway I'll reiterate the part about this being speculation in case anyone missed that. I don't see the future so I know that I'm more likely wrong than right. I'm not a legal or business wizard either. I'm just some guy.
numb
Imagine that, the MS OS is a better client to Microsoft's own proprietary protocol than anyone else - commercial or open source. Slap me with a fish, I think I'm gonna faint!
...Wyse will be entering a crowded arena. Just about everybody, including consumer electronics giants, established PC companies and many start-ups, is coming out with a limited-purpose home computing appliance.
Wyse has to deal with reality, *today*, and others have pointed out that the Linux support might have been nothing more than a high-stakes gambit to force MS's to change its licensing terms.
Well said my friend. Also the article points out:
With new thin clients coming from Sun Microsystems, Neoware, Hewlett-Packard, IBM and Compaq, the corporate market is no walk in the park, either
Sun, HP, and IBM aren't exactly Microsoft's biggest fans. I imagine they are going to stick with Linux for their thin clients. Perhaps Wyse feels that WinCE will be able to better support all the legacy Windows software that will be laying around in a couple years. There's a market that Sun, HP, and IBM aren't already gunning for (or maybe they are.)
And from the originator of this thread:
Instead of acting like immature snots and running around chanting "Winsux" and "M$" while recalling wonderous anecdotes of NT crashing every thirty seconds, why not look into establishing better partnerships with IHVs so in the future Linux will be a viable option?
OK, OK. I'll cut out the running around and chanting, but I'm not going to shut up with the anecdotes...
numb
Well, I guess we're not done with Babelfish for the day yet. And yeah, this has got to be another April Fools day joke. One would think that if the CSS designers were talented enough to be able to encode secret messages within their encryption algorithm they'd also be able to make their encryption secure...
numb
Hey what's up with all the wierd shit on the web site. I don't get it. Oh, by the way I gave up on the music site -- working on something else now.
numb
If the NAB is really so pissed off at the RIAA, then why is it that they play so little music that doesn't come from the RIAA? I do understand that the RIAA promotes music heavily so it has a fan base that the radio stations can count on. But would it hurt them to take a chance and start playing more of their local bands that aren't under the control of the RIAA? This is what I can't figure out--why doesn't the NAB encourage it's members to fight back by playing more non-RIAA music and helping promote it themselves? I can understand why a lone radio station would not want to do this--they count on all the promotional stuff they get from RIAA labels. But if they acted in concert (no pun) couldn't they hit the RIAA pretty hard and at the same time reduce their dependence
numb
puh-lease. we all dont have to 'piss in a jar'. I've only worked at one place that required a urine test for drug screening and that place had a lot of people operating dangerous machinery. There are plenty of good and valid reasons to have drug screening. That is not to say that it couldn't be abused but please don't make it out that we're all being watched by Big Brother either.
I find this to be extremely odd... Yes, you are correct that we don't all have to piss in a jar. However, I've had to piss in a jar for all but one IT related job--no heavy machinery was involved in any of them. Of course my experience only ranges over 5 jobs and ~7 years.
So is my perspective skewed or something here? Is your experience primarily with small companies? The one company that didn't test was a start-up. When I talk to people about pre-employment drug testing, companies that don't test seem to be the exception and those that do are the norm. Those that don't usually pay less and have trouble keeping positions filled.
Any stats on what percentage of US jobs require drug testing?
I get so sick of these type of posts.
Sorry. Didn't intend to nauseate anyone.
numb
The whole intent of the GPL has been to make an irrevocable free license. The FSF has gone through a lot of trouble to do this. If this fails does that mean that there is no legal way to do such a thing? That would be truly sad. I mean seriously, how can you tell people that they're not allowed to release software under a free irrevocable license.
The spirit of the GPL is that the license is irrevocable. The authors of CPHack released it under the GPL with this spirit in mind. This is the best irrevocable free license available to my knowledge and the 'irrevocable' part is exactly what makes it work. I can't see how any judge or government can justify saying that such a license is not legally available in the US.
numb
Here in the 'land of the free' things are changing incrementally, just slowly enough to let us refer to those who would point it out as alarmists and extremists.
;)
:P
;)
A fine example of that tactic was when those who fought to cap the new federal income tax at 10% were called alarmists -- because the number they chose for the cap was so absurdly high!
Alas, sometimes the 'paranoid' are right...
I have to admit that history was never one of my stronger subjects but even to me this slow erosion of rights, privacy, and freedom seems so obvious.
What really annoys me is that kids starting school today will graduate pre-profiled as conformist, non-conformist, trouble-makers, etc... What happens if someone starts selling that data to employers? Don't say it won't happen. Who would've thought 20 years ago that we'd all have to piss in a jar in the name of creating a safe working environment? Corporations with a lot of money have every right to know every detail they can find out about their employees lives right? How much of the shit in Gattacca would be fiction if corporations/govt had the technology and freedom to do such things? Where's the wording one my 'urine sample analysis authorization' that says "The Corporation agrees not to save this sample for future DNA analysis and will not store it in corporate database or resell it. Furthermore we agree the the owner of said DNA retains the right to control all future reproduction of said DNA." I'm sure a lawyer could word it bettter, but I'm just a paranoid geek
Here's a truly paranoid idea... suppose in the next 20 years or so our government has changed for the worse and has become truly oppressive. The kids we raise today and teach to think for themselves will be flagged in databases and easy targets for an oppressive government. Will this happen? Maybe, maybe not. Is it possible? Absolutely. Is it worth the risk? NO!
Too bad that being 'naive', 'short-sighted', 'oblivious', or 'uninformed' doesn't carry the same stigma as being 'paranoid' or 'alarmist.' I personally prefer 'clueful', 'aware', or even 'visionary' to describe those that use the past to recognize the negative side effects that our present actions will likely have on our future.
numb
The greatest weapon of the facist is the tolerance of the pacifist. --Suicidal Tendencies (hmm, that one will get me added to a database somewhere I'm sure
Yes this works for a few bands. But most of the bands out there are *NOT* the Greatful Dead and do not have and never will have as large a faitfull following.
The Grateful Dead certainly earned that following. They toured constantly and really gave their fans a lot more than just some CD's and a couple videos on MTV. Honestly though, I think the recording industry, in its current state, prefers bands that they can sell in a box. I don't think we'll see any more bands like the Dead coming from members of the RIAA. When I say "like the Dead" I'm refering to their consistant dedication to their music and fans, not the type of music.
The truth of the matter is that it takes money to make music and that money has to come from somewhere, unless we want to go back to the time when the only music was what kings and princes felt like paying for.
In effect this is what's been happening. Most people only get to hear what the record companies feel like paying for. And they only feel like paying for what will make them more money than they spend. Of course, this is not the "only music" now, nor was it then.
The artists that 'survive in the new media' will be a lot more like the Dead and a lot less than the crap the music cartel is pushing on us today.
numb
Support artists by paying them directly, the best way to do this IS GO WHERE THEY ARE!
Amen brother! That's what my friends and I are trying to accomplish in Jacksonville--get the fans out to see the local bands. It's a hell of a lot more fun than seeing a band in a stadium or arena. The aggravating thing is the local radio stations won't play local bands (ok, one station in a city of ~1 million people puts out one CD a year with local bands on it, but still that's not enough.)
Fortunately Jax is a pretty wired town $40/month for cable, and I've heard ADSL also dropped from $60 to $40. So a lot of fans can listen to near-CD quality music online. So we're putting together the web site now. The musicians are spreading the word because I've been going out to record them to put them online. I've had people express interest in sponsoring equipment, ADSL for live broadcasting of events, and even a billboard.
The long term goal is to convince people that spending their money on local music has a much better return on investment than sending your money off to the big corporations.
BTW, I just got the software for 'gigs' part of the site up on Sourceforge. Only in available via CVS at this point if anyone wants to check it out. It needs work but it's fairly functional already.
numb
Looks like wishful thinking to me.
numb
Politics:
I personally am learning a lot simply from reading the articles and comments received from Slashdot's "Your Rights Online" area. This is a great first step--we're lucky to have such a great forum here on Slashdot to discuss such things. A lot of people on here have already started their own political activism in one way or another so I think we're already headed in the right direction. There's a long way to go though.
Subversion:
It's definately to our benefit that we understand the 'nuts and bolts' of the Internet, the information infrastructure of the world, better than those that are trying to control it. This gives us a lot of room to change things without anyone being able to effectively stop us (think gnutella; how easily did technology overcome the obstacles that were placed in the way of MP3 distribution?)
I always see people on here saying, "We can't just sit around and talk about it--we have to do something!" and they're absolutely right. At the same time, the discussions we're having here are probably the most important part of changing things.
numb
No matter how much or hard you try you can never ever make this martyr die. --Suicidal Tendencies, Give it Revolution
I'd love to see a libel judgement as well. Especially since this they are deliberately and willfully claiming that these web sites contain something that they do not.
As I understand it the Cyber Patrol software asks Mattel, who owns the list of sites, "Does this site contain nudity/violence/profanity/etc?" and Mattel is intentionally answering in an untruthful and harmful way. There has to be a libel case there (not that I know anything about law.)
Take this a step further and consider cases where Mattel (and others) are slandering sites due to negligence as well. For instance if I said something like "Mattel sells kiddie porn on their web site" and never even checked to make sure, wouldn't that be considered libelous even if I was just mistaken about the facts?
numb