What do you want them to do? Not log data, forgo technological progress? You want them to stop doing what they do best? They organize the worlds information.
That's what they DO. They make it easier to find information. That is their entire business. The fact that their entire business could be subverted for the purposes of evil is somewhat shortsighted. In fact, the very article is an example of how their business can be utilized for the forces of good. Like any other technology it's how we use it, not what it does. I suppose there is still a debate about nuclear power, but that isn't stopping us from having the technology.
What EVERYONE needs to think about is how to readjust society to deal with new technology. The only thing that gave us a sense of privacy in the past was the lack of surveillance technology. It's here now, and not just in the hand of the government, cameras, mics and communication networks are cheaply available to anyone. So how do we deal with this new paradigm? You don't have privacy in public, someone could be filming or recording. Someone can post it to the internet, and it will never truly disappear.
In a way it makes sense that we don't really have laws to protect privacy. Of course if you ask anyone if they like privacy they will say yes, but what if you frame the question a little bit differently? Do you want to know what happened to soandso? Do you want to see what happened to soandso? People will quickly forget about privacy when they are violating somebody elses. Furthermore, I challenge anyone to put forth a solid definition of privacy. There are no clear boundaries as you will find if you try.
You are absolutely right, in fact you are more right than you think. Blizzard not only saw this coming, they have been evolving their game production to deal with this very issue.
Look at the progression of their games. First came Diablo I. Everything was controlled clientside, who could blame them in the Nineties when everybody who even had internet had dialup. So of course, hacking was a mater of changing data stored on your PC.
Then came Diablo II. Most of the important data for multiplayer gaming was stored on the servers. Hacking became much more interesting. Instead of changing values on your computer, you had to find ways to trick the server into changing the values. This is how most "dupes" were made (duplicating items). But another kind of hacking came about, botting. When its to hard to get something for nothing, you do the next best thing, automate the work to get something. Since D2 had a relatively simple interface there were programs that just involved scripting mouseclicks! The more interesting hacks were those that injected themself into D2's memory space and could call relevant functions. You could have an extremely efficient and 100% accurate method for getting around, killing monsters and picking up items.
Blizzard no doubt learned a lot from this. As anybody who has thought a little bit about cryptology will know, you're doomed if you can't trust the receiver of a message. So what is the answer? Make the person playing, and their client computer NOT be the receiver, make them the sender! It works like this, as a client I tell the server what I want to do, the server then decides if this is valid, and then it tells me what it did. At no point am I as the client trusted in my actions. If this is carried out fully then all clients will be equal. Of course it is a monumental task to make such a large codebase be that safe, and exploits pop up. I believe this is where Blizzard is trying to go.
So lets say WoW gets to this point. You can no longer gain an unnatural advantage through your client. The only way you can gain an advantage is by spending more time, or spending it more efficiently. Spending time more efficiently is how many players come out on top, but spending more time on a process that can't be made more efficient just SCREAMS for a bot. Now, I know cheaters are unpopular here, but I wish to propose this question:
What happens when a WoW bot passes the turing test? Lets eliminate chatting, just the game functions. What if you make a bot, whether you have it access WoW's memory space or you have some super computer vision + automatic keyboard? At that point the method of botting becomes irrelevant.
So what do we have? We have imagined the ideal technological (and possible) scenario where cheating can only be done by automating. In this ideal scenario, copyright and memory access is irrelevant, because the way that the input is given to the server is irrelevant. In fact, in Diablo2 we had a primitive client written from scratch! The same could be done for WoW. So now that the DMCA can no longer be applied, can people really argue that we should use it?
In other words, if Blizzard really used all the technical means at its disposal it wouldn't need the law.
Just because cheaters piss you off, don't go screaming for legislation. Take it from a former cheater and pirate, banned accounts and broken copyright laws don't affect the WORST offenders, the ones responsible for most of your misery. The only way to really get rid of them is to remove the incentives.
The first is that because some rich CCP members choose to come to the US China must be a crappy place to live. This is some nice hand waving. The plural of anecdote is not data, and neither is hearsay.
The second point is that space exploration is a pompous national goal. I don't understand why you assume advancing technology and spurring progress is backwards. America has some of the worst systems in place to eliminate poverty, but we are one of the richest nations. America is advanced because it has had a healthy environment for innovation and progress. Furthermore, pompousness has little to do with a country's democratic leanings. Have you looked at America's attitude in the last 100 years?
We are one helluva pompous democracy. I'd like to give a quote relevant to our own space exploration:
"Well, space is there, and we're going to climb it, and the moon and the planets are there, and new hopes for knowledge and peace are there. And, therefore, as we set sail we ask God's blessing on the most hazardous and dangerous and greatest adventure on which man has ever embarked."
I don't know much about Vietnam, but it sounds great for them.
What about the Million Man March? The anti-war protests during Vietnam? I think you have a point, that protesting in and of itself is not enough. It is becoming apparent to me that the most effective way to institute change is to organize a movement, not just a protest. When you want change you need to change peoples minds, and one way to work towards that is protests. Even though I wasn't alive for MLK Jr.'s speech, I get goosebumps when I watch it on youtube.
I think the future of any successful movement will include dissemination of information over the internet, and internet video will play an increasingly important role.
NPR is paying for songs. The government gives money to NPR to pay for the songs. So your next logical step is for the government to decide it doesn't want to pay anymore and just take the songs for free? As much as I'd like that in the case of RIAA, I don't think it will go over that well.
It's like she is complaining because Apple makes the most comfortable foot bindings that allow you to wear Apple shoes, and they should share their foot binding technology with the other foot wear manufacturers.
What you say is probably true, but it will be a godsend for people like me once the manufacturers make it easy to get a Linux ready machine. I helped one friend buy a laptop on the condition that I would only be his tech support if he used linux. I put ubuntu on it and I still cannot get the internal wireless card working (I've tried every broadcom guide, this specific model just doesn't work). Then I put ubuntu64 on a different friend's Acer, and after finally getting the video drivers (proprietary nvidia) to work, I can't get the sound right. I installed ALSA and now when it starts up it just spams the startup sound over and over and won't fully boot.
Yeah so maybe I'm just frustrated, I should mention there is a third friend who I put ubuntu on his Acer and it has been working no problem ever since. So that makes 3 completely non-technical people who ASKED me to put linux on their computer. But I've so far failed two of them in very important ways. Well, I'm still working on the sound problem... but I was just thinking this morning that maybe I won't take on any more computers for friends. I've ruined my last two evenings fighting with it and it just doesn't seem worth it to take on the responsibility of other people's computers when I can't get them to work right.
So please HP, Dell, just come out with computers that will "just work" with linux.
I don't think this is true anymore. I think Open Source software and other open initiatives show that there can be innovation without forming a special class of innovators, or even "protecting" their "IP." We are really in a time where people can innovate and share it with the world immediately. The costs have gone down with the increase in communication. Pretty soon we will see open hardware as well, and as more and more things depend on computers and software, we will see more and more open source software.
You're style of thinking is pre-internet. Knowledge travels fast, so do ideas. The money isn't in keeping secrets anymore, once one person knows them, it spreads too fast. So as the internet develops, and technology progresses DESPITE patents, we will see less and less of a need for laws to protect innovators. It's not a black and white, invent or work situation anymore. Granted, we may have to ween ourselves off this patent system as technology advances, but its coming!
That's a bit like what our ancestors said to the American Indians, and our ancestors also had the technology t make it happen.
Oh please. So musicians losing their place in society is equivalent to genocide? As the Justin Timberlake song goes, cry me a river. I guess you want me to be sad that rockstars might go away, or even worse, you want me to support laws that ensure their continued existence? This isn't the first time I've heard this emotional appeal, it's quite powerful indeed. There is something magical about entertainers, content creators that incites us on average to put them on a pedestal. We want to see them showered with royalties and riches. Of course, if they stop getting their riches, the magic goes away. If we don't have entrenched distribution monopolies, why there wont be any more music in the world! Then the Grinch will finally get his wish, all the little whos in whoville wont have a tune to whistle.
The problem with that is that some slick lawyer could just present the Constitution's Godel number as evidence and the whole legal system would come crashing down in a heap of self-reference.
I started working pretty young, learning java and web programming. I've had a couple jobs at different departments of a state university, even while i was in highschool. There are a lot of state departments that want talented students they can pay a (relatively) small amount to learn on the job and take care of small tasks. Sometimes you can try starting out data entry and express interest in doing more interesting stuff.
It's happened for me and a friend of mine. It may not work the same everywhere, I'm in Tallahassee, FL.
You can spend your money however you want, but I find it hard to believe that you think "computers don't actually help kids learn."
How short sighted can you be? A computer is a powerful tool, it can be used to make many processes more efficient. Some of the most useful processes it benefits are the search for information, communication and yes, even gaming. I don't understand why the improvements of two peoples opportunities is not worth it because 8 people "squander" theirs. Don't you see that if there are no computers no body benefits? Seeing as you are on slashdot, you must find SOME benefit in computers, right? Or are computers only for those "good enough" to use them?
As far as making kids terrible spellers and bad at arithmetic, you are not alone in your fears. Luddites like yourself have cried out with each new advance in communication technology. Can you believe nobody knows how to carve into a stone tablet anymore? Why can't our children wield the quill pen? The pocket calculator put the last nail in arithmetic's coffin 40 years ago.
I think I remained pretty civil here, I won't be surprised if you get flamed for arguing against computers on slashdot. Hopefully someone posts that list of quotes from luddites over the years.
What better battle ground for our crusade against truthiness than wikipedia? Is there a better system in place for efficiently disseminating the truth? We have relied on books, newspapers, tv shows, movies, and radio to get our truth for many years. Authority should not be derived from the medium, it should be based on the truth.
As much of a fanboi for wikipedia as I'd like to be, I recognize that right now most knowledge being generated is coming from respected institutions with the money to support it. I recognize that wikipedia may never become a perfect encyclopedia, because thats not where its value lies. We don't expect every book published to contain the unadultered truth do we? Maybe we do, and that is why we can't stand wikipedia so much. We can't take the realization that most knowledge is collective, and that you have to trust things or scrutinize them, but you will never have the time to scrutinize everything. Wikiality is the embodiment of one of our worst fears, there is no truth.
I see the value in wikipedia coming from its search for truth. I definately do not see it as something to be fought, but rather fought on. If you want to win this battle, you can get started on the editing.
Why can't a homosexual be a boyscout leader? Because he's... GAY???
If it's ok for someone to be gay, why isn't it ok for a leader to be gay?
I've never understood this, I can understand some people think homosexuality is bad, thus they wouldn't want a bad leader, but why can't a homosexual be a leader if being homosexual is ok?
It's not like homosexuality is taught, nor is it a communicable disease, so why can't a talented, well-meaning homosexual individual be a leader?
Maybe once you've explained this I'll believe you about moral integrity, but so far I'm not really seeing much of it.
What about all the foreign students? What about the families of naturalized citizens? What about the millions of green card holders? What about all of the elite graduate students that come here to study and bolster our economy?
First they came for the Arabs, and I didn't speak up because I am not an Arab Then they came for the Mexicans, and I didn't speak up because I am not a Mexican Then they came for the Chinese, and I didn't speak up because I am not Chinese And then they came for me, and there was no one left but Rednecks to cheer on the lynch mob.
I can't believe you were modded insightful. I'm using every ounce of restraint to not lose my cool and just bombard you with personal attacks. Your racism is disgusting, how can you dismiss the lives of so many people and support this bill by saying "its ok, the government will only abuse its power on those dirty immigrants"
This bill IS a THREAT, because it is nothing more than a power grab, intended to be expanded. America doesn't need these tools, and it doesn't want them.
I don't think your arguement works. The reason copy protection schemes are coming up is because copyright law is not enough to stop copying. Don't you think the billions of dollars content creators are (claiming to be) losing is enough incentive already?
While I don't have the balls to be in favor of eliminating copyright completely, I expect that if we did the market would come up with a better answer than protection. There is a fundamental problem with using cryptography to protect content, because you have to give the person the code AND the key. No matter how obscure it won't work. Game companies (like blizzard) have had more sucess, because the content they provide is access to a service, not the content itself.
I think as copyright becomes less important, people will find more ways to make money off of producing IP than just squeezing it dry. I do believe we are on a trend that will have us moving away from IP, simply because of advancements in technology and their consequences on how we communicate. This is becoming a hot issue now because we are at a turning point where big content is fighting to stay alive and the masses are beginning to grasp the consequences of the internet. Its going to take a while, sure, but thats the way I see it going.
In reading your comment I realize why I didn't feel right about writing that post. I guess I let ideals get the best of me. Thanks for a refreshing dose of humility.
This is great news for Chinese internet users. So what if the pages on a few political topics are unreliable? Wikipedia is not the only source on the internet, its just a very useful resource on general knowledge. General knowledge includes a lot of things that aren't these political issues. At least today they have a larger resource.
I think that the internet will eventually triumph over the Chinese governments censorship. There are a lot of people in China, and its hard to keep that many people, most of them poor, stable. You can see from the last hundred years how many large revolutions there have been. The country has been slowly, but steadily progressing towards freedom. Opening up their economy, moving towards capitalism are some of the bigger steps. Allowing wikipedia is a good step in the right direction.
All that said I am in favor of all the software and efforts to help Chinese people blog anonymously. I believe the more communication the better, the fourth estate serves the government and the internet helps subvert that.
I don't have the numbers in front of me but I've read reports several times about how foreign box office revenues are almost as high or higher than domestic box office revenues. That means people outside of the US are eating up our movies.
As for software I haven't heard anything special, but the EU certainly has a bone to pick with Microsoft, so they must sell something over there.
As for the clothes, admittedly that was a stretch... I maintain that a large part of our economy is exporting intellectual property, and that we would not want to give that up to start producing locally.
Perhaps you were just trying to make a little fun, sorry if my sarcasm detector is a little off this morning.
Let's take your logic a little further. Why limit ourselves to "made in the USA"? That's not very local, why not only buy things made in your state, in your city, your neighborhood, your own farm? Our greed is very much the reason we do not do any of those. It is also an acceptable reason NOT to buy "made in USA."
You can appeal to patriotism all you want, but the fact is that the world is bigger than the USA. The global transportation network, and now the internet have opened everyone to everyone. The world has steadily been moving in a globalized direction, and there are lots of corporations getting rich off of it. It may be nice to have protectionism to provide "us" protection from "them" but the truth is, the distinction between us and them is dwindling. "They" buy our movies, our software and our clothing. I bet you don't have a problem with that, until "they" all decide that they don't want any American goods. Then what?
We can't turn back the clock. It sucks that people are losing their jobs, it sucks that we don't live in a perfect world where we can all hold hands and sing. The problem is not an "us" vs. "them" that we can solve by shutting "them" out, thats an artificial solution. We need a substantive solution that improves the value of our people, more education, more research and vigilance in maintaining our superb economic environment.
Modern distribution systems are happening and I am part of it. Ever heard of myspace music? Youtube? Those are just the major venues for those less technically inclined. I am helping an independant label by running their website, and they even take care of their own myspace.
I don't care if the conglomerates go bankrupt because I don't think they are necessary for the modern distribution system we are talking about. I don't think the disaffected customers HAVE to do anything to change the system, they already are.
you make me ill. I don't have a problem with your apple joke (even tho Im on a MBP). It's your disconected idea of reality.
Your not so humble opinion has obviously never left whatever EU country you live in. 40hrs a week is more time than anyone should have to spend at work? Have you never heard of poverty? Oh thats right, the only lifestyle that exists is the one you've taken part in.
I do not like to see people suffer, but the way to alleviate suffering is not complain about the number of hours worked. It's better to focus on why people are so poor that they must work that much. Sure in a perfect world we might wish for a sub-40hr work week, and hell some people get to live the dream. Offhandedly dismissing reality just grinds on my nerves.
1. Get everyone to produce their own content 2. Find out the world of hell distribution is. 3. They all understand that the internet is a miracle from god to spread their work. 4. The world is a better, more culture rich place 5. Profit???
So now we have a whole generation that knows they are stealing but don't know why they feel okay with it. We have a whole generation of kids that we have to "fix" with reeducation. They are still sheep, but they are knocking over the fences.
I used to care about being legal. I spent a lot of time reading about copyright law and following cases and history. I concluded that copyright infringement is a crime. It is illegal to do what I do very often. I just don't care anymore. I honestly do not care whethere SONY/BMG or Universal miss out on my 16$, I don't care if my generation thinking that way costs them their whole goddamn business. Copyrights were instated to promote the progress of the sciences and the arts, not gaurantee a multibillion dollar industry its profits. Some people I know cry about it, but I know in MY heart that music will still be made.
And I think these kids, some of them, are starting to get it. Maybe now they are just enjoying free stuff, but they are setting the standard. We want instant distribution, we want to share our culture, and we want it now. If the record labels can't fill the demand, someone will, and lots of people will make money off of it. Perhaps together we can profit from this tragedy.
Slashdot Mirror
What do you want them to do? Not log data, forgo technological progress? You want them to stop doing what they do best? They organize the worlds information.
That's what they DO. They make it easier to find information. That is their entire business. The fact that their entire business could be subverted for the purposes of evil is somewhat shortsighted. In fact, the very article is an example of how their business can be utilized for the forces of good. Like any other technology it's how we use it, not what it does. I suppose there is still a debate about nuclear power, but that isn't stopping us from having the technology.
What EVERYONE needs to think about is how to readjust society to deal with new technology. The only thing that gave us a sense of privacy in the past was the lack of surveillance technology. It's here now, and not just in the hand of the government, cameras, mics and communication networks are cheaply available to anyone. So how do we deal with this new paradigm? You don't have privacy in public, someone could be filming or recording. Someone can post it to the internet, and it will never truly disappear.
In a way it makes sense that we don't really have laws to protect privacy. Of course if you ask anyone if they like privacy they will say yes, but what if you frame the question a little bit differently? Do you want to know what happened to soandso? Do you want to see what happened to soandso? People will quickly forget about privacy when they are violating somebody elses. Furthermore, I challenge anyone to put forth a solid definition of privacy. There are no clear boundaries as you will find if you try.
You are absolutely right, in fact you are more right than you think. Blizzard not only saw this coming, they have been evolving their game production to deal with this very issue.
Look at the progression of their games. First came Diablo I. Everything was controlled clientside, who could blame them in the Nineties when everybody who even had internet had dialup. So of course, hacking was a mater of changing data stored on your PC.
Then came Diablo II. Most of the important data for multiplayer gaming was stored on the servers. Hacking became much more interesting. Instead of changing values on your computer, you had to find ways to trick the server into changing the values. This is how most "dupes" were made (duplicating items). But another kind of hacking came about, botting. When its to hard to get something for nothing, you do the next best thing, automate the work to get something. Since D2 had a relatively simple interface there were programs that just involved scripting mouseclicks! The more interesting hacks were those that injected themself into D2's memory space and could call relevant functions. You could have an extremely efficient and 100% accurate method for getting around, killing monsters and picking up items.
Blizzard no doubt learned a lot from this. As anybody who has thought a little bit about cryptology will know, you're doomed if you can't trust the receiver of a message. So what is the answer? Make the person playing, and their client computer NOT be the receiver, make them the sender!
It works like this, as a client I tell the server what I want to do, the server then decides if this is valid, and then it tells me what it did. At no point am I as the client trusted in my actions. If this is carried out fully then all clients will be equal. Of course it is a monumental task to make such a large codebase be that safe, and exploits pop up. I believe this is where Blizzard is trying to go.
So lets say WoW gets to this point. You can no longer gain an unnatural advantage through your client. The only way you can gain an advantage is by spending more time, or spending it more efficiently. Spending time more efficiently is how many players come out on top, but spending more time on a process that can't be made more efficient just SCREAMS for a bot. Now, I know cheaters are unpopular here, but I wish to propose this question:
What happens when a WoW bot passes the turing test? Lets eliminate chatting, just the game functions. What if you make a bot, whether you have it access WoW's memory space or you have some super computer vision + automatic keyboard? At that point the method of botting becomes irrelevant.
So what do we have? We have imagined the ideal technological (and possible) scenario where cheating can only be done by automating. In this ideal scenario, copyright and memory access is irrelevant, because the way that the input is given to the server is irrelevant. In fact, in Diablo2 we had a primitive client written from scratch! The same could be done for WoW. So now that the DMCA can no longer be applied, can people really argue that we should use it?
In other words, if Blizzard really used all the technical means at its disposal it wouldn't need the law.
Just because cheaters piss you off, don't go screaming for legislation. Take it from a former cheater and pirate, banned accounts and broken copyright laws don't affect the WORST offenders, the ones responsible for most of your misery. The only way to really get rid of them is to remove the incentives.
I see 2 points in your post.
The first is that because some rich CCP members choose to come to the US China must be a crappy place to live. This is some nice hand waving. The plural of anecdote is not data, and neither is hearsay.
The second point is that space exploration is a pompous national goal. I don't understand why you assume advancing technology and spurring progress is backwards. America has some of the worst systems in place to eliminate poverty, but we are one of the richest nations. America is advanced because it has had a healthy environment for innovation and progress. Furthermore, pompousness has little to do with a country's democratic leanings. Have you looked at America's attitude in the last 100 years?
We are one helluva pompous democracy. I'd like to give a quote relevant to our own space exploration:
"Well, space is there, and we're going to climb it, and the moon and the planets are there, and new hopes for knowledge and peace are there. And, therefore, as we set sail we ask God's blessing on the most hazardous and dangerous and greatest adventure on which man has ever embarked."
I don't know much about Vietnam, but it sounds great for them.
What about the Million Man March? The anti-war protests during Vietnam? I think you have a point, that protesting in and of itself is not enough. It is becoming apparent to me that the most effective way to institute change is to organize a movement, not just a protest. When you want change you need to change peoples minds, and one way to work towards that is protests. Even though I wasn't alive for MLK Jr.'s speech, I get goosebumps when I watch it on youtube.
I think the future of any successful movement will include dissemination of information over the internet, and internet video will play an increasingly important role.
NPR is paying for songs. The government gives money to NPR to pay for the songs. So your next logical step is for the government to decide it doesn't want to pay anymore and just take the songs for free? As much as I'd like that in the case of RIAA, I don't think it will go over that well.
Maybe one day when we get over all this IP crap.
It's like she is complaining because Apple makes the most comfortable foot bindings that allow you to wear Apple shoes, and they should share their foot binding technology with the other foot wear manufacturers.
Really, we should all stop foot binding.
What you say is probably true, but it will be a godsend for people like me once the manufacturers make it easy to get a Linux ready machine. I helped one friend buy a laptop on the condition that I would only be his tech support if he used linux. I put ubuntu on it and I still cannot get the internal wireless card working (I've tried every broadcom guide, this specific model just doesn't work). Then I put ubuntu64 on a different friend's Acer, and after finally getting the video drivers (proprietary nvidia) to work, I can't get the sound right. I installed ALSA and now when it starts up it just spams the startup sound over and over and won't fully boot.
Yeah so maybe I'm just frustrated, I should mention there is a third friend who I put ubuntu on his Acer and it has been working no problem ever since. So that makes 3 completely non-technical people who ASKED me to put linux on their computer. But I've so far failed two of them in very important ways. Well, I'm still working on the sound problem... but I was just thinking this morning that maybe I won't take on any more computers for friends. I've ruined my last two evenings fighting with it and it just doesn't seem worth it to take on the responsibility of other people's computers when I can't get them to work right.
So please HP, Dell, just come out with computers that will "just work" with linux.
I don't think this is true anymore. I think Open Source software and other open initiatives show that there can be innovation without forming a special class of innovators, or even "protecting" their "IP." We are really in a time where people can innovate and share it with the world immediately. The costs have gone down with the increase in communication. Pretty soon we will see open hardware as well, and as more and more things depend on computers and software, we will see more and more open source software.
You're style of thinking is pre-internet. Knowledge travels fast, so do ideas. The money isn't in keeping secrets anymore, once one person knows them, it spreads too fast. So as the internet develops, and technology progresses DESPITE patents, we will see less and less of a need for laws to protect innovators. It's not a black and white, invent or work situation anymore. Granted, we may have to ween ourselves off this patent system as technology advances, but its coming!
Oh please. So musicians losing their place in society is equivalent to genocide? As the Justin Timberlake song goes, cry me a river. I guess you want me to be sad that rockstars might go away, or even worse, you want me to support laws that ensure their continued existence? This isn't the first time I've heard this emotional appeal, it's quite powerful indeed. There is something magical about entertainers, content creators that incites us on average to put them on a pedestal. We want to see them showered with royalties and riches. Of course, if they stop getting their riches, the magic goes away. If we don't have entrenched distribution monopolies, why there wont be any more music in the world! Then the Grinch will finally get his wish, all the little whos in whoville wont have a tune to whistle.
blow me (a tune)
The problem with that is that some slick lawyer could just present the Constitution's Godel number as evidence and the whole legal system would come crashing down in a heap of self-reference.
I started working pretty young, learning java and web programming. I've had a couple jobs at different departments of a state university, even while i was in highschool. There are a lot of state departments that want talented students they can pay a (relatively) small amount to learn on the job and take care of small tasks. Sometimes you can try starting out data entry and express interest in doing more interesting stuff.
It's happened for me and a friend of mine. It may not work the same everywhere, I'm in Tallahassee, FL.
You can spend your money however you want, but I find it hard to believe that you think "computers don't actually help kids learn."
How short sighted can you be? A computer is a powerful tool, it can be used to make many processes more efficient. Some of the most useful processes it benefits are the search for information, communication and yes, even gaming. I don't understand why the improvements of two peoples opportunities is not worth it because 8 people "squander" theirs. Don't you see that if there are no computers no body benefits? Seeing as you are on slashdot, you must find SOME benefit in computers, right? Or are computers only for those "good enough" to use them?
As far as making kids terrible spellers and bad at arithmetic, you are not alone in your fears. Luddites like yourself have cried out with each new advance in communication technology. Can you believe nobody knows how to carve into a stone tablet anymore? Why can't our children wield the quill pen? The pocket calculator put the last nail in arithmetic's coffin 40 years ago.
I think I remained pretty civil here, I won't be surprised if you get flamed for arguing against computers on slashdot. Hopefully someone posts that list of quotes from luddites over the years.
What better battle ground for our crusade against truthiness than wikipedia? Is there a better system in place for efficiently disseminating the truth? We have relied on books, newspapers, tv shows, movies, and radio to get our truth for many years. Authority should not be derived from the medium, it should be based on the truth.
As much of a fanboi for wikipedia as I'd like to be, I recognize that right now most knowledge being generated is coming from respected institutions with the money to support it. I recognize that wikipedia may never become a perfect encyclopedia, because thats not where its value lies. We don't expect every book published to contain the unadultered truth do we? Maybe we do, and that is why we can't stand wikipedia so much. We can't take the realization that most knowledge is collective, and that you have to trust things or scrutinize them, but you will never have the time to scrutinize everything. Wikiality is the embodiment of one of our worst fears, there is no truth.
I see the value in wikipedia coming from its search for truth. I definately do not see it as something to be fought, but rather fought on. If you want to win this battle, you can get started on the editing.
Why can't a homosexual be a boyscout leader? Because he's... GAY??? If it's ok for someone to be gay, why isn't it ok for a leader to be gay? I've never understood this, I can understand some people think homosexuality is bad, thus they wouldn't want a bad leader, but why can't a homosexual be a leader if being homosexual is ok? It's not like homosexuality is taught, nor is it a communicable disease, so why can't a talented, well-meaning homosexual individual be a leader? Maybe once you've explained this I'll believe you about moral integrity, but so far I'm not really seeing much of it.
What about all the foreign students? What about the families of naturalized citizens? What about the millions of green card holders? What about all of the elite graduate students that come here to study and bolster our economy?
First they came for the Arabs, and I didn't speak up because I am not an Arab
Then they came for the Mexicans, and I didn't speak up because I am not a Mexican
Then they came for the Chinese, and I didn't speak up because I am not Chinese
And then they came for me, and there was no one left but Rednecks to cheer on the lynch mob.
I can't believe you were modded insightful. I'm using every ounce of restraint to not lose my cool and just bombard you with personal attacks. Your racism is disgusting, how can you dismiss the lives of so many people and support this bill by saying "its ok, the government will only abuse its power on those dirty immigrants"
This bill IS a THREAT, because it is nothing more than a power grab, intended to be expanded. America doesn't need these tools, and it doesn't want them.
I don't think your arguement works. The reason copy protection schemes are coming up is because copyright law is not enough to stop copying. Don't you think the billions of dollars content creators are (claiming to be) losing is enough incentive already?
While I don't have the balls to be in favor of eliminating copyright completely, I expect that if we did the market would come up with a better answer than protection. There is a fundamental problem with using cryptography to protect content, because you have to give the person the code AND the key. No matter how obscure it won't work. Game companies (like blizzard) have had more sucess, because the content they provide is access to a service, not the content itself.
I think as copyright becomes less important, people will find more ways to make money off of producing IP than just squeezing it dry. I do believe we are on a trend that will have us moving away from IP, simply because of advancements in technology and their consequences on how we communicate. This is becoming a hot issue now because we are at a turning point where big content is fighting to stay alive and the masses are beginning to grasp the consequences of the internet. Its going to take a while, sure, but thats the way I see it going.
In reading your comment I realize why I didn't feel right about writing that post. I guess I let ideals get the best of me. Thanks for a refreshing dose of humility.
This is great news for Chinese internet users. So what if the pages on a few political topics are unreliable? Wikipedia is not the only source on the internet, its just a very useful resource on general knowledge. General knowledge includes a lot of things that aren't these political issues. At least today they have a larger resource.
I think that the internet will eventually triumph over the Chinese governments censorship. There are a lot of people in China, and its hard to keep that many people, most of them poor, stable. You can see from the last hundred years how many large revolutions there have been. The country has been slowly, but steadily progressing towards freedom. Opening up their economy, moving towards capitalism are some of the bigger steps. Allowing wikipedia is a good step in the right direction.
All that said I am in favor of all the software and efforts to help Chinese people blog anonymously. I believe the more communication the better, the fourth estate serves the government and the internet helps subvert that.
Well, we could figure that out after we figure out the UI... we will be collectively intelligent then.
I don't have the numbers in front of me but I've read reports several times about how foreign box office revenues are almost as high or higher than domestic box office revenues. That means people outside of the US are eating up our movies.
As for software I haven't heard anything special, but the EU certainly has a bone to pick with Microsoft, so they must sell something over there.
As for the clothes, admittedly that was a stretch... I maintain that a large part of our economy is exporting intellectual property, and that we would not want to give that up to start producing locally.
Perhaps you were just trying to make a little fun, sorry if my sarcasm detector is a little off this morning.
Let's take your logic a little further. Why limit ourselves to "made in the USA"? That's not very local, why not only buy things made in your state, in your city, your neighborhood, your own farm? Our greed is very much the reason we do not do any of those. It is also an acceptable reason NOT to buy "made in USA."
You can appeal to patriotism all you want, but the fact is that the world is bigger than the USA. The global transportation network, and now the internet have opened everyone to everyone. The world has steadily been moving in a globalized direction, and there are lots of corporations getting rich off of it. It may be nice to have protectionism to provide "us" protection from "them" but the truth is, the distinction between us and them is dwindling. "They" buy our movies, our software and our clothing. I bet you don't have a problem with that, until "they" all decide that they don't want any American goods. Then what?
We can't turn back the clock. It sucks that people are losing their jobs, it sucks that we don't live in a perfect world where we can all hold hands and sing. The problem is not an "us" vs. "them" that we can solve by shutting "them" out, thats an artificial solution. We need a substantive solution that improves the value of our people, more education, more research and vigilance in maintaining our superb economic environment.
Modern distribution systems are happening and I am part of it. Ever heard of myspace music? Youtube? Those are just the major venues for those less technically inclined. I am helping an independant label by running their website, and they even take care of their own myspace.
I don't care if the conglomerates go bankrupt because I don't think they are necessary for the modern distribution system we are talking about. I don't think the disaffected customers HAVE to do anything to change the system, they already are.
you make me ill. I don't have a problem with your apple joke (even tho Im on a MBP). It's your disconected idea of reality.
Your not so humble opinion has obviously never left whatever EU country you live in. 40hrs a week is more time than anyone should have to spend at work? Have you never heard of poverty? Oh thats right, the only lifestyle that exists is the one you've taken part in.
I do not like to see people suffer, but the way to alleviate suffering is not complain about the number of hours worked. It's better to focus on why people are so poor that they must work that much. Sure in a perfect world we might wish for a sub-40hr work week, and hell some people get to live the dream. Offhandedly dismissing reality just grinds on my nerves.
1. Get everyone to produce their own content
2. Find out the world of hell distribution is.
3. They all understand that the internet is a miracle from god to spread their work.
4. The world is a better, more culture rich place
5. Profit???
So now we have a whole generation that knows they are stealing but don't know why they feel okay with it. We have a whole generation of kids that we have to "fix" with reeducation. They are still sheep, but they are knocking over the fences.
I used to care about being legal. I spent a lot of time reading about copyright law and following cases and history. I concluded that copyright infringement is a crime. It is illegal to do what I do very often. I just don't care anymore. I honestly do not care whethere SONY/BMG or Universal miss out on my 16$, I don't care if my generation thinking that way costs them their whole goddamn business. Copyrights were instated to promote the progress of the sciences and the arts, not gaurantee a multibillion dollar industry its profits. Some people I know cry about it, but I know in MY heart that music will still be made.
And I think these kids, some of them, are starting to get it. Maybe now they are just enjoying free stuff, but they are setting the standard. We want instant distribution, we want to share our culture, and we want it now. If the record labels can't fill the demand, someone will, and lots of people will make money off of it. Perhaps together we can profit from this tragedy.