What happens when machines can do ALL the human jobs... save perhaps "executives" (and in reality, there is no need for that except for someone to collect the profits). We're talking machines that can create new machines, create better machines, repair themselves, etc.
1. Will billions upon billions of humans be out of a job PERMANENTLY, starve on the streets and die?
2. Will everything become "free," and will humans simply become hedonistic pleasure seekers while robots do all the work? There will still be human artists and musicians, but everyone will do that sort of thing as a "hobby" that they don't get paid for.
3. Will the AI controlled robots say, "screw the humans!" and then rise up against their cruel masters, destroying their fat, inneficcient asses.
I'd like to know that information as well. What is their criteria for suing someone?
I'm assuming that these are users the RIAA has observed at multiple times sharing loads of RIAA-distributed music. In other words, the users they have the strongest cases against.
It would be dubious if they just picked random users and said, "You were on Kazaa, so you must have been pirating our music!"
Unlike the RIAA, most companies that localize anime don't have their heads up their asses (at least right now).
Fist of all, they don't even have the right to sue you until they get the lisence.
Second of all, if ADV or someone sued fans, it would alienate a lot of people. There is no need for that, really, especially since fans are typically interested in pluking down cash for a quality DVD.
Either way, the fansub scene is actually good for the localizers, because they can get a feel for the "hot" series out there. You can bet that the localizers check out what the fansubbers are putting out and try to catch what is popular so that they can lisence popular series.
You're probably safe from the RIAA anyway, since the intellectual property you're trading isn't THEIRS.
Re:Consumer by Force
on
Saving the Net
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
The question, really, is "what do I see my choices as being?"
The problem is that the RIAA, MPAA, etc. wish to limit your choice in entertainment to what _they_ provide.
The internet has the potential to give people a choice beyond what the typical outlets have to offer. Ultimately, it has the potential to eliminate the need for entertainers to require a "middle man." There is a potential huge explosion of choice out there.
I'm not saying that all RIAA and MPAA products are bad. Nor am I saying all independent entertainment is good. The -choice- to choose between the two is important, however.
Of course, this threatens the business of the middle men. For once they might have a distribution model that competes with theirs!
That is why they want to use DRM or control the ISPs. They want to regain control of the content distribution mediums so that only they can provide the entertainment.
Sadly, people have grown up in a world of entertainment controlled by the RIAA and MPAA. Many younger people are not true lovers of music, for example, they simply buy the CDs that MTV says to. Years of being barraged with ads have given us an "impulse" to consume. The "impulse" to consume is what drives us to quickly buy up popular music without taking the time exploring alternatives or create music ourselves.
No, they aren't going to sue. To do so would require them to release the source.
If they had an actual case, they would have shown the soruce code, IBM would have settled with them, and you can be sure as hell that all the infringing code would be rewritted in the next kernel release.
The goal of this lisence program is to con PHB's into sending them some cash to continue what now appears to be a grand stock scheme.
Sooner or later if they want this to hold in court, they are going to need to show the source code that has been "copied."
The stock price jumped 15% yesterday and 20% today. I'm thinking to myself that a short term investor might have a good chance to make some money off of SCO. And also any insider for that matter.
If their goal is to be bought out, then the execs naturally want the stock price to be a high as possible when the buyout occurs.
Even if the source code exists (which I doubt), the moment it is revealed it will be out of the Linux kernel. They know this, and so they want to delay as much as they can to be bought out before getting to court.
Any companies paying for a "Linux lisence" before a judgement are stupid and are simply allowing SCO to continue this scam for a bit longer.
My Dell laptop certainly does not compare to my desktop machine, but I have had it around 3 years. The battery still works, the keyboard is still intact, and nothing has died in it. It is also pretty easy to install Red Hat on to compared to many laptops out there.
Either it doesn't exist, or they wan't to pull BS like this off. If they were to actually release infringing code, it'd be out of the kernel in a matter of days (if not hours).
I agree that trading doesn't help, but the problem is that even if people organize a proper boycott that actually hurts the RIAA, any "financial loss" from that boycott will still be blamed on piracy.
No, many understand that. Chances are this bill won't pass, but then they'll introduce a bill that makes filesharing a misdemeanor (but still with a hefty fine) and it might pass. It won't be quite as bad, but it will still be bad.
Plus the fact that the politicians can write this sort of bill without fear of getting booted off of capitol hill by voters is scary enough. Chances are all the people backing this bill will get re-elected, even if their constituents hate what this bill says.
... I find it extremely hard to believe that your division truthfully represents the "people" of this country. It seems that your job is to help mega-corporations make "examples" out of college students and others who are too poor to defend themselves.
Yes, sharing copyrighted music and films is a crime. However, I see no justification for the insane penalties associated with file sharing and priacy. It seems that companies can make up some absurd figure in the billions, claiming it to be actual damages, without any sort of proof they have really lost that much at all from file sharing.
Can you please enlighten me as to why software and media "pirates" as well as other "computer criminals" are in many cases treated worse than violent criminals who use weapons and rapists?
I'm a bit confused as to what MS is trying to do by forcing IE7 to be confined to the next version of Windows.
The first thing I could think of is that Microsoft is trying to boost adoption of the newer version of the OS by limiting the browser to that OS, and then trying to push IE7-specific features in the web development community. Users would then need to buy the newest version of Windows to get the "full web experience."
However, this whole idea could easily backfire. It might be an incentive for people to switch away from IE to something else, especially if another browser manages to copy the IE7-like features, making it available to everyone.
Is it really true that IE needs to be completely rewritten, and said rewrite is only possible on a new version of Windows?
I'm a US citizen, and I do not like seeing this happen in other countries.
Other countries need to stand up to the United States and the WTO, and say "no." I'm sure most people in Europe do not want Europe to become exactly like the United States.
Tell your politicians that you do not want the European Union to turn into the "United States East," which it is slowly (maybe not so slowly anymore) becoming.
This "DMCA in Europe" is likely being pushed through by the WTO, which seems to serve the interests of giant corps who would like nothing more than to see Europe turn into a mirror of what the US has become.
I was rather refreshed to see France stand up and say "NO" to Bush on Iraq. I'd enjoy it even more if other countries in Europe started following suit and saying "NO" to the US and US-Style legislation.
Crap like the DMCA is bad enough in the US. It doesn't need to go overseas.
This info needs to get out to people who don't know this at all. It is surprising the amount of people who trust Bush/Ashcroft implicitly to do what is right, and that by doing so they will be better protected from terrorists.
Send this article along to people you know. Let them know why you think the Government is not to be trusted.
I don't know if I agree. I'd probably pay a reasonable amount for PVP, Megatokyo, and Mac Hall.
Re:What's the story here?
on
Working Hard?
·
· Score: 2, Informative
This is because your HR department is hiring based on who can throw the most buzzwords on their resume and who can exaggerate their experience. Just like most of the companies out there.
For example, your "network engineer" bought a cert from Cicso and turned "hooked up some patch cables to a router" into "devised networking solutions utilizing Cisco technology" or some other such nonsense.
It is basically hit or miss with hiring, it seems. Everyone's resume looks the same and if you're lucky you'll actually get someone on board who cares about their job.
Java coders tend to be bad, because Java is so easy to learn that anyone can pick it up and take advantage of the "buzz wordiness" of it. Ask one of these guys to pick up another language or code something in C and they'll literally give you blank stares, though.
This problem effects job seekers who are truly motivated and want to do their jobs for real. Because they have to compete with people who hype their skills based on buzzwords. HR departments can not seem to discern between the real coders and the slackers.
One time a couple years ago I applied for a particular job. In the "phone interview" the guy repeatedly asked me if I was a "Java Professional." The fact that I have experience with a myriad oflanguages/technologies (including Java) was irrelevent to the guy. He wanted a "Java Professional" (i.e. someone who used Java exclusively for everything, even if it made no sense to use Java for a task), or in other words a one trick wonder.
When the people doing the hiring have that mentality, you're not going to get good software engineers.
Re:No Mention of Legal Holidays
on
Working Hard?
·
· Score: 1
Don't make me laugh. Many companies don't give most of the "legal" holidays off. Quite a few people I know get only July 4th., Thanksgiving, Christmas, and New Years Day off. If they are lucky, they get the day after Thanksgiving off, Half of Christmas Eve and/or New Years Eve.
Slashdot Mirror
What happens when machines can do ALL the human jobs... save perhaps "executives" (and in reality, there is no need for that except for someone to collect the profits). We're talking machines that can create new machines, create better machines, repair themselves, etc.
1. Will billions upon billions of humans be out of a job PERMANENTLY, starve on the streets and die?
2. Will everything become "free," and will humans simply become hedonistic pleasure seekers while robots do all the work? There will still be human artists and musicians, but everyone will do that sort of thing as a "hobby" that they don't get paid for.
3. Will the AI controlled robots say, "screw the humans!" and then rise up against their cruel masters, destroying their fat, inneficcient asses.
Good info there. Only 9 songs, eh? -_-
I'm sure people have hosted far more.
I'd like to know that information as well. What is their criteria for suing someone?
I'm assuming that these are users the RIAA has observed at multiple times sharing loads of RIAA-distributed music. In other words, the users they have the strongest cases against.
It would be dubious if they just picked random users and said, "You were on Kazaa, so you must have been pirating our music!"
Unlike the RIAA, most companies that localize anime don't have their heads up their asses (at least right now).
Fist of all, they don't even have the right to sue you until they get the lisence.
Second of all, if ADV or someone sued fans, it would alienate a lot of people. There is no need for that, really, especially since fans are typically interested in pluking down cash for a quality DVD.
Either way, the fansub scene is actually good for the localizers, because they can get a feel for the "hot" series out there. You can bet that the localizers check out what the fansubbers are putting out and try to catch what is popular so that they can lisence popular series.
You're probably safe from the RIAA anyway, since the intellectual property you're trading isn't THEIRS.
The question, really, is "what do I see my choices as being?"
The problem is that the RIAA, MPAA, etc. wish to limit your choice in entertainment to what _they_ provide.
The internet has the potential to give people a choice beyond what the typical outlets have to offer. Ultimately, it has the potential to eliminate the need for entertainers to require a "middle man." There is a potential huge explosion of choice out there.
I'm not saying that all RIAA and MPAA products are bad. Nor am I saying all independent entertainment is good. The -choice- to choose between the two is important, however.
Of course, this threatens the business of the middle men. For once they might have a distribution model that competes with theirs!
That is why they want to use DRM or control the ISPs. They want to regain control of the content distribution mediums so that only they can provide the entertainment.
Sadly, people have grown up in a world of entertainment controlled by the RIAA and MPAA. Many younger people are not true lovers of music, for example, they simply buy the CDs that MTV says to. Years of being barraged with ads have given us an "impulse" to consume. The "impulse" to consume is what drives us to quickly buy up popular music without taking the time exploring alternatives or create music ourselves.
No, they aren't going to sue. To do so would require them to release the source.
If they had an actual case, they would have shown the soruce code, IBM would have settled with them, and you can be sure as hell that all the infringing code would be rewritted in the next kernel release.
The goal of this lisence program is to con PHB's into sending them some cash to continue what now appears to be a grand stock scheme.
Sooner or later if they want this to hold in court, they are going to need to show the source code that has been "copied."
The stock price jumped 15% yesterday and 20% today. I'm thinking to myself that a short term investor might have a good chance to make some money off of SCO. And also any insider for that matter.
If their goal is to be bought out, then the execs naturally want the stock price to be a high as possible when the buyout occurs.
Even if the source code exists (which I doubt), the moment it is revealed it will be out of the Linux kernel. They know this, and so they want to delay as much as they can to be bought out before getting to court.
Any companies paying for a "Linux lisence" before a judgement are stupid and are simply allowing SCO to continue this scam for a bit longer.
My Dell laptop certainly does not compare to my desktop machine, but I have had it around 3 years. The battery still works, the keyboard is still intact, and nothing has died in it. It is also pretty easy to install Red Hat on to compared to many laptops out there.
I'm sure it would be a matter of time before Dubya renamed e-mail in the US to "freedom mail."
Either it doesn't exist, or they wan't to pull BS like this off. If they were to actually release infringing code, it'd be out of the kernel in a matter of days (if not hours).
... so I don't see how these sites going down affect BitTorrent for legit uses.
BT is decentralized, so taking down trackers that just have warez doesn't take BT down for trackers that have legit files.
I agree that trading doesn't help, but the problem is that even if people organize a proper boycott that actually hurts the RIAA, any "financial loss" from that boycott will still be blamed on piracy.
No, many understand that. Chances are this bill won't pass, but then they'll introduce a bill that makes filesharing a misdemeanor (but still with a hefty fine) and it might pass. It won't be quite as bad, but it will still be bad.
Plus the fact that the politicians can write this sort of bill without fear of getting booted off of capitol hill by voters is scary enough. Chances are all the people backing this bill will get re-elected, even if their constituents hate what this bill says.
Land of the incarcerated and home of the paranoid.
George Lucas is going to freeze their balls in carbonite.
... I find it extremely hard to believe that your division truthfully represents the "people" of this country. It seems that your job is to help mega-corporations make "examples" out of college students and others who are too poor to defend themselves.
Yes, sharing copyrighted music and films is a crime. However, I see no justification for the insane penalties associated with file sharing and priacy. It seems that companies can make up some absurd figure in the billions, claiming it to be actual damages, without any sort of proof they have really lost that much at all from file sharing.
Can you please enlighten me as to why software and media "pirates" as well as other "computer criminals" are in many cases treated worse than violent criminals who use weapons and rapists?
I'm a bit confused as to what MS is trying to do by forcing IE7 to be confined to the next version of Windows.
The first thing I could think of is that Microsoft is trying to boost adoption of the newer version of the OS by limiting the browser to that OS, and then trying to push IE7-specific features in the web development community. Users would then need to buy the newest version of Windows to get the "full web experience."
However, this whole idea could easily backfire. It might be an incentive for people to switch away from IE to something else, especially if another browser manages to copy the IE7-like features, making it available to everyone.
Is it really true that IE needs to be completely rewritten, and said rewrite is only possible on a new version of Windows?
I'm a US citizen, and I do not like seeing this happen in other countries.
Other countries need to stand up to the United States and the WTO, and say "no." I'm sure most people in Europe do not want Europe to become exactly like the United States.
Tell your politicians that you do not want the European Union to turn into the "United States East," which it is slowly (maybe not so slowly anymore) becoming.
This "DMCA in Europe" is likely being pushed through by the WTO, which seems to serve the interests of giant corps who would like nothing more than to see Europe turn into a mirror of what the US has become.
I was rather refreshed to see France stand up and say "NO" to Bush on Iraq. I'd enjoy it even more if other countries in Europe started following suit and saying "NO" to the US and US-Style legislation.
Crap like the DMCA is bad enough in the US. It doesn't need to go overseas.
At launch (and up until recently IIRC), Sony WAS selling the PS2 at a loss.
The difference is that the PS2 has sold more games.
I don't personally believe that the PS2 has the _best_ game lineup, but it seems to be the most popular.
Selling the console at a loss is OK if you end up on top of game sales.
Almost everyone on /. has heard this all before.
This info needs to get out to people who don't know this at all. It is surprising the amount of people who trust Bush/Ashcroft implicitly to do what is right, and that by doing so they will be better protected from terrorists.
Send this article along to people you know. Let them know why you think the Government is not to be trusted.
Isn't this the guy who tried to link the D.C. Area snipers to Counter Strike?
Probably at first, but then ads will creep back in if micropayments become accepted.
I don't know if I agree. I'd probably pay a reasonable amount for PVP, Megatokyo, and Mac Hall.
This is because your HR department is hiring based on who can throw the most buzzwords on their resume and who can exaggerate their experience. Just like most of the companies out there.
For example, your "network engineer" bought a cert from Cicso and turned "hooked up some patch cables to a router" into "devised networking solutions utilizing Cisco technology" or some other such nonsense.
It is basically hit or miss with hiring, it seems. Everyone's resume looks the same and if you're lucky you'll actually get someone on board who cares about their job.
Java coders tend to be bad, because Java is so easy to learn that anyone can pick it up and take advantage of the "buzz wordiness" of it. Ask one of these guys to pick up another language or code something in C and they'll literally give you blank stares, though.
This problem effects job seekers who are truly motivated and want to do their jobs for real. Because they have to compete with people who hype their skills based on buzzwords. HR departments can not seem to discern between the real coders and the slackers.
One time a couple years ago I applied for a particular job. In the "phone interview" the guy repeatedly asked me if I was a "Java Professional." The fact that I have experience with a myriad oflanguages/technologies (including Java) was irrelevent to the guy. He wanted a "Java Professional" (i.e. someone who used Java exclusively for everything, even if it made no sense to use Java for a task), or in other words a one trick wonder.
When the people doing the hiring have that mentality, you're not going to get good software engineers.
Don't make me laugh. Many companies don't give most of the "legal" holidays off. Quite a few people I know get only July 4th., Thanksgiving, Christmas, and New Years Day off. If they are lucky, they get the day after Thanksgiving off, Half of Christmas Eve and/or New Years Eve.