the HTC Vogue might be running similar hardware to the HTC Dream (T-Mobile G1). either way, HTC is a member of the Open Handset Alliance, and they make a lot of popular carrier re-branded handsets. so you might be able to run Android on many of those devices.
the HTC Vogue/Touch uses the TI OMAP 850 processor while the HTC Dream/T-Mobile G1 is running on a Qualcomm MSM7201A ARM11. so other HTC phones running on, either Texas Instrument's OMAP or Qualcomm's MSM line processors, should support Android as well. in fact, all HTC phones run on either TI, Qualcomm, Intel, or Samsung processors. and it just so happens that TI, Qualcomm, Intel, and Samsung are all members of the Open Handset Alliance. so i wouldn't be surprised if all HTC handsets eventually supported the Android platform.
that's the power of having a strong cross-industry alliance supporting open standards. i think Android has a very good chance of dominating the cellphone market and potentially revolutionizing the industry.
point taken. but what i was mainly referring to is the connection between technological advancement and cultural advancement, not what human social group aliens would perceive as to be superior.
consider this:
technology is a result of scientific knowledge--a technologically advanced society is necessarily scientifically advanced.
science is a product of enlightened learning (as opposed to epistemological reliance on mythos).
science is advanced by intellectuals/scholars, not in a vacuum, but is a collaboration between cooperative individuals.
such scientific progress cannot occur in a violent, repressive, reactionary society.
with technological advancement comes great power, and with great power comes great responsibility.--spider-man
a technologically advanced but culturally backward society will destroy itself.
technology is merely an aspect of culture. and cultural progress happens in lock step. so ethical progress, social progress, scientific progress, and technological progress all must occur simultaneously. these are anthropological laws that all civilizations must follow. consider why most animals have 2 sets (or clumps) of eyes. why do predators have 2 forward-facing eyes, and prey animals 2 opposite-side-facing eyes. that's because binocular vision is required for hunting, whereas eyes on the side of your head gives prey a wider field of vision, thus more protection against predators. these are laws of nature that hold true regardless of where life evolves.
so imagine an alien species that evolves to be sociopathic brutes. they never discover democracy and have no concept of natural rights, justice, equality, etc. 99% of their population lives abject poverty, condemned to spend their entire lives toiling away performing menial labor. now, imagine an alien species on a different planet that evolves to be altruistic, cooperative, and compassionate beings. they have a democratic form of government, and they do have a concept of natural rights, justice, and equality. because of their progressive culture, they have public schools, public health care, and no poverty.
now, which one of these species would you expect to develop the technology for space travel? the civilization in which only 1% of the population has the free time to pursue learning & knowledge? or the one in which public schools give all individuals equal access to education? which civilization would have more resources to devote to space travel? the one that has to deal with violent wars, widespread poverty, rampant public health issues, and civil unrest? or the one that has a democratic government, societal stability, and is at peace? and which civilization is more likely to develop advanced scientific understanding such as quantum mechanics, biological evolution, molecular chemistry, etc.? the alien species that has a violent & repressive culture, or the enlightened species whose intellectuals and eccentrics are valued and allowed to flourish?
think about the kinds of people that advance a society scientifically. were Einstein, da Vinci, Darwin, Copernicus, Tesla, Galileo Galilei, Kepler, Newton, Carl Sagan, Stephen Hawking, etc. violent, sadistic, or belligerent people? did most scientists flock to the United States or the Soviet Union after WWII? and are Universities, our primary institutions of learning, places of reactionary intolerance and anti-social behavior? or do they share free-spirited atmospheres that promote learning and the advancement of knowledge through scientific collaboration?
i can't speculate much on a 2-dimensional society (i'll leave that job to Edwin Abbott Abbott), but i do think that a spacefaring civilization like Starfleet/The United Federation of Planets is much more probable than a spacefaring species like the Klingons or Cardasians.
that was true when they included things like FireWire/SCSI as standard in all of their consumer-grade systems. they had a reputation for selling systems that catered to the professional user. also, it was hard to make a direct comparison between PPC and x86 architecture, so the price difference was easier to swallow.
but now they're relying increasingly on the brand and aesthetic design features (single-piece aluminum construction, white earbuds, UI eye candy, etc.) to sell their hardware.
i don't own a mac so i can't comment on whether the mac tax is worth it. personally, i think it's silly to treat a computer as a fashion accessory. and i strongly dislike companies that put too much emphasis on marketing. however, having used an iPod Nano and an Video iPod, i have to give credit where it's due. Apple makes great user interfaces (at least this is true with the iPod line) and that is something that other companies can learn from.
but a laptop/desktop computer is not the same as a PMP. performance matters much more in a computer than it does with a simple media appliance. i would not pay the mac tax for a sleek, easy-to-use, but weak computer.
September 20, 2007- March 24, 2005 = exactly 1 year? sorry, try again. (that's 2.5 years in case you're still trying to work that out.)
and i simply stated that Sony intentionally locked the PSP out of the PSN/Playstation store, despite the PSP being fully capable of web access from the start, in order to get PSP owners to buy the PS3. what is untrue about this statement?
maybe work on your reading comprehension skills a little before flaming someone for stating facts that you don't like to hear. or do you just like to read too much into people's posts so that you can be a pedant?
yes i DO know that SONY has ATTEMPTED to RECTIFY their previous MISTAKES. (too little, too late.)
unless you're some kind of Sony fanboy, it should be clear that Sony was playing PSP owners for suckers by forcing them to purchase a PS3 in order to access a major advertised feature--the ability to play PSX games. they actually went out of their way to make things more inconvenient.
the PSP was released in the U.S. on March 25, 2005 (2004 in Japan). it wasn't until November 20, 2007 that Sony decided to allow non-PS3-owners to access the PSN, but only with Internet Explorer on a Windows PC. and firmware 5.0 didn't come out until only 5 days ago--the PSP has been out for nearly 4 years. how many useless firmware updates have we had in all this time? considering that PSX support was an advertised feature from the very start, and the PSP has always had wi-fi capabilities and a built-in browser, why should it take over 3 and a half years to give the PSP direct access to the PSN?
like i said, the PSP is a great piece of hardware. but the corporate execs at Sony have let their greed-driven delusions overtake good business sense. they clearly have no respect for their customers, and Sony apologists like you encourage their greedy anti-consumer policies.
i prefer to get the most out of my purchases. that includes not waiting 3.5 years to access core features (PopStation was one of the PSP's mains selling points for me). so i installed CFW the day i got my PSP, and within a few hours i was playing Grandia on PopStation.
i don't think the government is spending half the money they spend on the War on Drugs on fighting spam. you can't even compare the two.
if we lived in a true democracy--one that gave citizens direct voice in public policy--replacing congress with regular national referendums for passing legislation, the spam problem would be solved in under a year.
everyone hates spam because it negatively affects our daily lives. few people profit from spam and at great societal costs. so if a referendum was held to divert tax funding away from the War on Some Drugs, the War on Iraq, the War on Terrorism, etc. and put these resources into combating spam, our prisons would no longer be filled with harmless drug users (and illegally detained arabs) and instead of filled with spammers, malware writers, and other real societal parasites. most people would probably vote to ban spam outright--that means companies that hire spammers & malware creators would be punished just as harshly. this would immediately cut off the financial incentive to spam. spammers don't send spam because they enjoy it; they do it for money. cut off the cash flow, and there'd be no reason to send spam.
the other solution is to change our culture of consumerism. spam is a direct result of unbridled capitalism. financial greed and selfishness have become virtues in our society. spammers are the embodiment of the "entrepreneurial" spirit. we're trained to seize any and all opportunity to make money. our society glamorizes the rich, marginalizes the poor, and our entire society and political system is skewed in favor of the wealthy. and it's this pro-business political culture that allowed spam and malware to grow into a such a prevalent institution. politicians were so used to putting business interests above public interest that spam was just an given.
but it'll take a long time to change our culture of capitalist greed & materialistic consumerism. our children need to be taught that personal integrity is more important than wealth, and to not equivocate money with happiness/success. most importantly, we need to value people based on their moral character and contribution to society, not their bank balance. instilling these positive values in kids will ensure that they don't grow up to be spammers. but that's hard in a society where money and socioeconomic status are everything. you can't even get a good education, decent health care, or justice if you don't have money. so this is an uphill battle.
a race that is technologically advanced enough to be capable of FTL-speed travel would not be interested in rednecks, if they cared about humans at all.
by the time a civilization is capable of intergalactic travel, they would likely be much more culturally advanced than us. no more wars, religion, poverty, disease, social injustice, bigotry, etc. otherwise, they would have destroyed themselves long ago (much like the direction we're headed in).
so, no, i don't think they would kidnap and probe a redneck. those aren't the trademarks of a culturally/morally advanced civilization. they would either observe us passively and learn about us without interfering with our development, or they would wait for us to mature as a species (i.e. grow out of our current selfish greed-driven, xenophobic, belligerent ways) and then make open contact with us.
i'm very fortunate in that my boss is also a close friend (more of a father figure really). he gives me very flexible hours (i get to write them basically) and doesn't care if i come in a few hours late.
but i agree with you that it sucks having your schedule/life dictated by your source of income. kids spend their entire childhood preparing for college, and in college they pick their classes/major based on what career they want to pursue. they pick their career, in turn, based on the kind of money they want to make. so their entire life eventually revolves around the pursuit of wealth. you work hard so that you can make lots of money and buy things to make you and your family happy. you work overtime so that you can save up for that dream vacation when you can spend time with your family.
90% of your waking life is spent working--so that you can move up the corporate ladder, pay off your credit card bills, and accumulate enough wealth to retire on. but by the time you're old enough to retire, you're also too old to follow your dreams. life should be about living--doing the things you love, spending time with the people you care about, etc.--not about accumulating power and wealth. that's why you should choose an occupation that you are passionate about and enjoy doing.
my parents were upset with me when i got my piercings and tattoos. they thought it would hurt my chances of getting a good job. but i wanted to choose a job that suits my lifestyle/personality, not change my lifestyle/personality to suit my job. and so far, that has landed me a great job with a great boss and co-workers that are fun and interesting to work with.
i know that not everyone is as lucky as me. but that's why i think France and Spain have got it right. shorter work weeks means more time spent with one's family, resulting in more job fulfillment->happier workers->increased productivity. America may have the highest GDP in the world, but that means little when we have one of the largest (and growing) income gaps of any developed country--not to mention a poverty rate higher than Eastern Europe. quality of life is more important than strength of the economy.
there must be a better system out there that would allow the average person more free time and afford them more freedom and flexibility in their day. i think our society would benefit more from skilled artisans, inventors, scientific researchers & theorists, philosophers, writers, etc. than merely an army of wage slaves. people are an invaluable resource as a source of cultural output/expression--things like science, technology, art, literature, academic knowledge, philosophy, moral/social progress, etc. but under an oppressive culture where people are forbidden to express themselves creatively, where education is denied to the poor, where people toil away their entire lives as wage slaves, that resource is completely wasted.
Benjamin Franklin is known to have drank opium tinctures recreationally.
opiates are a very popular drug amongst creatives--especially writers. so there must be some sort of connection there.
contrary to common misconception, not all opiate users are dirtly homeless junkies. many doctors are closet morphine junkies. there are the type who like to get so high they puke or pass out (or both). and then there are those who use just enough to feel calm, relaxed, but not enough to become inebriated. personally, i've never enjoyed being visibly intoxicated or so high that i'm nauseous.
i think being physically and psychologically relaxed helps one be creative. your mind isn't cluttered with stressful thoughts, so your creativity just flows out of you more easily. it also puts you in a more introspective/ruminative mood. if caffeine is programming fluid, then opiates are writing supplements.
opiates have always made me feel like expressing myself artistically. it puts you in a slightly manic stage similar to small amounts of stimulants (coke/caffeine/meth/ritalin/adderall), but it doesn't have the negative effects, such as peripheral stimulation (hypertension, hyperthermia, vasoconstriction, anxiety, jitteriness), instead it has a very calming effect and doesn't cause any kind of crash afterwards.
i feel ya. i haven't been in a manic phase in quite some time. i used to stay up all night working on personal projects. even at school i'd be thinking in my head or doodling notes to myself in my notebook. those were the days.
i used to:
spend hours creating custom maps for Duke3D and show them off with a friend over the modem.
write punters/proggies, mail bombers, trojans, porn site crackers, game hacks (hey, i was in 7th grade, alright?).
run my own website (computerpranks.org) that at its peek received 2000+ unique hits a day.
write angst-filled teenage emo poetry. (can you be temporarily manic while going through depression)
back then i had a pretty structured daily schedule. so the only time i had free to mess around and follow my interests was late at night. usually starting around 1-2 i would be the most creative/productive and work all the way until 5-6 AM sometimes.
i still feel the most creative late at night, but i have a different schedule and responsibilities now, so i can't go to bed at 5-6 AM anymore. in fact, i find that i need to get to bed by 10:00 PM if i'm to get through the day without being tired (i have to get up at ~5:00 AM).
this creates a problem where i lose my most creative hours to sleep. the ironic thing is, i'm a graphic design/web develop and i'm responsible for creating CD designs/layouts, t-shirt designs, posters, websites, etc., but i have a hard time being creating at work. having my boss constantly standing over my shoulder just drains the creative juices out of me. i'd much rather work from home, but my boss prefers to have me at the office for tech support and also so he can keep track of my hours.
while i don't have a "sweetheart"--not anymore at least, i can empathize with the teaching analogy.
i used to tutor struggling students after-school at my school library. and even though i'd learned most of the material i went over with them long ago, teaching it to them helped me gain a much stronger grasp of these concepts.
most poor students aren't stupid. some lack discipline or are lazy, and some just learn differently from others. the students that came to me for help were obviously motivated to learn and not lazy. but they needed help understanding certain concepts that just weren't getting through the way the teacher tried to explain it to them.
this experience taught me to analyze a problem from many different perspectives. i would experiment with different analogies and gauge how the pupil responded to it, adjusting my teaching methods accordingly. not only did i help most pupils to walk away confident in their academic abilities, but i also learned to take unconventional approaches to difficult problems and analyze the subtle connections between different concepts and ideas.
this approach proved invaluable in elucidating difficult concepts to struggling pupils, but it has also taught me to be more elastic in my own thought process, helping me solve many challenging problems.
so teaching others is definitely one of the best ways to learn. just as helping others is the best way to help yourself.
right now all cellular networks are closed/proprietary. so if you're a handset maker and you want to add a new feature, say video conferencing, to your phone, you would need the carrier to approve it and change their network protocol--which they won't do. it's not like a TCP/IP where anyone can develop an application for it without permission from anyone.
that's why i think it would be better to do away with cellular networks all together. convert current cellular towers for public wireless internet access. TCP/IP is an open and well-established standard designed for general data communication. you can send voice/audio, video, text, and any other kind of information over the network. it's easy for anyone to extend the TCP/IP protocol at the application layer for developing new and innovative technologies. just look at how much the web/internet has progressed in the past decade compared to cellular networks.
so people would have smart wireless devices that they can use to access the web/internet whenever they want, and when they need to make/receive a call they simply use one of the VoIP services available. but there'd be no more ridiculous data plans, $.15 text messages, and $2 cellphone ringtones. the current cellular carriers' business models are an anachronism.
i'd rather read "slashvertising" for an interesting and original game that helps fund a charity than slashvertisements about some crappy Microsoft mouse with a blue tracking light or more Apple product updates. really, of all the slashvertisements that get posted, this is the one you have a problem with? is it because of the lemurs? why do you hate lemurs so much?
saving lemurs > !saving lemurs.
besides, their fundware idea is pretty cool. it creates a way for software producers to be less reliant on VCs while directly involving end-users in the development process. perhaps this model will mean more products that are created for/by the average user instead of all software being made to the specifications of profit-driven CEOs and PHBs.
there may be no legal requirement for societal contribution, but that's still what such laws were created for. that's why you can't copyright facts, number, etc. you did not create them, and granting such copyrights would not encourage any kind of positive contribution to society.
and how does copyright protect expression in this case? who's expression is being protected by forbidding IceTV from publishing their schedule stream? who's expression is being hindered/suppressed by IceTV's schedule stream?
and do you really think your "high court" is incorruptible or infallible?
just looking at the commonwealth nations the McLibel case immediately comes to mind. two environmental activists were punished simply for publishing pamphlets which portrayed McDonald's in a negative light; that is, they published facts about McDonald's such as:
launching advertising/marketing campaigns targeted at kids based exploiting children's "pester power."
promoting their food as part of a healthy lifestyle when most dietitians and nutritional experts know this to be false.
complicity in 3rd-world starvation.
wastes vast quantities of grain and water.
alters food with artificial chemistry.
is responsible for inhumane treatment of animals.
exploits their workers and bans unions.
conceals its malfeasance.
considering that corporate giants like McDonald's spend vast resources on positive PR to create a false public image, and the press has neglected its duty of keeping the public informed about societal corruption & corporate irresponsibility, then it seems like it's entirely up to individual activists with a strong sense of civic duty to uncover these issues and inform consumers.
the idea that a corporation can level a lawsuit against these activists for simply reporting on McDonald's dirty secrets and have an injunction placed on them to silence their right to free speech is absolutely ridiculous. telling the truth is no libel, and corporations should not be allowed to censor legitimate criticisms.
so do i think the High Court spends its time hearing frivolous lawsuits? yes, i do. and i think if you read the news once in a while you'd see that corporate abuse of the legal system is very commonplace. patent trolls make careers out of frivolous lawsuits. this is nothing new.
they were all motivated by ignorance, intolerance, and irrational hate/fear--not to mention a sense of self-righteousness.
even if there had been an influential socialist movement in the U.S. the government has no business persecuting people for their political or philosophical views. there's a huge difference between being a Soviet Spy and lobbying for worker rights, socialized health care, etc. if America, as a society, became more progressive and adopted a socialist culture, then the government should simply carry out the will of the people. people should shape the government, the government should not shape people.
the government should never abuse its power to suppress the voices or opinions or its people. McCarthyism was a clear case of stringing up the dissidents and labeling them enemies of the state. similar persecution of social/political activists is happening today under the banner of combating terrorism. what the McCarthyists were doing was the same as what the Leninists and Stalinists were doing--they were forcing a political ideology onto a society through fear, propaganda & coercion. he did not like the progressive culture that was sweeping across America. so he took it upon himself to abuse his political power and privilege to eradicate progressive views.
i agreee. you should always keep local backups. i make full file backups and MySQL dumps from our web server on a regular basis and burn them onto DVDs. and that does not even include the local folder tree i use for active development. still, the host has absolutely no right to withhold your data. that is the worst demonstration of customer service i have ever come across from a web host--and i've seen some pretty bad ones. in general, i find the companies with the "Live Chat" support generally don't have very knowledgeable staff or quality service.
also, i didn't post the thirst part of the conversation, but in it i did touch on bandwidth issues. i asked them how much bandwidth is supplied by their "unlimited plan," to which the rep replied "unlimited uncourse." so then i asked if it'd be alright if we hosted hi-red videos and music on our site, because we've had problems with that before with in our current host.
at that point, he contradicted himself and said that if we overload their servers our site will be pulled. but i could not get a precise figure for bandwidth usage from the rep. all i could verify was that with our 12 GB/month (this was after we pulled down our videos) monthly bandwidth transfers, they would not have any problems. still seems a little deceptive to call it "unlimited hosting/bandwidth" though.
what troubles me most is that he seemed to suggest they received a copyright complaint which included USPTO documents to prove ownership of copyrights. if that was the case, then they would have legal and ethical grounds to pull the site. but how could the accuser obtain such documents when the copyright is clearly held by Quote Unquote records? it's obvious that no attempt was made to determine who actually owned the copyrights to the hosted material. which leads to my other suggestion: that slashdotters start sending DCMA takedown notices to random sites hosted by IX Webhosting.
since they won't verify if the accusations are valie, they will just end up pissing off a lot of legitimate customers. of even if they realize that it's a prank, they'll see the problem with their policy on IP policing.
if you don't want to be criticized for the actions of your government, stop calling yourself a democracy. in a democracy, the people are responsible for their government's actions. we let things get this far. we re-elected bush. we let ourselves be lied to and manipulated again and again. and we stand by as corruption goes unchecked.
face it, political/social activism is unfashionable in our reactionary society. generally the more educated intellectual circles tend to be more progressive and are the ones who've been calling for reform. but our society has become dominated by anti-intellectualism. so the only people who are trying to stop the corruption and stand up for whats right are simultaneously alienated, ridiculed, and marginalized.
most conservative Americans are still crying about the right to bear arms thinking that they'll overthrow the government one day with their handguns and hunting rifles. meanwhile, the fight for democracy is already being waged through a war of words and ideas. as such, the media is arguably the most effective weapon in the fight for democracy, which has been consolidated by a handful of media conglomerates over the past decades. luckily the internet is changing that by decentralizing media distribution and changing people's media consumption habits.
the same technology responsible for the democratization of the media can also help us realize direct-democracy. the logistical problems previously preventing participatory democracy from being implemented in a country as large as the U.S. can be overcome by electronic voting. this means we could hold mass referendums to decide domestic policy and truly establish a direct democracy in the United States.
the bipartisan system and the political aristocracy have proven themselves corrupt and incapable or unwilling to represent the interests of the people. therefore it is up to us to make policy decisions that are direct repercussions on our daily lives. we don't need rich old men completely detached from the reality of the average working American to make dictate domestic policy--particularly when they don't even read the bills they vote on. it's easy for corporate industries to bribe a dozen congressmen, but it's much harder to bribe millions of Americans.
if there were a mass referendum on the U.S.A.P.A.T.R.I.O.T Act or Aviation and Transportation Security Act, i think most Americans would immediately vote it down. that's because we're the ones who have our rights encroached on. we're the ones hassled at the airport. and if we're voting on actual legislation instead of politicians to represent us, then i think the public would be less caught up on mudslinging and immature personal attacks, and instead public discourse would focus on the actual issues at hand.
this ersatz democracy and bipartisan system simply creates the illusion of choice while rapidly causing our society to degenerate into a corporate plutocracy. but instead of absolving ourselves of any blame, it's time for us to take responsibility for our government, and regain control.
here's a partial transcript from Live Chat with an IX Webhost Rep (be warned. there's a lot of incoherent rambling because the customer service rep is from Ukraine, and i think there was a slight communications barrier):
you: ok, i just have one more question Evgen Voznyak: Sure please go on you: if we hosted our music on our site you: would you shut us down like you did Quote Unquote Records? Evgen Voznyak: We could suspend your account by Copyrights for your music if it is illegal you: but we own the copyrights to our music Evgen Voznyak: In this case everything is fine you: then why was Quote Unquote shut down? you: they held the copyrights to the music they put up you: or did someone file a complaint against their site? Evgen Voznyak: Please read about Our Terms of Service http://www.ixwebhosting.com/index.php/v2/pages.tos you: ok, i just read the section about IP and copyright you: but i still have qustions about how the Quate Unquote Records site came to be shut down you: are you allowed to discuss the details with me? Evgen Voznyak: Yes I am allowed you: ok Evgen Voznyak: Let me explain Evgen Voznyak: If we found some warez on Illegal information which is phishing material, we automatically suspend your account with request delete your content, also adult content is not allowed. you: is that what you found on their site? Evgen Voznyak: We search such content on our customers sites you: and what did you find on Quote Unquote Records's site? Evgen Voznyak: If we found that your domain getting many querries for users and it has been overloaded we suspend account you: you're not telling me anything about the Quote Unqoute site Evgen Voznyak: Please clarify what do you mean about Quote Unqoute you: ok, there was this new article recently about your company you: basically it talks about an Independent Record Label (like the one i work at) being shut down by you guys for "copyright violations" you: but the violations your company accused them of were for songs that they held the copyrights to you: so you basically shut down their site for posting their own songs up you: you can read the news article here: http://torrentfreak.com/record-label-infringes-own-copyright-site-pulled-081019/ you: i don't want the same thing to happen to our website because we post our own copyrighted music and music videos on our site too. Evgen Voznyak: If you have your own copyright this will not happens with you you: but that's exactly what happened to Quote Unquote Records you: i just want to know how you determined that they were violating copyright laws Evgen Voznyak: I will give you example mail which you need to write for us Evgen Voznyak: Thank you for notifying us of a client who may be infringing on copyright materials. As we would like to work with you to resolve this issue, there may be several supporting documents we need in order to continue. All information must be received via Federal Postal mail and delivered to the following address: Evgen Voznyak: Company Name Evgen Voznyak: PO BOX 1599 Evgen Voznyak: Hopkinsville,KY 42241 Evgen Voznyak: Please send a copy of the registered copyrights from the USPTO or other governing legal entities for the concerned material. If the text or images are located in a certain area of our client's website, please let us know where we can find the resource as this will assist us in a quicker resolution. you: so who notified you that Quote Unquote was infringing on copyright materials? you: did they include proof that they held the copyright to the materials being infringed? you: did you investigate whether the claims were true? you: and was their a court ordered injunction that required you to shut down their site? you: or did you just shut down the site without verifying whether any law
i understand that the issue surrounds the concept of a compilation. however, i'm pointing out the problem with defining a TV schedule as a compilation. and if you read my entire post, you'll see that i address this issue. but to reiterate:
if the TV network publishes their program schedule in a TV guide with show synopses, reviews, the actors in each shows, etc., all organized in an original print layout, then they have indeed created a copyrightable presentation of the program schedule. if IceTV reproduced the TV schedule in its entirety, copying the layout, page design, synopses, reviews, etc., then they would be infringing on the TV network's copyrights. but if IceTV merely reports on the basic schedule (program title + time aired) presented in their own custom data format via a custom schedule stream, then how are they violating any kind of copyright? i could write down a schedule of all the moon phases for the next 50 years. it would take much more skill and effort than compiling a schedule of TV programs. but that doesn't give me the right to sue anyone for publishing a list with the same info on it.
and what about these compilations:
a list of car prices by an auto manufacturer
a concert schedule by a tour manager
a list of names by a data mining company
a list of diseases by a medical researcher
could these things be copyrighted just because they required skill and labor to compile? should a car publication be forbidden from publishing the list prices of these cars? or a music publication not be allowed to publish announced tour dates? or publishers of phone books be required to pay licensing fees in order to print names previously compiled by a data mining corporation? or does the CDC need permission to publish a list of contagious diseases just because someone else wrote a similar list earlier?
to quote Wikipedia on the original motivation behind copyright law:
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." That is, by guaranteeing them a period of time in which they alone could profit from their works, they would be enabled and encouraged to invest the time required to create them, and this would be good for society as a whole. A right to profit from the work has been the philosophical underpinning for much legislation extending the duration of copyright, to the life of the creator and beyond, to his heirs.
how do such compilations contribute to society or help progress science and useful arts? you might as well copyright the garbage collection schedule, the deaths of all American presidents, a multiplication table, a list basic differentiation/integration rules, an ICC color profile, etc.
so either learn to live with the problem, or just run away from it? you must be a real winner.
most socially/emotionally healthy individuals have a powerful tool at there disposable called "interpersonal communication." by honing your communication skills, you can exchange thoughts and opinions with other people, perhaps even persuading them that FOSS is a viable alternative to proprietary software. but this is generally not a tactic used by people who spend their entire lives as a powerless passive observer.
assuming you know to speak up for yourself, there are a lot of ways to introduce FOSS to a close source organization.
start small. compile a list of FOSS software that you use at work to help you be more productive. personally, i use WinSCP, PuTTY, MySQL, PHP, YUI Library, etc. i would not be able to do the work required of me without these tools, at least no without paying much more for less efficient results.
document all of the proprietary software your company licenses which could be replaced by FOSS equivalents providing equal or better results--this includes desktop applications and sever software. emphasize the TCO that could be saved.
write a proposal. come up with some small non-vital applications that can be migrated to FOSS without disruptive business operations. for instance, set up an intranet site using FOSS software; perhaps a company wiki running on a LAMP server; or switch all IE browsers to Mozilla Firefox.
let me make this clear: i don't have anything against jailbreak. i'm a ardent supporter of homebrew on the PSP.
the iPhone and PSP are both absolutely amazing pieces of hardware. they are truly marvels of modern engineering. and while the PSP's beautifully designed XMB interface perfectly complements the device's slick and sexy exterior, it is still lacking in many respects. now, the iPhone's touchscreen interface is even more impressive than the PSP's in terms of stylish aesthetics and supreme usability. but the iPhone too has its drawbacks in its software.
it saddens me that these two marvels of portable engineering are held back from their true potential by simple software problems which have their roots in not so simple corporate policies and anti-consumer attitudes held by Apple and Sony. here are the major complaints:
Sony PSP
closed platform (no 3rd party or homebrew apps).
constant updates to break compatibility with CFW/homebrew without adding any value to the system.
intentionally locked out of the PSN/Playstation Store unless you buy a PS3.
PopStation crippled to prevent playing self-ripped/converted PSX games (forcing users to repurchase PSX games they own off of the PSN).
No Skype for PSP-1000 owners (unless you run homebrew Furikup).
No booting ISOs off of a memory stick, which eliminates the loading problems associated with UMDs.
No access to useful homebrew apps like better media players, ebook readers, etc.
iPhone
closed platform (no homebrews apps).
updates designed to brick jailbroken iPhones.
all 3rd-party apps have to be approved by Apple and distributed through Apple's App Store.
competing apps are removed by App Store without notice.
NDA suppresses discussions about app rejections, and users receive no refund.
Kill Switch function to delete all App Store installed applications.
Android
open well-documented platform (all 3rd-party/homebrew apps alloved).
Android source is released under the Apache License an GPL.
3rd-party apps can be distributed either through Android Market or any other means.
imposes no conditions on non-Android-Market applications.
open source OS gives users complete freedom to customize their system.
Kill Switch function only used for removing malware purchased off of Android Market (for which users will be reimbursed).
is devoted to the advancement of open standards.
Neither Sony nor Apple support homebrew/CFW/jailbreak. as a result, if you want the freedom to use your own device as you see fit, you need to void your warranty, and Apple/Sony have shown that they will actively try to combat such practices. i can't speak for Apple, but i know that Sony's anti-consumer attitudes have resulting in their releasing useless update after useless update without ever fixing the problems with the official PSP firmware that drive consumers to homebrew/CFW.
Google encourages developers to write applications for Android and do not try to control the distribution of 3rd-party apps. they support 3rd-party software rather than wasting resources to impede their development. the Android Developer Challenges issued by Google offers $10 million in prize money.
IMO whether the shows have aired yet is not relevant in this legal case. consider this scenario:
some astronomers see a series of comets/meteoroid/asteroids heading on a near-earth trajectory. they publish this data on a public network in a list that includes: the name of each astronomical object, their current trajectory, where they're expected to be in the next few days, and including when they will be visible from various parts of the world. now, this is a schedule of events in the future. but the schedule is based on events that have already been put into motion. anyone who has the right astronomy equipment can make the same predictions using well known formulas. but should they be forbidden to publish their prediction data because it's about future events?
and publishing already scheduled programming blocks is not copyright infringement just because the shows haven't aired yet. the fact is the schedule has already been established. that is how IceTV can publish schedule streams. when the shows air has no legal relevance to this case. i also highly doubt copyright law even cares about whether a scheduled program has aired yet or not. i mean, why would that have any relevance to the fundamental issues of copyright?
if Steve Jobs announces that there's going to be a new line of Apple portable entertainment devices coming out in the next few months, they can't stop bloggers from posting the scheduled launch dates of these devices just because they haven't be released yet. that has nothing to do with whether factual information can be copyrighted.
Android (Market)'s Kill Switch is completely different from iPhone's Kill Switch.
anyone who actually bothered to read the info and public statements by Google can see that this kill feature is meant to enforce Android Market's distribution agreements, therefore it doesn't affect apps installed from other sites. secondly, all of the info points to this feature being used to protect consumers, not to exploit them. if somehow a malware app gets distributed by Android Market, Google is making it their duty to remove any potentially damaging applications from all android devices that have purchased the application from Google's website. not only that, but they want to refund any money android users have paid for said malware.
despite the huge lead that the iPhone has right now, i think Google's open, pro-consumer, pro-homebrew policies are major selling points over the locked down iPhone, which is further tarnished by Apple's increasingly anti-consumer attitude. the fact that Google seems to support 3rd-party/homebrew development for the Android platform just makes Android that much more enticing to developers of all stripes. no need to worry about an app being rejected by Android Market because it competes with an existing app, and no need to distribute your app through google in the first place.
these are really two diametrically opposed business philosophies. no NDAs, no need for users to jailbreak the phone, and a much more developer/consumer-friendly attitude in general. one Kill Switch is used by Apple to shut down potential competitors; the other is used by Google to be responsible by removing any malware they may have inadvertently sold to customers (and refund those charges). one platform is completely locked down under Apple's iron grip, while Android is completely open and allows application installs from 3rd party websites free of conditions.
irrational fanboyism aside, i'd have to say that Android wins hands down.
that's a sloppy conflation of distinct concepts and ideas.
a palette is just the collection/range of colors exhibited by a visual work. if you watch B&W TV you will have strong emotionally loaded memories of visual scenes rendered in a B&W (Grayscale) palette. and since dreams evoke strong past emotional experiences, vivid memories of TV programs may surface in dreams. if those programs were B&W, then naturally that part of your dream will appear in its original palette. absence of a particular color or range of colors does not deprive one of any of our senses. it's the same as dreaming that you were in a desert, which would have a desert palette of mostly shades of yellow, light brown, white, etc. naturally, you won't likely see any purple or green in a dream about the desert.
before TV was invented when radio was the dominant form of mass media, people may have developed strong emotional associations with radio programs. experiences from those radio programs are just as likely to be revisited by a person in a dream state. but when you listen to a radio play/drama, you still visualize the action in your head. so when such memories are revisited in dreams, the original experience is played back in one's head taking the form of the visual scenes that had played out in your mind. it would be the same with dreams about books you read. you don't just dream about written words--that's not what is stored in your memory.
but people who are blind from birth may not develop a minds eye the same way that seeing individuals do. so perhaps they don't visualize imagery in their heads. in that case, they may or may not dream in just audio. but i think that would be an interesting field of research that could shed light on how the human brain works/develops.
but the same could be said of a set of mathematical formulas, a chronological list of all U.S. presidents, a compilation of state laws, a set of driving directions, etc. it doesn't matter how much skill or labor was employed in making such lists, no one should be prevented from duplicating such information. copyright was never meant to give people a monopoly to factual information. otherwise, journalism would violate all sorts of copyrights.
i mean, should i have to pay the networks a licensing fee just for telling a friend that the news comes on at 10:00 PM? and if a corrupt politician compiles a list of all of his criminal activities, then could he prevent the press from publishing those facts because he holds the copyrights to that compilation of his misdeeds?
the premise of this case is absolutely ludicrous. copyrights should only be granted in a way that is in line with the original spirit of copyright legislation. that is, the copyright system should be used in a way that benefits society by encouraging creative cultural expression. listing facts or technical data, no matter how much work was put into it, does not warrant protection under copyright law.
if the TV network put the program schedule in a creative layout design, or they included a synopsis for each program, or perhaps published the schedule as part of an almanac of all TV programming of the past decade, and IceTV was reproducing these original customized presentations of the program schedule in their entirety, then a copyright claim could be made. but simply listing the times each program is scheduled to air at is not copyright infringement--especially if IceTV uses their own schedule streaming protocol and custom data format, thus creating an original presentation of the schedule.
Slashdot Mirror
the HTC Vogue might be running similar hardware to the HTC Dream (T-Mobile G1). either way, HTC is a member of the Open Handset Alliance, and they make a lot of popular carrier re-branded handsets. so you might be able to run Android on many of those devices.
the HTC Vogue/Touch uses the TI OMAP 850 processor while the HTC Dream/T-Mobile G1 is running on a Qualcomm MSM7201A ARM11. so other HTC phones running on, either Texas Instrument's OMAP or Qualcomm's MSM line processors, should support Android as well. in fact, all HTC phones run on either TI, Qualcomm, Intel, or Samsung processors. and it just so happens that TI, Qualcomm, Intel, and Samsung are all members of the Open Handset Alliance. so i wouldn't be surprised if all HTC handsets eventually supported the Android platform.
that's the power of having a strong cross-industry alliance supporting open standards. i think Android has a very good chance of dominating the cellphone market and potentially revolutionizing the industry.
technology is merely an aspect of culture. and cultural progress happens in lock step. so ethical progress, social progress, scientific progress, and technological progress all must occur simultaneously. these are anthropological laws that all civilizations must follow. consider why most animals have 2 sets (or clumps) of eyes. why do predators have 2 forward-facing eyes, and prey animals 2 opposite-side-facing eyes. that's because binocular vision is required for hunting, whereas eyes on the side of your head gives prey a wider field of vision, thus more protection against predators. these are laws of nature that hold true regardless of where life evolves.
so imagine an alien species that evolves to be sociopathic brutes. they never discover democracy and have no concept of natural rights, justice, equality, etc. 99% of their population lives abject poverty, condemned to spend their entire lives toiling away performing menial labor. now, imagine an alien species on a different planet that evolves to be altruistic, cooperative, and compassionate beings. they have a democratic form of government, and they do have a concept of natural rights, justice, and equality. because of their progressive culture, they have public schools, public health care, and no poverty.
now, which one of these species would you expect to develop the technology for space travel? the civilization in which only 1% of the population has the free time to pursue learning & knowledge? or the one in which public schools give all individuals equal access to education? which civilization would have more resources to devote to space travel? the one that has to deal with violent wars, widespread poverty, rampant public health issues, and civil unrest? or the one that has a democratic government, societal stability, and is at peace? and which civilization is more likely to develop advanced scientific understanding such as quantum mechanics, biological evolution, molecular chemistry, etc.? the alien species that has a violent & repressive culture, or the enlightened species whose intellectuals and eccentrics are valued and allowed to flourish?
think about the kinds of people that advance a society scientifically. were Einstein, da Vinci, Darwin, Copernicus, Tesla, Galileo Galilei, Kepler, Newton, Carl Sagan, Stephen Hawking, etc. violent, sadistic, or belligerent people? did most scientists flock to the United States or the Soviet Union after WWII? and are Universities, our primary institutions of learning, places of reactionary intolerance and anti-social behavior? or do they share free-spirited atmospheres that promote learning and the advancement of knowledge through scientific collaboration?
i can't speculate much on a 2-dimensional society (i'll leave that job to Edwin Abbott Abbott), but i do think that a spacefaring civilization like Starfleet/The United Federation of Planets is much more probable than a spacefaring species like the Klingons or Cardasians.
that was true when they included things like FireWire/SCSI as standard in all of their consumer-grade systems. they had a reputation for selling systems that catered to the professional user. also, it was hard to make a direct comparison between PPC and x86 architecture, so the price difference was easier to swallow.
but now they're relying increasingly on the brand and aesthetic design features (single-piece aluminum construction, white earbuds, UI eye candy, etc.) to sell their hardware.
i don't own a mac so i can't comment on whether the mac tax is worth it. personally, i think it's silly to treat a computer as a fashion accessory. and i strongly dislike companies that put too much emphasis on marketing. however, having used an iPod Nano and an Video iPod, i have to give credit where it's due. Apple makes great user interfaces (at least this is true with the iPod line) and that is something that other companies can learn from.
but a laptop/desktop computer is not the same as a PMP. performance matters much more in a computer than it does with a simple media appliance. i would not pay the mac tax for a sleek, easy-to-use, but weak computer.
September 20, 2007- March 24, 2005 = exactly 1 year? sorry, try again.
(that's 2.5 years in case you're still trying to work that out.)
and i simply stated that Sony intentionally locked the PSP out of the PSN/Playstation store, despite the PSP being fully capable of web access from the start, in order to get PSP owners to buy the PS3. what is untrue about this statement?
maybe work on your reading comprehension skills a little before flaming someone for stating facts that you don't like to hear. or do you just like to read too much into people's posts so that you can be a pedant?
yes i DO know that SONY has ATTEMPTED to RECTIFY their previous MISTAKES. (too little, too late.)
unless you're some kind of Sony fanboy, it should be clear that Sony was playing PSP owners for suckers by forcing them to purchase a PS3 in order to access a major advertised feature--the ability to play PSX games. they actually went out of their way to make things more inconvenient.
the PSP was released in the U.S. on March 25, 2005 (2004 in Japan). it wasn't until November 20, 2007 that Sony decided to allow non-PS3-owners to access the PSN, but only with Internet Explorer on a Windows PC. and firmware 5.0 didn't come out until only 5 days ago--the PSP has been out for nearly 4 years. how many useless firmware updates have we had in all this time? considering that PSX support was an advertised feature from the very start, and the PSP has always had wi-fi capabilities and a built-in browser, why should it take over 3 and a half years to give the PSP direct access to the PSN?
like i said, the PSP is a great piece of hardware. but the corporate execs at Sony have let their greed-driven delusions overtake good business sense. they clearly have no respect for their customers, and Sony apologists like you encourage their greedy anti-consumer policies.
i prefer to get the most out of my purchases. that includes not waiting 3.5 years to access core features (PopStation was one of the PSP's mains selling points for me). so i installed CFW the day i got my PSP, and within a few hours i was playing Grandia on PopStation.
i don't think the government is spending half the money they spend on the War on Drugs on fighting spam. you can't even compare the two.
if we lived in a true democracy--one that gave citizens direct voice in public policy--replacing congress with regular national referendums for passing legislation, the spam problem would be solved in under a year.
everyone hates spam because it negatively affects our daily lives. few people profit from spam and at great societal costs. so if a referendum was held to divert tax funding away from the War on Some Drugs, the War on Iraq, the War on Terrorism, etc. and put these resources into combating spam, our prisons would no longer be filled with harmless drug users (and illegally detained arabs) and instead of filled with spammers, malware writers, and other real societal parasites. most people would probably vote to ban spam outright--that means companies that hire spammers & malware creators would be punished just as harshly. this would immediately cut off the financial incentive to spam. spammers don't send spam because they enjoy it; they do it for money. cut off the cash flow, and there'd be no reason to send spam.
the other solution is to change our culture of consumerism. spam is a direct result of unbridled capitalism. financial greed and selfishness have become virtues in our society. spammers are the embodiment of the "entrepreneurial" spirit. we're trained to seize any and all opportunity to make money. our society glamorizes the rich, marginalizes the poor, and our entire society and political system is skewed in favor of the wealthy. and it's this pro-business political culture that allowed spam and malware to grow into a such a prevalent institution. politicians were so used to putting business interests above public interest that spam was just an given.
but it'll take a long time to change our culture of capitalist greed & materialistic consumerism. our children need to be taught that personal integrity is more important than wealth, and to not equivocate money with happiness/success. most importantly, we need to value people based on their moral character and contribution to society, not their bank balance. instilling these positive values in kids will ensure that they don't grow up to be spammers. but that's hard in a society where money and socioeconomic status are everything. you can't even get a good education, decent health care, or justice if you don't have money. so this is an uphill battle.
a race that is technologically advanced enough to be capable of FTL-speed travel would not be interested in rednecks, if they cared about humans at all.
by the time a civilization is capable of intergalactic travel, they would likely be much more culturally advanced than us. no more wars, religion, poverty, disease, social injustice, bigotry, etc. otherwise, they would have destroyed themselves long ago (much like the direction we're headed in).
so, no, i don't think they would kidnap and probe a redneck. those aren't the trademarks of a culturally/morally advanced civilization. they would either observe us passively and learn about us without interfering with our development, or they would wait for us to mature as a species (i.e. grow out of our current selfish greed-driven, xenophobic, belligerent ways) and then make open contact with us.
i'm very fortunate in that my boss is also a close friend (more of a father figure really). he gives me very flexible hours (i get to write them basically) and doesn't care if i come in a few hours late.
but i agree with you that it sucks having your schedule/life dictated by your source of income. kids spend their entire childhood preparing for college, and in college they pick their classes/major based on what career they want to pursue. they pick their career, in turn, based on the kind of money they want to make. so their entire life eventually revolves around the pursuit of wealth. you work hard so that you can make lots of money and buy things to make you and your family happy. you work overtime so that you can save up for that dream vacation when you can spend time with your family.
90% of your waking life is spent working--so that you can move up the corporate ladder, pay off your credit card bills, and accumulate enough wealth to retire on. but by the time you're old enough to retire, you're also too old to follow your dreams. life should be about living--doing the things you love, spending time with the people you care about, etc.--not about accumulating power and wealth. that's why you should choose an occupation that you are passionate about and enjoy doing.
my parents were upset with me when i got my piercings and tattoos. they thought it would hurt my chances of getting a good job. but i wanted to choose a job that suits my lifestyle/personality, not change my lifestyle/personality to suit my job. and so far, that has landed me a great job with a great boss and co-workers that are fun and interesting to work with.
i know that not everyone is as lucky as me. but that's why i think France and Spain have got it right. shorter work weeks means more time spent with one's family, resulting in more job fulfillment->happier workers->increased productivity. America may have the highest GDP in the world, but that means little when we have one of the largest (and growing) income gaps of any developed country--not to mention a poverty rate higher than Eastern Europe. quality of life is more important than strength of the economy.
there must be a better system out there that would allow the average person more free time and afford them more freedom and flexibility in their day. i think our society would benefit more from skilled artisans, inventors, scientific researchers & theorists, philosophers, writers, etc. than merely an army of wage slaves. people are an invaluable resource as a source of cultural output/expression--things like science, technology, art, literature, academic knowledge, philosophy, moral/social progress, etc. but under an oppressive culture where people are forbidden to express themselves creatively, where education is denied to the poor, where people toil away their entire lives as wage slaves, that resource is completely wasted.
Benjamin Franklin is known to have drank opium tinctures recreationally.
opiates are a very popular drug amongst creatives--especially writers. so there must be some sort of connection there.
contrary to common misconception, not all opiate users are dirtly homeless junkies. many doctors are closet morphine junkies. there are the type who like to get so high they puke or pass out (or both). and then there are those who use just enough to feel calm, relaxed, but not enough to become inebriated. personally, i've never enjoyed being visibly intoxicated or so high that i'm nauseous.
i think being physically and psychologically relaxed helps one be creative. your mind isn't cluttered with stressful thoughts, so your creativity just flows out of you more easily. it also puts you in a more introspective/ruminative mood. if caffeine is programming fluid, then opiates are writing supplements.
opiates have always made me feel like expressing myself artistically. it puts you in a slightly manic stage similar to small amounts of stimulants (coke/caffeine/meth/ritalin/adderall), but it doesn't have the negative effects, such as peripheral stimulation (hypertension, hyperthermia, vasoconstriction, anxiety, jitteriness), instead it has a very calming effect and doesn't cause any kind of crash afterwards.
i feel ya. i haven't been in a manic phase in quite some time. i used to stay up all night working on personal projects. even at school i'd be thinking in my head or doodling notes to myself in my notebook. those were the days.
i used to:
back then i had a pretty structured daily schedule. so the only time i had free to mess around and follow my interests was late at night. usually starting around 1-2 i would be the most creative/productive and work all the way until 5-6 AM sometimes.
i still feel the most creative late at night, but i have a different schedule and responsibilities now, so i can't go to bed at 5-6 AM anymore. in fact, i find that i need to get to bed by 10:00 PM if i'm to get through the day without being tired (i have to get up at ~5:00 AM).
this creates a problem where i lose my most creative hours to sleep. the ironic thing is, i'm a graphic design/web develop and i'm responsible for creating CD designs/layouts, t-shirt designs, posters, websites, etc., but i have a hard time being creating at work. having my boss constantly standing over my shoulder just drains the creative juices out of me. i'd much rather work from home, but my boss prefers to have me at the office for tech support and also so he can keep track of my hours.
while i don't have a "sweetheart"--not anymore at least, i can empathize with the teaching analogy.
i used to tutor struggling students after-school at my school library. and even though i'd learned most of the material i went over with them long ago, teaching it to them helped me gain a much stronger grasp of these concepts.
most poor students aren't stupid. some lack discipline or are lazy, and some just learn differently from others. the students that came to me for help were obviously motivated to learn and not lazy. but they needed help understanding certain concepts that just weren't getting through the way the teacher tried to explain it to them.
this experience taught me to analyze a problem from many different perspectives. i would experiment with different analogies and gauge how the pupil responded to it, adjusting my teaching methods accordingly. not only did i help most pupils to walk away confident in their academic abilities, but i also learned to take unconventional approaches to difficult problems and analyze the subtle connections between different concepts and ideas.
this approach proved invaluable in elucidating difficult concepts to struggling pupils, but it has also taught me to be more elastic in my own thought process, helping me solve many challenging problems.
so teaching others is definitely one of the best ways to learn. just as helping others is the best way to help yourself.
that won't change a thing really.
right now all cellular networks are closed/proprietary. so if you're a handset maker and you want to add a new feature, say video conferencing, to your phone, you would need the carrier to approve it and change their network protocol--which they won't do. it's not like a TCP/IP where anyone can develop an application for it without permission from anyone.
that's why i think it would be better to do away with cellular networks all together. convert current cellular towers for public wireless internet access. TCP/IP is an open and well-established standard designed for general data communication. you can send voice/audio, video, text, and any other kind of information over the network. it's easy for anyone to extend the TCP/IP protocol at the application layer for developing new and innovative technologies. just look at how much the web/internet has progressed in the past decade compared to cellular networks.
so people would have smart wireless devices that they can use to access the web/internet whenever they want, and when they need to make/receive a call they simply use one of the VoIP services available. but there'd be no more ridiculous data plans, $.15 text messages, and $2 cellphone ringtones. the current cellular carriers' business models are an anachronism.
i'd rather read "slashvertising" for an interesting and original game that helps fund a charity than slashvertisements about some crappy Microsoft mouse with a blue tracking light or more Apple product updates. really, of all the slashvertisements that get posted, this is the one you have a problem with? is it because of the lemurs? why do you hate lemurs so much?
saving lemurs > !saving lemurs.
besides, their fundware idea is pretty cool. it creates a way for software producers to be less reliant on VCs while directly involving end-users in the development process. perhaps this model will mean more products that are created for/by the average user instead of all software being made to the specifications of profit-driven CEOs and PHBs.
considering that corporate giants like McDonald's spend vast resources on positive PR to create a false public image, and the press has neglected its duty of keeping the public informed about societal corruption & corporate irresponsibility, then it seems like it's entirely up to individual activists with a strong sense of civic duty to uncover these issues and inform consumers.
the idea that a corporation can level a lawsuit against these activists for simply reporting on McDonald's dirty secrets and have an injunction placed on them to silence their right to free speech is absolutely ridiculous. telling the truth is no libel, and corporations should not be allowed to censor legitimate criticisms.
so do i think the High Court spends its time hearing frivolous lawsuits? yes, i do. and i think if you read the news once in a while you'd see that corporate abuse of the legal system is very commonplace. patent trolls make careers out of frivolous lawsuits. this is nothing new.
they were all motivated by ignorance, intolerance, and irrational hate/fear--not to mention a sense of self-righteousness.
even if there had been an influential socialist movement in the U.S. the government has no business persecuting people for their political or philosophical views. there's a huge difference between being a Soviet Spy and lobbying for worker rights, socialized health care, etc. if America, as a society, became more progressive and adopted a socialist culture, then the government should simply carry out the will of the people. people should shape the government, the government should not shape people.
the government should never abuse its power to suppress the voices or opinions or its people. McCarthyism was a clear case of stringing up the dissidents and labeling them enemies of the state. similar persecution of social/political activists is happening today under the banner of combating terrorism. what the McCarthyists were doing was the same as what the Leninists and Stalinists were doing--they were forcing a political ideology onto a society through fear, propaganda & coercion. he did not like the progressive culture that was sweeping across America. so he took it upon himself to abuse his political power and privilege to eradicate progressive views.
the tragedy is that these events happened at all.
i agreee. you should always keep local backups. i make full file backups and MySQL dumps from our web server on a regular basis and burn them onto DVDs. and that does not even include the local folder tree i use for active development. still, the host has absolutely no right to withhold your data. that is the worst demonstration of customer service i have ever come across from a web host--and i've seen some pretty bad ones. in general, i find the companies with the "Live Chat" support generally don't have very knowledgeable staff or quality service.
also, i didn't post the thirst part of the conversation, but in it i did touch on bandwidth issues. i asked them how much bandwidth is supplied by their "unlimited plan," to which the rep replied "unlimited uncourse." so then i asked if it'd be alright if we hosted hi-red videos and music on our site, because we've had problems with that before with in our current host.
at that point, he contradicted himself and said that if we overload their servers our site will be pulled. but i could not get a precise figure for bandwidth usage from the rep. all i could verify was that with our 12 GB/month (this was after we pulled down our videos) monthly bandwidth transfers, they would not have any problems. still seems a little deceptive to call it "unlimited hosting/bandwidth" though.
what troubles me most is that he seemed to suggest they received a copyright complaint which included USPTO documents to prove ownership of copyrights. if that was the case, then they would have legal and ethical grounds to pull the site. but how could the accuser obtain such documents when the copyright is clearly held by Quote Unquote records? it's obvious that no attempt was made to determine who actually owned the copyrights to the hosted material. which leads to my other suggestion: that slashdotters start sending DCMA takedown notices to random sites hosted by IX Webhosting.
since they won't verify if the accusations are valie, they will just end up pissing off a lot of legitimate customers. of even if they realize that it's a prank, they'll see the problem with their policy on IP policing.
if you don't want to be criticized for the actions of your government, stop calling yourself a democracy. in a democracy, the people are responsible for their government's actions. we let things get this far. we re-elected bush. we let ourselves be lied to and manipulated again and again. and we stand by as corruption goes unchecked.
face it, political/social activism is unfashionable in our reactionary society. generally the more educated intellectual circles tend to be more progressive and are the ones who've been calling for reform. but our society has become dominated by anti-intellectualism. so the only people who are trying to stop the corruption and stand up for whats right are simultaneously alienated, ridiculed, and marginalized.
most conservative Americans are still crying about the right to bear arms thinking that they'll overthrow the government one day with their handguns and hunting rifles. meanwhile, the fight for democracy is already being waged through a war of words and ideas. as such, the media is arguably the most effective weapon in the fight for democracy, which has been consolidated by a handful of media conglomerates over the past decades. luckily the internet is changing that by decentralizing media distribution and changing people's media consumption habits.
the same technology responsible for the democratization of the media can also help us realize direct-democracy. the logistical problems previously preventing participatory democracy from being implemented in a country as large as the U.S. can be overcome by electronic voting. this means we could hold mass referendums to decide domestic policy and truly establish a direct democracy in the United States.
the bipartisan system and the political aristocracy have proven themselves corrupt and incapable or unwilling to represent the interests of the people. therefore it is up to us to make policy decisions that are direct repercussions on our daily lives. we don't need rich old men completely detached from the reality of the average working American to make dictate domestic policy--particularly when they don't even read the bills they vote on. it's easy for corporate industries to bribe a dozen congressmen, but it's much harder to bribe millions of Americans.
if there were a mass referendum on the U.S.A.P.A.T.R.I.O.T Act or Aviation and Transportation Security Act, i think most Americans would immediately vote it down. that's because we're the ones who have our rights encroached on. we're the ones hassled at the airport. and if we're voting on actual legislation instead of politicians to represent us, then i think the public would be less caught up on mudslinging and immature personal attacks, and instead public discourse would focus on the actual issues at hand.
this ersatz democracy and bipartisan system simply creates the illusion of choice while rapidly causing our society to degenerate into a corporate plutocracy. but instead of absolving ourselves of any blame, it's time for us to take responsibility for our government, and regain control.
here's a partial transcript from Live Chat with an IX Webhost Rep (be warned. there's a lot of incoherent rambling because the customer service rep is from Ukraine, and i think there was a slight communications barrier):
i understand that the issue surrounds the concept of a compilation. however, i'm pointing out the problem with defining a TV schedule as a compilation. and if you read my entire post, you'll see that i address this issue. but to reiterate:
if the TV network publishes their program schedule in a TV guide with show synopses, reviews, the actors in each shows, etc., all organized in an original print layout, then they have indeed created a copyrightable presentation of the program schedule. if IceTV reproduced the TV schedule in its entirety, copying the layout, page design, synopses, reviews, etc., then they would be infringing on the TV network's copyrights. but if IceTV merely reports on the basic schedule (program title + time aired) presented in their own custom data format via a custom schedule stream, then how are they violating any kind of copyright? i could write down a schedule of all the moon phases for the next 50 years. it would take much more skill and effort than compiling a schedule of TV programs. but that doesn't give me the right to sue anyone for publishing a list with the same info on it.
and what about these compilations:
could these things be copyrighted just because they required skill and labor to compile? should a car publication be forbidden from publishing the list prices of these cars? or a music publication not be allowed to publish announced tour dates? or publishers of phone books be required to pay licensing fees in order to print names previously compiled by a data mining corporation? or does the CDC need permission to publish a list of contagious diseases just because someone else wrote a similar list earlier?
to quote Wikipedia on the original motivation behind copyright law:
how do such compilations contribute to society or help progress science and useful arts? you might as well copyright the garbage collection schedule, the deaths of all American presidents, a multiplication table, a list basic differentiation/integration rules, an ICC color profile, etc.
so either learn to live with the problem, or just run away from it? you must be a real winner.
most socially/emotionally healthy individuals have a powerful tool at there disposable called "interpersonal communication." by honing your communication skills, you can exchange thoughts and opinions with other people, perhaps even persuading them that FOSS is a viable alternative to proprietary software. but this is generally not a tactic used by people who spend their entire lives as a powerless passive observer.
assuming you know to speak up for yourself, there are a lot of ways to introduce FOSS to a close source organization.
let me make this clear: i don't have anything against jailbreak. i'm a ardent supporter of homebrew on the PSP.
the iPhone and PSP are both absolutely amazing pieces of hardware. they are truly marvels of modern engineering. and while the PSP's beautifully designed XMB interface perfectly complements the device's slick and sexy exterior, it is still lacking in many respects. now, the iPhone's touchscreen interface is even more impressive than the PSP's in terms of stylish aesthetics and supreme usability. but the iPhone too has its drawbacks in its software.
it saddens me that these two marvels of portable engineering are held back from their true potential by simple software problems which have their roots in not so simple corporate policies and anti-consumer attitudes held by Apple and Sony. here are the major complaints:
Sony PSP
iPhone
Android
Neither Sony nor Apple support homebrew/CFW/jailbreak. as a result, if you want the freedom to use your own device as you see fit, you need to void your warranty, and Apple/Sony have shown that they will actively try to combat such practices. i can't speak for Apple, but i know that Sony's anti-consumer attitudes have resulting in their releasing useless update after useless update without ever fixing the problems with the official PSP firmware that drive consumers to homebrew/CFW.
Google encourages developers to write applications for Android and do not try to control the distribution of 3rd-party apps. they support 3rd-party software rather than wasting resources to impede their development. the Android Developer Challenges issued by Google offers $10 million in prize money.
IMO whether the shows have aired yet is not relevant in this legal case. consider this scenario:
some astronomers see a series of comets/meteoroid/asteroids heading on a near-earth trajectory. they publish this data on a public network in a list that includes: the name of each astronomical object, their current trajectory, where they're expected to be in the next few days, and including when they will be visible from various parts of the world. now, this is a schedule of events in the future. but the schedule is based on events that have already been put into motion. anyone who has the right astronomy equipment can make the same predictions using well known formulas. but should they be forbidden to publish their prediction data because it's about future events?
and publishing already scheduled programming blocks is not copyright infringement just because the shows haven't aired yet. the fact is the schedule has already been established. that is how IceTV can publish schedule streams. when the shows air has no legal relevance to this case. i also highly doubt copyright law even cares about whether a scheduled program has aired yet or not. i mean, why would that have any relevance to the fundamental issues of copyright?
if Steve Jobs announces that there's going to be a new line of Apple portable entertainment devices coming out in the next few months, they can't stop bloggers from posting the scheduled launch dates of these devices just because they haven't be released yet. that has nothing to do with whether factual information can be copyrighted.
Android (Market)'s Kill Switch is completely different from iPhone's Kill Switch.
anyone who actually bothered to read the info and public statements by Google can see that this kill feature is meant to enforce Android Market's distribution agreements, therefore it doesn't affect apps installed from other sites. secondly, all of the info points to this feature being used to protect consumers, not to exploit them. if somehow a malware app gets distributed by Android Market, Google is making it their duty to remove any potentially damaging applications from all android devices that have purchased the application from Google's website. not only that, but they want to refund any money android users have paid for said malware.
despite the huge lead that the iPhone has right now, i think Google's open, pro-consumer, pro-homebrew policies are major selling points over the locked down iPhone, which is further tarnished by Apple's increasingly anti-consumer attitude. the fact that Google seems to support 3rd-party/homebrew development for the Android platform just makes Android that much more enticing to developers of all stripes. no need to worry about an app being rejected by Android Market because it competes with an existing app, and no need to distribute your app through google in the first place.
these are really two diametrically opposed business philosophies. no NDAs, no need for users to jailbreak the phone, and a much more developer/consumer-friendly attitude in general. one Kill Switch is used by Apple to shut down potential competitors; the other is used by Google to be responsible by removing any malware they may have inadvertently sold to customers (and refund those charges). one platform is completely locked down under Apple's iron grip, while Android is completely open and allows application installs from 3rd party websites free of conditions.
irrational fanboyism aside, i'd have to say that Android wins hands down.
that's a sloppy conflation of distinct concepts and ideas.
a palette is just the collection/range of colors exhibited by a visual work. if you watch B&W TV you will have strong emotionally loaded memories of visual scenes rendered in a B&W (Grayscale) palette. and since dreams evoke strong past emotional experiences, vivid memories of TV programs may surface in dreams. if those programs were B&W, then naturally that part of your dream will appear in its original palette. absence of a particular color or range of colors does not deprive one of any of our senses. it's the same as dreaming that you were in a desert, which would have a desert palette of mostly shades of yellow, light brown, white, etc. naturally, you won't likely see any purple or green in a dream about the desert.
before TV was invented when radio was the dominant form of mass media, people may have developed strong emotional associations with radio programs. experiences from those radio programs are just as likely to be revisited by a person in a dream state. but when you listen to a radio play/drama, you still visualize the action in your head. so when such memories are revisited in dreams, the original experience is played back in one's head taking the form of the visual scenes that had played out in your mind. it would be the same with dreams about books you read. you don't just dream about written words--that's not what is stored in your memory.
but people who are blind from birth may not develop a minds eye the same way that seeing individuals do. so perhaps they don't visualize imagery in their heads. in that case, they may or may not dream in just audio. but i think that would be an interesting field of research that could shed light on how the human brain works/develops.
but the same could be said of a set of mathematical formulas, a chronological list of all U.S. presidents, a compilation of state laws, a set of driving directions, etc. it doesn't matter how much skill or labor was employed in making such lists, no one should be prevented from duplicating such information. copyright was never meant to give people a monopoly to factual information. otherwise, journalism would violate all sorts of copyrights.
i mean, should i have to pay the networks a licensing fee just for telling a friend that the news comes on at 10:00 PM? and if a corrupt politician compiles a list of all of his criminal activities, then could he prevent the press from publishing those facts because he holds the copyrights to that compilation of his misdeeds?
the premise of this case is absolutely ludicrous. copyrights should only be granted in a way that is in line with the original spirit of copyright legislation. that is, the copyright system should be used in a way that benefits society by encouraging creative cultural expression. listing facts or technical data, no matter how much work was put into it, does not warrant protection under copyright law.
if the TV network put the program schedule in a creative layout design, or they included a synopsis for each program, or perhaps published the schedule as part of an almanac of all TV programming of the past decade, and IceTV was reproducing these original customized presentations of the program schedule in their entirety, then a copyright claim could be made. but simply listing the times each program is scheduled to air at is not copyright infringement--especially if IceTV uses their own schedule streaming protocol and custom data format, thus creating an original presentation of the schedule.