Well, they might see it as a tool, but if I were a Ruthless Dictator I'd still rather be using TV and radio, for pretty obvious reasons.
While it might be easy to publish on the internet, it's basically impossible for sites to be anonymous. I'm sure the chinese government knows exactly where every IP address is being used. Besides, the internet doesn't grant freedom, people can only use it in the fight to gain it. It's more than just a tool unlike someone else said, but frankly it can't help at all if the entire population lives in fear, which any good Ruthless Dictator is able to acheive. You won't need some facility with thousands of people surfing the web for violations if the society lives in fear. Or even better, you can get the population to beleive that personal freedom isn't a big deal, that things like money and entreprenurial spirit are more important, which they seem to be doing with some success.
China would ban internet technologies outright I'm sure, but the Chinese government isn't dumb. If they want to be an economic player in this century, they have to be part of the information based economy, of which the internet is central. Russia failed because it couldn't (and/or wouldn't) do the same, generally speaking. Whether or not expanded internet access will allow China to keep strict control and apathy over it's population remains to be seen, but I'll bet they can do it. They can just take a lesson from the US, where the illusion of freedom is just about the best form of control there is.
As much as I think this can be defeated since every hardware manufacturer in the country hates this other than rambus and intel, this brings up an interesting point.
For quite a few years now the hardware industry has been working off the idea of open standards (my limited knowledge here is mostly from a few prof's at school), since the early 80's perhaps. Before this, every manufacturer controlled their own "architechture":, hardware and software from top to bottom. No compatibility between platforms.
Perhaps this started with XT clones, but companies realized everyone would do better dollar wise with open standards than without. So with closed standards, certain companies might make decent money, but with open standards, everyone would make out well, since prices would in theory drop and the computer market could grow quickly (as it did).
So now rambus and intel might be throwing us back into the dark ages. Could it be worth it to intel to get that 10% of rambus when its own revenues start to drop when the PC market tanks? Have you seen the prices on RDRAM? The ram on just about any computer would end up costing the same amount as everything else in the system!!
I guess this isn't all that suprising. The open standards idea goes somewhat counter to normal capitalist thinking. It's unfortunate. You can apply this idea to individuals as well: you can be a selfish bastard and enjoy life a bit, or you can be a nice person with a lot of friends and enjoy life a lot more. Unfortunatly it's much easier to be selfish than trusting.
I don't think most companies will just cave in like toshiba. I can't imagine the computer industry will simply let rambus essentially take over. rambus has basically made themselves corporate and public enemy number 1. That's not a good position to be in. Companies like micron and others will do everything they can to stop this, and money talk in the courts.
In addition, since when was rambus able to get patents on an open standard? Didn't IEEE or some other organization come up with the specs? Or did rambus get patents on specific technologies while the spec only covers the description perhaps? Does anyone know? This has me more pissed off than anything else in the computer world for a long time...
I don't think there are THAT many one dimentional people here. I know a fair amount of my comments come off that way, usually because the person I was replying to was so off base or uninformed that it really pissed me off.
Governments and corporations are obviously not the same, but they certainly can draw some of the same powers: political or economical, and everything in between. I think the biggest oversight that most slashdot-libertarian types have is underestimating the power corporations have, and more importantly can gain. Perhaps even more importantly, that an unregulated free market would be a good thing for democracy. I'll be so arrogant to say this is the silliest political idea I've ever heard, but there is no need to get into now. I've spent many an hour arguing that point right here.
I think the US will vote yes on the trade status of China. After the European Union voted yes just last week, I don't see how the US could say no, just from an economic standpoint.
The human rights violation issue is irrelevent to our government, money comes first. They put up a small show to make it look like they care, but all they've done is delay what they will inevetably do. Keep in mind the United states government doesn't have a very good track record itself, the only difference is that our government typically uses a few layers of insulation. It could be simple complacency as in the case of Indonesia taking over East Timor (the US didn't care, this was in the 70's, while about 25% of the population was killed if I remember correctly). Or it could be supporting and installing leaders (dictators) and training armies as was done in central America in the 80's, and in Africa as well. Even at home, we see police operating at oppressive levels, especially in the inner city. Keeping your population subverted works differently in a "free", capitalist society: the government needs a few layers of deniability, and you rarely hear about this stuff anyway. I'll bet some readers won't even beleive what I've said, or, not understand how bad it really is.
Anyway, onto the censorship issue. Barring some cyberpunk future where corporations own the landscape, China really could become the next superpower. I can't see the US being able to change enough to maintain the lead technologically and economically. You look at all the bills being passed here (DMCA, etc), and look at how much this will stifle competition and innovation. You can't maintain a lead without these things. US corporations are just unwilling to lose some profits now for long term success.
Of course, China will have a tough go at it since they aren't a very free society. The US isn't much better, there is plenty of indoctrination and censorship used by the press, and a truly free society would be a form of anarchy anyway. Look at what they have going for them though. The largest population in the world, a population that puts education near the top of it's priority list (I mean culturally, I don't know how much the government puts into it percentage wise), and markets that haven't been developed yet. By this last item I mean that they don't have a lot of infrasturcture stuck in current or (especially) past technologies like the US and Japan do. All these things give them a lot of potential. Whether or not China can take a lead sometime in the distant future without some Democratic revolution, I don't know. I think they're the most interesting country to watch in the future.
No, it's not cynicism, its a valid question, which you had no answer for. You seem to think that the answer is so obvious that it is undebateable. So lets see...who is the bigger fool?
I hate to break it to you, but universities have always been this way. The institution was never radical, it was always the students. Whenever you see footage of protests from the 60's or today, they usually occured in direct opposition to the demands of the management (whatever they're called at your local U) of the school.
Universities are pretty passive when it comes to defending freedoms...it's a never ending tug of war, really. Thats why people need to stay active: institutions are never going to keep us on track. They'll cave in to corporate and government demands without students yelling and screaming. The university I just gradauted from did this kind of thing ALL the time. Corporations have been really increasing their presence on campus, from the corporation funded research lab to the coke contract for all soft drinks on campus (I want my mountain dew, god damn it).
I've always wondered why more bands haven't tried an online distribution model, where fans can download, say, an entire album for a few dollars. The majority of the money could go to you. The only benefit to having a record company at that point would be for marketing, but your band has such clout I don't think it needs much help. Have you ever considered this model? Does it appeal to you in any way?
When are artists going to start stand up to record companies? Granted right now they don't have a better distribution channel but the day will come. The situation is almost like any other industry. In the medical community, doctors have never stood up as a group against HMO abuses, drug company abuses, etc. Engineers have never stood up against corporations that pollute or make otherwise poor products that benefit the company but harm society. Why don't artists stand up against record companies, who charge too much and put out the worst drivel possible?
Limited distribution is possible right now, though. Charge a few bucks for a cd length amount of material. Hell, metallica could do this today! It's not like they need huge amounts of marketing. To me this is the middle ground of the argument. As long as we're living in a capitalist society, money has to change hands somewhere. I have no problem giving a few bucks to artists I listen to, and I don't care if it makes them rich. More power to them if they're that good.
No one in the slashdot community seems to take this stand. It's either the "holier than thou" "how can you steal from artists you pathetic pirate" argument or the "fuck the man" argument. It's almost as polarized as a debate on religion.
Back to my original topic. Why are so few artists really interested in online distribution methods? Well, people are afraid of change, but actually I think its the "ethical" side. My idea of ethics in the topic is not the same as what society usually deems as ethics. If you are a professional (engineer, doctor, etc) the "ethical" way to go about things is to keep your mouth shut. Don't be a rat. This is unfortunate and doesn't really help the cause of humans as a whole. People are afraid they might lose their small gains for the small chance to do good for everyone. This situation is no different. Hearing Lars Ulrich spew out comments like "how dare these napster users commodify our music" when that's exactly the function of record companies to begin with makes me sick. Jon Katz' opinion aside, doesn't anyway really want to protect some freedom? Or creativity? The more things change the more they stay the same is the perfect cliche, I think.
Obviously more time is needed for the technology to mature. The game is not over for either side, the outcome is not determined. The internet is neraly impossible to censor, yes, but never underestimate the power of the record companies OR the government taking donations from them.
Perhaps Stallman should come down from his throne and spend a few months actually working in law enforcement. Perhaps he should see the kind of cruelty and callousness exhibited by elements of our society. Perhaps then he wouldn't be so quick to complain about high rates of imprisonment in the U.S.
Yes, there is something wrong in America, but it is not a legislative problem as much as it is a social one. Parts of our collective culture have given up the Golden Rule. It's not a religious issue (I happen to be an atheist, too), it's a common-sense rule for a society to function.
I always find it interesting when people point out the lack of "morals" in our society, usually referring to those who are poor and or do "bad things". It's interesting because this lack extends from the top all the way to the bottom, which most people don't realize. A wealthy businessman can do nearly infinitly more damage with his pen and a contract than can any number of drug dealers with a gun. It's simply much harder to see. A contract is just a piece of paper, it's effects aren't immediatly obvious. A child laying dead in a pool of blood from a driveby shooting is a clear source of anger and disgust.
Did the poor create this world? Of course not. It was those on top, wealthy, or with political power, or both. That doesn't let anyone off the hook "morally" but one poor person doing drugs does way less damage than, say, the CEO of nike who likes to brag about how cheap they can make their products overseas in their slave labor shops.
At least RMS tries to do something positive that helps everyone. Apparently this is some sort of liberal (or, obviously communist) conspiracy. That word "community" is just too clse to the word communism! No, I think you miss the big picture of social issues. RMS's view is academic compared to yours, as people like you limit your view to whats on the street, whats on the surface. In law enforcement though this doesn't really suprise me, thats how the job works. Law enforcement has as much to do with the bad conditions in many parts of this country as the drug dealers and others do, from corruption and oppresion to a nearly fascist police state. In that respect, our problems are very much legislative related as much as they are social.
I'm actually a pretty strong advocate for gun control. I'm not a libertarian. It just made for a good example in this case. Life and death has to be treated differently that material wealth.
Damn it, I'm so sick of people who don't understand this. Napster is not illegal because it can be used for illegal purposes. Do understand the consequences of this if it were law?
Lets see:
get rid of all ftp servers / clients because I can download warez
get rid of all web servers / clients because I can download kiddie porn
get rid of all guns because their owners are able to commit murder
Do you have a better picture now? MP3's are not inherently illegal anyway!! They have to be copyrighted works to begin with. This fact alone should nullify any suit against them. Look, I know 99% of napster use is illegal, but this is NOT, I repeat NOT the way to go about solving this problem.
There is no solution that works for the average person as well as the corporations. You either end up with a very reactionary and contolling economy and government, or you move to a type of "infromation is free" type of economy. Isn't technology supposed to be for the benefit of all?
because the NY times has deep pockets. Intimidation doesn't work as well against a major corporation as it does against an individual with little money. There is really no threat of jail time against a corporation as there is with an individual, and any monetary penalties won't amount to much. The MPAA's plan of attack so far has been mostly to use playground-bully type tactics anyway.
If anything the NY times can use this as free advertising if the MPAA tried any lawsuits or other "tactics".
Am I the only one who detected a faint sense of sarcasm in this post? I think I would have modded it "funny" rather than "insightful", even if he is correct about how our sad country works...
I did think it was a bit sad to see all the posts that rip on Katz on the publishing/copyright issue. If it was anyone other than him I doubt it would happen. This book isn't for profit. Considering the situation, I think taco/hemos and Katz handled everything pretty well.
I'll probably buy the book too, maybe even from amazon.com. As much as I appreciate protests, I think the shlashdot community goes on too many jihad's, whether it's against amazon, Katz, or whoever. Don't get me wrong, I usually see slashdot as a kind of defender of freedom, I just wish people would understand that every corporation, every person, and all your ancestors have blood on their hands and skeletons in their closet. I think we need to cut Katz some slack.
You sound like a pretty isolated person. Which doesn't suprise me, most geeks have a lot of that in them.
I rarely let people off the hook for what they've done, unless I know them extrememly well, which accounts for maybe 20 people in the whole world. However, you have to ask yourself, what made them the way they are? Genetics? Or did the world around them have an influence? It's the old nature vs. nurture debate.
Personally I think when you look at an entire population, you have to look at where they are coming from and what they've dealt with. Weak individuals or not, American society WILL continue to have problems like this as long as our culture stays the way it is. Blaming individuals and throwing them in jail does little to curb violence or any other social problems.
It has been this way for blacks in our country for a long time. There is little hope of escaping the ghetto, little chance for an education, and parental involvement is minimal. It's a nearly impossible cycle to break. When people are this hopeless, why even try? Join a gang, sell drugs, have a little bit of fun before your time is up, most likely at a young age. There is no way I'd be where I am now if I had to live in that environment.
Middle class whites tend to think that's the way black people are though, simply lazy and violent. Only when we start seeing violence in the suburbs do people think anything of it. The suburbs are supposed to be the perfect life. Well, perhaps they're not. Perhaps an environment that puts material things and vanity above people and personality helps create people like the columbine shooters.
Again we have the same old issue with American culture: don't find the root cause, simply apply a bandaid at the top level and just forget about it. Well, now we get to reap the rewards. Since the suburbs are such a perfect way of life, we simply have to go after "weird" people like these two, using stereotypes to weed them out. Yeah, sounds great to me.
So be upset and sad that these young people went off and killed many others. But you should be more upset at the culture that helped create them.
Don't get us wrong: building an empire is not necessarily a bad thing. AOL's widely available, easy-to-use Internet service has helped millions of new Netizens get online.
Gee, now there is a good way to take any bite out of your article.
It shouldn't be suprising though. AOL is doing what the market asks of you, just like microsoft did: expand your market, keep costs low, and keep profits up. They sure do this well: saturation marketing, easy to use, proprietary software, and poor connectivity and poor service.
Microsoft got in trouble mainly because they are such pompous assholes. The justice department has to hit someone once in a while to make it look like it's doing it's job. They were the perfect target. As far as tactics AOL isn't necessarily much different.
They *do* make the internet easy to use for people who have near zero technical ability, sure. But at what cost? THey don't mind censorship at all. They don't like open standards (which can be very profitable, although the flipside can be as well. I think that works better for hardware providers as opposed to software/service providers). They don't mind providing poor service, and they have had PR issues more than once because of their software.
Would anyone here apply the same argument to microsoft? I don't think so.
My main point is that the current market ideal creates and encourages these type of corporations. Wheter or not the government's role in this is good or bad is another debate, I think it's more important to show that capitalism is sliding down the slipery slope twords a more fascist model. Yes, I really mean that. It's all there for you to see. You hardly have to even read between the lines anymore.
It looks good until you think for about.01 seconds and realize that this is nothing more than divx that wastes bandwidth. Add on top their (almost certain) proprietary encryption, viewing software, etc, and you have a product that bascially sucks in every way it can. Give me pay-once downloadable mpeg's, and then I'll be happy.
Even if the pace of life is accelerating now, it has been for quite a few years. Probably since WW2. Alvin Toeffler covered this in the early 70's with "Future Shock". It still is a cause for concern though. But since I've seen so much material on this subject already I don't think I'll waste my time with this book.
I think it's great that Jon Katz did this. The outcome was obvious.
They are a corporation. Their only concern is money. They can make all the token changes they want, but the idea is still the same.
Capitalism does one thing: it puts materials and money above humans. Any system like this is doomed to what our country is now reaping. I think everyone understands this but Americans. You can argue all the Libertarian free market capitalism ideas you want, but nothing can change as long as that first sentance is true. NOTHING.
So basically you're saying "if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about, and we need to monitor you anyway, because you might be doing naughty things."
Come on Kaa, this is what Hitler said back when he was in power. In fact, thats an element of any police state.
Re:Only the paranoid survive...
on
Intel Roadmap
·
· Score: 3
Intel makes good products, sure. But lets face it, they've been gouging customers for years. It's harder IMO to run a monopoly on the hardware side than the software side for reasons I won't mention.
So when someone comes along with a decent, similar product, they can undercut your margins significantly. Thats called competition. So instead of taking the hit from AMD and riding it out, they try to pull a fast one on the entire computer world, and use this RDRAM fiasco, FUD marketing, and strong-arming their customers (well, thats conspiracy ala tom's hardware, but I would expect nothing less from a large corporation) to keep their near monopoly-status. It most likely won't work.
Face it, the shareholders get really pissed when profit levels drop. Maintaining their previous profit margins for the long term is near impossible. Today the only way to do it is with proprietary products like RDRAM, and similarly with their chip packaging and even MMX.
So instead of intel dealing with it properly, they shoot themselves in the foot. Capitalism works once in a while, I guess:)
Since I mentioned RDRAM, what is the deal with this article? It looks like marketing by intel. Every review I've seen of RDRAM either trashes it or gives it marginally better rankings than SDRAM, but even then the price difference doesn't make it worth it. Yet this site thinks its great, and states that SDRAM won't be able to keep up. Huh? DDR SDRAM is loooking pretty damn good to me. I don't want the extra latency from RDRAM anyway. What a load of FUD.
One last comment: corporations making fortune selling things online was not what the internet used to be about...so I fail to see how the argument of preserving the internet as it was should apply here...
You're right. E-commerce is nice and convenient, but it certainly hasn't changed my life.
The best thing about the internet is the unlimited free flow of ideas, and that really can't be stopped, just by the nature of how the hardware works. You can implement all the filters you want, but people will find a way to get the information somehow. It's like trying to clean up a huge oil spill with paper towels, from the point of view of those who want to control the internet. Even the Chinese seem to be letting in some sites that are questionable to their governments' ideals...it's impossible to find them all anyway.
We haven't really reached a point where the international nature of the internet actually puts any governments' power at risk, but that day may come, in a form I can't really think of today. Maybe then we'll see mandatory government filtering of, say, an entire country's domain.
I think the real risk is not Orwellian type threats (not in the near future anyway), but the type of thing we've always seen: limiting people's ability to "break the law", and thus prevent large scale "disobediance", limiting activity to a relatively small group of people. If no one knows about you and your cause, your free speech rights don't bother the government or any other institution.
On the upside, we've all seen the limited success of "controlling" mp3s by the RIAA, etc. It really can't be done. So I'm pretty optimistic about our future. We just need to keep in mind it's not the technology that changes things, it's how we use it.
The truth is that the American political system, no matter how much everyone bitches and whines, is one of the most liberal and open systems in the world!
You're close to being right but not quite...I think I'd rate Canada as being MUCH more liberal as well as a few European countries. I know you said the US gov't isn't perfect, but your comments are still quite positive. Keep in mind that your comments are relative, so they don't really speak to the amout of freedom or control we have over our lives.
Our governement operates like any other government really...they have to keep the population apathetic and throw us a bone once in a while to keep us happy. This prevents their power from being seriously threatened. Movements like the ones in the 60's bring about change, but it is usually nothing incredible, at least not what the "revolutionaries" envisioned. They die out as well, as the institutions remain.
Over the past few decades we've seen plenty of fascist/police state features creep in. Increasing militarization of police, the highest incarciration rates in the world, and strict sentancing guidelines. Modern survailence technology doesn't help either, nor does a media that sensationalizes events and certainly does not promote the citizens best interest. And you would be right, our press is still probably the most open in the world. That doesn't make it any good.
So obviously this article bothers me. I'm not a libertarian like most here are, as I'm not a big fan of capitalism. So when companies come up with plans like this for making money it bothers me just as much as if the government had done it, because corporations have even less public accountability than the government does, and thus are essentially fascist. They care even less about the public than the government does. Corporations that operate for profit in the law enforcement industry have been growling rapidly over the last 10 years or so, and they now have a big lobbying vioce, because more people in prison means more money for them.
All it really takes to end this is education, but not in the traditional sense: people ned to be taught to think for themselves. We all know that the internet didn't cause the Columbine massacre, but most people aren't "aware" enough to realize otherwise. People that read this site know otherwise, but that is because we have been there.
It's one of our countries biggest problems really: instead of finding the root problem and working through it, we take a pill and hope it just goes away.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, they might see it as a tool, but if I were a Ruthless Dictator I'd still rather be using TV and radio, for pretty obvious reasons.
While it might be easy to publish on the internet, it's basically impossible for sites to be anonymous. I'm sure the chinese government knows exactly where every IP address is being used. Besides, the internet doesn't grant freedom, people can only use it in the fight to gain it.
It's more than just a tool unlike someone else said, but frankly it can't help at all if the entire population lives in fear, which any good Ruthless Dictator is able to acheive. You won't need some facility with thousands of people surfing the web for violations if the society lives in fear. Or even better, you can get the population to beleive that personal freedom isn't a big deal, that things like money and entreprenurial spirit are more important, which they seem to be doing with some success.
China would ban internet technologies outright I'm sure, but the Chinese government isn't dumb. If they want to be an economic player in this century, they have to be part of the information based economy, of which the internet is central. Russia failed because it couldn't (and/or wouldn't) do the same, generally speaking. Whether or not expanded internet access will allow China to keep strict control and apathy over it's population remains to be seen, but I'll bet they can do it. They can just take a lesson from the US, where the illusion of freedom is just about the best form of control there is.
As much as I think this can be defeated since every hardware manufacturer in the country hates this other than rambus and intel, this brings up an interesting point.
For quite a few years now the hardware industry has been working off the idea of open standards (my limited knowledge here is mostly from a few prof's at school), since the early 80's perhaps. Before this, every manufacturer controlled their own "architechture":, hardware and software from top to bottom. No compatibility between platforms.
Perhaps this started with XT clones, but companies realized everyone would do better dollar wise with open standards than without. So with closed standards, certain companies might make decent money, but with open standards, everyone would make out well, since prices would in theory drop and the computer market could grow quickly (as it did).
So now rambus and intel might be throwing us back into the dark ages. Could it be worth it to intel to get that 10% of rambus when its own revenues start to drop when the PC market tanks? Have you seen the prices on RDRAM? The ram on just about any computer would end up costing the same amount as everything else in the system!!
I guess this isn't all that suprising. The open standards idea goes somewhat counter to normal capitalist thinking. It's unfortunate. You can apply this idea to individuals as well: you can be a selfish bastard and enjoy life a bit, or you can be a nice person with a lot of friends and enjoy life a lot more. Unfortunatly it's much easier to be selfish than trusting.
I don't think most companies will just cave in like toshiba. I can't imagine the computer industry will simply let rambus essentially take over. rambus has basically made themselves corporate and public enemy number 1. That's not a good position to be in. Companies like micron and others will do everything they can to stop this, and money talk in the courts.
In addition, since when was rambus able to get patents on an open standard? Didn't IEEE or some other organization come up with the specs? Or did rambus get patents on specific technologies while the spec only covers the description perhaps? Does anyone know? This has me more pissed off than anything else in the computer world for a long time...
I don't think there are THAT many one dimentional people here. I know a fair amount of my comments come off that way, usually because the person I was replying to was so off base or uninformed that it really pissed me off.
Governments and corporations are obviously not the same, but they certainly can draw some of the same powers: political or economical, and everything in between. I think the biggest oversight that most slashdot-libertarian types have is underestimating the power corporations have, and more importantly can gain. Perhaps even more importantly, that an unregulated free market would be a good thing for democracy. I'll be so arrogant to say this is the silliest political idea I've ever heard, but there is no need to get into now. I've spent many an hour arguing that point right here.
I think the US will vote yes on the trade status of China. After the European Union voted yes just last week, I don't see how the US could say no, just from an economic standpoint.
The human rights violation issue is irrelevent to our government, money comes first. They put up a small show to make it look like they care, but all they've done is delay what they will inevetably do. Keep in mind the United states government doesn't have a very good track record itself, the only difference is that our government typically uses a few layers of insulation. It could be simple complacency as in the case of Indonesia taking over East Timor (the US didn't care, this was in the 70's, while about 25% of the population was killed if I remember correctly). Or it could be supporting and installing leaders (dictators) and training armies as was done in central America in the 80's, and in Africa as well. Even at home, we see police operating at oppressive levels, especially in the inner city. Keeping your population subverted works differently in a "free", capitalist society: the government needs a few layers of deniability, and you rarely hear about this stuff anyway. I'll bet some readers won't even beleive what I've said, or, not understand how bad it really is.
Anyway, onto the censorship issue. Barring some cyberpunk future where corporations own the landscape, China really could become the next superpower. I can't see the US being able to change enough to maintain the lead technologically and economically. You look at all the bills being passed here (DMCA, etc), and look at how much this will stifle competition and innovation. You can't maintain a lead without these things. US corporations are just unwilling to lose some profits now for long term success.
Of course, China will have a tough go at it since they aren't a very free society. The US isn't much better, there is plenty of indoctrination and censorship used by the press, and a truly free society would be a form of anarchy anyway. Look at what they have going for them though. The largest population in the world, a population that puts education near the top of it's priority list (I mean culturally, I don't know how much the government puts into it percentage wise), and markets that haven't been developed yet. By this last item I mean that they don't have a lot of infrasturcture stuck in current or (especially) past technologies like the US and Japan do. All these things give them a lot of potential. Whether or not China can take a lead sometime in the distant future without some Democratic revolution, I don't know. I think they're the most interesting country to watch in the future.
No, it's not cynicism, its a valid question, which you had no answer for. You seem to think that the answer is so obvious that it is undebateable. So lets see...who is the bigger fool?
I hate to break it to you, but universities have always been this way. The institution was never radical, it was always the students. Whenever you see footage of protests from the 60's or today, they usually occured in direct opposition to the demands of the management (whatever they're called at your local U) of the school.
Universities are pretty passive when it comes to defending freedoms...it's a never ending tug of war, really. Thats why people need to stay active: institutions are never going to keep us on track. They'll cave in to corporate and government demands without students yelling and screaming. The university I just gradauted from did this kind of thing ALL the time. Corporations have been really increasing their presence on campus, from the corporation funded research lab to the coke contract for all soft drinks on campus (I want my mountain dew, god damn it).
I've always wondered why more bands haven't tried an online distribution model, where fans can download, say, an entire album for a few dollars. The majority of the money could go to you. The only benefit to having a record company at that point would be for marketing, but your band has such clout I don't think it needs much help. Have you ever considered this model? Does it appeal to you in any way?
When are artists going to start stand up to record companies? Granted right now they don't have a better distribution channel but the day will come. The situation is almost like any other industry. In the medical community, doctors have never stood up as a group against HMO abuses, drug company abuses, etc. Engineers have never stood up against corporations that pollute or make otherwise poor products that benefit the company but harm society. Why don't artists stand up against record companies, who charge too much and put out the worst drivel possible?
Limited distribution is possible right now, though. Charge a few bucks for a cd length amount of material. Hell, metallica could do this today! It's not like they need huge amounts of marketing. To me this is the middle ground of the argument. As long as we're living in a capitalist society, money has to change hands somewhere. I have no problem giving a few bucks to artists I listen to, and I don't care if it makes them rich. More power to them if they're that good.
No one in the slashdot community seems to take this stand. It's either the "holier than thou" "how can you steal from artists you pathetic pirate" argument or the "fuck the man" argument. It's almost as polarized as a debate on religion.
Back to my original topic. Why are so few artists really interested in online distribution methods? Well, people are afraid of change, but actually I think its the "ethical" side. My idea of ethics in the topic is not the same as what society usually deems as ethics. If you are a professional (engineer, doctor, etc) the "ethical" way to go about things is to keep your mouth shut. Don't be a rat. This is unfortunate and doesn't really help the cause of humans as a whole. People are afraid they might lose their small gains for the small chance to do good for everyone. This situation is no different. Hearing Lars Ulrich spew out comments like "how dare these napster users commodify our music" when that's exactly the function of record companies to begin with makes me sick. Jon Katz' opinion aside, doesn't anyway really want to protect some freedom? Or creativity? The more things change the more they stay the same is the perfect cliche, I think.
Obviously more time is needed for the technology to mature. The game is not over for either side, the outcome is not determined. The internet is neraly impossible to censor, yes, but never underestimate the power of the record companies OR the government taking donations from them.
Perhaps Stallman should come down from his throne and spend a few months actually working in law enforcement. Perhaps he should see the kind of cruelty and callousness exhibited by elements of our society. Perhaps then he wouldn't be so quick to complain about high rates of imprisonment in the U.S.
Yes, there is something wrong in America, but it is not a legislative problem as much as it is a social one. Parts of our collective culture have given up the Golden Rule. It's not a religious issue (I happen to be an atheist, too), it's a common-sense rule for a society to function.
I always find it interesting when people point out the lack of "morals" in our society, usually referring to those who are poor and or do "bad things". It's interesting because this lack extends from the top all the way to the bottom, which most people don't realize. A wealthy businessman can do nearly infinitly more damage with his pen and a contract than can any number of drug dealers with a gun. It's simply much harder to see. A contract is just a piece of paper, it's effects aren't immediatly obvious. A child laying dead in a pool of blood from a driveby shooting is a clear source of anger and disgust.
Did the poor create this world? Of course not. It was those on top, wealthy, or with political power, or both. That doesn't let anyone off the hook "morally" but one poor person doing drugs does way less damage than, say, the CEO of nike who likes to brag about how cheap they can make their products overseas in their slave labor shops.
At least RMS tries to do something positive that helps everyone. Apparently this is some sort of liberal (or, obviously communist) conspiracy. That word "community" is just too clse to the word communism! No, I think you miss the big picture of social issues. RMS's view is academic compared to yours, as people like you limit your view to whats on the street, whats on the surface. In law enforcement though this doesn't really suprise me, thats how the job works. Law enforcement has as much to do with the bad conditions in many parts of this country as the drug dealers and others do, from corruption and oppresion to a nearly fascist police state. In that respect, our problems are very much legislative related as much as they are social.
I'm actually a pretty strong advocate for gun control. I'm not a libertarian. It just made for a good example in this case. Life and death has to be treated differently that material wealth.
Damn it, I'm so sick of people who don't understand this. Napster is not illegal because it can be used for illegal purposes. Do understand the consequences of this if it were law?
Lets see:
get rid of all ftp servers / clients because I can download warez
get rid of all web servers / clients because I can download kiddie porn
get rid of all guns because their owners are able to commit murder
Do you have a better picture now? MP3's are not inherently illegal anyway!! They have to be copyrighted works to begin with. This fact alone should nullify any suit against them. Look, I know 99% of napster use is illegal, but this is NOT, I repeat NOT the way to go about solving this problem.
There is no solution that works for the average person as well as the corporations. You either end up with a very reactionary and contolling economy and government, or you move to a type of "infromation is free" type of economy. Isn't technology supposed to be for the benefit of all?
because the NY times has deep pockets. Intimidation doesn't work as well against a major corporation as it does against an individual with little money. There is really no threat of jail time against a corporation as there is with an individual, and any monetary penalties won't amount to much. The MPAA's plan of attack so far has been mostly to use playground-bully type tactics anyway.
If anything the NY times can use this as free advertising if the MPAA tried any lawsuits or other "tactics".
Am I the only one who detected a faint sense of sarcasm in this post? I think I would have modded it "funny" rather than "insightful", even if he is correct about how our sad country works...
I did think it was a bit sad to see all the posts that rip on Katz on the publishing/copyright issue. If it was anyone other than him I doubt it would happen. This book isn't for profit. Considering the situation, I think taco/hemos and Katz handled everything pretty well.
I'll probably buy the book too, maybe even from amazon.com. As much as I appreciate protests, I think the shlashdot community goes on too many jihad's, whether it's against amazon, Katz, or whoever. Don't get me wrong, I usually see slashdot as a kind of defender of freedom, I just wish people would understand that every corporation, every person, and all your ancestors have blood on their hands and skeletons in their closet. I think we need to cut Katz some slack.
You sound like a pretty isolated person. Which doesn't suprise me, most geeks have a lot of that in them.
I rarely let people off the hook for what they've done, unless I know them extrememly well, which accounts for maybe 20 people in the whole world. However, you have to ask yourself, what made them the way they are? Genetics? Or did the world around them have an influence? It's the old nature vs. nurture debate.
Personally I think when you look at an entire population, you have to look at where they are coming from and what they've dealt with. Weak individuals or not, American society WILL continue to have problems like this as long as our culture stays the way it is. Blaming individuals and throwing them in jail does little to curb violence or any other social problems.
It has been this way for blacks in our country for a long time. There is little hope of escaping the ghetto, little chance for an education, and parental involvement is minimal. It's a nearly impossible cycle to break. When people are this hopeless, why even try? Join a gang, sell drugs, have a little bit of fun before your time is up, most likely at a young age. There is no way I'd be where I am now if I had to live in that environment.
Middle class whites tend to think that's the way black people are though, simply lazy and violent. Only when we start seeing violence in the suburbs do people think anything of it. The suburbs are supposed to be the perfect life. Well, perhaps they're not. Perhaps an environment that puts material things and vanity above people and personality helps create people like the columbine shooters.
Again we have the same old issue with American culture: don't find the root cause, simply apply a bandaid at the top level and just forget about it. Well, now we get to reap the rewards. Since the suburbs are such a perfect way of life, we simply have to go after "weird" people like these two, using stereotypes to weed them out. Yeah, sounds great to me.
So be upset and sad that these young people went off and killed many others. But you should be more upset at the culture that helped create them.
Don't get us wrong: building an empire is not necessarily a bad thing. AOL's widely available, easy-to-use Internet service has helped millions of new Netizens get online.
Gee, now there is a good way to take any bite out of your article.
It shouldn't be suprising though. AOL is doing what the market asks of you, just like microsoft did: expand your market, keep costs low, and keep profits up. They sure do this well: saturation marketing, easy to use, proprietary software, and poor connectivity and poor service.
Microsoft got in trouble mainly because they are such pompous assholes. The justice department has to hit someone once in a while to make it look like it's doing it's job. They were the perfect target. As far as tactics AOL isn't necessarily much different.
They *do* make the internet easy to use for people who have near zero technical ability, sure. But at what cost? THey don't mind censorship at all. They don't like open standards (which can be very profitable, although the flipside can be as well. I think that works better for hardware providers as opposed to software/service providers). They don't mind providing poor service, and they have had PR issues more than once because of their software.
Would anyone here apply the same argument to microsoft? I don't think so.
My main point is that the current market ideal creates and encourages these type of corporations. Wheter or not the government's role in this is good or bad is another debate, I think it's more important to show that capitalism is sliding down the slipery slope twords a more fascist model. Yes, I really mean that. It's all there for you to see. You hardly have to even read between the lines anymore.
It looks good until you think for about .01 seconds and realize that this is nothing more than divx that wastes bandwidth. Add on top their (almost certain) proprietary encryption, viewing software, etc, and you have a product that bascially sucks in every way it can. Give me pay-once downloadable mpeg's, and then I'll be happy.
Even if the pace of life is accelerating now, it has been for quite a few years. Probably since WW2. Alvin Toeffler covered this in the early 70's with "Future Shock". It still is a cause for concern though. But since I've seen so much material on this subject already I don't think I'll waste my time with this book.
I think it's great that Jon Katz did this. The outcome was obvious.
They are a corporation. Their only concern is money. They can make all the token changes they want, but the idea is still the same.
Capitalism does one thing: it puts materials and money above humans. Any system like this is doomed to what our country is now reaping. I think everyone understands this but Americans. You can argue all the Libertarian free market capitalism ideas you want, but nothing can change as long as that first sentance is true. NOTHING.
So basically you're saying "if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about, and we need to monitor you anyway, because you might be doing naughty things."
Come on Kaa, this is what Hitler said back when he was in power. In fact, thats an element of any police state.
Intel makes good products, sure. But lets face it, they've been gouging customers for years. It's harder IMO to run a monopoly on the hardware side than the software side for reasons I won't mention.
:)
So when someone comes along with a decent, similar product, they can undercut your margins significantly. Thats called competition. So instead of taking the hit from AMD and riding it out, they try to pull a fast one on the entire computer world, and use this RDRAM fiasco, FUD marketing, and strong-arming their customers (well, thats conspiracy ala tom's hardware, but I would expect nothing less from a large corporation) to keep their near monopoly-status. It most likely won't work.
Face it, the shareholders get really pissed when profit levels drop. Maintaining their previous profit margins for the long term is near impossible. Today the only way to do it is with proprietary products like RDRAM, and similarly with their chip packaging and even MMX.
So instead of intel dealing with it properly, they shoot themselves in the foot. Capitalism works once in a while, I guess
Since I mentioned RDRAM, what is the deal with this article? It looks like marketing by intel. Every review I've seen of RDRAM either trashes it or gives it marginally better rankings than SDRAM, but even then the price difference doesn't make it worth it. Yet this site thinks its great, and states that SDRAM won't be able to keep up. Huh? DDR SDRAM is loooking pretty damn good to me. I don't want the extra latency from RDRAM anyway. What a load of FUD.
Thank you, my rant is finished.
If you can get past the liberal propaganda
Oh please. They're funded mostly by large corporations...at worst they make democrats look like radicals.
One last comment: corporations making fortune selling things online was not what the internet used to be about...so I fail to see how the argument of preserving the internet as it was should apply here...
You're right. E-commerce is nice and convenient, but it certainly hasn't changed my life.
The best thing about the internet is the unlimited free flow of ideas, and that really can't be stopped, just by the nature of how the hardware works. You can implement all the filters you want, but people will find a way to get the information somehow. It's like trying to clean up a huge oil spill with paper towels, from the point of view of those who want to control the internet. Even the Chinese seem to be letting in some sites that are questionable to their governments' ideals...it's impossible to find them all anyway.
We haven't really reached a point where the international nature of the internet actually puts any governments' power at risk, but that day may come, in a form I can't really think of today. Maybe then we'll see mandatory government filtering of, say, an entire country's domain.
I think the real risk is not Orwellian type threats (not in the near future anyway), but the type of thing we've always seen: limiting people's ability to "break the law", and thus prevent large scale "disobediance", limiting activity to a relatively small group of people. If no one knows about you and your cause, your free speech rights don't bother the government or any other institution.
On the upside, we've all seen the limited success of "controlling" mp3s by the RIAA, etc. It really can't be done. So I'm pretty optimistic about our future. We just need to keep in mind it's not the technology that changes things, it's how we use it.
The truth is that the American political system, no matter how much everyone bitches and whines, is one of the most liberal and open systems in the world!
You're close to being right but not quite...I think I'd rate Canada as being MUCH more liberal as well as a few European countries. I know you said the US gov't isn't perfect, but your comments are still quite positive. Keep in mind that your comments are relative, so they don't really speak to the amout of freedom or control we have over our lives.
Our governement operates like any other government really...they have to keep the population apathetic and throw us a bone once in a while to keep us happy. This prevents their power from being seriously threatened. Movements like the ones in the 60's bring about change, but it is usually nothing incredible, at least not what the "revolutionaries" envisioned. They die out as well, as the institutions remain.
Over the past few decades we've seen plenty of fascist/police state features creep in. Increasing militarization of police, the highest incarciration rates in the world, and strict sentancing guidelines. Modern survailence technology doesn't help either, nor does a media that sensationalizes events and certainly does not promote the citizens best interest. And you would be right, our press is still probably the most open in the world. That doesn't make it any good.
So obviously this article bothers me. I'm not a libertarian like most here are, as I'm not a big fan of capitalism. So when companies come up with plans like this for making money it bothers me just as much as if the government had done it, because corporations have even less public accountability than the government does, and thus are essentially fascist. They care even less about the public than the government does. Corporations that operate for profit in the law enforcement industry have been growling rapidly over the last 10 years or so, and they now have a big lobbying vioce, because more people in prison means more money for them.
All it really takes to end this is education, but not in the traditional sense: people ned to be taught to think for themselves. We all know that the internet didn't cause the Columbine massacre, but most people aren't "aware" enough to realize otherwise. People that read this site know otherwise, but that is because we have been there.
It's one of our countries biggest problems really: instead of finding the root problem and working through it, we take a pill and hope it just goes away.