Isn't it funny how we're not hearing the usual foaming mouth diatribes against 'The Man'? I see no ethical difference between this situation and violating a EULA or stealing music. Maybe there's not as much motivation to the 'freedom fighters' when the item in question isn't something they want but are too cheap to buy. At least we're spared the agonizingly convoluted and logically bankrupt arguments rationalizing the theft of intellectual property.
billy - yes that really IS the way I feel, got a problem with that?
It is only through the grace of its authors that malware hasn't caused much greater damage. Some of the most successful worms at self-propagation did no real damage. In fact, this trend has been so predominant that some have suggested the majority of attacks are actually tests and exploratory probes. Imagine an arsenal of perfected nasties all released for optimum impact. Honeypots have captured highly advanced bots written in varieties of C that feature plug-ins that can accomplish a huge variety of actions. Networks established by these bots have included over 100,000 rooted machines. As more of our communication infrastructure migrates online we become more vulnerable to disruption of service. A carefully timed attack with several weapons along several vectors could go way beyond "inconvenient". And remember, the current method of defeating malware is largely reactive - a patch only works after you find the hole. As far as technical competence - and I question your disdain for the terrorist's abilities - if they can't make it they can sure as hell BUY whatever they like. Imagine a day when so many exploits occurred that nobody can tell which transactions on the net were real and which were bogus. Banking, bill paying, credit checks, police checks, every transaction and communication called into doubt. I'd say that would get the publics attention just fine. If it happened just once, the damage done to the somewhat misguided public trust in the internet would never be repaired. Then you'd see some real shit come out of Washington - and I doubt if your group of "professionals" would like it much.
I found it interesting that the Nano/Bio Interface Center places what seems to be an equal emphasis on the development of an ethical structure applicable for these new technologies as on the research itself. Arthur Caplan, who is the director of the Center for Bioethics, used to chair the UN advisory committee on human cloning. His associate, Paul Wolpe, former Chief of Bioethics for NASA and bioethics advisor to Planned Parenthood, is another big gun in the medical ethics arena. With the heavy talent on the project and its relationship to the other projects at the center, the NBICs ethics project looks like a good bet to be a leader in shaping society's guidelines for dealing with the new developments in these emerging technologies.
Since these technologies address the basic functionality of all life in a way that will inevitably eventually become transferable, we are dealing with the real possibility of corrupting the blueprints that define biological identity. Bio engineered corn has already slipped the leash, it's only a matter of time until we start to see contamination in higher organisms. It's vital that powerful new technologies have legal and ethical guidelines in place before they are initiated. Too bad the IT community didn't see the same need 25 years ago.
billy - who uses Norton Synaptic Antivirus in the nasal inhalant form
02/18/05
You've got that right! I'd been using Maxthon for a while when Firefox came out of beta. I tried it, but even with extensions, it just did not provide the flexibility and features available in Maxthon. I've found you can decide how much control over your browsing you want to exert - from a useful default configuration to completely user defined style and download settings. The Maxthon community is active and growing. As more traditional plug-ins for IE become available for Maxthon the functionality will increase further. Despite some comments from those who talk out of their asses, Maxthon improves on IEs security situation considerably, including selective active-x filtering. When you consider Maxthon's own 'extension' library (plug-ins) and growing support resources, the Maxthon browser is an excellent choice for those who live to tweak. Yes, it uses the IE engine, so it's not/. cool - but it does contain an experimental mode that switches to a gecko core. After trying most of the browsers available, Maxthon is my choice for everyday use.
billy - waiting for Opera to get its shit back together
You are asking the right questions. It seems like the machine will definitely be able to make combs and plastic dishes - and maybe not much more until some major breakthroughs in other areas. First, the machines they are modeling their project around are made by the Stratasys company. The university website does not state which model they use as a basis for their estimates, but none of the existing models are metal capable. So at least for the present, anything but plastic parts must come from elsewhere. The size limit is about 12 inches, so any large structures would have to be composites. The materials are heat sensitive. No hair dryers or friction parts are possible. The raw plastic is also a special compound - the machine process is patented, I'm not sure about the plastic. One of the key assumptions in this plan is the use of conducting and semiconducting polymers to "print" electronic circuits. These assemblies tend to be weak and slow, limiting uses. It is impossible to guess what modifications would have to be made to his model machine to utilize this technology. I suspect he is low balling the price and the simplicity of the mechanical design. It's a nice dream, but has got a long way to go. It probably WOULD make pretty good action figures though.
Just a thought....do large corporations pay lawyers big bucks to write EULAs that are so vague yet all inclusive that no matter what the company's future wishes might be they will be able to claim in court it's covered in the EULA?
billy - yes I know...but I actually DO read the damn things every time
"1) reading a government press release and accepting it at its word"
Did you miss this?
"It remains the obligation of a society's citizens to be aware of what the law says, it's intent, and the conditions and results of it's enforcement"
I was making the point that a society must sometimes enact laws that may be interpreted as an abridgement of freedom of speech in order to allow a response to certain kinds of speech. The classic ' yell fire in a crowded theater' example is hard to refute. More questionable from an intellectual if not emotional level would be a ban on hate speech of a racial and religious nature. A society should be able to amend its own freedoms when it deems necessary in order to protect more basic rights. Members of a society aspiring towards freedom must recognize the responsibility they each possess to remain aware of the governments behavior and adherence to the social covenant. Even as part of the government's job is to "keep an eye on the rascals of the world" it is part of the citizen's job to keep an eye on the rascals in the government. In this particular case especially concerning the definition of a legitimate "debate about euthanasia". Did you miss that part as well? What source would be a better place to find information about a new law than the government that authored and is going to enforce that law? We have to know what they're saying before we can accuse them of lying through their teeth. And though it sounds naive, I believe sometimes their hearts really ARE in the right place.
"2) getting your information about Philip Nitschke from a "pro-life" website that labels him "Dr Death"?
Whoops, you did it again. If you follow the link for 'Dr. Death' you will find an interview of Philip Nitschke by George Negus on his talk show on ABC. His own words seem a pretty fair representation of his point of view. Calling him 'Dr. Death' makes an association with American's own Jack Kevorkian, another public figure vilified by his government and the object of wildly varying opinions by the public. Their similarity, invoked by calling him the "Australian Dr. Death", allows for a quick basis for understanding. I doubt he's unused to the label. Check with google if you disagree. And reread the 'monster' line - he could just as easily be the 'rascal.' There was a link to a "pro-life website" but it was to an article describing the 'death kit' which made few claims about Nitschke. I'm not responsible if you chose to read the description of the kit and ignored the interview. I actually read a few other things as well, but felt I was pushing the/. envelope with 3 links to further information. My overall purpose was to illustrate that the situation was much more complex than the story's author's "cluelessnes" accusation would suggest.
As for concentrating on the real causes of suicide, I agree completely. Of course the government's point is that some aspects of the whole 'death kit' phenomena take advantage of people at their weakest and most confused and instead of assisting an informed decision could precipitate that decision. Who knows? For myself - my first reaction to anyone volunteering to help me kill myself is gonna be pretty sceptical.
billy - reality? think of all the time you'd saved if you REALLY read my post
I thought I might throw a little reality into the mix and see if it has any effect. It probably won't, it's more fun to make up shit to argue about than to actually try to understand the situation. This law was specifically designed to complement existing laws. They address a specific situation - the promotion and sale of 'suicide kits'. Evidently there is an Aussie 'Dr. Death' behind the manufacturing and distribution of kits containing "death bags that are placed over a victim's head and tightened like a noose to induce suffocation". The new version is much more civilized, featuring "drip bags that release chemicals into a canister to produce carbon monoxide, which is then inhaled through a tube through nostril prongs, causing death within an hour."
According to the government the law is not intended to be used to encroach on free speech or any legitimate "debate about euthanasia". What constitutes a legitimate debate is probably going to become a topic decided by the courts.
Let's not forget that one of the reasons we have governments is to keep an eye on the rascals of the world - as well as the outright monsters. Any law that limits speech is certainly flirting with that proverbial 'slippery slope' but sometimes it's necessary for society to take a stand on uncertain ground. It remains the obligation of a society's citizens to be aware of what the law says, it's intent, and the conditions and results of it's enforcement. Now days finding out what's really happening isn't that hard. It's got to be worth a few minutes of research to actually have an informed opinion - people pay more attention and there's less change of looking like an idiotic, clueless, ass.
billy - google sets us free and helps us to not look like idiotic, clueless, asses
First, it was ApplyYourself, not Harvard that had the problem. Remember the other schools involved? And you're right, this is Harvard not Podunk State Community College. The 'best and the brighest', right? Just getting caught should be good enough to get rejected. These students certainly knew that this activity was not part of the legitimate application process. Would you hire any of those people for a trusted position in your business? Would you trust their judgement, much less their ethics? Saying that it was a natural human response is excusing any behavior deemed 'natural' - like violence? For those (unlike parent poster) who write it off by saying "I would have done it too" - you don't deserve to go to Harvard either.
billy - proud 5th year student at Podunk State Community College
Just a note to the crowd thrashing the 'software patent' issue - neither of these patents cover software. One covers a hardware 'jukebox', the other covers an identity verification method. One reminds me of a cassette tape player and the other of asking for a credit card as a second ID. I doubt if either of these companies who patent ideas have ever tried to do anything with the ideas other than sue for patent infringement.
The discussion does illustrate one characteristic of/. - it takes very little to start a 'religious' war. You don't even have to post on topic. I especially like all the folks on either side who point out how this makes their arguments. Too bad it's only par for the course.
billy - who has a patent pending for pissing ads in snow
I believe the problem runs much deeper. The fault lies in the ascendance of the belief that accounting should be the overriding system in the control and evaluation of businesses. When individuals far removed from the actual activity of the business make decisions, especially strategic decisions, they always use "the numbers" to inform those decisions. This results in those decisions being more about the accounting of the business than the business itself. Accountants don't create companies. Engineers, inventors, and dreamers create companies. The problem is that a successful company will almost always reach a point that requires a large capital influx to move to the next level. At this point the financial establishment creates points of influence and control in the company's management. Before long the people running the business have almost no relation to the business being done. They do not deal in real things - a product you can hold in your hand or a person you can look in the eye - but instead in symbols - numbers. You don't 'down size' a person, you 'down size' a number. The focus is on the numbers not the real products that motivated the public to give the company their money in the first place.
So now the upper management of the company has a different agenda. Their priorities place the welfare of the business, its employees, and its products below the welfare of their actual employers, the investors. The founder of the business may still be around, but now he is President, subordinate to the Board, the CEO, maybe even the CFO. None of these people are in the business of whatever the company actually does, they are in the business of making money. Specifically, using the business to make money for the investors. Money, especially the imaginary money of 'creative capitalization', is nothing if not portable and the ability to move money quickly results in a 'what have you done for me lately' mind set. Thus the investors are not interested in the long term health of the company, the lives of its employees, and its contribution to society. These issues are addressed only when it threatens the bottom line, otherwise, its better for the 'numbers' to buy time with the marketing department, cut costs by 'down sizing', or reduce product costs. Any employees not directly necessary to create revenue - r/d, customer service, positions with cheaper outsourced alternatives - become part of a number, the cost of doing business. In the world of accounting, people are not being laid off, research is not being abandoned, and jobs are not being removed from the economy. Costs are being 'down sized.' If the company fails, so what? If the industry fails, so what? It's not like management is really IN the IT(or whatever) business. They're in the money business. There's plenty of companies they can make money from - one way or another. That's why no one even questions that the CEO of a technology company is qualified to run the WB. Upper management knows THEY'RE going to be paid despite the empty pension fund, bankrupt accounts, and long line of creditors. They know because the people who pay them are also in the money business. And that's just the way it works. Don't believe it?...run the numbers.
billy - just cause it's my job doesn't make it right
Hey, couldn't we all just try to be fair for one second please? Just because every trusted anti-spyware group around says iSearch is a scum of the Earth, lying, back stabber installer using, bold faced lying, web trail tracking, configuration raping, big fat dirty liar doesn't mean it's true - does it? I think we should let the folks at iSearch know that there's no chance we'll EVER forget this overwhelming industry wide attack on their good name. I suggest that every member of/. send them a brief message just to let them know that the IT community is watching! IMHO maybe something like:
Dear Accussed Scumspreaders,
I just wanted to jot a quick note to let you know your fellow members of the IT community are keeping a close eye on you in this time when seemingly every single hand in the business is raised against you. We can only marvel in bemused disbelief at your steadfast maintainance of innocence in the face of accusations leveled by some of the most trusted names in the anti-spyware field. Rest assured that you are not alone - we are standing close behind you - looking over your shoulder. We promise we won't forget - EVER. When the truth comes out - and it absolutely will - it is our fervent hope that you reap the just reward your actions have earned.
That's just a suggestion of course. I think every member should send something like it to them just so they know the IT community stands ready to take care of its own. What do you think - send it say - 4 or 5 times a second for 3 or 4 days? That oughta send the right message.
billy - who would never, ever, do anything like that...
I'd like to thank you for the respect you show for both me and yourself in the quality and open minded approach of your posts. I hope the thread has run long enough that such a statement flys under the troll radar. I want to start by saying a few things about my perspective on this forum. Jumping to conclusions seems to be as common here as bashing MS. I'm very new here (although not new to groups) and I was discouraged by the high noise to signal ratio. Combined with the short lifespan of active threads, it took a while to discover that the underlying current is deep as well as swift - especially since the mod system runs by the least common denominator model and seems to value/. 'cool' above all else. As yet only a glimpse, I begin to see presences wise and powerful lurking in the depths. Of course it might just be swamp gas.
Despite the conception my posts have unintentionally created, I don't have an agenda or even a resolved position concerning the copyright issue. It is one of a group of issues that I consider central to the continuing evolution of civilization in this critical period. We must learn to manage the new realities that come when technologies, enabled by mature information system design, break the established paradigm. It's a wonderful and terrifying time, with the potential for oppression and liberation, fear and understanding, destruction and creation, enlightenment and somnolent apathy. It's do or die time like never before and anyone who thinks it's not their problem just isn't paying attention. I'm worried we've got too much smart and not enough wise and that the ruthless cunning model for success has selected for decision makers incapable of understanding the interconnected vulnerabilities exposed when we start to mess with the underlying frameworks of things like biology, genetics, and the fundamental nature of reality. For instance, it would probably be a bad thing if we broke cause and effect. And sooner or later we're gonna have to deal with the kind of thinking that makes global warming a debatable issue to protect 'the bottom line'. If we don't get a clue, the 'bottom line' is gonna mean how far your ass is buried by a summer blizzard in Phoenix.
One of the most challenging characteristics of the problems we face is that of Complexity. I don't mean 'complexity' as in difficult to understand. I use it in the sense of composed of discrete but interconnected parts. More specifically, it is possible to have so much information that it ceases to make sense. It becomes very difficult to determine which characteristics and relationships are consequential and which are merely ramifications. Walking through Harlem at midnight is consequential, getting your ass shot off is merely a ramification. The best way to deal with this situation is not by bringing your own gun, locking up all the people in Harlem, or making sure your tetanus shots are up to date - the best solution is walking somewhere else. So what's my point? One way to approach solving a Complex problem is by understanding as many of its components as possible and how each component is affected by the whole. Sort of like viewing the problem from the component's point of view. Point of view = post. I'm here to learn.
When I question arguments presented in a post it may be for several reasons or combinations of reasons. I may want to understand it better. I may want to get a sense of how well developed the argument is by how the author responds. If he is able to defend his argument coherently from different perspectives and it doesn't make sense to me, maybe I just don't get it. That's the good stuff! I may want to see what other people think - it can result in dialogs like ours. If the author is good, answering his posts can help me to develop and perfect my own opinions, strengthen my ability to make my point, and even (gasp) change my mind. If I'm feeling particularly cocky, I might try to get him to bring out his own beliefs and take his argument to the next level. I live by the be
I want to reply to you because you have misunderstood some of my statements. I guess I just wasn't clear enough. Copyrights ARE legal fictions, in the same sense that property rights and laws against murder are legal fiction. The type of existence doesn't diminish the fact of existence. You can believe that a law is a mistake and should be repealed, but your belief isn't going to make your cell door close any slower. If you check my post you will see that I am referring to the contractual relationship that you voluntarily enter during a download when you click on the 'I Agree' button. The author of the software is saying "here is something I have made that may be useful to you, you can use it with my blessing if you agree to abide by the wishes I have made clear in the EULA." If you click that button it means you DO agree to abide by the EULA. You can always decide it's not worth the hassle and pass on the download, but once you click that button you have given your word to uphold your side of the deal. Please note that no amount of lies by big business affects the existence of that EULA or my obligation to keep my word. All the talk on grandiose scale is fine, but in the end all these arguments boil down to 'does this guy have the right to control that which he has created.' If you perform the actions of a thief, you are a thief. If some corporation has ripped people off for a thousand times more it just means you're a less successful thief. How can you justify ripping the author off based on the behavior of an unrelated third party?
As for the ad hominum, read it again. I was making a general comment about the possible consequences of making statements without establishing their validity. If you can't prove your assertions it calls into question the quality of your understanding of the topic. If your beliefs are not founded on understanding and evaluating the subject then they must originate elsewhere. How did you prove it to yourself if you can't prove it to me? Traditionally, people who spout bullshit at the top of their lungs have often been found to be advancing other agendas. When you say things that don't make sense, people are less likely to pay attention when you say things that do. If they start to suspect that the errors result less from a lack of ability than a lack of integrity, you're toast. I see no reason to doubt anyone's sincerity - I was just alluding to the fact that bad reasoning hurts your cause and your reputation - and online - your reputation is your power, your advocate, and your reward.
I'd have to say you really missed the boat on your last point. "The copyright exists no matter what the reason" was a part of my response to his claim that when big business calls copyright violators thieves it is a vicious smear campaign founded on a lie. My response was that if you take something that doesn't belong to you without permission then you are a thief. Your sincere belief that it SHOULD belong to you, or your disagreement with the law that says it doesn't, have the same validity as relying on a disbelief in the law of gravity to keep you from busting your ass when you fall. So that quote was never used in reference to his assertion of the "right to copy."
I have to admit that I am completely mystified by the attitude that when a statement is made like: "the right to copy things is a moral right, a right that exists above government. It is an inherent right that describes a nature of human existence that lives in us from the time we are born." the burden of truth lies with the sceptic. Excuse me? Man has the natural right to copy? Maybe it's just me, but I'd like to see some explanation and more justification than the fact that it was somehow possible to actually get it to appear in type. I'm curious, when exactly does this 'right to copy' kick in? At what point does 'my' idea become 'everyones' idea? Is it still mine when it exists only in my head? What about when my novel is halfway done? I think the 'right to copy' must in some way include the 'ri
Wow, I envy your certainty. I've come to find this whole question much more baffling. I used to take software and find ways to use it anyway I wanted. It's incredibly easy to find lots of resources on the net that will provide everything from serials to professional quality reverse engineering tutorials. One day I made myself take a hard look at what I was doing. The truth is that if you are aware of the author's wishes, if you understand that in return for the value you receive from using the program he is asking you to abide by those wishes, and that downloading and using the software is your agreement to the exchange, then violating those wishes is dishonorable. I got rid of my jacked, hacked, and cracked programs. Now I pay if I can't live without the code or it's just so elegant I can't help myself. Mostly I use freeware. You know what? In most cases it's really not as good as the commercial solution. How often have you seen the first few versions of an app as freeware and the perfected product gone commercial. Look I know I have just committed/. heresy, but romantic notions of 'freedom of information' and 'the right to copy, share, and distribute information is a right!" are not tautologies. You make many broad sweeping statements, but most of them are lacking in proof or pertinence.
You overstate your opponent's position by suggesting that they claim that there is "no incentive" to produce creative content without copyright rewards. How about less incentive? Can you deny that some very creative works were undertaken explictly to reap those rewards? Many creative processes now require a vast amount of resources - too many resources for individuals to provide. Groups that provide those resources usually do so with the expectation of a return on their investment. It might be nice if they did it with the intention of giving the knowledge away to benefit society, but that's just not the case. Shouting from the rooftops that it should be this way does not make it so. You make your arguments seem devious and weak by not acknowledging the reality that profits from copyrights DO create incentives. Moreover, often the people who possess the necessary personalities to amass the resources are motivated primarily by profit - that's why they have all the resources. Certainly a great deal of creative work is done for other reasons, maybe even the best creative work, but to ignore the motivating power of good old greed is ridiculous.
You also seem to believe that creative content springs spontaneously into being without underlying costs. You say that information does not have natural limits of supply. I say we've got all the creative content we're going to get from Albert Einstein, he reached the natural limit on his supply of time. The fact that the cost of creating must be borne up front, during the process, does not lessen the amount required. It's hard for a man to be creative when he has to spend half his time feeding his family and has to decide between materials for The Project and health care for his kids. On a more selfish note, if I can do something you can't by applying my time and effort, why should you receive the same benefits without sharing the costs? The copyright only gives me the right to set the value on the material, it's up to you to decide if it's worth the price of admission.
Posts gettin' a little long so.....How can someone who possesses 'artistic genius' require the use of someone else's material to express that genius? Isn't it more likely that those that " copyrights haven't helped a bit, hindered, or even destroyed". have more to blame on the quality of their work than their access to someone else's? What in the hell does saying bad things about the king have to do with modern copyright issues? Is it valid to compare the Renaissance, when copies were made at great expense by hand exclusively for the ruling class, and the case of Dave from Topeka, who has 2000 ripped songs on his hard drive and takes great pleasure in giving them to anyone in
You could give the hamsters monitors, It would be interesting to see if hearing the music affected their behavior. Wonder what genre would result? As long as it's not country. They probably wouldn't do too well in a mosh pit either. I definitely could see them guest starring on the next Yanni album.
Sensor modules are located in the appropriate places - cardiac, temperature, blood oxygen level - all connected by bluetooth to the hub of your Body Sensor Suite - your cell phone. The phone stores 2 hours worth of telemetry at the maximum collection rate. It runs the input data through gates, constantly checking for pre-loaded alert triggers. If it detects a problem it can react with a variety of responses, from warning you in a kindly caretaker voice (maybe recorded messages from your 3 daughters) to take it easy, activating a medpak release, automatically connecting with your doctors office, up to sending a mayday on the 911 channel with automatic integration to the nearest EMT unit. The EMTs and your doctor receive real time sensor feeds as well as a GPS upload from your phone. Your doctor can remote activate medpaks, adjust your pacemaker, or use your phones camera to check pupil dilation. The EMTs have your complete medical history as well as treatment instructions from your doctor before they reach the scene. Your phone handshakes with the infotags embedded in the EMT's drug deliver system - verifying doses and checking for allergies.
If you don't have any problems every two hours your phone links with your PC at home. Data is downloaded. Your complete records are available to your doctor (or his Virtual Physicians Assistant) via internet. He can monitor trends and modify the alert trips and actions. These new settings are uploaded to your phone during regular updates. Lifestyle information linking time, place, and physical condition are available for diagnostic evaluation. Your phone calls you and says "you are entering the first phase of an allergic reaction, what are you touching?" Sensors are available for environmental contaminants, radiation, air quality, even electromagnetic and sonic energy. Your phone won't let you drive drunk or fall asleep at the wheel. There's a hack available that masks cannabis detection. There's a lot of hacks available - recreational, performance enhancing, popular supplements. To refill your medpaks you just insert them into the AutoScript at your favorite store - yes - hacks are available. Of course if your phone indicates you have been deviating from your doctor prescribed regimen your co-pays go up. And there is that nasty rumor about the NSA...
"Why is it that those in favour of free information have such awful advocates at the moment?"
Possibly because you get what you pay for. If the quality level of Krowne's article is representative of the typical Wiki article then the kindest and most responsible action would be to pull the plug on the server. Either Krowne is purposely spouting BS of the most condescendingly transparent variety or he has no understanding of the construction of a rational argument. I won't mention his 'equations' and 'graphs' except to say that pulling numbers out of thin air is not generally recognized as a persuasive technique unless you are a politician. If this is the best defense of the attainability of quality in the Commons-Based Peer Production model...
Personally I don't want to read anything written by the lowest common denominator. All authors are not created equal. Can you say 'vanity press?' I knew you could! This is my favorite:
"McHenry, the Former Editor in Chief of the Encyclopedia Britannica, was quite critical of Wikipedia in this article. Perhaps this comes as no surprise to readers who are already detecting the potential for a slight conflict of interest here."
Niche providers can only survive in large markets with eclectic communities. I don't know where you live but you are lucky if you have any independent bookstores or video rental places that don't rely on porn for most of their business. My point is that companies like BB play the game by the customer's rules when they first enter a market. They use their deep corporate pockets to price point the independents out of business. Then they're the only game in town and do what they will. And we let them.
Slashdot Mirror
Damn straight skippy!
Isn't it funny how we're not hearing the usual foaming mouth diatribes against 'The Man'? I see no ethical difference between this situation and violating a EULA or stealing music. Maybe there's not as much motivation to the 'freedom fighters' when the item in question isn't something they want but are too cheap to buy. At least we're spared the agonizingly convoluted and logically bankrupt arguments rationalizing the theft of intellectual property.
billy - yes that really IS the way I feel, got a problem with that?
but how long until the phone company - who owns the backbone somewhere up the line, puts its foot down?
billy - remembering DSL
It is only through the grace of its authors that malware hasn't caused much greater damage. Some of the most successful worms at self-propagation did no real damage. In fact, this trend has been so predominant that some have suggested the majority of attacks are actually tests and exploratory probes. Imagine an arsenal of perfected nasties all released for optimum impact. Honeypots have captured highly advanced bots written in varieties of C that feature plug-ins that can accomplish a huge variety of actions. Networks established by these bots have included over 100,000 rooted machines. As more of our communication infrastructure migrates online we become more vulnerable to disruption of service. A carefully timed attack with several weapons along several vectors could go way beyond "inconvenient". And remember, the current method of defeating malware is largely reactive - a patch only works after you find the hole. As far as technical competence - and I question your disdain for the terrorist's abilities - if they can't make it they can sure as hell BUY whatever they like. Imagine a day when so many exploits occurred that nobody can tell which transactions on the net were real and which were bogus. Banking, bill paying, credit checks, police checks, every transaction and communication called into doubt. I'd say that would get the publics attention just fine. If it happened just once, the damage done to the somewhat misguided public trust in the internet would never be repaired. Then you'd see some real shit come out of Washington - and I doubt if your group of "professionals" would like it much.
billy - got any gold u wanta sell?
I found it interesting that the Nano/Bio Interface Center places what seems to be an equal emphasis on the development of an ethical structure applicable for these new technologies as on the research itself. Arthur Caplan, who is the director of the Center for Bioethics, used to chair the UN advisory committee on human cloning. His associate, Paul Wolpe, former Chief of Bioethics for NASA and bioethics advisor to Planned Parenthood, is another big gun in the medical ethics arena. With the heavy talent on the project and its relationship to the other projects at the center, the NBICs ethics project looks like a good bet to be a leader in shaping society's guidelines for dealing with the new developments in these emerging technologies.
Since these technologies address the basic functionality of all life in a way that will inevitably eventually become transferable, we are dealing with the real possibility of corrupting the blueprints that define biological identity. Bio engineered corn has already slipped the leash, it's only a matter of time until we start to see contamination in higher organisms. It's vital that powerful new technologies have legal and ethical guidelines in place before they are initiated. Too bad the IT community didn't see the same need 25 years ago.
billy - who uses Norton Synaptic Antivirus in the nasal inhalant form
"So if I spill this stuff on my hands, do I get to see a swirling mass of fluorescence with dancing stars and arrows for hours on end?"
No, for that effect you have to drink it.
billy - bring on the Nanoberry Quantum Koolaide
02/18/05 /. cool - but it does contain an experimental mode that switches to a gecko core. After trying most of the browsers available, Maxthon is my choice for everyday use.
You've got that right! I'd been using Maxthon for a while when Firefox came out of beta. I tried it, but even with extensions, it just did not provide the flexibility and features available in Maxthon. I've found you can decide how much control over your browsing you want to exert - from a useful default configuration to completely user defined style and download settings. The Maxthon community is active and growing. As more traditional plug-ins for IE become available for Maxthon the functionality will increase further. Despite some comments from those who talk out of their asses, Maxthon improves on IEs security situation considerably, including selective active-x filtering. When you consider Maxthon's own 'extension' library (plug-ins) and growing support resources, the Maxthon browser is an excellent choice for those who live to tweak. Yes, it uses the IE engine, so it's not
billy - waiting for Opera to get its shit back together
You are asking the right questions. It seems like the machine will definitely be able to make combs and plastic dishes - and maybe not much more until some major breakthroughs in other areas. First, the machines they are modeling their project around are made by the Stratasys company. The university website does not state which model they use as a basis for their estimates, but none of the existing models are metal capable. So at least for the present, anything but plastic parts must come from elsewhere. The size limit is about 12 inches, so any large structures would have to be composites. The materials are heat sensitive. No hair dryers or friction parts are possible. The raw plastic is also a special compound - the machine process is patented, I'm not sure about the plastic. One of the key assumptions in this plan is the use of conducting and semiconducting polymers to "print" electronic circuits. These assemblies tend to be weak and slow, limiting uses. It is impossible to guess what modifications would have to be made to his model machine to utilize this technology. I suspect he is low balling the price and the simplicity of the mechanical design. It's a nice dream, but has got a long way to go. It probably WOULD make pretty good action figures though.
billy - hanging on to his Costco card for now
Just a thought....do large corporations pay lawyers big bucks to write EULAs that are so vague yet all inclusive that no matter what the company's future wishes might be they will be able to claim in court it's covered in the EULA?
billy - yes I know...but I actually DO read the damn things every time
How much of my post did you actually read?
"1) reading a government press release and accepting it at its word"
Did you miss this?
"It remains the obligation of a society's citizens to be aware of what the law says, it's intent, and the conditions and results of it's enforcement"
I was making the point that a society must sometimes enact laws that may be interpreted as an abridgement of freedom of speech in order to allow a response to certain kinds of speech. The classic ' yell fire in a crowded theater' example is hard to refute. More questionable from an intellectual if not emotional level would be a ban on hate speech of a racial and religious nature. A society should be able to amend its own freedoms when it deems necessary in order to protect more basic rights. Members of a society aspiring towards freedom must recognize the responsibility they each possess to remain aware of the governments behavior and adherence to the social covenant. Even as part of the government's job is to "keep an eye on the rascals of the world" it is part of the citizen's job to keep an eye on the rascals in the government. In this particular case especially concerning the definition of a legitimate "debate about euthanasia". Did you miss that part as well? What source would be a better place to find information about a new law than the government that authored and is going to enforce that law? We have to know what they're saying before we can accuse them of lying through their teeth. And though it sounds naive, I believe sometimes their hearts really ARE in the right place.
"2) getting your information about Philip Nitschke from a "pro-life" website that labels him "Dr Death"?
Whoops, you did it again. If you follow the link for 'Dr. Death' you will find an interview of Philip Nitschke by George Negus on his talk show on ABC. His own words seem a pretty fair representation of his point of view. Calling him 'Dr. Death' makes an association with American's own Jack Kevorkian, another public figure vilified by his government and the object of wildly varying opinions by the public. Their similarity, invoked by calling him the "Australian Dr. Death", allows for a quick basis for understanding. I doubt he's unused to the label. Check with google if you disagree. And reread the 'monster' line - he could just as easily be the 'rascal.' There was a link to a "pro-life website" but it was to an article describing the 'death kit' which made few claims about Nitschke. I'm not responsible if you chose to read the description of the kit and ignored the interview. I actually read a few other things as well, but felt I was pushing the
As for concentrating on the real causes of suicide, I agree completely. Of course the government's point is that some aspects of the whole 'death kit' phenomena take advantage of people at their weakest and most confused and instead of assisting an informed decision could precipitate that decision. Who knows? For myself - my first reaction to anyone volunteering to help me kill myself is gonna be pretty sceptical.
billy - reality? think of all the time you'd saved if you REALLY read my post
I thought I might throw a little reality into the mix and see if it has any effect. It probably won't, it's more fun to make up shit to argue about than to actually try to understand the situation. This law was specifically designed to complement existing laws. They address a specific situation - the promotion and sale of 'suicide kits'. Evidently there is an Aussie 'Dr. Death' behind the manufacturing and distribution of kits containing "death bags that are placed over a victim's head and tightened like a noose to induce suffocation". The new version is much more civilized, featuring "drip bags that release chemicals into a canister to produce carbon monoxide, which is then inhaled through a tube through nostril prongs, causing death within an hour."
According to the government the law is not intended to be used to encroach on free speech or any legitimate "debate about euthanasia". What constitutes a legitimate debate is probably going to become a topic decided by the courts.
Let's not forget that one of the reasons we have governments is to keep an eye on the rascals of the world - as well as the outright monsters. Any law that limits speech is certainly flirting with that proverbial 'slippery slope' but sometimes it's necessary for society to take a stand on uncertain ground. It remains the obligation of a society's citizens to be aware of what the law says, it's intent, and the conditions and results of it's enforcement. Now days finding out what's really happening isn't that hard. It's got to be worth a few minutes of research to actually have an informed opinion - people pay more attention and there's less change of looking like an idiotic, clueless, ass.
billy - google sets us free and helps us to not look like idiotic, clueless, asses
First, it was ApplyYourself, not Harvard that had the problem. Remember the other schools involved? And you're right, this is Harvard not Podunk State Community College. The 'best and the brighest', right? Just getting caught should be good enough to get rejected. These students certainly knew that this activity was not part of the legitimate application process. Would you hire any of those people for a trusted position in your business? Would you trust their judgement, much less their ethics? Saying that it was a natural human response is excusing any behavior deemed 'natural' - like violence? For those (unlike parent poster) who write it off by saying "I would have done it too" - you don't deserve to go to Harvard either.
billy - proud 5th year student at Podunk State Community College
Yes. I'm sure that along with Harvard; Stanford, Carnegie Mellon and Duke all blacklisted the crackers. As for MIT...they got extra credit.
billy - just kidding...probably
Just a note to the crowd thrashing the 'software patent' issue - neither of these patents cover software. One covers a hardware 'jukebox', the other covers an identity verification method. One reminds me of a cassette tape player and the other of asking for a credit card as a second ID. I doubt if either of these companies who patent ideas have ever tried to do anything with the ideas other than sue for patent infringement.
/. - it takes very little to start a 'religious' war. You don't even have to post on topic. I especially like all the folks on either side who point out how this makes their arguments. Too bad it's only par for the course.
The discussion does illustrate one characteristic of
billy - who has a patent pending for pissing ads in snow
I believe the problem runs much deeper. The fault lies in the ascendance of the belief that accounting should be the overriding system in the control and evaluation of businesses. When individuals far removed from the actual activity of the business make decisions, especially strategic decisions, they always use "the numbers" to inform those decisions. This results in those decisions being more about the accounting of the business than the business itself. Accountants don't create companies. Engineers, inventors, and dreamers create companies. The problem is that a successful company will almost always reach a point that requires a large capital influx to move to the next level. At this point the financial establishment creates points of influence and control in the company's management. Before long the people running the business have almost no relation to the business being done. They do not deal in real things - a product you can hold in your hand or a person you can look in the eye - but instead in symbols - numbers. You don't 'down size' a person, you 'down size' a number. The focus is on the numbers not the real products that motivated the public to give the company their money in the first place.
So now the upper management of the company has a different agenda. Their priorities place the welfare of the business, its employees, and its products below the welfare of their actual employers, the investors. The founder of the business may still be around, but now he is President, subordinate to the Board, the CEO, maybe even the CFO. None of these people are in the business of whatever the company actually does, they are in the business of making money. Specifically, using the business to make money for the investors. Money, especially the imaginary money of 'creative capitalization', is nothing if not portable and the ability to move money quickly results in a 'what have you done for me lately' mind set. Thus the investors are not interested in the long term health of the company, the lives of its employees, and its contribution to society. These issues are addressed only when it threatens the bottom line, otherwise, its better for the 'numbers' to buy time with the marketing department, cut costs by 'down sizing', or reduce product costs. Any employees not directly necessary to create revenue - r/d, customer service, positions with cheaper outsourced alternatives - become part of a number, the cost of doing business. In the world of accounting, people are not being laid off, research is not being abandoned, and jobs are not being removed from the economy. Costs are being 'down sized.' If the company fails, so what? If the industry fails, so what? It's not like management is really IN the IT(or whatever) business. They're in the money business. There's plenty of companies they can make money from - one way or another. That's why no one even questions that the CEO of a technology company is qualified to run the WB. Upper management knows THEY'RE going to be paid despite the empty pension fund, bankrupt accounts, and long line of creditors. They know because the people who pay them are also in the money business. And that's just the way it works. Don't believe it?...run the numbers.
billy - just cause it's my job doesn't make it right
Or you could become a customer and just pay for the information, ala ChoicePoint.
billy - who wishes he would be surprised to find out who the spyware guy's customers are, but probably wouldn't
A joke.....maybe not!
"Google uses its massive architecture to learn from data"
They're using the user input to improve their product, discover otherwise impossible to recognize connections, and increase value.
If User=Pigeon then Profit
billy - having strange urges concerning the statue in the courtyard
Hey, couldn't we all just try to be fair for one second please? Just because every trusted anti-spyware group around says iSearch is a scum of the Earth, lying, back stabber installer using, bold faced lying, web trail tracking, configuration raping, big fat dirty liar doesn't mean it's true - does it? I think we should let the folks at iSearch know that there's no chance we'll EVER forget this overwhelming industry wide attack on their good name. I suggest that every member of /. send them a brief message just to let them know that the IT community is watching! IMHO maybe something like:
Dear Accussed Scumspreaders,
I just wanted to jot a quick note to let you know your fellow members of the IT community are keeping a close eye on you in this time when seemingly every single hand in the business is raised against you. We can only marvel in bemused disbelief at your steadfast maintainance of innocence in the face of accusations leveled by some of the most trusted names in the anti-spyware field. Rest assured that you are not alone - we are standing close behind you - looking over your shoulder. We promise we won't forget - EVER. When the truth comes out - and it absolutely will - it is our fervent hope that you reap the just reward your actions have earned.
That's just a suggestion of course. I think every member should send something like it to them just so they know the IT community stands ready to take care of its own. What do you think - send it say - 4 or 5 times a second for 3 or 4 days? That oughta send the right message.
billy - who would never, ever, do anything like that...
WIMPS!
Real men don't need no stink'n OSs!
'1' and '0' were plenty good enuff for my pappy and they're plenty good enuff for me!
billy - when I feel real frisky I just wave magnets back and forth over the hard drive
I'd like to thank you for the respect you show for both me and yourself in the quality and open minded approach of your posts. I hope the thread has run long enough that such a statement flys under the troll radar. I want to start by saying a few things about my perspective on this forum. Jumping to conclusions seems to be as common here as bashing MS. I'm very new here (although not new to groups) and I was discouraged by the high noise to signal ratio. Combined with the short lifespan of active threads, it took a while to discover that the underlying current is deep as well as swift - especially since the mod system runs by the least common denominator model and seems to value /. 'cool' above all else. As yet only a glimpse, I begin to see presences wise and powerful lurking in the depths. Of course it might just be swamp gas.
Despite the conception my posts have unintentionally created, I don't have an agenda or even a resolved position concerning the copyright issue. It is one of a group of issues that I consider central to the continuing evolution of civilization in this critical period. We must learn to manage the new realities that come when technologies, enabled by mature information system design, break the established paradigm. It's a wonderful and terrifying time, with the potential for oppression and liberation, fear and understanding, destruction and creation, enlightenment and somnolent apathy. It's do or die time like never before and anyone who thinks it's not their problem just isn't paying attention. I'm worried we've got too much smart and not enough wise and that the ruthless cunning model for success has selected for decision makers incapable of understanding the interconnected vulnerabilities exposed when we start to mess with the underlying frameworks of things like biology, genetics, and the fundamental nature of reality. For instance, it would probably be a bad thing if we broke cause and effect. And sooner or later we're gonna have to deal with the kind of thinking that makes global warming a debatable issue to protect 'the bottom line'. If we don't get a clue, the 'bottom line' is gonna mean how far your ass is buried by a summer blizzard in Phoenix.
One of the most challenging characteristics of the problems we face is that of Complexity. I don't mean 'complexity' as in difficult to understand. I use it in the sense of composed of discrete but interconnected parts. More specifically, it is possible to have so much information that it ceases to make sense. It becomes very difficult to determine which characteristics and relationships are consequential and which are merely ramifications. Walking through Harlem at midnight is consequential, getting your ass shot off is merely a ramification. The best way to deal with this situation is not by bringing your own gun, locking up all the people in Harlem, or making sure your tetanus shots are up to date - the best solution is walking somewhere else. So what's my point? One way to approach solving a Complex problem is by understanding as many of its components as possible and how each component is affected by the whole. Sort of like viewing the problem from the component's point of view. Point of view = post. I'm here to learn.
When I question arguments presented in a post it may be for several reasons or combinations of reasons. I may want to understand it better. I may want to get a sense of how well developed the argument is by how the author responds. If he is able to defend his argument coherently from different perspectives and it doesn't make sense to me, maybe I just don't get it. That's the good stuff! I may want to see what other people think - it can result in dialogs like ours. If the author is good, answering his posts can help me to develop and perfect my own opinions, strengthen my ability to make my point, and even (gasp) change my mind. If I'm feeling particularly cocky, I might try to get him to bring out his own beliefs and take his argument to the next level. I live by the be
I want to reply to you because you have misunderstood some of my statements. I guess I just wasn't clear enough. Copyrights ARE legal fictions, in the same sense that property rights and laws against murder are legal fiction. The type of existence doesn't diminish the fact of existence. You can believe that a law is a mistake and should be repealed, but your belief isn't going to make your cell door close any slower. If you check my post you will see that I am referring to the contractual relationship that you voluntarily enter during a download when you click on the 'I Agree' button. The author of the software is saying "here is something I have made that may be useful to you, you can use it with my blessing if you agree to abide by the wishes I have made clear in the EULA." If you click that button it means you DO agree to abide by the EULA. You can always decide it's not worth the hassle and pass on the download, but once you click that button you have given your word to uphold your side of the deal. Please note that no amount of lies by big business affects the existence of that EULA or my obligation to keep my word. All the talk on grandiose scale is fine, but in the end all these arguments boil down to 'does this guy have the right to control that which he has created.' If you perform the actions of a thief, you are a thief. If some corporation has ripped people off for a thousand times more it just means you're a less successful thief. How can you justify ripping the author off based on the behavior of an unrelated third party?
As for the ad hominum, read it again. I was making a general comment about the possible consequences of making statements without establishing their validity. If you can't prove your assertions it calls into question the quality of your understanding of the topic. If your beliefs are not founded on understanding and evaluating the subject then they must originate elsewhere. How did you prove it to yourself if you can't prove it to me? Traditionally, people who spout bullshit at the top of their lungs have often been found to be advancing other agendas. When you say things that don't make sense, people are less likely to pay attention when you say things that do. If they start to suspect that the errors result less from a lack of ability than a lack of integrity, you're toast. I see no reason to doubt anyone's sincerity - I was just alluding to the fact that bad reasoning hurts your cause and your reputation - and online - your reputation is your power, your advocate, and your reward.
I'd have to say you really missed the boat on your last point. "The copyright exists no matter what the reason" was a part of my response to his claim that when big business calls copyright violators thieves it is a vicious smear campaign founded on a lie. My response was that if you take something that doesn't belong to you without permission then you are a thief. Your sincere belief that it SHOULD belong to you, or your disagreement with the law that says it doesn't, have the same validity as relying on a disbelief in the law of gravity to keep you from busting your ass when you fall. So that quote was never used in reference to his assertion of the "right to copy."
I have to admit that I am completely mystified by the attitude that when a statement is made like: "the right to copy things is a moral right, a right that exists above government. It is an inherent right that describes a nature of human existence that lives in us from the time we are born." the burden of truth lies with the sceptic. Excuse me? Man has the natural right to copy? Maybe it's just me, but I'd like to see some explanation and more justification than the fact that it was somehow possible to actually get it to appear in type. I'm curious, when exactly does this 'right to copy' kick in? At what point does 'my' idea become 'everyones' idea? Is it still mine when it exists only in my head? What about when my novel is halfway done? I think the 'right to copy' must in some way include the 'ri
Wow, I envy your certainty. I've come to find this whole question much more baffling. I used to take software and find ways to use it anyway I wanted. It's incredibly easy to find lots of resources on the net that will provide everything from serials to professional quality reverse engineering tutorials. One day I made myself take a hard look at what I was doing. The truth is that if you are aware of the author's wishes, if you understand that in return for the value you receive from using the program he is asking you to abide by those wishes, and that downloading and using the software is your agreement to the exchange, then violating those wishes is dishonorable. I got rid of my jacked, hacked, and cracked programs. Now I pay if I can't live without the code or it's just so elegant I can't help myself. Mostly I use freeware. You know what? In most cases it's really not as good as the commercial solution. How often have you seen the first few versions of an app as freeware and the perfected product gone commercial. Look I know I have just committed /. heresy, but romantic notions of 'freedom of information' and 'the right to copy, share, and distribute information is a right!" are not tautologies. You make many broad sweeping statements, but most of them are lacking in proof or pertinence.
You overstate your opponent's position by suggesting that they claim that there is "no incentive" to produce creative content without copyright rewards. How about less incentive? Can you deny that some very creative works were undertaken explictly to reap those rewards? Many creative processes now require a vast amount of resources - too many resources for individuals to provide. Groups that provide those resources usually do so with the expectation of a return on their investment. It might be nice if they did it with the intention of giving the knowledge away to benefit society, but that's just not the case. Shouting from the rooftops that it should be this way does not make it so. You make your arguments seem devious and weak by not acknowledging the reality that profits from copyrights DO create incentives. Moreover, often the people who possess the necessary personalities to amass the resources are motivated primarily by profit - that's why they have all the resources. Certainly a great deal of creative work is done for other reasons, maybe even the best creative work, but to ignore the motivating power of good old greed is ridiculous.
You also seem to believe that creative content springs spontaneously into being without underlying costs. You say that information does not have natural limits of supply. I say we've got all the creative content we're going to get from Albert Einstein, he reached the natural limit on his supply of time. The fact that the cost of creating must be borne up front, during the process, does not lessen the amount required. It's hard for a man to be creative when he has to spend half his time feeding his family and has to decide between materials for The Project and health care for his kids. On a more selfish note, if I can do something you can't by applying my time and effort, why should you receive the same benefits without sharing the costs? The copyright only gives me the right to set the value on the material, it's up to you to decide if it's worth the price of admission.
Posts gettin' a little long so.....How can someone who possesses 'artistic genius' require the use of someone else's material to express that genius? Isn't it more likely that those that " copyrights haven't helped a bit, hindered, or even destroyed". have more to blame on the quality of their work than their access to someone else's? What in the hell does saying bad things about the king have to do with modern copyright issues? Is it valid to compare the Renaissance, when copies were made at great expense by hand exclusively for the ruling class, and the case of Dave from Topeka, who has 2000 ripped songs on his hard drive and takes great pleasure in giving them to anyone in
You could give the hamsters monitors, It would be interesting to see if hearing the music affected their behavior. Wonder what genre would result? As long as it's not country. They probably wouldn't do too well in a mosh pit either. I definitely could see them guest starring on the next Yanni album.
I can just imagine it now...
Sensor modules are located in the appropriate places - cardiac, temperature, blood oxygen level - all connected by bluetooth to the hub of your Body Sensor Suite - your cell phone. The phone stores 2 hours worth of telemetry at the maximum collection rate. It runs the input data through gates, constantly checking for pre-loaded alert triggers. If it detects a problem it can react with a variety of responses, from warning you in a kindly caretaker voice (maybe recorded messages from your 3 daughters) to take it easy, activating a medpak release, automatically connecting with your doctors office, up to sending a mayday on the 911 channel with automatic integration to the nearest EMT unit. The EMTs and your doctor receive real time sensor feeds as well as a GPS upload from your phone. Your doctor can remote activate medpaks, adjust your pacemaker, or use your phones camera to check pupil dilation. The EMTs have your complete medical history as well as treatment instructions from your doctor before they reach the scene. Your phone handshakes with the infotags embedded in the EMT's drug deliver system - verifying doses and checking for allergies.
If you don't have any problems every two hours your phone links with your PC at home. Data is downloaded. Your complete records are available to your doctor (or his Virtual Physicians Assistant) via internet. He can monitor trends and modify the alert trips and actions. These new settings are uploaded to your phone during regular updates. Lifestyle information linking time, place, and physical condition are available for diagnostic evaluation. Your phone calls you and says "you are entering the first phase of an allergic reaction, what are you touching?" Sensors are available for environmental contaminants, radiation, air quality, even electromagnetic and sonic energy. Your phone won't let you drive drunk or fall asleep at the wheel. There's a hack available that masks cannabis detection. There's a lot of hacks available - recreational, performance enhancing, popular supplements. To refill your medpaks you just insert them into the AutoScript at your favorite store - yes - hacks are available. Of course if your phone indicates you have been deviating from your doctor prescribed regimen your co-pays go up. And there is that nasty rumor about the NSA...
And of course.....it runs linex.
"Why is it that those in favour of free information have such awful advocates at the moment?"
Possibly because you get what you pay for. If the quality level of Krowne's article is representative of the typical Wiki article then the kindest and most responsible action would be to pull the plug on the server. Either Krowne is purposely spouting BS of the most condescendingly transparent variety or he has no understanding of the construction of a rational argument. I won't mention his 'equations' and 'graphs' except to say that pulling numbers out of thin air is not generally recognized as a persuasive technique unless you are a politician. If this is the best defense of the attainability of quality in the Commons-Based Peer Production model...
Personally I don't want to read anything written by the lowest common denominator. All authors are not created equal. Can you say 'vanity press?' I knew you could! This is my favorite:
"McHenry, the Former Editor in Chief of the Encyclopedia Britannica, was quite critical of Wikipedia in this article. Perhaps this comes as no surprise to readers who are already detecting the potential for a slight conflict of interest here."
"My own project, PlanetMath"
oops.
Niche providers can only survive in large markets with eclectic communities. I don't know where you live but you are lucky if you have any independent bookstores or video rental places that don't rely on porn for most of their business. My point is that companies like BB play the game by the customer's rules when they first enter a market. They use their deep corporate pockets to price point the independents out of business. Then they're the only game in town and do what they will. And we let them.