Personally, I couldn't give a crap who the artist is, much less about having their signed photograph. To paraphrase a common saying, "It's the information, stupid." People want information, because they know information is power. Anything that gets in their way will be mown down. It's really that simple.
What can big media distribution companies do for money now that the internet has replaced their distribution model? Well, it's simple: they do the same thing spinning wheel operators did when the industrial revolution made it easy to get quality thread. They retrain, and get a new job --- one that's relevant and useful to the newer, more evolved society. They could become specialist, old-school, niche-market distributors for a select few, much like you can still go to a craft store and find hand-woven fabrics etc., but in that case, they'll need to be happy with their niche status, and their much reduced income. Not least, because people in hobbyist niche markets expect their suppliers to be decent people doing it for the love of tradition, rather than hate.
I said that the turnout would have to be very low to abolish the system. The turnout has not become very low yet, and so the system is still there. What's your point?
If you fear freedom so much, why don't you move to Iran?
This country is for people who love freedom.
No, the USA used to be a place of freedom, back when persecuted Quakers etc. were fleeing there from Europe. Over the years, it's become less and less interested in freedom, and more and more one of the places that no longer understand freedom.
Similarly, Linux used to be a place of FREEdom, back when a few geeks used it as an alternative to Windows. Now, as it becomes more and more mainstream, less people get the FREE software part, and more think it's just another alternative way to run software.
Essentially, it's a tragedy of the commons... whenever things become mainstream, they lose the qualities that made them non-mainstream. The only solution is to then step outside of that stream (i.e., out of normal USA society) by moving elsewhere, or getting "off the grid" somehow.
The way to stop it is to PARTICIPATE in the political system
Hardly. The reason people put up with the current system is that they believe most people are in favour of it, and they, being reasonable people, have no right to go against the majority. When most people reject the system, giving voter turnout of around 20%, then any government elected by it will clearly be illegitimate, and therefore citizens will feel justified in sitting down to discuss a new system.
You can rarely replace a system by participating in the system you want to replace. It's like trying to upgrade windows to unix by running windows programs.
I'm not so sure. I did consider this before posting, but it seems to me that the only thing that really matters is a strong sense of righteous anger against injustice, to the point where you can no longer stand by and do nothing. When you have that, it's likely that others have it too. But when people get together and say privately at night that they're going to do something, the reality in the light of day can often be very different. Take the "pledge" sites where you can promise to not cooperate with some government scheme if 1000 other people do the same, for instance... I often find myself changing my mind (not out of guts, but often out of rethinking what numbers might be required, or whether its the best course of action, or whatever. If I had been so enraged about something that I'd literally taken to the streets over it, I'd be much less likely to change my mind, much more likely to inspire others with my passion, and much more likely to be expressing something felt deeply my many others.
I'm not sure how much use it is for people to talk in secret. They probably do that now, with family etc. As we can see in Iran right now, it takes people to have the guts and will to take to the streets and make their feelings known before things change.
I'm not even sure that concept exists in the minds of IT service users. Certainly not in the minds of those service users who are afraid of technology, don't understand it, and blame the admins when they press delete and something gets deleted.
pro-active problem solving
In some areas of IT, "pro-active" equates to breaking things that aren't broken.
Why should I care that my browser scored 100/100 on the Acid 3 test?
In general? Because it means more advanced features, that are fully standards compliant and targetable as a development platform.
In this case? Because it shows that Opera are working on getting some things right in their browser, even if they haven't managed to stop the thing displaying cached pages from sites that aren't even running any more.
Bullshit. You're trying to say that half the webservers on the net (which run Unix; twice as many as run Windows, fyi), and could be jumping-off points for all sorts of attacks, or nodes in distributed attacks, are of no interest to virus writers? Not a chance.
It is interesting, how one group of people (i.e., a big media corporation) selling CDs is considered to be a legitimate business worthy of legal protection, yet a group of poorer people with less opportunities, doing what they can to make a living** is considered a criminal act, worthy of fines/imprisonment. We can argue about copyright licenses etc. all day, but in reality, when people are poor, they have a right to etch out some sort of living. I guess it comes down to that old argument of whether two people should be punished equally, when one steals for fun, and one steals to feed his family.
** I'm sure the $750k "damages" figure is MUCH higher than what they actually gained.
Slashdot Mirror
Personally, I couldn't give a crap who the artist is, much less about having their signed photograph. To paraphrase a common saying, "It's the information, stupid." People want information, because they know information is power. Anything that gets in their way will be mown down. It's really that simple.
What can big media distribution companies do for money now that the internet has replaced their distribution model? Well, it's simple: they do the same thing spinning wheel operators did when the industrial revolution made it easy to get quality thread. They retrain, and get a new job --- one that's relevant and useful to the newer, more evolved society. They could become specialist, old-school, niche-market distributors for a select few, much like you can still go to a craft store and find hand-woven fabrics etc., but in that case, they'll need to be happy with their niche status, and their much reduced income. Not least, because people in hobbyist niche markets expect their suppliers to be decent people doing it for the love of tradition, rather than hate.
I'm guessing you've never seen Space 1999.
That runs linux from a file in a windows partition, and is therefore not "outside" the original operating system, but is in fact subservient to it.
I said that the turnout would have to be very low to abolish the system. The turnout has not become very low yet, and so the system is still there. What's your point?
No, the USA used to be a place of freedom, back when persecuted Quakers etc. were fleeing there from Europe. Over the years, it's become less and less interested in freedom, and more and more one of the places that no longer understand freedom.
Similarly, Linux used to be a place of FREEdom, back when a few geeks used it as an alternative to Windows. Now, as it becomes more and more mainstream, less people get the FREE software part, and more think it's just another alternative way to run software.
Essentially, it's a tragedy of the commons... whenever things become mainstream, they lose the qualities that made them non-mainstream. The only solution is to then step outside of that stream (i.e., out of normal USA society) by moving elsewhere, or getting "off the grid" somehow.
Hardly. The reason people put up with the current system is that they believe most people are in favour of it, and they, being reasonable people, have no right to go against the majority. When most people reject the system, giving voter turnout of around 20%, then any government elected by it will clearly be illegitimate, and therefore citizens will feel justified in sitting down to discuss a new system.
You can rarely replace a system by participating in the system you want to replace. It's like trying to upgrade windows to unix by running windows programs.
I'm not so sure. I did consider this before posting, but it seems to me that the only thing that really matters is a strong sense of righteous anger against injustice, to the point where you can no longer stand by and do nothing. When you have that, it's likely that others have it too. But when people get together and say privately at night that they're going to do something, the reality in the light of day can often be very different. Take the "pledge" sites where you can promise to not cooperate with some government scheme if 1000 other people do the same, for instance... I often find myself changing my mind (not out of guts, but often out of rethinking what numbers might be required, or whether its the best course of action, or whatever. If I had been so enraged about something that I'd literally taken to the streets over it, I'd be much less likely to change my mind, much more likely to inspire others with my passion, and much more likely to be expressing something felt deeply my many others.
You talk like Amaya isn't the ultimate web development environment ;)
Agreed. What's really needed is a version of Flash (or some third-party tool) that outputs javascripted SVG + HTML5 video.
I'm not sure how much use it is for people to talk in secret. They probably do that now, with family etc. As we can see in Iran right now, it takes people to have the guts and will to take to the streets and make their feelings known before things change.
I'm not even sure that concept exists in the minds of IT service users. Certainly not in the minds of those service users who are afraid of technology, don't understand it, and blame the admins when they press delete and something gets deleted.
In some areas of IT, "pro-active" equates to breaking things that aren't broken.
I'm guessing their definition is something like "Well, no one's buying the whole bing thing, so put up whatever porn will get people there."
In general? Because it means more advanced features, that are fully standards compliant and targetable as a development platform.
In this case? Because it shows that Opera are working on getting some things right in their browser, even if they haven't managed to stop the thing displaying cached pages from sites that aren't even running any more.
The kitchen sink server will be released soon, as part of their client software, Cup 1.0.
There, fixed that for you.
Bullshit. You're trying to say that half the webservers on the net (which run Unix; twice as many as run Windows, fyi), and could be jumping-off points for all sorts of attacks, or nodes in distributed attacks, are of no interest to virus writers? Not a chance.
I think you'll find that any office supply company can provide scissors which beat Sun's CPUs.
Well here's a tip: those viruses only run on one platform.
Well, yeah... that, or boycott them and use one of the saner ISPs.
Indeed. Now it will be called the shadiest place on Earth.
No, no, no. Their service lets you download music. DSL lets you download (or upload) anything that can be represented digitally.
It is interesting, how one group of people (i.e., a big media corporation) selling CDs is considered to be a legitimate business worthy of legal protection, yet a group of poorer people with less opportunities, doing what they can to make a living** is considered a criminal act, worthy of fines/imprisonment. We can argue about copyright licenses etc. all day, but in reality, when people are poor, they have a right to etch out some sort of living. I guess it comes down to that old argument of whether two people should be punished equally, when one steals for fun, and one steals to feed his family.
** I'm sure the $750k "damages" figure is MUCH higher than what they actually gained.
Thankfully us citizens can still respond in a single, unified manner to each of these events:
"AGAIN? Fuck."
Shouldn't that be, "OK republican idiots, start defending this shill"?
Dime? You, Sir, have a talent for understatement ;)