Manage the nitrogen cycle - More information. I feel like on a basic, local level this can already be accomplished easily. On an advanced/global level though... Manage it? In the next 100 years maybe we can gather some data points so we can UNDERSTAND it. Until then, any attempts to "manage" it would be foolish
Prevent nuclear terror - This is a political bombshell that I won't go near, but from what I see the strategy is (a) deterrence, and (b) threaten anybody with a nuclear project.
Secure cyberspace - Ha!
Enhance virtual reality - In a practical way or just enough so that my brain can be tricked into thinking that an incredibly hot women is going down on me?
Advance personalized learning - Not sure what this is...
Engineer the tools for scientific discovery - Another overly general one, but I'd like to think "discovery" is a misspelling of "exploration". Lately I've been thinking that our satellites are similar to the Triremes of Greece times (which are bound to stay close to our shores), the Apollo/Space Shuttle is like Viking ships (which couldn't (or weren't) be used to setup a new settlement), and then this would be the equivalent of the Nina, Pinta, and Santa Maria (except they will be called Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, and Lincoln).
I am going to be fair... this is really a list of things that can be completed in the next 25 years. These are not "100 year" goals. They are simply to generalized, for the most part. A real engineer knows that goals should be Specific, Measurable, and ARTistic. These goals don't qualify.
I have personally never heard Lessig speak. I fear that you are saying he would not be as powerful during a mighty Congressional pissing contest than "Wheeler-Dealer" type politicians.
However, I have sat in meetings where quorum and rules of order were imposed and can say that I agree with you that there are big-mouths who would like to ensure that their ideas are heard (repeatedly heard) and they are not the intellectuals. On the other hand, the best ideas, the worst ideas, and the ideas that challenge conventional wisdom tend to come from intellectuals... and that is what Lessig brings to the table.
And for no other reason... I think Lessig would be LESS CORRUPTIBLE than other politicians who accept bribes and campaign money from special interest groups. As an intellectual, I would see him as above that influence.
And whether it is pragmatic and realistic or not... I would remind you that the keystone of the Republic as outlined by Plato/Socrates ~2400 years ago is the notion of an intellectual philosopher king to enforce a fair ruling of justice for the maximum benefit of the population.
Is this possible? For the future of America, I hope so.
Congressmen get to vote on issues that affect the country. They pass budgets. They make laws to regulate business. If Lessig had a voice in Congress, that would be One vote plus the number of other Congressmen his logic and arguments can influence.
And hell... a vote FOR LESSIG is a vote for FREE CULTURE. He wrote the book on the subject.:)
Anybody who would vote against Lessig clearly is more concerned with stifling American Culture, then freeing it. Culture is music, movies, art, and literature. These are things that shouldn't be stifled by greedy special interest groups who are only looking out for themselves. I think Lessig would do well to represent the copyright of authors, the best interest of the population to enjoy culture, and slam down greedy special interest groups to where they belong.
What I object to is the "you should..." bits which indicate that the authors are suggesting courses of action. I'd rather just have the lawyers unwind the legalese and make it human readable and let me make the decisions as to what I should and should not do. This makes it feel like the authors have an agenda that they are pushing.
The authors do have an agenda, which is to promote freedom. The authors are also lawyers and the reason they are saying "you should" read it is because it does unwind the legalese jargon in the F/OSS licenses and explains why you would want to use such a license.
As far as framing it differently... the Software Freedom Law Center team includes a number of prominent individuals who have made strong arguments for Free Software in the past. Included in the board of directors is Lawrence Lessig and Eben Moglen. Maybe you've heard of them, maybe you haven't... but tens of thousands of people are knowledgeable about some of the work of these two men. Maybe you'd trust the word of one commenter that these are two noble, respectable men and my assurances that any concise documentation that they would publish is worth checking out.
And I guess you have a right to be skeptical because there are tons of "articles" on/. that are just links to technorati or arstechnica or cnet... but this isn't one of them. This is one with authors who more interested in Free Software for Freedom's sake then the sake of steering traffic to their site to get ad revenue. Ya dig?
The authors of this primer are lawyers. Sure, they have biased ties to the FSF, but there isn't a group of men on the planet better qualified to put together a concise explanation of the values, virtues, and gotchas of working with free and open source software.
I'd cancel Facebook and move to an Open solution with a Mission Statement that included statements about never advertising (I support Wikipedia for the same reason that they don't generate revenue from adverts). I also want to be able to (a) Show a certain amount of content to public browsers, (b) Show a certain amount of content to registered users of the service, (c) Show a certain amount of content to "friends", and finally (d) Show a certain amount of content on a user-by-user basis. Of course, I would want to be able to get easy control over what information is shared where.
But yeah... the best way to FIGHT something that threatens personal information is to COMPETE with it. Don't think with a "this must be stopped" mindset. Think with a "this can be done better" mindset.
Furthermore, if Facebook had the ability to control posted information in the way I suggest above, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Would we?
Imagine the profits if Microsoft were to sell off all its huge money losers, retain only enough employees to maintain Windows and Office, and pay out all the profits as dividends.
Microsoft announces 30,000 layoffs, stock quadruples!
Yup... that sounds like a likely headline. I wonder how many of those layoffs would take enough of the core source code with them to do damage.
In all due respect, they could probably have gotten rid of their Internet business years ago and wound up better off. On the other hand, the video game business is doing well.
Lessig is (was?) a featured writer in Wired Magazine. He is a brilliant supporter of free culture, and has a lot of foresight towards the future in a very-RMS way.
Anybody unfamiliar with his ideas would do good to read more
I am going to do a little creative quoting to illustrate my point, then I am going to educate you on a couple of tenants of Communism (read: not a bad thing, just a form of economy different from Capitalism), then I am going to give you a (c) choice.
(I said) The government isn't setting artificial constraints. The government is allowing capitalism to reign. Business set the prices and make the rules.
(You said) The real question though is what do we the people want? If there is something better to be had, and the government is preventing us from having it, then there is something that needs to change.
The government isn't holding a gun to musical artists heads and censoring the ones that haven't been signed my record labels. I still say that capitalism is going to eventually win the day, and not because the record industry is going to change its ways. The joys of capitalism will herald huge victories to bands who can be successful in using P2P, word of mouth, and live performances to pay their bills. These bands won't need to sign record labels to be successful. They don't need a corrupt government committee to approve their content either. The real tragedy... the industry is dying and it is stronger than ever. The real tragedy... the musicians making the most money are going to be the ones giving away their songs FOR FREE (through merchandising, performance fees, guest appearances, and donations from adoring fans).
As far as Communism... it is a touchy subject whenever you want to talk about any broad-based economies where the government is given control of the commerce. To this day, I am still not sure if Communism is derived from Community or Commerce... but the fact remains that it is very, very anti-Capitalistic. And that being said, it is what you are suggesting by "having one official government-implemented "pipe" would be most beneficial to the consumer". To be fair, I don't think this is a bad idea except for three aspects. Aspect (a) under your plan, I pay a music tax. Aspect (b) under your plan, the government gets to serve a role as a censor. Aspect (c) under your plan, there seems to be *NO* copyright and thus I can quit my day job and start signing *YOUR* songs in my spare time and start collecting my Government Music Wage. No, I don't like that. Concentrating the power of a market into the control of the government would be a Very Bad Idea (TM).
And that leads me to (c), but lets review (a) and (b). =
ONE subscription for ALL content (your method)
ONE fee for EVERY copy (RIAA method)
ZERO fee for EVERY copy, and artist control over band economics (my method)
Believe it or not, there are good sources which provide you with all the music you'd ever want for free. If you take a liking to a particular band, it is your CHOICE to support them. Maybe you want their tee-shirt. Maybe you want to see them live. By all means... if you find musicians who are any good and you want to share their music with your friends... DO IT! Don't hide it. This isn't Justin Timberland where the RIAA might sneak out from behind the corner and grab you by the nuts. There are plenty of artists who are currently embracing the "free music" paradigm. So please... embrace this as a fan. It is capitalism at its finest. Competition based on quality and merit.
I'm gonna try to reason why the parents argument is flawed.
If I read it correctly, v(*_*)vvvv is frustrated by the lack of innovation and is encouraging legislation to "fix" what he sees as a problem. He has to "pay" to make a digital copy which is a task which has a variable cost of zero.
First problem... Business 101. Cost of Goods Sold = Fixed Cost + Variable Cost. Saying that it is free to make digital copies of songs ignores the efforts to create (a) the song and (b) the network that copies the song. With a variable cost of $0, the unit cost approaches $0... but it will never get there.
Second problem... Ethics 101. A songwriter needs to earn money to live. As much as you'd like to believe that they do it for the love of doing it, they would do it better if they didn't have to wait tables or drive buses to pay the bills. Thus, by making N copies of a songwriters work, you are denying the songwriter 1/N chance of quitting their day job and concentrating on their art.
Third problem... Politics 101. The government isn't setting artificial constraints. The government is allowing capitalism to reign. Business set the prices and make the rules. You can buy what they are selling, or not. As far as content creators, the government should stick to legislating on important things like social welfare, education, national defense, and public infrastructure. If you really want to listen to the songs they are singing, turn on C-SPAN to get a taste for what government created content sounds like.
Fourth problem... Economics 101. The parent seems to have a problem with capitalism. He should come out and say "Communism is the innovation that this country needs to solve these problems." And it would. For business, the fixed costs would be paid for by the state and spread equally throughout the citizens. For ethics, the state would then pay each of the songwriters (and each of the listeners, it turns out). For politics, well, the problem is that capitalism isn't working because it is inherently greedy.
But having said all that... Communism vs Capitalism is an "All-or-Nothing" compromise and Americans have been educated that Communism is bad and doomed to fail because it supposedly leads to a lack of innovation. Also, the argument is that people are lazy and they won't "pull their weight" and that is supposed to lead to the eventual downfall of nations.
Thus, it boils down to a proposition of (a) do you trust your Capitalist leaders to innovate, or (b) do you trust your fellow countrymen to pull their weight.
would you believe me if I told you that I am an English teacher.
I hope you aren't teaching 3rd graders how to spell. But if you are, make sure they learn the difference between 'then' and 'than'. It took me 23 years to get that one straight.
My estimate of $20 per month was not based on any knowledge or research and was, in fact, pulled straight from my ass. I hope this news doesn't disappoint you. I was just throwing a number out there that would make it too expensive for me to consider it.
5 minutes Searching and Downloading songs on an tiny cell phone screen
DRM'd music that will only play in controlled environments
Pros:
Downloading incremental songs is free (if your time is valueless)
Sounds like the equivalent of buying a subscription to use an iPod and then download from iTunes for free. Only, the iPod is known for a crisp User-Interface, above average sound quality, and pretty good battery life. Whereas cell phones ARE NOT!
It is funny, though, that the only actual "Pro" can be written off by the same "time is valueless" that people would write-off Linux for ten years ago. Funny, and promising that maybe ten years from now things will be different.
In the future, look for them to have docking stations with full sized keyboards and monitors, as the cell phone and the notebook merge.
Why not a Bluetooth application that simply lets you access your PDA/MP3/GSM/CAM filesystem remotely?
As far as merging completely, the laptop still has functionality and a desirable interface that will prevent it from going away anytime soon. Namely, screen size, processing power, and comfort while sitting in bed or at a coffee shop ensure the laptop's future success. Instead of "merge", the words you were looking for is "become more closely integrated".
So, apparently my original post dealt with something called the "Protect America Act", which is different than the ongoing immunity for the telecoms due to illegal wiretapping. But it turns out that the "Protect America Act" is related (in the sense that it deals with the power of government to spy on people without court authority) and relevant (because they are currently talking about it in Congress to get it extended).
The Protect America Act Modernizes The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) To Give Intelligence Professionals The Tools They Urgently Need To Gather Information About Our Enemies, While Protecting The Civil Liberties Of Americans. The Act, passed with bipartisan support in the House and the Senate, restores FISA to its original focus on protecting the rights of Americans, while not acting as an obstacle to conducting foreign intelligence surveillance on foreign targets located overseas.
This Act of Congress made it legal to wiretap lines OUTSIDE of the US.
The Act Permits Our Intelligence Professionals To More Effectively Collect Foreign Intelligence Information On Targets In Foreign Lands Without First Receiving Court Approval.
Snake oil? Software insurance? Can you actually sell this? Oh... sign me up.
Sell software insurance
???
Don't validate claims because users had insecure protection
Oh, I'm going to go file a patent for this....
To reply seriously...
The perception of value and risk for a consumer product is at a much lower point on the scale relative to a hardened military installation.
To say that users don't store information that has high value to them to be kept private is silly. I was *very seriously* suggesting a non-networked computer to give security. This would eliminate the opportunity for a *software failure* to cause the data to become public. It is understood that a family-member could connect the machine to the internet or either accidently or maliciously copy the data to a machine on the network, but without the act of a human being... the data would be 100% secure.
Is there anything to prevent lawsuits against the government officials who authorized illegal wiretapping in the first place? It doesn't even make sense to hold the telecoms responsible for following orders from Uncle Sam. What does make sense is to hold Uncle Sam accountable for his actions to order the illegal taps (instead of following judicial procedure and getting authority/permission).
Bush even talked about this in the State of the Union last month. He said, "We have to extend the Bill that let's us track terrorists on February 1." As far as I know, that day came and went. But let's get a list of Congressmen who voted for the original illegal wiretapping bill that caused this whole mess. Target those "ENEMIES OF FREEDOM", and make sure people know who they are to prevent them from keeping their seats in Congress during the next election.
(you know, I never understood why Congress doesn't have terms limits. Poor Ted Kennedy has been there so long that he slept through most of the last State of the Union address).
The modern military has REALLY LONG lead times. They are developing technology to counter technology that is in development by other countries. And besides, schedules to run the armed forces tend to extend out as far as they can.
The timeline of (a) 3-5 years of Requirements and Specification, (b) 2 years for Design, (c) 2 years of Implementation, (d) 2 years of Testing, and (e) 20-25 years of Maintenance is not unheard of.
In fact, during the seemingly huge 9 to 11 year development lifecycle there are prototypes and technologies that NEED TO BE INVENTED. That's a bigger risk. Putting projects on the back-burner because they are technologically infeasible is not unheard of. Keep in mind, the military is pushing the envelope in terms of technology (I mean, each year the military has a Trillion dollar budget to employee millions of Americans in the industry), so it is possible that the technology to BEGIN developing the cutting edge IDEAS won't exist for another ten years. Thus, 28 years is not risky.
stealing the identities and controlling the computers of consumers at 'a rate never before seen on the Internet'.
5%, 25%, 50%? 90%? Are there estimates for the "rate never before seen" that users are having their personal information stolen?
And what personal information is it? To extend the old saying "If it is on the internet, it is public". Well, *all* information you store the computer that you access the internet suffers from this lack of security.
A truly secure user experience would be managing personal data on an unconnected system (or even a private network of systems) and then transferring data from there that needs to make it to the Internet via the Sneakernet. This is how the Department of Defense guarantees the security of Secure Facilities, and it is (unfortunately) the only way to guarantee the security of your own personal information.
But for systems that are on the 'Net, using an OS that doesn't hide/obfuscate fundamental security models is a plus. For example, it is easier for me to shutdown outgoing ports/services on Linux than on Windows.
As far as browser exploits... one can only hope that developers close off the attack vectors faster than they open new ones.
Convenience to curl up with a disposal, replaceable relic of intellectual stimulation, you say?
You might want to consider trying something...
# 8x11" two-page format for book capable printing [Download]
Find a good quality printer the fits 200+ sheets of paper and will reliably NOT insert the occasional blank sheet of paper during printing (I have used laser printers at my office to do this in the past, and it has worked like a charm).
(a) Print (I think you need to select Landscape format).
(b) Flip the pages over and put them back into the printed so that you'll print to the reverse side (paying carefully attention to put it in the correct orientation) and print again (so that even-numbered pages print on the back of odd numbered pages, and vice-versa).
(c) You can then cut the pages down the middle (I have a cheapo paper slicer for this, which makes it easy to line up 10-12 pages and then make a clean cut down the middle - though an office supply store might offer to do this for you).
(d) Sort the pages into two-copies of the story. Bring each stack down to the local office supply store to bind two-copies of the novel. Staples or Kinkos generally provides a service where they will "tape bind" a manuscript. You can add a cardboard front and back cover (have them cut it in half for you, so it fits) and it should cost between $3 and $4 per copy after all is said and done.
[and any feedback on these instructions is encouraged... because I would love for this procedure to be straightforward enough that people can easily print my book].
I fully agree with your points about DRM, but I respectfully disagree with your criticism of the price of e-Book readers and your requests for 'free' books for a number of different reasons.
You criticize the $400 pricetag without understanding how many companies failed before e-Ink became a reality. Please understand that it is an industry changing technology and the pioneering companies who developed it need to make money for the Venture Capitalists who invested in their ideas during the formative stages of the technology. Also, the components used in e-Ink are arguably in a stage of production that they don't enjoy the benefits of scale of mass-production that tends to lower prices.
On the other side of the coin, you don't seem to grasp the enormous effort that goes into writing a story or packaging a student textbook. The statement "Books yearn to be free" is a bit troubling. I suppose you might be reflecting purely on the "DRM-free" implication, but when you use the word 'free' it implies 'free to re-distribute'. From a very practical standpoint, I agree with you. I favor distributing my own novel for "free" (though what is currently posted is what I will call a "polished draft copy"). However, what I DON'T agree with is the economical aspects of "freeness". It realistically takes anywhere from 1e3 to 1e4 hours to write and edit a manuscript worth reading... so when readers suggest that they should get a 'free' copy of the book, I respectfully disagree.
That being said, I hope that someday a compromise of a business model is realized to transform the "pay, then enjoy" model into an "enjoy, then pay" system. And I think you would probably agree with me (based on "I can certainly afford a current-generation e-book reader"), but I just wanted to make a point:
Literature, software, music and movies are exist digitally and can theoretically be copied for $0, but the artists behind these formats still desire a business model so that they can potentially support themselves, and the nature of each of the different formats demands a different business model. For software, it is through support. For music, through performances. For movies, through rentals, disc DVD sales, and theatrical performances. For books, if you would accept the "enjoy, then pay" model it would make me (as an author) very happy.
Ads are generally treated as invitations to deal unless they require something special on top of just showing up (i.e. being the first in line).
What about truth in advertising? As somebody who takes price into consideration when I am shopping, if I wade through Internet sites in search of a deal for something, I am going to buy it for the lowest advertised from a vendor who meets some level of professionalism and credibility.
The best way to gain credibility is to provide good service. The quickest way to lose credibility is to get caught in a lie.
In this particular instance, I am siding with Amazon, though. It seems like there was an obvious error in the advertised price... and they should get some credit as a vendor for catching it. But I thoroughly disagree with the "advertisement is not an offer" argument. You bet your ass it is, because if it isn't, then it is a lie and customers don't shop at businesses who they know to be liars.
You, on the other hand, based on cursory information, understand every little detail. So typically slashdot: I took a course in university on the subject, so my opinion is better than the professors.
When one man spends 30 years studying electromagnetics (~60,000 hours), he learns great insights on how it works. When 120,000 individuals each spend 30 minutes reading his article and indulge in a thoughtful discussion, they eclipse his life work and could very well prove to have more insightful than the expert.
To play the role of Devil's Advocate... this is (possibly) a result of Linus's Law.
given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow
P.S. I know that my own argument here takes advantage of enough simplifying assumptions to make it easy to dismiss. My point is not that the/. community is making any intelligent observations in this discussion. My point is simply to dismiss the dismissive nature of the parent poster, and to suggest that there could be several interesting points that would help the expert to further his own pursuit of knowledge. That is, while the parent poster is insightful for pointing out the credentials of the expert, he is foolish to discredit the potential insights of the mob.
Slashdot Mirror
(4) Plug-in memory expansions so you can learn useful skills, equations, etc. without sitting through boring lectures and tests.
(9) Perpetual youth.
(10) Ballpoint pen that doesn't run out of ink just when you need it most.
(11) Formulas that make you grow bigger or smaller, just like Alice in Wonderland.
I think you would be interested in this....
Free Audiobooks:
Alice in Wonderland by Lewis Carroll
read by Cory Doctorow
Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom by Cory Doctorow
read by Mark Forman, as part of his weekly podcast
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
I am going to be fair... this is really a list of things that can be completed in the next 25 years. These are not "100 year" goals. They are simply to generalized, for the most part. A real engineer knows that goals should be Specific, Measurable, and ARTistic. These goals don't qualify.
Unintentional sexism on my part. My apologies.
I have personally never heard Lessig speak. I fear that you are saying he would not be as powerful during a mighty Congressional pissing contest than "Wheeler-Dealer" type politicians.
However, I have sat in meetings where quorum and rules of order were imposed and can say that I agree with you that there are big-mouths who would like to ensure that their ideas are heard (repeatedly heard) and they are not the intellectuals. On the other hand, the best ideas, the worst ideas, and the ideas that challenge conventional wisdom tend to come from intellectuals... and that is what Lessig brings to the table.
And for no other reason... I think Lessig would be LESS CORRUPTIBLE than other politicians who accept bribes and campaign money from special interest groups. As an intellectual, I would see him as above that influence.
And whether it is pragmatic and realistic or not... I would remind you that the keystone of the Republic as outlined by Plato/Socrates ~2400 years ago is the notion of an intellectual philosopher king to enforce a fair ruling of justice for the maximum benefit of the population.
Is this possible? For the future of America, I hope so.
Congressmen get to vote on issues that affect the country. They pass budgets. They make laws to regulate business. If Lessig had a voice in Congress, that would be One vote plus the number of other Congressmen his logic and arguments can influence.
And hell... a vote FOR LESSIG is a vote for FREE CULTURE. He wrote the book on the subject. :)
Anybody who would vote against Lessig clearly is more concerned with stifling American Culture, then freeing it. Culture is music, movies, art, and literature. These are things that shouldn't be stifled by greedy special interest groups who are only looking out for themselves. I think Lessig would do well to represent the copyright of authors, the best interest of the population to enjoy culture, and slam down greedy special interest groups to where they belong.
The authors do have an agenda, which is to promote freedom. The authors are also lawyers and the reason they are saying "you should" read it is because it does unwind the legalese jargon in the F/OSS licenses and explains why you would want to use such a license.
As far as framing it differently... the Software Freedom Law Center team includes a number of prominent individuals who have made strong arguments for Free Software in the past. Included in the board of directors is Lawrence Lessig and Eben Moglen. Maybe you've heard of them, maybe you haven't... but tens of thousands of people are knowledgeable about some of the work of these two men. Maybe you'd trust the word of one commenter that these are two noble, respectable men and my assurances that any concise documentation that they would publish is worth checking out.
And I guess you have a right to be skeptical because there are tons of "articles" on /. that are just links to technorati or arstechnica or cnet... but this isn't one of them. This is one with authors who more interested in Free Software for Freedom's sake then the sake of steering traffic to their site to get ad revenue. Ya dig?
The authors of this primer are lawyers. Sure, they have biased ties to the FSF, but there isn't a group of men on the planet better qualified to put together a concise explanation of the values, virtues, and gotchas of working with free and open source software.
I'd cancel Facebook and move to an Open solution with a Mission Statement that included statements about never advertising (I support Wikipedia for the same reason that they don't generate revenue from adverts). I also want to be able to (a) Show a certain amount of content to public browsers, (b) Show a certain amount of content to registered users of the service, (c) Show a certain amount of content to "friends", and finally (d) Show a certain amount of content on a user-by-user basis. Of course, I would want to be able to get easy control over what information is shared where.
But yeah... the best way to FIGHT something that threatens personal information is to COMPETE with it. Don't think with a "this must be stopped" mindset. Think with a "this can be done better" mindset.
Furthermore, if Facebook had the ability to control posted information in the way I suggest above, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Would we?
Microsoft announces 30,000 layoffs, stock quadruples!
Yup... that sounds like a likely headline. I wonder how many of those layoffs would take enough of the core source code with them to do damage.
In all due respect, they could probably have gotten rid of their Internet business years ago and wound up better off. On the other hand, the video game business is doing well.
Lessig is (was?) a featured writer in Wired Magazine. He is a brilliant supporter of free culture, and has a lot of foresight towards the future in a very-RMS way.
Anybody unfamiliar with his ideas would do good to read more
I am going to do a little creative quoting to illustrate my point, then I am going to educate you on a couple of tenants of Communism (read: not a bad thing, just a form of economy different from Capitalism), then I am going to give you a (c) choice.
(I said) The government isn't setting artificial constraints. The government is allowing capitalism to reign. Business set the prices and make the rules. (You said) The real question though is what do we the people want? If there is something better to be had, and the government is preventing us from having it, then there is something that needs to change.The government isn't holding a gun to musical artists heads and censoring the ones that haven't been signed my record labels. I still say that capitalism is going to eventually win the day, and not because the record industry is going to change its ways. The joys of capitalism will herald huge victories to bands who can be successful in using P2P, word of mouth, and live performances to pay their bills. These bands won't need to sign record labels to be successful. They don't need a corrupt government committee to approve their content either. The real tragedy... the industry is dying and it is stronger than ever. The real tragedy... the musicians making the most money are going to be the ones giving away their songs FOR FREE (through merchandising, performance fees, guest appearances, and donations from adoring fans).
As far as Communism... it is a touchy subject whenever you want to talk about any broad-based economies where the government is given control of the commerce. To this day, I am still not sure if Communism is derived from Community or Commerce... but the fact remains that it is very, very anti-Capitalistic. And that being said, it is what you are suggesting by "having one official government-implemented "pipe" would be most beneficial to the consumer". To be fair, I don't think this is a bad idea except for three aspects. Aspect (a) under your plan, I pay a music tax. Aspect (b) under your plan, the government gets to serve a role as a censor. Aspect (c) under your plan, there seems to be *NO* copyright and thus I can quit my day job and start signing *YOUR* songs in my spare time and start collecting my Government Music Wage. No, I don't like that. Concentrating the power of a market into the control of the government would be a Very Bad Idea (TM).
And that leads me to (c), but lets review (a) and (b). =
Believe it or not, there are good sources which provide you with all the music you'd ever want for free. If you take a liking to a particular band, it is your CHOICE to support them. Maybe you want their tee-shirt. Maybe you want to see them live. By all means... if you find musicians who are any good and you want to share their music with your friends... DO IT! Don't hide it. This isn't Justin Timberland where the RIAA might sneak out from behind the corner and grab you by the nuts. There are plenty of artists who are currently embracing the "free music" paradigm. So please... embrace this as a fan. It is capitalism at its finest. Competition based on quality and merit.
QED
I'm gonna try to reason why the parents argument is flawed.
If I read it correctly, v(*_*)vvvv is frustrated by the lack of innovation and is encouraging legislation to "fix" what he sees as a problem. He has to "pay" to make a digital copy which is a task which has a variable cost of zero.
First problem... Business 101. Cost of Goods Sold = Fixed Cost + Variable Cost. Saying that it is free to make digital copies of songs ignores the efforts to create (a) the song and (b) the network that copies the song. With a variable cost of $0, the unit cost approaches $0... but it will never get there.
Second problem... Ethics 101. A songwriter needs to earn money to live. As much as you'd like to believe that they do it for the love of doing it, they would do it better if they didn't have to wait tables or drive buses to pay the bills. Thus, by making N copies of a songwriters work, you are denying the songwriter 1/N chance of quitting their day job and concentrating on their art.
Third problem... Politics 101. The government isn't setting artificial constraints. The government is allowing capitalism to reign. Business set the prices and make the rules. You can buy what they are selling, or not. As far as content creators, the government should stick to legislating on important things like social welfare, education, national defense, and public infrastructure. If you really want to listen to the songs they are singing, turn on C-SPAN to get a taste for what government created content sounds like.
Fourth problem... Economics 101. The parent seems to have a problem with capitalism. He should come out and say "Communism is the innovation that this country needs to solve these problems." And it would. For business, the fixed costs would be paid for by the state and spread equally throughout the citizens. For ethics, the state would then pay each of the songwriters (and each of the listeners, it turns out). For politics, well, the problem is that capitalism isn't working because it is inherently greedy.
But having said all that... Communism vs Capitalism is an "All-or-Nothing" compromise and Americans have been educated that Communism is bad and doomed to fail because it supposedly leads to a lack of innovation. Also, the argument is that people are lazy and they won't "pull their weight" and that is supposed to lead to the eventual downfall of nations.
Thus, it boils down to a proposition of (a) do you trust your Capitalist leaders to innovate, or (b) do you trust your fellow countrymen to pull their weight.
I hope you aren't teaching 3rd graders how to spell. But if you are, make sure they learn the difference between 'then' and 'than'. It took me 23 years to get that one straight.
soupforare,
My estimate of $20 per month was not based on any knowledge or research and was, in fact, pulled straight from my ass. I hope this news doesn't disappoint you. I was just throwing a number out there that would make it too expensive for me to consider it.
My apologizes.
So what you are saying...
Cons:
Pros:
Sounds like the equivalent of buying a subscription to use an iPod and then download from iTunes for free. Only, the iPod is known for a crisp User-Interface, above average sound quality, and pretty good battery life. Whereas cell phones ARE NOT!
It is funny, though, that the only actual "Pro" can be written off by the same "time is valueless" that people would write-off Linux for ten years ago. Funny, and promising that maybe ten years from now things will be different.
Why not a Bluetooth application that simply lets you access your PDA/MP3/GSM/CAM filesystem remotely?
As far as merging completely, the laptop still has functionality and a desirable interface that will prevent it from going away anytime soon. Namely, screen size, processing power, and comfort while sitting in bed or at a coffee shop ensure the laptop's future success. Instead of "merge", the words you were looking for is "become more closely integrated".
So, apparently my original post dealt with something called the "Protect America Act", which is different than the ongoing immunity for the telecoms due to illegal wiretapping. But it turns out that the "Protect America Act" is related (in the sense that it deals with the power of government to spy on people without court authority) and relevant (because they are currently talking about it in Congress to get it extended).
Fact Sheet: The Protect America Act of 2007
The Protect America Act Modernizes The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) To Give Intelligence Professionals The Tools They Urgently Need To Gather Information About Our Enemies, While Protecting The Civil Liberties Of Americans. The Act, passed with bipartisan support in the House and the Senate, restores FISA to its original focus on protecting the rights of Americans, while not acting as an obstacle to conducting foreign intelligence surveillance on foreign targets located overseas.Dateline: August 7, 2007
This Act of Congress made it legal to wiretap lines OUTSIDE of the US.
The Act Permits Our Intelligence Professionals To More Effectively Collect Foreign Intelligence Information On Targets In Foreign Lands Without First Receiving Court Approval.Original vote of Aug 4, 2007
A recent vote extended the Protect America Act (originally intended to expire on Feb 1, 2008) to be good until the end of this current week.
Snake oil? Software insurance? Can you actually sell this? Oh... sign me up.
Oh, I'm going to go file a patent for this....
To reply seriously...
The perception of value and risk for a consumer product is at a much lower point on the scale relative to a hardened military installation.To say that users don't store information that has high value to them to be kept private is silly. I was *very seriously* suggesting a non-networked computer to give security. This would eliminate the opportunity for a *software failure* to cause the data to become public. It is understood that a family-member could connect the machine to the internet or either accidently or maliciously copy the data to a machine on the network, but without the act of a human being... the data would be 100% secure.
Is there anything to prevent lawsuits against the government officials who authorized illegal wiretapping in the first place? It doesn't even make sense to hold the telecoms responsible for following orders from Uncle Sam. What does make sense is to hold Uncle Sam accountable for his actions to order the illegal taps (instead of following judicial procedure and getting authority/permission).
Bush even talked about this in the State of the Union last month. He said, "We have to extend the Bill that let's us track terrorists on February 1." As far as I know, that day came and went. But let's get a list of Congressmen who voted for the original illegal wiretapping bill that caused this whole mess. Target those "ENEMIES OF FREEDOM", and make sure people know who they are to prevent them from keeping their seats in Congress during the next election.
(you know, I never understood why Congress doesn't have terms limits. Poor Ted Kennedy has been there so long that he slept through most of the last State of the Union address).
The modern military has REALLY LONG lead times. They are developing technology to counter technology that is in development by other countries. And besides, schedules to run the armed forces tend to extend out as far as they can.
The timeline of (a) 3-5 years of Requirements and Specification, (b) 2 years for Design, (c) 2 years of Implementation, (d) 2 years of Testing, and (e) 20-25 years of Maintenance is not unheard of.
In fact, during the seemingly huge 9 to 11 year development lifecycle there are prototypes and technologies that NEED TO BE INVENTED. That's a bigger risk. Putting projects on the back-burner because they are technologically infeasible is not unheard of. Keep in mind, the military is pushing the envelope in terms of technology (I mean, each year the military has a Trillion dollar budget to employee millions of Americans in the industry), so it is possible that the technology to BEGIN developing the cutting edge IDEAS won't exist for another ten years. Thus, 28 years is not risky.
5%, 25%, 50%? 90%? Are there estimates for the "rate never before seen" that users are having their personal information stolen?
And what personal information is it? To extend the old saying "If it is on the internet, it is public". Well, *all* information you store the computer that you access the internet suffers from this lack of security.
A truly secure user experience would be managing personal data on an unconnected system (or even a private network of systems) and then transferring data from there that needs to make it to the Internet via the Sneakernet. This is how the Department of Defense guarantees the security of Secure Facilities, and it is (unfortunately) the only way to guarantee the security of your own personal information.
But for systems that are on the 'Net, using an OS that doesn't hide/obfuscate fundamental security models is a plus. For example, it is easier for me to shutdown outgoing ports/services on Linux than on Windows.
As far as browser exploits... one can only hope that developers close off the attack vectors faster than they open new ones.
Convenience to curl up with a disposal, replaceable relic of intellectual stimulation, you say?
You might want to consider trying something...# 8x11" two-page format for book capable printing [Download]
Find a good quality printer the fits 200+ sheets of paper and will reliably NOT insert the occasional blank sheet of paper during printing (I have used laser printers at my office to do this in the past, and it has worked like a charm).
(a) Print (I think you need to select Landscape format).
(b) Flip the pages over and put them back into the printed so that you'll print to the reverse side (paying carefully attention to put it in the correct orientation) and print again (so that even-numbered pages print on the back of odd numbered pages, and vice-versa).
(c) You can then cut the pages down the middle (I have a cheapo paper slicer for this, which makes it easy to line up 10-12 pages and then make a clean cut down the middle - though an office supply store might offer to do this for you).
(d) Sort the pages into two-copies of the story. Bring each stack down to the local office supply store to bind two-copies of the novel. Staples or Kinkos generally provides a service where they will "tape bind" a manuscript. You can add a cardboard front and back cover (have them cut it in half for you, so it fits) and it should cost between $3 and $4 per copy after all is said and done.
[and any feedback on these instructions is encouraged... because I would love for this procedure to be straightforward enough that people can easily print my book].
I fully agree with your points about DRM, but I respectfully disagree with your criticism of the price of e-Book readers and your requests for 'free' books for a number of different reasons.
You criticize the $400 pricetag without understanding how many companies failed before e-Ink became a reality. Please understand that it is an industry changing technology and the pioneering companies who developed it need to make money for the Venture Capitalists who invested in their ideas during the formative stages of the technology. Also, the components used in e-Ink are arguably in a stage of production that they don't enjoy the benefits of scale of mass-production that tends to lower prices.
On the other side of the coin, you don't seem to grasp the enormous effort that goes into writing a story or packaging a student textbook. The statement "Books yearn to be free" is a bit troubling. I suppose you might be reflecting purely on the "DRM-free" implication, but when you use the word 'free' it implies 'free to re-distribute'. From a very practical standpoint, I agree with you. I favor distributing my own novel for "free" (though what is currently posted is what I will call a "polished draft copy"). However, what I DON'T agree with is the economical aspects of "freeness". It realistically takes anywhere from 1e3 to 1e4 hours to write and edit a manuscript worth reading... so when readers suggest that they should get a 'free' copy of the book, I respectfully disagree.
That being said, I hope that someday a compromise of a business model is realized to transform the "pay, then enjoy" model into an "enjoy, then pay" system. And I think you would probably agree with me (based on "I can certainly afford a current-generation e-book reader"), but I just wanted to make a point:
Literature, software, music and movies are exist digitally and can theoretically be copied for $0, but the artists behind these formats still desire a business model so that they can potentially support themselves, and the nature of each of the different formats demands a different business model. For software, it is through support. For music, through performances. For movies, through rentals, disc DVD sales, and theatrical performances. For books, if you would accept the "enjoy, then pay" model it would make me (as an author) very happy.
What about truth in advertising? As somebody who takes price into consideration when I am shopping, if I wade through Internet sites in search of a deal for something, I am going to buy it for the lowest advertised from a vendor who meets some level of professionalism and credibility.
The best way to gain credibility is to provide good service. The quickest way to lose credibility is to get caught in a lie.
In this particular instance, I am siding with Amazon, though. It seems like there was an obvious error in the advertised price... and they should get some credit as a vendor for catching it. But I thoroughly disagree with the "advertisement is not an offer" argument. You bet your ass it is, because if it isn't, then it is a lie and customers don't shop at businesses who they know to be liars.
When one man spends 30 years studying electromagnetics (~60,000 hours), he learns great insights on how it works. When 120,000 individuals each spend 30 minutes reading his article and indulge in a thoughtful discussion, they eclipse his life work and could very well prove to have more insightful than the expert.
To play the role of Devil's Advocate... this is (possibly) a result of Linus's Law.
given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallowP.S. I know that my own argument here takes advantage of enough simplifying assumptions to make it easy to dismiss. My point is not that the /. community is making any intelligent observations in this discussion. My point is simply to dismiss the dismissive nature of the parent poster, and to suggest that there could be several interesting points that would help the expert to further his own pursuit of knowledge. That is, while the parent poster is insightful for pointing out the credentials of the expert, he is foolish to discredit the potential insights of the mob.