On September 12 (the second day the poll was going) BeOS was leading with a whopping 45%. I guess as soon as an "alternative" OS was taking the lead, someone decided it was bot-time.
This is the future of democracy: online ballot stuffing bots!
To grossly overgeneralize, the main advantage of a Mac is it's GUI, while the main advantage of GNU/Linux is it's extensibility and stability. Mac's have been about making computers easy to use by making pretty widgets for people to click on, rather than making them remember dozens of commands.
It almost seems as if Mac's *started* with the GUI, then built the OS around it. GNU/Linux started with the kernel, then the shell, and *now* is adding a consistent GUI on top of it. Entirely different approaches.
However, don't forget that "Redmond" is trying to be a desktop OS, server OS, and underwear OS at the same time. It competes with GNU/Linux on the server level, and competes with Macs on the desktop level (not to even mention the game system or IA level). "Competition for Redmond" is more complicated than it seems. ---
The Anti-Mac interface reminds me a lot of the current BeOS interface, though with obvious differences. BeOS isn't there yet, but it's on its way. Point by point:
Central role of language: Right now BeOS has a POSIX-compliant underbelly, which gives you the flexibility of a command-line interface alongside the normal GUI interface. The two are intermeshed practically seamlessly. While it doesn't have the fancy "interpreter" capabilities the Anti-Mac ideal proposes (like a spell-checker, which isn't such a bad idea) it IS a working CLI, so you have the strength of language alongside the ease of a GUI.
A richer internal representation of objects: All files in the BeOS have what's called "attributes", which are little bits of meta data stuck onto each file. This means that while your MP3 collection has the usual name, size, modification date, etc., it can also have attributes of title, band, album, bitrate, length, etc. These attributes can be on any file, and are easy to impliment, so you can make a special type of text file complete with author, chapter, and page attributes, all of which can be utilized in queries and so forth.
A more expressive interface: I'm still not entirely sure what this point means, but the BeOS has several key visual features, like distinguishable icons for folders (so your/mail/ and/people/ folders both look like folders, but you can tell which is which without even looking at the name). Little things like this make files easier to distinguish.
Expert users: Again, the GUI is there (and is much, much nicer to use than any other GUI I've used) but the power of a POSIX shell is underneath it. You can get a lot done the simple way, or if you're willing to learn a little scripting or some tricks (BeOS Tip Server is full of them) you can get a lot more done a lot faster.
Shared control: The BeOS isn't multiuser quite yet (should be with the addition og BONE in the near future) it's designed to be that way, in a typical UNIX style. Permissions, separate user directories, et. al.
The BeOS isn't nearly the Anti-Mac interface, but it's the closest I've seen since 1996. Hopefully the key principles will be kept in future development. ---
I like the WaSP, I really do. I like what they're trying for, I like they're an organized body encouraging browser companies to get it together. But they aren't writers, and they aren't politicians, and if they are, they put those traits aside for this article.
One beautiful example of a heavy-headed hypocricy is this:
If you fail now, the web will essentially belong to a single company.
This comes AFTER the WaSP (because no single author would take credit for this piece) suggests that Netscape withdraws its browser, had never started working on Mozilla, and should have never tried in the first place. They attribute the lack of support for Netscape products to its lack of standards compliance, NOT the fact that Microsoft used unlawful monopoly tactics to bully it out of the market.
Here's the meat of the article, and DoubleClick's defense:
"While DoubleClick does indeed record, [it] does not know that room 5 is equivalent to girls home alone." This explanation comes down to saying that while DoubleClick collects the information, it does not have the technical skill to understand it an assertion that Smith and others nd hard to believe.
The problem is, while they don't have the knowledge to link room 5 with girl-girl fetish porn, some *other* company would have no problem doing it. As we all remember, DoublClick has no problem "allying" itself with other companies; at least until their stock price plummets.
I just have to question whether these "web bugs" are really the work of DoubleClick, or just some crafty porn site administrator trying to get paid for posting ads, but keeping them at 1x1 pixels so nobody has to be bothered by them.
Eventually Linkguard is planning to use discrete software programs called agents to watch links and tell the webmasters of any affected sites when they are updated or changed.
By "agents" they mean "bots", I suppose.
Now, if it takes 40 terrabytes (roughly 41,943,040 megabytes, I believe) to document all the links on the web, how much more space will be needed to keep contact info on all those links? Plus, how efficient will these agents be? I'm not so hot on the idea of bots constantly poking around my lil' Network, checking that all my links are okay.
And will these bots follow the robots.txt rules? I know plenty of sites which revoke all robots, so the "agents" would be useless anyway... Nice idea, but sounds a bit invasive.
Plus this line below:
If the destination page disappears, search engines that can use these signatures would try to find the relevant signature and relocate the page.
Oh, so now you're relying on search engines to get the links right... hm...
I'll stick to manually checking them myself, thankyouverymuch.
It's entirely plausable that you can replace all mentions of the word "MacOS" with the word "BeOS" and get a similar argument, same defenses, but with less of a 'world domination' bent to it.
Plus BeOS is POSIX compliant so the 'professionals' who do like command line (code me an OS with your mouse, I dare you) can still use it, in addition to a stable UI that won't go belly-up when you try doing more than one thing at the same time.
And BeOS already runs on both PPC and Intel architechture. Right now. Not in 2001, right now.
C'mon, optimisim is okay, but dogmatic optimisim is a bit over the top.
A computer is a really, really dumb, but useful, robot. The term 'computer' originally meant humans who would add up column A to column B, then put the result in column C. Then people made machines that could do this in a fraction of the time, make fewer mistakes, and complained less.
My computer is just a tool for getting stuff done, and programming is just telling the computer what to do. I generally keep programming in two categories: useful applications (like defining a list of words for weekly vocab quizzes) and fun stuff (like a random-pattern generator).
All in all, I think an important focus of programmers is to make programs that make life EASIER, not harder. A computer shouldn't be tough to use. People should just learn some basics of programming, and be able to tell comptuers how to get boring stuff done, so the humans can do fun stuff.
I don't like Microsoft, or at least, their overly aggressive business practices. I believe that spliting the company is a better alternative than opening "parts" (yes, only sections "used by independent software companies to design their software applications to run on Windows") of the Windows source code.
I said it so you don't have to.
The thing is, having a monoply isn't illegal. Abusing a monopoly is, which Microsoft has blatantly done. The fact that people just accept the ILUVYOU virus is proof. Here's how splitting it in half will help:
- On a Windows box, using any software that isn't made by Microsoft is a hinderance. It runs slower (see Netscape vs. IE), isn't as "integrated" (drag MS Word text into Eudora? Not likely.), and doesn't come "built in" (thanks, Compaq! Could you tell me what web sites to see too?).
- Splitting the company in half will force them to no longer tie software in with their OS. Opening parts of the source gives people more of a chance, but I highly doubt we'll see a true competitor to Office on Win systems anytime soon, as long as it's all one company.
- If the company is split up, only one of them will be allowed to say they "promote innovation for the benefit of consumers" and the other one gets to ridicule them for feeding us bullshit.
Where's President Taft when you need him... ------------
Also possible would be the infusion of "neutraceuticals" -- chemicals that would trick a soldier's brain into thinking his stomach is full or that his muscles aren't really tired.
Just like Neo thought he was in reality, but he really was in a big plastic egg filled with goo with a wire sticking out of his head.
And why stop here? If we can trick our muscles into thinking they aren't tired, why not trick your heart into always beating, even if you have high cholesterol? There goes Viagra...
And think of what these patches can do for people with low self-confidence! You can just wear a ConfidencePatch, and always feel like everyone digs you.
Good to see the military will have perfected mindfucking by 2025.
Unless AOL/TW has the ability to shut down Slashdot, their power is only marginal.
The fact is, the Internet was not one company's scheme to make money. It was built for communication, and evolved only because hundreds of people put their time and effort into it. No one company, name, or brand has ever controlled all the content on the Internet, save for the burgeoning years.
So what if AOL can influence millions of people who use AOL to read their content? Everyone still has a choice, and until AOL can take that choice away, like how Microsoft took away the choice for desktop operating systems on new PC's, their power is feeble.
A little harsh, but I'm still unsure, even after reading the FAQ.
Many people have already made some (good) posts about the chance that people will just put up warez other illegal items. But what about the good? What sorts of documents would Freenet be better at handling than the WWW?
In essence, what content will be on Freenet that I can't get on the web? More precice information? Art sites? Less banner ads?
Good decision on the ruling, it will make things easier on us poor web-builders. But one question on the article...
''They are an open site and are a member of the free Internet community,'' Tickets.com attorney Daniel Harris said of Ticketmaster. ''They have to live by the rules of that community as it has grown up.'
Okay, if Ticketmaster.com, the web version of a larger corporate business, is an "open site", then what is a closed site? Intranet? And what's this "free internet community"? Everytime the Internet community tries to get something for free (ie. mp3) there's a big hullabaloo and somebody gets sued. Twice.
And who says Tickemaster.com is a member of *any* community? They're a business, they want to make money, not talk with people. Also I've never read any "rules" about hyperlinking, and doubt any exist.
A good court ruling, a really, really dopey quote at the end. Thankfully he didn't pipe this stuff in court, else they could have lost.
The seven-page "assignment agreement" signed by cphack co-author Eddy Jansson of Sweden gives Mattel "all rights" to the program's source code and binaries and an explanatory essay he wrote. Co-author Matthew Skala of Canada signed a similar agreement giving up his rights for one dollar.
Yep, that's right. One dollar. I wonder if it was American or Canadian? If it was Canadian, Mattel cheated him out of a couple cents...
I just wonder, if this code had been released under an open source or free software licence, could Mattel have been unable to pressure them to sell out like this?
If you can think of a better reason for humans existing, I would love to hear it. This symposium is discussing my most heartfelt belief: that human beings exist not to evolve into the next "higher" species, but to build it.
Everything we do seeks to augment humans, improving their communication abilities (which is our greatest asset and ability, language and communication) and essentially make us better, through machines, genetics, and drugs. This, ladies and gents, is what we've always been doing since we developed fire, and it is a Very Good Thing.
The main discussion seems to be the fear that we will create these robots that will destroy and eliminate us, which isn't the case. It's rather like we are building the latest and greatest computer and, in the process, turning those old Commodore 64's and Apple ]['s obsolete.
So sit back and enjoy this. We're finally beginning to recognize our purpose in existence. Anyone who's afraid of this, well, talk to me and I'll push the theory of Spherical Logic deeper into you.
My father bought a cell phone recently for his trip to LA. My father isn't a Luddite, but he's not technologically crazy; he prefers writing on yellow legal pads to Word (but can you blame him?) and his laptop still runs Win 3.1. So when he bought a cell phone, he wanted it as simple as possible.
And the damn thing still has Internet access.
Expect to have trouble going for "simple" when you buy a cell phone. They're getting to be like computers these days: if you buy them from an outlet or company, they tend to be loaded with stuff you don't want.
But if you can just grab a soldering iron, you can fix it up before you can say "Netpliance".
A company that makes popular software to block children from pornographic Internet sites filed an unusual lawsuit late Wednesday against two computer experts who developed a method for kids to deduce their parents' password and access those Web sites.
Anyone else notice the disinformation in this? The censorware doesn't just block children, it blocks everyone. They're making it sound like the people who cracked the encryption are promoting children seeing porn instead of promoting the anti-censorship movement. Way to keep neutral, Yahoo.
But then see this:
Microsystems also asked the judge to order the Swedish Internet company where the bypass utility is published to turn over records identifying everyone who visited the Web site or downloaded the program.
Um, why? The only reason I can possibly think of, which is pretty paranoid, is that Microsystems plans on using this as data, to say "hey, look how many people can now see porn whenever they want to, instead of letting us decide what is decent for them!" If you want to get really paranoid, you can say Microsystems wants to track who downloaded it and say "sorry, you've gotta get rid of that program", but I'm not sure how far you can trace IP addresses...
And the common "their encryption sucks, it's their fault" argument is trash. If someone breaks into your house because they could smash down your door, is it your fault that you didn't have steel bars? It's a question of whether or not reverse engineering like this is legal, not a "you suck, get better" situation.
"Also, the week is not all science - Intel provided a web center in the hotel with lots of nice computers equipped with Quake 3, so we could have big multiplayer deathmatches over the LAN."
See? The government organizations were right! Playing Quake and other violent video games does make you become violent, neurotic, and make you want to blow up your...
Oh wait, these kids won what award? How prestegious was it? Intel says they'll be the nations leaders and innovators?
The judge held that the statute is "unduly restrictive and burdensome" and places a burden on businesses that outweighs its benefits to consumers.
Benefits? Consumers? It's SPAM! How can you consider people who get spam to be "consumers"? But wait, let's look at the rest.
The law bans spam that has misleading information in the e-mail's subject line, disguises the path it took across the Internet or contains an invalid reply address.
So THIS is restrictive? It should be someone's "right" to send you unwanted commercial email that has misleading headings, is spoofed, and you can't reply to? What business would resort to these tactics unless they were pawning off worthless crap?
Apparently the guy who had this suit called against him. Here's another quote:
He did not deny that his client had sent the 17 pieces of unsolicited e-mail the state specifically documented, but he resisted characterizing them as spam.
"That's just a derogatory term that's on the other side of the table," he said. "Direct-marketing people don't like to hear the paper mail called `junk mail.' "
But it IS junkmail, and "direct marketing" is just a good name from the other side of the table. The article says that the spam was some "special offer for only $35.95" sent to almost a million people in Washington.
This ruling was just plain bad. Spam is not helpful, it's not beneficial to anyone but the sender, and it's costly to everyone else. If Washington, who has the toughest anti-spam laws, can't convinct this guy, what good are the laws at all?
how did bread and vaccines threaten to destroy humanity?
I read this on a Salon article some time ago (I believe) about how past inventions compared to the recent craze of "we're all doomed" predictions, about how the Internet is isolating us and will destroy society, which is false.
The invention of bread by the Egyptians meant that people could sustain their hunger and were no longer drawn by starvation into groups to hunt. This threatened to break apart an important part of the Egyptian society.
Vaccines were similar, because people no longer had to group to stave off disease. They could cure it on their own.
These inventions, at their time, were considered threats to humanity and society because it broke up a delicate framework, something I believe we're incapable of doing. We can build, yes, but break? Not so easy.
On a more philosophical note, when those who are in their adolescence find themselves looking at a generation which has had their genes tampered, there will be prejudice. Lots of it. It can't be avoided.
But what about those who got vaccines at birth? Those who never had to worry about smallpox, polio, etc.? Every generation we go through is healthier than the last, constantly improving. Genetic research will be an issue, obviously, but it's not that unbelivable or radical. Just another step in the same direction. ------------
First, the guy is wrong, simply because he's talking about technology more than 2 years in advance. Here's why:
Where a calculator on the ENIAC is equipped with 18,000 vacuum tubes and weighs 30 tones, computers in the future by the year 2000 may have only 1,000 vacuum tubes and weigh only 1.5 tones
This was published in an issue of Popular Mechanics, in March of 1949.
While it seems entirely plausable that in 30 years we may have advanced robots, nanotechnologically built organisms, even a subset of human/cyborgs, it's going to take 30 years of human conciousness to do this. Just like with the invention of the atomic bomb, vaccines, and bread, all of which threatened to destroy society and humanity at their time.
If humans know how to do anything, it's how to (1) fuck up and (2) cover their asses.
I'm actually a firm supporter of these nanotechnologically built cyborganisms, simply because I need better feet. ------------
First, for your personal use, you can make analog copies of music. For instance, you can make analog cassette tape recordings of music from another analog cassette, or from a CD or from the radio, or basically from any source. Essentially, all copying onto analog media is generally allowed.
Ask them if you can copy tapes 10 years ago and they'll chew your ear off. They're only allowing this because analog recording decreases quality.
As a result, this also means that copying music onto a computer hard drive is not permitted.
This is an EXACT QUOTE. They're saying that you cannot copy music onto your hard-drive, ever, for any reason. This, ladies and gents, is bullshit. If I OWN the music, I should be able to put it onto my hard drive as a means of backing up, right? What if the CD gets broken? Or a million other reasons?
Artists and songwriters don't collect royalties, which affects their ability to make a living; record companies don't recoup their investments, and that makes it more difficult for them to invest in new artists and new music.
Wait, didn't the recording industry make more money this year than before? Isn't MP3 helping more artists because it allows for increased exposure?
This document tries to say "you're hurting the artists" when all it really says is "we want more of your money". ------------
Slashdot Mirror
I can see it now...
"Look! Kuro5hin is back up! Get it! Get it!"
Whack! Whack! Whack!
This could get ugly.
---
On September 12 (the second day the poll was going) BeOS was leading with a whopping 45%. I guess as soon as an "alternative" OS was taking the lead, someone decided it was bot-time.
This is the future of democracy: online ballot stuffing bots!
---
To grossly overgeneralize, the main advantage of a Mac is it's GUI, while the main advantage of GNU/Linux is it's extensibility and stability. Mac's have been about making computers easy to use by making pretty widgets for people to click on, rather than making them remember dozens of commands. It almost seems as if Mac's *started* with the GUI, then built the OS around it. GNU/Linux started with the kernel, then the shell, and *now* is adding a consistent GUI on top of it. Entirely different approaches. However, don't forget that "Redmond" is trying to be a desktop OS, server OS, and underwear OS at the same time. It competes with GNU/Linux on the server level, and competes with Macs on the desktop level (not to even mention the game system or IA level). "Competition for Redmond" is more complicated than it seems.
---
The Anti-Mac interface reminds me a lot of the current BeOS interface, though with obvious differences. BeOS isn't there yet, but it's on its way. Point by point:
Central role of language: Right now BeOS has a POSIX-compliant underbelly, which gives you the flexibility of a command-line interface alongside the normal GUI interface. The two are intermeshed practically seamlessly. While it doesn't have the fancy "interpreter" capabilities the Anti-Mac ideal proposes (like a spell-checker, which isn't such a bad idea) it IS a working CLI, so you have the strength of language alongside the ease of a GUI.
A richer internal representation of objects: All files in the BeOS have what's called "attributes", which are little bits of meta data stuck onto each file. This means that while your MP3 collection has the usual name, size, modification date, etc., it can also have attributes of title, band, album, bitrate, length, etc. These attributes can be on any file, and are easy to impliment, so you can make a special type of text file complete with author, chapter, and page attributes, all of which can be utilized in queries and so forth.
A more expressive interface: I'm still not entirely sure what this point means, but the BeOS has several key visual features, like distinguishable icons for folders (so your /mail/ and /people/ folders both look like folders, but you can tell which is which without even looking at the name). Little things like this make files easier to distinguish.
Expert users: Again, the GUI is there (and is much, much nicer to use than any other GUI I've used) but the power of a POSIX shell is underneath it. You can get a lot done the simple way, or if you're willing to learn a little scripting or some tricks (BeOS Tip Server is full of them) you can get a lot more done a lot faster.
Shared control: The BeOS isn't multiuser quite yet (should be with the addition og BONE in the near future) it's designed to be that way, in a typical UNIX style. Permissions, separate user directories, et. al.
The BeOS isn't nearly the Anti-Mac interface, but it's the closest I've seen since 1996. Hopefully the key principles will be kept in future development.
---
One beautiful example of a heavy-headed hypocricy is this:
This comes AFTER the WaSP (because no single author would take credit for this piece) suggests that Netscape withdraws its browser, had never started working on Mozilla, and should have never tried in the first place. They attribute the lack of support for Netscape products to its lack of standards compliance, NOT the fact that Microsoft used unlawful monopoly tactics to bully it out of the market.
Here is a nicely written counter-attack by Chris Nelson, which gives some very interesting counter points. Don't let the WaSP get you down Mozilla, just keep on rolling.
---
Here's the meat of the article, and DoubleClick's defense:
"While DoubleClick does indeed record, [it] does not know that room 5 is equivalent to girls home alone." This explanation comes down to saying that while DoubleClick collects the information, it does not have the technical skill to understand it an assertion that Smith and others nd hard to believe.
The problem is, while they don't have the knowledge to link room 5 with girl-girl fetish porn, some *other* company would have no problem doing it. As we all remember, DoublClick has no problem "allying" itself with other companies; at least until their stock price plummets.
I just have to question whether these "web bugs" are really the work of DoubleClick, or just some crafty porn site administrator trying to get paid for posting ads, but keeping them at 1x1 pixels so nobody has to be bothered by them.
---
Eventually Linkguard is planning to use discrete software programs called agents to watch links and tell the webmasters of any affected sites when they are updated or changed.
By "agents" they mean "bots", I suppose.
Now, if it takes 40 terrabytes (roughly 41,943,040 megabytes, I believe) to document all the links on the web, how much more space will be needed to keep contact info on all those links? Plus, how efficient will these agents be? I'm not so hot on the idea of bots constantly poking around my lil' Network, checking that all my links are okay.
And will these bots follow the robots.txt rules? I know plenty of sites which revoke all robots, so the "agents" would be useless anyway... Nice idea, but sounds a bit invasive.
Plus this line below:
If the destination page disappears, search engines that can use these signatures would try to find the relevant signature and relocate the page.
Oh, so now you're relying on search engines to get the links right... hm...I'll stick to manually checking them myself, thankyouverymuch.
---
It's entirely plausable that you can replace all mentions of the word "MacOS" with the word "BeOS" and get a similar argument, same defenses, but with less of a 'world domination' bent to it.
Plus BeOS is POSIX compliant so the 'professionals' who do like command line (code me an OS with your mouse, I dare you) can still use it, in addition to a stable UI that won't go belly-up when you try doing more than one thing at the same time.
And BeOS already runs on both PPC and Intel architechture. Right now. Not in 2001, right now.
C'mon, optimisim is okay, but dogmatic optimisim is a bit over the top.
---
A computer is a really, really dumb, but useful, robot. The term 'computer' originally meant humans who would add up column A to column B, then put the result in column C. Then people made machines that could do this in a fraction of the time, make fewer mistakes, and complained less.
My computer is just a tool for getting stuff done, and programming is just telling the computer what to do. I generally keep programming in two categories: useful applications (like defining a list of words for weekly vocab quizzes) and fun stuff (like a random-pattern generator).
All in all, I think an important focus of programmers is to make programs that make life EASIER, not harder. A computer shouldn't be tough to use. People should just learn some basics of programming, and be able to tell comptuers how to get boring stuff done, so the humans can do fun stuff.
Like play Quake.
Or did I just contradict myself?
------------
I said it so you don't have to.
The thing is, having a monoply isn't illegal. Abusing a monopoly is, which Microsoft has blatantly done. The fact that people just accept the ILUVYOU virus is proof. Here's how splitting it in half will help:
- On a Windows box, using any software that isn't made by Microsoft is a hinderance. It runs slower (see Netscape vs. IE), isn't as "integrated" (drag MS Word text into Eudora? Not likely.), and doesn't come "built in" (thanks, Compaq! Could you tell me what web sites to see too?).
- Splitting the company in half will force them to no longer tie software in with their OS. Opening parts of the source gives people more of a chance, but I highly doubt we'll see a true competitor to Office on Win systems anytime soon, as long as it's all one company.
- If the company is split up, only one of them will be allowed to say they "promote innovation for the benefit of consumers" and the other one gets to ridicule them for feeding us bullshit.
Where's President Taft when you need him...
------------
From the article:
Also possible would be the infusion of "neutraceuticals" -- chemicals that would trick a soldier's brain into thinking his stomach is full or that his muscles aren't really tired.
Just like Neo thought he was in reality, but he really was in a big plastic egg filled with goo with a wire sticking out of his head.
And why stop here? If we can trick our muscles into thinking they aren't tired, why not trick your heart into always beating, even if you have high cholesterol? There goes Viagra...
And think of what these patches can do for people with low self-confidence! You can just wear a ConfidencePatch, and always feel like everyone digs you.
Good to see the military will have perfected mindfucking by 2025.
------------
Unless AOL/TW has the ability to shut down Slashdot, their power is only marginal.
The fact is, the Internet was not one company's scheme to make money. It was built for communication, and evolved only because hundreds of people put their time and effort into it. No one company, name, or brand has ever controlled all the content on the Internet, save for the burgeoning years.
So what if AOL can influence millions of people who use AOL to read their content? Everyone still has a choice, and until AOL can take that choice away, like how Microsoft took away the choice for desktop operating systems on new PC's, their power is feeble.
------------
A little harsh, but I'm still unsure, even after reading the FAQ.
Many people have already made some (good) posts about the chance that people will just put up warez other illegal items. But what about the good? What sorts of documents would Freenet be better at handling than the WWW?
In essence, what content will be on Freenet that I can't get on the web? More precice information? Art sites? Less banner ads?
------------
Good decision on the ruling, it will make things easier on us poor web-builders. But one question on the article...
''They are an open site and are a member of the free Internet community,'' Tickets.com attorney Daniel Harris said of Ticketmaster. ''They have to live by the rules of that community as it has grown up.'
Okay, if Ticketmaster.com, the web version of a larger corporate business, is an "open site", then what is a closed site? Intranet? And what's this "free internet community"? Everytime the Internet community tries to get something for free (ie. mp3) there's a big hullabaloo and somebody gets sued. Twice.
And who says Tickemaster.com is a member of *any* community? They're a business, they want to make money, not talk with people. Also I've never read any "rules" about hyperlinking, and doubt any exist.
A good court ruling, a really, really dopey quote at the end. Thankfully he didn't pipe this stuff in court, else they could have lost.
------------
This is pretty sad. Snipped from a Wired article:
The seven-page "assignment agreement" signed by cphack co-author Eddy Jansson of Sweden gives Mattel "all rights" to the program's source code and binaries and an explanatory essay he wrote. Co-author Matthew Skala of Canada signed a similar agreement giving up his rights for one dollar.
Yep, that's right. One dollar. I wonder if it was American or Canadian? If it was Canadian, Mattel cheated him out of a couple cents...
I just wonder, if this code had been released under an open source or free software licence, could Mattel have been unable to pressure them to sell out like this?
------------
If you can think of a better reason for humans existing, I would love to hear it. This symposium is discussing my most heartfelt belief: that human beings exist not to evolve into the next "higher" species, but to build it.
Everything we do seeks to augment humans, improving their communication abilities (which is our greatest asset and ability, language and communication) and essentially make us better, through machines, genetics, and drugs. This, ladies and gents, is what we've always been doing since we developed fire, and it is a Very Good Thing.
The main discussion seems to be the fear that we will create these robots that will destroy and eliminate us, which isn't the case. It's rather like we are building the latest and greatest computer and, in the process, turning those old Commodore 64's and Apple ]['s obsolete.
So sit back and enjoy this. We're finally beginning to recognize our purpose in existence. Anyone who's afraid of this, well, talk to me and I'll push the theory of Spherical Logic deeper into you.
------------
My father bought a cell phone recently for his trip to LA. My father isn't a Luddite, but he's not technologically crazy; he prefers writing on yellow legal pads to Word (but can you blame him?) and his laptop still runs Win 3.1. So when he bought a cell phone, he wanted it as simple as possible.
And the damn thing still has Internet access.
Expect to have trouble going for "simple" when you buy a cell phone. They're getting to be like computers these days: if you buy them from an outlet or company, they tend to be loaded with stuff you don't want.
But if you can just grab a soldering iron, you can fix it up before you can say "Netpliance".
------------
Look at this opening statement:
A company that makes popular software to block children from pornographic Internet sites filed an unusual lawsuit late Wednesday against two computer experts who developed a method for kids to deduce their parents' password and access those Web sites.
Anyone else notice the disinformation in this? The censorware doesn't just block children, it blocks everyone. They're making it sound like the people who cracked the encryption are promoting children seeing porn instead of promoting the anti-censorship movement. Way to keep neutral, Yahoo.
But then see this:
Microsystems also asked the judge to order the Swedish Internet company where the bypass utility is published to turn over records identifying everyone who visited the Web site or downloaded the program.
Um, why? The only reason I can possibly think of, which is pretty paranoid, is that Microsystems plans on using this as data, to say "hey, look how many people can now see porn whenever they want to, instead of letting us decide what is decent for them!" If you want to get really paranoid, you can say Microsystems wants to track who downloaded it and say "sorry, you've gotta get rid of that program", but I'm not sure how far you can trace IP addresses...
And the common "their encryption sucks, it's their fault" argument is trash. If someone breaks into your house because they could smash down your door, is it your fault that you didn't have steel bars? It's a question of whether or not reverse engineering like this is legal, not a "you suck, get better" situation.
------------
I own the domain www.aevum.net, and "aevum" is Latin for "life".
I hope God doesn't use ICANN to make me forefit my domain. After all, the Bible was originally in Latin, and God did *ahem* invent life.
(it's late, i'm working, and i needed a goof break.)
------------
"Also, the week is not all science - Intel provided a web center in the hotel with lots of nice computers equipped with Quake 3, so we could have big multiplayer deathmatches over the LAN."
See? The government organizations were right! Playing Quake and other violent video games does make you become violent, neurotic, and make you want to blow up your...
Oh wait, these kids won what award? How prestegious was it? Intel says they'll be the nations leaders and innovators?
------------
Some exerpts from the story:
Benefits? Consumers? It's SPAM! How can you consider people who get spam to be "consumers"? But wait, let's look at the rest.
So THIS is restrictive? It should be someone's "right" to send you unwanted commercial email that has misleading headings, is spoofed, and you can't reply to? What business would resort to these tactics unless they were pawning off worthless crap?
Apparently the guy who had this suit called against him. Here's another quote:
But it IS junkmail, and "direct marketing" is just a good name from the other side of the table. The article says that the spam was some "special offer for only $35.95" sent to almost a million people in Washington.
This ruling was just plain bad. Spam is not helpful, it's not beneficial to anyone but the sender, and it's costly to everyone else. If Washington, who has the toughest anti-spam laws, can't convinct this guy, what good are the laws at all?
------------
how did bread and vaccines threaten to destroy humanity?
I read this on a Salon article some time ago (I believe) about how past inventions compared to the recent craze of "we're all doomed" predictions, about how the Internet is isolating us and will destroy society, which is false.
The invention of bread by the Egyptians meant that people could sustain their hunger and were no longer drawn by starvation into groups to hunt. This threatened to break apart an important part of the Egyptian society.
Vaccines were similar, because people no longer had to group to stave off disease. They could cure it on their own.
These inventions, at their time, were considered threats to humanity and society because it broke up a delicate framework, something I believe we're incapable of doing. We can build, yes, but break? Not so easy.
------------
Human Genome Project Information:
http://www.ornl.gov/TechRe sources/Human_Genome/home.html
Human Genome Program, Genome Research: /ober/hug_top.html
http://www.er.doe.gov/production
National Human Genome Research Institute:
http://www.nhgri.nih.gov/
On a more philosophical note, when those who are in their adolescence find themselves looking at a generation which has had their genes tampered, there will be prejudice. Lots of it. It can't be avoided.
But what about those who got vaccines at birth? Those who never had to worry about smallpox, polio, etc.? Every generation we go through is healthier than the last, constantly improving. Genetic research will be an issue, obviously, but it's not that unbelivable or radical. Just another step in the same direction.
------------
First, the guy is wrong, simply because he's talking about technology more than 2 years in advance. Here's why:
Where a calculator on the ENIAC is equipped with 18,000 vacuum tubes and weighs 30 tones, computers in the future by the year 2000 may have only 1,000 vacuum tubes and weigh only 1.5 tones
This was published in an issue of Popular Mechanics, in March of 1949.
While it seems entirely plausable that in 30 years we may have advanced robots, nanotechnologically built organisms, even a subset of human/cyborgs, it's going to take 30 years of human conciousness to do this. Just like with the invention of the atomic bomb, vaccines, and bread, all of which threatened to destroy society and humanity at their time.
If humans know how to do anything, it's how to (1) fuck up and (2) cover their asses.
I'm actually a firm supporter of these nanotechnologically built cyborganisms, simply because I need better feet.
------------
First, for your personal use, you can make analog copies of music. For instance, you can make analog cassette tape recordings of music from another analog cassette, or from a CD or from the radio, or basically from any source. Essentially, all copying onto analog media is generally allowed.
Ask them if you can copy tapes 10 years ago and they'll chew your ear off. They're only allowing this because analog recording decreases quality.
As a result, this also means that copying music onto a computer hard drive is not permitted.
This is an EXACT QUOTE. They're saying that you cannot copy music onto your hard-drive, ever, for any reason. This, ladies and gents, is bullshit. If I OWN the music, I should be able to put it onto my hard drive as a means of backing up, right? What if the CD gets broken? Or a million other reasons?
Artists and songwriters don't collect royalties, which affects their ability to make a living; record companies don't recoup their investments, and that makes it more difficult for them to invest in new artists and new music.
Wait, didn't the recording industry make more money this year than before? Isn't MP3 helping more artists because it allows for increased exposure?
This document tries to say "you're hurting the artists" when all it really says is "we want more of your money".
------------