The big companies are partially to blame - no big company deals with change very well - but the government isn't your friend either.
That's a clever bit of obfuscation. Baby Bells have been fighting PUCs for a long time because they want national regulation of telecom. They've been very effective in telling the FCC what to do. State and local regulators are less willing to let the ILECs do whatever they want because they are often stuck with crappy service and few options.
As for PUCs trying to regulate IP/voice, the PUCs are only trying to undo what the FCC has done. By ruling that broadband is an "information service" rather than a "telecommunications service" they have stripped away Baby Bell and cable company Title II requirements that used to force them to open their excess capacity for leasing by new entrants. As a result, the incumbents have been able to very effectively shut out competition.
Starting with Kennard, the FCC bought the Big Lie hook, line and sinker. Blaming the puny little PUCs for this is a clever way of making it look like those damned regulators have made a mess of an otherwise wonderfully competitive environment, but that's flat out wrong. Most Americans have one or two broadband providers to choose from - that's it. If you're in a rural area, you're even more screwed. If we had true competition, the incumbents would not have been given such tremendous power to keep out new entrants.
Well there are actually regulations forbidding competition in many areas, like priority given to companies to lay cable.
Absolutely. That's what makes these claims about "unnecessary regulation" so pathetic. The cable and telecom companies want regulation when it suits their needs. For example, they've been fighting tooth and nail in courts against community broadband, arguing that municipalities shouldn't be allowed to compete against private enterprise. Also, cable operators have a built-in advantage in that they enter into municiple contracts. Individual subscribers usually have limited choices, because most cable operators will not try to get into a market that a competitor already effectively owns. The whole thing has gone drastically wrong. The 1995 Telecommunications Act was supposed to spur competition, but the FCC has made a series of decisions that give power to incumbents in the name of keeping the market "competitive."
All of the gear, clothing, designer shoes and everything else are ALL coming out of the SAME factories whether the product is legit or pirated.
Very good point. Ultimately, brands are the creation of marketing more than anything else. Marketing until now has been based primarily on the notion that you must bombard customers with awareness of your brand in order to get them to buy your products. Otherwise, how will they know the difference between your product and that of your competitor?
However, brands to play the important role of giving consumers some assurance about the level of quality of the goods they are buying. A creator of knock-offs can make a series of knock-offs, making money on each product run, whether the product is any good or not. But the brand company will see its reputation suffer if its products suck.
Then again, there are plenty of brand products that seem to survive on marketing alone. The products are no better than cheaper alternatives, and all you pay for is the label. Clothing is a perfect example of this. The design is the same, but add the Prada logo and it immediately becomes 3x as expensive. Granted, Prada has to pay its designers, and the knock-off company doesn't. But there do seem to be some industries that have profit margins that can only be explained by the presence of branding. Remove the branding and the same breadth of products might still be on offer; profit margins for companies creating the designs would simply be lower.
I don't think brands will go away any time soon. Some people simply must have their branded luxury goods. But the availability of cheap alternatives that are as good or almost as good will probably continue to surge. In a world where people can share product ratings and opinions rapidly, the ability of brand merchants to control the market is weaker.
And how many people actually use aftermarket firmware in their devices? A small fraction of the total buying population, at best. I'm sure you can make a Zune wonderful, but you definitely do not represent the mainstream reading audience, or the mainstream device-buying audience. Think of it this way: Firefox has all kinds of visibility, a massive PR campaign, and is extremely easy to set up and use as an IE replacement. Still, only about 10-20% of Web users are on Firefox. The percentage of aftermarket firmware users has to be far smaller than that.
And this is all about getting rid of the oversight - let the market regulate itself my ass.
Let's face it. The FCC has made it easy for incumbents to keep new competitors out. So now we have incumbents fighting each other with dirty tricks, because they know consumers have no choices but the incumbents. Talk about a recipie for failure. Our broadband choices suck ass, and the providers take turns screwing customers.
Belief that an unregulated market will cure all evils is a belief that long-coddled Baby Bells and cable companies will suddenly embrace open, honest competition. They're like rich kids, born with silver spoons in their mouths, crying about equal opportunity. It's disgusting.
The Zune can be an incredibly cool and useable device as soon as the hackers get into it and create a differen Firmware/OS for it like they did with the ipod,iriver,creative and other popular mp3 players.
Sounds interesting, but it seems to me Andy's job is to review products as they are now, as shipped by the OEM. His reading audience isn't out to pimp their ride; they're out to get a device that does great stuff right out of the box.
What was the bio you read? I find myself wanting to read it, as I obviously don't know as much about Frankenstein's Monster or Mary Shelley as I thought I did.
Re:Real geeks only please
on
Top Ten Geek Girls
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Frankenstein is her magnum opus, reductio ad absurdum attack on geeks.
I read it as an attack on the potential for immorality inherent in science, rather than an assault on those who enjoy science, make use of science, or are scientists themselves.
She was only eighteen and a "popular girl" when she started writing the book. i.e., she's that bitch in the hall who pointed at your nerdiness, giggled and made rude comments...
I'm not sure if you're being facetious here or not, but it sounds like you know her very well. Have you read a biography or something else that gives you such insights into her character and her attitude toward "geeks" (which as I understand it wasn't even a social categorization until well into the 20th Century and the advent of model rockets, ham radio, and home chemistry sets)?
Looks like you're wearing a +5 Cloak of Bitterness today, dude.
The purpose of human language is communicate with other human beings
You are operating under the assumption that human language fulfills no other function beyond functional communication. There is plenty of evidence that language defines culture. Speakers of different languages do often see the world slightly differently. If you want everyone to think the same way, one language is a great idea. Personally, I prefer a more heterogeneous world, despite the friction languages create.
Computer languages are instructions to a computer, they aren't a human communication medium
That's an interesting interpretation of computer languages, given that they are created by humans and used by humans to create software. Choice of language informs what the human programmer can create, and has a strong effect on broader human culture. As Lessig argues, code is speech.
You seem to be looking at language as if it merely is a conduit for information. If we were all computers, programmed merely to pass information between each other, that would be the case. For humans, I think it serves many other purposes, and the profusion of languages is good for humanity. Homogeneousness, while it seems like a cure for our maladies, doesn't necessarily help us. Americans speak English; that hasn't stopped violence, disagreement, or other forms of conflict. I would also argue that American culture is so strong in part because it is continuously enriched by influences from other cultures and their languages.
You make a good point about the *effect*, but I'm not sure that from a motivational point of view the lone "artist" (not how I'd describe someone who screws with my system, but I'll roll with it) is less repulsive to me.
The person who cracks my system and tells me, "Nya, nya, your system is vulnerable!" deludes himself into thinking he's doing me a valuable service. "See, now this poor schmuck will improve his security!" But upgrading my security to deal with random "artists" costs me time and in some cases money. The attacker motivated by greed or ideology isn't deluding himself into thinking he's doing me a favor. In that sense, perhaps the latter is more honest than the former.
Both of them are annoying. I agree that #2 has a stronger negative effect on my life if he ever hits me, but in the mean time, #1 is a pain in the ass.
Wow, talk about reality imitating art. Or, art imitating art. Or technology imitating art. Or the virtual imitating the virtual.
Annnyway, this sure brings me back a few years. The first time I read Neuromancer, I thought, "Damn, what would it be like to live in a world where interacting with computers is so visceral?" We haven't developed networked, immersive 3d environments, but we've sure come a long way from the days when just getting on the Internet from home was a major accomplishment.
I'd say this attack is proof that no matter how creative and interesting and fun an environment you create, there's always going to be someone out there who will put a lot of time and effort into pissing in it. I'm sure the creator of the worm has some sort of wonderful rationalization, of course. I wonder, is it worse to attack networks in the name of profit (or patriotism), or to do so just because you can?
Regardless of what form the Web takes in its 2.0, 3.0, or 4.0 variations, if the U.S. doesn't get off its ass and stop coddling the telecos and cable companies, we won't be seeing any of it. Our series of connected pipes are *slow*. The U.S. is ranked 20th in the world in broadband penetration, and the FCC definition of broadband is 200kbps or better. So when we talk about a thriving, competitive market for broadband, we're talking about an average download speed of 1-1.5 Mb. In Europe and Asia, broadband means an average download speed of 3 Mbps at the very least. Sweden has 8-9 Mbps down, and South Korea and Japan have easily available, cheap 20 Mbps down.
We've become far too smug about Internet leadership, so we shouldn't be surprised when it is South Korean and Japanese companies that push the next round of Internet applications. Google, Yahoo!, Apple, and Microsoft should be really worried about this, because the telecommunications companies in the U.S. have far too much power, and if the Net Neutrality debates are any proof, they'd love to get more. "Innovating" and giving American customers the infrastructure for the 21st Century sounds good in their PR campaigns, but judging by their performance over the last ten years, the American public is getting screwed by the incumbent telecoms and the cable companies. Look at the profits the rapidly-merging American telecoms have seen over the last ten years, then look at the growth of broadband in the U.S. relative to other countries over the same period of time.
The New Digital Divide is coming fast. Maybe I can become a millionaire by organizing Geek Trips to South Korea, Japan, and Sweden: "Experience crazy new applications that provide full-motion, hiqh quality video! Work faster! See immersive 3d game environments that make your puny American games look like antiques! Download files in a flash!"
I'm not sure what you're getting at
on
Leopard Vs. Vista
·
· Score: 1
why are there SO MANY game controls, 3D visualization equipment, Wacom tablets, hardware in gernal [sic] for the PC?
The PC market is larger than the Mac market, so there are more third-party hardware vendors for PCs. That doesn't, as you implied, mean that "noone [sic] else makes hardware for apple [sic]." There have always been many third-party hardware vendors that make Mac-compatible gear. But I don't really see how this has to do with the level of hardware/software integration in Apple products one way or the other.
One could actually make the argument that the presence of fewer third-party hardware add-ons is proof that Apple does a better job of integrating its hardware and software (after all, if it is already well-integrated, you arguably don't need as many add-ons). But I don't think that argument makes any more sense than your argument does, because I don't think that the presence of third-party hardware add-ons is really indicative of overall hardware/software integration.
The real proof of integration is in how well these add-ons work with the computer's own hardware and software. We all know the story of Windows "Plug & Play," which came on the scene after Macintosh peripherals had been happily working seamlessly with the OS for years. Even now, in my experience it is simply easier to install and use hardware add-ons with a Mac. Just the other day I bought a USB thumb drive. The instructions were rather humorous, because there were two steps for Windows users, and just one for Mac users. I simply plugged in the drive and it worked.
Integration has always been Apple's differentiator
on
Leopard Vs. Vista
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
From the original Mac, back in 1984, to the iPod, Apple has always been about integrating hardware and software into one seamless experience. They certainly haven't always hit the mark, but it seems they have an advantage in an era where experience design continues to become more important.
Discussion about whether Apple is a hardware company or a software company has been going on for ages, but Apple has always been a systems company. Microsoft has subordinated hardware to software, and the PC industry has developed according to that dictate. Maybe that is why so many people immersed in the Windows world have a hard time understanding how the Mac is different.
Steven, when you use a Trojan Horse strategy, you have to remember to wait to attack until the doors are closed, night has fallen, and the city inhabitants are all asleep in their beds.
Overall grade: C+
Great execution of a sneaky plan at the beginning. Strong-arming Novell was a masterstroke. Then you brought the whole plan down because you were too impatient. Reread The Prince before our next assignment.
I'm thinking the iPhone has to take the cake. What other continuously-running (not off and on, like the buyout/merger rumors) Apple rumor has had legs for this long? The iPhone rumor has been in full force for at least two and a half years.
Honestly, neither the Yanks nor the Chinks have *any* interest in a peaceful, unified Korean peninsular.
Aside from the violence along the DMZ, Korea has been peaceful since the armstice ended the Korean War in 1953. Both sides are armed to the teeth, and North Korean saber-rattling has been a fact of life for over 50 years, but both countries are pretty peaceful by most accounts. In the North, they're starving but peaceful, and in the South they're peaceful and not starving.
Your insights into the motivations of the Americans and Chinese (excuse me, I mean, "Chinks") are fascinating, but I'm not sure what data is guiding those insights. If either America or China wanted war, wouldn't they have already fomented it at some point over the last 53 years? And why would China be acting to restrain North Korea?
Theft is illegal. Copyright infringement is illegal.
You are, of course, quite right.
My interpretation of current American law on the subject of IP infringement was not as nuanced as it should have been (see my reply to the AC).
As the court pointed out, IP rights are more nuanced than rights in tangible property. However, I do think the line between infringement and theft (as defined by current statutes and stare decisis) is thin. IP is much more economically important now than it ever has been, which is why interference with IP rights is now considered so much more harmful than it was in the past. I wouldn't be suprised if the term "infringement" becomes "theft" at some point under the Roberts court.
does designing, programming, and selling a machine that kills more or less indiscriminately make one culpable for its actions?
I agree. Those fuckers who build and sell cars kill hundreds of thousands of people every year. They should be held liable every time someone dies in a car. But I digress.
Maybe the South Korean military should build something into their contract along the lines of, "Mistakenly kill anyone who isn't a North Korean soldier, and you have to shell out big money." Of course, on the DMZ they likely err on the size of freedom to fire. After all, it is the DMZ, not downtown Miami.
Dowling (473 U.S. 207), was a narrow ruling about the National Stolen Property Act. The court found that under the terms of the statute the defendant's interstate shipment of bootleg records was not covered under the terms of the Act, because it was a criminal statue, which must be construed strictly.
This does not mean that the court would not construe copyright violation to be "theft" under a different statute. I'll agree with your premise that in this case the court differentiated between IP rights and rights in tangible property. Despite the language of Justice Ginsburg's concurrence, "And deliberate unlawful copying is no less an unlawful taking of property than garden-variety theft," the term doesn't seem to have been used in a majority opinion by the USSC in defining copyright infringement. So perhaps for copyright, at least, there is a clear line between infringement and theft.
That still leaves us with theft of trade secrets, trademark, and patents.
It may be that trade secrets are the only area of IP law where the term "theft" is explicitly used, and it may be that patents and trademark both conflate infringement with theft. I don't have time to go sifting through cases, but it does seem clear to me that at least with regard to trade secrets, the law explicitly states that theft of IP is possible.
I appreciate your bringing Dowling to my attention. I was obviously overly broad in my portrayal of infringement as "theft." I'm pleasantly surprised.
This robot was featured in Slashdot some time ago, back when it was just an idea. A lot of people went into hysterics about it, but I think the robot could be a Good Thing for the South Korean military. The DMZ is the most heavily-armed border in the world. There was never a peace treaty between the Koreas, and it occasionally gets hot on the DMZ. Watching a static border like the DMZ seems well-suited to a robot sentry, and I'm sure South Korean soldiers wouldn't mind much if they didn't have to run as many live patrols along the wire.
Considering that it is impossible to steal IP (you can only copy it)
Sherman obviously wants to gut fair use, but that doesn't mean he's wrong in using the term "IP theft."
Trade secrets are intellectual property. When you steal the designs to your competitor's new widget, you can get nailed for trade secret theft.
The same is true of patents, copyright, and trademark infringement cases. Theft is appropriating a right that was reserved for the owner of the IP. When you abrogate that exclusive right for yourself, you are stealing, because you are taking that right from its owner. For example, one of the rights in copyright is to prepare derivative works or to license others to do so. If you create a Star Wars comic book, when Lucas had already arranged for Dark Horse Comics to create a derivative work, you are infringing on Lucas's ability to decide how derivative works are handled. You have abrogated one of his rights for yourself. You've stolen from him.
There are numerous problems with the IP regime, but if we're going to engage in meaningful reform, we have to first be clear about how the law currently stands. Theft of intellectual property has been recognized by the law for a long, long time - well before the advent of computer software and the Internet. Regardless of whether you think this is right or wrong, it's the law.
Slashdot Mirror
The big companies are partially to blame - no big company deals with change very well - but the government isn't your friend either.
That's a clever bit of obfuscation. Baby Bells have been fighting PUCs for a long time because they want national regulation of telecom. They've been very effective in telling the FCC what to do. State and local regulators are less willing to let the ILECs do whatever they want because they are often stuck with crappy service and few options.
As for PUCs trying to regulate IP/voice, the PUCs are only trying to undo what the FCC has done. By ruling that broadband is an "information service" rather than a "telecommunications service" they have stripped away Baby Bell and cable company Title II requirements that used to force them to open their excess capacity for leasing by new entrants. As a result, the incumbents have been able to very effectively shut out competition.
Starting with Kennard, the FCC bought the Big Lie hook, line and sinker. Blaming the puny little PUCs for this is a clever way of making it look like those damned regulators have made a mess of an otherwise wonderfully competitive environment, but that's flat out wrong. Most Americans have one or two broadband providers to choose from - that's it. If you're in a rural area, you're even more screwed. If we had true competition, the incumbents would not have been given such tremendous power to keep out new entrants.
Broadband Reality Check II
Well there are actually regulations forbidding competition in many areas, like priority given to companies to lay cable.
Absolutely. That's what makes these claims about "unnecessary regulation" so pathetic. The cable and telecom companies want regulation when it suits their needs. For example, they've been fighting tooth and nail in courts against community broadband, arguing that municipalities shouldn't be allowed to compete against private enterprise. Also, cable operators have a built-in advantage in that they enter into municiple contracts. Individual subscribers usually have limited choices, because most cable operators will not try to get into a market that a competitor already effectively owns. The whole thing has gone drastically wrong. The 1995 Telecommunications Act was supposed to spur competition, but the FCC has made a series of decisions that give power to incumbents in the name of keeping the market "competitive."
All of the gear, clothing, designer shoes and everything else are ALL coming out of the SAME factories whether the product is legit or pirated.
Very good point. Ultimately, brands are the creation of marketing more than anything else. Marketing until now has been based primarily on the notion that you must bombard customers with awareness of your brand in order to get them to buy your products. Otherwise, how will they know the difference between your product and that of your competitor?
However, brands to play the important role of giving consumers some assurance about the level of quality of the goods they are buying. A creator of knock-offs can make a series of knock-offs, making money on each product run, whether the product is any good or not. But the brand company will see its reputation suffer if its products suck.
Then again, there are plenty of brand products that seem to survive on marketing alone. The products are no better than cheaper alternatives, and all you pay for is the label. Clothing is a perfect example of this. The design is the same, but add the Prada logo and it immediately becomes 3x as expensive. Granted, Prada has to pay its designers, and the knock-off company doesn't. But there do seem to be some industries that have profit margins that can only be explained by the presence of branding. Remove the branding and the same breadth of products might still be on offer; profit margins for companies creating the designs would simply be lower.
I don't think brands will go away any time soon. Some people simply must have their branded luxury goods. But the availability of cheap alternatives that are as good or almost as good will probably continue to surge. In a world where people can share product ratings and opinions rapidly, the ability of brand merchants to control the market is weaker.
Aftermarket firmware repairs that factory defect.
And how many people actually use aftermarket firmware in their devices? A small fraction of the total buying population, at best. I'm sure you can make a Zune wonderful, but you definitely do not represent the mainstream reading audience, or the mainstream device-buying audience. Think of it this way: Firefox has all kinds of visibility, a massive PR campaign, and is extremely easy to set up and use as an IE replacement. Still, only about 10-20% of Web users are on Firefox. The percentage of aftermarket firmware users has to be far smaller than that.
And this is all about getting rid of the oversight - let the market regulate itself my ass.
Let's face it. The FCC has made it easy for incumbents to keep new competitors out. So now we have incumbents fighting each other with dirty tricks, because they know consumers have no choices but the incumbents. Talk about a recipie for failure. Our broadband choices suck ass, and the providers take turns screwing customers.
Belief that an unregulated market will cure all evils is a belief that long-coddled Baby Bells and cable companies will suddenly embrace open, honest competition. They're like rich kids, born with silver spoons in their mouths, crying about equal opportunity. It's disgusting.
The Zune can be an incredibly cool and useable device as soon as the hackers get into it and create a differen Firmware/OS for it like they did with the ipod,iriver,creative and other popular mp3 players.
Sounds interesting, but it seems to me Andy's job is to review products as they are now, as shipped by the OEM. His reading audience isn't out to pimp their ride; they're out to get a device that does great stuff right out of the box.
What was the bio you read? I find myself wanting to read it, as I obviously don't know as much about Frankenstein's Monster or Mary Shelley as I thought I did.
Frankenstein is her magnum opus, reductio ad absurdum attack on geeks.
I read it as an attack on the potential for immorality inherent in science, rather than an assault on those who enjoy science, make use of science, or are scientists themselves.
She was only eighteen and a "popular girl" when she started writing the book. i.e., she's that bitch in the hall who pointed at your nerdiness, giggled and made rude comments...
I'm not sure if you're being facetious here or not, but it sounds like you know her very well. Have you read a biography or something else that gives you such insights into her character and her attitude toward "geeks" (which as I understand it wasn't even a social categorization until well into the 20th Century and the advent of model rockets, ham radio, and home chemistry sets)?
Looks like you're wearing a +5 Cloak of Bitterness today, dude.
... is this:
The purpose of human language is communicate with other human beings
You are operating under the assumption that human language fulfills no other function beyond functional communication. There is plenty of evidence that language defines culture. Speakers of different languages do often see the world slightly differently. If you want everyone to think the same way, one language is a great idea. Personally, I prefer a more heterogeneous world, despite the friction languages create.
Computer languages are instructions to a computer, they aren't a human communication medium
That's an interesting interpretation of computer languages, given that they are created by humans and used by humans to create software. Choice of language informs what the human programmer can create, and has a strong effect on broader human culture. As Lessig argues, code is speech.
You seem to be looking at language as if it merely is a conduit for information. If we were all computers, programmed merely to pass information between each other, that would be the case. For humans, I think it serves many other purposes, and the profusion of languages is good for humanity. Homogeneousness, while it seems like a cure for our maladies, doesn't necessarily help us. Americans speak English; that hasn't stopped violence, disagreement, or other forms of conflict. I would also argue that American culture is so strong in part because it is continuously enriched by influences from other cultures and their languages.
... are all disconnected from reality. Get it through your heads! TV = Reality! Anything else is just escapism.
Why has this not been modded up as +5 Absurd yet?
I think we should also standardize all programming languages. Let's just use C++ and be done with it.
I also find comedies to be useless. All fiction should be tragedy.
Currently there are more Chinese than anyone else, so we should just wipe out all non-Chinese. It would make things so much more efficient.
I think you'll agree that 2 is MUCH worse than 1.
You make a good point about the *effect*, but I'm not sure that from a motivational point of view the lone "artist" (not how I'd describe someone who screws with my system, but I'll roll with it) is less repulsive to me.
The person who cracks my system and tells me, "Nya, nya, your system is vulnerable!" deludes himself into thinking he's doing me a valuable service. "See, now this poor schmuck will improve his security!" But upgrading my security to deal with random "artists" costs me time and in some cases money. The attacker motivated by greed or ideology isn't deluding himself into thinking he's doing me a favor. In that sense, perhaps the latter is more honest than the former.
Both of them are annoying. I agree that #2 has a stronger negative effect on my life if he ever hits me, but in the mean time, #1 is a pain in the ass.
Wow, talk about reality imitating art. Or, art imitating art. Or technology imitating art. Or the virtual imitating the virtual.
Annnyway, this sure brings me back a few years. The first time I read Neuromancer, I thought, "Damn, what would it be like to live in a world where interacting with computers is so visceral?" We haven't developed networked, immersive 3d environments, but we've sure come a long way from the days when just getting on the Internet from home was a major accomplishment.
I'd say this attack is proof that no matter how creative and interesting and fun an environment you create, there's always going to be someone out there who will put a lot of time and effort into pissing in it. I'm sure the creator of the worm has some sort of wonderful rationalization, of course. I wonder, is it worse to attack networks in the name of profit (or patriotism), or to do so just because you can?
Regardless of what form the Web takes in its 2.0, 3.0, or 4.0 variations, if the U.S. doesn't get off its ass and stop coddling the telecos and cable companies, we won't be seeing any of it. Our series of connected pipes are *slow*. The U.S. is ranked 20th in the world in broadband penetration, and the FCC definition of broadband is 200kbps or better. So when we talk about a thriving, competitive market for broadband, we're talking about an average download speed of 1-1.5 Mb. In Europe and Asia, broadband means an average download speed of 3 Mbps at the very least. Sweden has 8-9 Mbps down, and South Korea and Japan have easily available, cheap 20 Mbps down.
We've become far too smug about Internet leadership, so we shouldn't be surprised when it is South Korean and Japanese companies that push the next round of Internet applications. Google, Yahoo!, Apple, and Microsoft should be really worried about this, because the telecommunications companies in the U.S. have far too much power, and if the Net Neutrality debates are any proof, they'd love to get more. "Innovating" and giving American customers the infrastructure for the 21st Century sounds good in their PR campaigns, but judging by their performance over the last ten years, the American public is getting screwed by the incumbent telecoms and the cable companies. Look at the profits the rapidly-merging American telecoms have seen over the last ten years, then look at the growth of broadband in the U.S. relative to other countries over the same period of time.
The New Digital Divide is coming fast. Maybe I can become a millionaire by organizing Geek Trips to South Korea, Japan, and Sweden: "Experience crazy new applications that provide full-motion, hiqh quality video! Work faster! See immersive 3d game environments that make your puny American games look like antiques! Download files in a flash!"
why are there SO MANY game controls, 3D visualization equipment, Wacom tablets, hardware in gernal [sic] for the PC?
The PC market is larger than the Mac market, so there are more third-party hardware vendors for PCs. That doesn't, as you implied, mean that "noone [sic] else makes hardware for apple [sic]." There have always been many third-party hardware vendors that make Mac-compatible gear. But I don't really see how this has to do with the level of hardware/software integration in Apple products one way or the other.
One could actually make the argument that the presence of fewer third-party hardware add-ons is proof that Apple does a better job of integrating its hardware and software (after all, if it is already well-integrated, you arguably don't need as many add-ons). But I don't think that argument makes any more sense than your argument does, because I don't think that the presence of third-party hardware add-ons is really indicative of overall hardware/software integration.
The real proof of integration is in how well these add-ons work with the computer's own hardware and software. We all know the story of Windows "Plug & Play," which came on the scene after Macintosh peripherals had been happily working seamlessly with the OS for years. Even now, in my experience it is simply easier to install and use hardware add-ons with a Mac. Just the other day I bought a USB thumb drive. The instructions were rather humorous, because there were two steps for Windows users, and just one for Mac users. I simply plugged in the drive and it worked.
From the original Mac, back in 1984, to the iPod, Apple has always been about integrating hardware and software into one seamless experience. They certainly haven't always hit the mark, but it seems they have an advantage in an era where experience design continues to become more important.
Discussion about whether Apple is a hardware company or a software company has been going on for ages, but Apple has always been a systems company. Microsoft has subordinated hardware to software, and the PC industry has developed according to that dictate. Maybe that is why so many people immersed in the Windows world have a hard time understanding how the Mac is different.
Steven, when you use a Trojan Horse strategy, you have to remember to wait to attack until the doors are closed, night has fallen, and the city inhabitants are all asleep in their beds.
Overall grade: C+
Great execution of a sneaky plan at the beginning. Strong-arming Novell was a masterstroke. Then you brought the whole plan down because you were too impatient. Reread The Prince before our next assignment.
I'm thinking the iPhone has to take the cake. What other continuously-running (not off and on, like the buyout/merger rumors) Apple rumor has had legs for this long? The iPhone rumor has been in full force for at least two and a half years.
Honestly, neither the Yanks nor the Chinks have *any* interest in a peaceful, unified Korean peninsular.
Aside from the violence along the DMZ, Korea has been peaceful since the armstice ended the Korean War in 1953. Both sides are armed to the teeth, and North Korean saber-rattling has been a fact of life for over 50 years, but both countries are pretty peaceful by most accounts. In the North, they're starving but peaceful, and in the South they're peaceful and not starving.
Your insights into the motivations of the Americans and Chinese (excuse me, I mean, "Chinks") are fascinating, but I'm not sure what data is guiding those insights. If either America or China wanted war, wouldn't they have already fomented it at some point over the last 53 years? And why would China be acting to restrain North Korea?
Theft is illegal. Copyright infringement is illegal.
You are, of course, quite right.
My interpretation of current American law on the subject of IP infringement was not as nuanced as it should have been (see my reply to the AC).
As the court pointed out, IP rights are more nuanced than rights in tangible property. However, I do think the line between infringement and theft (as defined by current statutes and stare decisis) is thin. IP is much more economically important now than it ever has been, which is why interference with IP rights is now considered so much more harmful than it was in the past. I wouldn't be suprised if the term "infringement" becomes "theft" at some point under the Roberts court.
You want to go after Detroit!
does designing, programming, and selling a machine that kills more or less indiscriminately make one culpable for its actions?
I agree. Those fuckers who build and sell cars kill hundreds of thousands of people every year. They should be held liable every time someone dies in a car. But I digress.
Maybe the South Korean military should build something into their contract along the lines of, "Mistakenly kill anyone who isn't a North Korean soldier, and you have to shell out big money." Of course, on the DMZ they likely err on the size of freedom to fire. After all, it is the DMZ, not downtown Miami.
Dowling (473 U.S. 207), was a narrow ruling about the National Stolen Property Act. The court found that under the terms of the statute the defendant's interstate shipment of bootleg records was not covered under the terms of the Act, because it was a criminal statue, which must be construed strictly.
This does not mean that the court would not construe copyright violation to be "theft" under a different statute. I'll agree with your premise that in this case the court differentiated between IP rights and rights in tangible property. Despite the language of Justice Ginsburg's concurrence, "And deliberate unlawful copying is no less an unlawful taking of property than garden-variety theft," the term doesn't seem to have been used in a majority opinion by the USSC in defining copyright infringement. So perhaps for copyright, at least, there is a clear line between infringement and theft.
That still leaves us with theft of trade secrets, trademark, and patents.
The Economic Espionage Act of 1996 explicitly refers to the theft of trade secrets.
It may be that trade secrets are the only area of IP law where the term "theft" is explicitly used, and it may be that patents and trademark both conflate infringement with theft. I don't have time to go sifting through cases, but it does seem clear to me that at least with regard to trade secrets, the law explicitly states that theft of IP is possible.
I appreciate your bringing Dowling to my attention. I was obviously overly broad in my portrayal of infringement as "theft." I'm pleasantly surprised.
if those companies that manufacture knock-off Samsung electronics can just make a complimentary model that throws rocks
Yeah, but how many Palestinians have enough dough to buy them?
This robot was featured in Slashdot some time ago, back when it was just an idea. A lot of people went into hysterics about it, but I think the robot could be a Good Thing for the South Korean military. The DMZ is the most heavily-armed border in the world. There was never a peace treaty between the Koreas, and it occasionally gets hot on the DMZ. Watching a static border like the DMZ seems well-suited to a robot sentry, and I'm sure South Korean soldiers wouldn't mind much if they didn't have to run as many live patrols along the wire.
Considering that it is impossible to steal IP (you can only copy it)
Sherman obviously wants to gut fair use, but that doesn't mean he's wrong in using the term "IP theft."
Trade secrets are intellectual property. When you steal the designs to your competitor's new widget, you can get nailed for trade secret theft.
The same is true of patents, copyright, and trademark infringement cases. Theft is appropriating a right that was reserved for the owner of the IP. When you abrogate that exclusive right for yourself, you are stealing, because you are taking that right from its owner. For example, one of the rights in copyright is to prepare derivative works or to license others to do so. If you create a Star Wars comic book, when Lucas had already arranged for Dark Horse Comics to create a derivative work, you are infringing on Lucas's ability to decide how derivative works are handled. You have abrogated one of his rights for yourself. You've stolen from him.
There are numerous problems with the IP regime, but if we're going to engage in meaningful reform, we have to first be clear about how the law currently stands. Theft of intellectual property has been recognized by the law for a long, long time - well before the advent of computer software and the Internet. Regardless of whether you think this is right or wrong, it's the law.