I'm not sure how Gnome is more minimalist, unless you mean fewer options and features. Then again, I'm not sure why people don't like having choice.
Because more choice is not always better. Gnome does what I need it to do, and is as customizable as I need it to be. Given that, my pre-existing comfort with gnome, and my never having used KDE for any extended period of time, I have no desire or need to switch. And this is independent of whatever advantages KDE might have, when it comes to what you need it for.
I get the impression that whether users can opt out of this fee is up to ISPs. By providing the service (i.e. access to Warner's music library), the ISPs are just making themselves not liable to prosecution over copyright infringement (i.e. copying music). This puts the legal burden of the infringement on the user, where it should be, such that ISPs cannot be pushed around by content creation companies (e.g. Warner). Again, users should be able to opt out of paying the fee if they don't plan on downloading Warner's music (legally).
Nobody is trying to break into your fucking wallet.
Absolutely correct. As an arts major, I (have indoctrinated myself to) think that we can actually make contributions to relevant aspects of society, but not by constantly comparing real life to fiction and certainly not by butchering theoretical concepts (Foucault's panopticism), as does the writer of the summary.
The point of the panopticon, put rather simply, is to illustrate that people internalize whatever social norms they think they must. This is not necessarily a malicious truth, since, e.g., minding what you say at a job interview is a form of panopticism.
As instantiated technologically, this notion is most evident in London's CCTV system, making it the best bet to always act as though you were being watched by the police, even if no camera is facing you. As for Google's street view, on some of the pictures of streets you can look down and see the bulky camera rig Google used to take them. So it is a car with a large rig on top. Not particularly stealthy and, as you point out, certainly not a live view. This is as foolish as being terrified of Google Map's satellite view.
The point of street view, at least as I use it, is to be able to recognize landmarks in streets you are unfamiliar with. They've even blurred any license plates that may have been captured on camera, though that only happened after the project was already launched.
As for Google's being big brother... we can talk about that when they start training children to detect thoughtcrime.
The free publicity is a function of the band/musician's pre-existing popularity. As you point out, releasing music online and for free does not generate publicity for unknown acts.
If a lot of famous musicians catch on, every one of their online releases will generate publicity simply because every one of their offline releases generates publicity. Maybe not slashdot, but music publications will certainly make a big deal of, e.g., the new Sheryl Crow record (example chosen due to its low probability).
The publicity problem with releasing music online is the same problem facing any online release of anything; you can only count on your work being found by people who are already looking for it. As for generating revenue, I am not yet familiar with a business model that works well, but each new experiment (i.e. first Radiohead, then Trent Reznor) leads to new alternatives and, in the spirit of science, if we keep experimenting we're bound to find something that works.
Instead of calling him a "prankster", a "hacker", etc. and then complaining that he is giving "the rest of us a bad name", why not call him what he really is?
A sociopath, a criminal. Playful is crank-calling someone and asking if their refrigerator is running. Getting a dozen pizzas delivered to the local police station is a prank and theft but nobody got hurt. Calling in SWAT teams gets people killed. There are many cases of SWAT no-knocking the wrong apartment and either shooting unarmed people or getting shot at by guys with guns defending their homes. (Note to 2nd amendment types: your guns will not keep you free. If the government wants your ass, they're going to get it.)
This is strictly a devil's advocate post. That is to say, I mostly agree with you but have a nagging voice (perhaps from childhood) which poses a counterpoint to your post.
There seems to be a pattern echoed throughout generations which the rapid growth of communication technology in the 20th century lets us see quite clearly. Namely, previous generations attack the habits of current children/teenagers using reasons that seem perfectly sensible to members of the previous generations, but do not generally change the current children/teenagers' attitudes. Video games and rock music are two examples, and the proliferation of hacker culture (e.g. phreaking) seems to be limited only by the pervasiveness of internet access.
I mention this because the examples you gave seem perfect to prove my point. Is the fact that "calling in SWAT teams gets people killed" the fault of the prankster, or the SWAT teams? If innocent people shoot at SWAT team members, could they simply be trigger-happy gun owners? Granted that many gun-owners are responsible and informed, but are they all?
Let me preface this comment by saying I am not an American, but an observer of American politics and culture.
It is a sad testament to the strength of anti-intellectualist tendencies in American culture that American politicians tend to have little academic expertise on the issues pertaining to the policies they espouse (e.g. Ted Stevens' "internet = series of tubes"). The benefit provided by academic expertise is not simply the number of degrees one acquires, but dialogical engagement with other experts who dedicate themselves to finding fault in arguments (via journals, conferences, etc). Thus, the arguments presented by an academic to the general public may well be bastardized (because simplified) versions of the arguments they would present within academia, but we (the public) can assure ourselves that those arguments could be elucidated in ways that stand up to some level of harsh criticism. To put one's faith in the honesty of a politician whose views and arguments arose in an academic setting, then, is a better bet than putting one's faith in the honesty of a politician who may only be concerned with rhetorically covering up his/her true influences (e.g. pressure by lobbyists or campaign contributions).
Lessig for congress is, in my eyes, a good move regardless of how much/little I may agree with him politically. This is simply because the development of his views and arguments is well documented in his books and articles, and with reference to an academic context which is accessible to anyone interested in putting the time into investigating it. As I see it, this would be a move towards transparency in government, which is a prerequisite for true democracy.
My current Windows XP install is little more than a console (actually, a little less compared to modern consoles; I don't even have a browser installed). If instead of that, I could solely run Linux, and boot directly into Windows games, this technology would be extremely useful.
I recently got rid of cable because it is far too expensive and the programming is crap, so I was considering different alternatives for reviving my television. MythTV is the coolest one, but I don't have a second computer for the frontend which would replace my cable box. A $200 PC at those specs sounds about right. So there is at least one really good use for Walmart's cheap boxes.
I don't think it is an issue of games requiring SLI. Nor is it fair to equate nVidia's SLI with 3dfx's.
This was already brought up, but the advantage of nVidia's SLI is buying another of the same card, which was good enough to run the games of its day, a few years down the line when it has become considerably cheaper. Alternate frame rendering over SLI would then significantly increase that box's gaming performance (nVidia claims up to 1.9x improvement, so its probably more like 1.4x - 1.5x for most cards). If this is enough to at least run future games, SLI already captures the market for people who would spend ~$40-$60 for another card just to keep playing new games, but wouldn't spend $100-$400 to play them perfectly.
And nVidia's situation is almost entirely different from 3dfx's. 3dfx was an early leader in 3D card production who made a few stupid business decisions (e.g. alienating OEM manufacturers) and implemented SLI poorly (you needed two Voodoo2s and a 2D VGA card). nVidia is an enduring market leader whose SLI implementation is technically sound.
Ah, but I have already had my chance at being an astronaut! Oh, all those 49 years ago... I remember it as if I were inventing it now...
I was hand picked from my squad in the air force to fly a Jupiter into low orbit, landing in the South Atlantic. "Reflexes", they told me, "are key". I had trained, and was prepared. But then, on December 12, that damnable Friday, my C.O. came down to the barracks with news of minor budget cuts. Some damn higher ups decided that cutting the pilot's insurance was the best way to save money so close to launch. No insurance, no pilot. Their solution: "send a monkey, or something". Damn Gordo. How I coveted those 8.3 minutes of weightlessness you experienced.
This all reminds me of VRML, which was popular about 10 years ago. I distinctly remember trolling around CyberTown, which was very similar to Second Life (with comparable graphics, at least as far as I can remember being that it was so long ago). In theory, anyone could have hosted a VRML space, linking to it from the many walkways and doors in CyberTown, though I don't recall whether this was common. The whole thing was kind of neat for the time, but I really couldn't see anything like it becoming more than just a chat room (maybe a step forward for sims?)
There is a name for things that can't be gotten rid of: inalienable. So, for example, when the American constitution mentions "inalienable rights", these are rights that cannot be surrendered. It really seems that Autodesk is saying "by purchasing this software, you have inalienable property over it" and then tagging on an EULA that severely limits how far that right to property extends. It needn't be said, but they are clearly trying to control every aspect of the user's interaction with their company/software. I'm always curious about how large companies like Autodesk are able to get away with crap that even governments would have problems justifying.
...at every internet cafe. I'm very curious to know how many privileges the user will lose because of this. Will it be possible to, say, run a Live version of Linux off a DVD and bypass the billing system?
Slashdot Mirror
Gross.
This means I've just found another condition I might have by browsing the internet! Damn you cyberchondria!
Because more choice is not always better. Gnome does what I need it to do, and is as customizable as I need it to be. Given that, my pre-existing comfort with gnome, and my never having used KDE for any extended period of time, I have no desire or need to switch. And this is independent of whatever advantages KDE might have, when it comes to what you need it for.
I get the impression that whether users can opt out of this fee is up to ISPs. By providing the service (i.e. access to Warner's music library), the ISPs are just making themselves not liable to prosecution over copyright infringement (i.e. copying music). This puts the legal burden of the infringement on the user, where it should be, such that ISPs cannot be pushed around by content creation companies (e.g. Warner). Again, users should be able to opt out of paying the fee if they don't plan on downloading Warner's music (legally).
Nobody is trying to break into your fucking wallet.
Absolutely correct. As an arts major, I (have indoctrinated myself to) think that we can actually make contributions to relevant aspects of society, but not by constantly comparing real life to fiction and certainly not by butchering theoretical concepts (Foucault's panopticism), as does the writer of the summary. The point of the panopticon, put rather simply, is to illustrate that people internalize whatever social norms they think they must. This is not necessarily a malicious truth, since, e.g., minding what you say at a job interview is a form of panopticism. As instantiated technologically, this notion is most evident in London's CCTV system, making it the best bet to always act as though you were being watched by the police, even if no camera is facing you. As for Google's street view, on some of the pictures of streets you can look down and see the bulky camera rig Google used to take them. So it is a car with a large rig on top. Not particularly stealthy and, as you point out, certainly not a live view. This is as foolish as being terrified of Google Map's satellite view. The point of street view, at least as I use it, is to be able to recognize landmarks in streets you are unfamiliar with. They've even blurred any license plates that may have been captured on camera, though that only happened after the project was already launched. As for Google's being big brother... we can talk about that when they start training children to detect thoughtcrime.
The free publicity is a function of the band/musician's pre-existing popularity. As you point out, releasing music online and for free does not generate publicity for unknown acts.
If a lot of famous musicians catch on, every one of their online releases will generate publicity simply because every one of their offline releases generates publicity. Maybe not slashdot, but music publications will certainly make a big deal of, e.g., the new Sheryl Crow record (example chosen due to its low probability).
The publicity problem with releasing music online is the same problem facing any online release of anything; you can only count on your work being found by people who are already looking for it. As for generating revenue, I am not yet familiar with a business model that works well, but each new experiment (i.e. first Radiohead, then Trent Reznor) leads to new alternatives and, in the spirit of science, if we keep experimenting we're bound to find something that works.
A sociopath, a criminal. Playful is crank-calling someone and asking if their refrigerator is running. Getting a dozen pizzas delivered to the local police station is a prank and theft but nobody got hurt. Calling in SWAT teams gets people killed. There are many cases of SWAT no-knocking the wrong apartment and either shooting unarmed people or getting shot at by guys with guns defending their homes. (Note to 2nd amendment types: your guns will not keep you free. If the government wants your ass, they're going to get it.)
This is strictly a devil's advocate post. That is to say, I mostly agree with you but have a nagging voice (perhaps from childhood) which poses a counterpoint to your post.
There seems to be a pattern echoed throughout generations which the rapid growth of communication technology in the 20th century lets us see quite clearly. Namely, previous generations attack the habits of current children/teenagers using reasons that seem perfectly sensible to members of the previous generations, but do not generally change the current children/teenagers' attitudes. Video games and rock music are two examples, and the proliferation of hacker culture (e.g. phreaking) seems to be limited only by the pervasiveness of internet access.
I mention this because the examples you gave seem perfect to prove my point. Is the fact that "calling in SWAT teams gets people killed" the fault of the prankster, or the SWAT teams? If innocent people shoot at SWAT team members, could they simply be trigger-happy gun owners? Granted that many gun-owners are responsible and informed, but are they all?
Let me preface this comment by saying I am not an American, but an observer of American politics and culture. It is a sad testament to the strength of anti-intellectualist tendencies in American culture that American politicians tend to have little academic expertise on the issues pertaining to the policies they espouse (e.g. Ted Stevens' "internet = series of tubes"). The benefit provided by academic expertise is not simply the number of degrees one acquires, but dialogical engagement with other experts who dedicate themselves to finding fault in arguments (via journals, conferences, etc). Thus, the arguments presented by an academic to the general public may well be bastardized (because simplified) versions of the arguments they would present within academia, but we (the public) can assure ourselves that those arguments could be elucidated in ways that stand up to some level of harsh criticism. To put one's faith in the honesty of a politician whose views and arguments arose in an academic setting, then, is a better bet than putting one's faith in the honesty of a politician who may only be concerned with rhetorically covering up his/her true influences (e.g. pressure by lobbyists or campaign contributions). Lessig for congress is, in my eyes, a good move regardless of how much/little I may agree with him politically. This is simply because the development of his views and arguments is well documented in his books and articles, and with reference to an academic context which is accessible to anyone interested in putting the time into investigating it. As I see it, this would be a move towards transparency in government, which is a prerequisite for true democracy.
My current Windows XP install is little more than a console (actually, a little less compared to modern consoles; I don't even have a browser installed). If instead of that, I could solely run Linux, and boot directly into Windows games, this technology would be extremely useful.
I recently got rid of cable because it is far too expensive and the programming is crap, so I was considering different alternatives for reviving my television. MythTV is the coolest one, but I don't have a second computer for the frontend which would replace my cable box. A $200 PC at those specs sounds about right. So there is at least one really good use for Walmart's cheap boxes.
I don't think it is an issue of games requiring SLI. Nor is it fair to equate nVidia's SLI with 3dfx's.
This was already brought up, but the advantage of nVidia's SLI is buying another of the same card, which was good enough to run the games of its day, a few years down the line when it has become considerably cheaper. Alternate frame rendering over SLI would then significantly increase that box's gaming performance (nVidia claims up to 1.9x improvement, so its probably more like 1.4x - 1.5x for most cards). If this is enough to at least run future games, SLI already captures the market for people who would spend ~$40-$60 for another card just to keep playing new games, but wouldn't spend $100-$400 to play them perfectly.
And nVidia's situation is almost entirely different from 3dfx's. 3dfx was an early leader in 3D card production who made a few stupid business decisions (e.g. alienating OEM manufacturers) and implemented SLI poorly (you needed two Voodoo2s and a 2D VGA card). nVidia is an enduring market leader whose SLI implementation is technically sound.
'nuff said.
Ah, but I have already had my chance at being an astronaut! Oh, all those 49 years ago... I remember it as if I were inventing it now...
I was hand picked from my squad in the air force to fly a Jupiter into low orbit, landing in the South Atlantic. "Reflexes", they told me, "are key". I had trained, and was prepared. But then, on December 12, that damnable Friday, my C.O. came down to the barracks with news of minor budget cuts. Some damn higher ups decided that cutting the pilot's insurance was the best way to save money so close to launch. No insurance, no pilot. Their solution: "send a monkey, or something". Damn Gordo. How I coveted those 8.3 minutes of weightlessness you experienced.
Stupid monkey.
This all reminds me of VRML, which was popular about 10 years ago. I distinctly remember trolling around CyberTown, which was very similar to Second Life (with comparable graphics, at least as far as I can remember being that it was so long ago). In theory, anyone could have hosted a VRML space, linking to it from the many walkways and doors in CyberTown, though I don't recall whether this was common. The whole thing was kind of neat for the time, but I really couldn't see anything like it becoming more than just a chat room (maybe a step forward for sims?)
There is a name for things that can't be gotten rid of: inalienable. So, for example, when the American constitution mentions "inalienable rights", these are rights that cannot be surrendered. It really seems that Autodesk is saying "by purchasing this software, you have inalienable property over it" and then tagging on an EULA that severely limits how far that right to property extends. It needn't be said, but they are clearly trying to control every aspect of the user's interaction with their company/software. I'm always curious about how large companies like Autodesk are able to get away with crap that even governments would have problems justifying.
Perhaps. But does Ubuntu even have an advertising budget?
I was listening to (and, I confess, recording music from) this site, while reading this article. Wonder if Deezer works under Vista...
...at every internet cafe. I'm very curious to know how many privileges the user will lose because of this. Will it be possible to, say, run a Live version of Linux off a DVD and bypass the billing system?