Really, one should just doubt any license or contract that is difficult to understand - like the GPL. Dangerous pot calling the kettle black logic here.
All those who've wanted more policing, well here ya' go. Thomas Vinje et al should be happy campers. Consumer harm should be the touchstone, without all the EC gobbly-gook reasoning. The storm troops there should just say we presume market share harms consumers, and then at least be intellectually honest.
This has been one of the heaviest lobbied standards-approval processes ever. Microsoft has gotten nailed at every corner for working its butt off to get the thing through. In the end, it may not even matter what happens at ISO - the standard can still be used (regardless of all of the naysayers), and it provides another choice in the marketplace. Make it or not. I think Nico's comments reveal the general frustration of being Daniel in the Lion's den. There ain't no way he's gonna' turn anyone's mind on this - the camps are chosen. He's in enemy territory. He sees coverage that appears less than fair-and-balanced, and so he's voicing that. All very normal, and probably true.
I'm not sure who to believe here. And that doesn't really matter. What I do feel, however, is that for the working schlep like myself, who makes a living in hetero environments, the FSF is starting to push my patience. The DRM aspect, the patent tightening, the Novell Deal-Killer clause (which I understand only "Committee B" has seen) in GPL3 - this stuff seems to me to be straying from the 4 freedoms, looking more like a EULA that needs lawyers to interpret it. It certainly doesn't free me up any when I go outside with a distro.
I was initially taken aback by comments by some of the telco CEO's earlier this year that lead me to the conclusion - i.e., movie theater analogy - above. The medium evolves, but there's a dissonance in the way we speak about - "I want the same old Internet" in the same breath we talk about its evolutionary nature. Unless Uncle Sam steps in and starts running the fiber himself, those next steps are going to be accomplished by private developers. It will not look the same...but it won't look like deforestation either. I'm a realist (and yes, somewhat cynical) - if it were my movie theater, I'd want to be able to freely choose what people can see in it. I'd be checked by others offering alternatives - and there will be - but I'd still want to be able to decide the who's and how much's myself. Best, m.
The net neutrality message being peddled is - the Internet that we've always known must be saved through regulation. Forced access to content must prevail, or we'll all suffer.
But that argument is based on the regulated world where we used to be - the public switch telephone network, which has one hundred years of copper wiring subsidize through rate-of-return, natutral monopoly regulation. We're not there anymore, dudes. We're working with light - unregulated and unsubsidized (no profits from the regulated side can subsidize the unregulated side, fiber, etc.). Thus, it's the phone companies' private risk they're staking; their own movie theaters they're putting up.
The governmnet ain't constructing the next Internet. The new model will look more like a "movie theaters model", and unaffiliated content providers - the Googles, etc. - will rightly have to pay for access to those essentially private screens.
It's different from where we were. But that was essentially from the point of view of a publicly owned utility. The medium being the message - we say/treatthings differently when public or private. I think we should accept that this next private phase is upon us, and know that it will be checked by the onslaught of new technology - also privately borne - that bypasses them.
Whatever you may think abot these very large companies, one thing maybe we can work towards is this - do we really want governments designing our products? That's where this tactis is headed. C'mon, man, can't we all get along?
Slashdot Mirror
Imagine if we signed Kyoto. Wow.
Really, one should just doubt any license or contract that is difficult to understand - like the GPL. Dangerous pot calling the kettle black logic here.
All those who've wanted more policing, well here ya' go. Thomas Vinje et al should be happy campers. Consumer harm should be the touchstone, without all the EC gobbly-gook reasoning. The storm troops there should just say we presume market share harms consumers, and then at least be intellectually honest.
The Telecaster (American made) is tough as nails, and if you run it through a Mesa Boogie, Dual-Rectifier head, it can sound like nails, too.
This has been one of the heaviest lobbied standards-approval processes ever. Microsoft has gotten nailed at every corner for working its butt off to get the thing through. In the end, it may not even matter what happens at ISO - the standard can still be used (regardless of all of the naysayers), and it provides another choice in the marketplace. Make it or not. I think Nico's comments reveal the general frustration of being Daniel in the Lion's den. There ain't no way he's gonna' turn anyone's mind on this - the camps are chosen. He's in enemy territory. He sees coverage that appears less than fair-and-balanced, and so he's voicing that. All very normal, and probably true.
I'm not sure who to believe here. And that doesn't really matter. What I do feel, however, is that for the working schlep like myself, who makes a living in hetero environments, the FSF is starting to push my patience. The DRM aspect, the patent tightening, the Novell Deal-Killer clause (which I understand only "Committee B" has seen) in GPL3 - this stuff seems to me to be straying from the 4 freedoms, looking more like a EULA that needs lawyers to interpret it. It certainly doesn't free me up any when I go outside with a distro.
I was initially taken aback by comments by some of the telco CEO's earlier this year that lead me to the conclusion - i.e., movie theater analogy - above. The medium evolves, but there's a dissonance in the way we speak about - "I want the same old Internet" in the same breath we talk about its evolutionary nature. Unless Uncle Sam steps in and starts running the fiber himself, those next steps are going to be accomplished by private developers. It will not look the same...but it won't look like deforestation either. I'm a realist (and yes, somewhat cynical) - if it were my movie theater, I'd want to be able to freely choose what people can see in it. I'd be checked by others offering alternatives - and there will be - but I'd still want to be able to decide the who's and how much's myself. Best, m.
The net neutrality message being peddled is - the Internet that we've always known must be saved through regulation. Forced access to content must prevail, or we'll all suffer. But that argument is based on the regulated world where we used to be - the public switch telephone network, which has one hundred years of copper wiring subsidize through rate-of-return, natutral monopoly regulation. We're not there anymore, dudes. We're working with light - unregulated and unsubsidized (no profits from the regulated side can subsidize the unregulated side, fiber, etc.). Thus, it's the phone companies' private risk they're staking; their own movie theaters they're putting up. The governmnet ain't constructing the next Internet. The new model will look more like a "movie theaters model", and unaffiliated content providers - the Googles, etc. - will rightly have to pay for access to those essentially private screens. It's different from where we were. But that was essentially from the point of view of a publicly owned utility. The medium being the message - we say/treatthings differently when public or private. I think we should accept that this next private phase is upon us, and know that it will be checked by the onslaught of new technology - also privately borne - that bypasses them.
Whatever you may think abot these very large companies, one thing maybe we can work towards is this - do we really want governments designing our products? That's where this tactis is headed. C'mon, man, can't we all get along?