If you're an American, write your Federal Representatives. The only way this matter will get prominent media attention is if it comes up in Congress. Write a sensible letter. If you're incapable of writing something that is not "unencumbered with the thought process," then do everyone a favor and don't write. Silly, profanity-riddled rants do the cause more harm than good.
Here's a copy of the letter I just emailed to one of my Senators. Use it as a template if you wish:
I want to bring to your attention developments on the WWW concerning Mattel Corporation and its product, CyberPatrol. CyberPatrol is so-called "blocking software" that allows users to prevent their computers from accessing web sites specified in a list that is included with the program. This software is being used not only by parents but also by public libraries.
There are two matters that concern me and which I think should be addressed by the Federal government. First, two young men, who are not Americans, recently "hacked" or broke the program's encryption and published the list of blocked sites. They demonstrated that the program not only blocked pornographic sites and other sites of repugnant material; but that it also was designed to block certain political sites, such as that of the Electronic Freedom Foundation.
These young men are being sued in American court by Mattel. Mattel is presently using this lawsuit to threaten everyone on the WWW who has also made this material public. This is wrong. The public has a right to know when software either (a) does not do what it is supposed to do or (b) behind their backs is doing something they may not have agreed to have it do. Since the Mattel Corporation has chosen to keep this information secret, we must be able to rely on others to verify that its software functions correctly.
As a side note, Mattel is also attempting to force the young men's Internet Service Providers to provide them with logs of everyone who downloaded material from the web site. Again, the public has an inherent "right to know" about the functionality of products they purchase. No corporation should be in a position to threaten someone for wanting to know more about a product they have purchased.
Second, Mattel Corporation has "updated" the software's list of blocked sites to include all sites known to have provided information critical of CyberPatrol. Shades of "Big Brother." This may not be the first time a corporation has used its power to suppress criticism; but it is a significant event in history of the WWW. If you were to make a public statement critical of Mattel's actions, you could expect that your own web site would shortly thereafter become a target of the blocking software.
I believe that this matter, in all its ramifications, should be brought before Congress and discussed. Mattel Corporation and other companies like it should be made to know that their actions in attempting to suppress free speech are not going unnoticed by the Federal government. This is not an issue that is going to go away. We must act to protect citizens' right to know and to prevent the Internet from becoming the playground of international corporations with unregulated and unbridled power.
More information about this controversy is available from Declan McCullagh's politech mailing list web site: politech. I may also mention in passing that Mr. McCullagh has also been threatened by Mattel for writing articles about this issue and Mattel has demanded the names of everyone on his mailing list so that it may attempt to determine who may have accessed the aforementioned documentation about the CyberPatrol product.
Before we hold a pity party for Bezos the Billioniare, let's take a reality check. The following snippet is from an email newsletter I receive.
*************
ELECTRONIC PEASANTS
LE MONDE DIPLOMATIQUE: [Amazon's]founder Jeff Bezos owns over $4 billion. The work of Amazon employees is less lucrative and a great deal less creative. Several hundred, many young, unmarried and well educated, work at the Seattle premises in gigantic landscaped offices split into tiny, shared cubicles. With their head-sets plugged in and their eyes glued to the screen they handle millions of e-mail orders a year.
Some managers at Amazon refer to them as "electronic peasants", for when they are on-line with a customer they are not supposed to show off their literary skills. The focus in these modern times is on output: 12 e-mails an hour and the sack for anyone who drops below seven and a half. On the phone any conversation exceeding four minutes, in a voice that according to a former employee "is supposed to be loud enough for the customer to hear and quiet enough to keep from distracting cubical mates," earns the guilty party a warning.
"It's like Communist China under Mao," explains one of the new economy's production-line workers, "you're constantly being pushed to help the collective. If you fail to do this, you're going against your family. But if this is a family, it belongs on the Jerry Springer show." Such ingratitude in a company that is constantly organizing events for its workers - or devotees. Last September, for instance, there was a "Midnight madness" keyboard marathon, humorously announced by an e-mail entitled "You can sleep when you're dead". This irresistible game involved coming to work at night to cope with as many outstanding cyber-orders as possible. The winner received a princely $100 prize.
I don't buy from Amazon. Tim O'Reilly means well, but there's nothing in his conversation that makes me believe that Bezos is a man with whom I wish to do business. He's just another sweatshop owner. He's made a pile of dough and he means to share as little of it as possible with him employees. In the "brick and mortar" world, he'd be an eligible target for the protests currently being staged on campuses around the country.
mp
Re:Jon Katz killed the first article due to bad re
on
LonelyNet (Part Two)
·
· Score: 1
I could care less if he uses Word. It would confirm alot of suspicions I have (i.e. Katz doesn't know a tinker's damn about the very things he claims to be an expert on)..I just thought it would be interesting for people to know what happened this morning. could care less if he uses Word. It would confirm alot of suspicions I have (i.e. Katz doesn't know a tinker's damn about the very things he claims to be an expert on)..I just thought it would be interesting for people to know what happened this morning.
In some circles, this is known as backpedalling. First you make a big production out of Katz's supposed using of Word, then you deny that you thought it was a big deal. I think there's a career for you in politics.
As far as Katz claiming to be an "expert" in things technological, I defy you to produce a single quote out of any of his articles where he has made such a claim. C'mon, you wrote it, now back it up.
The truth is, of course, you can't -- time for more backpedalling.
One thing that Katz brings to/. is some voice of moral conscience. To you, the idea of morality, conscience and technology mixing together is offensive. Apparently, to Rob Malda it's an important mix. Discussion of how technology impacts moral decisionmaking is significant -- there should be more of it, not less.
Ironically, your behavior and that of the other "Katz haters" merely demonstrates an online inanity and immaturity that goes far to validate the stereotype of the clueless technophile. Some people say Jon Katz polarizes Slashdot. No, he doesn't. He's not responsible for your hateful, sneering behavior. You are.
mp
Re:Jon Katz killed the first article due to bad re
on
LonelyNet (Part Two)
·
· Score: 1
If you don't know why Rob has him here then it's just because you haven't been paying attention. Here's one quote from last March:
Many people are submitting The Obvious article about Jon Katz not belonging on Slashdot. I guess I'm glad that in the end its up to me. Personally, I think most of his articles are good. xach sent us a deja news bit that goes much further. I agree with most of the stuff in these articles, but I also think most of Katz's articles are worth reading, but when he mentions his book, I press the back button. You can too. -- Rob Malda
Now, if you don't like Slashdot, you're free to go somewhere else and start up another site of your own, just like "the old slashdot." If the "old Slashdot" was so much greater than the current version, then you're guaranteed an audience. If you don't have the stones to act on your beliefs, then the only self-respecting alternative is to zip your lip.
I get bugged by your whining. Katz has his faults, but at least he's focussed on some things more significant than what word processor someone is using. I look at your comments and ask: what of significance are you contributing to either the atmosphere or the discussions here?
mp
Re:Jon Katz killed the first article due to bad re
on
LonelyNet (Part Two)
·
· Score: 2
Wait. The only thing you got out of the entire article was that he might have used MS Word to write it? And you call him a clod?
You're simply living proof that he might be wrong about the bad effects of too much time on the 'net.
Here, let me deliver the death blow to your love of linux:
"For example, I've always liked PowerPoint, and I've always thought that Visual Basic was a good product." -- Linus Torvalds
Linus likes MS products?? Oh nooooooooo!
Oh yeah, and please stop using the "royal we" when expressing your opinions. We don't "hate" him. You do.
Both LinuxTECH and the UYLUG have expressed, through their conversation in open letters, their interest in protecting the Linux name. However, LinuxTECH does not recognize that Linus Torvalds is the rightful owner.
Do you have some evidence for this claim?
Just because one of the parties calls itself the "linux user's group" is no reason to assume that it is the truthful party. It seems you have not read the response letter, so let me quote from it:
Being aware of the integration of the Board of Directors of UYLUG, knowners of the personal interest of some of its members - not compatible with the integrity of a user's group - and the expertise in trademarks of other member, we handle the posiblity that they will try to secure exclusive rights to the Linux trademark to prevent that other persons or companies beyond their control to trade with the Linux trademark in Uruguay.
What's your basis for determining that this paragraph is a lie and the one you quoted from the users' group is the truthful one?
I believe that the reality is that we have walked into a family squabble -- and choosing sides is foolish. I have been in several user groups where political infighting has resulted in or been the result of a particular faction using the group for its own particular ends. Sometimes, those ends are driving certain individuals out of the group. Other times, they are simply controlling the resources of the group.
How do you know that in fact, the claims of the business are not true? It may well be that some people in the user group are attempting to control who will be allowed to use the "linux" name in Uruguay.
The smart move in this situation would be to wait and see what develops.
In case these guys are rewarded the Linux trademark in Uruguay, I say the good people of Slashdot come up with some similar name suggestions to help the UYLUG out.In case these guys are rewarded the Linux trademark in Uruguay, I say the good people of Slashdot come up with some similar name suggestions to help the UYLUG out.
And what is your rationale for assuming that the User's Group is the "good guy" and the company is the "bad guy" in this situation?
The following is the text of an email I sent to the author in response to the column:
I must say that I think your comments about tech support cartoons were pretty much off-target.
First, it seems bizarre to me that you would start off by claiming that providing tech support is a no-brainer and that any moron with a pulse can do it. As a tech support person and trainer, I know this to be patently untrue. And then, after claiming that tech support is a dumb-and-dumber sport, you turn right around and complain that it's cruel to disparage users! What -- but it's okay to disparage tech support people?
Second, if you actually read User Friendly for any period of time, you would know that strips that poke fun at users make up only a few percent of the production; and that most of the cartoons poke fun, instead, at the tech support staff itself and at the management. Thus, your article starts from a dubious premise that strips like UF are "about" ridiculing users.
Third, humor is cruel in its nature. The significant factor is not in its nature but in its use. Yes, it's cruel and wrong to belittle people, and especially right to their faces. That's why I don't watch and have no interest in watching television sitcoms. They're nothing but one mean-spirited putdown after another. But that fact has nothing to do with cartoons like UF, which are aimed at and predominantly read by geeks.
Humor is a safety valve -- as the old saying goes, "laugh or you'll cry." Or hit somebody. Every person I have ever encountered who worked in a high-pressure situation responded by a combination of ridicule of himself, cow-orkers and clients. And if you don't think that plumbers are making fun of you behind your back -- you need to widen your circle of acquaintance.
Fourth, I've never mocked a client to her face, nor would I. Despite the fact that I've been shouted at, cursed at and called about every filthy name you can think of -- just because I happen to be tech support, I'm fair game for every moron with $3000 to buy a computer. As you write, the inability to use a computer may not be an indicator of intelligence. But, in my opinion, the unwillingness to learn more than the minimal amount necessary to turn it on and start a program; coupled with a readiness to blame all the outcomes of ignorant usage on either me or on the computer; which qualities number among the major ones I meet every day on the phones -- those indicate, not lack of intelligence, but lack of character. In a word, they're lazy. Why learn how to do it yourself, when you can just call tech support? Personally, I see no reason why I should cut slack for people who aren't willing to invest the intellectual energy necessary to learn how to operate their equipment competently.
You think that someday everyone will be able to do tech support on his own computer. I can't imagine where you got such an utopian notion. Certainly, not from answering the phones -- computer users today are no more savvy than computer users of 10 years ago. If anything, it's worse. 10 years ago, you bought a computer, you pretty much were on your own. If something went wrong, you figured it out. Nowadays, if something goes wrong, you call tech support, click on command through a bunch of menus, it's fixed, you hang up, -- with next to no idea of what you just did. The next time you have that problem, you call back again.
Finally, most cartoons I have observed mock actions, not people. Perhaps, the reason you fail to laugh at UF is because you fail to distinguish between the two.
Libertarianism is a poor political and moral choice. It's a hypocritical philosophy created by a group of 'haves' to prevent the 'have nots' from benefitting from the overall improvements in this society. Libertarians are business-oriented -- don't believe for a minute that in a libertarian government, you as an individual would have the same rights before law as a corporation. Libertarians are social darwinists -- they believe that those on the top of the heap are there because they are inherently superior beings. They don't believe in the notion of structural oppression, and they don't believe that the government should prevent oppression of the have-nots by the haves. Libertarians are believers in one-party government -- there's only one way to run a government, the libertarian way. Although in theory, you're allowed to elect anyone you want to elect, in fact no laws would be allowed that did not agree with the libertarian party principles. Finally, libertarianism is fundamentally anti-democratic. That seems odd, doesn't it? But, suppose we had a libertarian government and we had a huge economic depression and a majority of the people wanted to institute some governmental relief? You can't -- since a libertarian government rejects social programs to aid the desperate, the libertarian government also rejects the right of the majority to institute such governmental programs.
Yes, a lot of what we get from the current political parties is crap. But that is not because the party system is flawed, that's because only 25% of the population actually show up at the booth. If everybody who was eligible to vote actually voted, there would be one hell of a lot more accountability in the government. And that should be our goal -- to make the gov't accountable to the whole population: not just to the bourgeois who are currently holding the reins. Because the names and numbers of those holding the reins will not be changed if the libertarians come to power.
One must remember something extremely important: free speech is protected.... HOWEVER.... Nothing says that anyone else must support your message with their resources. For example, you have the right to publish and distribute your own magazine, but you do NOT have the right to demand that an arbitrary magazine publishes your essays. One must remember something extremely important: free speech is protected.... HOWEVER.... Nothing says that anyone else must support your message with their resources. For example, you have the right to publish and distribute your own magazine, but you do NOT have the right to demand that an arbitrary magazine publishes your essays.
However, the FBI (aka The Federal Bureau of Intimidation) was clearly acting in prior restraint, which is completely illegal. The fact that they did it right out in the open shows how far we have travelled down the road toward non-democracy.
The dead end is in not being able to do business and becoming purely technical and on the expense side of the ledger. I will not ever return to a college -- what a waste of time.
Your snide attitude toward those with greater education than yourself leads me to a prediction: you're a VP in a Fortune 500 company now. And you'll still be one twenty years from now.
Beyond your general folly, there's a more important question: what is the purpose of an education? For you, it's only a waste of time. To a thinking person, however, an education is more than just a ticket to a "better job." It is an adventure into ideas they find interesting, a connection to social and political responsibilities, and the basis for a sound moral and family life.
I don't care how much money you make or how expensive are the suits you wear -- as soon as you open your mouth, everybody around you will know in short order whether or not you're an educated person.
$99 for a collection of GNU tools with a few win32 hooks is silly.
Then write your own and stop crying about having to pay for it.
What's really "silly" is people like you who expect everybody else to do things for you for free so that you don't have to do any work yourself.
What have YOU done to benefit free software? How much money have you contributed? How much software have you written under GPL? If writing a "few win32 hooks" is so trivial, do it yourself and GPL the resulting code.
And the 'Net is all knotted up in it. The people demanding "free speech" demand an anything-goes 'net on which the only recourse to offensive content is to duck as it flys by. And the 'Net is all knotted up in it. The people demanding "free speech" demand an anything-goes 'net on which the only recourse to offensive content is to duck as it flys by.
It's entirely possible to be a supporter of free speech without being a support of pornography. You've made it clear that you do not support free speech as a human right and that you prefer the government to determine what can be said publicly or written on a web page.
Pornography is not the issue. The government of Germany has determined that you cannot buy Hitler's Mein Kampf and other writings by Nazis. The other day, while at work, I tried to read an article at the online BBC. Surfwatch blocked the article because the headline contained the word `nude.' So now, a web site that has, e.g., prints of paintings by Leonardo da Vinci will be labelled unfit for teenagers because he painted nudes. You ought to see that that is stupid.
The real issue is that you are willing to let the government decide what you can read and what you can't. Nothing prevents the government from deciding to extend the censorship to cover interracial marriages, or Catholic religious services or the rights of minorities. Nothing. The only way to prevent this extension of censorship is to not allow the censorship in the first place.
I live in the United States. At the founding of this country, censorship was the rule. Any newspaper that criticised the central gov't could be shut down -- and many were. A long battle was fought to secure the right to criticise the gov't and to say just what you thought on any subject. Now, two hundred-odd years later, a lot of Americans think just like you -- they're willing to give up that right because they find it inconvenient to pay attention to what their kids are doing with the computer. That's too bad, for them, their kids and their country. I would say that they -- and you -- need to take more responsibility for what goes on in the family and stop expecting the government to do your jobs.
Why would you expect them to? This is not a forum for duelling editorialists. You were free to post a followup... you chose not to. Instead, you chose the ad hominem attack on the original author and to impugn the integrity of Rob &co. Unimpressive.
As this collection of comments clearly shows, there are plenty of other advocates of monopolistic capitalism here, so post away -- you're guaranteed of a friendly audience.
I'm not familiar with audiohighway, but their press release says that they expect their new patent to help their present business -- they do not make it sound like they are expecting to rely on "compensation agreements" for their income. I assume that they market MP3-type products. So, don't buy them.
The best response to this kind of "intellectual property" nonsense is to boycott Audiohighway. Tell everyone you know what's going on and tell THEM to boycott audiohighway. Since they are going to force people to pay more for players, the only effective response is to take the money back from them by not buying their other products.
Given the broad contact range of the internet, just putting "boycott audiohighway" in your sig will reach tens of thousands of people. Remember, Jesse Jackson brought PepsiCo to its knees just by making speeches.
If you bought a piece of property as speculation that its value was going to increase; and after that value increased, you sold it at a profit -- would that be illegal? No. That would be called "good business sense." This is exactly the same as "domain squatting." Why should the latter be considered "bad" and the former considered "good"? The answer is, because you and every other person complaining about "domain squatting" didn't apply the little grey cells to the issue. By taking up arms against "domain squatters" you simply act as agents of big corps like AOL. Good idea. What do you think is going to happen when you want a domain name and it turns out Coca Cola owns it but isn't using it? Do you think you've got a snowball-in-hell chance of getting it from them? Wake up.
It's better to have a free-for-all and have a chance at getting what you want; than back up the big boys just so THEY can get what they want.
Nope, there's been a lot of litigation about letters, due to the fact that those of famous people often wind up published. Legally, if you sent a bunch of letters to people & after becoming a famous linux advocate, decided to put them all in a book, you could require your correspondents to return to you any copies they may have kept. Also, you could prevent them from publishing a collection of your letters, if you chose to do so.
Emails are more protected that public posts in a place like slashdot or one like usenet. In public places, you still own copyright on your words of wisdom, even though they are published. Although it is considered bad "netiquette" to publish emails without permission of the author, it's also illegal.
Obviously, the likelihood of anyone getting sued in this case is small. And it's a civil, not a criminal matter. But, the legal grounds exist.
Copyright on letters remains with the sender, not the recipient. Strictly speaking, Mindcraft violates US copyright law by publishing letters without permission of the authors. And I'm pretty sure they did not bother getting permission!
A sorry lot of letters, too. I guess of the 7-10 million linux users worldwide, 5 million or so must be under age 17. They obviously need more parental supervision.
These sorts of games have long been a part of chess history. Depending on how the moves are decided, the consulting team can bring a lot of ingenuity to bear on the game.
A move a day is reasonably fast, so the game should stay interesting.
I'd like to point out that we were having no problems until the US gov't made the arbitrary decision to to "privatize" domain registrations. NSI wasn't doing a bad job, and the prices were quite reasonable ($50/yr and then bumped down to $35). The decision to "open up the market" was purely political. Thus, in my view, the problems now evident were created by the thoughtless actions of thoughtless people. Instead of opening up "the market," all they've done is open up a can of worms.
Yep, the generally rancorous tone of "linux advocacy" is repugnant. Although I'm not shy about claiming linux as my OS, and I did have an article about it published in the local newspaper last year -- nonetheless, I never advocate it. I tell people that it's a good OS, and why I like it but I never recommend it. I don't want to be in any way associated with the all-too-often moronic crowd of "linux advocates."
"...that he said that could make a fortune by selling a Linux-compatible spell checker. Wait a sec? Sell a spell-checker in the land of free software? Naaaaa...... "
What's not funny is that you're one of the ones he was writing about. He didn't say "sell," he said "distribute." Work on those reading skills, son. The effort will repay itself.
My suggestion would be to focus on intellectual property (so-called) and privacy issues. Runaway legislation restricting use of copyrighted material and granting large powers of surveillance to gov'ts are at the top of the list. The World Intellectual Property Organization has approved recommendations that would make it easy for large companies to claim domain names and take them away from current users. The US Congress is considering legislation that would make online databases of facts copyrighted material -- meaning you would no longer be able to abstract facts from those databases & use them in your report without written permission or payment of a fee. The "Echelon" project has been in the news -- the US, New Zealand, Australian & British gov'ts have been monitoring all satellite transmissions of email, telephone calls and faxes. The British gov't was considering but now has dropped legislation that would have required that all ISPs to maintain "key escrows" for all encrypted data transfers, and allow the British law enforcement agencies access to those keys whenever they asked for it. The Australian parliament has just passed a law requiring all Australian ISPs to block internet access to foreign sites that are on a censor list -- a censor list to be developed by the Australian Film Board!
&c &c &c
I would have emailed a copy of this post but there's something wrong with your email address. You should fix it.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's a copy of the letter I just emailed to one of my Senators. Use it as a template if you wish:
I want to bring to your attention developments on the WWW concerning Mattel Corporation and its product, CyberPatrol. CyberPatrol is so-called "blocking software" that allows users to prevent their computers from accessing web sites specified in a list that is included with the program. This software is being used not only by parents but also by public libraries.
There are two matters that concern me and which I think should be addressed by the Federal government. First, two young men, who are not Americans, recently "hacked" or broke the program's encryption and published the list of blocked sites. They demonstrated that the program not only blocked pornographic sites and other sites of repugnant material; but that it also was designed to block certain political sites, such as that of the Electronic Freedom Foundation.
These young men are being sued in American court by Mattel. Mattel is presently using this lawsuit to threaten everyone on the WWW who has also made this material public. This is wrong. The public has a right to know when software either (a) does not do what it is supposed to do or (b) behind their backs is doing something they may not have agreed to have it do. Since the Mattel Corporation has chosen to keep this information secret, we must be able to rely on others to verify that its software functions correctly.
As a side note, Mattel is also attempting to force the young men's Internet Service Providers to provide them with logs of everyone who downloaded material from the web site. Again, the public has an inherent "right to know" about the functionality of products they purchase. No corporation should be in a position to threaten someone for wanting to know more about a product they have purchased.
Second, Mattel Corporation has "updated" the software's list of blocked sites to include all sites known to have provided information critical of CyberPatrol. Shades of "Big Brother." This may not be the first time a corporation has used its power to suppress criticism; but it is a significant event in history of the WWW. If you were to make a public statement critical of Mattel's actions, you could expect that your own web site would shortly thereafter become a target of the blocking software.
I believe that this matter, in all its ramifications, should be brought before Congress and discussed. Mattel Corporation and other companies like it should be made to know that their actions in attempting to suppress free speech are not going unnoticed by the Federal government. This is not an issue that is going to go away. We must act to protect citizens' right to know and to prevent the Internet from becoming the playground of international corporations with unregulated and unbridled power.
More information about this controversy is available from Declan McCullagh's politech mailing list web site: politech. I may also mention in passing that Mr. McCullagh has also been threatened by Mattel for writing articles about this issue and Mattel has demanded the names of everyone on his mailing list so that it may attempt to determine who may have accessed the aforementioned documentation about the CyberPatrol product.
Thank you for your time.
mp
*************
ELECTRONIC PEASANTS
LE MONDE DIPLOMATIQUE: [Amazon's]founder Jeff Bezos owns over $4 billion. The work of Amazon employees is less lucrative and a great deal less creative. Several hundred, many young, unmarried and well educated, work at the Seattle premises in gigantic landscaped offices split into tiny, shared cubicles. With their head-sets plugged in and their eyes glued to the screen they handle millions of e-mail orders a year.
Some managers at Amazon refer to them as "electronic peasants", for when they are on-line with a customer they are not supposed to show off their literary skills. The focus in these modern times is on output: 12 e-mails an hour and the sack for anyone who drops below seven and a half. On the phone any conversation exceeding four minutes, in a voice that according to a former employee "is supposed to be loud enough for the customer to hear and quiet enough to keep from distracting cubical mates," earns the guilty party a warning.
"It's like Communist China under Mao," explains one of the new economy's production-line workers, "you're constantly being pushed to help the collective. If you fail to do this, you're going against your family. But if this is a family, it belongs on the Jerry Springer show." Such ingratitude in a company that is constantly organizing events for its workers - or devotees. Last September, for instance, there was a "Midnight madness" keyboard marathon, humorously announced by an e-mail entitled "You can sleep when you're dead". This irresistible game involved coming to work at night to cope with as many outstanding cyber-orders as possible. The winner received a princely $100 prize.
LE MONDE DIPLOMATIQUE
**********
I don't buy from Amazon. Tim O'Reilly means well, but there's nothing in his conversation that makes me believe that Bezos is a man with whom I wish to do business. He's just another sweatshop owner. He's made a pile of dough and he means to share as little of it as possible with him employees. In the "brick and mortar" world, he'd be an eligible target for the protests currently being staged on campuses around the country.
mp
In some circles, this is known as backpedalling. First you make a big production out of Katz's supposed using of Word, then you deny that you thought it was a big deal. I think there's a career for you in politics.
As far as Katz claiming to be an "expert" in things technological, I defy you to produce a single quote out of any of his articles where he has made such a claim. C'mon, you wrote it, now back it up.
The truth is, of course, you can't -- time for more backpedalling.
One thing that Katz brings to /. is some voice of moral conscience. To you, the idea of morality, conscience and technology mixing together is offensive. Apparently, to Rob Malda it's an important mix. Discussion of how technology impacts moral decisionmaking is significant -- there should be more of it, not less.
Ironically, your behavior and that of the other "Katz haters" merely demonstrates an online inanity and immaturity that goes far to validate the stereotype of the clueless technophile. Some people say Jon Katz polarizes Slashdot. No, he doesn't. He's not responsible for your hateful, sneering behavior. You are.
mp
Many people are submitting The Obvious article about Jon Katz not belonging on Slashdot. I guess I'm glad that in the end its up to me. Personally, I think most of his articles are good. xach sent us a deja news bit that goes much further. I agree with most of the stuff in these articles, but I also think most of Katz's articles are worth reading, but when he mentions his book, I press the back button. You can too. -- Rob Malda
Now, if you don't like Slashdot, you're free to go somewhere else and start up another site of your own, just like "the old slashdot." If the "old Slashdot" was so much greater than the current version, then you're guaranteed an audience. If you don't have the stones to act on your beliefs, then the only self-respecting alternative is to zip your lip.
I get bugged by your whining. Katz has his faults, but at least he's focussed on some things more significant than what word processor someone is using. I look at your comments and ask: what of significance are you contributing to either the atmosphere or the discussions here?
mp
You're simply living proof that he might be wrong about the bad effects of too much time on the 'net.
Here, let me deliver the death blow to your love of linux:
"For example, I've always liked PowerPoint, and I've always thought that Visual Basic was a good product." -- Linus Torvalds
Linus likes MS products?? Oh nooooooooo!
Oh yeah, and please stop using the "royal we" when expressing your opinions. We don't "hate" him. You do.
mp
Do you have some evidence for this claim?
Just because one of the parties calls itself the "linux user's group" is no reason to assume that it is the truthful party. It seems you have not read the response letter, so let me quote from it:
Being aware of the integration of the Board of Directors of UYLUG, knowners of the personal interest of some of its members - not compatible with the integrity of a user's group - and the expertise in trademarks of other member, we handle the posiblity that they will try to secure exclusive rights to the Linux trademark to prevent that other persons or companies beyond their control to trade with the Linux trademark in Uruguay.
What's your basis for determining that this paragraph is a lie and the one you quoted from the users' group is the truthful one?
I believe that the reality is that we have walked into a family squabble -- and choosing sides is foolish. I have been in several user groups where political infighting has resulted in or been the result of a particular faction using the group for its own particular ends. Sometimes, those ends are driving certain individuals out of the group. Other times, they are simply controlling the resources of the group.
How do you know that in fact, the claims of the business are not true? It may well be that some people in the user group are attempting to control who will be allowed to use the "linux" name in Uruguay.
The smart move in this situation would be to wait and see what develops.
mp
And what is your rationale for assuming that the User's Group is the "good guy" and the company is the "bad guy" in this situation?
mp
I must say that I think your comments about tech support cartoons were pretty much off-target.
First, it seems bizarre to me that you would start off by claiming that providing tech support is a no-brainer and that any moron with a pulse can do it. As a tech support person and trainer, I know this to be patently untrue. And then, after claiming that tech support is a dumb-and-dumber sport, you turn right around and complain that it's cruel to disparage users! What -- but it's okay to disparage tech support people?
Second, if you actually read User Friendly for any period of time, you would know that strips that poke fun at users make up only a few percent of the production; and that most of the cartoons poke fun, instead, at the tech support staff itself and at the management. Thus, your article starts from a dubious premise that strips like UF are "about" ridiculing users.
Third, humor is cruel in its nature. The significant factor is not in its nature but in its use. Yes, it's cruel and wrong to belittle people, and especially right to their faces. That's why I don't watch and have no interest in watching television sitcoms. They're nothing but one mean-spirited putdown after another. But that fact has nothing to do with cartoons like UF, which are aimed at and predominantly read by geeks.
Humor is a safety valve -- as the old saying goes, "laugh or you'll cry." Or hit somebody. Every person I have ever encountered who worked in a high-pressure situation responded by a combination of ridicule of himself, cow-orkers and clients. And if you don't think that plumbers are making fun of you behind your back -- you need to widen your circle of acquaintance.
Fourth, I've never mocked a client to her face, nor would I. Despite the fact that I've been shouted at, cursed at and called about every filthy name you can think of -- just because I happen to be tech support, I'm fair game for every moron with $3000 to buy a computer. As you write, the inability to use a computer may not be an indicator of intelligence. But, in my opinion, the unwillingness to learn more than the minimal amount necessary to turn it on and start a program; coupled with a readiness to blame all the outcomes of ignorant usage on either me or on the computer; which qualities number among the major ones I meet every day on the phones -- those indicate, not lack of intelligence, but lack of character. In a word, they're lazy. Why learn how to do it yourself, when you can just call tech support? Personally, I see no reason why I should cut slack for people who aren't willing to invest the intellectual energy necessary to learn how to operate their equipment competently.
You think that someday everyone will be able to do tech support on his own computer. I can't imagine where you got such an utopian notion. Certainly, not from answering the phones -- computer users today are no more savvy than computer users of 10 years ago. If anything, it's worse. 10 years ago, you bought a computer, you pretty much were on your own. If something went wrong, you figured it out. Nowadays, if something goes wrong, you call tech support, click on command through a bunch of menus, it's fixed, you hang up, -- with next to no idea of what you just did. The next time you have that problem, you call back again.
Finally, most cartoons I have observed mock actions, not people. Perhaps, the reason you fail to laugh at UF is because you fail to distinguish between the two.
mp
Libertarianism is a poor political and moral choice. It's a hypocritical philosophy created by a group of 'haves' to prevent the 'have nots' from benefitting from the overall improvements in this society. Libertarians are business-oriented -- don't believe for a minute that in a libertarian government, you as an individual would have the same rights before law as a corporation. Libertarians are social darwinists -- they believe that those on the top of the heap are there because they are inherently superior beings. They don't believe in the notion of structural oppression, and they don't believe that the government should prevent oppression of the have-nots by the haves. Libertarians are believers in one-party government -- there's only one way to run a government, the libertarian way. Although in theory, you're allowed to elect anyone you want to elect, in fact no laws would be allowed that did not agree with the libertarian party principles. Finally, libertarianism is fundamentally anti-democratic. That seems odd, doesn't it? But, suppose we had a libertarian government and we had a huge economic depression and a majority of the people wanted to institute some governmental relief? You can't -- since a libertarian government rejects social programs to aid the desperate, the libertarian government also rejects the right of the majority to institute such governmental programs.
Yes, a lot of what we get from the current political parties is crap. But that is not because the party system is flawed, that's because only 25% of the population actually show up at the booth. If everybody who was eligible to vote actually voted, there would be one hell of a lot more accountability in the government. And that should be our goal -- to make the gov't accountable to the whole population: not just to the bourgeois who are currently holding the reins. Because the names and numbers of those holding the reins will not be changed if the libertarians come to power.
mp
However, the FBI (aka The Federal Bureau of Intimidation) was clearly acting in prior restraint, which is completely illegal. The fact that they did it right out in the open shows how far we have travelled down the road toward non-democracy.
mp
Your snide attitude toward those with greater education than yourself leads me to a prediction: you're a VP in a Fortune 500 company now. And you'll still be one twenty years from now.
Beyond your general folly, there's a more important question: what is the purpose of an education? For you, it's only a waste of time. To a thinking person, however, an education is more than just a ticket to a "better job." It is an adventure into ideas they find interesting, a connection to social and political responsibilities, and the basis for a sound moral and family life.
I don't care how much money you make or how expensive are the suits you wear -- as soon as you open your mouth, everybody around you will know in short order whether or not you're an educated person.
mp
Then write your own and stop crying about having to pay for it.
What's really "silly" is people like you who expect everybody else to do things for you for free so that you don't have to do any work yourself.
What have YOU done to benefit free software? How much money have you contributed? How much software have you written under GPL? If writing a "few win32 hooks" is so trivial, do it yourself and GPL the resulting code.
Lead, follow or get out of the way!
mp
It's entirely possible to be a supporter of free speech without being a support of pornography. You've made it clear that you do not support free speech as a human right and that you prefer the government to determine what can be said publicly or written on a web page.
Pornography is not the issue. The government of Germany has determined that you cannot buy Hitler's Mein Kampf and other writings by Nazis. The other day, while at work, I tried to read an article at the online BBC. Surfwatch blocked the article because the headline contained the word `nude.' So now, a web site that has, e.g., prints of paintings by Leonardo da Vinci will be labelled unfit for teenagers because he painted nudes. You ought to see that that is stupid.
The real issue is that you are willing to let the government decide what you can read and what you can't. Nothing prevents the government from deciding to extend the censorship to cover interracial marriages, or Catholic religious services or the rights of minorities. Nothing. The only way to prevent this extension of censorship is to not allow the censorship in the first place.
I live in the United States. At the founding of this country, censorship was the rule. Any newspaper that criticised the central gov't could be shut down -- and many were. A long battle was fought to secure the right to criticise the gov't and to say just what you thought on any subject. Now, two hundred-odd years later, a lot of Americans think just like you -- they're willing to give up that right because they find it inconvenient to pay attention to what their kids are doing with the computer. That's too bad, for them, their kids and their country. I would say that they -- and you -- need to take more responsibility for what goes on in the family and stop expecting the government to do your jobs.
mp
Why would you expect them to? This is not a forum for duelling editorialists. You were free to post a followup ... you chose not to. Instead, you chose the ad hominem attack on the original author and to impugn the integrity of Rob &co. Unimpressive.
As this collection of comments clearly shows, there are plenty of other advocates of monopolistic capitalism here, so post away -- you're guaranteed of a friendly audience.
mp
I'm not familiar with audiohighway, but their press release says that they expect their new patent to help their present business -- they do not make it sound like they are expecting to rely on "compensation agreements" for their income. I assume that they market MP3-type products. So, don't buy them.
mp
The best response to this kind of "intellectual property" nonsense is to boycott Audiohighway. Tell everyone you know what's going on and tell THEM to boycott audiohighway. Since they are going to force people to pay more for players, the only effective response is to take the money back from them by not buying their other products.
Given the broad contact range of the internet, just putting "boycott audiohighway" in your sig will reach tens of thousands of people. Remember, Jesse Jackson brought PepsiCo to its knees just by making speeches.
mp
If you bought a piece of property as speculation that its value was going to increase; and after that value increased, you sold it at a profit -- would that be illegal? No. That would be called "good business sense." This is exactly the same as "domain squatting." Why should the latter be considered "bad" and the former considered "good"? The answer is, because you and every other person complaining about "domain squatting" didn't apply the little grey cells to the issue. By taking up arms against "domain squatters" you simply act as agents of big corps like AOL. Good idea. What do you think is going to happen when you want a domain name and it turns out Coca Cola owns it but isn't using it? Do you think you've got a snowball-in-hell chance of getting it from them? Wake up.
It's better to have a free-for-all and have a chance at getting what you want; than back up the big boys just so THEY can get what they want.
mp
Nope, there's been a lot of litigation about letters, due to the fact that those of famous people often wind up published. Legally, if you sent a bunch of letters to people & after becoming a famous linux advocate, decided to put them all in a book, you could require your correspondents to return to you any copies they may have kept. Also, you could prevent them from publishing a collection of your letters, if you chose to do so.
Emails are more protected that public posts in a place like slashdot or one like usenet. In public places, you still own copyright on your words of wisdom, even though they are published. Although it is considered bad "netiquette" to publish emails without permission of the author, it's also illegal.
Obviously, the likelihood of anyone getting sued in this case is small. And it's a civil, not a criminal matter. But, the legal grounds exist.
mp
Copyright on letters remains with the sender, not the recipient. Strictly speaking, Mindcraft violates US copyright law by publishing letters without permission of the authors. And I'm pretty sure they did not bother getting permission!
A sorry lot of letters, too. I guess of the 7-10 million linux users worldwide, 5 million or so must be under age 17. They obviously need more parental supervision.
mp
These sorts of games have long been a part of chess history. Depending on how the moves are decided, the consulting team can bring a lot of ingenuity to bear on the game.
A move a day is reasonably fast, so the game should stay interesting.
mp
I'd like to point out that we were having no problems until the US gov't made the arbitrary decision to to "privatize" domain registrations. NSI wasn't doing a bad job, and the prices were quite reasonable ($50/yr and then bumped down to $35). The decision to "open up the market" was purely political. Thus, in my view, the problems now evident were created by the thoughtless actions of thoughtless people. Instead of opening up "the market," all they've done is open up a can of worms.
mp
Yep, the generally rancorous tone of "linux advocacy" is repugnant. Although I'm not shy about claiming linux as my OS, and I did have an article about it published in the local newspaper last year -- nonetheless, I never advocate it. I tell people that it's a good OS, and why I like it but I never recommend it. I don't want to be in any way associated with the all-too-often moronic crowd of "linux advocates."
mp
"...that he said that could make a fortune by selling a Linux-compatible spell checker. Wait a sec? Sell a spell-checker in the land of free software? Naaaaa...... "
What's not funny is that you're one of the ones he was writing about. He didn't say "sell," he said "distribute." Work on those reading skills, son. The effort will repay itself.
mp
My suggestion would be to focus on intellectual property (so-called) and privacy issues. Runaway legislation restricting use of copyrighted material and granting large powers of surveillance to gov'ts are at the top of the list. The World Intellectual Property Organization has approved recommendations that would make it easy for large companies to claim domain names and take them away from current users. The US Congress is considering legislation that would make online databases of facts copyrighted material -- meaning you would no longer be able to abstract facts from those databases & use them in your report without written permission or payment of a fee. The "Echelon" project has been in the news -- the US, New Zealand, Australian & British gov'ts have been monitoring all satellite transmissions of email, telephone calls and faxes. The British gov't was considering but now has dropped legislation that would have required that all ISPs to maintain "key escrows" for all encrypted data transfers, and allow the British law enforcement agencies access to those keys whenever they asked for it. The Australian parliament has just passed a law requiring all Australian ISPs to block internet access to foreign sites that are on a censor list -- a censor list to be developed by the Australian Film Board!
&c &c &c
I would have emailed a copy of this post but there's something wrong with your email address. You should fix it.
mp
Well, if NT is whomping everybody else in all these categories, why is it that they're not using it over at Hotmail?
Something not very "real world" in this benchmark.
mp