Saving the Net 790
An anonymous reader writes "Doc Searls, editor at Linux Journal, has a very insightful editorial that brings it all together - the FCC media consolidation ruling, SCO vs. Linux, why broadband is under attack by telcos and cable systems, why we lost Eldred vs. Ashcroft, what's really interesting about Howard Dean's presidential campaign, and a very astute observation about the vast gulf between Liberals and Conservatives."
The internet the big corporation way (Score:1, Interesting)
Terminator is trying to (Score:4, Interesting)
Not a joke people..
Its time for Revolution...
Free Air Optical (Score:5, Interesting)
The only 'major' piece missing is a simple and cheap form of active aiming to keep the transmitter and receiver reliably pointing at each other. There's a project for someone.
How to Save the Net (Score:3, Interesting)
Seriously now. You want Howard Dean? We've got a party full of them. [liberal.ca] We just keep electing them, and we can't stop ourselves.
Just a random thought (Score:3, Interesting)
OK, AOL would never let you play streamed Harry Potter movies on it, but you could use the web and run office applications, which would keep most of us happy. Wouldn't it?
What it boils down to is... (Score:2, Interesting)
When a lot of big companies start seeing a potential to see their profits tumble they will react agressively to protect their interests. Is it any wonder that the media companies are worried that millions of people around the world are sharing millions of music tracks and films? Are the software companies worried about people downloading software? The answer is yes.
Do such companies want to control the internet? Undoutedly. Can you imagine the potential for a company like Disney to broadcast Disney.tv to every household on the planet with an internet enabled tv? Wow... you are talking serious money there, but people can already do it - for free at the moment.
I think a lot of these people identify the internet as this 'Holy Grail' to make billions, if only they had the final, killer ingredient. Whilst this potential exists, where there's money there's immense power and this power will try to bend, distort and manouever the internet as best it can towards its vested interests.
Interview with Howard Dean (Score:5, Interesting)
He appeared on Lessig's blog which has (I would guess) a lot fewer readers than Slashdot, so it seems likely he would agree, if we approached it right. Does anyone know his campaign people, so we can find out?
Re:The internet the big corporation way (Score:5, Interesting)
They have concluded what Marshall McLuhan had years ago, that the medium is the message. The natrual extension of this is that whoever controls the medium, controls the message.
Without the anarchy which fostered the internet, we will end up with another passive form of entertainment that is inaccessable to the masses from a broadcast standpoint, television.
The internet is the voice of the people (scary,innit?). Sure some people speak louder than others, and some are leaders while others are followers. But everyone has a voice, and that is what is being taken away from us, slowly at first, and then with great vigor as we become more complacent.
I have a website, and nobody in their right mind would give me a television show. I don't know if that's considered progress, but I like where this whole internet thing could go, if only we're allowed to take it there ourselves.
Being bought (Score:3, Interesting)
Modern Democracy, at least as practiced in the USA, is all about money. And as has been said about corruption, "...follow the money." Why don't american politicians finally prove that they're not the lords of a corrupt system, but the leaders of a just system and ban soft money.
Re:Dean for President (Score:3, Interesting)
Anyway, I think it great what's going on. He's getting a lot of cash from those who actually vote for him. It's not to hard to get 40,000 people who like you to give $20. Granted it's only $800,000 and not the 100+ mil or whatever obscene about the retard currently in office spent. Get 1 million people to send you $20 and now you stand a chance. I remember seeing Dean on cspan and thinking "man, this guys great. Too bad he won't get the nomination, he makes a lot of sense. And it's be nice to have a doctor in office for once."
You guys should check out Dean's weblog [blogforamerica.com] It's got the current happenings and Meetups [meetup.com]
Re:Hrmm (Score:5, Interesting)
I kind of feel sorry for people who didn't come from the old BBS days. They truly missed out on something special.
Re:Free Air Optical (Score:1, Interesting)
I can only communicate with someone if I can get a laser beam from me to him without it being obstructed. This is hard enough to do over short distances without trees and houses and such getting in the way. Over long distances the curvature of the earth makes it impossible without being able to bounce the beam off of something (like a satallite). It's a nice idea, but impractical for someone more than a short distance away. Even if you could set up some kind of local network where my signal can hop from person to person until it gets to its destination, there would be no good (cheap) way to interconnect these local networks. Even in the best imaginable world you wouldn't get anywhere near the reach of the current internet.
Re:Dean for President (Score:5, Interesting)
Looking at this year's race [opensecrets.org], GWB has 6996 contributors under the $2000 limit, compared to Dean at 8662. A difference of less than 1700 contributors isn't really that ground breaking, especially seeing as the campaign cycle hasn't gone into full swing yet.
The dirty little secret is GWB, and republicans in general, actually do better at collecting numbers of small donations than the democrats do. The vast majority of democratic hard money come from large donations by people in the entertainment and legal fields whereas republicans do better in the flyover country that the democrats often like to ignore. Yes... Dean has more non-limit contributors than GWB right now, but remember that 101302 figure at the end of the 2000 cycle as the election season begins to brew.
Re:Hrmm (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Visible spectrum links through the air? (Score:3, Interesting)
The rate of variation in amplitude of sunlight is very low and PIN diodes are very linear over wide dynamic ranges. The frequency of amplitude variation for the data signal is very high (say > 1MHz) compared to sunlight. Combining all of the above, it is usually possible to highpass filter to remove the effects of sunlight.
In addition, the power spectral density of a laser compares welll with the sun.
Re:Conservative? (Score:3, Interesting)
Internet content is generated and stored "somewhere" by "someone" and then is accessed by anyone at any time after that, which then makes the "something" akin to property.. who owns the content? Who is allowed to access the "somewhere" that it is stored? Who decides what "someones" are allowed to store content?
These are the issues at stake / conention I think.
Then again, I did smoke a lot of crack for breakfast.
===
I wonder how long it will take the editor I pissed off to mod *this* post down... his record is 22 seconds.
Re:Dean for President (Score:3, Interesting)
Insightful? I think not. Shesh. The comment speaks loudly about the author and his inability to process facts.
Simple fact is, there are two major stepping stones of the Internet. The first was its inception and creation. Many years later, there was the mass realization and acceptance of it, where comments, such as, "democratizing the ability of an individual outside the established powers to enter into competition or publication or public recognition.", make a lot sense.
Are you that blind that you're unable to see the social emphasis and impact of government, both on and off the Internet?
You revisionist
Seems like you're the only once attempting to revise history.
Re:Being bought (Score:2, Interesting)
I bought my house in 1985 and my property taxes totalled about $600 per year. Today, my property taxes are $3800 per year and we've seen double digit increases in our school taxes the last 2 years alone (13% and 11%). Now, the town supervisor decided to approve a new massive low income housing project. These people are generally under educated, obviously don't have much money to contribute to the local economy, are prone to commit property crimes and will bring endless amounts of new kids to our school system while not having to pay a dime in school taxes.
Yes, I'd like to restrict voting to the people who actually pay taxes (regardless of race, sex or any other factor you want to accuse me of being evil for), otherwise, you have vast amounts of uneducated people voting with the wallets of other people. It's very easy to spend someone else's money, especially when you're taking their money to benefit yourself.
Re:Howard Dean (Score:2, Interesting)
Innocent people killed by execution is a huge problem, but there are countless cases where there is no question that the convict is the perpetrator. In those cases, I support the death penalty.
I respect people that are opposed to execution on moral grounds, but IMO tolerating murder by letting killers live is just as bad as "being a band of murderous thugs". It's just too bad the system is so wasteful on resources that a killer can appeal appeal appeal for years and drain money
At the end of the day, it kills another person who has no value to humanity. Good riddance to them. (And hey, it clears prison space, which I'm sure the RIAA would love to put to use.)
However, I agree with you about hard labor. But it will never happen...the ACLU or some other bleeding-heart organization and assert prisoners' rights to watching TV and living rather comfortably on taxpayer dollars.
Re:Dean for President (Score:2, Interesting)
Actually, I rely quite heavily on the Internet to perform my research and collaborate with folks all over the world. My playing that card was in response to your rather knee jerk obnoxious statement, assessing the intellectual abilities of someone you know nothing about.
It can be argued. But it's a stupid argument. Because the Internet is a technological advancement of Arpanet, not an ideological one.
Sigh, what's the point?...........O.K., for education purposes.....Why do you discount any ideological arguments for the creation of the internet? Why do we do what we do? Why try to find a cure for cancer? Why did we go to the moon? Why try to find a cure for blindness? These are are achievements that are highly technical in nature, but they have ideological foundations. Just.....like....the....Internet.
Not every citizen is fit to vote (Score:3, Interesting)
It's taboo to say that just because you're a citizen doesn't mean you are fit to wield any form of political power. Of course it all goes back to the inability of most Americans to pass a moral judgement against someone's behavior and beliefs. How often do we hear "well that's their culture and it's just different from ours?" I'm in college and I hear that all the time. I get a look of utter disgust like I'm a member of the KKK when I suggest that not everyone is biochemically equal and that certain cultural practices are barbaric and worthy of our deepest contempt. When I criticized many African and Middle Eastern countries for tolerating female circumcision I got a little bit of "how dare you criticize Africa you honkey" from some of the blacks there.
You want to get rid of corruption? It won't end with banning soft money. You have many reforms needed on top of that.
1) Make it a class 4-6 felony to give soft money. You know what that felony class range is? Around 10 years to life as possible sentences.
2) Pass a constitutional amendment waiving 8th amendment protection for those attempting to corrupt the government so that if you catch a lobbyist trying to bribe someone you can execute them if they are a repeat offender. Waive the same protection for elected and appointed government officials
3) Allow each state to pass its own ethics rules. Allow each state to issue a warrant for the arrest of a member of Congress from their delegation who has violated their rules. Also give the state police the power to place their member of Congress under arrest anywhere in the US and extradite them to their state for criminal prosecution.
4) Give each state legislature the power to pass a vote of no confidence in their congressional delegation.
5) Create a new form of impeachement for the executive branch where if a simple majority of state legislatures pass a vote of no confidence in a member of the cabinet they're out and if 2/3 or more vote on the President he's removed.
6) Since we're also talking about democratic reforms how about we pass a constitutional amendment prohibiting judges from ordering appropriations of taxpayer money and creating public policy. They can rule it unconstitutional, but not create it.
Ludicrous? (Score:2, Interesting)
Ludicrous? Tell that to those guys [lunarembassy.com] who'll sell you plots on the moon and the planets in our solar system.
Apparently they just said 'all of that is ours' and it now actually is because no one complained (check the FAQ).
Finally, a note from the company's self-proclaimed Head Cheese: At the time if the writing of this news letter I need to let all of you know I have been presented a wonderful acknowledgment from the Congress of the United States. I have been named co-chairman of the Republican Congressional Business Advisory Council. I have also been given the National Republican Leadership Award and most recently I have been issued the highest honor the National Republican Congressional Committee has, the prestigious Republican Gold Medal.
Most people seem to want it (Score:5, Interesting)
But a lot of people seem really, truly content with being told what to eat, wear, listen to, drive, vote for, support, etc. There are people who always vote Democrat/Republican without any consideration for the actual candidate. There are people that prefer McDonald's to real food. Most people just do what their friends do, and how did their friends start doing it? What's the source? I guess there's no way to be sure, but I'm betting it was an advertisement.
Maybe it's because it makes life easy. You listen to music to relax, and thinking about it is too hard. It's easier to watch TV than to read a book. It's easy to enjoy fast food, because it's a collection of chemicals designed to be pleasing to the largest number of people. No dangerous sharp edges for you to beware.
Similarly, most people don't want to create. Artistic effort is difficult, requiring many hours to produce something. TV can be enjoyed now. Learning how to really cook would be hard, and my family needs dinner today. Hamburger Helper is good enough. It was a hard day at work and I have a lot on my mind. I don't have time to be creative.
Now, there's great joy to be had in take-out pizza, beer, and Brotherhood of the Wolf. Some days, it's nice to let someone else take the helm. But Einstein understood that we have to keep our brains moving in new directions in order to keep them alive (he played the violin). If all you do is work and consume, you are a unit. I couldn't stand it.
(Some people take great joy in their work, which is wonderful, and ideal even. But being one-dimensional is still bad. You'll get further if you stretch your mind in new directions as often as possible; you may be surprised at how related two seemingly dissimilar things really are.)
Re:Terminator is trying to (Score:3, Interesting)
The ironic thing is wasn't there a Movie (was it Demolition Man?) about a future where they changed the laws to allow Arnold to become president? Life imitates movies it appears.
Re:Howard Dean (Score:3, Interesting)
And you believe that the State is skilled enough to actually separate the wheat from the chaff? Hah! I, for one, will not take any odds of being a casualty of this system when other alternatives exist.
I'm curious as to what value you think it serves. I cannot see any real value in the death penalty, and therefore cannot support it in good faith.
I respect people that are opposed to execution on moral grounds, but IMO tolerating murder by letting killers live is just as bad as "being a band of murderous thugs". It's just too bad the system is so wasteful on resources that a killer can appeal appeal appeal for years and drain money .
Uhm...how is choosing to not execute a person "tolerating murder"? States without a death penalty generally give those who would be executed a sentence of life without parole. This is hardly tolerance. Consider the alternative of life imprisonment, especially lifelong imprisonment with hard labor as I suggest. This is still, technically, a death sentence. The difference, however, is that the convict's life hasn't been taken, merely his/her liberty. The State doesn't give you life; it does give you liberty. In a case of life imprisonment, especially a harsh one as I believe in, most of the allegedly beneficial aspects of state-sponsored murder are preserved.
At the end of the day, it kills another person who has no value to humanity. Good riddance to them.
I really hope you can see what a vacant argument that is, especially when you mix it with your agreement about hard labor. Obviously, you have to recognize that, at a minimum, a living person is a unit of labor. Labor has a value. Regardless of that, though, you seem bound to the assumption that someone who murders is without value to humanity, I guess on the grounds that murder is morally reprehensible and immediately strips you of your value. Surely, then, we should start our condemnation with those who murder and extend it to those who support murder. That's fine. The executioners have their backs to the wall first, followed by their supporters.
However, I agree with you about hard labor. But it will never happen...the ACLU or some other bleeding-heart organization and assert prisoners' rights to watching TV and living rather comfortably on taxpayer dollars.
Nobody batted an eye when McVeigh was essentially put in solitary confinement for several years. Clearly, people are able to distinguish between different levels of reprehensibility. I don't care if someone who's in prison for bouncing checks or selling marijuana watches TV and gets protection from violent prisoners. I *want* many of society's criminals rehabilitated so their lives can be of benefit to others (unfortunately, prison rarely rehabilitates). On the other hand, I want those who've violently taken things from others to be forced to serve them. In the case of murder, I believe no amount of labor can truly repay for the damage done, so the only option is to take back as much labor as possible, which is life, without parole, at hard labor.
I'd also like to add that, as the friend of someone who was thrown in jail merely for wearing the t-shirt of a heavy metal band, I am thankful that the ACLU exists.
Re:Dean for President (Score:3, Interesting)
There are few amusements as reliably entertaining as reading slashdot and seeing someone call someone else "stupid", then immediately following that with a statement now known to be false. Let's go over it again:
The Internet was not designed to "withstand physical attack" (nuclear or otherwise).
The Internet (well, ARPAnet) was designed to -- hold onto your hats -- connect computers. The main "anti-nuke" technology quoted by everyone is usually packet-switching. But that was invented to avoid the issue (from dedicated phone lines) of one circuit, one call. For voice transmission, it makes sense that you hold a line open for the duration of a conversation. For data transmission, less so.
The whole nuclear war thing is just an urban legend. Read Where Wizards Stay Up Late for more.
greedy? (Score:4, Interesting)
The Republican Party is geared towards saving people money.
Sounds good so far ... most people consider saving money to be a good thing.
This is the key issue for Republican politics, regardless of all the morality bullshit they spew.
Well, if you are immoral, then you don't understand morality. You can't image actually having it, so you impute weird motives instead of just listening to what people say.
If you're greedy, you vote Republican, whether it's for an end to the estate tax or a $300 tax refund loan.
How is it greedy to want to save money? Your own money?
I put in the extra hours, I got the deliverable done on time, I did the work, why shouldn't I keep my money? How is that greedy? I think that coveting other people's money is what is greedy.
Not a matter of left vs. right (Score:2, Interesting)
Microsatellites Are Actually Viable (Score:3, Interesting)
As many other posters have pointed out, suggesting optical links for anything larger than a LAN party must be a joke (you're not an idiot, right?). A much more reasonable suggestion is the launch of publicly-controlled communications microsatellites.
Perhaps the launch vehicle could be built on some of that X-Prize technology that keeps generating press-releases. We might actually have to find some radio spectrum a little more useful than the visual range (since it's in space, I assume we only have to worry about interference and not licensing?). But the cost of launching a few satellites that communicate with off-the-shelf minidishes would almost certainly be lower overall than setting up line-of-sight laser connections. And the open source community already knows enough about routing (and is now starting to do hardware projects) that the design is not a major obstacle.
We need a slashdot political "Report Card" (Score:2, Interesting)
2) Rank each candidate based on their votes and political statements on these core values
3) Prof^H^H^H^H Publish!
Seriously, the NRA does it, NARAL does it, lots of groups do it. I await the day when a candidate goes up to the podium and says "Slashdot gives me an A+ rating, vote for me!"
Re:Hrmm (Score:4, Interesting)
Equal criticism (Score:3, Interesting)
Searls seemed quite honest in his article that Democrats are to blame for creating the sick regulatory environment that brought about this mess.
His point, however, has to do with the here-and-now of a Republican controlled government. What he's saying is that in trying to "dismantle" media regulation in an inept fashion *, Republicans are only allowing its unhealthy spawn to metastasize.
* Though I would suggest that big-money campaign contributions have as much to do with the flawed deregulation plan as ineptitude.
Re:Hrmm (Score:2, Interesting)
Things have come a long way since then, but at the same time, I don't think anything can really replace the BBS. Hell, I met nearly every one of the friends I hang out with today online...
<sigh>
Re:Hrmm (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:The War of Information (Score:3, Interesting)
One thing that might be a wrench in the plans is that there's a way for any single country to execute the IP equivilent of mutually assured destruction. You ever read Distraction by Bruce Sterling? Pretty good book... They give as the reason for the collapse of the US economy as being the result of this kind of attack. China decides that IP isn't worth it, and declares that within China, there's no such thing. So you can download any copyrighted work... including games, applications, video, whatever... from Chinese servers. Any company based on IP (Disney, or anything in Hollywood, really, the RIAA members, etc.) would get wiped out by it.
Sure, they could try to get China off the 'net, but you know the quote: "The internet views censorship as damage and routes around it"
Re:Dean for President (Score:3, Interesting)
--
REPUBLICANS
1980 2000
Winner (Reagan) (G.W. Bush)
Percent donations over $750 19% 74%
DEMOCRATS
1980 2000
Winner (Carter) (Gore)
Percent donations over $750 35% 48%
--
Which, along with the other numbers, would seem to confirm, without a doubt, that much of the Republican campaign money from individuals, comes from rather rich ones. No surprise there.
So this assertion (<i>The Republican Party leans heavily on large donations from individuals. These individuals generally are in the financial "upper crust", and generally benefit financially from a Republican administration (massive tax cuts, etc.</i>) would seem to be correct. And in fact, investing a bit of the windfall from the tax cuts in the form of campaign donations would probably be prudent for many of them, as no doubt, many Republicans fundraisers are reminding them.
There's a reason Bush will raise more money than any candidate in history, he's a tried, tested, and successful investment.