begin quoting Lan Barnes as of Thu, Aug 02, 2007 at 12:28:24PM -0700:
> On Thu, August 2, 2007 11:36 am, Stewart Stremler wrote:
[snip]
> > As I see it, we're being herded into a TCB future where we aren't the
> > owners of the machines, and certainly aren't the policy-makers for
> > those ("our") machines.
>
> "... my cold dead fingers."
"I find your offer acceptable."
Be careful.
> > Keep those old machines working!
>
> Like that's the real issue (see below).
Hey, I'm trying to justify my chasing of the trailing edge here!
[snip]
> But like firearms (see the Bill of Rights, 2nd Amendment), power grabbers
> don't want us to have access to our friends ("Say hello to my lil'
> fr'en'!"). So they pump it up about the dangers of said friends, and how
> we've got to Protect The Little CHIL-dren.
I'm bang behind that... keep the little chil-dren off the 'Net! It's a
scary place out there. . . . You wouldn't let your kid into a bordello,
would you? Why would you let 'em online?
> Remember Tracy's funny/chilling sig?
>
> "They have computers and they may have other weapons of mass destruction."
> - Janet Reno
Given the assertions on how subversive large collections of computers
are, can you really blame her for such a viewpoint? From her position,
they're WORSE than weapons of mass destruction. . .
> How many Law 'N Order's have we seen where Lenny and what's-his-name hear
Um... TV reference?
I'm culturally deprived in that area.
> from the witness, "she met him on the INTERNET" "he found it on the
> INTERNET" "they put it on the INTERNET"? And then they glance at each
> other with The Look(R).
Oh, yeah, that. I'm catching that in books and movies now. They never
seem to have a problem with information overload, however, so they're
not using the same INTERNET that I have access to.
> So when I hear about DRM or asymetrical traffic shaping or content
> control, my tin-foil hat begins to throb. Seen it before, heard it before.
DRM pisses me off because it violates the spirit of copyright, and the
only players seem to be the big guys. It can work two ways -- what if
all of the content *you* create could be denied to anyone who is
associated with the RIAA, the MPAA, or the Catholic Church?
(Sure, we'd be balkanizing the information, but it's a pleasant little
fantasy for at least a couple of minutes.)
Asymmetrical traffic shaping doesn't really bother me, because most of
what I care about is text, and text is so small that traffic shaping has
almost no effect.
I'm not sure what you mean by content control...
> I live in the country that never used to torture people ... but that was
> all before The Hill Street Blues.
Um. Another TV reference?
--
Not happy about torture. Torturers don't get to wear the white hat.
Stewart Stremler
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
