My gawd. Here I go again, in a dialog w/ Stewart. Will I never learn?
On Thu, August 2, 2007 2:11 pm, Stewart Stremler wrote:
> 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."
>
"Men in Black" (I)
> Be careful.
>
<flashie> Careful? Of what?
>> > 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?
>
My understanding is that this is exactly what Italian fathers do with
their sons at 15+. Kind of a coming-of-age thing. (In this country, it
would undoubtedly morph into a franchise operation, kind of like Chuckee
Cheese meets the Chicken Ranch.)
>> 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.
I'll say!
>
>> 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.
>
The internet has replaced the playground and public restrooms as the focal
point of parental hysteria.
>> 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?
>
Don't forget the Scientologists.
> (Sure, we'd be balkanizing the information, but it's a pleasant little
> fantasy for at least a couple of minutes.)
>
I'm convinced that over 50% of file sharing is done by people who could
care less about the song/movie, and are just pissed off at the [RI|MP]AA.
I knew a guy in the Apple ][ days who spent ALL his time cracking copy
protected games. He had YARDS of 5 1/2" floppies on his bookshelf -- bug
attack, pacman, whatever. He kept offering them to me. Games bored me then
and now.
Turns out he never played them himself. He did it because he was pissed
off that anyone would try to lock up the data.
He later committed suicide under the influence of chronic antidepresant
overdosing. So I'm not advocating this behavior. But I got why he did it,
and I liked him for it.
> 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.
>
Photos are really important, as are videos. The Rodney King incidents of
the future will be flashed 'round the world on utube ... if it's allowed
to survive.
> I'm not sure what you mean by content control...
>
Censorship. Which begins with criminalizing kinds of speech and then
watching it all as it goes by (and you have nothing to fear if you have
nothing to hide) so you can make examples of, or blackmail, those who
consume content you are watching for.
Because the goal is control, not improving the dialog or making anything
"safer."
>> I live in the country that never used to torture people ... but that was
>> all before The Hill Street Blues.
>
> Um. Another TV reference?
>
OK, what's the problem here? You're aware that nobody gives a rat's
patootie whether you watch or not, right? Besides, how can you get any
substantive news without the Daily Show?
If you need something to make it all right for you, you can get a TV tuner
card and watch on a computer.
--
Lan Barnes
SCM Analyst Linux Guy
Tcl/Tk Enthusiast Biodiesel Brewer
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
