I can't tell you how many times I've done a Google search for how to do something related to computers, technology and/or programming and found only a series of forum posts in which various other people in the same situation as me have already asked the question I Googled and were told, "Google is your friend."
Now it is certainly true that alot of people have asked dumb questions onilne without searching adequately. But it shouldn't be too hard to understand the logical problems with just telling someone, "Google it" when your very comment of saying, "Google it" is often all they'll find if they do. When Google looks for the answer to people's questions, if "Google it" is the most often returned answer for a query, then "Google it" will seem to be the answer. But it's not the answer, it's a means of finding the answer!
Why don't I just Google it? I am!!
There should be a "How to Answer Questions The Smart Way" to match the one about asking questions.
Friday, April 8, 2011
Friday, April 1, 2011
More extreme rhetoric from both sides befouls the air
Daniel Castro on anti-piracy Internet DNS censorship says, "If you accept the fact that piracy is a problem, government needs to do something. You have to start from that premise. So if you accept that premise, the question is what's the most effective way of reducing infringement?"
That's a very dangerous and controversial premise. Castro is claiming that just because there is a problem, therefore the government should take whatever steps are necessary to solve that problem. Shouldn't the government leave at least some problems alone?
Are there no limits to what steps should be taken? Might not some steps be appropriate and some inappropriate, instead of all possible steps being appropriate, which would make the government's power over the citizens effectively unlimited?
Forcing people who want to pirate stuff to type in IP addresses may not be that bad of an idea in itself, but this premise is the bad idea and pretty much catches this guy with his philosophy-of-government pants down. Surely the government isn't here to solve all our problems of every kind.
It is a bit scary that the government might start censoring DNS results, because of the whole "slippery slope" thing. If it's an acceptable way to deal with this problem, what about when unpopular political, religious or philosophical ideas become the next "problem"? Are we going to censor them too?
On the other extreme end of the spectrum this week we have the Free Software Foundation coming out to warn people about the "Javascript Trap" which they claim "traps" people into running proprietary code on their computers. But it does not, in fact, do so. Richard Stallman may not like it, but it's not a trap and insisting that all JavaScript be free software is an example of the extreme radicalism which is one of the reasons why so few people listen to the FSF. They really need to get their priorities straightened out.
The proprietary code in question may not be "free software" in Richard Stallman's extremist sense of the words, but it is "open source" because there's nothing stopping you in principle from reading any and all JavaScript code that runs in your browser before you agree to run it. It is true that you can't legally copy large code segments from copyrighted JavaScripts verbatim into your own programs, but there's nothing wrong with that because it doesn't make you or your computer or the software that lives on your computer any less free. You could re-implement the same algorithms in your own code without breaking any law at all. (Because as far as I know, nothing in the JavaScripts in question is patented, only copyrighted)
Having what the Free Software Foundation demands - a truly Stallmanesque "free software" client interface for Google services and other popular webapps, would be nice I suppose but you can already look at the JavaScript - it's "open source" and since you aren't going to be modifying how somebody else's web site works, it just isn't necessary.
Instead of politely suggesting or requesting that Google provide a free software JavaScript interface, or starting a friendly petition, they put out propaganda about "the JavaScript Trap" suggesting that people who write or use proprietary JavaScript code are somehow dishonest or manipulative when in fact they just aren't. Even if the FSF is right, (which they aren't) why not use a little tact!? Is it too much to ask to ask nicely?
That's a very dangerous and controversial premise. Castro is claiming that just because there is a problem, therefore the government should take whatever steps are necessary to solve that problem. Shouldn't the government leave at least some problems alone?
Are there no limits to what steps should be taken? Might not some steps be appropriate and some inappropriate, instead of all possible steps being appropriate, which would make the government's power over the citizens effectively unlimited?
Forcing people who want to pirate stuff to type in IP addresses may not be that bad of an idea in itself, but this premise is the bad idea and pretty much catches this guy with his philosophy-of-government pants down. Surely the government isn't here to solve all our problems of every kind.
It is a bit scary that the government might start censoring DNS results, because of the whole "slippery slope" thing. If it's an acceptable way to deal with this problem, what about when unpopular political, religious or philosophical ideas become the next "problem"? Are we going to censor them too?
On the other extreme end of the spectrum this week we have the Free Software Foundation coming out to warn people about the "Javascript Trap" which they claim "traps" people into running proprietary code on their computers. But it does not, in fact, do so. Richard Stallman may not like it, but it's not a trap and insisting that all JavaScript be free software is an example of the extreme radicalism which is one of the reasons why so few people listen to the FSF. They really need to get their priorities straightened out.
The proprietary code in question may not be "free software" in Richard Stallman's extremist sense of the words, but it is "open source" because there's nothing stopping you in principle from reading any and all JavaScript code that runs in your browser before you agree to run it. It is true that you can't legally copy large code segments from copyrighted JavaScripts verbatim into your own programs, but there's nothing wrong with that because it doesn't make you or your computer or the software that lives on your computer any less free. You could re-implement the same algorithms in your own code without breaking any law at all. (Because as far as I know, nothing in the JavaScripts in question is patented, only copyrighted)
Having what the Free Software Foundation demands - a truly Stallmanesque "free software" client interface for Google services and other popular webapps, would be nice I suppose but you can already look at the JavaScript - it's "open source" and since you aren't going to be modifying how somebody else's web site works, it just isn't necessary.
Instead of politely suggesting or requesting that Google provide a free software JavaScript interface, or starting a friendly petition, they put out propaganda about "the JavaScript Trap" suggesting that people who write or use proprietary JavaScript code are somehow dishonest or manipulative when in fact they just aren't. Even if the FSF is right, (which they aren't) why not use a little tact!? Is it too much to ask to ask nicely?
Friday, March 5, 2010
Rednex loves the pirate bay??
Yes it's true. I can't believe such a piece of news snuck by me last month, but I haven't been using torrents for a long time now. (No - not even legal ones)
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Why DRM Doesn't Work
DRM never works.
When I say "DRM doesn't work" but piracy does, this is because the goal set in mind is reading the book, or giving people access to content. DRM is a built-in bug, defective by design. Computers are bad enough without intentionally making them worse. Their function is not to control people but to empower them.
At the same time, this is not an endorsement of piracy, but a demand for DRM-free commercial products.
When I say "DRM doesn't work" but piracy does, this is because the goal set in mind is reading the book, or giving people access to content. DRM is a built-in bug, defective by design. Computers are bad enough without intentionally making them worse. Their function is not to control people but to empower them.
At the same time, this is not an endorsement of piracy, but a demand for DRM-free commercial products.
Friday, February 19, 2010
Pirate vs Pay (for movies)
Wow. Just wow. I just had to share this one:
More and more, we're seeing that the pirated versions of products are better. This is sometimes because they involve actual improvements like Final Fantasy VII; Ultima Edition but often it's simply because they don't carry DRM technology and other unwanted locks, such as the "no skip" advertisements. Even Disney's "FastPlay" which supposedly "puts you in control of your viewing preferences" doesn't really compare to the total, immediate access to the content you actually wanted when you paid your money that a pirated version will provide. If it wasn't for such locks in the first place, technologies like FastPlay would not be needed. I think it inappropriate to even call it a technology - it's the option to partially disable an unwanted technology, which isn't a real innovation. The content industry, rather than adapting to new market conditions, has been trying to sell us bugs as features. I don't see how this can possibly succeed, simply from a practical standpoint.
More and more, we're seeing that the pirated versions of products are better. This is sometimes because they involve actual improvements like Final Fantasy VII; Ultima Edition but often it's simply because they don't carry DRM technology and other unwanted locks, such as the "no skip" advertisements. Even Disney's "FastPlay" which supposedly "puts you in control of your viewing preferences" doesn't really compare to the total, immediate access to the content you actually wanted when you paid your money that a pirated version will provide. If it wasn't for such locks in the first place, technologies like FastPlay would not be needed. I think it inappropriate to even call it a technology - it's the option to partially disable an unwanted technology, which isn't a real innovation. The content industry, rather than adapting to new market conditions, has been trying to sell us bugs as features. I don't see how this can possibly succeed, simply from a practical standpoint.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
YouTube takedown of DJ Nerd42 mashups
I am a non-commercial mashup artist whose videos are being pulled down from YouTube. This is with zero interaction with either YouTube staff or content owners. Now I've got "two strikes" against my account, both of which are total BS.
"Strike 1":
Fort Minor's "Remember the Name" was released under a Creative Commons license, and I created a remix of it that got pulled down from YouTube, apparently because the VIDEO of the song isn't covered by the liscense, only the audio is. I didn't know this, but my YouTube account has a "strike" now because of it anyway. This is the only message I got:
Content owner: WMG Type: Visual content
Removed video URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41k-7VAn114
Reuploaded (without video) URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gScf3ZzYMSk
Project web site: http://nerd42.net/chronotied/
"Strike 2":
tobyMac is a Christian music artist originally made famous for his work with DC Talk. His recent single "City On Our Knees" came with an instrumental which I combined with a freely available acapella by another Christian artist (Eli & the Grouch's "All In") to create the audio-only mashup "A City All In." I don't understand why tobyMac would release the instrumental and the other artist would release the acapella if no one is allowed to do anything with them. This doesn't seem like very Christian behavior to me!!
Content owner: EMI Type: Audio content
Removed video URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVoyj26I2r4
Original track: http://editthis.info/wiki42/A_City_All_In
I could file a counter-notice but I'm hesitant to associate my real name with my YouTube alias for fear of getting sued. I'd only do such a thing if I knew I had money for a legal defense, which I don't as I'm a broke college student. But I think both of these takedowns are examples of extreme behavior both on the part of YouTube and the labels.
If my YouTube account gets suspended, I don't care. I am not going to let this affect either my music or my efforts to continue promoting my music. But it will make it more difficult to get my tracks out to more people and to stream them easily.
"Strike 1":
Fort Minor's "Remember the Name" was released under a Creative Commons license, and I created a remix of it that got pulled down from YouTube, apparently because the VIDEO of the song isn't covered by the liscense, only the audio is. I didn't know this, but my YouTube account has a "strike" now because of it anyway. This is the only message I got:
Content owner: WMG Type: Visual content
Removed video URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41k-7VAn114
Reuploaded (without video) URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gScf3ZzYMSk
Project web site: http://nerd42.net/chronotied/
"Strike 2":
tobyMac is a Christian music artist originally made famous for his work with DC Talk. His recent single "City On Our Knees" came with an instrumental which I combined with a freely available acapella by another Christian artist (Eli & the Grouch's "All In") to create the audio-only mashup "A City All In." I don't understand why tobyMac would release the instrumental and the other artist would release the acapella if no one is allowed to do anything with them. This doesn't seem like very Christian behavior to me!!
Content owner: EMI Type: Audio content
Removed video URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVoyj26I2r4
Original track: http://editthis.info/wiki42/A_City_All_In
I could file a counter-notice but I'm hesitant to associate my real name with my YouTube alias for fear of getting sued. I'd only do such a thing if I knew I had money for a legal defense, which I don't as I'm a broke college student. But I think both of these takedowns are examples of extreme behavior both on the part of YouTube and the labels.
If my YouTube account gets suspended, I don't care. I am not going to let this affect either my music or my efforts to continue promoting my music. But it will make it more difficult to get my tracks out to more people and to stream them easily.
Thursday, December 31, 2009
How to Destroy the Book
Cory Doctorow makes some excellent points in his talk, "How to Destroy the Book". Most noteworthy is his email signature:
READ CAREFULLY. By reading this email, you agree, on behalf of your employer, to release me from all obligations and waivers arising from any and all NON-NEGOTIATED agreements, licenses, terms-of-service, shrinkwrap, clickwrap, browsewrap, confidentiality, non-disclosure, non-compete and acceptable use policies ("BOGUS AGREEMENTS") that I have entered into with your employer, its partners, licensors, agents and assigns, in perpetuity, without prejudice to my ongoing rights and privileges. You further represent that you have the authority to release me from any BOGUS AGREEMENTS on behalf of your employer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)