I love the idea of a declaration of internet freedom and have often thought about it on a slightly deeper aspect.
Lets say in a hypothetical world that the internet becomes recognized as its own entity, and in a sense a 'country' and/or 'government' that is recognized mostly world wide.
My first thought, being an American and influenced by US government, was would there be an Internet President? Or could there be an internet representatives? or even internet ambassadors that go to real world events and governments to help ease tensions between the internet and existing governments?
Would we have an internet ambassador in each state or country?
Obviously a traditional system wouldn't work. The internet is about fluidity so for starters, there would be no 'set terms' or anything. But we also would need some more well spoken and educated people to handle certain affairs if the Internet was an entity onto itself in which every person in the world is a dual citizen of the internet.
There are a near endless amount of possibilities and what-ifs on how things could be handled. The one thing for certain though, if a system is put into place of some kind. It needs to be made to reflect the internet, and not have the internet mold to a system, because that would sort of defeat the whole point.
I believe that innovation often is simply a mistake in copying.
Evolution and adaption works the same way. Animal is making a copy of its DNA, and occasionally something goes slightly wrong in the copy process. The color of the bird is different, and this error happens occasionally across the board in the copying. Over time, that bird survives and becomes more dominant because that color turned out to be beneficial. No animal (at least to our current knowledge) ever actively set out to change something about itself.(Elephants maybe have done this? with tusks? google it)
The same way with the spear copy.
You see the spear being made a certain way, and you see a few others copying. But in your attempt at copying, you make it slightly different, because you only could see it from a distance, you didn't get a chance to study it and hold it and use it extensively. But your error in copying may turn out to be a better design, and its sharper or lasts longer. This in my mind is innovation through copying.
This happens even more often if you do not have access to the same tools or same materials are the original "Improved spear maker"
There was never intention of making a spear better than that other guys 'improved spear' but this happening over and over again, is what led us to a significantly superior spear.
As an engineer and computer scientist, I always was fascinated with a future of cyber wars and the like. However, over the years, I have come to think about the American population and how they tend to take things sometimes, especially being a bit overdramatic and maybe a little strongly revenge orientated(in the name of justice, they claim)
Right now, non cyber wars are fought away from home, in other places of conflict. Protecting all the sheep except for occasional news snippet, and of course the families/friends of those deployed. Those deployed, who volunteer to take the blunt of it, so that the rest of the sheeple can live off in naive innocent peace. However, if Cyberwars would start to strike, those effected would no long be the volunteers but everyone would become a target. Lives could still be lost. Traffic lights, medical equipment, airplanes, navigation, financial, among dozens of other things would be good targets that could cause significant harm or death to many random people.
Now I know this is a slightly jaded/biased view, because there are plenty of random innocents in the other countries who get hurt/killed by us being there, would probably be safe if we went to cyberwar.
I tend toward thinking about 'most lives saved' not necessarily whose lives. So I am in huge support of cyberwars over normal wars. Clearly overall less people would probably die.
However, from the 'dumb american' side of things. Do you think that most american's are ready to handle that kind of constant barrage of attacks? Clearly in the beginning, a lot of destruction would happen because to be honest, a lot of systems just aren't up to par and prepared to handle a cyberwar. I feel that based upon the recent 10-15 years of how American has handled to being attacked. That would would potentially face too many american's wanting exponential increase in attack, controlling, revenging, monitoring in 'hopes' to minimize their uneasiness.
I feel like the masses would unavoidable cause most of us to suddenly be living in a control state. The first thing that comes to mind is Demolition Man, the wesley snipes movie of 1993. Where people were instantly 'fined' for even swearing, because they monitored and watched EVERYTHING.
Overall, I am in favor of a cyberwar over a regular war, however I fear that the masses would overreact too greatly to it, and cause a lot of very bad things for a long time. It would happen too quickly and too greatly that it would put something into place, that ultimately will turn out to be far worse than the thing we are trying to protect. The first thing that comes to mind is the movie Equilibrium. I am sure that drug in the movie, sounded like a great idea in the beginning, until suddenly no freedom, creativity, or even art was permitted. And then the **** hit the fan for the whole world.
Instead of having to deal with constantly searching people for belongings. How about we just all adopt a nudist society where no one can hide "dangerous" weapons and items. If you are carrying a gun or knife, its obvious.
If everyone is naked, no one could hide things on their person.
Things like this just make me think of Valve/Steam and how wonderful the steam platform is.
They have said numerous times how the steam platform fights piracy by offering a far superior platform. Faster downloads, easy and very quick alternatives. I've never had issues with it.
Not only can I install as many times as I want and re download as many times as I want.(Ive seen some places say you can install infinite, but can only download 3 times)
I can go to friends computer and play using my own settings/saves and even install the same game on 100 computers. Only limit is that obviously I can only log onto 1 account/computer at a time. But since I am the one playing/owning it. That is fine with me.
The funny thing is that half of the time, half the games in the humble bundle, I had already purchased within a few weeks of their release, sometimes the day of their release because they were worth while games that I was quite excited for.
I know Ive put in at least 30 hours of super meat boy, prior to this humble bundle. I also bought this humble bundle because there were some additional no name games. I'll admit that since I already own the bigger titles here, I am not paying as much but the few games I haven't heard, of I have enjoyed quite a bit, this time.
Ive not bought all humble bundles because 1 of the recent ones had average and mediocre games, at least to my gamestyle. I don't buy it, just because.
I do buy it because I want a game and to support developers, I often put nothing to charity, a little to humble bundle, and mostly 90% to developers.
Although Super Meat Boy is a platformer, and Super Mario Brothers is also a platformer, it is most definitely NOT a knock off. It is a completely different gameplay style in every sense.
Everything from violence to level design to scrolling level to art style. Aside from the fact that they are both jumping type games, there are no other similiarities.
Most of the humble bundles have often had pretty well known developers. Albiet, they aren't hundreds of million $$ strong but very well known nonetheless.
I think major titles like the ones you listed would make a lot of money, perhaps not the same as they sell outright. But perhaps after a year release and most sales are leveled off, itd be interesting to see how well it truly holds up to see what people pay on those games.
I also oppose your final statement, I don't think this particular model would work for every game company/music. I am quite sure they would need their own customized versions of packages if they were to fair well.
At first I was thinking, these developers are stupid. Then it was like, this is brilliant. Hopefully they can find some better medium ground that permits both their company game business to flourish but also to allow pirated copies(word of mouth) to work in unison
When I first read this, I thought he meant to use "godly powers" to acquire "donations" and "fake profits" off it. By manipulating the masses into believing you have communicated with god and have been given the gift of god and the power to heal people. Then hysterical people become cured and the guy makes millions.
If he succeeded, he could sue all those extremists religious groups on TV that make millions of dollars.
Eric, Although the bandwidth is a potential concern.
I know myself and many others often just use youtube to play music we want on our phones or at work.(at least 20 youtube songs a day)(often the same ones, I at least try to keep the window open(multiple tabs) to keep cached. to prevent bandwidth burn)
A streamed mp3 is far far more efficient then restreaming the same youtube video everyday.
I would be interested to know the statistics of TSA agents ever actually finding anything using this method?
I would also like to see the same statistics comparing what they do find, to actual threat based things. I.e. I don't care if someone had a 1oz too large toothpaste bottle in their pocket or a misc overzealous rule violation.
Pocket knives, scissors, explosives.
I also don't care about them finding drugs through this method.
I personally feel like it only adds inconvenience to everyone, and protects no one. Though I understand the airlines desire to look "proactive" in security and the public image of trying to be "safe" even if their methods are completely misguided and useless. Too bad we didn't have a choice. "Safe airline" and "dangerous airline" whereas safe airline is current standards, and dangerous one did very minimal intrusion.
Although it was probably said in another comment, I still feel I need to re state the following.
I could clearly understand the need to define a photocopier. The lawyer could have tried to be more creative in such that he could use other terms such as Copy Machine, Copier, Xerox, or as he eventually did, describe the function of the device.
Because in the modern world, technically couldn't a cell phone be called a copymachine? You can take a photo of something and then wirelessly print it to a printer.
As someone who works with a lot of various technical fields. There is a constant confusion over what is common acronyms and other technical slang. I think its short sighted of the lawyer simply because he is so familiar with a term that he deemed it as "common language."
The lawyer constantly tried to push the same angle, repeatedly, instead of trying to approach the question at different perspectives and terminology.
Also, it could potentially be that a photocopier only copies photos and a document copier only copies documents.
I've met people who believed they needed to buy the Office Max's CDs with the label printed "Music CDs" to make a music CD and they would argue that a regular any CD wouldn't work.
I think one thing that although short term, is easily overlooked.
Lets say Company A has 20 employees from various departments, all with their own individual twitter/blog/facebook/etc... pages. The company links to them, as they are to post relevant stuff about things they are working on, and other misc stuff, they are free to do what they want, with only minimum guidance.
They all build followers(of different types)
Sure company A will be mad with employee Bob leaves, taking his twitter account with 50,000 followers.
But maybe, Company B will be THAT much happier to have Employee Bob? Because now Bobs new company can take advantage of it.
Perhaps in the future, we will have as part of a resume, how many youtube or twitter followers we have in our professional lives?
It wouldn't be a requirement for every job, but it could definitely be considered an added perk.
It will make a few companies a bit disgruntled in the beginning. But I think overall in the long run, it'll be beneficial for everyone. Even if some companies don't ever see it that way.