Slashdot Mirror


Gates Nose-Dives at CES

Lots of submissions this morning about Bill Gates' performance at the Las Vegas Consumer Electronics Show. His Media Center PC presentation crashed. (The presentation is online.) He also gave an interview to CNET, where he described anyone who doesn't support ever-increasing intellectual property laws as "communists". Boingboing has some commentary on that interview as well.

1,451 comments

  1. Where is that video by suso · · Score: 3, Informative

    someone provide a link to the video where Windows 98 crashed on Gates and former MS employee at Comdex in Chicago circa 1998.

    1. Re:Where is that video by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
    2. Re:Where is that video by illusion_2K · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yeah, from 1998.

      Windows 98 went from 'funny' to 'sad' years ago.

    3. Re:Where is that video by pixelbeat · · Score: 1
    4. Re:Where is that video by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This one is from Belgium.

      You see, we belgians aint all that bad :)

    5. Re:Where is that video by AbbyNormal · · Score: 0

      uhm. That would be the wrong video. I would hope Gates is not demonstrating Win98 at Comdex.

      --
      Sig it.
    6. Re:Where is that video by vo243 · · Score: 1

      How about an alternate link than the Microsoft one for the current CES 2005 keynote? A torrent anyone? The Microsoft media server isn't sending diddly to me.

    7. Re:Where is that video by Walrus99 · · Score: 2, Funny

      At least the one from '98 is in Quicktime. The link in the Slashdot article is for a video in Windows Media Player. If you are going to post something in an anti-MS article it could at least be in Quicktime or RealPlayer.

      --When will they ever learn? When will they ever learn?

    8. Re:Where is that video by DrSkwid · · Score: 1

      Quicktime or RealPlayer

      are you mad ?

      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    9. Re:Where is that video by aichpvee · · Score: 1
      Realplayer? You must have meant vivo and been confused by Real's disgraceful eating up and shutting down of the greatest video codec in history.

      If only someone would put out an open-source vivo encoder I could die happy.

      --
      The Farewell Tour II
    10. Re:Where is that video by Wolfrider · · Score: 1

      BWAHAHAHAHA!!!

      Gates still hasn't learned enough to PRACTICE with the demo equipment before doing his shtick in public?? Somebody's head is going to roll when he gets back to his Back Orifice. :P

      --
      .
      == WolfriderV6 == I'm willing to admit that *I just might* be wrong... Are you??
    11. Re:Where is that video by Yartrebo · · Score: 1

      Quicktime and especially Real Player are awful formats. Xvid or MPEG-2 are much more readily usable formats and Xvid gives superb compression.

      The formats used in P2P generally represent the best that is available in terms of compression and widespread readability.

    12. Re:Where is that video by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, the incredibly slow video has essentially turned into a radio station for me. There's a way to capture the stream into a file, and I used ASFRecorder, freely-available from many places. And it can resume your file if your connection drops, which is a nice perk.

      http://www.pcworld.com/downloads/file_description/ 0,fid,7942,00.asp

    13. Re:Where is that video by ViolentGreen · · Score: 2

      uhm. That would be the wrong video. I would hope Gates is not demonstrating Win98 at Comdex.

      If you look at the post above it, you'll see that it's not the wrong link. It is the one that was requested. The old one was asked for/

      --
      Not everything is analogous to cars. Car analogies rarely work.
    14. Re:Where is that video by Kplusplus · · Score: 0

      ROFL, Quicktime is NOT A FORMAT. Quicktime is a media wrapper in the same way that AVI is, except Quicktime is superior.

      Quicktime files can have media of any type in them, several tracks of video, audio, and even a movie skin all spliced together seamlessly.

      Quicktime files can have Xvid, MPEG/2, DivX, or whatever you like. Just because what you pirate is in a certain format doesn't mean its the best around, means it's either the most easily pirated, the most free, easiest to use, or some combination thereof.

      Lastly Xvid is just a decent format, the 3IVX encoder/decoders are superior and have no qualms with being in a .mov file, the windows version even allows you to watch .mov files in any DirectShow application(media player, real player, etc). If you want to piss/moan/rant about something, make the effort to know what your talking about first.

      --
      -"I'm one of those Mac people that will break a bottle on the bar and hold it to your throat for bad-mouthing my system"
    15. Re:Where is that video by jhenager · · Score: 1

      That is hilarious. Keep trying, billy boy. Someday your software will be as solid as UNIX/Linux was five years ago. Hahaahhaaaaa

    16. Re:Where is that video by normal_guy · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Funny, just last week it took me 20 minutes to get an ipod working with SuSE and gtkpod, and an additional 30 to get a USB DVD burner working correctly with k3b.

      --

      Linux: Free if your time is worthless.
    17. Re:Where is that video by Eccles · · Score: 1

      ROFL, Quicktime is NOT A FORMAT.

      Yes, it is. It is not, however, a codec, or specifically, a video codec.

      --
      Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
    18. Re:Where is that video by Bishop923 · · Score: 1

      20-30 minutes to install and configure a piece of hardware is pretty good on any platform (Unless you have a Mac and your hardware is supported natively :-)).

      It would take just as long(probably longer) in Windows to:
      1)Check for and possibly download updates for the firmware/drivers/applications,
      2)Install the firmware/drivers/applications,
      3)Reboot(possibly a few times for the drivers),
      4)Disable the inevitable system tray app/startup item,
      5)Remove the various marketing shortcuts from the desktop,
      6)Open the app for the first time and turn off the various wizards,
      and
      7)Possibly troubleshoot any one of those steps if you have a hardware incompatibility.

    19. Re:Where is that video by Breakfast+Pants · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Quick time most definitely IS a format. Are you suggesting that AVI is not a format? Neither are codecs but they are definitely FORMATS. Format is a rather general term and you just made yourself look like an ass with your lame "ROFL."

      --

      --

      WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
    20. Re:Where is that video by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      is 30 minutes to get a USB DVD burner working correctly a good or bad thing? I can't tell, since it seems to take any sort of update, patch, or driver forever to install. I think I usually spend 30 minutes on a typical new piece of hardware, sometimes a few hours if it's really fighting me. Basically I'm saying, count yourself lucky that it only took that long. You can attribute it to random chance or Linux being good or you being skilled.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    21. Re:Where is that video by Anti_zeitgeist · · Score: 1

      actually......when i plug my ipod in to any windows 2000 / XP machine. It just picks it up and starts to work.....and have you tried installing an all in one printer on linux? Whats that?...you have?....come over my house, cuz i still need help.

      --
      If it wasn't for C, we would be stuck using BASI, PASAL and OBOL.
    22. Re:Where is that video by obeythefist · · Score: 1

      Be nice, he's a mac user. He probably thinks his computer, instead of a G4 or G5 running OS 9 or OS X, is "Grape".

      --
      I am government man, come from the government. The government has sent me. -- G.I.R.
    23. Re:Where is that video by Dot.Com.CEO · · Score: 1

      Not in the least bit trolling but if you need help with configuring a printer, answer this thread with your problem and I'll help.

      --
      Mother is the best bet and don't let Satan draw you too fast.
    24. Re:Where is that video by Zorilla · · Score: 1

      Ahh, yes. That evolved into an inside joke in high school. One guy would say, "UnstramanaBillGates!" and the other would say "Mah mit pullon!"

      (This video doesn't appear to have sound, but the other version with the announcer guy says something resembling that - I don't know Belgian)

      --

      It would be cool if it didn't suck.
    25. Re:Where is that video by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not in the least bit trolling but if you need help with configuring a printer, answer this thread with your problem and I'll help.

      Why would he do that? You'd fix his problem, everything would work perfectly but then he'd have to drop his criticism of Linux and get off his lazy ass to learn something new. Intertia is by far Linux's greatest enemy.

    26. Re:Where is that video by AzraelKans · · Score: 1

      The heck with that, where is the NEW ces video?, Ive been trying to get that link for hours and I cant get it to download (slashdot effect?). Does someone know a mirror or better yet a link to a better format than crappy .asx?(even quicktime is better)

      --
      Go ahead MOD my day!
      More opinions here
    27. Re:Where is that video by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Vivo was for porn, I never saw it used for anything else.

    28. Re:Where is that video by mr100percent · · Score: 1

      I was wondering where that turkey came from...

      Great quote btw.

  2. I spy a new meme by beeglebug · · Score: 5, Funny

    Fly the flag with pride comrades!
    boingboing.net/images/copyleftcommie.gif

    1. Re:I spy a new meme by Ford+Prefect · · Score: 3, Funny

      In Soviet, erm...

      I'm sure there's a joke here somewhere, but I can't for the life of me remember what it is. ;-)

      --
      Tedious Bloggy Stuff - hooray?
    2. Re:I spy a new meme by finkployd · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I find it offensive to associate the GPL with a form of government that's responsible for killing many millions of people.

      Are you aware of a major form of government that is NOT responsible for killing millions of people?

      Finkployd

    3. Re:I spy a new meme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually, isn't a government granted monopoly (copyright) and "incentives" more communist than capitalist? Do we really need to pour millions of dollars into the pockets of the recording industry and artists? I mean, I accept the premise that entertainment is worth money, but when one organization controls the distribution channels, content, and advertisement, where's the competition?

    4. Re:I spy a new meme by sisukapalli1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I find it offensive to associate the GPL with a form of government that's responsible for killing many millions of people.

      Come on... People have killed more in the name of religion, but that doesn't make the concept of religion a bad thing (or, to give an example, a cross is a perfectly fine symbol). The sad thing about communism was that in some countries it delved into dictatorships and so on. Some countries have a more palatable socialistic governments that are doing pretty fine.

      It is sad though that Bill Gates thinks that by associating GPL with an "american taboo word of the 20th century," he can accomplish something. Now, he seems to be taking the role of Steve Ballmer. May be time to see Bill Gates jumping up and down screaming "Developers... Developers... Communists... Develpers..".

      S

    5. Re:I spy a new meme by eno2001 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      To paraphrase the NRA member logic: Governments don't kill people, people kill people. The communist form of government had little to do with killing people. It ultimately fell victim to a human trait called greed. The people in power in the former soviet states felt that they were more equal than others. If you ask me, I will tell you that our capitalist republic is failing in the same exact way. The only difference is that with capitalism, the PR machine has better beads and trinkets. Now before anyone jumps on me to tell me that capitalism is an economic model and communism is a political model, don't forget that in communism, the economic model is defined by the political model. Here in the U.S. the economic model is also defined by the political model, but the balance is different. Here the economic model has more power than the political model. And those people who would have been high ranking politicos in the U.S.S.R. are instead CEOs in our corporations. Very effective way of attempting to take over the world without letting things like politics and ethics get in the way.

      --
      -"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
    6. Re:I spy a new meme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, people have not killed more than 20 million people (Soviet Union's death toll alone) in the name of religion, you fucktard.

    7. Re:I spy a new meme by Benanov · · Score: 5, Funny

      That should be a patent-unencumbered PNG! Where is your sense of decency, comrade? :)

    8. Re:I spy a new meme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      You have nothing to lose but your ipchains!

    9. Re:I spy a new meme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you aware of a major form of government that is NOT responsible for killing millions of people?

      Hmm, I don't think anyone has ever implemented a truly communist state, so I'll answer communism on that one. However, if someone did implement it, I'm sure the first thing on the agenda would be to kill millions of people.

      Actually, I find your comment a little absurd. A form of government is never responsible for killing people. People kill people.

    10. Re:I spy a new meme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How many millions of people has the US killed?

      From the Indian Wars (why didn't Canada have to slaughter its native population? -- though they did still cheat them) through Vietnam (to set up a domino effect in the East -- sound familiar?) and now Iraq (there used to be a democracy in Iran -- then it was overthrown by the US to put a puppet in power (i.e. the Shah) and you wonder why they hate us?).

      All of this killing to spread the world's most aggressive ideology, i.e. "Americanism".

      I laugh every time we talk about rights here in the US. For example, look at all the countries we would like to "change" that have had for example a woman head of state:

      http://www.capwip.org/participation/womenheadofs ta te.html

      A woman president is not likely in my lifetime (a black one even less so).

    11. Re:I spy a new meme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      two words: The Crusades

    12. Re:I spy a new meme by huge+colin · · Score: 1

      People have killed more in the name of religion, but that doesn't make the concept of religion a bad thing

      I'm pretty sure that does make it a bad thing.

    13. Re:I spy a new meme by AviLazar · · Score: 1

      Just because something grants an exclusive right does not make it communist, in fact by forcing it to be open and free for the public you are saying you should share it - which is more communist then capitalist. What are these incentives that you are speaking of? Other then the right of exclusitivity what other benefit does the copyright holder get?
      Who is pouring the millions of dollars into these peoples pockets? Is it the gov't or is it us the people? If it is the gov't, I did not realize they were paying Metallica's bills; if it is the people - well then apparantly a lot of people out there feel the artists should get paid (I have no problem with this - considering they have to deal with a LOT of crap we do not).

      Is an artist truely forced to sell under the RIAA/MPAA? (with the exception of artists that accept funding from these organizations). If artists can sell their products under a different organization (or none at all) then this is not a monopoly. If the RIAA/MPAA is the best bet for an artist well that is the fault of those who are not willing to invest to compete. For example: Brittney Spears with the same marketing/advertising will do just as well no matter if she is working with the RIAA or the joeschmoe group.

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    14. Re:I spy a new meme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I find it offensive to associate the GPL with a form of government that's responsible for killing many millions of people.
      - Iraq deathtoll is what? 120k people so far?

    15. Re:I spy a new meme by Kid_Korrupt · · Score: 1

      It doesnt matter what kind of system you have, there will always be people trying to take advantage of it.

    16. Re:I spy a new meme by aurb · · Score: 3, Funny

      In Soviet, erm...

      In Soviet America Bill Gates Copylefts You?

    17. Re:I spy a new meme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      communism itself, in its practice, has been turned into a religion. that means, instead of having a scentific attitude, they force people to have "faith" and blindly "believe in" things, like religion. what's good about religion any way? unless you call making people stupid as ipod fans a good thing.

    18. Re:I spy a new meme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Paragraphs are your friend.

    19. Re:I spy a new meme by ThePiMan2003 · · Score: 1

      True only 1.5 Million people died in the Crusades. However lets take a look at population densities 164 Million under Stalin's control compared to a total world population of around 220 million during the crusades, also take into account differences in technology and I think we will find plenty of blood at the hands of religion. And you can't really blame Communism for Stalin, he was just a nut case.

    20. Re:I spy a new meme by forlornhope · · Score: 1

      ipchains? I lost mine several years ago when iptables came out. Come on man, UPGRADE!!! ;-)

      --
      "We Don't Need No Truthless Heros!" - Project 86
    21. Re:I spy a new meme by Drinian · · Score: 0, Troll

      Do you even understand what communism is? It is by nature totalitarianism. It is opposed to the nature of man, the nature of freedom and the nature of liberty.

      Who will determine that my abundance should go to someone else's lack? Will force be used to create this balance?

      Voluntary communism is wonderful. And it is found all over the world, often among religious groups. But mandatory communism is totalitarianism, plain and simple.

    22. Re:I spy a new meme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. The problem with communism is that everyone has to "act the right way," the ideal way. Capitalism assumes everyone will be an asshole and responds accordingly. One matches human behavior the other does not. And one of them always seems to fail eventually.

    23. Re:I spy a new meme by jokerr · · Score: 0
    24. Re:I spy a new meme by MrHanky · · Score: 1
      To paraphrase the NRA member logic: Governments don't kill people, people kill people. The communist form of government had little to do with killing people. It ultimately fell victim to a human trait called greed. The people in power in the former soviet states felt that they were more equal than others.
      Yes, but there seems to be a problem with some specific forms of marxist-leninist thinking that (inevitably?) leads to totalitarianism: They don't think it's such a great idea to have proper separation of powers, since everyone is equal and all. This could also be a problem with utopianism in general.

      But I don't really see that problem with free software (and other 'intellectual property'), no matter what licence. Software isn't a governmental power, as far as i can see -- rather, it empowers the user. And free software empowers the user more than proprietary software does; it even takes away much of the power the distributor/developer has over the user.

      And it isn't hard to find totalitarianism in capitalism these days. A system that demands ever-increasing intellectual property laws is nothing but corporate fascism, where all power is passed over to those with the patent portfolios, and the user is only allowed to use software for specific purposes. Did I say user? Sorry, I meant the consumer.
    25. Re:I spy a new meme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, I think having economy first is a better system. Quality of life seems better, but more importantly you can ignore a company. You know, don't buy their products. Can't copy a DVD? Don't buy the damn thing. Now, try to avoid paying taxes.

      Economy first seems a lot safer. It allows people to call the elected leader Hitler. Now jump in your way back machine and speak out against the government in the USSR. (and leave the patriot act argument at the door, I don't see anyone being rounded up for posting on slashdot)

    26. Re:I spy a new meme by RichardX · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      In Soviet Erm All Your Urms Are Eh Ah!

      --
      Curiosity was framed. Ignorance killed the cat.
    27. Re:I spy a new meme by Mant · · Score: 1

      I'd tell you instead you are getting you models and names confused. Communism is a political model, the economic model is a command economy (also known as centrally planned). Democracy is a political model, free market is an economic one most commonly associated with it.

      Now, it is true the political beliefs of Communism are against free-market economics, but you can have a command economy under, say, a democratic political system, quite common in wartime.

      I'd also point out that the problem with Communist government is, based on the historical evidence, much more vulnerable to being subverted by greed and personal interest, on a larger scale, and with more drastic results. Also, the command economy has a weakness of inefficiency, and being controlled by the political structure, corruption there makes is worse.

      This doesn't mean the democratic political system, and the free market economic ones, don't have problems with greed, corruption, lack of ethics and so on. Both systems though do assume a self-interest as a prime motivating factor right from the beginning, so they are a bit more robust. Individual bad things happen, but the whole system isn't thrown off kilter. So far they haven't produced anything like the suffering from Stalin's purges, farm collectivisation and the like.

    28. Re:I spy a new meme by kernelistic · · Score: 0

      The war is over Bubba; LZW is history!

    29. Re:I spy a new meme by Ignominious+Cow+Herd · · Score: 1

      Where is your sense of history? That wall fell last year.

      --
      Lump lingered last in line for brains, and the ones she got were sorta rotten and insane.
    30. Re:I spy a new meme by eno2001 · · Score: 1

      I won't pretend to be an economist, so I will defer to what you pointed out in that regard. But we did have the whole Guantanamo Bay incident. Currently, the U.S. government is considering whether or not imprisoning people for no reason other than being suspected (ie. without evidence) of being a "terrorist" (defined as someone the governmetn doesn't liek at this point) for life with no access to a court trial is a good idea or not. So, I don't think that the atrocities of other totalitarian states are too far off unless something really major changes the political direction of the U.S.

      --
      -"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
    31. Re:I spy a new meme by cL0h · · Score: 2, Funny

      considering they have to deal with a LOT of crap we do not
      Yeah. Those heavy cocaine habits are a bitch to kick .

      --
      cL0h
    32. Re:I spy a new meme by master_p · · Score: 2, Interesting

      One key difference between Communism and Capitalism is the existence of a middle class in Capitalism. In other words, Capitalism let's you have a house, a TV, a car, and it let's you dream about being rich, whereas in Communism these things are not allowed by the law.

      Generally, Capitalism is better in the short term, but in the long term, both are equally bad, because greed is a key factor in both systems.

      As for Gates, he became ultra-rich from Windows...what did we expect? personally, I did not expect anything else.

      The sad fact is that although technology has the power to transform the world to a paradise, it's people with the mentality that BillG showed in this case that do not let that happen.

    33. Re:I spy a new meme by Captain+Rotundo · · Score: 1

      You have it backwards. Capitalisms greatest weakness is that it needs constant regulation and intervention because it is so susceptible to everyone acting like an asshole. Now you can argue that communism is susceptible to other problems (and possibly show how it succumbed to them when applied) but don't pretend that capitalism responds perfectly to corruption. it doens't.

    34. Re:I spy a new meme by Loacher · · Score: 1

      In my limited understanding of communism, the State's control of bussinnes and the distribution of wealth is more important than SHARING.

      In capitalism it is assumed that with no government intervention wealth will find a way to SHARE itself in a more fair and just way than if government intervened.

      Where did youi get the idea that communism is all about sharing?

    35. Re:I spy a new meme by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 1

      In Soviet Copyleftistan, the Trade Show watches YOU.

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
    36. Re:I spy a new meme by arkanes · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Communism is a method of government, what we're talking about here is socialism, the economic theory. So with that out of the way, lets go on: Copyright is a violation of "pure" economic principles, because it's a market control to create an artificial scarcity. However, nobody with any brains actually wants a market totally free of any controls, even so-called free-marketers. There's some other considerations, like that copyright creates a market where there otherwise wouldn't be one.

      However, anti-copyright is not socialist, because socialism is ENFORCED public sharing/ownership. The absence of copyright means that there's no legal protection for works, not that you're required to share them. (As an aside: patents as well as registered copyrights require disclosure["sharing"] as a requirement).

      The RIAA is an industry organization made up of record labels. It doesn't directly interact with artists in any way, but people (at least on Slashdot) will refer to "the RIAA" when they mean "record labels and/or the music industry as a whole", as well as the RIAA per se. Any artist with any signifigant amount of distribution (ie, outside their home county) will have to sign with an RIAA member, because record labels control access to all the major means of distribution - you won't get your album into stores and you won't get radio play without a record deal with a major label. One more note: despite there being a whole shit-ton of record labels, they're mostly subsidaries or imprints of each other. There's a fairly small set of people who control the music industry and while they compete with each other to a degree, they mostly collude.

      In summary: Grandparent is wrong to call copyrights communist (or socialist), but your rebuttal is equally wrong pretty much everywhere.

    37. Re:I spy a new meme by SilentChris · · Score: 1

      The big problem with communism is that it flies in the face of basic scientific biology.

      In a communistic people aren't rewarded by the amount/quality of work they produce. A doctor in a communist society gets paid the same amount as a janitor. Where is the incentive to learn new skills? Why bother if you're going to get the same money anyway?

      Human (and basic biological) nature IS capitalistic. We kill other beings to eat, survival of the fittest and all. Communism goes against basic nature.

    38. Re:I spy a new meme by arkanes · · Score: 1

      "Free marketers" get around this by defining acting like an asshole as the preferred result. Always makes me laugh when someone supposedly in favor of a free market gets all uptight about extending IP rights. Piracy is Adam Smiths invisble hand fisting you in the ass, Mr. Gates.

    39. Re:I spy a new meme by AviLazar · · Score: 1

      Actually you are trying to separate communism and socialism into two distinct parts. While in theory we can talk about them as two distinct parts - the reality of it is that they work together. Kind of hard to have one without the other. Capitalism doesn't work to well with communism.

      What is the incentive for a person to spend time and money to create a work if it will not be shared with the public (for profit probably)? Again, without copyright this person has no legal basis for recouping payment. So why would someone devot a lot of time and receive nothing (especially if it is their form of income)?

      Not every well known artist utilizes the major labels and is subject to their reign (Metallica produces under their own label). While it is tough, and rare it does happen. Also, I am sure there are many small time bands who have their stuff distributed to a local area. It may be limited - but it does happen.

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    40. Re:I spy a new meme by anum · · Score: 1

      There is an old saying: Nature abhors a vacuum
      Let me add another: Nature abhors a surplus
      And one more: If the stakes are high enough someone will find a way to game the system.

      If you want to call it greed that's fine but some are greedy for power and some for more wealth than they could ever spend and some just for enough to eat. I guarantee that there are some siphoning off money/goods donated to the Asian tsunami areas. They are the lowest form of human life and you cannot get rid of them. Kick out the current set and another will fill the void.

      Most of us did the same thing on a smaller scale when we were children. "There is a whole bowl full of candy. Mom won't notice if I sneak just one." Some of us still do it now: "The boss won't care if I'm surfing /. if I just read this one story." As the goods/amounts become larger the excuses become more involved but eventually you have the UN, the Oil for Food program, the US DOD, HUD, and government in general and "communists" in Russia killing thousands to cover up the fraud.

      This isn't 'real' communism of course. Any commune large enough to be considered a nation is large enough to attract the parisites and we are back to square one.

      The most effective method we have found to get rid of the parisites is called Democracy but it doesn't scale very well so we went with the next best, Republic. We vote for them and they vote for us (in our best interest). If they misbehave we don't vote for them next time and someone else gets a chance. This too, has been 'Gamed' by lobbyists and special interest groups who just deal with whoever we send and by companies and contractors who just keep low until conditions are back to the status quo.

      Douglas Adams said it best:
      The major problem---one of the major problems, for there are several--one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it, or rather of whom manages to get people to let them do it to them.

      To summarize: it is a well known fact, that those people who most want to rule people are ipso facto those least suited to do it.
      To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do so.
      To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem.
      --Douglas Adams, Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy--

      --
      I don't think, Therefore I'm not.
    41. Re:I spy a new meme by AviLazar · · Score: 1, Funny

      Yea well if you had to deal with the paparatzi trying to catch any kind of lewd, crude or embarassing video/audio of you, or your family on a 24/7 basis you would probably also have a major cocaine habit right? Not exactly fair to insinuate that all artists are utilizing drugs; actually its down right liabel (sp?).

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    42. Re:I spy a new meme by 4of12 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      in fact by forcing it to be open and free for the public you are saying you should share it

      No.

      Rather, by allowing free and open commerce in recorded media you are saying let the available technology and the market set the price.

      If that price comes down to US$0.32 per Brittney Spears CD, then consumers have benefitted. I think.

      --
      "Provided by the management for your protection."
    43. Re:I spy a new meme by Fallingcow · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Hitler thought his armies and his works (esp. with regard to the Jews) were holy, and killed in God's name. Or, at least, that's what he claimed he thought.

      Does that count?

    44. Re:I spy a new meme by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 2, Funny

      To paraphrase the NRA member logic: Governments don't kill people, people kill people.

      no no no. you got it all wrong:

      guns don't kill people. apes with guns kill people

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    45. Re:I spy a new meme by Asterisk · · Score: 1
      Come on... People have killed more in the name of religion, but that doesn't make the concept of religion a bad thing
      And there's the key difference. Murderous people have, in the past, used appeals to religion as an excuse for their violence. But religious ideology itself has rarely been directly responsible for anyone's death.

      But with communism - which is applied as a comprehensive social system rather than being an ideology subscribed to by individuals - the flaws in the doctrine do indeed directly cause needless deaths, independently of any ill will or belligerence on the part of its advocates.

      Although the Soviet regime was brutal and many innocent people died in its gulags, the vast majority of those who perished under Soviet communism were killed by the famines which were a direct result of the collectivisation of Russian agriculture according to prevailing communist theory.
    46. Re:I spy a new meme by Dan+East · · Score: 1

      Come on... People have killed more in the name of religion, but that doesn't make the concept of religion a bad thing (or, to give an example, a cross is a perfectly fine symbol).

      Do you have any references to back that up?

      Yeah, a lot of people died during the crusades and such, but that cannot possibly rival the mass genocide perpetrated under ethnic cleansing (WWII) and governments that exterminate to protect themselves (USSR).

      Dan East

      --
      Better known as 318230.
    47. Re:I spy a new meme by arkanes · · Score: 2, Insightful
      What is the incentive for a person to spend time and money to create a work if it will not be shared with the public (for profit probably)? Again, without copyright this person has no legal basis for recouping payment. So why would someone devot a lot of time and receive nothing (especially if it is their form of income)?

      It's funny how often people say this, in spite of the fact that people will and do create stuff for enjoyment without the incentive of money. What do you think Open Source is? There may or may not be more created with copyright - I'm not convinced that copyright is working in that regard.

      Metallica, and several other major acts, produce under thier own label, it's true. But you'll find a few things in common: They, almost without exception, did not get to be major artists that way - they created thier own label instead of re-signing or by breaking thier current contract. Second, the "label" they record under is generally merely an imprint or re-branding of another, larger label. I'm not familiar with Metallica specifically, although they are not the norm in the music industry, so I don't know if this is the case for them or not, but it's the general case for artist-owned labels - they don't actually have the infrastructure or contacts that a real label has, it's just a different branding of the same old crap.

    48. Re:I spy a new meme by portnux · · Score: 1
      May be time to see Bill Gates jumping up and down screaming "Developers... Developers... Communists... Develpers..".

      Could that be the "content" old Billy is promising us?

    49. Re:I spy a new meme by Nova1313 · · Score: 1

      I see nothing wrong with communism. It would completely work I think and eliminate lots of problems that many people have.. The problem is people are inherently greedy and that is where the system starts to fall apart. It can be a great system if implimented correct but so could the us government...

      --
      There exists some positive integer N that you are the Nth person to read this signature.
    50. Re:I spy a new meme by jacoberrol · · Score: 2, Informative
      In capitalism it is assumed that with no government intervention wealth will find a way to SHARE itself in a more fair and just way than if government intervened.

      Where did you get that idea? Capitalism is about efficiency. There is no garauntee regarding the fair distribution of wealth. Example: Guy who hits a ball with a stick = millionaire.

    51. Re:I spy a new meme by AviLazar · · Score: 1

      One of my econ classes i believe. Something about wealth distribution...not that it really works out as seen in Communist Russia, there were rich and poor and under an ideal communisim/socialism model everyone would be equal.

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    52. Re:I spy a new meme by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 1

      People have killed more in the name of religion

      Bullshit. Communist (atheistic) states were responsible for about 100,000,000 murders in the 20th century. Hitler's atheistic Nazis killed another 11,000,000. It's amazing to me that people still push this stupid notion.

      HOW MANY DID COMMUNIST REGIMES MURDER?

    53. Re:I spy a new meme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not everyone is motivated solely by money. If you have enough food, shelter etc, you might consider choosing your work on what you find interesting or by how you can contribute the most to society or even by how much respect you profession affords you.

    54. Re:I spy a new meme by bkirkby · · Score: 1

      interesting related statistic that i was surprised to find out the other day.

      in the 350 years of the spanish inquisition, there were a total of less than 40,000 people killed.

      that's not even a decent day under a communist dictator.

    55. Re:I spy a new meme by AviLazar · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It is a legitimate concern. Some people/organizations want to create their product for profit (nothing wrong here). Put it this way - we know games like Doom 3, Halo 2, etc are multi-million dollar games and some of the most popular. How is the open source gaming industry doing? Except for a few games I played on Linux Redhat (came with it) that looked remarkably like other games I have played (one looked like Atari Asteroids) I didn't see anything there too original...none of them were spectacular. Though the Penguin body-sled game was pretty neat.
      In your second paragraph you discuss how (generally) artists do not have the infrastructure or the contacts needed in this global industry...well so they are going to the RIAA/MPAA organizations and signing a contract - yes the organizations may get a majority of the profit - but it doesn't seem like the artists are doing too bad. As long as an artist can get one really good hit song out there they are sure to make a ton of cash. It's a trade off. What these guys are saying "You bring the talent we supply the capital taking a risk in you. If you do poorly you lose time but get some money, if you do great you get rich, we get richer. If you do not like the deal we are offering, do it on your own, nobody is stopping you."
      The only thing I disagree about the RIAA/MPAA is their price fixing (notice cd/dvd sale prices never drop, even though in an elastic market it should); and possibly their thing about backing up cd/dvd's (though I understand their reasoning, since many people are stealing this material not just simply backing up material).

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    56. Re:I spy a new meme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are you? 14? 15? The world is more complicated than that. And you know it.

    57. Re:I spy a new meme by DesScorp · · Score: 1

      I find it offensive that you're so damn offended. Pull your head out of your ass. It's a joke. Laugh.

      Look at the bright side. He could have put a Swastika on it.

      --
      Life is hard, and the world is cruel
    58. Re:I spy a new meme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Any artist with any signifigant amount of distribution (ie, outside their home county) will have to sign with an RIAA member...

      This is simply not true, and has not been for years (k5 link). It has been known in the independent music community for quite a while that signing with a major label is career suicide 90% of the time. Volumes have been written on the subject (google around a little bit), it just seems that the prospect of success in the music industry is alluring enough that most artists are willing to take that chance. Most of those that do end up owing a major for the remainder of their life. Why, might you ask, would someone take such a chance? Jello Biafra answered this question:

      "I ain't no artist, I'm a business man
      No ideas of my own.

    59. Re:I spy a new meme by AviLazar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But whose choice is that to make? Your choice (or the peoples)? What gives you the right to decide how much Brittney Spears and her organizations want to charge for their own creation? Or should we let the gov't choose the price?
      With available tech people steal the material. If people are legally allowed to steal the material (now it is not stealing, it is just taking for free) - they will do so. In all honesty - how many people are going to pay for something, when they can get it for free legally? Hell how many people out there pay for something when they can take it illegally with little risk of capture?
      It is not our property - we did not make it, we have ZERO say. It is like if I knit a sweater. I can charge nothing for it(give it away), I can charge 5 bucks or I can charge 5,000 bucks. My choice. Your choice is to pay or not pay for it. If i see that people are not buying my sweaters I can either reduce the price or leave it as is. Again I have a choice to sell at the price that I want to sell, you have the choice to buy it or not. I can't see why this concept is so hard to grasp?

      Please note I am not trying to incite you to anger, I am just trying to figure out why people have a problem with someone setting a price that they want on their property.

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    60. Re:I spy a new meme by DemiKnute · · Score: 1

      "To paraphrase the NRA member logic: Governments don't kill people, people kill people."

      You've got the NRA member logic backwards. NRA logic says that it's not the tool that kills the people, but the people who use the tool who do it. Hence, people don't kill people, governments kill people. Blaiming it on the tool is anti-gunner logic.

      --
      .
    61. Re:I spy a new meme by Aardpig · · Score: 1

      Hitler's atheistic Nazis killed another 11,000,000.

      Bollocks, the Nazis were Christians. Why do you think the Catholic church helped them get rid of the Jews?

      --
      Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
    62. Re:I spy a new meme by 16K+Ram+Pack · · Score: 1
      "in the long term, both are equally bad?"

      Are you kidding? Look at somewhere like Hong Kong compared to mainstream China, or compare the state of the old East Germany with West Germany after the fall.

      Communism was a total failure. A free-market which has controls against monopolies is all you need.

    63. Re:I spy a new meme by aichpvee · · Score: 1
      Actually, isn't communism more an economic system. The "communist" governments are just the ones who implement and enforce that economic system.

      Also, don't forget that Hitler killed millions of people and he was fascistic (state+corporate) like we are in America. See his marching orders for slave labour from VW for reference.

      --
      The Farewell Tour II
    64. Re:I spy a new meme by arkanes · · Score: 1
      [...]but it doesn't seem like the artists are doing too bad. As long as an artist can get one really good hit song out there they are sure to make a ton of cash. It's a trade off.

      Without wanting to get too offtopic, this is pretty much false. It's perfectly possible, and in fact has happened multiple times, for a band to be very successfull, even with multiple hits, and end up owing the label money. There is a LOT of shady dealing in the music industry - but they're the only game in town. They rule the market and you really don't have the option to go it alone, even if you want to, because they have the distribution channels tied up with exlusive licensing. Basically, it's not what you'd call a clean model of a healthy market. In fact, I'd call it a pretty glaring example of the weakness of capitalism - it's no good for consumers, it's no good for the artists, it's only good for the middlemen, who can manipulate the market to prevent change.

      you do poorly you lose time but get some money, if you do great you get rich, we get richer.

      This is totally false. A band that tries to make a big splash and fails will end up broke, period. The label will usually end up eating a loss, but only cause the band doesn't have any money left. It's NOT a profit/risk sharing agreement! All the money for the studio, editing, even a lot of the distribution costs are an ADVANCE to the artist. And those advances come out of the artists royalties, which are the smallest section of the label price of the CD. if it really were a risk/profit sharing agreement like you seem to think it is, the industry would be a lot healthier. But it's not, and one of the reasons it's not is that they KNOW a artist can't hit it big without them. You can make money playing small time gigs and selling your own CDs, but you can't get the kind of exposure you need without backing, even if you have the money. It's that simple.

    65. Re:I spy a new meme by escher · · Score: 1

      I thought communism was an economic system, not a form of government.

    66. Re:I spy a new meme by mforbes · · Score: 1

      I'm not disagreeing with either you or the parent to your post. I just wonder... on what type of scale is evil measured? Maybe the only reason Torquemada (or the Portuguese inquisition, for that matter, which from what I understand was even nastier) didn't kill as many people as Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler, et al, was the difference in levels of technology.

      --

      Allegedly real newspaper headline from 1998:
      Man Struck by Lightning Faces Battery Charge

    67. Re:I spy a new meme by EddWo · · Score: 1

      Communism means everyone has a house, a tv and a car, but they are all the same model and not very good quality.
      You can still dream about being rich, but it is difficult to achieve it through your own efforts other than sucking up to those in control.

      --
      "Taligent is still pure vapor. Maybe they'll be the last who jumps up on Openstep... "
    68. Re:I spy a new meme by 16K+Ram+Pack · · Score: 1
      Certainly the UK system of government have 1 major problem - first past the post which means that a new entrant getting anywhere (eg Libertarian) is difficult.

      That said, there's two other market controls - live abroad if you don't like it (drain of talent which damages nation) and that if a government is bad for the people and underperforms, other countries will outperform them.

    69. Re:I spy a new meme by AviLazar · · Score: 1

      If an startup artist who just signed with the RIAA does poorly who loses the most amount of money?

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    70. Re:I spy a new meme by KarmaOverDogma · · Score: 1

      Very true, but remember the following:

      The now defunct Union of Soviet Socialist Republics never had:

      1) a Bill of Rights explicitly built into the Constitution (not that ours is not under attack in ways that you seem to be alluding to).
      2) a more-or-less functional and effective seperation of governmental powers/function where one side could effective counter the interests of the other if they got out of hand (not that we dont have some of this element, but "in Soviet Russia" if you weren't with the Politbureau, you could forget it).
      3) a premise of Freedom on the part of most Government Politicos and most of the Citizenry. In Soviet Russia, and the Russia of today, this is not the case (and yes, I know we have our problems). To plagerize a quote from Churchhill, one could argue that the United States is the worst Government in the World to be under, save all the others (I know I invite much debate with the use of that little gem of a statment as well).

      Anway, I think your points are valid in their illustrative intent of showing how those with power/money/influence are sapping our freedoms and seeking to change the definition of words and terms from right under our noses (regardless of the Government they are in/own/buy), but it also needs to be taken in context, considering the nature of the two governments in the comparison.

      end intellectual nitpick/rant.

      --
      uR iGn0ranc3, Their Power
    71. Re:I spy a new meme by Erik+Piper · · Score: 1

      I'd say they're NOT equally bad, because Capitalism accepts the existence of human greed and, having accepted it, turns it towards a good cause -- providing for people's needs, while Communism cannot deal with greed because it refuses to accept its inevitability.

      Erik

      IIAROAPCC (I am a resident of a post-Communist country)

    72. Re:I spy a new meme by bheerssen · · Score: 4, Insightful

      One key difference between Communism and Capitalism is the existence of a middle class in Capitalism.

      Let's keep it that way. The middle class is currently shrinking in a dramatic way. The upper class is not growing appreciably, but they are making more money. The poor class, on the other hand, is growing. This suggests a shift of power away from the middle class to the upper class. This is not a good thing. As the powerful amass more power, they will abuse it to the detriment of everybody else. That is why power should reside in the largest segment of the population as possible -- to help ensure that as few people as possible face abuse from the rest of society.

      --
      (Score: -1, Stupid)
    73. Re:I spy a new meme by bcattwoo · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Hitler thought his armies and his works (esp. with regard to the Jews) were holy, and killed in God's name. Or, at least, that's what he claimed he thought.

      Hitler may have been anti-Jew, but I don't think he was for any religion other than the worship of Hitler himself.

    74. Re:I spy a new meme by Drinian · · Score: 1

      The problem is people are inherently greedy and that is where the system starts to fall apart.

      This is why I stated it must be voluntary, because of the nature of man, freedom, and liberty. I know many people who voluntarily share a common purse and community of goods and it works well for them. But it is based on their own conviction and, as I said, voluntary.

      Generosity and concern for our fellow man is to me a moral imperative. But when governments mandate it, all sorts of problems begin, because it is not the role of government to do this.

    75. Re:I spy a new meme by SilentChris · · Score: 1

      "What are you? 14? 15? The world is more complicated than that. And you know it."

      No, really, it's isn't. Think about your average trailer park trash. Do you think any of these people give a lick about getting a job that "advances society" or "furthers mankind"? No. Their occupations are solely to get the needed bucks to get food on the table. It's an ends to a means. In that case, they really don't care WHAT they're doing, or HOW WELL they're doing it. They punch in, put in their time and go home.

      And if you think this is the minority, I have news for you: it's the majority.

    76. Re:I spy a new meme by BlueStraggler · · Score: 4, Insightful
      It is not our property - we did not make it, we have ZERO say. [snip] I can't see why this concept is so hard to grasp? [snip] I am just trying to figure out why people have a problem with someone setting a price that they want on their property.

      Because some people have figured out that intellectual property is not property. It is non-rivalrous, can be reproduced at negligible cost, and it cannot be stolen (ie. you cannot be criminally convicted for theft of IP). In other words it has none of the characteristics of real property.

      IP is a legal monopoly on ideas, which is enforced through contracts and civil law (ie. license agreements). Only businessmen attempting to invent a market by means of a false scarcity call it "property".

      See here if you're really trying to figure this out.

    77. Re:I spy a new meme by deesine · · Score: 0


      With proprietary (and free) software, the user ALWAYS has more power than the developer/distributor: YOU primarily decide what you're going to buy/download, not the other way around.

      Hence, your point that a capatalist/IP system is "corporate fascism, where all power is passed over to those with the patent portfolios" is bullshit.

      --
      damaged by dogma
    78. Re:I spy a new meme by ip_fired · · Score: 1

      I think the parent is saying let the market determine the price instead of having artificially inflated prices that are set by the music industry. Isn't price fixing illegal? Weren't they found guilty of charging too much for recorded media? You are allowed to set the price, but if you get together in a group and decide as a whole to sell a product at a particular inflated price then you're reducing competition.

      If the market is free, meaning it is actually controlled by supply and demand, then perhaps Brittany Spears CD's would sell for $0.32, since nobody in their right mind would want them (joke, joke).

      --
      Don't count your messages before they ACK.
    79. Re:I spy a new meme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
      It is like if I knit a sweater. I can charge nothing for it(give it away), I can charge 5 bucks or I can charge 5,000 bucks. My choice. Your choice is to pay or not pay for it.

      No, his choices are to (1) pay $5000, (2) do without, (3) make his own identical sweater using his own yarn and labor, or (4) buy an identical sweater for less from someone who already did #3. Copyright takes away choices 3 and 4, contrary to free market principles.

      Copyright cannot be said to support capitalism because a government granted publishing monopoly is the exact opposite of a free market. It cannot derive from property rights because it directly interferes with my right to arrange the magnetic patterns on my hard disk with my electricity into whatever pattern I want. Copyright may still be a good thing (and I believe it is, as long as it stays balanced), but "free market" or "property" it ain't.

    80. Re:I spy a new meme by rpdillon · · Score: 1

      RIAA has exclusive rights with the distribution channels. All the major chain music stores deal exclusively with the big publishers, because the publishers require them to.

      If you're an artist, this doesn't leave you much choice. Sure, you can go with Magnatune and you'll make a large amount of cash considering how many people are buying your stuff, but it still won't be enough to live on. But if you want real exposure, you've GOT to go with one of the big five.

      If you want to know the rightd associated with being a copyright holder, I suggest you read copyright law. The law outlines it very clearly. Things like "Exclusive right to distribution" are in there. The term "exclusivity" is a bit vague in this context.

      They may have to deal with a LOT of crap that we do not, but we have to deal with a LOT of crap that they do not. Finding a home, where the next meal comes from, how to pay for my school, how the hell I'm going to foot the $500,000 bill to send my kid to college in 18 years, etc. The original ideal of copyright is to incentivize artists to continue working...not make them so rich that they never have to work again. The current laws combined with the RIAA's policies tdo anything but: a few are stupendously rich, and the rest are paupers. See below.

      Your argument is pure sophistry. Britany COULDN'T be as successful if she didn't go with the RIAA. Because they own ALL the major distribution channels. I don't know the nature of the RIAA's deal with iTunes, but I bet they'll be holding back indy music publishers from releasing their stuff on iTunes (hopefully not). In any case, no star out there now could be what they are without signing their soul away to the RIAA. And only a tiny, tiny fraction ever become rich and famous. The vast majority languish, not because of a lack of talent, but because the publishing deals require you sell a boatload of CDs before they'll start paying you anything resembling what you deserve. This forces artists that would often go out and do something different and innovative into making the same old mindless crap to make sure they sell enough CDs to pay the bills for the studio and the publisher, in hopes that they can make money to eat. The RIAA forces the mainstream music market to the lowest common denominator, and that is wrong and sad.

      Oh, and it's "libel" and it only applies if it's directed at a single individual. If you are decrying an entire group of people, they would have a very hard time bringing a libel suit against you, though the scientologists dona pretty good job. I don't think they use libel though, I think they use copyright infringement. Oh look, we've come full circle.

    81. Re:I spy a new meme by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      I think you're confusing Capitalism with the mix of socialism and free enterprise found in most industrialized nations. Capitalism itself, unrestrained, can be every bit as terrible as communism, it's just a different group of fat-cats who get to walk all over Joe Average.

      By permitting free enterprise, but using the state as a tool to moderate excesses of various kinds, one can try to get the advantages of both worlds. It's not perfect, and every country tends to have its own particular balance, based at least in part on the ideals of the citizens of that country.

      I would no more want to live in a society dominated by unrestrained capitalism than I would a country run by Communists.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    82. Re:I spy a new meme by deesine · · Score: 0

      News flash, the U.S. government is not the only one doing the killing in Iraq. And since you don't seem to mind small details, he said MILLIONS, not THOUSANDS.

      --
      damaged by dogma
    83. Re:I spy a new meme by AviLazar · · Score: 1

      So if I spend millions of dollars producing a non-tangeable product I should not be entitled to the same protection of a company spending millions of dollars producing a tangeable product? One of the reasons, presumeably, because the reproduction costs are negligeable?

      Sorry, but I refuse to buy those set of "steak knives". I do not think we would see such great software products that we have today (i.e. counterstrike) if not for copyright protection well because no company would invest millions knowing that they would not see that money back (and a profit).

      As for what people "figured" out - I think it is more that some people are trying to make IP not property. I think that is wrong. I think if someone comes up with IP they should have a right to choose to profit from it or not based on their notion. I guess we can discuss this in circles and it is two differing opinions.

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    84. Re:I spy a new meme by Xabraxas · · Score: 1

      Actually the difference is population density. The 20th century saw much denser populations and made travel between areas of dense population much easier and quicker.

      --
      Time makes more converts than reason
    85. Re:I spy a new meme by Yartrebo · · Score: 1

      Government granted monopolies without regulation (like copyright) are signs of cronyism, not of either capitalism or communism. Cronyism can happen to any system as it is a political thing, not an economic thing (democracy, royalty, and oligarchy are examples of political systems, while capitalism, communism, and feudalism are examples of economic systems).

      Under communism, the people would own all copyrights, which is essentially the same as having everything in the public domain. Of course, crony communism might have copyrights, as it would be one way of moving wealth to the leader's friends, but they would be going against the ideals of communism much like monopoly goes against the ideals of a free market.

      If you want to call something communist, then copyleft is, since it is essentially putting material in the public domain with the added protections that private interests cannot privatise it by making changes and claiming copyright or by not allowing redistribution.

      Do not confuse communist ideals with the USSR, China, or North Korea. Communism itself functions best under a democracy and the free flow of information, just like capitalism works best with democracy and free markets (no monopolies and having everyone well informed on the products they buy).

    86. Re:I spy a new meme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's another flag too...

      http://www.cafepress.com/redpenguins

    87. Re:I spy a new meme by AviLazar · · Score: 1

      I agree price fixing is wrong and they should be punished for it. But price fixing is very far from a company setting their own price requirement. The grandparent does want the market to set the price - I am saying that it should be the IP's owners decision, not anyone elses decision, to set the price. If the IP holder wants to let the market determine the price - they can do so. Though i am willing to bet that the price will be zero no matter who the artist is. If people have the option they will not only want it for free, but will expect someone to pay them to take it. For the market set price to work it would have to be a fair market in BOTH directions and human nature will not allow that. Though in a way the market does set the price. If a CD is listed as 15 bucks and nobody buys it, the price of the CD drops. Once people start to buy it the price stays steady. Supply and demand have and do control prices. They know that all of us geeks want to have every flavor of star wars so they set the price high :D

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    88. Re:I spy a new meme by danila · · Score: 1

      It isn't. In Soviet Union copyrights were very limited and they were not intended for companies to profit from them, they were mostly honest "rights of the author", with the emphasis of the right to be credited, and similar rights.

      It also didn't have such insane term lengths. In fact, everything that was created in Soviet Union before 1975 is in public domain. And everything that was created elsewhere in the world was public domain in the Soviet Union and is now public domain in Russia.

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
    89. Re:I spy a new meme by spectecjr · · Score: 1

      It is sad though that Bill Gates thinks that by associating GPL with an "american taboo word of the 20th century," he can accomplish something. Now, he seems to be taking the role of Steve Ballmer. May be time to see Bill Gates jumping up and down screaming "Developers... Developers... Communists... Develpers..".

      He's just responding to RMS's comments from the other day.

      RMS: You're Antisocial!
      Gates: You're a Communist!
      RMS: You're Antisocial!
      Gates: You're a Communist!
      RMS: Antisocial!
      Gates: Communist!

      --
      Coming soon - pyrogyra
    90. Re:I spy a new meme by Yartrebo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The basic tenet of communism is "from all according to ability, to all according to need". It would be trivial to deduce that any free good, such as art after the first copy has been made, should be available to all.

      So, yes, communism is about sharing. If the state will do anything, it will be to punish leechers, because they are not giving according to their abilities.

    91. Re:I spy a new meme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Although the Soviet regime was brutal and many innocent people died in its gulags, the vast majority of those who perished under Soviet communism were killed by the famines which were a direct result of the collectivisation of Russian agriculture according to prevailing communist theory."

      this is misleading.
      the soviets were brutal and dictatorial, but they failed (and caused the deaths that you speak of) not because of 'prevailing' communist theory, but because of 'soviet' communist theory. marx generally seemed to think that a communist revolution would be a slow evolutionary process, and would take place in western europe initially and then move in to eastern europe (russia). lenin on the other hand felt that the revolution could in fact take place in russia first, primarily because he felt that capitalism in russia wasn't as developed as in the west, so the revolution would be easier. one problem was that capitalism already had a strong foothold, even in such idealistically communistic structures as the village commune; another was that russia didn't have the power to carry a revolution in to the west. in addition to those difficulties, was the fact the changing face of capitalism and the death of lenin, which led to stalin's assumption of power (which lenin warned against). stalin merged communist ideology to his own totalitarian ideology, resulting in the mess that was the soviet union.

      the problem we see with communist societies isn't really a problem with communism per se, (not to say that communism doesn't have it's set of problems, but they are no more severe than capitalism's) but a problem with the sort of 'fuedal' ideals of power maintained by those who assume control of those societies.

    92. Re:I spy a new meme by spectecjr · · Score: 1

      Actually, isn't a government granted monopoly (copyright) and "incentives" more communist than capitalist?

      No.

      I get the feeling you don't know what Communist or Capitalist means.

      --
      Coming soon - pyrogyra
    93. Re:I spy a new meme by TheSync · · Score: 1

      How is "our capitalist republic is failing"?

      What are the metrics? Life expectancy? Home ownership? GDP per capita?

    94. Re:I spy a new meme by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1

      A policy of "kill people because they are jewish" is still killing in the name of religion.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    95. Re:I spy a new meme by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1

      During the spanish inquisition, population density was much, much lower. If you measure mass killings by numbers killed, then whatever happens to be most modern at the time will always "win". Hundreds of years ago, 40,000 was the population of a major city. Today a major city has millions.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    96. Re:I spy a new meme by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 1

      A policy of "kill people because they are jewish" is still killing in the name of religion.

      1. No it's not.
      2. Not all Jews are religious. The word applies to both a religion and an ethnicity. The Nazis killed ethnic Jews.

    97. Re:I spy a new meme by demachina · · Score: 5, Interesting

      "Communism is a method of government"

      Actually Communism is a way of living. It derives from living in a commune. You might note it has the same root as a word us Linux people use a lot, community. Bill Gates is in fact right, sharing MP3's and open source software development IS communism. The catch is thanks the word was hijacked by a bunch of socialist dictators, specially Stalin. Its been turned in to a dirty word and thats why Bill Gates and Co. try to lay it on file swappers and Linux. Americans in particular freak at the word and start warming up the jets on the deck of the aircraft carriers everytime the get a wiff of it in the air. That is exactly what Bill is trying to do here, mobilize the American people and government in to a reactionary frenzy in which they wipe out file sharing and Linux. Oh, and in the process he just happens to get "Trusted Computing" and he locks Linux off of the Internet and out of personal computing because it can't be "Trusted". In the process he further secures his monopoly because all computers have to be trusted and Microsoft will seek to control the implementation of that trust(in all hardware and all software). It is classic Marxism, the community versus an ever expending capitalist monpolist.

      At its ideal Communism is a group of people living together sharing their resources and labor, working together for the common good. They are not dividing the world up in to personal property which at its worst usually means one percent of the people own everything, including all the land and everyone else is dirt poor and share cropping or working in outright servitude. Thats what Russia was like prior to 1917 which is why there was a revolution. Its also classic Marxism that when you have capital you have a huge advantage in making more capital over people who have no capital. And of course there is a near inevitable concentration of wealth in a few hands and ever larger monpolies because large corporations can dominate smaller ones and huge monopolies are extremely good at making money, and destroying or gobbling up their competitors. Unless government restrains it through antitrust law, which is ... gasp ... socialism it is a nearly inevitable evolution of Capitalism that eventually you end up with one company that owns everything, and in the computer age it would most likely be Microsoft unless they screw the pooch at some point.

      --
      @de_machina
    98. Re:I spy a new meme by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1


      The communist form of government had little to do with killing people. It ultimately fell victim to a human trait called greed.

      The relevant difference betwene communism and capitalism is that communism ONLY works if nobody is greedy, while capitalism accepts that people are greedy and tries to work with that brutal fact and make something useful out of it.

      If the system ONLY works when everyone is perfect, then it's a broken system.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    99. Re:I spy a new meme by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 1

      Bollocks, the Nazis were Christians. Why do you think the Catholic church helped them get rid of the Jews?

      1. The Nazis weren't Christians. Christians are, by definition, followers of the teachings of Jesus Christ. That in and of itself is enough to refute you. However, I can go on to point out that the Nazis were atheistic.

      2. Polish Catholics were the second to Jews in numbers killed in the death camps.

    100. Re:I spy a new meme by dustinbarbour · · Score: 1

      Communism isn't a form of government. It's an economic system. We feel that communism is bad because that type of system has always been headed by a dictator. In fact, it is possible to have a democracy and communism at the same time. Communism never killed anyone..

    101. Re:I spy a new meme by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1

      I don't want my doctors to be trailer park trash who only took the jobs for the money. I want my doctors to be people who will do the job because it's what they want to do. There are many failings of communism, but that wasn't one of them. (The problem was not that people weren't paid much for what the did. The problem was that people didn't have the freedom to choose their job quite as much, so your doctor might not be someone doing it because he is both qualified and enthusiastic about it - he might be doing it because he is qualified but not enthusiastic, but the government noticed that and "suggested very strongly" that he train to be a doctor.)

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    102. Re:I spy a new meme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If there's any doctor who's doing his job solely for the amount of money he makes, I surely hope I never have him examine me. That kind of work should (and almost always is) done out of a want to help others, not because of the monetary reward.

    103. Re:I spy a new meme by MrHanky · · Score: 1

      What you say is true only in a completely free market. This doesn't exist. The seller usually has much more economic power than the buyer (at least when buyers aren't organized, and they rarely are, unless they are corporations), and can use that power to for instance make the market standardize on proprietary standards. This is why Microsoft's .doc format has been problematic, and this is why it has taken so long to develop DVD players for Linux, and this is also the function of the system that Microsoft wants to strengthen.

      If the market worked otherwise (freely), the cheapest and/or best solution would be preferred to a more expensive solution backed by more capital. This would lead to Ogg Vorbis being preferred to wma, which it isn't. Empirical evidence suggests the corporation has more power than the consumer.

    104. Re:I spy a new meme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Communism is a method of government, what we're talking about here is socialism, the economic theory.

      Well, no. Communism has an economic component because pure communism does not allow a citizen to own any property. Under socialism, you allow property ownership but you have high taxation to redistribute much of the wealth.

      In my opinion, intellectual property is real property, but some of these such as works of art necessarily force you to make copies of the actual property in order get paid for it. Some stuff, like a machine, requires a significant effort to make an exact duplicate even if you have one of the item in front of you, so it's not much concern. Most of the work is still in the manufacture of the item. In other things, like works of literature, song, or storytelling, the manufacturing step has become almost free.

      If the economy was left to itself without artificial government intervention like copyright, then the only new work would come from rich people who contracted artists to create new material because they were completely bored with every song/story, or new work would come from people who did it in their spare time, not as a professional. Performers would still make a living, however.

      I wouldn't give a damn if copying was free. The only thing that I think is good about copyrights is that you can't claim someone else's idea as your own. I can see a reason for keeping that, but I would get rid of the right to copy (the "copyright", if you will). Then I'd also reform patents to be the same.

      The fact is, today ideas are almost free. Take someone to lunch, for instance, and ask them if they have any ideas for new products... they'll dump dozens of ideas on you. Songwriters jam with each other all the time and trade ideas. All the government has done is stifle this free flow of ideas by allowing people with lots of money to rush out and patent another person's idea before they do. The lowly guy with the idea probably didn't have enough money to invest to do it anyway.

      The market should reward the people who put up the capital and take the risk on a new idea, not the person who had the idea in the first place. That's capitalism (root word is "capital").

      If you're a performer and you need some new songs, hire a songwriter to write some for you. Pay them. As soon as you perform it, it becomes public domain, which would make it old and boring, so you'd have to go back to the songwriters and hire them again. There would still be a market for new ideas, but you shouldn't be able to live off of one idea for the rest of your life.

      Therefore, you wouldn't need government interference.

    105. Re:I spy a new meme by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1

      With point #1, you are just plain wrong and that's all there is to it. But with point #2, you make a good point and I retract what I said.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    106. Re:I spy a new meme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      record labels control access to all the major means of distribution Really? I didn't know the record labels controlled the internet too! I think you meant to say "Record labels used to control access to all the major means of distribution." The fact that the major labels soon may be unable to control the distribution channels is what has got them running scared.


      Other than that, I agree with your post.

    107. Re:I spy a new meme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To really show your copyleft pride, fly the flag with pride as a flag screensaver texture. I've already gotten a cpl double takes at my screen.

    108. Re:I spy a new meme by 4of12 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I am saying that it should be the IP's owners decision, not anyone elses decision, to set the price.

      I believe the creator of the content should have the decision to set the price for their work. And they do.

      But, the reality of copying and recording technology means that they really only have the right to set the price for the very first copy of their work.

      This is much like centuries ago when, after a great composer allowed their work to be performed, it was possible for musicians with good ears and memory to copy down a transcription of a great piece of music.

      That it was possible to do this was regarded as reality.

      If laws that distort the market by granting exclusive rights to sell duplicated information are reformed, then we might well have artists that would be paid by enough fans getting money together for induce them to perform a First Performance, since that is the only service for which they inherently ought to have the right to charge for. They are permitted to set the price for this First Performance as they wish, they can refuse to play unless the price is to their liking, and they can refuse to perform in the presence of recording equipment. All of those choices are the right of the content creator and I believe those rights should be preserved.

      But, when I copy one file of bits to another on my computer and email it to a friend and RIAA demands payment, it's an artificial distortion of the market. Next thing you know, the authors of child-rearing advice books will want cameras in my home to help them charge me in case I actually use on their copyrighted techniques for child-rearing.

      --
      "Provided by the management for your protection."
    109. Re:I spy a new meme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hitler was a christian and claimed to support moral values. The Nazi party was very similar to the right wing religious nuts in this country. The Nazi party outlawed all but christian church services. Hitler was elected to his position by the people in a close race that many believed was rigged.

      Damn, I get a chill down my back just looking at the similarity between the modern facist movement and hitlers facist movement.

    110. Re:I spy a new meme by aralin · · Score: 1
      Communism is a method of government, what we're talking about here is socialism, the economic theory.

      How much I like these know it all, that have no idea and try to "educate" others with this sort of false information. Both socialism and communism are a form of a government. The basic premise of socialism is that everybody voluntarily contributes as much as he can and is rewarded based on his contribution to society. The basic premise of communism is that everybody contributes as much as he can and is rewarded based on his needs by the society.

      Now the "communist" governments were never really communist. Communism has never been tried as a form of government expcet for small communities like Hare Krishnas or a revolutionay group called 'Husiti' in the start of 15th century in the Czech Kingdom.

      Socialism is the thing that actually has been sort of tried out in the "communist block" and has failed to take place, when the people in power established some form of totalitarian regime under the pretense of socialism. There were some elements of socialism and lots of socialistic laws, like a person had a right to have a job. (Something like right to a fair trial, which in turn he didn't have.)

      The economic theory you talk about I would really like to see, there was no theory per se. At least, nothing that would be really followed. That was one of the reasons for the economic collapse of the eastern block, together with total ignorance and incompetence of the people in power.

      --
      If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
    111. Re:I spy a new meme by mrhartwig · · Score: 1

      The Nazis weren't Christians.

      Sure they were -- some of them. Remember that "Nazi" is the name of a political party. Just as some Nazis (probably most, given German culture of the time) were Christians, some were not. Same as "not all Germans were Nazis".

      Now, as to the difference between believing someone who says "I'm a Christian" and evaluating the actions of said person & determining what they *really* believe, that's a different matter.

    112. Re:I spy a new meme by DarkTempes · · Score: 1

      In all honesty - how many people are going to pay for something, when they can get it for free legally? rofl, how do you think open source companies make money? yes, music is a different thing, but alot of people will pay more to have that official CD with it's pretty artwork and lyrics thing and jewel case. they just won't pay $20 for a piece of shit. they will typically pay $10. and personally a jewel case + CD cost ME no more than a $1 to a $2. that's a huge profit. saying it's mass produced it's even cheaper and so really, $20 is outrageous. and it's not like the artist sees much of that directly anyway, they pretty much survive on tours/shows alot of times AFAIK. if the artists would say 'fuck you music industry' after a point and setup a website to distribute both 'hard' merchandise via cheap shipping (maybe even make a deal with amazon, i'm sure amazon would go for being the sole seller of a big artists music) and then sell cheap for download high quality...you'd get alot of both. my question is, if there is a law, and everyone who is sane and decently moral is 'breaking that law', is that law really a good law?

    113. Re:I spy a new meme by ignorant_newbie · · Score: 1
      In your second paragraph you discuss how (generally) artists do not have the infrastructure or the contacts needed in this global industry...[snip] - but it doesn't seem like the artists are doing too bad. As long as an artist can get one really good hit song out there they are sure to make a ton of cash.
      The artists that you see aren't doing too bad. how about the other ones? I'll give you a case study: poe kick ass artist who was a little too smart for the Britney/justin set, so after 2 records, her contract was cancled... but the record company retained all rights to her music. what does this mean? this means that she can't perform her own songs. I can, joe blow corner musician can, because we didn't sign any contracts. She can't.Now, who's fault is this? could she have read the contract a little closer 10 years ago? prolly. but do you really think the record label was going to back down on that point?
    114. Re:I spy a new meme by DrWhizBang · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think it is more that some people are trying to make IP not property.

      You keep using that word. I do not think it means, what you think it means.

      "Intellectual Property" is a bit of an oxymoron, isn't it? Property means something that one possesses, and it is very difficult to possess something that only exists in someone's head, in my opinion.

      Historically, (as far as I can tell) people have not wrangled so much over the ownership of ideas. It only, as you say, since people have started investing so much money into ideas, to be later confronted with better copying techniques, that this has been a problem. Patrons of the art, for instance, have always existed, but generally have not expected a return on their investments. Nowadays, the patrons are all record producers and software companies and the like.

      Did it ever occur to you that it is insane to invest millions of dollars into an intangible work? Probably not, because the industry has us trained to believe that that is normal. You are probably worried that without the current industry there would not be new games and books and recordings. But remember that artists have always worked for thousands of years, and that this industry structure is less than a hundred years old.

      --
      Schrodinger's cat is either dead or really pissed off...
    115. Re:I spy a new meme by AviLazar · · Score: 1

      Your points are insightful, but a bit dated? Remember, technologies have changed - centuries ago we were not able to make these recordings and replay them (you only had music sheets), so I do not think it is a fair comparison.
      When you copy a work from an artist and e-mail it to your friend. You are giving your friend an exact replica (in whole or in part) of the music. The RIAA should be upset- you gave away their investment. Now lets say you take a song that is published by a band, but then you remake it (as many bands do) then you wish to send that remake to your friend. Well I am not too sure about the law on this end, but I believe you can send this to your friend without any problem. But you are not doing that, you are sending someone elses exact work in essence a copy of their first performance.

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    116. Re:I spy a new meme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, isn't a government granted monopoly (copyright) and "incentives" more communist than capitalist?

      It depends on your perspective. If you buy into the "intellectual property" argument, then disagreeing with copyright means disagreeing with property law - a very communist point of view. On the other hand, if you recognise that copyright is government help for people to make a living where otherwise they couldn't, then copyright itself is a very communist point of view.

    117. Re:I spy a new meme by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      The problem here is that its not just someone creating IP and profitting off of it.

      Instead, we have the "publishers". These people buy the IP from its creators (and all rights attached. Thanks to the RIAA and MPAA, even works done on contract and NOT as an employee are now Works For Hire and belong to them). The publishers work together as a collusive entity (RIAA, MPAA, etc) to both set a barrier for entry to independents ("Sorry, sir, but we here at Walmart already sold every last foot of shelfspace to the RIAA. We'd sell you some if we had it though, we certainly haven't been bribed to not sell shelfspace to anyone else, no siree.") as well as to enforce pricing on the end sales outlet ("Of course it's legal, you agreed to it in your contract! You can always sell things for whatever price you want, but good luck getting anything to mark down when we stop shipping you any product at all!")

      You will find in nearly EVERY case, that it is the publishers who are pushing for increased copyright controls, increased price controls, and reduced creator and consumer rights. They want to create a society and economy where the Middle Man rules, requiring as much trade as possible to flow through them while they skim whatever they can get away with from the top.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    118. Re:I spy a new meme by AviLazar · · Score: 1

      People are sane and morally decent and break the speed limit every day...does that mean we should not have a speed limit?

      In the end the artists can setup a website, they can go to Amazon, and they can produce their own CDs and they can even advertise themselves. There are many options for artists - but apparantly they are working with the RIAA/MPAA because this is working better for them.

      I am not saying the RIAA/MPAA are angels - they sin like everyone else..what I am saying it should be the IP holders choice - not somebody elses. So when you invest your time and money in creating some work - if you want give it out or sell it, restrict it or don't restrict it...but YOU should have the choice.

      Sort of like the pro-choice/anti-abortion folk...I am not pro-abortion I am pro-choice :)

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    119. Re:I spy a new meme by AviLazar · · Score: 1

      Nobody (i assume) put a gun to her head. She signed a contract, though, so it is her fault. It is not like she can't create new music. And its not like she can't perform her old music - she just has to give a cut to her contract holders I assume...then again, they dished out money to try and get her going. She may not have made it big, but they didn't profit big. They, in essence, bought her material. No longer her material and she did it by her own choice.

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    120. Re:I spy a new meme by jhritz · · Score: 1

      Very nicely put arkanes. Unfortunately Gates' shallow understanding of these topics don't seem to curb his spouting off. Choosing to contribute to the common good, whether by writing software or by working as a Red Cross volunteer, is a noble act. I tire of people that think everything has to have a profit motive behind it.

    121. Re:I spy a new meme by AviLazar · · Score: 1

      I think it is insane for someone to spend 25 grand on buying a virtual island. But apparantly this person is going to be selling prime-time virtual real-estate on this island. People apparantly want it, and are paying for it. So we are all insane. The copyright laws are there to protect people who invest this time and money. With this protection companies have motiviation to make more, and as I said in a previous post - how many open source games out there that are in the top 10 gaming lists? Hell top 100.

      Times change, and maybe it wasn't so important back then (or at least people didn't realize it) but in this day and age intangeable works can be worth millions (i.e. the process to make a drug, someones music, etc.)

      I find it odd that most (i assume) people on here, who work for an industry with lots of intangeable works would give it such little value when we know it does SO much.

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    122. Re:I spy a new meme by AviLazar · · Score: 1

      Price fixing and other collusions are illegal and should not be used as an argument against copyright. Price fixing & collusions should be addressed in separate issues. Copyright imho is a valuable thing to help protect copyright holders and to encourage people to make more copyrighted material. The fact that one company can buy someone elses copyright is irrelevant - if you want to sell it sell it, if you want to license it license it...your choice and you will suffer the benefits and penalties.

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    123. Re:I spy a new meme by __aanebg9627 · · Score: 1
      How is "our capitalist republic is failing"?
      A couple of elections with severe enough vote fraud to change the results. Lightning striking George W. Bush is more statistically likely than the shift we saw in the last election from exit poll results to official vote tally.

      Is it still a republic when the elections are rigged? In name only... in name only.

    124. Re:I spy a new meme by Reignking · · Score: 1

      Anyone know if that guy has sold any of his "land"?

      --
      One man's Funny is another man's Offtopic.
    125. Re:I spy a new meme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it was just Stalin you may have a point. But how do you explain all the other nut cases: Mao, Hoxha, Kim Il-sung, Chomsky, etc.?

    126. Re:I spy a new meme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      as to "how many people are going to pay for somethng, when they can get it for free legally?"... how is it again that linux vendors are in business? and why are they charging for their distributions again? I think "convenience" may be one answer to your question.

    127. Re:I spy a new meme by cybergrue · · Score: 1

      What a great pic. Isn't that an Imac in the foreground? and a devil dressed up in a Soviet uniform. So many memes, so little time.

    128. Re:I spy a new meme by TheSync · · Score: 1

      I really doubt that the vote fraud was larger than the margin of voter error. The country is closely divided, near 50/50, plus or minus just a few percentage points. Most pre-election polls (not to mention the Iowa Electronic Market) indicate that.

      Besides, dictatorship is not by itself and indication of failure of a society or country. South Korea and Taiwan had tremendous increases in GDP and broad personal wealth under near-dictatorships, and have only become highly democratic recently.

      On the other hand, India spent nearly 40 years as a democracy, with extremely low GDP growth and poverty reduction, until free-market reforms began in the 1980's.

    129. Re:I spy a new meme by BlueStraggler · · Score: 1
      So if I spend millions of dollars producing a non-tangeable product I should not be entitled to the same protection of a company spending millions of dollars producing a tangeable product?

      No, and it's not some airy-fairy ideology or opinion. It's simply the law. Producers of tangible property are protected by criminal theft laws. Producers of intangible property are not, and they have to resort to civil law to enforce their IP claims.

      I'm not saying that IP should be free or that producers of ideas should not be compensated for it. All I'm saying is that IP is not real property in economic theory nor under the law. That just the way it is, not the way I think it should be. Insisting on equating IP to real property is factually wrong. Whether it is morally wrong is another question, but you can't begin to give that question due consideration if you don't fully understand the issue to begin with.

    130. Re:I spy a new meme by SunFan · · Score: 1


      In Soviet Russia, the flags fly you with pride!

      --
      -- Microsoft is the most expensive commodity operating system and office suite vendor in the marketplace.
    131. Re:I spy a new meme by leuffi · · Score: 1

      I'm from a former socialist country. We were told (as kids) that our country was a socialist one and the goal was to become a communist one. I believe it was the common slogan in every socialist country.

    132. Re:I spy a new meme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The plague killed like 25 million, and that was prior to the Spanish inquisition.

    133. Re:I spy a new meme by GlassHeart · · Score: 1
      It's funny how often people say this, in spite of the fact that people will and do create stuff for enjoyment without the incentive of money. What do you think Open Source is? There may or may not be more created with copyright - I'm not convinced that copyright is working in that regard.

      The "creation of stuff for enjoyment without the incentive of money" is a luxury, often afforded by a comfortable day job writing commercial software protected by copyright. How many free software authors have to work two or three jobs to make ends meet?

    134. Re:I spy a new meme by AviLazar · · Score: 3, Insightful

      A rose by any other name is still a rose. I think then the argument is over the name... People hate assigning the word property to non-tangeable products. But why can't property be applied to non-tangeable products.
      According to dictionary.com
      Something tangible or intangible to which its owner has legal title: properties such as copyrights and trademarks.

      IP is not physical property, but it is as real as money. Why is it so hard to apply the same thought process we do about money to copyrightable material? That hundred dollar bill is a piece of paper worth less then a penny, but we assign it a great value. You say that because something is not tangeable it is not property? I have some money in the bank - not tangeable at the moment...is that not my property?

      Why can't criminal law on theft of tangible property be applied to non-tangible? Because we say so? Because the old laws do not support it? Since when do people in the tech industry, one of the fastest changing industries if not the fastest, resist change to old ideas?

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    135. Re:I spy a new meme by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 1

      "Killing in the name of religion" means someone kills because of their own religion, not the religion of the other person. That's why your other statement was wrong.

    136. Re:I spy a new meme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      ... worth millions (i.e. the process to make a drug, ...
      I'm not necessarily completely disagreeing with your position, but it is possible to look at these matters from more than one vantage point, many which can have merit.

      The drug could be an HIV vaccine. Sure, company A invested X billions in its development. If they offer something of value to someone else, they should have the chance profit from these transactions. At the same time, the global, unrestricted distribution of their vaccine would save hundreds of millions of lives.

      What are we protecting (apart from the obvious - company A's bottom line) if we fervently cling to licensing, protecting company A's "IP", their total control over mfting/distribution/et al.?

      The people dying in the prolonged negotiations, trials, etc. Casualties of what? A working (global, in this case) society?

      The questions of value don't have any clear and easy answers. I'm not claiming any "IP" is 'up for the taking' (company A should obviously profit from their undertakings if their offerings are in demand, etc.), but it seems pretty evident that if we don't think and act with great care in the coming century, we could very well lose sight of some pretty central issues (what is to be protected and nurished for what purpose, etc.).
    137. Re:I spy a new meme by Doomstalk · · Score: 1

      In Soviet Russia, copyrights control YOU!

    138. Re:I spy a new meme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fine, let Britney Spears and her organizations charge for their "own creation". Then they need to pay a fee to Africa, since music is credited with it's origins there. And she will also have to pay a fee to a few European Societies that produced classical geniuses that pretty much influenced entire generations of music talent.
      You know it's one thing to defend your work from being stolen, but don't equate sharing knowledge with stealing. I'm sick of this fucking "every man for himself" argument that it "was my hard work that got me where i am". Tell me something, would you have been able to achieve your hard work if it wasn't for the opportunities provided to you from generations of human exploration in the arts and science, culture, philosophy etc. No idea is original, it all derives from knowledge that humanity been aquiring throughout it's lifespan, and continues onwards today.
      Sure if you knit a sweater you can charge for it. But don't think because you know how to knit a sweater, a skill btw that you gained from humanity's experience. I'm not saying that gives someone the right to steal your sweater, but it doesn't make it wrong for me to also knit a sweater and give it away or even share my knowledge of how to knit a sweater.
      The open source community doesn't want to be "legally allowed to steal material" that's not what it's about. It's bout sharing knowledge, because every one has to learn from somewhere, even the ones with the billion dollar assets. And what they learn from is the knowledge gained throughout history by humanity as a whole. And even the original copyright laws acknowledged that because it use to be that after a certain time, creations became public domain, in order to give back to the community from which the creators took to produce their creation.( note i say 'use to be' because since then, you can continously renew your patents ala Disney, as everyone knows)

    139. Re:I spy a new meme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is not our property - we did not make it, we have ZERO say.

      Wait a moment! That's a fundamentally false premise. It assumes the public has no rights to public property. We do have a stake in what is done with our property.

      Our ancestors did "make" (ie. discover) the old "intellectual property" (ie. old discoveries) that new "intellectual property" (new discoveries) are "made of" ( created from ).

      We, the public, collectively own the rights to the English language, and the classical music scale. We own the discovery of guitars, drums, and music performances. We collectively own all the knowledge, and we collectively grant all people the rights to use that language equally.

      So, why shouldn't we have a say in what Britney Spears does with our property? Who is she to tell us that her favorite combinations of our notes and words suddenly belongs exclusively to her? They're our words too, not just hers. She shouldn't get to monopolize public property.

      If you wander onto crown land, spend a great deal of time and money doing land surveys, and discover the public's oil, you still don't own the oil. Even if you spent money on it. Even if you worked hard. Even if the work was useful. Even if there should be incentive programs for oil discovery. It's not your oil. It's the public's oil. All you did was discover it.

      Why should so called "intellectual property" discovery rights be any different that real property discovery rights? Why should discovering oil on public land be so different than discovering a popular combination of notes and phrases? I don't think it should be.

      I think I should have the right to do what I want with my property: draw, paint, sketch, sing, or manufacture. I shouldn't have to worry about the government telling me I'm not allowed to do something, just because someone else did it first.

      True freedom of expression means being able to do what I want with my own property. If you make a painting with your own paints and paper, you should own that painting. If I make a painting, I should own my painting. You shouldn't be able to own rights to my painting, just because you painted it first.

      If a company produces a product, I should be able to produce a competing product. It shouldn't be illegal to produce the same product as my competitors. But that's very much where "intellectual property rights" are heading. And thats why people are upset.

      I am just trying to figure out why people have a problem with someone setting a price that they want on their property.

      We're not. We just want everyone's property rights repected: including us members of the general public. We have the biggest stake, and our rights are being ignored.

      --
      AC

    140. Re:I spy a new meme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Soviet Russia, Microsoft crashes too.

    141. Re:I spy a new meme by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1

      Yes, and that was a very large signifigant portion of the world population at the time. Today it's not.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    142. Re:I spy a new meme by caudron · · Score: 1

      Karl Marx did not invent sharing.

      I know you were being funny, and I don't want to be a killjoy (I did laugh), but every time they claim we are communists, we need to be diligent in reminding them that Karl Marx does not hold the copyright on helping others. We can work for the common good without being communists. To believe otherwise is to give up the good fight.

      I simply have to believe that we can share ideas and help each other without succumbing to any one economic philosophy.

      --
      -Tom
    143. Re:I spy a new meme by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1

      No. It also includes people using religion as an excuse to kill, regardless of whether it's a religion they personally adhere to or not. (Otherwise it would be impossible to tell who is and is not killing in the name of religion, unless you could read minds.)

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    144. Re:I spy a new meme by DrWhizBang · · Score: 1

      I think it is insane for someone to spend 25 grand on buying a virtual island. But apparantly this person is going to be selling prime-time virtual real-estate on this island. People apparantly want it, and are paying for it. So we are all insane.

      That's precisely my point. We live in a culture that has nothing better to do with our cash than buy virtual real estate. We have never been richer (in the western world, anyways) than we are now.

      In general, the software industry (which is what I assume you are talking about) does not sell "intangible works" - they sell functionality. Businesses will not buy your software if you are not willing to service and support them. Consumers require want to buy toys, and toy-makers (hardware vendors) will pay for the software to provide features that consumers want. PC game-makers are suffering more in the face of piracy, but what can you expect? Someone with the patience to use a PC can generally figure out how to copy a game. Even so, many of us buy the game so we can get the box, the handbook, or subscription to the online service. And most of us can't be bothered, and we simply by the console version.

      The copyright laws are there to protect people who invest this time and money.

      True enough, but unfortunately they are being used to as an offensive weapon, and not a defensive one. They are not protecting anyone, they are used to attack by strong corporations. If they didn't exist, the "producers" would simple think harder about how they choose to spend that money.

      With this protection companies have motiviation to make more, and as I said in a previous post - how many open source games out there that are in the top 10 gaming lists? Hell top 100.

      "Companies" are the bane and boon of western business. One could argue that the economy would collapse without them. But one could not argue that artists, scientists - idea-makers - would stop thinking without them. If the studios did not produce games, then individuals would, and the top 100 games would all be open source. However, I don't believe you when you say that these companies would lack the motivation - people do buy virtual real estate, after all, so they will still buy games. So that negates the point.

      Times change, and maybe it wasn't so important back then (or at least people didn't realize it)

      I still believe you've got it backwards here - it is this age in which we do not have our priorities straight, when we put dollar figures on ideas and assume that all people are criminals because they have the capacity to understand.

      But I don't think that you and I will come to an agreement on these things.

      --
      Schrodinger's cat is either dead or really pissed off...
    145. Re:I spy a new meme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      ...Chomsky...

      Clever! Had you even heard of Chomsky before Fox news told you he was a bad man?

    146. Re:I spy a new meme by arose · · Score: 1

      By that logic goverment shouldn't mandate anything.

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    147. Re:I spy a new meme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There has never been a 'communist' nation. Blame stupid american pigs... The United Soviet Socialist Republic, was a socialist nation. The stated 'goal' of socialist regimes is to 'create' a giant commune out of thier nation... logistically, this is imposible, therefore noone has yet succeded in creating a 'communist' government. A Communist Government is a form of Direct Democracy. So "socialists" will often banter about 'communist ideals' etc. And stupid americans think that they've actually somehow succeded in creating a direct democracy in the form of communism.

    148. Re:I spy a new meme by lemur337 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      You're just not getting it are you?

      "It is like if I knit a sweater. I can charge nothing for it(give it away), I can charge 5 bucks or I can charge 5,000 bucks. My choice. Your choice is to pay or not pay for it. If i see that people are not buying my sweaters I can either reduce the price or leave it as is. Again I have a choice to sell at the price that I want to sell, you have the choice to buy it or not. I can't see why this concept is so hard to grasp?"


      It's like if you knit a sweater and people, because of new technology, are able to make perfect copies of it at little or no cost. That is good. That is why we developed technology. That's why the the Constitution seeks to "promote the progress of science and useful arts."

      Now that we have this technology we should be allowed to use it. You have been deprived of nothing. You still have your sweater. And we all have sweaters too. You can still sell your sweater, and if it's any good you can probably get a good price for it as an "orignal" (kinda like getting good ticket prices for a live concert).

      Wake up man! If groceries started growing on trees would you cry for the grocery stores that went out of business? No. They would find new ways to contribute to society and all of us would be the richer.
    149. Re:I spy a new meme by Fallingcow · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That may very well have been the reality of the situation, but it's certainly not what he claimed.

    150. Re:I spy a new meme by AviLazar · · Score: 1

      Lets say that sweater has some interesting effect to it. Researching this effect cost me 1 million dollars and two years of time. Now I want to sell this sweater. To recoup my costs and make a profit I need to sell this sweater at $50/sweater. However, we now have technology that will let other people replicate my sweater exactly for for little or no cost. Now people will utilize this new method (can you blame them) and I am screwed out of recouping 1 million dollars and two years of invested time. This is wrong. Just because the technology is there does not mean it should be used --- or do you think nuclear bombs should be used just becase we have the technology.

      Wake up man! The constitution does not protect your right to claim other peoples works for yourself. In fact promoting the progress of science and useful arts will happen when people get compensated for their works which means someone has to pay for it. That won't happen if it can be taken for free.

      Next time your boss goes to pay you - why don't you tell him to keep the paycheck. It will help promote the progress of science and useful arts.

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    151. Re:I spy a new meme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You say socialism _must_ be enforced to be socialism?

      I say socialism must be wanted by every single member of the society to exist... that's the reason it's 'a totally cool thing, dude!' and that's also why it can't ever really be...
      Sovjet was not a communist state, neither is any state that have claimed to be it... so far...
      It's all based on providing everyone with everything they want/need/crave... free of charge... and that's also why it'll never be...
      That being said, I'm a pure-hearted communist... if you need what I have more than I do I'll gladly give it to you...
      But I won't force my belief down your throat like every other belief out there... /Pointless
      of...
      http://pointless.spymac.net

    152. Re:I spy a new meme by Drinian · · Score: 1

      By that logic goverment shouldn't mandate anything.

      And by that logic the government should mandate everything.

      No, I didn't say that. I am saying that it isn't your role or anyone's role to say how much a person can earn and how much wealth is allowed and if one goes over that amount then to redistribute (forcibly take) that money. Tax me for public services (roads, national defense, etc.)...sure! That's legitimate.

    153. Re:I spy a new meme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How many fucking times do you have to be told? It's not stealing! It's copyright infringement! There is a big difference!

    154. Re:I spy a new meme by lightknight · · Score: 1

      Hehe, I want to be the guy who determines ability. Hahaha, hope your 3 year old son likes working the fields!

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    155. Re:I spy a new meme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You f'kin knows it

      Guns don't kill people, rappers do - GLC

    156. Re:I spy a new meme by CmdrGravy · · Score: 1

      If you mean intangible products such as books or music or paintings then your work is protected by copyrights.

      If you have spend millions of dollars to come up with some kind of idea which will not lead you to actually build, make or produce anything then all you have is the idea.

      I don't see why you should have any protection whereby you can say "I had that idea first, now you're not allowed to think of it without paying me !".

    157. Re:I spy a new meme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who asked you to spend $1M and a year researching this effect? Why should we - society - compensate you for this magic sweater research?

      Here quickly consider - if you will - a world were Einstein thought just like that. Is the progress of science promoted as a consequence? Or could it be that, EVEN IF NO MONEY WAS INVOLVED, EINSTEIN "PROGRESSED" SCIENCE PRETTY WELL THANKYOUVERYMUCH.

      Indeed, in a world where magic sweaters can be copied at zero cost, what did you spend a million on? Lemme guess: IP licenses.

    158. Re:I spy a new meme by Kalani · · Score: 1

      You've missed the point of what the poster said.

      He said it's "more fair" than government control, but you responded by questioning whether it matches some absolute notion of fairness (exactly the kind of thinking that gets government control in the first place -- a few elitists who think they know what's best for the market).

      Also, while I'm not a fan of pro sports myself, I think it's kind of cheap of you to characterize pro baseball players as guys who just "hit balls with sticks." That's like saying that a programmer is just a guy who punches keys.

      --
      ___
      The ends are ape-chosen, only the means are man's. -- Aldous Huxley
    159. Re:I spy a new meme by AviLazar · · Score: 1

      Because nobody is saying "I had that idea first, now you're not allowed to think of it wouthout paying me!".

      What they are saying is, someone had the idea first and protected their material. If you want to utilize their idea then you gotta agree to their terms. This has been going on for many years, it is nothing new.

      Now the copyright system might be flawed, but that just means it needs to be fixed (similar to patents and such things as the one-click patent). And in all honesty, we are talking about things that are being utilized i.e. movies, music, software, so lets not span into the extreme left-wing viewpoints.

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    160. Re:I spy a new meme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Piracy is Adam Smiths invisble hand fisting you in the ass, Mr. Gates."

      Lol. That was a rather good one, Sir.

    161. Re:I spy a new meme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, really, it's isn't. Think about your average trailer park trash


      Yes - it is. "Your average trailer park trash" is a cliche. It is not a real thing. It is not a real person. Argue to your experience not things that you make up. If you lived in a trailer park you would have hopes and dreams as well as everyone. You know this to be true.

    162. Re:I spy a new meme by qbwiz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In Soviet Russia, YOU control copyright!

      --
      Ewige Blumenkraft.
    163. Re:I spy a new meme by has2k1 · · Score: 1
      ipchains? I lost mine several years ago when iptables came out. Come on man, UPGRADE!!! ;-)

      The latest version of the ipchains is the iptables. Come on man, don't loose track of versioning

    164. Re:I spy a new meme by __aanebg9627 · · Score: 1

      If it stops being a republic, it's failing (as a republic). Simple function of definition, no dictatorship can be a successful republic.

    165. Re:I spy a new meme by Suicyco · · Score: 1


      There is NO government in a true communist society.

      So, looks like you need to read Marx again.

      You are either in a communist society, or you are in a society with some form of state, or government. You can't be both.

      Communism is the utopian ideal of a society functioning under its own power without a need for a government. It is basically anarchistic, with a model example of the economic system which enables such a society to exist without a state - which Marx writes extensively about - the economic landscape by which a communist society can function.

    166. Re:I spy a new meme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I did not say that Chomsky was a "bad man," and I don't watch Fox News. Searching foxnews.com for references, the worst I could find was O'Reilly calling Chomsky's(and others') post 9/11 ad "un-American." No mention of him being a "bad man" seems to exist on their web site.

    167. Re:I spy a new meme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is one simple catch in your post, and that is you are lying when you say Bill Gates is calling open source developer or Linux developers communists. Not every open source developer or Linux developer claims that there shouldn't be any copyright or patent system. What he is saying is those who say that are sort of a communist, and what you are doing is essentially changing that into an attack on open source.

      Pretty much everything you say only supports that you are big liar.

    168. Re:I spy a new meme by Corvass · · Score: 1

      The Nazis weren't Christians. Christians are, by definition, followers of the teachings of Jesus Christ. That in and of itself is enough to refute you. However, I can go on to point out that the Nazis were atheistic.

      Not quite. Atheists, by definition, believe there is no higher deity. Hitler, and most Nazis (and Germans in general, for that matter) certainly believed in a deity -- in fact, the Christian one.

    169. Re:I spy a new meme by arose · · Score: 1

      So you say that goverment should use force for the reasons you deam as correct, but not for the reasons you deam as incorrect?

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    170. Re:I spy a new meme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lets say that sweater has some interesting effect to it. Researching this effect cost me 1 million dollars and two years of time. Now I want to sell this sweater.

      So what?!!! Why should we guarantee you a free business model? In real life, no one guarantees you a market, let alone a profit! You want to be able to be guaranteed a monopoly before you're enter a new market? How anti-free market is that!!!

      Either leverage your first mover advantage, or go under due to your own incompetence! Don't whine about competitors when competion is the name of the game. If you want capitalism, then copyright monopoly is against it, plain and simple.

      The constitution does not protect your right to claim other peoples works for yourself.

      Exactly. Why should you get a share of my sweater market just because you were first to market? You shouldn't. They're mine. Make and market your own damn sweaters. Quit leaching off me with your cheap little monopolies, and learn to do real work.

      In fact promoting the progress of science and useful arts will happen when people get compensated for their works which means someone has to pay for it. That won't happen if it can be taken for free.

      If you haven't learned yet that business is about assumption of risk, go back to school! No one owes you a living. No one guarantees that anyone will buy your product. No one guarantees that you will be able to make a better product than the competition. It's called "competition" for a reason.

      Next time your boss goes to pay you - why don't you tell him to keep the paycheck. It will help promote the progress of science and useful arts.

      Next time you go to work, tell your boss that you want to be his only employee, and if you don't get a monopoly you can't work for him. See how long you last in the real world.

      --
      AC

    171. Re:I spy a new meme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Try a search by the names of Fox news pundits. Hannity and Oreilly have both said that Chomsky is anti-America. The neo-con propaganda machine members hate Chomsky because he is very well prepared to back up his arguments with careful research and facts.

      Chomsky is one of the sanest men in America, a meticulous researcher, a careful speaker and he acts according to principles much stricter than any the pundits of the far right could ever manage.

    172. Re:I spy a new meme by CmdrGravy · · Score: 1

      I admit in practice it looks like you can pretty much just patent ideas in the US but I don't think that is the way things were supposed to work in theory and in a lot of other countries it is still impossible to do this.

      Movies and music are covered by copyright which aside from the length of time you can hold copyrights for seem to be a fairly sensible and workable system. I can certainly use ideas from your movies or songs in my own work provided I did not do it in an identical fashion. Software should also be covered like this and not through patents.

      Patents also work fairly well for tangible, physical things which need to be built or manufactured because then you have a very specific limitation on what is actually being patented and you can't pretend a patent on your new kind of vacuum cleaner also covers the design of jet engines. They don't work at all for software because you either end up patenting some basic mathematical equation or some nebulous concept which you take good care to define as loosely as possible, neither of those things should be patentable in my opinion.

    173. Re:I spy a new meme by __aanebg9627 · · Score: 1
      The discrepancy between exit polls and the official results is significantly outside the standard statistical margin of error. The sample size on the U.S. 2005 presidential election exit polls was quite large, much larger than normal poll sizes. Take a look at http://www.appliedresearch.us/sf/epdiscrep.htm if you want a good examination of the statistics.

      We have every reason to believe the polls are accurate -- except that they do not match the official results. The probability of statistical error is much less than that of you dying this year in a flood, than that of you dying this year in an earthquake - if you live in California - or tornado - if you live in the Midwest. And less than the probability of President Bush being struck by lightning.

      It is so improbable as to be miraculous, that the polls could so uniformly be in error, and all the error towards the Kerry side. When the probabilities suggest a miracle, it's common sense to look for another explanation. There are two, really: 1) The poll methodology was wrong. Very unlikely, it's down to a science and has in the past been much, much more accurate. We have no reason to believe that it was inaccurate this time, except that it doesn't match the final count. 2) Widespread fraud. We already have evidence of some, and very vulnerable Diebold electronic voting systems in place in the disputed states.

    174. Re:I spy a new meme by thenightisdark · · Score: 1

      New Sig:

      --
      Piracy is Adam Smiths invisble hand fisting you in the ass, Mr. Gates. - MightyMartian (840721)
    175. Re:I spy a new meme by bnenning · · Score: 1

      often afforded by a comfortable day job writing commercial software protected by copyright

      The large majority of professional developers write software for internal use, for which copyright is mostly irrelevant.

      --
      How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
    176. Re:I spy a new meme by Drinian · · Score: 1

      Do you even believe in "correct"? I do. I don't believe that it is all relative. I think that position is extremely untenable.

      As my first post stated, I believe that mandatory communism is against the nature of humanity, the concept of freedom and the concept of liberty. Being against the nature of these things, I deem it "incorrect". In other words, it is out of harmony with what is.

      You don't have to believe in gravity, but you will suffer the consequences of ignoring it.

    177. Re:I spy a new meme by fcw · · Score: 1
      Lets say that sweater has some interesting effect to it. Researching this effect cost me 1 million dollars and two years of time. Now I want to sell this sweater. To recoup my costs and make a profit I need to sell this sweater at $50/sweater.

      No, to recoup your costs, you need to make at least a million dollars in profit; there's no law forcing you to sell sweaters to do this.

      However, we now have technology that will let other people replicate my sweater exactly for little or no cost. Now people will utilize this new method (can you blame them) and I am screwed out of recouping 1 million dollars and two years of invested time. This is wrong.

      It's not wrong, it's just bad business management.

      If you invest a million bucks to make something that you know can be copied trivially by everyone for nothing, with no business model beyond hoping that lots of people will pay over the odds for it anyway, then you're just bad at business.

      Instead of attempting to criminalize your potential customers, either find a way to use the free-sweater-copying technology for your own business, or find something else you can do for them that they will pay for.

    178. Re:I spy a new meme by mdielmann · · Score: 1

      The thing about intellectual property is that it is only expensive for the first copy to be made. After that, the costs are trivial. Physical property doesn't have that behaviour to the same degree. Sure, those steak knives you mentioned in another post can be stamped out, and come along a lot cheaper than if they were hand-crafted, but still have to pay for materials and assembly. And sure, people who are proficient at hand-crafting things can become faster or better at making them, but they also suffer from not being able to transfer those capabilities seamlessly.

      But, I can copy a CD losslessly, or with an acceptable degree of lossiness, with almost no effort. And copying the result is even easier.

      And therein lies the problems with copyright and intellectual property laws in (I suspect) the majority of people's mind. How much time is sufficient to legally restrict the free transfer of ideas so that the artist/inventor/creator still has incentive to produce, not gouge the people or stifle the creative community in the process?

      I think it's safe to say if you can't make money with an idea in the software industry in 5 years, that you never will. And so we give them...12 to 25 years? Do you see a problem with that? Anything they bring to the table is 5 or 10 generations out of date by the time we could use it. That's a synopsis of the whole Unisys/gif/png issue. We actually put effort into abandoning an idea because of what is clearly a poor law. And I suspect that Unisys made more than enough money to pay for their efforts in the compression used by gif within those first 5 years (and doubtless a healthy profit, as well).

      The same goes for the copyright issue, more so now with e-books and digitally encoded music. Britney Spears needs 70 years (assuming someone kills her today) to make money on "Oops, I did it again"? Does anyone even listen to it any more? Do you think anyone will in 5 years? Sure, there are some timeless classics from all ages, but most of those were serious hits when they came out, and made plenty in their first few years. More than that, go into any music store, and see how much space is devoted to material produced more than 5 years ago. Not much, if any. That also has a big part to do with RIAA et al, and shows the inherent problems with monopolies and/or anti-competitive practices. (I personally think 12 to 25 years is okay for copyright. Creative ideas are more timeless than technological ones.)

      In all these areas, there was another option, which was common over 100 years ago: trade secrets. This had a whole host of problems, and would be almost impossible to use in a digital environment. But that doesn't mean that intellectual property and copyright are without problems, either.

      There's also an interesting level of absurdity in saying I can't use something I learned. Who should I pay (and why?) when I quote something interesting that Einstein said, in public, which has been published? How about when I sing a song I like in the shower? Clearly there are some elements of these things which have no inherent value and should be allowed. This was covered by fair use, and is one of the things that the publishers are either ignoring or outright trying to defeat with DRM. Note that the more successful DRM technologies in the last while have given some way to fair use.

      --
      Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
    179. Re:I spy a new meme by bnenning · · Score: 1

      People are sane and morally decent and break the speed limit every day...does that mean we should not have a speed limit?

      No. It means that current speed limits are unreasonable and should be revised.

      So when you invest your time and money in creating some work - if you want give it out or sell it, restrict it or don't restrict it...but YOU should have the choice.

      And I mostly agree. But I strongly oppose attempts by the creators to limit my access to technology because I could conceivably use it to copy material against their wishes. That's where all the debate is taking place today.

      --
      How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
    180. Re:I spy a new meme by pokka · · Score: 1

      Forms of government don't kill people, people do!

    181. Re:I spy a new meme by npsimons · · Score: 1

      It is not our property - we did not make it, we have ZERO say. It is like if I knit a sweater. I can charge nothing for it(give it away), I can charge 5 bucks or I can charge 5,000 bucks. My choice. Your choice is to pay or not pay for it. If i see that people are not buying my sweaters I can either reduce the price or leave it as is. Again I have a choice to sell at the price that I want to sell, you have the choice to buy it or not. I can't see why this concept is so hard to grasp?

      You, like many before you, Don't Get It. Information is not like a sweater, or any other physical property. Information can be duplicated for very little cost. And sure, the creator of information (whether it's an idea, song, or movie) has control over that information. But as soon as they choose to share it with others, their control of it is lost; that is the nature of information. Yet, at the same time, they are not deprived of the information, because it is easily copyable.


      Copyright and patents were devised to encourage people to share their information, rather than keep it to themselves. And creators still have the option of not sharing their information if they don't want. Creators should realize that coyright and patents are ARTIFICIAL restrictions put on information, solely for the good of society. That they have exclusive use of it is merely due to the fact that society (in general) is nice enough to agree to that. The current extensions on copyright and patent were pushed through by greedy people who don't fully understand the purpose of copyright and patents, and society never agreed to them. The creators have broken the social contract, therefore society feels no duty to respect their half of it.

    182. Re:I spy a new meme by malkavian · · Score: 1

      IP is not physical property, but it is as real as money.
      No, it's not. The piece of paper in your hand is something that someone had to lose/give up in order for you to obtain it. Which means it is a part of scarcity. It holds it's value because there is only so much of it in circulation (if the government doubled the amount of it in circulation in a given economy, it's real value would fall). It's a token of exchange. One person gains, another forfeits.
      Now, intellectual property can be passed on while still being retained. If you could still hold onto your hundred dollar bill, while still passing it on to someone else, what would it be worth?
      That being said, I wholeheartedly believe in recompensing anyone who creates a work of art/science/whatever to the tune of whatever it's worth. However, I disagree with extent that society at large is being restricted, simply to keep ideas in the hands of a priveliged few. This is exactly the state of affairs before the printing press, where copying was hard, thus the transmission of ideas was expensive, and restricted. That sustained the feudal structures quite happily (where the peasantry was fed whatever the feudal lords/clergy wanted them to believe, and anything more was denied), until the printing press came about, and literacy became widespread, and lo and behold, technology roared ahead, with innovation increasing at a rate unheard of before.
      Now, people with lots of money have discovered that ideas are the fundamental root of power (read 1984 very carefully, Orwell was quite insightful about ideas/information and what their careful control meant), and once again want to restrict it wherever they can, by moving as much media as possible to the digital domain, where, by law, distribution of the ideas can be a criminal offense.
      Europe dismissed Software patent laws, which was a huge step in keeping innovation going. There is still copyright to keep the software houses going strong. If you think what would have happened if we'd had those patent laws in place 25 years back, we'd still be using a single user OS with absolutely terrible performance. Why? Because there would have been little incentive to develop anything better. First person to get a working software interface to a disk patents it. For 25 years, they say who can write an OS that talks to a disk drive (or maybe even any peripheral!). First person to write a network protocol gets to say who can write a network driver (thus protocol stack. All covered under a patent!), which may itself have fallen foul to the preceeding patent on talking to a peripheral outside the main processor.
      Put patents on software (certainly this early in the game), and you stand the possibility of stagnating yourself out of the game. The US became such an economic giant by NOT having all the IP laws in place, and grabbing tech from the rest of the world wholesale. It only put them in place over the last 40-50 years (well, strongly anyhow), once it was in the lead, and is now trying to get the world to follow behind it, and stymie their own innovation, to stop them catching up and overtaking.

      As for resisting change to old ideas, hey, why not overturn the laws on murder, and then make it a capital crime to feed any cat? Simple. Some ideas work. Some don't. If something can be made better, then make it better, but it's usually a bad idea to take something that's working well, and break it, which is what you seem to be suggesting.

    183. Re:I spy a new meme by arose · · Score: 1
      You don't have to believe in gravity, but you will suffer the consequences of ignoring it.
      Yet you base all your arguments on what you believe is correct and incorrect as if your beliefs would define reality.
      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    184. Re:I spy a new meme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One major flaw in your analysis, is the assumption you (and many others) make that monopolies are good at making money.
      If this were the case, we wouldn't have restrictions on monopolies such as we do. We don't have monopoly restrictions out of some sense of 'fairness', we have them out of clear pragmatic purpose. Monopolies are one of the most innefficient methods of creating wealth, and competitive markets is one of the best.
      Capitalism requires faith, as its principles cannot be proven. You either believe or you don't. Just because you don't have faith, doesn't mean it's wrong.

    185. Re:I spy a new meme by GlassHeart · · Score: 1
      I don't have the numbers (as to how many of the "internal use" developers are free software contributors versus "for sale" developers) with which to argue, so I won't, and I simply acknowledge your excellent point.

      However, copyright is the legal basis of the GPL, without which some software would not have been written. I'm not assuming that all authors of GPL software would not have just released into the public domain, but I can imagine a number of them enjoy retaining ownership of the code. Read a good technical book lately? Without copyright there would be a lot less of those.

      Now add to that the developers who directly and indirectly (including "internal use" developers working for a printing press or record label) make a living under copyright protection, and we should have a sizable chunk to talk about.

    186. Re:I spy a new meme by theLOUDroom · · Score: 1

      Come on... People have killed more in the name of religion, but that doesn't make the concept of religion a bad thing

      Doesn't it?

      It think there are a great many reasonable people out there who believe that blind, dogmatic belief in the supernatural is a fundamentally bad idea.

      When you base your moral and social values on a bunch of fiction, it makes them very easy to manipulate.
      IMO, this has a LOT to do so many people being killed in the name of religion (the worst offender being Christianity). If the moral values of those holy warriors were based on philosphy rather than religion, honest intellectual thought might come into play, giving them a chance to realize that they were being manipulated.
      Without a belief in the supernatural, it's possible to sit down and evaluate the consequences of your actions. Putting mythology before reality is antithetical to rational behavior.

      --
      Life is too short to proofread.
    187. Re:I spy a new meme by demachina · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You sure are throwing that "liar" word around a lot without any actual justification.

      "you are lying when you say Bill Gates is calling open source developer or Linux developers communists"

      This is exactly what he said:

      "No, I'd say that of the world's economies, there's more that believe in intellectual property today than ever. There are fewer communists in the world today than there were. There are some new modern-day sort of communists who want to get rid of the incentive for musicians and moviemakers and software makers under various guises. They don't think that those incentives should exist."

      He obviously didn't say LINUX in bold letters but who exactly do you think he is talking about when he is refering to "software makers" here? The "incentive" here is that software makers should hold all their software under proprietary license and get paid for it, an arguement he's been making since his famous letter in 1976.

      OK if that didn't clarify who the liar is here lets hop in the wayback machine and remember when Steve Ballmer, Bill's partner called Linux "communist" outright. He said:

      "Yet Linux sort of springs organically from the earth. And it had, you know, the characteristics of communism that people love so very, very much about it."

      "what you are doing is essentially changing that into an attack on open source."

      I am doing no such thing. I'm merely pointing out that Linux IS communist in the classic sense of the word. It is a community working for the common good, and renouncing private ownership of the fruit of their labors for that good. There is nothing resembling an "attack" in that. It is an entirely positive thing. I'm pointing out than when Gates and Ballmer use this word it comes across as an attack because the true meaning of the word "communist" has been so distorted in today's world especially in the U.S. that it is a pejorative and they are trying to associate Linux with all the badness that was and is the U.S.S.R and China which weren't even remotely communist in reality, the were and are oppressive socialist dictatorships.

      All in all you strike me as a classic anonymous coward chickenshit slinging terms like "big liar", without supporting it, while you cower under complete anonymity. If you believe what you are saying and aren't a chickenshit at least post it under your login.

      --
      @de_machina
    188. Re:I spy a new meme by aralin · · Score: 1
      There is always some form of 'government'. It does not necessarily have to be a central government by a small elite. It can be government by 'everyone' in the way Marx envisioned it, but thats a type of government as well. And there will very obviously be a form of state. If nothing else than as defining who belongs into the society and who does not.

      I think you are very confused after reading Marx by his terminology and maybe you got lost in the sheer amount of text. Marx is using a lot of terms very liberally, which leads to a lot of misrepresentation by a lot of people, who take these terms literally and then get confused.

      --
      If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
    189. Re:I spy a new meme by BlueStraggler · · Score: 1
      IP is not as real as money. Money is rivalrous even when intangible, whereas ideas are never rivalrous. A thief can deprive you and your bank account of money. He cannot deprive you of your ideas, even if he threatens you with a gun -- even if he tries to pay you for them. That is why ideas are not the same as physical property, no matter how much we want them to be.

      "IP theft" is a euphemism for unauthorized copying. But theft is fundamentally different from copying - one deprives, the other does not. To claim that copying and theft warrant exactly the same treatment under the law is absurd. If you are an athlete who invents a new, superior technique, should those rival athletes who copy your technique go to jail? If you are a musician who uses a 5-note sequence that has been used before, should you go to prison for it? If you code up a new program that violates an obscure software patent, do you belong in prison?

    190. Re:I spy a new meme by Timothy+Brownawell · · Score: 1
      Why can't criminal law on theft of tangible property be applied to non-tangible?
      Because it's based on the owner no longer having it, which doesn't apply very well to most non-tangible stuff.

      Tim

    191. Re:I spy a new meme by kaiidth · · Score: 1

      Hitler's atheistic Nazis

      Are you kidding?

      Hitler's Nazis were incredibly credulous. The sort of crap they swallowed makes "I've been abducted by aliens... three times!" sound almost believable. One minute it was bloody Odin, the next black magic, then it was Madame Blavatsky and Theosophy. Himmler believed he was the reincarnation of one Heinrich I. Mengele was into phrenology. Oh, and they pretty much all believed they were the children of Atlantis.

      The Third Reich would be better described as "a bunch of gullible though evil assholes" than "atheists". Go to Nuremburg and take a look at their attempt at building a Third Reich size street; you'll soon get the idea.

    192. Re:I spy a new meme by Suicyco · · Score: 1

      I do not think I am mistaken. I have studied Marx at length.

      Social order does not require a government. It requires the social and economic mechanics exist to facilitate the society. There is no state. There is no "us" vs. "them" in a communist society. Everybody is part of that society. This is why a "country" cannot be communinist. There are no borders nor clear delineation at any level between social constructs of people.

      There are issues of "criminals". There are issues of severe disturbances of social order.

      The states existence and eventual extinction is discussed by Marx quite a bit. The "Dictatorship of the proletariat" phase after a revolution is supposed to be a transition stage and is not communism (it is socialism, Marx described it as "lower communism", or "first communism"), not "true communism" (Marx entitled it "higher communism") or whatever you want to call it. Since true communism is a classless society, this precludes there existing a ruling class.

      A classless society, being without government, is a hard concept for many people to grasp. However, it is a *central* concept of Marxs vision of a communist society. I do not wholly buy everything Marx has written, however since he defined the terminology, we must use his guidelines to a very large degree.

      I could go on for many many pages about how true material abundance alleviates property crime, how technological superiority alleviates personal crime, etc. However, I won't here. Suffice it to say I am well practiced at this discussion and have not misunderstood Marx (or Engels) in any major way.

      You must understand, that a government, or the state, is an entity which is seperate from "the people". In a classless society, this cannot exist, as there is no subset of that society who has power over the entire whole of the society. If you are trying to define state as the society as a whole, your definition is wrong. The state is not you and I. The state is a thing which has power over you and I, which coordinates our continual interaction in a way it sees fit. This is comprised by a subset of society who takes on the face of the faceless state and hence become a class. This is not classless. There can be many subsets of people based on the things they do, ie. doctors, mechanics, engineers, etc. However these are not classes, and there is no power relationship between them. People who "work" in the government are in a power relationship with everybody else in that society, again, this is not what Marx envisioned.

      A truly communist society is the most free society that can exist, by definition.

      Anyway, this is branching way off topic and I do agree with your original principle, that people are highly uneducated in this topic and have let the American media teach them what is and what is not communist.

    193. Re:I spy a new meme by aralin · · Score: 1
      I think that you just connect government with a class of people. Government is a way in which a society works. Where there is no government, there is no society, just a set of individuals without any rules. There cannot be a communism without government. Although, there is no governing class in a true communism. Which is what you want to say, I believe.

      I understand that state by its definition is creating classes. At the very least, the class who belongs and the class who does not. Which is something Marx is inherently against. The problem with Marx's vision is that it does not allow for choice. Everybody has to follow the same rules and live in the communist society, which is one of the reasons, why its highly impractical in that form. So thats why I say that you cannot get rid of the state.

      --
      If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
    194. Re:I spy a new meme by tehdaemon · · Score: 1
      The only way that this could be seen as wrong is if you have a right to a profit. No such right exists, and that is the way that things should be. A right to profit destroys a free-market system.


      While this is not wrong, it is unprofitable. And I will not claim that has no effect. It will. Unprofitable buisness decisions will not be made (at least not as often!) and this means that this research will likely not be done as soon as it would have been. This is the whole rational behind patents. An artificial incentive to research, to enhance progress. But a right to profit has a far greater negative effect than the lack of patents does.

      A patent is a priviledge. One that can help better society, but one that is accomplished by taking away others rights.[1] Governments need to treat them with care, not as political dog-bones to throw around for votes. (assumption - the government is supposed to maintain the freedoms of the people - like the US used to.)

      You are right in saying that the constitution does not protect your right to claim other peoples works for yourself. That is called theft. What you do not seem to understand is that this statement does not apply here. There is no way that I can take your idea away from you. But using my idea, (once I have legally obtained my own copy of your idea, it is my idea too!) even if doing so deprives you of the profit that you had anticipated, is not claiming your works for myself.

      [1] In this case, you are restricting the rights of others to use their property as they see fit, namely, making sweaters out of thier own materials with their own tools.

      -Daemon

      --
      Laws are horrible moral guides, moral guides make even worse laws.
    195. Re:I spy a new meme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually communism is a philophy and not a
      'government'. Dialectical materialisms
      implementation is a subject of debate but
      your categorization of it isn't.
      You are wrong and I'm right.

    196. Re:I spy a new meme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Just because something grants an exclusive right does not make it communist

      A better word would be communistic.



      in fact by forcing it to be open and free for the public you are saying you should share it - which is more communist then capitalist.


      "Communist" and "capitalist" are fairly hazy words, and some things can be hard to pin down as one or the other. "Forcing [a market] to be open and free" is not one of those ambiguities. That's practically a definition for "capitalism".


      Who is pouring the millions of dollars into these peoples pockets? Is it the gov't or is it us the people? If it is the gov't, I did not realize they were paying Metallica's bills;

      Then wake up. Your tax dollars are footing the bill for the ever-increasing cost of enforcing the copyright regime through the legislature, the courts and the police. The government is pouring money into the "protection" scheme that guards Metallica's monopoly from competition.


      If artists can sell their products under a different organization (or none at all) then this is not a monopoly.


      Only the artist can sell the product under any organization at all. That is a monopoly. The RIAA is not the monopolist, it doesn't even sell anything; it is the syndicate through which its monopolist members organise and enforce the scheme that protects their monopolies.

    197. Re:I spy a new meme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      copyright creates a market where there otherwise wouldn't be one.

      It replaces a naturally-occurring free market for intellectual labour with an artificial, extremely restricted market for "intellectual property", a legal fiction that didn't even exist before copyright. That's like saying food rationing isn't communistic because it creates a market in food stamps.



      However, anti-copyright is not socialist, because socialism is ENFORCED public sharing/ownership. The absence of copyright means that there's no legal protection for works, not that you're required to share them.

      Without copyright there is no real incentive not to share, so the question doesn't really come up.

    198. Re:I spy a new meme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      What is the incentive for a person to spend time and money to create a work if it will not be shared with the public (for profit probably)? Again, without copyright this person has no legal basis for recouping payment.

      Without copyright, a natural market will occur in intellectual labour. Rather than paying for hard copies of ideas as goods, we will pay for the creation of ideas as a service. This is how it used to work before copyright, when artists were retained or commissioned by wealthy individuals, except now we have the infrastructure to hire artists on behalf of large numbers of less wealthy fans.

      If everyone that wants a new Britney CD puts up some money (however much it's worth to them), they can hire her to record it (assuming they can meet her asking price). Once it's recorded, she's been paid, so everyone can listen to it (or remix it) without restriction (apart from the obvious restrictions on misrepresenting what is or isn't her work).

    199. Re:I spy a new meme by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      write software for internal use, for which copyright is mostly irrelevant

      Wrong. Copyright is why internal software STAYS internal. It's copyright that makes it a crime for an employee to anonymously release a corporation's private code on alt.sources.java- and more importantly, copyright also makes it illegal for other people to redistribute that code.

      Without copyright, the only thing stopping this would be whatever threats the company can hold against each of its employees; firing and maybe breach-of-contract lawsuits. The most they could do is punish the one offender; they'd have no legal justification to act against all the total strangers enjoying the code.

      PS. Prior to the global Berne copyright revision, nonpublished materials weren't copyrightable. But that was decades ago...

    200. Re:I spy a new meme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      What gives you the right to decide how much Brittney Spears and her organizations want to charge for their own creation?

      I don't have that right. Nor should they have the right to decide what I charge for my creation when I create a burnt copy of her CD. Unfortunately, copyright takes away my right to do that.

      Ordinarily, you have the right to charge whatever you like for your sweaters, but you don't have the right to make people pay that much if I am selling sweaters for less. Unfortunately, in this instance you have government goons who are threatening to break my fingers if I so much as look at a knitting pattern.

      The fundamental thing you are missing is that we don't "have the choice to buy it or not" when it comes to CDRs.

      I don't think anyone has a problem with people setting their own price on their own property, rather we are saying that our right to copy should not be considered anyone else's property.

    201. Re:I spy a new meme by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      IP is not as real as money. Money is rivalrous even when intangible, whereas ideas are never rivalrous.

      That's wrong, for a subtle reason. Many people make the mistake of using Intellectual Property to refer to books or music- but that's actually a shorthand. The property is the right to control the copying of the story or song.

      The work itself is nonrivalrous, but the government granted monopoly on profiting from that work is rivalrous. Both copyrights and money are intangible ideas made "property" by government assertion. And in fact, if you somehow managed to illegally deprive someone of a copyright, you could be charged with theft just like you'd stolen negotiable bonds or some such.

      But violating someone else's copyright cannot be theft. It's always just "copyright infringement".

      "IP theft" is a euphemism for unauthorized copying.

      Many people use it that way, but they're of course wrong.

    202. Re:I spy a new meme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      So if I spend millions of dollars producing a non-tangeable product I should not be entitled to the same protection of a company spending millions of dollars producing a tangeable product?

      First of all, there's no such thing as a non-tangible product. If it's non-tangible, it's called a service. More on that later.

      You should get exactly the same protection. Noone is allowed to break into a factory and steal what has been produced, nor should anyone be allowed to learn your idea for themselves and then erase it from your memory. Exactly the same protection. However, there is no protection against someone copying the tangible good, so there should be no protection against copying your intangible one.

      Now, remembering that intellectual labour is a service, lets see what the rights you demand would look like for other services:
      Effectively, you are saying that if you paint your house so it's pretty, you ought to have the right to decide who looks at your house. You have performed a service, and now you think you have the right to decide who benefits from that service?

      Ridiculous. If you wanted to profit from performing the service, then you should have asked interested people to hire you to perform the service, rather than just doing it and expecting people not to look at it.

      Billions of services are bought and sold every day; it works just fine and is a helluva lot fairer and more efficient than the "IP" market. The market for intellectual services would work just as well as other service industries if it weren't for the "intellectual property" protection racket standing in the way.


      I do not think we would see such great software products that we have today (i.e. counterstrike) if not for copyright protection

      So many people are willing to pay so much money to use software. So many people are willing to produce so much software to earn that money. Do you think all of that money, all of that supply, all of that demand would just vanish overnight? It is astonishingly naive to think that the money wouldn't find its way from the people who want software written to the people who want to write it.

    203. Re:I spy a new meme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      how many open source games out there that are in the top 10 gaming lists? Hell top 100.

      That is appallingly specious, and you must have known that when you typed it. Twice.

      If the government was giving free fridges to whoever wanted them, absolutely everyone would take one. Does that make it a good idea? Well guess what: if the government hands out monopolies and everyone takes one, it doesn't make that a good idea, either.

    204. Re:I spy a new meme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Awesome post. Well said.

    205. Re:I spy a new meme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In your second paragraph, you appear to say that without "intellectual property" making otherwise bad business decisions profitable, less research would be done. However, simple economics refutes this: In a world where noone can charge above the market rate for research, the cost of research will decrease. Demand isn't going to change*, so if research costs less, more will be done. QED.

      *OK, technically, it might increase because now we are not restricted in how we can use the results of research. But it definitely won't decrease.

    206. Re:I spy a new meme by 10Ghz · · Score: 1
      In a communistic people aren't rewarded by the amount/quality of work they produce. A doctor in a communist society gets paid the same amount as a janitor. Where is the incentive to learn new skills? Why bother if you're going to get the same money anyway?


      Well, last time I checked, USSR had doctors and janitors. They also had top-notch aerospace-engineers, software-developers, composers etc. etc. So it seems to me that they had no problems getting people to study more for more advanced tasks.
      --
      Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
    207. Re:I spy a new meme by demachina · · Score: 1

      You are incorrect. They are extremely injurious to the economy, which I think is what you meant, but you are wrong because they are EXTREMELY good at "creating wealth" themselves. Its how the robber barons, Carnegie in steel, Vanderbilt and Stanford in railroads, Rockefeller in oil, Morgan in banking made their vast fortunes. The only reason you have antitrust law in the U.S. is because the wealth concentration at the begginning of the 20th century was becoming so extreme thanks to monopolies, there was a severe backlash from common folk mostly under the the umbrella of the Progressives, and Teddy Roosevelt. I wish we had a movement like it today because its needed just as bad today as it was then. They brought us the progressive income tax George W. hates so much to work against concentration of wealth and antitrust law which broke up Standard oil mostly unsuccessfully since the oil companies continued to collude and have mostly since remerged.

      If you have no competition and sell something people have to buy you almost unavoidably get rich because you can charge more than you would in a competitive market place assuming no government regulation (Socialism).

      The key to becoming a monopolist and getting filthy rich is jumping in to a new market before there are established players, as Gates did in PC software, and push out all your competitors before they beat you to being the monopoly. If you are successful and good at it you will become rich just as Gates has, and no one is likely to dislodge him unless there is a major market shift and Microsoft misses it, as they almost did with the browser when Netscape ruled and now in search engines and other new markets Google is dominating.

      "We don't have monopoly restrictions out of some sense of 'fairness', we have them out of clear pragmatic purpose. Monopolies are one of the most innefficient methods of creating wealth, and competitive markets is one of the best."

      Not sure this is exactly accurate. The progressive movement was in fact trying to force economic fairness in a place where it was sorely lacking.

      I think Walmart is also a case study that shows you are wrong. They aren't quite a monopoly yet but in many towns they are. They will most likely destroy every retailer trying to sell what they sell, because they have vast economies of scale. They are in fact extremely efficient, and are also very beneficial to the economy in that they provide goods at dramaticly lower prices than you see in their absence. Unfortunately they are devastating all their competitors and moving jobs to China at a disturbing pace. They are still the height of efficiency.

      --
      @de_machina
    208. Re:I spy a new meme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What kind of crackbaby moderator modded the parent up?

    209. Re:I spy a new meme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What kind of crackbaby moderator modded the parent down?

    210. Re:I spy a new meme by TheoMurpse · · Score: 1

      Oh cry me a river. Boohoo, they're taking pictures of me in my Ferrari with their big bad cameras. Make them stop, please.

      If you get into show business, and you don't realize you are giving up your privacy, then you are a moron.

      And yes, I made up "stupidization," and parent: it's 'paparazzi' and 'libel.' And parent is wrong, also -- libel and slander cannot be charged easily against someone who has said things about a 'public figure.' See http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0835522.htm l for information about The New York Times, Co. v. Sullivan.

    211. Re:I spy a new meme by TheoMurpse · · Score: 1

      "how the hell I'm going to foot the $500,000 bill to send my kid to college in 18 years"

      You DO realize you just implied college costs 125000 USD a year, right?

      Geez, man! You're gonna give me a heart attack saying stuff like that! ;)

    212. Re:I spy a new meme by cmh5 · · Score: 1

      Capitalism is not about efficiency, it is about profit. If efficiency gets the biggest profits, efficiency will be pursued. However, if a company can be inefficient and get more profit that way, like in most monopolies, then they will do that.

    213. Re:I spy a new meme by dabigpaybackski · · Score: 1
      Chomsky is one of the sanest men in America, a meticulous researcher, a careful speaker and he acts according to principles much stricter than any the pundits of the far right could ever manage.

      Which is why you find people of a very different stripe giving him his due on Lewrockwell.com and other right-leaning sites. I mean, just because you're a socialist doesn't mean you don't abhor wanton distruction and the lies that necessarily accompany it. National Socialism, on the other hand...

      Basically, what it comes down to is that whatever economic system you're in favor of should take a back seat to a respect for the truth and a reverence for life. Civilizations rest upon this notion, and disintegrate when it is forgotten. More than any other idea, this is what comes through in Chomsky's writing, which is why I, a non-socialist, think Chomsky is cool.

      --
      "OH SHIT, THERE'S A HORSE IN THE HOSPITAL!"
    214. Re:I spy a new meme by dabigpaybackski · · Score: 1

      By the way, every single Wehrmacht soldier was issued a belt buckle with "GOTT MIT UNS" stamped on it's surface (right under the eagle and swastika.) Kinda makes you feel all warm and fuzzy.

      --
      "OH SHIT, THERE'S A HORSE IN THE HOSPITAL!"
    215. Re:I spy a new meme by dabigpaybackski · · Score: 1
      Now, as to the difference between believing someone who says "I'm a Christian" and evaluating the actions of said person & determining what they *really* believe, that's a different matter.

      Makes sense to me. Jesus said you'd know them by their deeds and not their words, or something like that. A quote that has never been more relevant than in the present day.

      --
      "OH SHIT, THERE'S A HORSE IN THE HOSPITAL!"
    216. Re:I spy a new meme by AviLazar · · Score: 1

      I have to agree with the things you are saying. The system is flawed and it needs to be fixed not removed. We need more competant people in the patent office.

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    217. Re:I spy a new meme by AviLazar · · Score: 1

      No, to recoup your costs, you need to make at least a million dollars in profit; there's no law forcing you to sell sweaters to do this.

      Good god whats wrong with you? Are you trying to think of every off the wall inane reason? At least try and stay within reason. I hate when people come up with assinine reasons to try and make a point.
      The rest of your message will be ignored on the basis that you are being stupid.

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    218. Re:I spy a new meme by arkanes · · Score: 1

      That's awesome but I'm not MightyMartian :P

    219. Re:I spy a new meme by mausmalone · · Score: 1
      But whose choice is that to make? Your choice (or the peoples)? What gives you the right to decide how much Brittney Spears and her organizations want to charge for their own creation?
      Well, you're not going to like this answer, but it's the people's choice (or at least it is in theory). And don't start calling me a pinko, either. In a capitalist society, objects are worth what people are willing to pay for them. This is basically the supply/demand curve. If people are willing to pay a lot of money (high demand), then the product is expensive. If people aren't, the retailers/manufacturers are forced to reduce prices until they arrive at one where people are willing to buy the product. Supply, in this instance, is irrelevant, as CD production is ridiculously cheap for a big label, and the usual supply of CD's removes it completely away from the realm of "rare." This is why we find things like price fixing by the RIAA to be reprehensible (or at least counter to our capitalist concepts).

      The wide spread file sharing is, in that respect, at least a little bit RIAA's own fault. With their refusal to lower prices (and trust me, they can... they actually make their real money from merchandising), and customers' refusal to buy music at the prices they set, a third option has gained popularity. If they reduced their prices to fall in to line with the real-world demand, I'll bet there'd be less file swapping going around.
      --
      -=-=-=-=-=
      I'd rather be flamed than ignored.
    220. Re:I spy a new meme by AviLazar · · Score: 1

      No matter what the speed limit is, if someone can go faster they will. When I was young the speed limit on interstates in PA was 55...people were complaining that it was too slow so it became 65...and people still continue to break it. Maybe it should be 150?

      And why are you copying the material? To make a legitimate back-up? Or are you trying to give it to your friends? (rhetorical question). In all honesty, you know, I know and so does everyone else here know that most of the copying is going on to give to friends, family or just plain ole distribute. If we didn't have this level of corruption - meaning we were truely just backing things up - then the companies would not care if you copied their software.

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    221. Re:I spy a new meme by mausmalone · · Score: 1

      While I'll agree that IP is property (duh, it's in the name), I have to disagree that copyrights are the same as "owning" something. A copyright is not an object at all, and you can't really have a copyright on something... that's just something we say as a shortening of "has exclusive rights to copy xxxxxxxx."

      So here's how it works... you're automatically assumed to have exclusive copy rights on your own IP if it's totally original. People can still use your IP as much as they want (i.e., I invent general algorithm, it's my IP, you're allowed to us the concepts as much as you want to create your own stuff, but not allowed to copy my stuff and call it your own). Music artists are contractually bound to give their exclusive copying rights to the record company (they grant the music company the right to copy their stuff, and at the same time waive their right to do the same). The record company grants, on a temporary basis, copying rights to the CD manufacturer who makes the actual distribution copies of the original work.

      Just an aside here at the end,... I'm not criticizing you specifically, and I know that it was dictionary.com that said that copyrights are property. I'm merely trying to provide some depth and context for newbies who may not be informed. Please don't take it personally that I disagree, as I meant nothing by it.

      And, just to reply to one of your specific comments, we can't apply tangible property principles to copyright because it's not so clear cut. The person who does the copying is the violator, and a person who buy that copy (with the belief that it's an officially sanctioned copy) is not at fault. With file sharing, how can you say exactly who did the copying? Is it the fault of the person posting the file? They've made no copy beyond their provided fair-use backup. It's the user who initiated the copying. So is it the user's fault? Again, they could shakily state that they copied in good faith with the belief that the poster either was posting non-copyrighted material, or that the poster was officially granted copy rights by the original owner (as is the case sometimes with freely redistributable promotional materials, like clips and promos). I'm not saying it's right in any way, or that you can defend your way out of any legal recourse, but I am saying that applying criminal theft law to copyright violation tends not to work because the circumstances aren't as clear cut as "A stole B's property." Copyrights have their own unique set of problems that need to be carefully considered before laws are written to enforce them.

      --
      -=-=-=-=-=
      I'd rather be flamed than ignored.
    222. Re:I spy a new meme by AviLazar · · Score: 1

      Except they don't really give a rats ass about the star in a Ferrari, what they want to do is find anything and everything they can that will sell news --- so what sells news? scandals. Oh and you may think that having your picture taken is no big deal - but when the cameras are in your face everytime you step out your door you will disagree. Imagine being scrutinzed 24/7. Imagine how embarassing (and annoying) it would be to find your name in the tabloids saying that you cheated on your wife because you happend to go to dinner with your cousin.

      Now lets recap the article:
      1)The ruling was geared towards "public officials" not anyone in the public
      2)It only protects the writers/speakers of the false comment if there was no malice. Meaning - if the person KNEW it was a lie and they still published there is underlying malice.
      3)The ruling protects the press.

      We were talking about stars - not public officials - so I am not that wrong.

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    223. Re:I spy a new meme by TheoMurpse · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I didn't mean NYT v Sullivan, I meant this:

      Associated Press v. Walker

      The AP appealed, and again the U.S. Supreme Court reversed. In 1967, the court extended the New York Times Co. v. Sullivan guidelines to "public figures." Public figures, like public officials, cannot win a libel judgment, the court ruled, unless the media show reckless disregard for truth. In the chaos of the riot under deadline pressure the court decided the AP was not guilty of "reckless disregard" and should not be penalized.

      The Walker decision was sandwiched into another "public figure" case, in which the justices used the same legal standards, with a different result -- Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts.

      taken from http://www.winning-newsmedia.com/libel.htm

      Now you would be surprised how difficult intent of malice is to actually prove (since the burden rests on the plaintiff)

      Incidentally, here's a little note about celebrities and tabloids:
      Tabloids & Public People

      Now you can understand why the tabloids concentrate on politicians, actors, athletes and rock stars. The libel rules are much more lenient for celebrities. The media dont have to be absolutely sure the story is true, so long as they dont suspect it may be false.

      If youre a public official or public figure and you hear a journalist is about to damage your reputation with a false story, run do not walk to the media outlet and warn them. Take a lawyer with you.

      Thats what Carol Burnett did when she heard the National Enquirer was about to print a false story about her being drunk in a restaurant and arguing with Secretary of State Henry Kissinger.

      She put the Enquirer on notice, but they published it anyway. Clear evidence, the jury decided, of malice and reckless disregard for truth.

      The jury awarded Burnett $1.6 million.

      So basically, if it COULD be true, it's OK to print.

      My statement still stands that going into becoming famous, you know what you are getting into. You wave your right to complaint by choosing the field. It's like saying "I entered the army, but it's not fair that I could die!"

    224. Re:I spy a new meme by AviLazar · · Score: 1

      My statement still stands that going into becoming famous, you know what you are getting into. You wave your right to complaint by choosing the field. It's like saying "I entered the army, but it's not fair that I could die!"

      While agree if someone enters the army willingly they knowingly took on the potential risks. People who say "what do you mean i have to go to war?"
      Now if a public figure said "what do you mean people are going to try and embarass me" I would laugh at them. That still doesn't make it right and it should not be something that we tolerate as "oh well it's the nature of the beast" because it serves no purpose other then defame people (even if the law makes it hard as hell to punish those people).
      Now without reading the legal case I am pretty sure the judges intended it to protect the media in a way so they would not be hampered in an obscene way. While it is insanely hard to prove malice that does not mean the judges (or society) is saying that public figures should get screwed.

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    225. Re:I spy a new meme by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1
      According to dictionary.com Something tangible or intangible to which its owner has legal title: properties such as copyrights and trademarks.
      Ah, but according to askoxford.com (the Oxford dictionary is the official source for Standard English) property is defined as follows:

      ? noun (pl. properties) 1 a thing or things belonging to someone. 2 a building and the land belonging to it. 3 Law the right to the possession, use, or disposal of something; ownership. 4 a characteristic: a perfumed oil with calming properties. 5 old-fashioned term for PROP2.

      ? ORIGIN Latin proprietas, from proprius ?one?s own, special?.

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    226. Re:I spy a new meme by AviLazar · · Score: 1

      is that all it says? It doesn't acknowledge non-tangible property directly, which also doesn't mean it is disagreeing.
      In fact that is a poor definition (particularly the word: "thing"). Someone could argue that information is a "thing".
      THough the third portion sounds like it backs up the copyrights since the law does define rules about non-tangible property.

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    227. Re:I spy a new meme by Morosoph · · Score: 1
      IP law is a compromise between producer and consumer, the justification for which is pretty much explicitally utilitarian.

      The real question that you need to ask is what state of law most promotes the progress of science and of the arts. Sometimes it's to allow rapid innovation upon discovery, and sometimes it's to "protect" that discovery from being used competitively against the discoverer.

      The projected gain by allowing people to copy your jumper prematurely may be negative, but to allow general jumper copying still allows an advantage in producing an original sufficient to allow plenty of innovations to take place (since you can advertise originality). The balance of cost and benefit, in the case of jumper manufacture is almost certainly of the side of copiers, although perhaps a better state of affairs would be to have an innovation tax on non-originators (increasing the price differential); a "default licence", if you will.

      An explicit recognition of the incentives, and blocks to creativity would give us better laws. The view of having an absolute moral right to one's one work is one that is ignorant of the mechanism of creativity. I couldn't find the study, but a brain scan of creative types as against normal people shows that the former group make heavy use of memory in the process of creation. Thus "total originality" is a myth.

    228. Re:I spy a new meme by AviLazar · · Score: 1

      Would you explain "jumpers?" I know computer jumper's, i know jumpers as applied to people, and I think I know of a drug that has a nickname called Jumper (and there is always jumper cables) :)

      I think your argument is saying that if the software is out for public use then more innovation will happen. But most people copying the works are not doing so to innovate it, they are doing so to use it. They want it for free. Yes we can say "total originality" is a myth but that is a purest mindset. Since any kind of invention would take some form of communication - the originality is lost right there; but that is extreme. If someone creates a product they should be able to choose how it is distributed. Again, if you the consumer do not agree you do not have to buy it and the IP holders will suffer with their wallets. Think about it, how many people will pay $50.00 for a program when they can have it for free?

      IP law is a compromise (like most law) - it is there to help protect the IP holder, just like there are consumer laws to help protect the consumer.

      This debate is tiring, nothing against you, I have just had too many posts. /. tends to be a place that supports giving software away for free and it is the one aspect i totally disagree with since I realize that people put in time, money and effort into creating products. They deserve to be compensated for their works and they deserve the ability to judge how that work is distributed including penalties to people who receive illegitimate copies.

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    229. Re:I spy a new meme by alw53 · · Score: 1

      Apparently if you steal someone's software and use it yourself, you're a commie. If you steal it, sell millions of copies, drive the people you stole it from out of business, and settle the resulting lawsuit out of court so you can keep the terms of the settlement secret, you're Capitalists like Bill and Steve.

    230. Re:I spy a new meme by Morosoph · · Score: 1
      Fair enough. I do not believe that all software should necessarily be free, but I do believe that the protection in law is too strong. The original context is that Bill Gates likens supporters of CC and the GPL to communists. He'd be more accurate describing them as anarchists, since Bill is deliberately seeking to confuse two meanings of "communism" in the listeners' minds: supporters of a strong totalitarian "beneficial" state, and believers in the sharing of property.

      CC/GPL licenses are good in that they allow alternate property systems to co-exist with convention "maximum" property. The GPL in particular allows free software to stand up on its own with a mirror to the protections that are afforded to proprietry software, excepting patent issues (one problem with strong decentralisation is that the resources to protect your code are unavailable). The fact that they do this with conventional property law shows that copyright, as it stands, isn't too broken (except perhaps that it has an excessive longevity; 50 years regardless of the creators' lifespan would mean that people know where they stand).

      I suggested a default license to show that a granted monopoly isn't the only option available. Perhaps a standard fee of $25 or an extra 100% of the selling price to retailers (whichever is greater) could be an option, but the more that I look at this idea, the less workable it appears: what of designers of chip design software, normally of the order of a few hundred thousand dollars per license? Maybe someone clever can find a better solution.

      People should be compensated for their work, if the profit is there to be made, but we already don't let particular sanctions be applied against transgressors of IP, and a default (if it could be made workable) would still allow you to license under different terms. Monopoly is an incroachment upon freedom, and thus needs justification. It is my belief that the justification isn't strong enough to justify total control of the idea, only to guaruntee a reasonable profit through licensing. There's little utility to be gain in extending the right to the opportunity to make reasonable profit to that of total control.

      As for innovation, people invent things all the time; profit selects which inventions to pursue into a product. Some will go in at near zero investment cost; some take a lot of money to reasearch and develop. In any case, free software competes fairly with proprietry software: the innovation that exists within free software will be that which is typically at the more affordable end, and those who engineer free software exercise the same rights to reverse engineering as any other competitor. The fact that they are typically not being paid for it induces a delay (people have to earn money somehow) within which returns can be earnt on the original.

      I think your argument is saying that if the software is out for public use then more innovation will happen. But most people copying the works are not doing so to innovate it, they are doing so to use it. They want it for free.

      People want the price to be low, and the originator want it to be high. Competition is the usual mechanism by which the two sides come to a deal. IP is much more difficult, in that it only has value when the freedom to copy is regulated, although there are other mechaisms such as the head-start in further innovation afforded to the originators: reverse engineering with help one catch up, but will not completly align one with the original creative vision. Knowing that others are reverse-engineering your product can in fact be a spur to further innovation!

      Going back to the issue of jumpers, the economics here are very different to those of engineering software, but I have to ask you whether people are in general better off with rapid propagation of (other) jumper technologies (such as techniques to knit a warmer jumper), or not to have those cheaper developments in wide use, but to make the d

    231. Re:I spy a new meme by Suicyco · · Score: 1

      I think that a highly advanced society can operate without a constraining framework of rules being dictated by some collective group.

      You are absolutely right: When there is no government, there is no society per se, just a set of individuals without any rules. Of course, there is always a "society" but in the sense we are using it, it doesn't quite mean the same thing.

      Rules do not have to exist in an enforceable form. They are inherent in interactions, because without them the interactions do not take place. A sufficiently advanced society, economically, socially and technologically, does not need an arbiter of the rules, ie. a government. The rules are inherent in how they interact. I realize this is a hard thing to understand.

      I do not agree that a government is simply how a society works. It is how current societies work. It is not how all collectives of people work throughout history. A government is a ruling body that creates, and enforces, the rules by which the entire collective of people operate.

      Everybody doesn't "have" to follow the rules and "have" to live in the same society. They simply do, because it exists. As I said before, there are implicit rules in many everyday interactions between people. As long as violation of those rules is impossible, or highly improbable (or even impracticle) then they need no enforcement.

      Marx's vision allows for ultimate choice. It is a totally free society. You would not be free to kill another person through purposefull action, not because its against the law, but because it is impossible. You cannot take property from another person, not because it is against the law, but because there is no need to. So in a sense, yes, you are being limited in your actions. However, it is not a totalitarian strict limitation. The limits are not in place in order to keep the communist state alive, they exist simply because that is how the social and economic evolution of that society took place. Technological superiority is one means of achieving this (ie. the people control the means of production, which is quite literal if you believe nanotechnology will ever bear serious personal fruit.)

      So, what most american's, and capitilists in general, fear about this type of system is the freedom to not have rules enforced by a state. Because it somehow means you may not be able to achieve more than the next person, without a framework which allows this. What poeple do not understand is there is no limitation. You are only limited by yourself, and your desires and will to be. Nobody is forced to do anything, anymore than they are forced to eat food or forced to breath air. Some things just are the way they are. Do not take the modern examples "communist states" as any sort of meaningful example.

      Concepts of things like labor, capital, laws, national identity and warfare, are radically altered in this sort of society, so much so that it is hard for anybody to truly understand what that must be like. We can try, Marx did, but nobody can truly understand a state of being which is so far removed from what we fundamentally understand about everything. Vernor Vinge called this threshold the singularity, which I feel hits the nail on the head with his writings. Its just too radically different.

      I simply feel that Marx, through much study and scientific analysis of society, modes of production, government and philosophy, began to glimpse the future of mankind in a very sensible way. It is only a glimpse, but its a well thought out and thoroughly reasoned hypothesis. Much more so than things remaining the same through such rapid and extreme technological and social change as we have experienced in this century (heck, the last 10 years even.)

      I think of Marx writings not as a blueprint, but as a window into a possible future, or at least one mans view through that window.

    232. Re:I spy a new meme by script_daddy · · Score: 1

      Also, while I'm not a fan of pro sports myself, I think it's kind of cheap of you to characterize pro baseball players as guys who just "hit balls with sticks." That's like saying that a programmer is just a guy who punches keys.

      When guys who "hit balls with sticks" contributes anything to society, other than profusive beer-gut-syndrome, you might have a point...

      --
      One of a Kind <-- You probably won't be interested..
    233. Re:I spy a new meme by tehdaemon · · Score: 1
      "In a world where no one can charge above the market rate for research, the cost of research will decrease. Demand isn't going to change"

      You missed something here. The reason that no one can charge above the market rate in this case is because demand did change. Not supply. Assuming that all research that would be profitable without IP laws would still be profitable with them, demand with IP laws would increase since there is now more profitable research that can be done. (with our current over the top IP laws, I am not sure this holds, but for some IP laws I am sure this holds)

      Your last comment though implies that you think that our current IP laws end up restricting more research than they encourage, and I would not be surprised if this was the case. However, this is not an argument against all IP law, just our current ones. At some level of IP law, more IP laws will result in more research done. Just not for all levels of IP law.

      --
      Laws are horrible moral guides, moral guides make even worse laws.
    234. Re:I spy a new meme by DoctorMO · · Score: 1

      When someone buys the right to wear sweaters, is it then fair that he prosicutes you for 'stealing' his interlectual property even though the sweater is yours?

      thats what is done with software, I come up with an idea, on my own, investing my own time, and some big company comes along and says 'we own this, it's no yours any more' and they do this all the time and you can't see whats wrong with this.

    235. Re:I spy a new meme by Kalani · · Score: 1

      I think it's pretty obvious that guys like Babe Ruth have contributed much more to society than you have. Whether or not you personally value their contributions, folks with opinions like you are outnumbered.

      --
      ___
      The ends are ape-chosen, only the means are man's. -- Aldous Huxley
    236. Re:I spy a new meme by AviLazar · · Score: 1

      When you buy it, you agree to the terms of service (EULA, contract, whatever). Thats it - you agreed. By breaking that contract you are saying your word and agreement with contracts are worthless. You are in essence a liar. Maybe these big companies are wrong about locking up their software (very very argumentable) but you are 110% wrong for breaking your end of the contract. When I buy a sweater I did not sign a contract. Also, there is a huge difference between copying a program and giving it to someone and hand sewing a new sweater and giving it to someone. If you don't realize the difference you should go seek some mental help.

      For those that argue "well i don't see the contract until after I buy the software" Two points to note to your "full of holes" argument":
      1) You can return your product (yes they have to take it)
      2) *You* do know what the contracts for these software products will look like. *You* have been around the block - stop acting like the EULA's are something strange and new and a surprise to the community. They have been around for a long long time (longer then some of you have been using computers).

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    237. Re:I spy a new meme by jacoberrol · · Score: 1

      I understood the parent poster's point perfectly. His point was that capitalism is more fair than communism because the government does not meddle with the markets, and hence, the magical market forces allow for a more fair distribution of wealth.

      While, I believe that capitalism is a better economic paradigm than communism, I absolutely disagree with the idea that market forces will ensure more fairness and wealth-sharing. I would argue that the opposite is true, and a lot of people agree. That is why socialistic policies like minimum wages, graduated income tax, and welfare exist. Programs like these act to redistribute wealth with the goal of offering more "fairness". Of course, they also work counter to capitalism in that they create more inefficiency in the economy. It is a trade-off we live with. We give up some efficiency, and in return, we stretch the bell curve a little so that fewer folks are living in poverty.

      My baseball example was not intended as a dig at pro ball players. I believe they deserve the money they get in the context of capitalism (ie. there is high demand for what they do and not many others can do it). However, it does illustrate how, in a capitalistic society, a small number of "lucky" individuals benefit from capitalism more than most of the rest of us. Is it fair or not? It depends on your perspective. But, I think a lot of people would agree that folks like pro ball players get more than they deserve and folks like teachers and doctors get less than they deserve.

    238. Re:I spy a new meme by jacoberrol · · Score: 1

      Yeah, yeah, Ok... I was right, you were wrong. I am dumb, you are smart... ;) My point is still that capitalism isn't about fairness and sharing. As you put it, it's really about profit maximization, which is basically the opposite of sharing.

    239. Re:I spy a new meme by DoctorMO · · Score: 1

      Whats with the personal attack? mental help, sir I take offence!

    240. Re:I spy a new meme by AviLazar · · Score: 1

      I utilize the word "You" a lot. I apologize I did not mean anything personally against you. It is just the way I speak and write. Maybe not the best method as it seems to make it personal. I hate utilizing they, he and she. No personal attack meant.

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    241. Re:I spy a new meme by phliar · · Score: 1
      So if I spend millions of dollars producing a non-tangeable product I should not be entitled...
      Entitled? And you call yourself a capitalist? No one forced you to "spend millions of dollars producing a non-tangeable product". Just because you spent time and effort to produce something valuable doesn't mean society owes you something. Or do you believe that mothers should be paid when they give birth?

      You can't just assert that without copyrights "Counterstrike" wouldn't exist. Read the constitution: copyrights -- an anti-capitalist state-enforced monopoloy -- is justified saying that it's so creators have an incentive to advance the arts. But Free Software gives us a proof by construction that people will write high-quality code and give it away to others without this monopoly incentive.

      (I hope you're not going to say the GPL depends on copyright so without copyright the GPL wouldn't exist. Without copyright we don't need a GPL.)

      Copyrights are clearly not property -- at least until the current climate of "copyrights in perpetuity through unlimited extension", copyrights are for a limited-time. Owning an apple is clearly different from copyright -- your ownership of an apple doesn't expire.

      Copyright is not property, and there's no intrinsic "granted by God" reason intangibles should be. As Jefferson said,

      "If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of everyone, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density at any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property.
      (Emphasis mine.)
      --
      Unlimited growth == Cancer.
  3. Obligatory Simpson's Quote... by TheShadowHawk · · Score: 0


    HA HA!!

    --
    Friends don't let Friends use Internet Explorer.
    1. Re:Obligatory Simpson's Quote... by Herby+Werby · · Score: 0

      If it's wrong to sit down and start coding, I don't want to be right.

  4. McCarthyism for the shareholders by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Now there's a desperate man for ya. He's sweating the shareholders' realizing MSFT is not the great holding they thought it was.

    1. Re:McCarthyism for the shareholders by DaHat · · Score: 1

      I am still quite content with my MSFT holdings... and the $3/share dividend in December sure made me even more content.

  5. Lesson for Gates by bitswapper · · Score: 5, Funny

    Never show up at an event hosted by a comedian.
    Using Windows.

    1. Re:Lesson for Gates by uradu · · Score: 1

      3. Tape presentations ahead of time

    2. Re:Lesson for Gates by Sime208 · · Score: 1
      "Never show up at an event hosted by a comedian"
      That's a real mis-use of the word 'comedian'. The guy presenting that was bloody awful.
    3. Re:Lesson for Gates by freeze128 · · Score: 1

      It should have been hosted by George Carlin....

      Now *THAT* I would watch.

    4. Re:Lesson for Gates by mikesmind · · Score: 1
      I would vote for Gallagher.

      Sledge-O-Matic!

      --
      www.mikesmind.com - www.daddyworkathome.com - www.freetofarm.org - www.tenfoottable.com
    5. Re:Lesson for Gates by setag · · Score: 1

      In other news Conan O'Brian has announced his departure from NBC. His only comment was that his decision had nothing to do with his smart @ss comment to Bill Gates at CES.

  6. crashes everywhere by cwebb1977 · · Score: 1, Funny

    Don't watch the presentation, it makes your PC crash, too ;)

    --
    www.weberseite.at
  7. You see, this just proves it. by millennial · · Score: 5, Funny

    I always knew Gates was a robot. Now they installed SP2 on him, and LOOK WHAT HAPPENS! Increased security, my foot!

    --
    I am scientifically inaccurate.
    1. Re:You see, this just proves it. by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1
      Now they installed SP2 on him, and LOOK WHAT HAPPENS! Increased security, my foot!

      I rather suspect that, perhaps unlike the software he advocates, Bill Gates' own security is among the best in the world...

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    2. Re:You see, this just proves it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your "foot"? What are you, British?

    3. Re:You see, this just proves it. by rthille · · Score: 1

      Not in 1998 it wasn't...
      Gates gets Pie in Face...

      --
      Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
    4. Re:You see, this just proves it. by millennial · · Score: 1

      That pie was sent on secret order from Linus. Everyone knows that.

      --
      I am scientifically inaccurate.
  8. reminds me of some quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "That's why we don't release Windows 95 yet"
    oh wait...

  9. That's pretty funny... by Sottilde · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I wish they'd stop developing new, useless BS out at Microsoft and get to work on bug fixes.

    1. Re:That's pretty funny... by Asprin · · Score: 5, Insightful


      Agreed - the last paragraph of that sfgate piece really sez it all:

      "While Microsoft's goal is to turn the PC into a superhub that does everything -- plays music, works as a cell phone, stores your photos -- they're running up against the fact that most people buy discreet components that do particular things."

      Personally, I kinda like having seams of one sort or another. They are boundries around systems that restrict their awareness and let me take control of them again when I need to.

      --
      "Lawyers are for sucks."
      - Doug McKenzie
    2. Re:That's pretty funny... by Dogers · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That, and your data/life doesnt get held hostage when something goes wrong with it!

      --
      I am a viral sig. Please copy me and help me spread. Thank you.
    3. Re:That's pretty funny... by Twanfox · · Score: 4, Insightful

      To heck with taking control of them, I just want the devices discreet and seperate so that, god forbid, my DVD player take a dump on me, I can still watch TV, watch a VHS tape, play a game on a console, or look up my email on my computer. The 'One Box Does It All' mentality may simplify what you have to carry or buy, but it also represents a single point of failure for a large number of services. Getting it repaired, especially if it's out of warrenty, can be a major pain in the ass.

      (Only one device I've ever really had repaired was my Minidisc player, twice, and that was under CircuitCity's own extended warrenty. Took weeks to get it back, though thankfully it did come back fixed, or at least with an explaination as to a point of failure like the power adaptor. TV, Microwave, my Clie.. it's almost cheaper to just buy a new one since it is generally designed to just barely outlive it's warrenty)

    4. Re:That's pretty funny... by Corporate+Drone · · Score: 1
      "they're running up against the fact that most people buy discreet components that do particular things."

      I bet Bill's happy that folks are only interested in discreet components... heck, if what people really wanted were discrete components, his plans for world domination would be screwed!

      --
      mmm... yeah... You see, we're putting the cover sheets on all TPS reports now before they go out...
    5. Re:That's pretty funny... by vjmurphy · · Score: 1

      "Personally, I kinda like having seams of one sort or another. They are boundries around systems that restrict their awareness and let me take control of them again when I need to."

      Yes, that's exactly it. If I had all my equipement hooked up to a Windows Media Center, then when that piece of software (or hardware) fails, then I'm left without the ability to watch television, record, watch DVDs, listen to music, etc, until I've restored that point of failure.

      I look at it almost like a PC desktop: I like having my browser separate from my email separate from my instant messaging. That way, when one fails, it has little to no effect on the other parts.

      It would seem that Gates wants a more centralized control of all those aspects. Eh. I'd rather have four remotes and all the control.

      --
      Vincent J. Murphy
      Spandex Justice
    6. Re:That's pretty funny... by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      To play devil's advocate, 12-15 years ago most people would have balked at motherboards with on-board network, I/O ports, controllers, video, etc.

      These days, most people prefer all that stuff on the motherboard, especially for servers.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    7. Re:That's pretty funny... by mink · · Score: 1

      I don't like it one bit, especially for servers.
      In fact I am all for bringing back jumpered hardware settings. That way I can make sure no stupid DMA/IRQ conflicts happen since windows sucks at managing them.

      --
      Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
    8. Re:That's pretty funny... by emilymildew · · Score: 1

      Does it actually say discreet?

      Man, I don't want my devices to be subtle about things. I want them to be discrete. As in separate.

      (I am correcting it because CNet should freaking know better. That's ridiculous.)

    9. Re:That's pretty funny... by Vollernurd · · Score: 1

      My PC will become a cellphone? They're a bit big. Besides, my PC is already a rubbish typewriter as it is. Plus they don't have one of those cool mid-1980s rubber aerials.

      --
      Smokey, this is not 'Nam, this is bowling. There are rules.
    10. Re:That's pretty funny... by AddressException · · Score: 1

      You're running a server using Windows?
      Methinks you have more problems than just IRQ conflicts...

    11. Re:That's pretty funny... by rusty_razor · · Score: 1

      It is not `discreet' it is `discrete':

      From the Wiktionary:

      To be discreet means to have/hold one's own beliefs/possessions in a friendly way without making another person feel compromised or challenged. It also means not declaring personal information that one has learned in a private conversation to other people.

      While discrete is defined as:

      1. separate, from the latin word discretus.
      2. In perception a discrete entity is something that can be percepted individually and not as connected to, or part of something else.
      3. In mathematics a discrete set is a countable or countably infinite, with a cardinality less than or equal to aleph 0. (Including integers.) Mathematical study of discrete sets is the area of inquiry for discrete mathematics, but also important for combinatorics, probability theory and statistical theory.
      4. In mathematics, a discrete space is a topological space in which all sets are open.
      5. In electrical engineering, discrete means having separate electronic components, such as individual resistors and inductors -- the opposite of integrated circuitry.
      6. In audio engineering, discrete means having separate and independent channels of audio, as opposed to multiplexed stereo or quadrophonic, or other multi-channel sound.

      If anyone is to blame, it is the editor that approved TFA, where `discrete' is misspelled `discreet'. Spell check != correctness.

    12. Re:That's pretty funny... by dickens · · Score: 2, Informative



      discrete (d-skrt)
      adj.

      Not joined to or incorporated with another; separate; distinct.

      discreet

      adj 1: marked by prudence or modesty and wise self-restraint; "his trusted discreet aide"; "a discreet, finely wrought gold necklace" [ant: indiscreet] 2: unobtrusively perceptive and sympathetic; "a discerning editor"; "a discreet silence" [syn: discerning] 3: heedful of potential consequences; "circumspect actions"; "physicians are now more circumspect about recommending its use"; "a discreet investor" [syn: circumspect]

      </pedantic>

    13. Re:That's pretty funny... by TractorBarry · · Score: 1

      Yep, compartmentalization is King.

      I bought hi-fi seperates cause when I can afford a better CD player/Tape Deck/Whatever next I unplug the old bit & plug in the new bit.

      Similarly if one of the items fails I replace just the failed item, not the whole show.

      And we all know what happens when you tightly integrate everything (hello viruses, worms, adware, crapware scumware etc. etc. etc.)

      "Sorry I couldn't phone you back 'cause my MP3 player got a virus and it's shut down and formatted my entire Microsoft house (tm)".

      --
      Sky subscribers are morons. They pay to be advertised at !
    14. Re:That's pretty funny... by mydigitalself · · Score: 2, Insightful

      just to point out the obvious...
      if, God forbid, your TV took a dump on you, then you can't watch TV, a VHS tape or play a game on your console. so all you could do is check your email on your computer...so you almost do have a central point of failure as it is anyway.

      i only mention this 'cos my telly just "took a dump" on me and i've been medialess for 2 weeks as i run xboxmediacenter for all my music - and that's dependant on screen-based navigation!

    15. Re:That's pretty funny... by g0at · · Score: 1

      I agree fully about the revealing last paragraph, but for quite a different reason: the misspelling of "discrete" is hilarious.

      most people buy discreet components that do particular things

      In this case, it is particularly funny because a component which crashes out with a bright blue screen and an obtuse message is certainly not being discreet; it's being very loud and intrusive. No kidding that people want "discreet" components that just work (like Apple gear for example).

      I guess the writer meant "discrete", but both meanings work here even if the reason for the error is unclear.

      -b

    16. Re:That's pretty funny... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You, sir, are a fucking idiot. thanks for listening!

    17. Re:That's pretty funny... by NatasRevol · · Score: 2, Funny

      Maybe you need a free iPod...

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    18. Re:That's pretty funny... by schon · · Score: 1

      if, God forbid, your TV took a dump on you, then you can't watch TV, a VHS tape or play a game on your console

      Yes, but if you replace your TV (say, because it's broken), you're not forced to replace your VCR/DVD/Console at the same time, or if you have a second TV, you can simply use that while the other is getting fixed/replaced.

    19. Re:That's pretty funny... by mydigitalself · · Score: 1

      oh don't go there! my ipod (gen 3)...2 months after the warantee ran out just stopped working. looks like the HDD went tits-up. anyway, phoned them and they told me it was going to cost £199 to repair!!!

      my mother, bless her, ordered me a new one from Amazon (for Xmas) on the 24th of November and - obviously - it still hasn't arrived. so i've been ipodless for about 2 months now as well!

      i'm having a spell of bad techkarma right now...must be because i told someone the other day that MS have a really good product stack :/

    20. Re:That's pretty funny... by 16K+Ram+Pack · · Score: 1
      It's like hi-fi separates vs all-in-ones. all-in-ones mean that generally you can expand better and if one part fails, or you want an upgrade, you can.

      The real future isn't convergence, it's interoperability. Being able to have your PVR have a web server which means that you can command it to record a program, either from a web browser at work, or from a device communicating with it via XML.

    21. Re:That's pretty funny... by Twanfox · · Score: 1

      My appologies. While I do my best to ensure my spelling is accurate, I'm a computer geek, not an English professor. I had wondered about that word, but blindly assumed that the prior usage of the word was correct.

      Thanks for the correction.

    22. Re:That's pretty funny... by fermion · · Score: 1
      This is an interesting aspect of the PC. Everything is in the box, and if something breaks, then the box must be compromised to fix it. So, if the DVD player breaks, unless you have the ability to swap it out, the whole computer must be sent in.

      This is different from the component technology in which you have a tv, a reciever, an amp, a VCR, a DVD, and a cable tuner, for example. If one thing breaks simply unplug a couple cables, replace, and we are back in bussiness. A no new drivers to install.

      There are clearly some companies that take the component philosophy seriously. Where things can be hot swapped in a bay or connected with a firewire of USB cable. The computer and peripherals have enough intelligence to communicate without custom drivers. It is not so popular beceause one must pay for the technology, but as computers become 'hubs' and not 'boxes', and consumers expect to do more things more easily, it will be important.

      As has been true, for quality systems components are better for the consumer.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    23. Re:That's pretty funny... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I never thought I would say this on slashdot, but. . .
      Bah, your all ludites.

      The little black box that does everything would rock. And I want one as soon as it's made.

    24. Re:That's pretty funny... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read the EULA, it's not your data/life you smelly commie!

    25. Re:That's pretty funny... by rusty_razor · · Score: 1

      No problem. I'm no pedant, and I like it when I learn something from reading slashdot comments---a rarity, but nice nonetheless. :) I'm just trying to share for the benefit of others. Now you too can help prevent the erosion of the English language in a small way.

      Bah, I don't know why I'm explaining myself; it should have been clear that there was no malice in my previous comment. Have a good night.

    26. Re:That's pretty funny... by mink · · Score: 1

      Often one has no choice as to the machines they must take care of.
      I mostly support AIX clusters, but some people insist they need Windows for apache, because they dont want to load down the servers with apache and tomcat.

      --
      Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
  10. What's wrong with communism? by G-Licious! · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm going to accuse them of being modern day capitalists.
    Sounds just as bad to me.

    1. Re:What's wrong with communism? by Dachannien · · Score: 2, Informative

      Obviously, Gates intends to make the allusion that these people are big-C Communists (whose motivation is to keep themselves in power through suppression of the masses), rather than little-c communists (whose motivation is to serve the people through suppression of those currently in power). He's playing off the ignorant knee-jerk reaction of most Americans to equate the word
      "Communism" with "Evil" (Stalin did, after all, kill millions of his own people).

    2. Re:What's wrong with communism? by mindaktiviti · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm not going to defend capitalism (granted I think it's much better than communism), but communism itself is pretty bad.

      I myself have fairly left-wing views (I'm from Canada and completely agree with universal healthcare, etc), but communism doesn't seem to take one thing into consideration: Humans are greedy, and this includes the ones controlling the government of a communist country. Much like the very purpose of an incorporation (Check out this movie), there's an underlyting wrongness about communism that doesn't have enough checks and balances (at least not in my country of origin).

      Anyway, Bill should grow up and know better than to call people commies. It's unprofessional.

    3. Re:What's wrong with communism? by fr2asbury · · Score: 1

      Agreed, I've often said, you'll never see a more ruthless capitalist than a communist.

    4. Re:What's wrong with communism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The old rule was, that the first person to compare the other to Hitler or the Nazis in an argument loses.

      Maybe we need a new rule: the first person to compare the other to Stalin or the Communists loses too.

    5. Re:What's wrong with communism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Communism doesn't work on any population larger than a family. The fact is not all people are created with equal abilities, this is why Capitalism (Social Darwinism) thrives.

      That said, Government enforcement of IP and patent rights are not part of a pure free market system.

    6. Re:What's wrong with communism? by hey! · · Score: 1

      Well, the question should be, I think, what is wrong is "isms"?.

      I think the problem with most isms are that any ideology based on a premise of the form "humans are X" has to be on shaky ground. People are inexplicably inconsistent about how they behave and what they want. I know a guy who drives a humungous SUV plastered with bumperstickers for environmental groups -- and he's not stupid either.

      The success of the pragmatic forms capitalism does not in my opinion rest on the presumption that humans are greedy. It rests on the presumption that you can't make too many assumptions about how people will value X vs. Y. In fact, capitalism is really about accomdating and serving diversity. Any system that is based on figuring out everything people should want and supplying it to them can only result in misery. This, by the way, includes the idea that people are happiest when they are purely selfish, that they should be pushed as far as possible in that direction.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    7. Re:What's wrong with communism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Under communism, everything belongs to the state.\
      Under capitalism everything belongs to Microsoft.

      If communists were the enemy then it follows that Microsoft are the enemy now.

      Thats so much clearer now, thanks Bill.

    8. Re:What's wrong with communism? by say · · Score: 1

      So, to make your point a little shorter: "All ideologies that make a "humans are X" assumption are wrong; capitalism is successfull because it assumes humans are diverse"?

      Your theory is on shaky ground.

      --
      Roses are #FF0000, violets are #0000FF, all my base are belong to you
    9. Re:What's wrong with communism? by menem · · Score: 1

      You should read "Atlas Shrugged" by Ann Rand. That would answer your question.

    10. Re:What's wrong with communism? by mink · · Score: 1

      It can and does work on the community (town, village) level. I have not seen it sucessfully on the city wide level, but I am willing to be wrong.

      --
      Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
    11. Re:What's wrong with communism? by hey! · · Score: 1

      No, the point is more subtle. Capitalism doesn't really concern itelf with human welfare at all.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    12. Re:What's wrong with communism? by cL0h · · Score: 1

      "Democracy is the worst form of goverment, except for all the other ones."
      - Winston Churchill

      --
      cL0h
    13. Re:What's wrong with communism? by schtum · · Score: 1

      The fact is not all people are created with equal abilities, this is why Capitalism (Social Darwinism) thrives.

      Communism doesn't assume all people are equally able. The central tenet of communism is "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need". The trouble occurs when people of dubious ability decide they need private jets. Under capitalism, these people are CEOs and still get their jets, but at least it's with their own (or their investors') money instead of public funds.

    14. Re:What's wrong with communism? by vykor · · Score: 1

      Objectivist propaganda isn't all that more appealing than its counterpart on the opposite side of the political spectrum - communism.

    15. Re:What's wrong with communism? by a+whoabot · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Objectivism is the most baroque, grotesque, venal, intellectually masturbatory philosophy ever constructed.

      Just plain disturbing. Pseudo-philosophy for people who have some brains but think they are much smarter than they are and so fail to respect many of the complexities of the world. Just a pet fundamentalism for them to latch onto. If you like some of the ideals in Objectivism, then read some Nozick and Rawls for the love of God, and put down the Rand trash for a little while. They at least have rigor in their philosophy and respect for complexities. Rand just spirals off in petty intellectual obscurantism.

    16. Re:What's wrong with communism? by miu · · Score: 1
      Anyway, Bill should grow up and know better than to call people commies. It's unprofessional.

      I'm astonished by how often Gates shoots his mouth off and says insulting and unprofessional things in interviews. Somehow he never seems to get called on it.

      --

      [Set Cain on fire and steal his lute.]
    17. Re:What's wrong with communism? by Evil+Pete · · Score: 1

      there's an underlyting wrongness about communism that doesn't have enough checks and balances

      Agree totally. In principal Communism is a good idea as in "mum and apple pie" crap. But the reality is that some people just can't be trusted, in any society. I like how the writers of the US constitution had a very healthy disrespect for inate human goodness. However, such skepticism seems woefully missing these days ... and given enough time and apathy will erode those bulwarks. I blame Hollywood the true opium of the people (seriously).

      --
      Bitter and proud of it.
    18. Re:What's wrong with communism? by Leo+McGarry · · Score: 1

      From your very brief self-description, it sounds like your views are neither left nor right. They are utopian, which means they lie completely outside the political spectrum.

      Example: The belief in a universal, government-run, non-disastrous health-care system is tantamount to wishing that birds played frisbee or that tap water tasted like tapioca. It's wishing for the impossible. That takes the whole idea outside the realm of politics altogether and puts it in the realm of fantasy.

      Likewise, since we're on the subject, the idea of a communist society that's not based on mass theft of property. It's just not possible, no more than it would be possible to have a society made up entirely of left-handed people. Can't be done. So those kinds of ideas don't belong in a discussion of politics. They belong in a fairy tale.

      Being able to distinguish valid ideas that aren't compatible with your own from nonsense ideas spouted by people who aren't interested in discussing reality is a very important skill.

      Not that there's anything wrong with being a utopian, mind you. Those people just aren't very interesting to talk to.

    19. Re:What's wrong with communism? by menem · · Score: 1

      My point was that "Atlas Shrugged" explains why communism will never work. If you can ignore her philosphy, you can realize that she explains very well the problem with communism. She even lived at one point in a communist block country so she has experienced all of these problems. How many of us can say that??

      The problem is that communism is a contradiction. It requires that there are no rights to keep what you produce. Most people suddenly lose any desire to produce and the system can not support itself.

      She wrote this is 1955. Yet, this is what later happened to China (which was forced to switch to capatalism light), and to the Soviet Union.

    20. Re:What's wrong with communism? by Viper233 · · Score: 1



      Under communism man exploits man.
      Under capitalism it's the other way round.

  11. Propoganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Say what you want about Microsoft, but if you watched Gates at Berkley or most of his appearances he's pretty level headed. Using one comment against him his just propoganda.

    1. Re:Propoganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sometimes, all it takes is one comment. If Bush comes out on public television and makes one strong line of pure and clear racial charged comment against minority groups. Do you think everyone will say, well, using one comment against him is just propaganda?

      .segmond

    2. Re:Propoganda by burbankmarc · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Propoganda? In the late 70's/early 80's he wrote a letter to Stallman stating that he should be banned from all computer events because he supports free software...

      Now to me, this doesn't sound like propoganda, but rather, who he actually is.

    3. Re:Propoganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Listen if you called Stallman a communist most people wouldn't disagree.

    4. Re:Propoganda by SunFan · · Score: 1

      If Bush comes out on public television and makes one strong line of pure and clear racial charged comment against minority groups.

      He's done that against homosexuals. From what I've read, No Child Left Behind is essentially a slur against inner cities. He's just way too good a politician for voters to sense any of this. He is a really really good politician, perhaps even better than Bill Clinton.

      --
      -- Microsoft is the most expensive commodity operating system and office suite vendor in the marketplace.
  12. Is this a metaphor? by PDXNerd · · Score: 5, Funny

    It sounds like Bill Gates may be infested with SpyWare, a typical memetic programming that took place in the 1950's in which everyone who was not a right-wing-christian-gun-loving-American was a communist. It sounds like it's causing his PR ability to crash. Should we help him out and format him and put linux on him? (Wait.. Put linux on him, linux is Tux, the mental image that is coming to mind is... DISTURBING!!!! ACK REBOOT REBOOT!)

    1. Re:Is this a metaphor? by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      "a typical memetic programming that took place in the 1950's in which everyone who was not a right-wing-christian-gun-loving-American was a communist."

      Of course with hindisight, it turns out that most of them _were_ communists...

    2. Re:Is this a metaphor? by Walrus99 · · Score: 1

      ...in the 1950's in which everyone who was not a right-wing-christian-gun-loving-American was a communist

      Its so much better now when everone who is not a right-wing-christian-gun-loving-American is labeled a terrorist.

      --Believe it if you need it, if you don't just pass it on.

    3. Re:Is this a metaphor? by Himring · · Score: 1

      Its so much better now when everone who is not a right-wing-christian-gun-loving-American is labeled a terrorist.

      "Of course with hindisight, it turns out that most of them _[are]_ [terrorists]..."

      --
      "All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
    4. Re:Is this a metaphor? by swb · · Score: 1

      As a libertarian athiest gun-loving American, I am insulted.

    5. Re:Is this a metaphor? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gee, that sounds so much like the right-wing media today...

  13. Bzzt by The+Cisco+Kid · · Score: 4, Insightful

    But while promoting what he calls the "digital lifestyle," Gates showed how vulnerable all consumers -- even the world's richest man -- are to hardware and software bugs.


    It would *REALLY* be nice to see someone in the media finally get this right.

    SB: ... showed how vulnerable all *WINDOWS USERS* - even the founder and ex-CEO of the very company that makes Windows -- are to ... (the fact that Windows is a buggy piece of shit)
    1. Re:Bzzt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and yet, people still use it becaues its better than linux

    2. Re:Bzzt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yup, i agree, windoze will be just as vulnerable and buggy on a rich man's computer as a poor man's computer...

    3. Re:Bzzt by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Keep in mind there is a danger in letting people assume that non-Windows systems are totally secure and 100% bug-free.

    4. Re:Bzzt by millennial · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Yes, just as beta is better than VHS!

      --
      I am scientifically inaccurate.
    5. Re:Bzzt by OwlWhacker · · Score: 1

      This is true.

      But there's also a danger in letting people assume that they have no choice, and that all operating systems have the same level of security and stability.

    6. Re:Bzzt by Momoru · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure if you've used windows lately, but I rarely encounter any "bugs" in Windows or any Microsoft Products as of late. Sure there are MAJOR security holes and what not, but I havn't had a blue screen or even a "Send this error to Microsoft" type error in quite a long time....I havn't even had to restart my Windows box in 3 or 4 months.

    7. Re:Bzzt by TomorrowPlusX · · Score: 1

      Not to mention how insulting it is to call us *consumers*. I am a *customer* for f*ck's sake.

      I suppose the switch from customer to consumer happened around when people stopped saying stuff like "the customer is always right".

      Keep calling me a consumer, and I will no longer be your customer.

      --

      lorem ipsum, dolor sit amet
    8. Re:Bzzt by fusey_2004 · · Score: 1

      The very fact that you have to even defend against such issues ever occurring speaks volumes to me... Plus, you do know that the default behaviour post-W2K is to re-boot instead of blue screen? My dad someone had rebooted his machine when it happened to him.

    9. Re:Bzzt by Junks+Jerzey · · Score: 1

      the fact that Windows is a buggy piece of shit

      I know you want to believe that, but honestly, Windows XP (both Home and Professional) has been reliable for me. No random weirdness. No crashes.

      But then again I had massive video-related problems with the last Linux installation I used (most likely it was a video driver problem). Should I be trash-talking Linux?

    10. Re:Bzzt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The day Windows has been installed on every computer without your approval (Dell...) you became a consumer.

    11. Re:Bzzt by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      Everytime I use windows XP for more than 10 minutes, explorer crashes. Sometimes it restarts itself, so a less savvy user might just think "their desktop flashed", but it's obvious that explorer is crashing.

      MS has just managed to hide their bugs under auto-restarting services and daemons, Windows still sucks balls.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    12. Re:Bzzt by Ironsides · · Score: 1

      Every OS has bugs and exploits. Even Linux and OSX and BSD. Its just that MS Windows has more that are easily exploitable.

      --
      Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
    13. Re:Bzzt by Ironsides · · Score: 1

      Umm... Actualy, judging by the events that appeared to cause the lockups, it was the third-party Nikon Camera and Game that probably caused the problems.

      FTA:
      Later in the 90-minute presentation, a product manager demonstrated the ostensible user-friendliness of a video game expected to hit retail stores in April, Forza Motor Sport. But instead of configuring a custom-designed race car, the computer monitor displayed the dreaded "blue screen of death" and warned, "out of system memory."

      --
      Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
    14. Re:Bzzt by anum · · Score: 1

      Actually I think they did get it right, or at least closer than usual.

      See your quote refers to hardware and software bugs which _every_ system has including open source but in the open source world we are more willing to talk about them and fix them faster.
      Later the article says:
      "... the technical hiccups didn't prompt Gates to engage in a hard-hitting analysis of computer reliability and security. Power outages, hardware failures and software bugs often inexplicably humble those who strive for a Windows-based digital lifestyle, and world's most popular operating system is also a favorite target of hackers, virus writers, spies and spammers."

      Key bits:
      "Windows-based" (allows for other NON windows based systems)
      "World's most popular operating system" (there must be others out there if this is the most popular)
      "Favorite target" (other systems must be more secure because there are fewer people targeting them (I know there are other reasons we have fewer malicious programs on non-Windows systems but at least they made an attempt. Down Flames, Down!))

      And isn't it interesting that he won't talk about it? That sends a message too. Especially to those who have seen these sorts of problems (which every Joe user hit with spyware/hijackware). I wonder why they included that statement. Interesting, don't you think?

      --
      I don't think, Therefore I'm not.
    15. Re:Bzzt by Speare · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Okay, so (1) how is a video game able to tear down the entire operating system? and (2) how does this blame-shifting actually help the users?

      Sure, a few game buyers might return their game, but they'll still have an operating system with lurking landmine bugs that will crash in exactly the same way for some other product next week.

      --
      [ .sig file not found ]
    16. Re:Bzzt by Refrag · · Score: 1

      But there is no danger in letting them know how bad Windows sucks.

      --
      I have a website. It's about Macs.
    17. Re:Bzzt by capnjack41 · · Score: 1

      Is it still true that the OS still counts the system time as a 32-bit integer representing the number of milliseconds since the last boot? If so, it would wrap every 49.7 days... I would think that at that time, bad things would happen if you didn't reboot before then.

    18. Re:Bzzt by emilymildew · · Score: 1

      People say this a lot. I am not arguing with you about it, I am simply wondering why someone hasn't tried to own a Linux or OS X box on a grand enough scale that nobody could argue about their security. People talk about security through obscurity enough, but what about being the first person to hack OS X? Wouldn't that be worth it?

      I just don't see why nobody's done it.

    19. Re:Bzzt by OwlWhacker · · Score: 1

      This isn't the first time a BSOD has occurred during a live public demonstration held by Microsoft.

      Even if the issue was hardware related, this still brings up the question:

      Doesn't Microsoft thoroughly test these things before putting them out in front of people?

      What is Microsoft's overall product testing like?

    20. Re:Bzzt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The same way anything is able to tear down an entire system.

      For the game I admit it is a bit much to reduce the system to rubble but in reality what happened.

      Most likley the game misallocated some memory and caused a loop condition in which all available memory was used. MS is at fault for this becasue a certian amount shoudl be reserved for kernel opeation but hey... Linux fixed this problem on a few years ago. It used to be you could malloc until infinity and lock a Linux system from the command line.

      As for the camera blaming MS is just plain ignorant. Say I write a driver for Linux and it is crap. Say it polls int 1 in a loop or maybe disable all ints over 2. (which it has 100 percent persimmion to do as a driver mind you)

      Now do you blame Linux for not stoppign the erroe or me for some feat of ignorant programming.

      Hypocrites make me angry and your misguided MS slander is nothign but ignorant.

      Slander then for business practices (where it is true) rahter then technology where they ARE the driving force of consumer level innovation inthe industry.

    21. Re:Bzzt by PhilipPeake · · Score: 1

      No. And never was true.

    22. Re:Bzzt by ajs318 · · Score: 1
      Umm... Actualy, judging by the events that appeared to cause the lockups, it was the third-party Nikon Camera and Game that probably caused the problems.
      OK, I'll grant you that. But the fact remains that there is a reason why two pieces of software -- an OS and a driver, or an OS and an application -- interacted so badly as to crash each other. And that reason is the closed-source nature of Windows.

      Open source software -- once it's passed the alpha stage, at any rate -- interacts well, precisely because if anything goes wrong it can be analysed and repaired very easily. {And also, if you're writing a programme that you know other people are going to be looking at it, you make good and sure to do it properly, so nobody can say anything nasty about it.} The source code is, and always will be, the absolute definitive API documentation. The published documentation will only ever be at best a pale imitation, and at worst totally bogus. Unless the driver developer has access to the underlying OS source code, they have to trust the API documentation they have seen to be accurate. If that is not the case, then the app will crash and burn. Maybe if the driver developer shows their source to the OS developer, then the OS developer could show where the problem was, but hey! If they won't show me their code why should I show them mine, eh?

      Then you also have to maintain broken, legacy APIs -- even ones that may constitute a security risk -- forever, so as to cater for closed-source applications compiled against an earlier version. In the Open Source world, you just grit your teeth, recompile your apps and everything works again. {Although, this invariably leads to jokes like "The mouse has been moved}. You will need to recompile your kernel". Processing power is cheap enough today that you probably could get away with running the kernel through an interpreter if you really wanted.

      Closed source does not work. Period.
      --
      Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
    23. Re:Bzzt by mattyrobinson69 · · Score: 1

      No, that bug was fixed in a patch for windows 98 afaik (how somebody managed to find that bug still evades me)

    24. Re:Bzzt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My dad someone had rebooted his machine when it happened to him.

      I you need to use better grammar.

    25. Re:Bzzt by EddWo · · Score: 1

      This was on an XBox, which has a very much slimmed down Win2k kernel, shared memory between OS and graphics and much tighter access between the game software and the hardware.
      Its not so surprising that a buggy incomplete game could cause the system to lock up. I bet it happens all the time on PS2s as well during development.

      --
      "Taligent is still pure vapor. Maybe they'll be the last who jumps up on Openstep... "
    26. Re:Bzzt by fusey_2004 · · Score: 1

      No; just need to check for typos like that...

    27. Re:Bzzt by Speare · · Score: 1
      It's cute and funny and charming how you call me a hypocrite, and call my post slander, and say this is all a sign of ignorance, when all I asked is how blame-shifting is user-friendly.

      Let's review: a game caused an operating system to fail. If the OS can't protect itself, it needs to get patched. Oh, wait, this is an OS from a vendor well-known for their patch procedures, and to top it off, it's a quasi-embedded game platform system in which the user can't just download a new patch every Monday. So I think it's still fair to question WHY an operating system is architected for instability.

      Let's continue: I said nothing about the camera. I don't know why you thought I did. Maybe you just didn't read my post, but felt you needed to protect your favorite "innovative" company.

      Slander is saying untrue defamatory things; libel is writing untrue defamatory things. Opinions and questions are neither untrue nor defamatory; Microsoft can defame themselves quite handily. And for me to be a hypocrite, I'd have to believe the opposite rationale for the competing operating system; I use Linux precisely *because* enthusiasts *can* point out the specific boneheaded mistakes in drivers and kernel robustness.

      The average user won't differentiate between OS and product. They'll just see that the stuff they've purchased turns out to suck rocks. They'll be frustrated without any way of understanding why. They'll return the wrong component and continue to experience problems without any tools to correct the root cause of their problems.

      Lastly, ignorance is maintaining a status of unknowing; hardly compatible with questioning the rationale for the debated turn of events. Considering that I worked within Microsoft on their operating systems, I'd say my rationale for later switching to other products for any number of reasons is anything but ignorant.

      Before you use big words like 'hypocrite' and 'slander,' I recommend you visit Dictionary.com. Really. And sign your posts, coward.

      --
      [ .sig file not found ]
    28. Re:Bzzt by Col.+Bloodnok · · Score: 1

      We're not talking about minesweeper or solitaire here, we're talking about a 3D game. First off, they usually stress the hardware pretty hard to get the best performance - leading to thermal stability issues. So it could be a hardware/cooling issue (especially under hot lights).

      Second, for performance reasons the 3D chip's driver usually has at least some code running in kernel context. A bug in NVidia's code can bring an entire system to it's knees.

      Third, the graphics hardware is addressed using shared memory. Unchecked memory access in the game's code can (sometimes) stomp all over system memory. Lazy programming and the use undocumented hacks for extra speed are commonplace.

      Fourth, remember that some code is also running on the GPU (the graphics chip). A bug in this code can cause the GPU to stall, which (usually/eventually) causes the whole system to panic - or worse, stall.

      Game consoles are brittle systems.

    29. Re:Bzzt by Tenareth · · Score: 1

      Microsoft gets approximately 1 Million of those messages a DAY. And that's just the ones where people actually click on "Send", considering that's a very low percentage... just start to think how many failures occur daily...

      --
      This sig is the express property of someone.
    30. Re:Bzzt by Scott7477 · · Score: 1

      Here is the email address of the AP correspondent Rachel Konrad who wrote the story: rkonrad@ap.org. I urge all slashdotters to write Ms. Konrad and hammer her for this horrible, horrible statement.

      --
      "Lack of technical competence coupled with the arrogance of power, as usual, leads to no good end."
    31. Re:Bzzt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must be joking.

      I am a coward because I don't have an account on /.

      I fear the world will be a sad place to live if you and your ilk ever take control. Your response reminds me of some canned response they teach you in the Orwellian school of psychobabble, where all who think different are either cowards of miscreants and not deserving of the respect you would show a common bar skank.

      Now, back your post.

      You ask how "blame-shifting" in beneficial. Well, lets see. I can blame Linux for all the problems that have plagued sendmail since the beginning of time but then the Linux community can do some "blame-shifting" and perhaps the people responsible for the problems can correct them. Your so called "blame-shifting" is nothing more then a derogatory term for telling the user who is responsible for the root of the problem.

      Blame is a not a thing that can be shifted in computer programming. A game can not "blame" the operating system for its failures. It is up to the game to work with the OS, not the other way around.

      I mention the camera to help illustrate the point that the OS is not ever at fault for the failure of peripheral equipment thus attempting to further illustrate the point that "blame" for anything other then base OS functions can always be placed on the vendor offering the product.

      As far as you definition of both slander and hypocrisy I will not bite. I found your post hypocritical and your tone slanderous. You are free to disagree but your insinuation that I don't know the meanings of the words is both insulting and petty. If you feel the need to insult my intelligence at least compose a proper rebuttal rather then common drone of so many slashdotters who would rather nit-pick then discuss the real issues at hand.

      moraldeficient@(NO MORE SPAM THEN NEEDED)hotmail.com

    32. Re:Bzzt by Dirtside · · Score: 1
      but they'll still have an operating system with lurking landmine bugs that will crash in exactly the same way for some other product next week.
      This is exactly why Microsoft includes Minesweeper with Windows -- so you can get rid of those "landmine" bugs! Minesweeper is really just an intuitive debugging interface.
      --
      "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
    33. Re:Bzzt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      helly my dear hypocrital coward. I have some news for you:

      > A game can not "blame" the operating system for its failures. It is up to the game to work with the OS, not the other way around.
      You see, one of the core OS responsabilities is that one user program(a game in this case) can't affect and crash the whole system. Is that simple enough for you? No, DOS and most Windows 9X versions don't have this "advanced" feature that has been a basic task of any serious OS for over 30 years; but all other OSes are expected to enforce the policy that no user program can either take over or disrupt the other programs or the system as while.

      The game was buggy? _maybe_; but the OS _certainly_ was to blame for either causing the bug itself(possible too); or for not keeping the buggy program from bringing the whole system down.

      So get a clue what you are talking about before commenting.

    34. Re:Bzzt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean like my OpenBSD box running qmail and publicfile?

    35. Re:Bzzt by lachlan76 · · Score: 1

      No, now the system doesn't crash.

      As for what your programs do...it's normally summed up as "undefined". Where undefined in this context means "i dunno wtf is gonna happen...just reboot".

    36. Re:Bzzt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok

      Now I see.

      You never read the artice, never saw that the system in question was an XBOX, have never work on any sort of dedicated system and most likley are not a prgrammer.
      Sorry.

      I guess in truth I realized that from your first post and shouldn't have attempted to enforce strict programmign mantra on one who could never possibly understand.

      I apologize.

      Be well.

  14. Sweet Jebus! by Ligur · · Score: 2, Funny

    Head for the hills! The Commies are everywhere!

    --
    Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast.
    1. Re:Sweet Jebus! by bananasfalklands · · Score: 1

      I will be looking forward to seeing you in the Guantanamo Bay hotel comrade - I have to ring up the american embassy and book it now.

      --
      Send Peter Clifford Francis Macrae comdoms to 23 Bedford St, St.Neots, PE19 1AX, England
  15. Out of touch.... by jsimon12 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Is it me or does Gates seem to be very out of touch with what is going on in the real world and mostly seems to be getting his current information from his "Human Search Engines". Not to mention the fact he is constantly doing little more then plugging Micro$oft products.

    Just remember: If you don't buy from Micro$oft you are a Communist!

    1. Re:Out of touch.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Other than one fake quote attributed to him and getting hit in the face with a pie, can anyone actually remember anything he has done or said? Ever?

    2. Re:Out of touch.... by archen · · Score: 1

      if you don't buy from Micro$oft you are a Communist!

      If you "pirate" MS software does that make you a "freedom fighter"? =P

    3. Re:Out of touch.... by gad_zuki! · · Score: 1, Redundant

      He comes off as out of touch as anyone who reads say the opinion section of the Wall street journal.

      I find this rhetoric to be common amongst the wealthy business class and conservatives in general. Such as: Commies! X makes America great! Sure there will always be a debate on Y, but lets not jump to conclusions! etc

      Look at his claims:

      1. The current IP system is what makes America great. Yes, that's what he's saying.

      2. The current IP system doesn't need reform, except perhaps making better patent systems. Note Microsoft has been dealing with Eolas and others regarding patents so Bill is only seeing the light only when it serves his company.

      3. He calls those who call for IP reform "new communists." That's just an insult and trivializes the real concerns many have with using the law (think DMCA and others) to maintain monopoly status and crack down on how one can use one's machine and software.

      He spoke like a perfect monopolist. He knows IP laws help him and help maintain the status quo, thus creating a nice and healthy (for him) barrier to entry. He only diverged from the party-line when it came to patents and it should be obvious why.

      Of course, he may be right about patent reform, but its soley in his interest and in the interest in his monopoly, comrade.

      I will give MS credit, they are the perfect monopolists. Perfect. No wonder he uses such outdated and misused terms like "communism." MS has shown that ruthlessness pays off and Bill might be seeing himself as Ayn Rand, say versus Karl Marx, when he's just an old fashioned monopolist. Monopolies are of course, a symptom of a market failure or corruption. This is called irony.

    4. Re:Out of touch.... by squiggleslash · · Score: 1
      He got a DUI or something in the early days of his career. I can't remember the specifics.

      He co-wrote Microsoft BASIC. Detractors claim he didn't actually do any of the coding himself, but that doesn't seem to be supported by the available evidence.

      He wrote a letter to the Homebrew Computer Club complaining about people making copies of Microsoft BASIC. That's fairly famous, as at that time it wasn't really established in the minds of computer users that copyright applied to computer software. (I'm still of a mind it shouldn't really, software really isn't in any practical sense like literature, pictures, sounds or sound patterns, patents might have been a better way to go. By this, I don't mean modern software patents, I mean you'd have had to patent a specific implementation of a solution to a problem, not some generalized thing that can apply to file formats etc. Even then, I'm not happy about it. Arguably a fourth form of "IP" should have been invented.)

      He wrote a letter to Apple when they released the Macintosh suggesting they license the operating system. Apple refused for several years, and when they finally did they'd already lost the operating system wars.

      He married the creator of Microsoft Bob.

      Offhand, I can't think of anything else (I mean, I know things Microsoft has done, that I assume Gates had a big hand in, but Gates specifically...)

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    5. Re:Out of touch.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bill Gates is not "out of touch". He is there using the "interview" as a PR outlet (as all big companies do). I mean, really, you don't expect him to say anything real in public do you? And like most "news" agencies, CNET plays along because it sells their primary product (advertizing).

      Thank God for the internet, where you can at least get other opinions (both informed and not) for any given subject.

      And that, my friends, is why we *MUST PRESERVE* a politically free and anonymous internet.

    6. Re:Out of touch.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahh, sniping at someone who makes more money taking a dump than you will in your entire lifetime.

      Feel better now?

    7. Re:Out of touch.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't wait for MS to start paying royalties on all the ideas they stole (sic) to produce DOS and Windows operating systems. What sort of communist company does that, didn't they ever have any good ideas of their own?

    8. Re:Out of touch.... by hype7 · · Score: 1
      Just remember: If you don't buy from Micro$oft you are a Communist!


      Actually, I took a slightly different slant on that comment. It seemed to me to be ultra-kiss-ass directed squarely at the MPAA/RIAA. I wonder what he wants that they haven't given him.

      -- james
    9. Re:Out of touch.... by tbone1 · · Score: 1
      I remember one video of him saying something along the lines of "true innovation makes you re-examine how you view the world, and to my mind, the only truly innovative computer has been the Apple Macintosh".

      I'm sure some other MacHead will have a link to that video. Probably in Quicktime.

      --

      The Independent: Reverend Spooner Arrested in Friar Tuck Incident - ISIHAC, Historical Headlines
    10. Re:Out of touch.... by debuglife · · Score: 1

      If one thinks about what Mr. Gates is really all about, certain things become clear.

      1. Mr. Gates runs a Completely for profit organization with the motive to make the most money. His vision - 'To put every comp....blah' might as well be 'to teach everyone math and discover the joy of numbers' if there was money to be made by selling people that. We sometimes consider that he something more than a peddler and hence are shocked by his antics.

      2.
      p : You voted for Bush.
      q : You spent your midlife worrying about your growing pouch and the Soviets.
      r : Bill Gatess' comment got you trying to recall your "In Case of a Nuclear Explosion Drill"

      p AND q -> r

    11. Re:Out of touch.... by turgid · · Score: 1
      It seemed to me to be ultra-kiss-ass directed squarely at the MPAA/RIAA. I wonder what he wants that they haven't given him.

      The Beatles', Rolling Stones' and Michael Jackson's back catalogues?

    12. Re:Out of touch.... by geeber · · Score: 1

      Not to mention the fact he is constantly doing little more then plugging Micro$oft products.

      I believe he's the CEO of the company. That could part of the job description.

      Or do you really expect him to say "The new Microsoft Foo is worthless crap - don't buy it." ?

    13. Re:Out of touch.... by Lispy · · Score: 1

      I remember:
      "640K ought to be enough for anybody."

      (okok, just to ruin this I KNOW that the quote was taken out of context and it became an urban legend, yadayadayada...)

    14. Re:Out of touch.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mention the fact he is constantly doing little more then plugging Micro$oft products.

      That's his job. In fact, legally, that's part of the job of every CEO/President of a company. (Yes, yes, I know that Gates' title is no longer CEO, but it's quite similar in genre and intent.)

    15. Re:Out of touch.... by cL0h · · Score: 1

      One mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist. Everyone in Ireland knows that.

      --
      cL0h
    16. Re:Out of touch.... by lixlpixel · · Score: 1
    17. Re:Out of touch.... by DrSkwid · · Score: 1


      |He did write a book.

      here's an extract :

      "The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers." -Bill Gates, The Road Ahead, pg. 265

      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    18. Re:Out of touch.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1) What made America great was infact their ignoring of the IP system of the other countries and just going ahead with what they wanted to do, now that they are great they want to impose their IP system on everyone else.

      As for outdated terms, yeah, doesn't he know you have to replace every use of the word "communism" with "terrorism" these days?

    19. Re:Out of touch.... by Flashpot · · Score: 1
      Quoth Bill the Gates:

      OS/2 is probably the single most important piece of software ever written (1989?)

      OS/2 is dead. (1992)

      Bill's schizoid, and the number 2 shill at microsoft.

      --
      That which does not kill her only prolongs my agony.
    20. Re:Out of touch.... by gwoodrow · · Score: 1

      So what? If our president can do it, so can Gates!

    21. Re:Out of touch.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No kidding. Nowadays you can even be labelled a terrorist for defending your country from a foreign occupation, at least in the world according to Bush.

      I wonder if that would apply if Cuba invaded Florida. Would Floridians be terrorists for blowing up Cuban soldiers? Would Canadians be terrorists if they snuck down to help fight the Cubans? Could a supporter of the war in Iraq help clarify this?

    22. Re:Out of touch.... by glwtta · · Score: 1
      X makes America great!

      I would be very surprised to hear Gates say that - even most Linux users wouldn't go that far.

      --
      sic transit gloria mundi
    23. Re:Out of touch.... by KillerDeathRobot · · Score: 1

      He set up the Gates Foundation and donates lots of money to stuff (for instance, they donated quite a lot to the recent tsunami thing).

      --
      Thinkin' Lincoln - a web comic of presidential proportions
    24. Re:Out of touch.... by KillerDeathRobot · · Score: 1

      Bill Gates hasn't been Microsoft CEO for some time now. He's currently Microsoft Chairman, Grand Poobah Software Architect, and Resident Biggest Dork. Or something like that.

      --
      Thinkin' Lincoln - a web comic of presidential proportions
    25. Re:Out of touch.... by geeber · · Score: 1

      Yeah I remembered that after I had already pressed the submit button. Oh well, such is life.

    26. Re:Out of touch.... by codermarc · · Score: 0

      Is it me or does Gates seem to be very out of touch with what is going on in the real world and mostly seems to be getting his current information from his "Human Search Engines". Not to mention the fact he is constantly doing little more then plugging Micro$oft products.

      I know it may be a bit much to ask for logic, but in all honesty if Microsoft pulls off their digital lifestyle business model, they will be a snug fit for exactly what the consumer market is looking for...

      After all, he is the richest and arguably one of the most powerful men our society has to offer. I think some credit is due =P

  16. also... by millennial · · Score: 5, Funny

    When I read that he nose-dived, I was hoping for a video of him tripping and flying off a stage or something. I am sorely disappointed!

    --
    I am scientifically inaccurate.
    1. Re:also... by ciaohound · · Score: 1

      Well, he IS known for his ability to leap over a chair in a single bound. Seriously, I am not making this up. He used to do it to impress people -- chicks mostly, I would imagine. Anyone else aware of this fact? Maybe from Robert X. Cringely's PBS special years back, I just don't recall.

      --
      Oh, yeah, it's not easy to pad these out to 120 characters.
    2. Re:also... by slashname3 · · Score: 1

      Did you ever get to see the pie incident? It is really good. Gates was going into a meeting over in France, I believe, and some joker rushes him and nails him in the face with a pie. :)

    3. Re:also... by ThatComputerGuy · · Score: 1

      Ditto. WTF is wrong with the editors, getting our hopes up like that...

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    4. Re:also... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      When I read that he nose-dived, I was hoping for a video of him tripping and flying off a stage or something. I am sorely disappointed!

      First Castro, then Gates . . . . All the great ones are falling!

  17. Obligatory Dr. Strangelove Quote by nudnikmeow · · Score: 5, Funny

    Gen. Jack D. Ripper: I can no longer sit back and allow communist infiltration, communist indoctrination, communist subversion, and the international communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.

  18. From the article by sczimme · · Score: 0


    Gates, who was sitting next to O'Brien on a set staged to look like NBC's Late Night set, smiled dryly and continued with his discussion.

    "Smiled dryly"?? I can see making a dry remark, but... Or is this meant to indicate that Mr. Gates was not drooling and/or foaming at the mouth? I'm not bashing Bill, btw - just assessing the article author's acumen. (Sorry to be a pain in the assonance.)

    As an aside, when I read the headline I though Bill had done a faceplant on the stage or had been caught lip-synching or something. It turns out he was just a little embarrassed because his whizzy new products crashed twice in front of thousands of people.

    /Oh - that's still rather bad.

    --
    I want to drag this out as long as possible. Bring me my protractor.
    1. Re:From the article by BigWhale · · Score: 1

      Yes, he smiled dryly... Well, say hello to Mr. Webster...

      12 a : not showing or communicating warmth, enthusiasm, or tender feeling : SEVERE <a dry style of painting> b : WEARISOME, UNINTERESTING <dry passages of description> c : lacking embellishment : PLAIN <the dry facts>

      --
      The Sig, the sig
    2. Re:From the article by sczimme · · Score: 1


      I am quite familiar with Mr. Webster, thank you. Before you pat yourself on the back too much, you should know that the definitions you included are not really applicable to the situation in question:

      12 a : not showing or communicating warmth, enthusiasm, or tender feeling : SEVERE b : WEARISOME, UNINTERESTING c : lacking embellishment : PLAIN

      Warmth [and] tender feeling are rather out of place in this context, although Bill may have experienced somewhat diminished enthusiasm at that point. Wearisome and uninteresting essentially mean boring. Gates had a boring smile? Did he have a plain or otherwise unembellished smile? Possibly, but that is not congruent with the situation.

      It sounds as if Gates were slightly embarrassed but not angry: I submit that a better choice [on the part of the author] would be wan or sheepish, or possibly faint. (I doubt Bill was grinning widely after two software problems, so a "faint smile" would make sense.)

      I made the original comment because I expect people who write for a living (i.e. the author) to do a better job of communicating. No big deal. Cheers!

      --
      I want to drag this out as long as possible. Bring me my protractor.
    3. Re:From the article by BigWhale · · Score: 1

      I think that lack of enthusiasm covers it. ;) Dryly is not such a bad pick. But I agree, there are better ones.

      Don't expect journalists to write masterpieces. I used to frustrate about this also, then I figured, hey, they are journalists, no J.R.R. in the name... :)

      --
      The Sig, the sig
  19. How Bill can succeed... by i_want_you_to_throw_ · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Use his influence with the federal government to tie the open source effort with terrorism. Terrorism is the new communism. Cloak anything you don't like in terrorism and it gets done. Couple that with this administration's ability to be bought off by corporate interests and he can get what he wants. OK, mod me down now.......

    1. Re:How Bill can succeed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK, mod me down now.......

      Don't worry, you made an anti-Bush statement. You'll be OK.

    2. Re:How Bill can succeed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup, pretty much spot on what they could do, now I'm hoping they won't but since we're an already paranoid group let's just keep an eye open eh?

    3. Re:How Bill can succeed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And here's a handy way to start up the talking points.

      Can't you just see El Presidente saying "Allowing possible terrorists the ability to contribute to software used here in the United States is a serious threat to national security."

    4. Re:How Bill can succeed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *>Couple that with this administration's ability to be bought off by corporate interests and he can get what he wants.

      USA != world. I know this is a US centric site but there's nothing your administration can do to us in good old Blighty.

      One of the joys of open source eh mate?

    5. Re:How Bill can succeed... by wernercd · · Score: 0

      Now that explains why I have bad karma... must have been that pro-bush post I made...

      Bad Me.

    6. Re:How Bill can succeed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      PLEASE NO.

      he's already going to take over the world, maybe he can leave a little corner of the universe for people with brains to use and enjoy linux and other great FOSS

    7. Re:How Bill can succeed... by mink · · Score: 1

      It's just fuckwit moderators (I mod fairly IMO). One of my recent comments was hit with an "overated" as it's first mod, WTF, At worst I might have been offtopic a bit, but over-fucking-rated.

      --
      Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
    8. Re:How Bill can succeed... by ratsnapple+tea · · Score: 1

      Well, for example... this>/i> comment of yours is already overrated at Score: 1. :-)

    9. Re:How Bill can succeed... by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 1

      Would make him look rather silly since the NSA has a Linux distribution...

      --
      Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
  20. Search. by saintlupus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    From the interview, on the topic of search engines:

    Oh, sure, everybody is working on those things, but just take the idea of finding your local pizza place and doing that right; search doesn't do that well today.

    Sounds like someone needs to clue Bill in to using Sherlock under OS X -- that's exactly what I used it for yesterday.

    --saint

    1. Re:Search. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or you can simply use the Yellow Pages(tm). But since that doesn't involve a computer it can't be mentioned.

    2. Re:Search. by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 1

      I don't know anything about Mr. Gates' computer skills, but I have no trouble finding the local pizza. Then I bookmark it. Things like that only ever need one search, duh.

    3. Re:Search. by rbolkey · · Score: 5, Informative
    4. Re:Search. by gl4ss · · Score: 4, Funny

      hell, fucking google does that for me good enough, in fact it finds a page with reviews too in top 5.

      and i'm in a smallish 20k person suburb, in finland...

      but i guess what bill meant was that the he wants an engine that the pizzeria owner needs to pay for to be in and the user needs to pay for use..

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    5. Re:Search. by pknoll · · Score: 2, Informative

      Go2online does that pretty well, too, for those of you who don't have Macs. Sherlock is a wonderful tool, though. =)

      I think what Bill meant was that Microsoft is working on these things, but Microsoft's search products don't do that well today.

    6. Re:Search. by agentk · · Score: 1
      From the interview, on the topic of search engines:
      Oh, sure, everybody is working on those things, but just take the idea of finding your local pizza place and doing that right; search doesn't do that well today.
      Sounds like someone needs to clue Bill in to using Sherlock under OS X -- that's exactly what I used it for yesterday.

      Or the phone book.

      --

      VOS/Interreality project: www.interreality.org

    7. Re:Search. by lobsterGun · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Holy Cow!

      They still have a Godfather's Pizza in Redmond. All the ones round here closed up years ago.

    8. Re:Search. by Octagon+Most · · Score: 1

      I just sent an SMS to 46645 ("GOOGL") containing the word "pizza" and my ZIP code and got listings for the three closest pizza joints. I could even highlight the phone number shown and call them with a click. Seems pretty convenient to me. I wonder how much better MSN intends to make that experience and how far I will have to dig through a cascading Start Menu on a Windows Mobile Smartphone to do the same thing.

    9. Re:Search. by sharkey · · Score: 1
      hell, fucking google

      I didn't think Google was that easy.

      --

      --
      "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
    10. Re:Search. by Netsensei · · Score: 0

      http://www.beigerecords.com/cory/pizza_party/
      Nuff said. Maybe Bill should order "bash-2.05a$ pizza_party --olives --mushrooms --pepperoni --pineapple 2 medium regular"

    11. Re:Search. by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      I wonder how much better MSN intends to make that experience...

      They don't intend to make it any better, they just intend to come somewhat close, and then claim that they "innovated" it.

    12. Re:Search. by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      I think what Bill meant was that Microsoft is working on these things, but Microsoft's search products don't do that well today.

      Exactly. I think Bill doesn't look at or use anything non-Microsoft, so in his mind, if MS doesn't have it, it doesn't exist.

    13. Re:Search. by GPB · · Score: 1

      Nice. But Bill doesn't live in Redmond. He lives in Medina. You can see his house from the 520 bridge over Lake Washington going eastbound.

      Microsoft's headquarters are in Redmond, but they also have a large presence in Bellevue and other areas as well.

      -B

    14. Re:Search. by pommiekiwifruit · · Score: 1
    15. Re:Search. by barawn · · Score: 1

      Is this what you wanted, then?

    16. Re:Search. by adpowers · · Score: 1

      Offtopic? Whatever.

      Anyway, I don't know if they still are in business. This could just be some artifacts left on the web from sites that haven't been updated referring to them. If you do a search for Godfathers in Bellevue, you get a bunch of results. However, I know for a fact that C, D, and I are all closed down. If you click on the name, you can find the websites that include that address. It seems like the websites are just out of date (mostly the SuperPages).

      Andrew

    17. Re:Search. by Baggio · · Score: 1

      Maybe not perfect results (still beta of course), but MSN search is adding this too, and I'm sure to what Gates was refering. http://toolbar.search.msn.com/results.aspx?near=24 &q=pizza&FORM=NMRE
      This result is for Seattle, WA because my "Near Me" setting would have given me differnt results than someone who lives elsewhere.

      --
      Time flies like an arrow;
      Fruit flies like a bananna
    18. Re:Search. by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      at the rate they're hiring someone is going to get laid by google sooner or later!

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    19. Re:Search. by GPB · · Score: 1

      Perfect.

      -B

  21. Anything like this by JohnHegarty · · Score: 5, Funny

    Worlds largest blue screen of death here

    1. Re:Anything like this by rob_squared · · Score: 1

      The best time was when my local TV station had a blue screen around christmas. It was all automated, and nobody works there on the holiday weekend, so for THREE FUCKING DAYS when I came to channel 10, there it was.

      --
      I don't get it.
  22. I have it by hppacito · · Score: 0

    its kinda funny, the other guy does a good job removing the over-screen proyector (or whatever it is), while trie to find where to hide himself. He probaly is also trying to remember if he has got morining's newspaper to start looking for a new job... :-)

  23. So whats Gates? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So does this make Gates a fascist capitalist pig?

  24. Welcome to the revolution! by thewiz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I, for one, welcome our new copyleft communist masters (and logo).

    [rant]
    Seriously, Bill Gate and Co. continue to try and paint anyone who doesn't agree with their stance on IP as un-American. Who died and made him J. Edgar Hoover, Jr.?

    America was NOT founded on the principles of IP but on freedom of choice (religious and otherwise) and the idea that everyone is supposed to contribute to the public good. The recent push to IP, patent, and copyright every little "innovation" (think one-click)is what is hurting our ability to produce something new and better without having to wade through a morass of legalities.

    I will continue to support copyleft, OSS, and any other program that contributes to the dissemination of knowledge and ideas.
    [/rant]

    --
    If "disco" means "I learn" in Latin, does "discothèque" mean "I learn technology"?
    1. Re:Welcome to the revolution! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "America was NOT founded on the principles of IP but on freedom of choice (religious and otherwise) and the idea that everyone is supposed to contribute to the public good. "

      NOT

      Rather, America was founded on the idea that each person could retain control over what they had created/built/earned/believed without someone "more deserving" taking that control away from them.

      People chose to contribute to the common effort because they believed in it, not because they had to.

    2. Re:Welcome to the revolution! by Ironsides · · Score: 1

      Hes not calling them un-american yet. Just communist. There is a difference in wording here.

      --
      Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
    3. Re:Welcome to the revolution! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Invention has always been about taking what others have done and pushing it to the next level. Isolated, unique, and innovative invention hasn't occured for a long long time. To get that click, did microsoft reinvent all programming languages? Did they build all their own computers and parts. Did they rediscover the associated math, numbers, languages. Of course not. They took what others had accomplished and pushed forward with their own ideas. Thus "Stealing" their intellectual property.

    4. Re:Welcome to the revolution! by Garwulf · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Rather, America was founded on the idea that each person could retain control over what they had created/built/earned/believed without someone "more deserving" taking that control away from them.

      People chose to contribute to the common effort because they believed in it, not because they had to."

      Very well said.

      One of the things that constantly bugs me are the extremists. I'm an author - intellectual rights are very important to me, as a large part of my living right now depends on how they are used in regards to my work. Quite frankly, if I spend a year and a half writing a book, that book is mine, to do with as I please. That's the letter and spirit of the law.

      But then you have the extremists on both sides, who abuse the spirit and/or letter of intellectual property law. Companies like Microsoft use it as a weapon to stifle others from innovating, essentially by trying to take their ideas away from them and claim them as their own. The extremists on the other side react by wanting to strip away intellectual property rights entirely, and make any new creation into part of the public domain.

      When you think about it, both are theft. To use the chair example, the first group of extremists come to you after you've made a chair and demand that you give it to them and not make any more because they made it first. The second group of extremists come to you after you've made a chair and demand that you give it to them so that it can be contributed to the public good. Neither is terribly respectful to the person who made the chair in the first place, and who should be allowed to sell it if they want, give it away if they want, or just sit in it if they want.

      --
      Robert B. Marks
      Author, Demonsbane in Diablo Archive
    5. Re:Welcome to the revolution! by WhatAmIDoingHere · · Score: 1

      America was founded because some wig wearing guys back a few hundred years ago didn't want to pay high taxes on a hot beverage.

      America was originally settled by people escaping religious persecution, if that's what you mean.. but if you really look in on it, the founding fathers were pissed about their taxes and wanted local control.

      --
      Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
    6. Re:Welcome to the revolution! by elecngnr · · Score: 1

      Actually, no one died. What happened was that MS, through a hostile takeover, now own J. Edgar Hoover, Jr. and Bill has co-opted his personna.

      Seriouly though. This whole episode is way too easy to make a joke about. Gee Bill, now you too have had the typical windows experience. It would be so much easier if they did not try to copy the innovations of other companies and simply fixed their broken software.

      --
      Having done so much with so little for so long, I now can do anything with nothing at all.
    7. Re:Welcome to the revolution! by Kiryat+Malachi · · Score: 1

      Actually, people who want work to be in the public domain upon publication are closer to people who say "Look, you made a chair. As long as you keep that chair to yourself, no one else can use that chair. But if you ever let someone sit in that chair, the chair becomes theirs as well, and they can sit in it whenever they want to; further, they can share the chair with someone else and let them sit in it, and then that other person owns the chair too, and so on, and on."

      It's still somewhat disrespectful, but most anti-IP types aren't trying to force you to share - they're saying if you do share, you have no further control of what is done with it. Subtle difference, but difference nonetheless.

      --

      ---
      Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
      (I read with sigs off.)
    8. Re:Welcome to the revolution! by revscat · · Score: 1

      America was founded because some wig wearing guys back a few hundred years ago didn't want to pay high taxes on a hot beverage.

      The rallying cry was "no taxation without representation", not "no taxation." The notion that "taxes are theft" has been introduced by the libertarians, and wasn't something the Founders ever considered.

      It's unclear if that is what you're talking about, so my apologies if that's not what you meant.

    9. Re:Welcome to the revolution! by WhatAmIDoingHere · · Score: 1

      Yes, we're all aware of the reductionist chant.. And if you go back and read what I said, and instead of clicking on "Reply To This" right away, try to understand what you've read.

      I said they did not want to pay high taxes.

      And who said "Taxes are theft"?

      --
      Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
    10. Re:Welcome to the revolution! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      America was founded because some wig wearing guys back a few hundred years ago didn't want to pay high taxes on a hot beverage.

      They didn't want to pay *any* taxes. The British government dropped most of them when opposition became too noisy. Remember Americans: You like to go on about King George and tyranny, but Britain was a democracy ruled by parliament -- the English civil war settled that a hundred or so years before -- *not* George.

    11. Re:Welcome to the revolution! by justins · · Score: 1
      Who died and made him J. Edgar Hoover, Jr.?

      Victoria's Secret?
      --
      Now before I get modded down, I be to remind whoever might read this that what I am saying is FACT. - bogaboga
    12. Re:Welcome to the revolution! by sheck · · Score: 1
      America was NOT founded on the principles of IP but on freedom of choice (religious and otherwise) and the idea that everyone is supposed to contribute to the public good.

      Is that so? I couldn't find anything to that effect when I looked at the U.S. Constitution. I did manage to find Section 8, Clause 8, though:
      [The Congress shall have Power] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;


    13. Re:Welcome to the revolution! by mOdQuArK! · · Score: 1

      What does your chair example have to do with "intellectual property"?

    14. Re:Welcome to the revolution! by burnin1965 · · Score: 1

      Actually it would be more like this:

      The IP extremists upon discovering that you made a chair would bring a posse to your door step, kick in the door, take the chair you made and all your tools for making chairs. They would then follow up by suing you to ensure you do not have the capital to buy more tools and build anymore chairs. They would then coerce the state to charge you with criminal activity and have to sentenced to a nice jail term. In the mean time the "original" chair maker will become wealthy and powerful as they have monopoly control over the chair market.

      The public domain extremist would see that you had made a chair and then demand that you share your knowledge of making chairs so he too can make a chair. He will then share this knowledge with others who will make chairs too. You get to keep your chair and the ability to make more chairs but it will definitely limit you ability to become a chair monopoly with all these other people making chairs.

      Neither extremist is right but the IP extremist will take much more from you than the public domain extremist.

      Of course the flaw in both our arguements is that we are discussing a creation which is very difficult and expensive to reproduce. The "IP" which you produce and Gates wants to defend requires a very different mind set for discussion since the initial production is difficult but afterwards is very easy and inexpensive to reproduce. So I understand where you are headed with your arguement, I just think "IP" should be discussed as "IP" not as chairs.

      burnin

    15. Re:Welcome to the revolution! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah, because being communist is sooooooo american.

    16. Re:Welcome to the revolution! by Boronx · · Score: 1

      As an author, how long do you believe you should be able to retain rights to your work?

    17. Re:Welcome to the revolution! by spectecjr · · Score: 1

      Of course the flaw in both our arguements is that we are discussing a creation which is very difficult and expensive to reproduce

      The biggest flaw is not that - it's that you're talking about patents, and he's talking about copyrights. Your example ONLY holds for patent law - it has no equivalent under copyright law.

      --
      Coming soon - pyrogyra
    18. Re:Welcome to the revolution! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, Just look at hollywood and how many of them supported the USSR (Hint, Almost All)

    19. Re:Welcome to the revolution! by fbg111 · · Score: 1

      and the idea that everyone is supposed to contribute to the public good.

      No it wasn't. It was founded on the belief that everyone has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of [their own] happiness. There's nothing about "public good" in there anywhere.

      --
      Flying is easy, just throw yourself at the ground and miss. -Douglas Adams
    20. Re:Welcome to the revolution! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quite frankly, if I spend a year and a half writing a book, that book is mine, to do with as I please.

      Well yes, but when you go on to make copies and sell them to people, those copies are theirs to do with as they please, so long as they don't break copyright law.

      Don't fall into the trap of thinking that the ideas you put onto paper are your sole property. They are not. The government merely let you have a temporary monopoly on duplicating them.

      When you think about it, both are theft.

      Anybody continuing to make this argument on Slashdot is either a complete and utter moron, or deliberately trying to wind people up.

      The second group of extremists come to you after you've made a chair and demand that you give it to them so that it can be contributed to the public good.

      A chair is physical property. Copyright is a temporary privelege. They are two utterly unrelated concepts, and when you equate them, you confuse the argument and yourself. When somebody advocates abolishing copyright, nobody is taking property away from you.

      Neither is terribly respectful to the person who made the chair in the first place, and who should be allowed to sell it if they want, give it away if they want, or just sit in it if they want.

      Without copyright, you are still free to make, sell and use original works. You are using a false analogy.

    21. Re:Welcome to the revolution! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quite frankly, if I spend a year and a half writing a book, that book is mine, to do with as I please. That's the letter and spirit of the law.

      Right, but once you give *me* a *copy* of your book, there are just some things you're not going to be able to control.

      I'm going to let my friends read it. I'm going to scribble notes in the margins. I might subconciously take the concepts and write about them in *my* books. I might quote parts of it (hopefully with proper attribution).

      So *your* copy is yours to do with as you please. And so is *my* copy. The law will notice if I start doing certain things with my copy though. We can argue about which things the law should get involved with.

      And nobody cares if you need this to earn a living, except YOU. If the number of authors was reduced by 75% I bet I wouldn't even notice. That's the sad truth about your job (and mine too, honestly).

      And I don't understand what "chairs" have to do with books.

      If something happens to your book that you don't like, please, just keep it to yourself.

    22. Re:Welcome to the revolution! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You will find that many slashbots will disagree that you own the rights to do what you want with your IP. It is quite amazing really. They will claim that since the *bought* a copy - it is somehow "theirs" to do with as they please, including duplicating and redistibuting. They are of course wrong.

    23. Re:Welcome to the revolution! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The public domain extremist would see that you had made a chair and then demand that you share your knowledge of making chairs so he too can make a chair.

      That's almost entirely the opposite of the truth. It's the pro-patent people who demand you share your knowledge - you can't apply for a patent without doing so.

      Pro-public domain doesn't require that you publish all your original work, merely that once published, you have no right to stop people from copying it. It's not an idea without merit - once I own something, what gives you the right to come into my house and tell me what I can and can't do with it?

    24. Re:Welcome to the revolution! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is quite amazing really. They will claim that since the *bought* a copy - it is somehow "theirs" to do with as they please

      What an odd concept. Buying something and then expecting to own it.

    25. Re:Welcome to the revolution! by funk_doc · · Score: 1

      Hey dickwad,
      It WAS founded with the principles of choice as well as IP. Taken from Article 1 of the US Constitution:

      To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

      No where does it say anthing about the "Public Good"
      I'm sorry your government schools didn't teach you anything about the constitution.

    26. Re:Welcome to the revolution! by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      You know, what? You're BOTH right!

      "America was NOT founded on the principles of IP but on freedom of choice (religious and otherwise) and the idea that everyone is supposed to contribute to the public good. "

      ...is correct because although the founding fathers belived in personal property, they didn't believe that information was property. They did not give writers and inventers (et. al) full control over their creations; they just gave them limited, temporary control solely as an incentive to create.

      Rather, America was founded on the idea that each person could retain control over what they had created/built/earned/believed without someone "more deserving" taking that control away from them.

      ...is correct too, and the most important reason I have for supporting Free Software (not merely Open Source): I believe that I should maintain control over my own computer and the information on it, and am therefore opposed to Microsoft et. al. who are trying to take that control away from me. I contribute to Free Software because I believe in it, and because I'm trying to defend my computer from those who wish to steal [control of] it away from me!

      The real irony of this is that either way, Microsoft is the one who's being anti-American!

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    27. Re:Welcome to the revolution! by Garwulf · · Score: 1

      I'm satisfied with what's provided by the Berne convention.

      --
      Robert B. Marks
      Author, Demonsbane in Diablo Archive
    28. Re:Welcome to the revolution! by ibi · · Score: 1

      That's a red herring. To a first approximation NO ONE worth reading is arguing that you shouldn't have *any* property rights.

      Read a bit by serious people - the argument is about the balance between property rights and other rights. For instance, what's the optimal term for a copyright? What should constitute fair use? Should living organisms be subject to patent law? Should humans? (Okay that one is a bit outside the norm now, but give it a few.) Should software be patentenable? What should constitute a novel and non-obvious invention?

      There's lots of room here for interesting discussions without throwing around nonsense like claiming that anyone serious is proposing the entry of "any new creation into part of the public domain"

    29. Re:Welcome to the revolution! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      The second group of extremists come to you after you've made a chair and demand that you give it to them so that it can be contributed to the public good.

      No, they just want the right to make chairs for themselves. And if you'd told them you could design a new improved chair, they might well have hired you to design it.

  25. Unusual by papasui · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I find it pretty unusual that both cases caused the machine to stop responding completely. That hasn't happened to me since Windows 98/Me. 2000 and XP have generally been pretty stable theirselves. Individual programs still crash, but they don't usually take the system down with them. I wonder if there was some bad ram or other hardware failure as part of the cause. Still funny and I'm sure embarrassing all the same. :)

    1. Re:Unusual by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 1

      It's quite easy to take 2000 and XP down... the system doesn't even have to crash, just go into a loop allocating memory or something - it's still power-button time (since the 3-finger salute doesn't work in those situations).

      Bluescreening is harder, but there are more fun things like nuking lsass by passing wrong parameters to the security APIs (I do this deliberately sometimes, 'cos I'm strange like that...)

    2. Re:Unusual by kulpinator · · Score: 1

      From what I could tell, one time the problem was that Gates had the wrong remote (he said this himself, and the demo worked fine when Shawn came on). So it was bad planning and execution, not necessarily bad hardware or software.

      If we're talking about the same thing, that is.

      Still embarrassing, yes, although Gates must be used to this by now.

      --
      Karma: Positive (mostly due to rash moderations)
  26. Minute 7 by kngthdn · · Score: 4, Informative

    If the video still works, Conan O'Brian does some hilarious stand-up badmouthing Gates at minute 7. Skip the garbage before that.

    1. Re:Minute 7 by Phisbut · · Score: 2, Informative

      It'd also be nice to know exactly when in the video are those freezes and bsod... I don't feel like watching an 80 minutes pro-Microsoft video just to see that...

      --
      After 3 days without programming, life becomes meaningless
      - The Tao of Programming
    2. Re:Minute 7 by kngthdn · · Score: 3, Informative

      Minute 26...

      O'Brien: And right now 9 people are being fired.
      Gates: hahahahaha
      O'Brien: Digital fired...wireless...there's no connection. That's the beauty of it. You don't need a firewall or...I don't know what I'm talking about.
      Gates: Okay.
      O'Brien: I'm a monkey. Alright we'll get this going I think. should we start? you ready to go? Okay, the first photo here is you picking me up at the airport. But that was...are we seeing these at all?
      Gates: No, I don't think we are...
      O'Brien: No? I don't think we are.
      Gates: That's the problem when you have the wrong remote control. It's a good thing you only have one through.
      O'Brien (looking baffled): Yeah...that's good. Well, is anyone going to do anything or should we just move on? Did I mention there's gambling in this town, Las Vegas? Feel free to hit the tables. You can come back when we get this thing working!

      This is followed by much laughter and Bill quickly changing the subject. Ah, the wonders of only having *one* remote....

  27. Your parents told you... by Transcendent · · Score: 5, Insightful

    he described anyone who doesn't support ever-increasing intellectual property laws as "communists".

    But... doesn't sharing mean caring? At least that's what my parents always said.

    In all seriousness, there's nothing wrong with a communial society, it's just really really hard to pull off because of human nature.

    1. Re:Your parents told you... by Anonymous+Custard · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Communal societies work if they're voluntary. But you can't force someone to participate. It's the difference bewteen someone giving something away and someone forcefully taking something away.

    2. Re:Your parents told you... by Sophrosyne · · Score: 1

      The same is true for capitalism and democracy-- the two don't go very well together, which is one reason America has the electoral college... the founding fathers weren't really excited by the idea of rule by the poor-- interestingly enough China seems to be doing really with their "social-democracy" and capitalism- exploiting people and the environment like the good ole days... that's the key to capitalism.

    3. Re:Your parents told you... by SilentChris · · Score: 1

      "there's nothing wrong with a communial society"

      There's one huge thing wrong: people aren't rewarded by the amount/quality of work they produce. A doctor in a communist society gets paid the same amount as a janitor. Where is the incentive to learn new skills? Why bother if you're going to get the same money anyway?

      Human (and basic biological) nature IS capitalistic. We kill other beings to eat, survival of the fittest and all. Communism goes against basic nature.

    4. Re:Your parents told you... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
      The natural state of affairs is anarchy. From anarchy springs order. As an aside, one can note that order is just anarchy left alone for a while.

      The natural state of affairs for intellectual property is that it is worthless. If caveman A invents a bow and arrow, caveman B is free to make their own copy without worrying about patent infringement. However, caveman A still invents the bow and arrow because he's tired of running after rabbits and hitting them on the head with a club. It's much easier to shoot from a distance.

      If caveman A tells a funny story to caveman B, then caveman B can retell the same story to caveman C, even if caveman A has scrawled it in picture form all over the cave wall. Caveman B is free to copy those pictures onto his cave wall if he likes them, or onto animal skins and sell them for meat, or sex.

      If caveman B follows 2 steps behind caveman A and annoyingly repeats everything caveman A says, then caveman A is free to punch caveman B in the face. But as long as caveman B keeps out of caveman A's face, they should get along.

      Intellectual property is a totally artificial idea. Any increase in protection for it is a move away from the natural state of affairs. Public perception will decide if this concept grows or dies back. Does protection for intellectual property benefit you?

      If, like 99% of us, you don't have any intellectual property then that is a powerful reason to cease protection for it. The only reason to protect it is if that protection provides benefit to the 99% who do not own any. The reasoning behind it is that protection of intellectual property creates incentives to create more intellectual property, and that those incentives outweigh the negative effect on the creation and dissemination of ideas that intellectual property protection entails. Do we have more and better new things and art with intellectual property protection than we would without those restrictions? This has never been tested. Great literature in the public domain is still in print. You can buy the works of Shakespeare, even though his estate doesn't see a dime. Light bulbs are still manufactured even though Edison's estate doesn't see a dime.

      And drug companies mostly take drugs that have been discovered by NIH funded studies and tweak them ever so slightly so as not to alter their function but make them sufficiently different from the public domain chemical to be patentable. The term for this is: Me Too Drug. Then sales-babes give free samples to doctors until they are very comfortable/used to prescribing them and they and their patients are nice and hooked, then they charge through the nose. Sounds like the practices of the street pusher to me.

      People act like IP is the norm. It's not. Art for art's sake is generally better than art for dollar's sake, and neccessity should be the mother of invention - not a need to game the system or come up with a new marketing gimmick.

    5. Re:Your parents told you... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      There's one huge thing wrong: people aren't rewarded by the amount/quality of work they produce. A doctor in a communist society gets paid the same amount as a janitor. Where is the incentive to learn new skills? Why bother if you're going to get the same money anyway?

      Maybe because some people don't want to be janitors? There's more to work than just the paycheck. Given the choice between being some schlub mopping up vomit and crunchin' code, I think most people on this forum would choose the latter, even if they got the same salary as the aforementioned schlub.

      Human (and basic biological) nature IS capitalistic. We kill other beings to eat, survival of the fittest and all. Communism goes against basic nature.

      Tell that to Mom and Dad, who selflessly gave of themselves during your youth. Whilst the natural way is in some ways "capitalism", our basic nature also has a goodly component of "communism". Whilst I don't think communistic societies -especially on a large scale- can work, to argue that it's against "basic nature" is not a tautology I necessarily agree with.

    6. Re:Your parents told you... by drxray · · Score: 0

      Maybe you'd want to become a doctor to heal the sick? Most people who are doctors now are highly intelligent and dedicated; they could probably have gone into higher paying employment (and avoided medical school) if they tried. And, by the way, even if you don't have any altruistic impulses, those sick people could include you or your family. I think your point is valid to an extent, in that there are some genuinely awful and dangerous jobs that someone has to do, like mining. But I suggest that everyone could be paid the same and people with undesirable jobs could simply work fewer days per week.

      --
      Slashdot - Mutual Assured Discussion
    7. Re:Your parents told you... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      There's one huge thing wrong: people aren't rewarded by the amount/quality of work they produce. A doctor in a communist society gets paid the same amount as a janitor. Where is the incentive to learn new skills? Why bother if you're going to get the same money anyway?

      Boredom? I could've gone into accounting or any number of other fields rather than computer science, but I have a love of computers. Some people love numbers and accounting so they become accountants. Others are just unskilled and become janitors.

    8. Re:Your parents told you... by Sheepdot · · Score: 1
      In all seriousness, there's nothing wrong with a communial society, it's just really really hard to pull off because of human nature.

      Oh great, one of *these* people.

      Yes, it is so horrible that "human nature" includes such things as a mother wanting to care for her child and the idea of "owning" something.

      A quote from the Communist Manifesto: Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty.

      Damn me if I don't see my mother raising me as any more exploitation than the fact I was raised in a public school to champion the "government educational system". What a crock.

      The problem with communism isn't just human nature, it's biggest problem is that it isn't scalable. As it gets bigger, and those on the fringes are more and more vehement, there is no alernative for communism other than to eliminate them.

      I'd be on the fringes talking about how great it was when we had private property and didn't have to petition a government to simply eat.

    9. Re:Your parents told you... by mink · · Score: 1

      Some people no matter the pay don't want to be janitors and instead want to be doctors.
      I could be happy all day long fixing things (electrical, mechanical, software) and honestly, it does not pay well to be able to repair stuff in this society. However nothing makes me happier then to have fixed a broken thing. That feeling of contentment and accomplishment is worth more then the pay to me.
      Remember that in a community you put in what you are able and take what you need.

      --
      Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
    10. Re:Your parents told you... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd say it's yet to be done. Nobody has pulled off communisim yet they always seem to get stuck at despotism. If you want to get some idea about what communisim is in practice one of the best books I have read so far on the Russian flavor of communisim is "A People's Tragedy: The Russian Revolution : 1891-1924". Long and short of it was that communisim was used by some power hungary people to manipulate various discontented groups of people that were festering in Russia at the time. The party whipped the folks into a frenzy promising the world: freedom, equality, food (you don't know grinding poverty like they had in the U.S.), whatever they had to say or do to get the czar overthrown was done. Now I'm not defending the Russian monarchy at all, they were responsible for putting all the parts in place that allowed the Communists to come to power.

      Sad thing for the Russian people was that once in power, the Communists turned out to be as brutal as the old monarchy was. The promised freedoms never materialized and the people swapped one god awful regime for another. Communism seems to degenerate into despotic regimes everywhere it's been tried and it's the people who suffer in the end.

      Bill Gates is trying to protect his interests here and since he is the founder of the company -it is his life's work remember- he may really see free software people as being out to destroy him and want to label them "communists", which is in many minds a slur.

    11. Re:Your parents told you... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Paging Oog, the communist open-source caveman!

    12. Re:Your parents told you... by Remlik · · Score: 1

      Correct, the will to better one's self and environment is very strong in humans.

      In a "communal" environment the incentive to do better is removed because you do not get to keep the fruits of your labor, thus eventually people only do enough to get by. At that point soicalism fails and communisim starts.

      The leaders then have to build walls to keep people in and kill others to keep them from speaking out against the norm.

      --
      Apple free since 1990!
    13. Re:Your parents told you... by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1
      "Where is the incentive to learn new skills? Why bother if you're going to get the same money anyway?"

      This is why you learn skills? To make money? If that is our only motivation, we are doomed.

      "Human (and basic biological) nature IS capitalistic. We kill other beings to eat, survival of the fittest and all. Communism goes against basic nature.

      You are confusing capitalism with competition. Yes, nature is competitive, but it is not capitalistic. Nature has no concept of property rights or ownership. These are human constructs. Nature, on the whole, is actually more communistic, as it relies on many different parts working together to preserve the whole.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    14. Re:Your parents told you... by DrSkwid · · Score: 1

      Your interpretation of "survival of the fittest" falls in to the classic mis-interpretation of "fittest" relating to physical fitness.

      "Fitness" in Darwinian evolutionary theory means "most fit for a particular ecological niche", thus altruistic behavior can fit a particular niche. If it was purely "only the strong survive" then there would only be strong individuals left after the millions of years of evolutionary pressure.

      That group/troupe living has flourished amongst so many animal species is proof alone that a selfish existence is a quick road to non-survival.

      Humans often like to think themselves as the most successful animal yet they are not the most successful by the criteria of numbers or biomass.

      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    15. Re:Your parents told you... by SilentChris · · Score: 1

      ""Where is the incentive to learn new skills? Why bother if you're going to get the same money anyway?"
      This is why you learn skills? To make money? If that is our only motivation, we are doomed."

      Let me rephrase that: Where is the incentive FOR MOST PEOPLE to learn new skills? Your average white trash living in a trailer home doesn't give a lick about advancing society or mankind at work -- he goes, gets his paycheck and comes home. There are a LOT of these people (I would venture to say many more than the people who actually "care").

    16. Re:Your parents told you... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You need to remember the climate that Communist Manifesto was written in. Child labour was rife, exploitation of children. This has nothing to do with a mother wanting to care for her child.

      The problem is indeed the human nature of greed / desire to always be right. You contradict yourself by going on to say those on the fringes desire to eliminate those who don't agree with them. This IS human nature.

    17. Re:Your parents told you... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't get a paycheck and go home. You work. We end up having the cleanest ditches in the world.

    18. Re:Your parents told you... by ahodgson · · Score: 1

      Humans often like to think themselves as the most successful animal yet they are not the most successful by the criteria of numbers or biomass.

      Yeah, I believe that distinction goes to ants. Who are highly cooperative, within family/clan groupings. Much like humans, actually, before the advent of agriculture.

    19. Re:Your parents told you... by drsquare · · Score: 1

      The natural state of affairs for intellectual property is that it is worthless. If caveman A invents a bow and arrow, caveman B is free to make their own copy without worrying about patent infringement. However, caveman A still invents the bow and arrow because he's tired of running after rabbits and hitting them on the head with a club. It's much easier to shoot from a distance.

      However this is a lot different to the current state of affairs. Caveman A uses his bow and arrow to get his food. Even if every other caveman is using his invention, he can still kill rabbits and use them to feed himself.

      But if a software developer writes a program, it might solve a problem, but if everyone else rips it off rather than paying him for it, how does he feed himself? He can't use the software to acquire food, or money to pay his bills/mortgage/credit card payments, unless people pay him for his software.

      We don't live in the Stone Age anymore, people generally survive by exchanging work for money, which they then use to pay for things.

    20. Re:Your parents told you... by damiam · · Score: 1
      A doctor in a communist society gets paid the same amount as a janitor.

      And teachers and farmers in a capitalist society makes less than PHBs or stock speculators. Where is the incentive to do useful work?

      --
      It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
    21. Re:Your parents told you... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Again.

      "Your average white trash living in a trailer home" is a cliche. It is not a real thing. It is not a real person. Argue to your experience not things that you make up. If you lived in a trailer park you would have hopes and dreams as well as everyone. You know this to be true.

    22. Re:Your parents told you... by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 1

      That's like saying there's nothing wrong with murdering people, it's just really hard to pull off without killing them. If A implies B, and B is bad, then A is probably bad too, regardless of the existence of fantasies in which A is true and B is false.

      --
      Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
    23. Re:Your parents told you... by Leo+McGarry · · Score: 1

      I'm baffled, positively baffled, by the number of people posting here who don't know the difference between giving and taking.

      Sharing: giving.

      Communism: taking.

      See? It's fine to give something that you have to someone else. But it's not okay to take something from someone else. Therein lies the distinction.

      BSD license: giving.

      GPL license: taking.

      See the difference?

    24. Re:Your parents told you... by Transcendent · · Score: 1

      You totally, horribly missed the point. Your attempt at an analogy is wrong because of inconsistency. In end of the sentence (it's just hard to pull off without killing...); you are stating that A is difficult because not A is your goal, while I state that A is difficult because of B.

      If A implies B, and B is bad, then A is probably bad too

      That is a fallacy (variation of Affirming the Consequent). You state (if F == Bad):

      If A is F, then B is F
      B is F
      ----
      A is F

      But that is not my argument. My structure is as follows:

      A is not F
      B is F
      If A and B, C is F
      C is F
      ------
      A is F (which is the fallacy most people fall to... they think communism itself is bad).

      To spell it out:

      Communal systems are not bad.
      Human nature is bad.
      Human nature corrupts communal systems (C, which is bad).
      ----
      People observe communism as being bad (and of course, that is fallacious).

      You overgeneralized with A implies B, B is bad, etc... You missed the fact that A has two subsets in which one is bad and another is not (A + B = C... or your A).

      The theory of communism is fine, it's just that monarchies take over, corrupt it, and exploit the people within that country.

    25. Re:Your parents told you... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You falsely assume that communism is soley taking. A true communal society would be mostly giving, in which those who cannot give because of certian extreme circumstances, must only take.

    26. Re:Your parents told you... by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 1
      GPL license: taking.

      Huh? Whaaaa? You mean there is that GPL NKVD/KGB crew in black leather trenchcoats running around in black Volga cars with tinted windows who will whisk you away to some Gulag if you do not, and I mean now!, give up all your code to for the good of the State? Am I missing something here or are you off the deep end along with Mr.Gates? Say hello to the pink dancing elephants for me then.

      Just in case you lapse back onto the mundane planet Earth: GPL is applied to code you chose voluntarily to insert into GPL licensed project. You can just as well insert your contribution into a BSD, Apache, Public-domain or any other project. But BSD on the other hand allows you to take all of the project's code and close it and incorporate it into a commecrial product and then charge for it. So in your little chart it is: BSD allows taking; GPL: ensures sharing....

    27. Re:Your parents told you... by Leo+McGarry · · Score: 1

      "Mostly" giving? Sorry, friend, but the seizure of private property for redistribution by the state is wrong whether it's a little or a lot.

    28. Re:Your parents told you... by Leo+McGarry · · Score: 1

      That was very funny the way you made your joke about pink dancing elephants. It did not, however, contribute in any meaningful way to a grown-up discussion of the issues. Maybe next time you could take a stab at being both funny and relevant at the same time, huh?

      Yes, BSD, as you put it, "allows taking." That's part of a really bizarre and counter-intuitive system that we call "freedom." It's a neat idea. Maybe you could google it or something to familiarize yourself with the basic premise. The GPL, on the other hand, takes the normal property rights that people would enjoy from creating new works based on old ones. It preemptively abolishes those rights ...or rather it tries to. If such a thing were ever to go before a court of law, it would be immediately struck down. Strangely, though, nobody's yet tested it. Probably because people who choose to be monomaniacal dicks and require anybody who looks at their work to agree in advance to a massive and summary abdication of their unalienable rights are best left to their own devices anyway. Who needs 'em.

    29. Re:Your parents told you... by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 1
      The GPL, on the other hand, takes the normal property rights that people would enjoy from creating new works based on old ones. It preemptively abolishes those rights ...or rather it tries to

      You are trying, desperately, and failing to create an impression that GPL somehow obliges you to contribute. Ignoring completely the fact that contribution is a voluntary chocie. But I fully understand your real view, perverted and deseased as it is: you object to the fact that GPL prevents you from stealing community work and using it for your exclusive profit. I know it must hurt. Your "unalienable right" to profit from other people's work is being violated. And I have only this to say to your selfish, greedy, narcistic self: tough luck asshole, go find youself some other victim, GPLed projects can defend themselves from the likes of you.

    30. Re:Your parents told you... by Leo+McGarry · · Score: 1

      The purpose of the Gnu Public License is to perpetuate itself. That is, it's to require people who create derivative works to license those works under the Gnu Public License. If you create a derivative work, you have zero choice about whether to release it into the public domain or not. You aren't even given the option. You are required to release it under the Gnu Public License.

      Let's say I decide I want to write some software. Say I want my software to perform some function --it doesn't matter what, for purposes of discussion. Let's say that somebody's already written a module that performs that function, and rather than taking the time to write it myself, I decide I want to just incorporate that module into my program.

      I then decide that I want to be altruistic and put my program in the public domain for anybody to use. Oh, wait! I can't! Because the module I used -- which, I was assured, was freely available for my use at no cost to me --was released under the Gnu Public License, I am prohibited from releasing my work into the public domain. My only choice is to perpetuate the Gnu license, possibly trapping some other poor sucker at some future date in the process. Well, okay, that's not technically the only option. I guess I could just rip out all the stuff I got under the Gnu license and re-write it from scratch ...or could I? I've already seen the Gnu code. Any implementation that I create that uses the same basic algorithms or ideas would also, necessarily, be covered under the Gnu license. So that means I'm forced to clean-room the whole module, finding somebody who's never seen the Gnu code to write it for me from scratch!

      Or, of course, I could do what any reasonable person would do under those circumstances: Scrap the whole project, write off the wasted time and count myself wiser for having learned my lesson.

      I have to say, your use of language is frankly frightening. You refer to "stealing community work." How can it be stolen? It's community property, available to all. That's the purpose of the public domain. Everybody has equal property rights over works that are in the public domain. By definition, they can't be stolen.

      But you use language in order to create an "us versus them" mentality. Your position is extremely antagonistic. Why is that? Do you really see the world in terms of "us and them" or does framing it in those terms just suit you for other reasons?

      Friend, "us versus them" is a fallacy. It's a big lie perpetrated on you by people who seek to manipulate you into doing what they want you to do. There is no "us and them." There's only us. We're all in this together.

      I wish more people understood that.

    31. Re:Your parents told you... by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 1
      If you create a derivative work, you have zero choice about whether to release it into the public domain or not. You aren't even given the option.

      Good grief man, yes you were given the option of contributing to some other non-GPL licensed project. The moment the Gestapo shows up and makes all other licenses illegal, you will be right. Until then, go forth and contribute to X11, Apache, BSD, Public domain, Microsft Shared Source or what have you.

      Say I want my software to perform some function --it doesn't matter what, for purposes of discussion. Let's say that somebody's already written a module that performs that function, and rather than taking the time to write it myself, I decide I want to just incorporate that module into my program.

      So far so good. So you look at the program and .. Oops! It is GPL licensed. "I disagree with this on phillosophical grounds" you say to yourself and go find a BSD licensed project. Next.

      So that means I'm forced to clean-room the whole module, finding somebody who's never seen the Gnu code to write it for me from scratch!

      This applies to nearly all licences, although some of them will hound you down for "attribution and advertising" clauses only while some others (such as Microsoft Shared Source) will have your testicles and your first born. Untill the whole system of Intellectual Property is reformed to bring some sanity into it, I am afraid there is no escape from this other then pure Public Domain. But precisely because of easy to abuse nature of public domain, most people are not willing to contribute. In case of GPL we work for the good of the community of like minded people. In case of public domain we do work for large corporations who use our stuff with no compensation and in most cases not even attribution.

      How can it be stolen? It's community property, available to all. That's the purpose of the public domain. Everybody has equal property rights over works that are in the public domain. By definition, they can't be stolen.

      It can if you take it away and lock it away and then proceed to charge people for it. So for example you create a hardware interface that constitutes 0.001% of the project's code, make a deal with some major hardware maker, and now out of a sudden, the public project is being sold back to everyone of its authors because it is now closed source coupled with a piece of hardware they have no way to avoid since it is being pimped by a major maker and becomes ubiquitous in the industry. This is just one example of many possibilites.

      The premise of GPL is "share and share-alike". The only constraint it places on you, if and only if you choose to join the community, is that you add your contributions under a guarantee that you will not renag on them in the future. It even alows you to keep them secret as long as you do not distribute the altered code to others. That is all. The only purpose is to ensure that once shared, something stays shared and public. BSD on the other hand has no such guarantee. So you choose to take part with the understanding of the rules. If you do not, you are free to ignore us all the GPL commies and proceed to join many other alternative communities whose rules are different. More power to you. But no, you choose to try to attack our way by attempting to effectively break in, smash our system and run away with the spoils, even if you do not realize that it is what you are doing.

      There's only us. We're all in this together

      Yes indeed! Why, the very existence of GPL is a response to what some of "us" were doing "together" to do the rest of us "in". You forgive me if I am immediately suspicious of motives if someone assaults the GPL for I have met a great number of those who would "share" our work for their exclusive profit and were thus very irrate upon finding out that we have outmanouvered them.

    32. Re:Your parents told you... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Note that you can't take an idea away from someone, so this is an example of something that is a working communal system by its very nature.

    33. Re:Your parents told you... by rhizome · · Score: 1

      you should peep the asset forfeiture laws sometime. it may be a cure for your form of naivete. wait, is it still redistribution if the property is retained by the government?

      --
      When I was a kid, we only had one Darth.
    34. Re:Your parents told you... by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

      I will agree that making money is a major motivator for most people, myself included. But the idea that a lack of compensation will stifle people's progress is a red herring. People will learn new skills for personal reasons, whether that is to advance society, industry, or just because they want to know how to do something. So it has to be a combination. I hold an MCSE for purely economic reasons. But I learned how to play bass guitar because I wanted to know how to play bass guitar.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    35. Re:Your parents told you... by Anonymous+Custard · · Score: 1

      Note that you can't take an idea away from someone, so this is an example of something that is a working communal system by its very nature.

      Not really...

      You can't steal an intangible idea, but you can leech on the benefits that come from their original idea. And assuming there's not an infinite market, you leeching the benefits means the author loses out on those benefits. So that's why we have patents and copyrights, to encourage people to develop original ideas by assigning legal ownership and exclusive usage rights.

      That's the theory, anyway.

  28. And the lesson is ... by totatis · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So, his media player presentation crashed, and the link to this is ... a .asx.

    Kinda ironic don't you think ?

    1. Re:And the lesson is ... by WhatAmIDoingHere · · Score: 0, Troll

      Ironic:
      characterized by often poignant difference or incongruity between what is expected and what actually is; "madness, an ironic fate for such a clear thinker"; "it was ironical that the well-planned scheme failed so completely"

      A presentation of something not ready for release crashed.. they have the stream in a windows media format.. Did you expect it to be .OGM?

      --
      Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
  29. Dennis Miller called it years ago ... by Titusdot+Groan · · Score: 5, Funny
    "Bill Gates is a Persian cat and a monocle away from being a villain in a James Bond movie."
    -- Dennis Miller
    1. Re:Dennis Miller called it years ago ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      That fool? He's gone down hill since all his best writers left him. Did you know they have to PAY his audience members? He is now the joke.

    2. Re:Dennis Miller called it years ago ... by Titusdot+Groan · · Score: 1
      Yeah, Jon Stewart is the new Dennis Miller.

      Sigh, well almost.

    3. Re:Dennis Miller called it years ago ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you're right. I loved Miller's rants on HBO. Then he got all Republican and self-righteous. I sigh wistfully for the old brilliant show as I skip over CNBC whenever Miller is on, spewing his Coulteresque rhetoric.

      I now turn to Lewis Black for the good rant fix. Though, Black, too, is taming and softening. Must be hard to "get up" the rage and energy on demand at that age.

    4. Re:Dennis Miller called it years ago ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "Bill Gates is a Persian cat and a monocle away from being a villain in a James Bond movie."

      Was that before or after they blended Bill Gates and Rupert Murdoch to produce Elliot Carver in Tomorrow Never Dies?

    5. Re:Dennis Miller called it years ago ... by hdc · · Score: 1

      Actually I think he's diverging a bit. I used to think he's gradually turning in to Mr. Burns. But with this statment, I'm leaning more towards uber eccentric Howard Hughes; sans the charm and personability.

    6. Re:Dennis Miller called it years ago ... by chochos · · Score: 2, Funny

      Or....

      Bill Gates is a bald cat and a pinky-in-mouth away from being dr. evil

  30. Re:fp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ahahahahahahaha!!!! This is the most funniest thing I ever heard him say! Communists indeed... Oh Bill... you so craaaazy!

  31. Personally... by garcia · · Score: 1

    I'd rather be labelled a "communist" by a glorified software salesman than a "terrorist" by our government or a "fascist" by anyone else.

    I'm sorry but I was unaware that "communists" were now the negative buzzword. He should have called them terrorists instead. He'd get a lot more press that way.

    1. Re:Personally... by geoffspear · · Score: 2, Insightful
      But "Communist" is a more accurate description that brings up even more deeply ingrained negative images.

      There are lots of good ideas that have a lot in common with the ideals of socialism and communism. Marx would no doubt be happy with programmers (petty bourgeois though they be) creating wonderful software to share with everyone instead of having their labor exploited by capitalists. This is socialist, and there's nothing inherently wrong with that.

      The trick is that when people hear "Communist" they think "evil, megalomaniacal dictators who couldn't care less about the workers in whose name they're killing anyone who opposes their rule" instead of "people working together for the common good instead of for the profit of the few".

      There may be valid arguments to be made against socialist economics, but it's easier to throw pejorative labels around than to actually try to make those arguments.

      --
      Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
    2. Re:Personally... by RailGunner · · Score: 1
      I would (and have in fact done so previously) that on Open Source Operating System merely creates a level playing field that no one can exploit the way MS can with Windows.

      For example - look at the strides GNOME and KDE have made over the past few years. The progress is amazing, and I doubt it would have been as amazing had they not been in competition with each other.

      Linux is, in my opinion, far more capitalistic then Windows, as it fosters good competition in the application space, providing better and better applications.

    3. Re:Personally... by geoffspear · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Capitalism without capital is just ism.

      Competition isn't capitalism if it's not competition for profits. GNOME and KDE being developed at the same time might benefit both of them, but it's because they're able to cooperate and borrow what works from each other rather than because there's financial pressure to create a better product or lose out on profits.

      Capitalism works best for consumers with a level playing field, but the goal of the individual capitalist is to create an unlevel playing field so he can personally profit. Antitrust legislation exists to protect society from the capitalists, not to maintain a level playing field so capitalism can flourish. In a true laissez faire system, innovation is only necessary until someone can grab a monopoly position and exploit it; Microsoft is a prime example of the ideal capitalist corporation.

      --
      Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
    4. Re:Personally... by spectecjr · · Score: 1

      I would (and have in fact done so previously) that on Open Source Operating System merely creates a level playing field that no one can exploit the way MS can with Windows.

      The problem with level playing fields is that they tend to produce mediocre results.

      Look at ANY school system which has tried the same thing. Or any standard (eg. HTML - where's CSS3.0 again? Why didn't we have a box with edges and corners layout model to being with).

      --
      Coming soon - pyrogyra
    5. Re:Personally... by RailGunner · · Score: 1
      Not always - level playing fields make it fair fo everyone involved. Since no one can exploit the OS, the platform becomes a level playing field, and applications are left to compete for whatever - marketshare, profit, recognition - it doesn't matter, but what does matter is that the competition is what creates better products. Would a Gilette razor be as good or as cheap without Schick, Bic, and the others? Would KDE be as good as it is without competition from GNOME, FluxBox, IceWM, etc? Competition always creates better products. Linux fosters that competition by makeing it fair for all involved.

      HTML is a bad example because there's no competitor. Lack of competition is what causes a product to stagnate, look at Windows. Windows started getting "serious" about security when Linux started kicking it's ass in the server market. American automakers got serious when Japanese imports were kicking their asses in.

      School systems are also a horrible example, becasue they aren't capitalistic at all - there's no choice, and there won't be until vouchers are implemented.

    6. Re:Personally... by Dr_Cornholio · · Score: 1

      Antitrust legislation exists to protect society from the capitalists...

      Well, we all know just how effective the antitrust legislation is at present, don't we? IMHO, I don't think it's worth the paper it passed through the houses on.

      --
      In Soviet Russia, the monkey spanks you!
    7. Re:Personally... by geoffspear · · Score: 1
      That's my point. Microsoft is successful because they've achieved the ideal capitalist position. Not only do they have a monopoly, but they're able to maintain it within a system that's supposed to limit what corporations with monopolies are allowed to do (which, like it or not, is a socialist aspect of the system--government interference with corporations whether they're monoploes or not is the antithesis of laissez faire).

      Although, to be fair, their success in that manner probably isn't their own doing; I don't think Microsoft had much of an impact in either of the last 2 presidential races; they were just lucky enough to get a pro-business administration with no interest in punishing their violations of anti-trust law. But it's hardly the fault of the laws or of the legislators who passed them (who are all long dead) that they're not being enforced. The problem is that the US Government has lost the value of the rule of law, not that the laws that exist aren't effective at restricting monopolies.

      Remember, the AT&T breakup happened during the Reagan administration, where the Justice Dept. was known for pro-free market permissiveness toward anti-trust violations, throwing out a 13-year case against IBM in 1982.

      --
      Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
  32. You may laugh... by east+coast · · Score: 2, Interesting

    he described anyone who doesn't support ever-increasing intellectual property laws as "communists".

    While this is generally laughed at by the slashdot community we still need to consider that Joe Sixpack pretty much sees it the same way. Not that he minds downloading free music and pr0n but ultimatly he does see it as theft.

    And this could really bite at the community in the future. While most people here laugh at Joe Sixpack he's the one who helped Gates build an empire.

    --
    Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    1. Re:You may laugh... by Blitzenn · · Score: 1

      Yea I have to agree with you. I think that there is a lot of potential for Open Source software, includung Linux, to blossom in a number of areas. One of th biggest hurdles is the group of people out there who are going to use the open source software as a set of tools to steal hack crack and such. The manufacturers are going to shake a heavy finger at that and try very hard to paint the entire community with that brush. It is up to us, who use this stuff for legal purposes, to clean our own houses. I don't want these guys cleaning it for me.

    2. Re:You may laugh... by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1
      Not that he minds downloading free music and pr0n but ultimatly he does see it as theft.
      If he is downloading copyrighted works without the owner's permission, it is theft. Alwas was, and always should be. (And please, no nitpicking over the use of the word 'theft' instead of 'copyright infringement'). The very idea that the problem with our current IP laws is that we cannot freely download everything we want, is hurting the community. This is exactly what Bill Gates and his pals want the public to think: that those who seek to reform IP laws only want stuff without having to pay for it.

      The real problem with IP laws, as I see it, are more in the domain of patent law, how that law is applied and enforced, the duration for which IP rights are granted, and fair-use rights. But I see nothing wrong with granting (for a limited time) the rights to charge for creative works to the creator, and denying the rights to leechers to avail themselves of those works without payment.
      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    3. Re:You may laugh... by Maestro4k · · Score: 1
      • While this is generally laughed at by the slashdot community we still need to consider that Joe Sixpack pretty much sees it the same way. Not that he minds downloading free music and pr0n but ultimatly he does see it as theft.
      I think you need to spend more time around some Joe Sixpack users. I spent the better part of two years stuck working in Electronics at Wal-mart (at least I had a job, sucky as it was) and the attitude towards downloading music is anything but "it's theft". Most people found it simpler to buy a CD since they weren't completely comfortable with their computers and/or were worried about evil hackers taking over their computers if they tried file sharing. (This group tends to skew higher in age, 40s+ generally, but there are exceptions.)

      The next group is the "I heard this song I liked and thought I'd see if I could get a copy while I was buying groceries/getting my oil changed/etc." This is the group that the music industry is driving into piracy. These folks are generally younger (teens to 30s), technologically savvy (no problems or worries doing filesharing) and just wanting some music they like. What they generally FIND is an antagonistic retail approach created by the music industry (not Wal-mart, flawed as they may be). The biggest example of this was when Kid Rock did a duet with some female pop star. A LOT of people liked that song, and only that song. Tons of folks came in looking for it. They had two choices, buy a full album, or a CD single of Kid Rock singing the song with a different person. The near universal response? "Fuck it, I'll just go download it."

      The thing is this wasn't said with an attitude of "crap, now I need to go break the law to get this", it was an attitude of "well what I want's on the Internet, I'll get it there." I'd say fewer than 1% even thought about the fact they were openly stating they were going to go commit a crime. This is the same group of people that'll ask you if they can copy their CDs using whatever object they're interested in. They'll ask openly how/where to get free music/movies online (they state it this way, they seem to have no comprehension that it's actually illegally free), ask what software they need to copy CDs/DVDs/etc. Ultimately their only real motivation to stop by to buy the CD was they were already at the store so it was convenient. If the thought had occurred to them elsewhere downloading would likely have been their first choice.

      For completion there's a few more groups. The "buying albums for gifts" and the shoplifters. Those four cover most of the CD shoppers you'll see in your average Wal-mart at least.

    4. Re:You may laugh... by east+coast · · Score: 1

      I'd say fewer than 1% even thought about the fact they were openly stating they were going to go commit a crime.

      Oh? Is this why when the RIAA lawsuits come down I have TONS of users asking if there is any chance they'll be caught? These people KNOW they're stealing. And I do know a lot of Joe Sixpacks and most of their attitude is that they're owed these wares. I doubt any of them would take that attitude into a court room.

      They know it's a crime but they know it's not like they're commiting murder. It's pretty well known that copyright infringement is a crime that is public. If it weren't you wouldn't be able to buy bootlegs from vendors on the street. It's a crime much like speeding; it's winked at for the most part. If they (the RIAA, MPAA or your local traffic cop) wanted to they could have a field day. Users fear this and if you don't think it's true wait until a large number of Kazaa users get taken down and see how the likes of msnbc makes a big deal out of a "decline in Kazaa users". And the truth is it happens. After major busts P2P and BitTorrent suffers for it. Look at suprnova.org. Need I say more?

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    5. Re:You may laugh... by Pofy · · Score: 1

      >If he is downloading copyrighted works without
      >the owner's permission, it is theft. Alwas was,
      >and always should be. (And please, no nitpicking
      >over the use of the word 'theft' instead of
      >'copyright infringement').

      It is not nit picking, it is correcting a very wrong and bad analogy or naming of something. You don't call the police and report a murder when someone steal your car do you? Doesn't matter both are illegal. Using another illegal activity as the name, makes people draw wrong conclusions, they start to use any sort of reasoning on what is theft to automatically be copyright infringement as well for example, which usually ends up bad as it is often trivial to have a situation which would be theft by all reasoning but by the same reasoning would not be copyright infringement. So why NOT use the proper terminology?

      > But I see nothing wrong with granting (for a
      >limited time) the rights to charge for creative
      >works to the creator, and denying the rights to
      >leechers to avail themselves of those works
      >without payment.

      The payment in itself has really nothing to do with copyright infringement and what is allowed or not (although with calling it theft it is easy to get there). If I own a book and no longer want it and give it away, someone suddenly got it without paying, still not copyright infringement. If I buy a music CD and play it while I have people in my house, they get to listen to it without paying, still not copyright infringement and so on. Copyright is in much about creating something new and when you can't do that (regardless of money issues, even something that you can get for free still have copyright and you can't create new copies of it, despite no one losing out money wise for example).

    6. Re:You may laugh... by DrSkwid · · Score: 1



      You might request "no nit-picking" but sorry, you can't expect that.

      It is not theft, theft is defined in law as to "permanently deprive".

      Photocopying a picture from a book is nothing of the sort.

      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
  33. Re:fp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ay tovarish... pass me that Windows XP key!

  34. I see your point but... by Lifewish · · Score: 4, Insightful

    a) Calling free culture advocates commies shows a... slight misunderstanding of the two ideologies. At its best, Communism was never particularly concerned with the individual (possibly why it is so successful in the Confucian environment of China).

    b) Arguing that "Communist" is not a pejorative is likely to go down like a lead balloon in much of America. The McCarthy witchhunts were ludicrous but they happened for a reason. Communists *were* the enemy - defending them carries the same overtones as defending Naziism to the French.

    --
    For the love of God, please learn to spell "ridiculous"!!!
    1. Re:I see your point but... by Mark_MF-WN · · Score: 1
      The irony is that America is surprisingly Communist itself. An enormous number of Americans are supported by the government, when you consider all the people:
      • On welfare or government-paid disability;
      • Working for the federal government, or a state, or municipal government;
      • Working in the military;
      • Working for a business that gets government aid;
      • Farmers who receive government aid;
      ... and so on. America is very much a welfare state, and is very close to being a democratic communist state.
    2. Re:I see your point but... by missing000 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      a) Bullshit. Don't talk authoritatively about things you don't know anything about. The important quote here is ""From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."
      The center of the system is protecting the individual who is perceived as being exploited by the state.

      b) Communist is indeed a pejorative term in the US. The fact that "they" were at one time the enemy is hardly a moral justification of continued discrimination. I'm not a "commie", so I won't defend thier ideology, but I would suggest that any criticism be directed at ideas and not cultural impressions.

    3. Re:I see your point but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jesus was a communist.

      Seriously, think about it.

    4. Re:I see your point but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit?

      That seems a little harsh. The term Communism is used to describe at various times Socialism, Marxism, Stalinist oppression, etc.

      Just because he focused on a different meaning of an overly broad term doesn't make it bullshit.

    5. Re:I see your point but... by say · · Score: 1

      That is funny. I guess you've just discovered that following your own logic, every state on earth is communist? Here's why:

      Ideologies are never found in their extreme, pure form, because a) the ideology doesn't contain rules for every thinkable situation; and b) the most successful countries have always used the best from different ideologies.

      You are simply reinventing the term communism, and then applying it to small areas of society, and voilá: it fits! But it doesn't make sense to say that the US is communist due to the fact that many people have state-funded jobs or get goverment subsidies. Capitalistic democracies need large beaurocracies - to control that capitalism works as planned.

      --
      Roses are #FF0000, violets are #0000FF, all my base are belong to you
    6. Re:I see your point but... by Mark_MF-WN · · Score: 1

      My point is that it's NOT a small area of society. It's actually quite a large proportion of society. I heard from a sociology professor once that almost 20% of Americans are supported by the government, either directly or indirectly. That's not at all a small area of society.

    7. Re:I see your point but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      just because the enimies were communists doesn't make the comunists enimies. that's like saying people from Mississippi are stupid; therefore American's are stupid.

    8. Re:I see your point but... by SilkBD · · Score: 2, Funny

      Which means 80% is NOT supported by the government, so, by further application of your logic, 80% of the US is NOT "Communist". Of course, 42% of all statistics are made up... by people who pull shit out of their ass...

      --
      00101010
    9. Re:I see your point but... by Lifewish · · Score: 1

      a) As I understand Marx, he was mostly concerned about protecting the proletariat from the bourgeoisie - the Golgafrinchan approach of getting rid of all the productivity drains. I'd class this (no pun intended) as being more of a group-oriented struggle than a fight for individual freedom.

      I'm not saying that Communism is intrinsically against personal freedom, just that it's nowhere near being the point of the movement.

      b) I'd say that cultural impression is by far the more important factor in the free culture movement. Lessig himself points out that focusing on practical matters rather than theory could have won him the Eldred 1 court case. Equally, even if I didn't think the Nazis were that bad (this is ONLY for the sake of argument), I would not encourage the comparison.

      --
      For the love of God, please learn to spell "ridiculous"!!!
    10. Re:I see your point but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      (possibly why it is so successful in the Confucian environment of China).

      Yeah, those tanks in Tiananmen Square were quite successful.

      China is very successful at censoring its population as well.

      Carl

    11. Re:I see your point but... by Mark_MF-WN · · Score: 1

      20% is still a lot for a country that hosts so much rhetoric about the evils of communism, the failure of communism, etc. You'd think if communism was really so bad, the US government would stop subsidizing so many businesses, that it would shrink the government beauracracy and military.

    12. Re:I see your point but... by biobogonics · · Score: 1

      The irony is that America is surprisingly Communist itself. An enormous number of Americans are supported by the government [snip]
      And guess who paid for the hardware and software at Harvard on which Gates cross-developed Altair Basic? Why did Gates agree to drop out of school instead of facing an inquiry about using university resources for private gain?

    13. Re:I see your point but... by danila · · Score: 1

      Communism was all about the individual. The state, the party, the economy were supposed to cease to exist, what would we be concerned with, if not the individual?

      Quoth the Soviet Constitution:

      Article 15. The supreme goal of social production under socialism is the fullest possible satisfaction of the people's growing material, and cultural and intellectual requirements.

      Article 20. In accordance with the communist ideal--"The free development of each is the condition of the free development of all"--the state pursues the aim of giving citizens more and more real opportunities to apply their creative energies, abilities, and talents, and to develop their personalities in every way.

      Article 27. The state concerns itself with protecting, augmenting and making extensive use of society's cultural wealth for the moral and aesthetic education of the Soviet people, for raising their cultural level. In the USSR development of the professional, amateur and folk arts is encouraged in every way.

      This wasn't just a formal document, that's the supreme law of the country and it was built according to that law. "Free development of each" was not just an empty slogan, it really was the guiding principle of the society development, with hundreds of Houses of Culture and Palaces of Culture opening their doors to everyone all over the country. Whatever drawbacks the Soviet system had, I am sure that noone in the USSR would sue a 12 year old girl for sharing an MP3 or sue a student for recharging his laptop using a public power outlet.

      So I'd say that Creative Commons is certainly much closer to communism than to capitalism. And they should be proud of it.

      P.S. First reply saying that the girl would get jail for sharing a politically sensitive MP3 gets an -1: Troll.

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
    14. Re:I see your point but... by danila · · Score: 1

      Communism was anti-government. According to Marx's theory, when the means of production belong to people (and there is no private property) there is no need in government. Soviet Union was not a communist society yet, so there was government. But that's not an indicator of being communist.

      In fact, a powerful government with a high degree of involvement in the economy is actually much closer to fascism (as defined by Mussolini).

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
    15. Re:I see your point but... by ahodgson · · Score: 1

      You would think that, but that would:

      a) put bureaucrats out of work. Their enormous unions then strike, shutting down the rest of government, pissing everyone off.

      b) reduce the power of politicans, especially senators and congressman in charge of powerful committees.

      c) reduce the amount of money available to defense contractors and other companies dependent on tax dollars. Their lobbyists will then withhold money from the politicians' next campaigns, further threatening their power.

      Since all these groups are in a position to basically dictate their terms to you, the taxpayer, shrinkage of government will never happen. The best you can hope for is to slow year to year growth, but even that process has broken down in recent decades.

    16. Re:I see your point but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's actually a HUGE difference between a so-called "welfare state" and communism.

      The basis of communism is that the government is just a proxy to redistribute equally the resources between it's citizens. Everybody is equal in that they do work and get compensated for it.

      Obviously, the whole concept is utopian and will never work due to the greedy human nature. You'll either have some people thinking that the work they do is more "valuable" so they should get more than their neighbors, or the people in charge of redistributing keeping a bigger share for themselves since they have the control to do it.

      This is exactly how some "communism" fell to dictatorism (see Cuba); someone took more and more control and stomped down on whomever voiced up complaints.

      Welfare for the poor is actually a VERY good thing for everyone involved inside a country as it makes the "poor class" less miserable and you give them a constant chance to better their situation thus preventing them from being desperate. Desperate people are more likely to take radical actions... and desperate poor people are more likely to take bad radical actions (read: possibly turn to crime). It's all about improving the living quality for everyone inside the society.

      Obviously, you still have the basic human nature to contend with so you see some people abusing the welfare system.

      What you call "democratic communist state" would be more accurately called "democratic socialist state" and the United States could not be classified as such. Belgium or Canada would be a better example and they're not exactly perfect either in that regard. The U.S. have the basic welfare needs to improve the living standard of it's citizens but they're nowhere close to being called a socialist government.

      I could probably go on for a few dozen more pages on government and economics but we're far away enough from the "look! Gates' OS messed up again in a public presentation! haha!" subject already.

    17. Re:I see your point but... by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 1

      I don't think unions are allowed to strike against the government.

      Against Federal law I believe, look at the air traffic controllers.

      --
      Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
    18. Re:I see your point but... by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 1

      No he wasn't, see the Parable of the Talents (Matthew 25:14-30 in the Christian Bible)

      Even if you aren't Christian, you may still agree that it accurately represents what he said, and thus he is not a Communist.

      --
      Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
  35. Marketing by Anonymous+Custard · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I wonder if the fathers of capitalism ever imagined the levels of marketing we would have today. I believe it really skews the whole idea of competition...

    It didn't hurt Windows 98 sales after Gates got a blue screen during a demo, Ashlee Simpson is still selling albums even though we found out that she really, really, can't sing (SNL + Orange Bowl), and G. W. Bush got the presidency despite being a below average public speaker.

    The american public really doesn't hold public figures to a very high standard anymore.

    There are music geeks who hate Ashlee for taking away a spot at a record company that some talented band might have had, political geeks who know every single word GW has said wrong, and normular computer geeks who know the design flaws in Windows.

    Still, the public doesn't seem to care, and prefer to be sheep following celebrity shepards rather than thinking humans supporting the most qualified public figures.

    You have to be a really dedicated researcher if you want to get beyond the multi-million dollar marketing hype surrounding most products and people these days.

    1. Re:Marketing by hsmith · · Score: 1

      I wonder if the fathers of capitalism ever imagined the levels of marketing we would have today. I believe it really skews the whole idea of competition...

      Please, America had a LONG time to go before it became capitalist, it was FAR from that at the inception of our country. Only in the past 100 years has it become "capitalist"

    2. Re:Marketing by CashCarSTAR · · Score: 1

      It depends on what you mean by capitalist...

      The stock market is for the most part, a fairly modern invention. However, instead of opposing capitalist and socialist, I like to compare capitalist and labourist. Do you value wealth or work?

      As a moral choice, I value work. America, as a society, values wealth, which is the cause of its moral decay.

    3. Re:Marketing by hsmith · · Score: 1

      Well just look at the failing american work ethic compared to that of India/China/ect, no other country will destroy us, we will ourselves

    4. Re:Marketing by Politburo · · Score: 1

      While I don't know about Simpson's Orange Bowl appearance, she was clearly sick for the SNL appearance as evidenced by the 60 Minutes piece. I'm all for making fun of people that suck, but let's be fair here. There's no fix for laryngitis.

      There are music geeks who hate Ashlee for taking away a spot at a record company that some talented band might have had

      Oh please. If this hypothetical band is truly talented, someone will sign them. We all claim to love the free market.. just not when it makes decisions that we don't agree with.

    5. Re:Marketing by kjamez · · Score: 1

      Oh please. If this hypothetical band is truly talented, someone will sign them. We all claim to love the free market.. just not when it makes decisions that we don't agree with.

      this is going off topic, but there is nothing more un-true than what you said. i can PERSONALLY think of ten or tweleve artists that deserve more mainstream exposure only given to 'friends of the conglomerates' more than ashlee simpson, or the backstreet boys, or nsync, or a*teens, or any of those other crappy prefabricated clusters of 'attractive performers' created to make sales based on sex appeal. you think 13 years old girls like n*sync because of the strong message the present? or is it just conincidence that each of these pre-fabs each have one of 1) sporty type 2) preppy type 3) grungy type 4) casual type people in them? it's ALL marketing, but giving the shaft to 'talented' performers.

      i have a friend in LA, now 36 ... who swears up and down, despite her PHENOMINAL talent, has been told she is 'too old to market', and has since reverted to self promotion and training of younger talent for the horrors of the music industry (essentially) ... she is a great producer, and a great songwriter. you comment is crap.

      --
      you can't have everything, where would you put it?
    6. Re:Marketing by CashCarSTAR · · Score: 1

      Actually, I'm more comparing it to Canada/Europe.

      My experience is that India, being an outsourced based economy, at least in the high-tech sector, is more concerned with efficency than quality. Once demand for quality starts to go up, their sector is going to largly collapse.

    7. Re:Marketing by Politburo · · Score: 1

      Your ANECDOTES are great.. but they don't sway me.

      If you're going to live in a free market, you have to learn to accept its decisions. Music is subjective, so to say that someone 'deserves' mainstream exposure over someone else means nothing. There are obviously people that, for whatever reason, like n*sync and all those crappy groups, otherwise people wouldn't be buying the albums. That reason may not be because the music is good.

      Again, if there is a market, someone will generally do it. That's the basis of the free market theory. If you feel that there is truly a market for this music, maybe you should try tapping into it and making some money for yourself.

    8. Re:Marketing by Anonymous+Custard · · Score: 1

      you have to learn to accept its decisions

      Well I know I'm not going to change the market, but it doesn't mean I have to "accept" them, if by accept you mean rush out and buy an Ashlee Simpson album :-)

      As a musician (not trying to be professional), it does sadden me to see america prop up talentless people when there are some really talented musicians out there. But that's just my musical choice - some people really do prefer to buy CD's of people who are famous rather than people who are good musicians.

      If you feel that there is truly a market for this music, maybe you should try tapping into it and making some money for yourself.

      I believe that the marketing industry is SO good at what it does these days, that it doesn't matter what I believe there is a market for - a marketer could create one. In pop culture there's no "there is a market". There's only "I have created a market". In pop culture, we don't tap markets these days, we create them. The iPod tapped a market with a good product and average marketing. Ashlee Simpson's dad and record company created a market for her with an incredible marketing investment for a lousy product.

    9. Re:Marketing by Anonymous+Custard · · Score: 1

      While I don't know about Simpson's Orange Bowl appearance

      Oh my god it was awful :-)

      There are videos available on some web sites... it reminded me of Courtney Love's muic, minus the catchiness and in-tune-ness.

    10. Re:Marketing by kjamez · · Score: 1

      exactly. there is a mass of people who will buy whatever is presented to them. it's the label's fault they have nothing to present. they're obsessed with the bottom line and don't allow bands they find to develop fully, which is why they've turned to these short lived one-hit wonder things, and dumping them when it becomes unpopular (new kids ... etc)

      i suppose if you talk to ANY musician they'll tell you there is a market for it, but that's the whole game. and to try tapping in, like anything else in the 'free' market theory, it takes that big foot in the door (clear channel) to make it worthwhile (unless you are doing the music thing STRICTLY for the music) ...

      but clear channel acts like a special interest group to the major labels, pump out crap 15x daily, you have no CHOICE but to a) buy it or b) spend a lot of time searching local band websites and p2p networks for semi-decent music.

      hip-hop took twenty years to become 'acceptable to the masses', and now >= half of it is worthless. outkast got a grammy for their pop-radio-friendly song, but never once noticed for their stuff about poverty and racism etc etc. cultural stuff like that isn't anecdotal (sp?) ...

      --
      you can't have everything, where would you put it?
  36. Clearly a lie! by RoLi · · Score: 1
    Lots of people here and elsewhere have assured me that Windows2000 and later never crashes.

    So this story is just a piece of evil propaganda.

    1. Re:Clearly a lie! by codepunk · · Score: 1

      They crash all the time the os just fails to tell you it did.

      --


      Got Code?
  37. Microsoft in a nutshell... by mogrify · · Score: 2, Funny

    Although he accepted guffaws from audience members in the theater, the technical hiccups didn't prompt Gates to engage in a hard-hitting analysis of computer reliability and security.

    Doesn't that just sum up everything that's wrong with Microsoft?

    --
    perl -e 'foreach(values %SIG){$_="IGNORE";}while(){}'
  38. damn... by traveler007 · · Score: 1

    ... and I had thought he'd tripped for real and done a face plant on the stage.

    Sooo.. only windows crashed on him, heck, that happens every day to (tens of)thousands every day.. that's not even news worthy anymore. People have got used to that... when you use windows anyway..

  39. Obligatory ;) by StarfishOne · · Score: 1

    In Sovjet Russia, ever-increasing intellectual property laws are not supported by you!

  40. Hmm by MrRuslan · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Throwing words like comunist is very imature and unprofessional on Bills behalf IMHO.

    1. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But being unable to spell communist, immature and Bill's isn't?

    2. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it just means English may not be the author's first language.. Or that (s)he went to high-school in the US.

    3. Re:Hmm by ArtStone · · Score: 1

      Especially if you become aware that the bulk of Gate's personal political contributions are to Democrats.

      Microsoft is widely credited in the United States for paving the way for granting equal benefit status to same sex domestic partners in 1993.

      "They" say a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged. Has Gates found religion?

      --
      Final 2006 "Proof of Global Warming" US Hurricane Count -> 0
  41. Re:fp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can anyone provide a http link of the wmv for those that don't want to spend all morning trying to jump through the mms:// hoop?

  42. Windows... by nagora · · Score: 1

    Because "beta" is for life, not just early releases.

    --
    "Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
  43. The server's getting.. by Sottilde · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Slashdotted. Getting really slow. By the way, the forza motorsport part starts at about 71 minutes.

  44. Trouble starts at 26 minutes 50 seconds (or so) by Arkahn · · Score: 3, Informative

    Fast forward to the interesting portion of this riveting presentation.

  45. 42 pound Internet ready calculator watch by SeaHunter · · Score: 1

    I got mine last week. I just wish it was water proof.

  46. Anarchist, dammit by Lifewish · · Score: 4, Funny

    I can't think of a single anarchist government that's killed millions of people.

    --
    For the love of God, please learn to spell "ridiculous"!!!
    1. Re:Anarchist, dammit by Smidge204 · · Score: 0

      Probably because there's no such thing as an "anarchist government"...

      =Smidge=

    2. Re:Anarchist, dammit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      anarchist government is a non-government. you can't order any production. I learn all my politics from Civ 3, and Civ 3 shows us Communism is the best form of government.

    3. Re:Anarchist, dammit by XMyth · · Score: 1

      Anarchist government? That's an oxymoron, no?

    4. Re:Anarchist, dammit by finkployd · · Score: 1

      Funny, I can't think of a single anarchist government.

      Finkployd

    5. Re:Anarchist, dammit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      oxymoron. This is one of my favorite words. Everytime I read or hear it used. I picture a 13 year old with bad acne and an IQ of 70.

    6. Re:Anarchist, dammit by Catbeller · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Anarchist government" is an oxymoron. True anarchy arises from lack of order spontaneously, and a lot of scores get settled with blood. Everyone: the US killed over 300,000 Filipinos alone in the Spanish-American war. We've killed 12,000-100,000 in Iraq; the exact number is classified. "Communism" didn't kill anyone any more than our "democracy" has. Nothing about the theories demand you murder people. The ideologies don't kill. People kill. Stalin and Lenin killed millions for political and economic advantage, and we are killing for the same reasons now. And the Russians thought they were defending their motherland and freedom as well. And were as deluded as we are now, for the exact same reasons.

    7. Re:Anarchist, dammit by kypper · · Score: 1

      ahh... "anarchist government"... an oxymoron just like "military intelligence" and "temporary tax increase"

    8. Re:Anarchist, dammit by WillDraven · · Score: 0

      Being an anarchist myself, i can assure you there is no such thing as an anarchist government, however, anarchist societies do exist. We just disagree with the idea of a controlling hierarchy, and thus never appointed anybody as a leader or organized a committee to be out governing body and declared ourselves as a sovereign nation. Any nation claiming to be anarchist, isn't.

      --
      This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
    9. Re:Anarchist, dammit by nbert · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Whilst making a valid point in your post, this statement is highly misleading:
      "Communism" didn't kill anyone any more than our "democracy" has.
      You should really read this article about Democide in the Soviet Union before you make such a statement. I really hate to bring death tolls into such discussions, but in this case there is a completely different dimension in numbers *and* course of action.
    10. Re:Anarchist, dammit by Kick+the+Donkey · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Yes... Very well said. You have my emotional mod-points.

      --
      /. is a bunch of nerds at a million typewriters. It's not a political conspiracy determined to undermine your beliefs.
    11. Re:Anarchist, dammit by Ignominious+Cow+Herd · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      and Insightful Moderation.

      --
      Lump lingered last in line for brains, and the ones she got were sorta rotten and insane.
    12. Re:Anarchist, dammit by MartinG · · Score: 2, Funny

      But there is such a thing as a sense of humour.

      --
      -- MartinG To mail me: echo kewyjlcxyzvjfxbqwh | tr bcefhjklqvwxyz .@adgimnoprstu
    13. Re:Anarchist, dammit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      YOU RULED!!!
      +10 for being an illuminated

    14. Re:Anarchist, dammit by Junior+J.+Junior+III · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's very true, and I'd mod you up if I werent responding to your comment.

      BUT, you have to acknowledge that Soviet-style Communism isn't really Communism, it's totalitarianism. USA-style democracy isn't really democracy, either, but that's another matter...

      --
      You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
    15. Re:Anarchist, dammit by gramiq · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You're perpetuating a false dichotomy.

      Communism is an economic system, akin to capitalism. Democracy is a system of government.

      "Communism" hasn't killed any more people that "capitalism" has. (cf. Union Carbide) I will, however, agree that "totalitarianism" has killed far more people than "democracy" has.

      The sad fact is that democratic communism has just never been tried, even though the theories seem to match up so well.

    16. Re:Anarchist, dammit by larkost · · Score: 1

      The Khmer Rouge was fairly close to an anarchy... does that count?

    17. Re:Anarchist, dammit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Probably because there's no such thing as an "anarchist government"...


      There's no such thing as god yet literally millions of people have died in his name.

    18. Re:Anarchist, dammit by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1
      Anarchist government? That's an oxymoron, no?

      Yeah. like American culture, or military intelligence. The list goes on, of course...

    19. Re:Anarchist, dammit by Clock+Nova · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm glad someone finally made this point. The opposite of Communism is Capitalism, not Democracy. I'm all for Democracy. I love it... when it works. It's out current capitalist system that needs to be rethinked. Free market capitalism should only apply to small businesses. All corporations should be subject to heavy governmental regulations (that are actually enforced.) Personal wealth should also have limits.

      Screw the rich.

      But then, I must be one of them there "new commies."

      --
      There they were, sitting in the van with all those dials, and the cat was dead. -V. Marchetti, CIA
    20. Re:Anarchist, dammit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FWIW: The article gets it's numbers from a book by R.J. Rummel. He is not without his critcs who claim that he uses very suspect ways of counting the number of people killed by "governements".

      Should be taken with a moderately large grain of salt.

    21. Re:Anarchist, dammit by aichpvee · · Score: 1

      Our current system is actually corporatism (aka fascism) and not really capitalist at all anymore. Some form of democratic capitalism with a healthy dose of concern for social well-being is what we really need.

      --
      The Farewell Tour II
    22. Re:Anarchist, dammit by heinousjay · · Score: 1

      You see, you say:

      "Screw the rich."

      and the rich say:

      "Screw the poor."

      Who do you think wins?

      --
      Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
    23. Re:Anarchist, dammit by Badfysh · · Score: 1

      Anarchy doesn't mean that. A true anarchist is someone who has a personal system of morals in place. When you know it is wrong to kill and you wouldn't do it, you don't need a law against it.

      --

      I was conned by an old man in a cloak. It turns out those *were* the droids I was looking for.

    24. Re:Anarchist, dammit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Anarchist government" is an oxymoron.

      Likewise for Communism. Russia, China and the like were socialist states. Once China owns owns enough of our debt to bankrupt us, they'll abolish all government and we'll have Communist society. You think they're financing our gluttony to buy iPods and make Halliburton richer?

    25. Re:Anarchist, dammit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Our current system is actually corporatism (aka fascism) and not really capitalist at all anymore.

      Shh!!! If you say that out loud you must not support the troops or the Homeland.

      Here's a fun exercise though. Go through your monthly bills and make three stacks. (1) Bills that represent competitive markets where anyone can produce the product and the price is kept low by market forces, (2) Bills that represent oligopolies where collusion can drive prices high without active government intervention, (3) Bills that represent monopolies where prices can be raised to arbitrarily high levels by a single supplier. Now look at all that money that ends up in stacks 2 and 3 (look at grocery reciepts and gas reciepts too) and ask yourself if the government is playing the active role required of it to keep these prices low (since the market in these situations is unable to push down prices on its own.)

    26. Re:Anarchist, dammit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your right, the US government is NOT a democracy! It is a democratic REPUBLIC! Democracies don't work. Democratic Republics do though. Remember we elect represenatives (even though ours mostly are losers) who then select/vote on what the country should do.
      http://www.worldnewsstand.net/freedom/democracy.ht m

    27. Re:Anarchist, dammit by Kehvarl · · Score: 1

      Well, Let's start an Anarchy club. We can elect/appoint leaders and make rules!

    28. Re:Anarchist, dammit by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      Only because there weren't millions of people available to be killed in the French Revolution.

    29. Re:Anarchist, dammit by XMyth · · Score: 1

      Hello new sig

    30. Re:Anarchist, dammit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and millions more have cried out His name in bed.

      Anyway, I can prove to you that there's no such thing as an anarchist government. Can you prove to me there's no God?

      I didn't think so.

    31. Re:Anarchist, dammit by ChoGGi · · Score: 1

      the middle class?

    32. Re:Anarchist, dammit by abc5 · · Score: 1

      Personal wealth should also have limits. your kidding right?.

    33. Re:Anarchist, dammit by teromajusa · · Score: 1

      Long term or short term? Short term the rich win. Long term you get revolutions and nobody wins.

    34. Re:Anarchist, dammit by michael+path · · Score: 1

      "...and to the republic, for which it stands..."

      We're not even remotely close to being a democracy.

      We're a somewhat democratic republic, we elect people who make the decisions - rarely do "We the People" make decisions ourselves. When we do, it's state or local issues, like tax levies.

      I'm not sure if the lack of actual participation makes people so apathetic to the world around them, but I imagine as more people get involved, the greater pride they take in our nation. I imagine 95% of all Americans don't even know who their Representative is.

      I'm considering running for office within a few years. My biggest concern is that our freedoms are being trampled on, in the name of freedom no less.

    35. Re:Anarchist, dammit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Nobody ever has to support an argument that something DOESN'T exist. The ones making the claim that it exists has to PROVE that it in fact... exists.

      Failure to prove a claim is de facto evidence that claim is false.

      But I have an open mind and can accept new evidence.

      Do you have an open mind? If someone proved without doubt that god did not exist, would you still believe in god anyway?

    36. Re:Anarchist, dammit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope. 'Fundamentalism' is the best CIVIII Govt.

    37. Re:Anarchist, dammit by Horse+Rotorvator+JAD · · Score: 1

      Our current system is actually corporatism (aka fascism) and not really capitalist at all anymore.

      I have heard fascism and corporatism used interchangably and yet when I look at every major definition of fascism that I can find it doesn't look to have anything in common with cororatism.

      Fascism: a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

    38. Re:Anarchist, dammit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it still a republic after the elections were rigged in 3 elections in a row? Or is it strait up dictatorship now, masquerading as a republic?

    39. Re:Anarchist, dammit by Clock+Nova · · Score: 1

      That's probably the opinion that most people will disagree with, but no, I'm not kidding. No one needs $40 Billion. Allowing a small number of people to hoard so much wealth allows too much power to be concentrated in too small a place. I'm all for a limit on how wealthy a person can be. I'm not saying there can't be rich people (relatively speaking) but there comes a point where the drive to acquire more "stuff" overrides all concern for the people the quest for wealth destroys.

      --
      There they were, sitting in the van with all those dials, and the cat was dead. -V. Marchetti, CIA
    40. Re:Anarchist, dammit by memco · · Score: 2, Insightful

      1) It is impossible to prove something doesn't exist as your mere conception of it brings it into some semblance of existance. Everything that doesn't exist we don't know about as existence is the compendium of all life, matter, ideas, and otherwise that we know about. 2) Failure to prove a claim does not make it false. I cannot prove to you that 2+2=4 (thought I can prove .9 is =1), but does that make that statement false? Not necessarily. It is possible that proof exists, you can only be certain of something once you can prove the opposite of it to be either true or false. In the case of God for example, if you can't prove that He exists, you must prove He doesn't exist to say that He doesn't. If you can't do either you must agree that the existence of God is up for question or personal opinion. Once a case with emphatic evidence has been brought up, then you can declare one way or the other. Until then... I DEMAND RIGID BOUNDARIES OF UNCERTAINTY.

      --
      Get me a meat pie floater!
    41. Re:Anarchist, dammit by Junior+J.+Junior+III · · Score: 1

      First, the Pledge of Allegiance is not a founding document. It's not even a law.

      The USA is nominally a representative democracy, aka a republic, as you rightly point out. Which is pretty much exactly the point I was trying to make when I said USA-style democracy isn't really democracy, in the sense of Classical direct democracy.

      Of course, there's the additional subversion of that democracy by the relatively recent emergence of megacorporations and their dominance in the political arena.

      --
      You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
    42. Re:Anarchist, dammit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Corporatism: a business philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts profit above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

    43. Re:Anarchist, dammit by __aanebg9627 · · Score: 1

      It's still a republic, just a corrupted one, and still salvageable.

    44. Re:Anarchist, dammit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Counting - Anarchy is one step from bodily death.
      Anarchism can be defined as a russian with a lit bomb being thrown at the Tzar of Russia.
      Communism is a sort of light version of slavery.
      Communism will always develop into fascism.
      Communism and fascism will always go bancrupt in the end.
      The planet as a whole is moving away from communism and death - and towards libetarianism and life.
      We will arrive there in perhaps 80-90 years from now :-) Please be patient :-)

      Greetings
      Jim Oksvold

    45. Re:Anarchist, dammit by Horse+Rotorvator+JAD · · Score: 1

      Corporatism: a business philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts profit above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

      I would be curious as to where you got your definition from. Everyplace I go seems to have a definition of corporatism that is more similar to the following.

      Corporatism: the organization of a society into industrial and professional corporations serving as organs of political representation and exercising some control over persons and activities within their jurisdiction

    46. Re:Anarchist, dammit by __aanebg9627 · · Score: 2, Informative
      Probably because there's no such thing as an "anarchist government"...

      Erm, incorrecto. The Spanish government fighting Franco in the Spanish Civil War was a coalition government of Socialists Communists and Anarchists. Yes Anarchists. Orwell's "Homage to Catalonia" is my favorite introduction to the Spanish Anarchists, well worth reading both to understand them and Orwell himself.

    47. Re:Anarchist, dammit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I used to be of that same opinion, but I realized that it really doesn't hurt anything for someone to have that much money. Why? Because when you have $40 billion, the vast majority of it is invested. It's not like they own an endless amount of property that's sitting empty and wasted, or something like that. That $40 billion is probably invested in stocks, which means it's funding companies that employ a lot of people, thus allowing those people to build wealth.

      So, don't think of that $40 billion as being overwhelming consuming power, because people don't use billions of dollars to buy personal items for themselves. Think of that $40 billion as control. And we want someone who can create $40 billion of wealth to have that kind of control, because they will likely use their power to build even more wealth, which means more jobs for the rest of us. If you were to redistribute that wealth to the average citizen, would that be better?

      Suppose, for instance, you took all the stocks that Warren Buffet owned and you distributed them to the population at large. Since few people have the same kind of investing knowledge as Buffet, they'd probably use their new-found wealth in less productive ways than he would. Thus, capital is not used as effectively and companies are slightly less profitable and jobs are fewer. Although giving to the poor sometimes can be helpful, mass redistribution to the poor (by limiting personal wealth) actually hurts the poor in the end, because the market is a proving ground for businessmen. It naturally selects the best, because those with superior wealth-building skills will tend to succeed over time. By taking from the best and giving to the average, you stunt capital growth, which ultimately hurts everyone.

    48. Re:Anarchist, dammit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      funny, I have this one:

      "a system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism"

      Which seems to fit every example I'm aware of. Makes me curious where you got yours.

    49. Re:Anarchist, dammit by Horse+Rotorvator+JAD · · Score: 1

      Makes me curious where you got yours

      I got mine from Merriam-Websters online dictionary. http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Diction ary&va=fascism&x=0&y=0

    50. Re:Anarchist, dammit by Lobo93 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Thanks for the pointer to Orwell; I quickly found an online version of "Homage to Catalonia" right here.
      Should be a good read, me being one of those Damned anarchists and all. ;)

      --
      "The only clear view is from atop the mountain of our dead selves." - Peter Carroll
    51. Re:Anarchist, dammit by aichpvee · · Score: 1
      It's probably because Benito Mussolini said, "Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power."

      But I'll agree, fascism has NOTHING in common with "cororatism", wtf that is.

      --
      The Farewell Tour II
    52. Re:Anarchist, dammit by Clock+Nova · · Score: 1

      The main problem I have with that is that it sounds like you're justifying the existence of a superior class of people who are smart enough to have wealth, making everyone else inferior. I think if wealth is distributed, you might be surprised at the number of people who are smart enough to use that wealth wisely. Sure, there will always be jackasses who starve their kids so they can wear Armani suits and watch their 52-inch plasma TVs. But a few generations of increased funding for education will take care of a lot of that.

      --
      There they were, sitting in the van with all those dials, and the cat was dead. -V. Marchetti, CIA
    53. Re:Anarchist, dammit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Question the value of allowing a single individual control over 40 billion 1995-USD (as the dollar is declining I use a time with its greater value); can you call this a democracy when the whim of an individual decides the employment of, to be conservative, 280 000 citizens? Would the votes of those citizens not be coloured by the desire to remain employed, by the desire to appease the controlling factors of their employment as much as possible?

    54. Re:Anarchist, dammit by voodoo1man · · Score: 1
      That article you linked to is terrible. Rummel's book (where the figures are taken from) should in no way be treated as an authoritative source - if you'd actually read it you'd know that his 62 million was just a guess! If you look at the current population of Russia, at 143 million people by far the largest of the former Soviet states, which has been declining since the mid 80s (the native population has been experiencing a negative growth rate since the early 60s, but from the 50s to the 80s the country's population grew due to immigration from other Soviet states), and the rest of the Soviet Union, which I believe put together will be somewhere between half and three quarters of Russia's, the figure could not possibly be true. The Soviet Union experienced it's greatest population growth spurt in the post-WWII period, when Rummel claims the highest casualty rates! Chalking up deaths from the civil war as genocide further undermines his work - the Whites and the Bolsheviks both knew what they were getting into, and are equally implicated in murder (and let's not forget that a lot of deaths resulted from marauder 3rd party bandit opportunists like the Basmachi). I don't know why the article singles out Don cossacks - most cossacks fought for the Whites during the war and paid for it. As a Latvian, I do think that too many innocent people were killed during and after WWII in the Baltic states, but I also think the Nazi governments and their sympathizers got what they deserved - Latvia was probably second only to Poland in number of concentration camps. It really makes me angry that the leftovers started crawling out of the woodwork now - surprisingly many SS men have managed to hide for the past 60 years, and just a year or two ago some dipshit in Estonia decided to put up a statue honoring the SS.

      The most ridiculous statistic is the number of deaths in concentration camps. According to that source, around 20% of people sentenced to Soviet concentration camps perished, with the number given as over 39 million. But that means that almost 200 million people (more than the population of Russia and the next 3 biggest Soviet states combined) would have had to go through concentration camps! And all this in the 30 year span between the mid 30s and the mid 60s!

      --

      In the great CONS chain of life, you can either be the CAR or be in the CDR.

    55. Re:Anarchist, dammit by alba7 · · Score: 1
      I really hate to bring death tolls into such discussions, but in this case there is a completely different dimension in numbers *and* course of action.

      You need take inflation out of this numbers. Relative to global population at that time both the casualties of slave trade and the genocide on native americans were significant.

      --
      Post tenebras lux. Post fenestras tux.
    56. Re:Anarchist, dammit by nbert · · Score: 1
      I'm sorry that I came up with this source. When I created my original post I was looking for some data to back it up (because I didn't want to rely on my selective memory). So first I tried to find something on the website of Memorial (that was just my first guess). However, there is not much English content available. So I headed for google and picked this page because it seemed trustworthy to me. After some thinking I agree that those numbers can't be right since 62 million would be 21% of the total population of the SU (in 1989). On the other hand it also has to be taken into account that any number is roughly a guess. There is only one genocide in history which was documented with allegiance by the culprits themselves - the one performed by the Nazis. Even if the Russian government would publish official results they couldn't be accurate because those in charge didn't keep journals on their victims.

      But we should get back to my original point: Let's just assume that only a third died (that's ~20 million people). Wikipedia states that historians agree that the number of people killed under Stalin is in a range between 8 and 20 millions. So 20 millions for the entire SU seems not to be far off to me.

      So would this number make it any better? It's still an example of unequaled disrespect of human lifes.

    57. Re:Anarchist, dammit by nbert · · Score: 1
      Like I said I don't like the concept of death tolls in general, because guilt can't be calculated by such numbers.

      I don't intend to write a world encyclopedia of mischief - I just wanted to point out that those wars led by the US don't add up to the state terror established in the former SU.

      Btw: It's not like I am the biggest fan of US policy. Being born in (west-)Berlin I've got a rather old-european view of current affairs.

    58. Re:Anarchist, dammit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The main problem I have with that is that it sounds like you're justifying the existence of a superior class of people who are smart enough to have wealth, making everyone else inferior.

      Here's where you're going wrong: The "superior" class of people do not make everyone else inferior. Instead, the super-rich people are super-rich because they have created so much more wealth than the average person!

      Does this mean that there must always be a few winners and a ton of losers? No, if everyone created the same amount of wealth that the super-rich people do, everyone would be wealthy. When I say "wealthy", I don't mean in terms of having a lot of dollars...I mean we would all be wealthy in terms of having extremely powerful dollars. And there's nothing that stops people from creating wealth, besides hard work. There's always another movie to be produced, another book to be written, another device to be invented, another disease to be cured, etc.

      The trick is that you won't make any money unless your creation or service is valued by someone else. That's what is so beautiful about capitalism; we've created a game that people can only win by creating value for others! What's so hard for people to understand though is that the market will only serve you if you serve it. When someone has little money, the question isn't "Why has the market failed to provide for them?", it's "Why have they failed to provide for the market?"

      I think if wealth is distributed, you might be surprised at the number of people who are smart enough to use that wealth wisely.

      Using wealth wisely and using it wisely enough to make a profit are two different things. Society needs the latter, because that is the only way wealth is created.

    59. Re:Anarchist, dammit by Clock+Nova · · Score: 1

      And there's nothing that stops people from creating wealth, besides hard work.

      Here's your first mistake. It would be nice if this were true and, in an ideal world, it would be. But there are many other factors that stop people from becoming wealthy and, in fact, keep them poor. For every person who "pulls himself up by his bootstraps" there are about a thousand more who did every thing right and, through no fault of their own, failed. Their job was outsourced, or their child got sick and they couldn't afford insurance, or a corporate outlet opened up next to their store and drove them out of business, and so on. The power that comes with great wealth also seems to bring with it a desire to retain and increase that wealth, no matter what the cost. Obviously there are a few altruistic billionaires out there, but not many.

      we've created a game that people can only win by creating value for others!

      And here's your second mistake. It may start out this way, but with greater accumulation of wealth, and thus power, people find that they can win by manipulating and/or changing the rules, rather than by creating something useful. Case in point, the GOP's attempts to rewrite Senate rules to make ethics less important, or Haliburton's no-bid contract awards, or Microsoft's successful monopoly.

      In the end, society doesn't need wealth at all.

      --
      There they were, sitting in the van with all those dials, and the cat was dead. -V. Marchetti, CIA
    60. Re:Anarchist, dammit by snuf23 · · Score: 1

      Which is why Fundamentalism was taken OUT of Civilization 3. It created a game balance problem they couldn't resolve. Plus I think it was becoming politically unpopular.
      Now best government for Civ and Civ 2? Fundamentalism hands down. Nothing like a nice religious dictatorship with a huge army out in the field while the folks at home stay happy because they know they'll win the war since God is on their side.

      --
      Sometimes my arms bend back.
    61. Re:Anarchist, dammit by boisepunk · · Score: 1

      Since when have the French truly won a war?

      --
      main(0)
    62. Re:Anarchist, dammit by boots@work · · Score: 1

      You can't prove it to the OP if he chooses to disbelieve your proof. So the situation is quite similar.

    63. Re:Anarchist, dammit by Canberra+Bob · · Score: 1

      I will take a slightly different approach to this

      If I kill somebody (to remove arguments such as self-defence etc lets say in cold blood to steal money only for personal profit) why is it wrong? Chemically, biologically and physically they have changed state, but where does 'bad' fit into this? In real terms I have only killed a number of cells that happen to form a human. Define good and bad only through scientific means - is it quantifiable? At this point we sit back and decide whether we only believe in the physical universe - in which case it is very difficult if not impossible to prove that killing somebody is bad and should not be done, or we can believe in more than the physical universe, in which case good and bad take on real meaning.

      I am very curious how one can PROVE that it is in fact 'bad' to kill somebody in cold blood. If we accept that it is in fact a bad thing to do, then we are using no more proof than what a religious person would use to believe in the existence of God.

    64. Re:Anarchist, dammit by Morlark · · Score: 1

      The person who's not first against the wall when the revolution comes. Obviously.

      --
      Santa's suicide mission go!
  47. re: Communists by bogie · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You know I was ready to call B.S. as I was reading the article because I got to here and read "There are fewer communists in the world today than there were". I thought man, saying that Bill called everyone communists was a bit of stretch but then I read a little further, "There are some new modern-day sort of communists who want to get rid of the incentive for musicians and moviemakers and software makers under various guises."

    Yep, he pretty much just said that if you don't support IP then your a Communist. What a douchebag. That statement is going to haunt him for a long time and rightly so. The world's richest man and still as greedy as ever. Again, what a douchebag. Oh btw for the 12 year olds among you who can't think like adults yet, yes you can still be a douchebag and be philanthropic at the same time.

    --
    If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
  48. Because we all know Communists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...demand free and open source code just like they demand a free and open society.

  49. Time of crash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    For those interested, the crash for this year's CES happens at about 26 minutes in.

    1. Re:Time of crash by accelleron · · Score: 1

      Which crash?

      AFAIK there were 2 crashes this time around: one when he was toying with the digicam and a bsod when he tried to run the game

      --
      Genius may have its limitations, but stupidity is not thus handicapped.
    2. Re:Time of crash by keeleysam · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually four. The digicam thing crashed twice in about three minutes, then the game gave the BSOD, then Conan's game was lagging A WHOLE LOT. He was getting 2fps, while Gate$ was gettign the full 60fps.

      --
      Nothing for you to see here, Please move along.
    3. Re:Time of crash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The problem must be on your end"

      (This assumes identical equipment on both ends, of course)

  50. Patents for Microsoft? Please. by huge+colin · · Score: 1

    Is there any reason that multi-billion-dollar company like Microsoft should be allowed to patent anything? Why does MS need patents? Do they need to get their foot in the door in the software industry? Perhaps they're struggling to survive without exclusive rights to concepts like 'buttons' and 'double-clicking'? MS has almost all of the desktop OS market, for christ sakes.

    The purpose of patents is to protect unique, innovative ideas of inventors, not to provide a means for corporations to get legal rights on ubiquitous things that no one had bothered to patent yet.

  51. Eh? by hey! · · Score: 4, Funny
    Shows you what you know. Flags are for fat old aparachnik fogies. All the cool revolutionaries know you wave bloody shirts.


    To the barricades!

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    1. Re:Eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or...Only old Korean revolutionaries wave flags.

  52. Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Joe Sixpack pretty much sees it the same way. Not that he minds downloading free music and pr0n but ultimatly he does see it as theft.

    So you're saying that most people believe that only communists steal?

    1. Re:Huh? by east+coast · · Score: 1

      So you're saying that most people believe that only communists steal?

      Heh. No. What I mean is that people see what most consider "rightful sampling" as outright theft. Like Photoshop. It costs what? 650? 700usd? Eventho you may download it, not be making a profit at it, and would have never bought a legal copy, they see you as a criminal.

      Not to mention that they also would be likely to side with MicroSoft on the issue of software patents as well.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    2. Re:Huh? by spectecjr · · Score: 1

      Heh. No. What I mean is that people see what most consider "rightful sampling" as outright theft. Like Photoshop. It costs what? 650? 700usd? Eventho you may download it, not be making a profit at it, and would have never bought a legal copy, they see you as a criminal.

      That's because you're doing something which is against the law. Which, by definition, makes you a criminal, because you're committing a crime.

      Especially when you can download a trial version of Photoshop for free, so your whole "rightful sampling" argument goes out of the window.

      --
      Coming soon - pyrogyra
    3. Re:Huh? by east+coast · · Score: 1

      your whole "rightful sampling" argument goes out of the window.

      Uh... that's what I was saying.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
  53. If we were really communists.... by FlimFlamboyant · · Score: 3, Interesting

    We'd be supporting the idea of the government owning all intellectual property.

    However, not to defend Mr. Gates (and surely to piss off a lot of the OSS community), but there is some small degree of validity to his statement, though he used the wrong word.

    Many people who completely reject the idea of intellectual property (not all) aren't really communists as Mr. Gates would propose, but in fact, radical left-wing anarchists. They despise authority in any form that it comes in; that is why such things as IP and copyrights are hated so much. The idea of God introduces a supreme authority, so they hate him even more.

    They wear the "communist" label with pride, not understanding who they really are, or what communism really is and what it has done to nearly every single society that has been foolish enough to try it.

    They are the modern day hippy, when it comes right down to it. They stand for and oppose the same things and the same principles.

    --
    But God demonstrates his love for us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us - (Romans 5:8)
    1. Re:If we were really communists.... by djmurdoch · · Score: 1

      Many people who completely reject the idea of intellectual property (not all) aren't really communists as Mr. Gates would propose, but in fact, radical left-wing anarchists. They despise authority in any form that it comes in; that is why such things as IP and copyrights are hated so much. The idea of God introduces a supreme authority, so they hate him even more.

      Who are these people? Most open source advocates believe in copyright. They may argue about the details (e.g. limits on copyright terms), but I can't think of anyone who matches the description you wrote.

      Name some names.

    2. Re:If we were really communists.... by FlimFlamboyant · · Score: 1

      I'd rather not make it personal, but rest assured, I was in no-wise suggesting that all (or even a majority) of OSS supporters think that way; I'm all for OSS myself. My comments were based on comments I've seen elsewhere on Slashdot from time to time posted by some individuals who would do away with IP and copyrights in their entirety (I've seen them). Note that this means that most hard-left anarchists oppose IP altogether; not that all who oppose IP are hard-left anarchists.

      I do agree that copyrights and especially IP in their current form have gotten way out of hand. But there are some who would take this to an extreme. On the one extreme, we have people like Bill Gates, who I'm sure would like to create his own communist regime where he owns it all. On the other extreme, we have the likes of people that I mentioned in my post. There needs to be a happy medium.

      --
      But God demonstrates his love for us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us - (Romans 5:8)
    3. Re:If we were really communists.... by Guy+Harris · · Score: 1
      However, not to defend Mr. Gates (and surely to piss off a lot of the OSS community), but there is some small degree of validity to his statement, though he used the wrong word.

      Many people who completely reject the idea of intellectual property (not all) aren't really communists as Mr. Gates would propose, but in fact, radical left-wing anarchists. They despise authority in any form that it comes in; that is why such things as IP and copyrights are hated so much. The idea of God introduces a supreme authority, so they hate him even more.

      So the right word was "atheist"?

    4. Re:If we were really communists.... by djmurdoch · · Score: 1

      I'd rather not make it personal, but rest assured, I was in no-wise suggesting that all (or even a majority) of OSS supporters think that way; I'm all for OSS myself. My comments were based on comments I've seen elsewhere on Slashdot from time to time posted by some individuals who would do away with IP and copyrights in their entirety (I've seen them).

      Okay, sure, I believe that there are some people who post such things to Slashdot. But I don't think many people take them particularly seriously, and you shouldn't, either. But neither should you worry about "making it personal" by pointing to some of their posts. If they posted something, they shouldn't mind someone disagreeing with it.

    5. Re:If we were really communists.... by randallpowell · · Score: 0

      radical left-wing anarchists. They despise authority in any form that it comes in; that is why such things as IP and copyrights are hated so much. The idea of God introduces a supreme authority, so they hate him even more. Sounds like radical right-wing theocrats. How does the view of moderate IP laws automaticly make someone an enemy of God? No wonder our nation is messed up with Republicians in charge.

    6. Re:If we were really communists.... by FlimFlamboyant · · Score: 1

      You know, it's really funny how you can put something like "radical left-wing anarchist" in your post, and people's eyes will immediately lock-on to that, and ignore everything else. For example:

      How does the view of moderate IP laws automaticly make someone an enemy of God?

      Can you show me where I made the connection that people who support the moderation IP laws are enemies of God? In fact, can you show me any place in my post where I took a shot at anyone who supports IP law moderation?

      My entire post was aimed at those who would do away with them completely, along with just about any other type of authority. I personally support IP, but I definately support the moderation of those laws because they have gotten entirely out of hand, but here I am repeating myself, and I shouldn't have to, should I?

      --
      But God demonstrates his love for us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us - (Romans 5:8)
  54. Bill bet the farm by maskatron · · Score: 5, Interesting

    He has to say this sort of thing since he's bet the MS farm on DRM and the like. When you hear people making these kind of references though, you know they are concerned. That tells me the DRM plan isn't going as well as they thought it would.

    --
    Have you seen Ironstayn vs Supergovernment yet?
    1. Re: Bill bet the farm by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1


      > He has to say this sort of thing since he's bet the MS farm on DRM and the like.

      A year doesn't go by without MS purportedly betting the farm on something.

      And no matter how late the product is or how bad they bungle it, they never seem to actually lose their mortgage.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    2. Re:Bill bet the farm by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 1

      I agree, he sounded especially passionate on that single topic, as if he was really threatened by the pinko bastards. It's obvious to me however that his DRM stuff is gaining acceptance in much the same way as Dan Quayle.

      Anyhow the problem is greater than microsoft, our IP system is actually slowing down progress and allowing foreign interests (who selectively ignore various int'l laws) to outpace us. Calling IP reform communist isn't even rational, it's quite a selfish...I mean capitalist pursuit.

      Watching how my own company works, it tries to develop a single new product, loaded/protected with patents and milks it for all it's worth until the patents run out. Not that newer, better ideas don't exist, just they're not "cost effective" compared to one R&D investment and over a decade of money farming.

      It seems strange if you think about technology in consumer terms where people throw stuff out in 3 years and you can buy the competitor. In telecom however these boxes are designed to last for decades and there is no real competition. We were stuck on analog modems a long time for a reason and we're going to be stuck with DSL/cable a long time too.

    3. Re:Bill bet the farm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Calling his bluff, are ya?

  55. Obvious ploy by JustNiz · · Score: 1

    This is an obvious ploy by Gates to reawaken the seeds planted in the American psyche in the McCarthy-era, when it was used to imply "criminal, treacherous or anti-social behaviour. He's trying to get the average Joe to subconciously associate anyone who doesn't support Gates's greedy power-crazy megalomania with somehow being un-American.

    Hey America, Communism is just a political ideal, its not dirty or perverted for someone to be a communist.

    I see this as yet more Microsoft dirty tactics that will be so obvious to most modern-thinking people that they will backfire badly.

  56. The Video by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Buffering.....(1%)
    Buffering.....(35%)
    Buffering .....(68%)
    Buffering.....(14%)
    Unable to connect to server

    1. Re:The Video by bebopredux · · Score: 1

      Really....how about an edited version of this so we can just see the "nosedive"??!! Surely somebody has an Apple or Linux box to accomplish this right?

    2. Re:The Video by fwitness · · Score: 2

      Yeah, I could actually see the video but its at like .3 fps. I skipped to the good parts (about 26mins for the first incident (I can only hear them talking, video stalls a lot) and I think someone said 75 for the second. I wanted to see just how big a deal this actually was.

      --
      -- I have fans? Wow.
  57. I didn't say this but... by LordNokia · · Score: 1

    In Korea, Bill Gates is only for Old People

    --
    Tim says: "please mod me up so my karma won't be terrible. Please?"
  58. I lived in Utah for ten years by wiredog · · Score: 3, Interesting

    and was surprised, at first, to find that many people there actually believed that.

    1. Re:I lived in Utah for ten years by name_already_taken · · Score: 1
      I lived in Utah for ten years and was surprised, at first, to find that many people there actually believed that.

      Do you mean the part about bodily fluids?

      I suppose that a man with a few too many wives might run short on a certain bodily fluid, so Utah would be one of the few places that might believe that.

      --
      Putting moderation advice in your .sig lowers your karma!
  59. So... by Mr.+Cancelled · · Score: 1

    If not supporting Micro$oft and increasing their stranglehold on development and innovation makes us communists, what does it make those who support Micro$soft's dictatorship?

    I think there's a name for those who consolidate power under themselves, and who keep the citizens in place through threats and violence (or in MS's case, through threats and lawsuits). Can you say "Totalitarianism"?

    I agree with others sentiments... Gates seems to be as out of the loop on what consumers want out of their PC's, as Bush, who is totally out of the loop as far as how his actions make him and the USA appear to others.

    I think ol' Billy Gates needs to get back to his roots and fast! MS's recent blatherings about IE not needing any updates until 2006/2007, as well as their Longhorn/Roadmap fiasco clearly show that they're no longer the leaders they once were. Instead, they're now riding the ever-decreasing wave of profit that their past performance has provided them with. Eventually this wave will die out (it'd last longer if they gave up on their XBox aspirations!), and then we'll see how Micro$oft can handle 21st century computing.

    After Tiger comes out, and Apple rolls out their $500 computer (if rumors are true), there'll (hopefully/expectantly) be an ever increasing flow of fed up Windows users migrating to Linux and OSX. Firefox has proven that non-MS software is a good thing to the unwashed masses, and they're now starting to reconsider that Windows investment. Hopefully by the time Longhorn hits the streets, the business world will be waking up to cheaper, more reliable options as well (beyond just using Linux on their servers).

    1. Re:So... by Blitzenn · · Score: 1

      >If not supporting Micro$oft and increasing their stranglehold on development and innovation makes us communists, what does it make those who support Micro$soft's dictatorship? Capitalists. You talk as though communism was a dirty word. Open Source Software is essentially based on the same type of foundation that communism and socialism are based on. Sharing the rewards of the work with everyone regards of their status and regardless of whether they contributed. Is that such a bad thing? I hope not. Maybe there is actually more merit to communism than there is in capitalism. That is something each individual has to figure out for themselves. The easy line for dividing the two groups though is financial status. The wealthy will almost always support capitalism tooth and nail, it's how they got there and what keeps them there. The poor and underclassed will almost always support socialism or to use the 'dirty' word, communism. It is their hope of having a better life for themselves and their children as often wealth is out of their reach.

      A lot of people want to agrue the 'out of reach' wealth part, but those arguesments are entirely based on 'opportunity'. Sure there is opportunity in the US and other countries, for those that have the money to buy the opportunity. As a poor uneducated child of a poor family, you cannot recieve the advanced education that you must have to get your foot in the door of a company who will pay you well. Times have changed in the US, we have set up a system where on the wealthy can raise children who can be wealthy. The poor haven't any hope. Don't give the the financial aid bit, have you tried it lately? All of the cutbacks have caused a situation where all of the aid will only get you 60% of the way there. Without any means to pay that other 40% you are stuck without recourse. The upper class consistantly points their finger at the 'AID' button making it seem as though their is a way out, when there really isn't.

      Do I sound like an underprivelaged, uneducated poor sap? I am well educated, privaleged and earn a good income. I just don't want to be a hipocrate like so many of the other A'holes out there who walk on the backs of the poor to get their cake. It's not fair and we keep building on top of that unfair structure. Open Source is a glimmer of light that shines through the crack in that wall that seperates the wealthy from the poor. The 'capitalists' like Gates, are afraid that they will get a crowbar via open source and be able to compromise the foundation of their empire.

  60. Re:BSOD? by LSD-OBS · · Score: 1

    You're either very lucky or no longer regularly using a Microsoft operating system. I get blue screens on my 2000 and XP Pro boxes about once a month each.

    Which is around 20x more reliable than my old 98SE workstations, granted.

    --
    Today's weirdness is tomorrow's reason why. -- Hunter S. Thompson
  61. How can we trust Microsoft's software... by allanc · · Score: 1

    ...when they can't even rig a demo properly?

    Seriously, even when they're running through a script and avoiding the bits of code that they aren't 100% on, they still got two crashes. Maybe next time, they should just make a PowerPoint presentation that looks like an interactive Windows desktop and hope nobody notices that they're just mouse-syncing.

    1. Re:How can we trust Microsoft's software... by Dr.+Evil · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's tough to set this kind of stuff up for exec demos.

      I bet they took some poor tech support person, told them to set up the machine, then gave him them a bunch of drivers which are so bleeding edge that he or she has never seen them before. Then 30 minutes before the presentation, the A/V guy says "hey, the projector's pointer needs this special driver..."

      As a techie, the right thing to say to the CxO would be "while it could be used, we intended to <insert planned method here> and the <insert projector here>'s driver stands a slim chance of trashing the machine or making it unstable. We have no time to troubleshoot in the event of a problem."

      I had to set up this kind of demo before (not for Microsoft, and not quite as experimental), and part of it was keeping a second machine handy and running which could be swapped out in the event of a catastrophe.

      Just imagine what it takes to swap out a live machine with a crashed machine, on a podium during a presentation with roughly a thousand people watching (cat-calling with technical advice), and a CxO which is too preoccupied with their audience to take any special instructions in the event of a failure (i.e. you can't give instructions like, "you were on slide 30", you really need to just get them to that slide).

      I never had to do the swap though. No serious problems.

      This is the nature of Windows... but the problem isn't really the OS, it's the amount of third-party junk out there and a "just install it, it works on my home machine" kind of attitude.

  62. Of course Gates would claim communisim... by haplo21112 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...reforming the IP laws to be fair to all people would hurt his pocketbook. The real problem as I see it is that the laws need to be reformed enough so that OPEN/FREE software can do anything that Closed/Commercial can. Right now some of the IP laws prevent this from happening, and some of the coming ones will tighten that even more. All I presonally want is a level playing field, and so long as we have "Trade secrets", Broadcast flags, CSS, etc that can never happen because IT locks out Open/Free which requires that those secrets begiven to everyone using the software and nothing be hidden. Thankfully we won the battle with the W3C and they dropped that whole RAND thing for web standards. A step in the right direction, but not the whole road.

    --
    Power Corrupts,Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely, leaving one person(group)in charge is absolutely corrupt.
  63. Re:fp by daern · · Score: 1

    Can anyone provide a http link of the wmv for those that don't want to spend all morning trying to jump through the mms:// hoop?

    Unlikely to be available, as the mms stream will be hosted from a Windows Media Services server (or farm thereof).

    That said, I can view the stream OK from here, but it's a bit sluggish to buffer.

  64. Communists ? by juliancoccia · · Score: 1

    Keep in mind that he is targeting US audience where a "communist" is something you should be afraid of. He simply tries to scare people as part of his "use linux and you will be sued" campaign. No doubt fear rules in the US

    1. Re:Communists ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No doubt you have no comprehension of history.

    2. Re:Communists ? by juliancoccia · · Score: 1

      I don't know what you mean. I think there is a distance between defending free software and being a comunist. What I'm tying to remark here is the fact that they are using fear to prevent people from using free software, which is disgusting.

  65. One comment? by gad_zuki! · · Score: 4, Insightful

    >Using one comment against him his just propoganda.

    This is not one comment. This is him openly claiming:

    1. The current IP system is what makes America great. Yes, that's what he's saying.

    2. The current IP system doesn't need reform, except perhaps making better patent systems. Note Microsoft has been dealing with Eolas and others regarding patents so Bill is only seeing the light only when it serves his company.

    3. He calls those who call for IP reform "new communists." That's just an insult and trivializes the real concerns many have with using the law (think DMCA and others) to maintain monopoly status and crack down on how one can use one's machine and software.

    He spoke like a perfect monopolist. He knows IP laws help him and help maintain the status quo, thus creating a nice and healthy (for him) barrier to entry. He only diverged from the party-line when it came to patents and it should be obvious why.

    Of course, he may be right about patent reform, but its soley in his interest and in the interest in his monopoly, comrade.

    I will give MS credit, they are the perfect monopolists. Perfect. No wonder he uses such outdated and misused terms like "communism." MS has shown that ruthlessness pays off and Bill might be seeing himself as Ayn Rand, say versus Karl Marx, when he's just an old fashioned monopolist. Monopolies are of course, a symptom of a market failure or corruption. This is called irony.

    I find this rhetoric to be common amongst the wealthy business class and conservatives in general. Such as: Commies! X makes America great! Sure there will always be a debate on Y, but lets not jump to conclusions! etc

    1. Re:One comment? by jav1231 · · Score: 1

      I agree with most of what you're saying. I would encourage you to not lump "conservatives" together as supporting these notions. I think many conservatives that support the M$ notion of "we're just trying to do business" are ignorant of the market. Usually, you hear this from people in some other business. I'm a conservative. I support the Replublican Party. I do NOT, however, support Microsoft's business model. I feel they are a corrupt company and I try to encourage people to recognize this when I get the chance. I DO support capitalism. I feel it gives the individual the best opportunity for success and history has proven this. I can understand how people draw similarities between the OSS movement and "socialism" or "utopianism." However, I encourage those people to understand the the market is not a political environment. Politics may effect it, but it is not inherently political.

  66. Communist by 91degrees · · Score: 1

    I love the way "communist" is considered such a dirty word in America.

    Perhaps it should be upgraded to full expletive status. e.g "It's totally comminised", "What a communist piece of software" or "Eat communism, motherfucker"

    1. Re:Communist by kjamez · · Score: 1

      i figured in light of current events he'd of skipped the 'communist' remark and gone right into 'terrorist'. terrorism is the communism of the 00's.

      --
      you can't have everything, where would you put it?
  67. What did you expect? by yetanothermike · · Score: 1
    When asked, Gates said "Yes, copyright laws are totally out of control and the new intellectual property legislation is totally out of balance. I wish that we could go open source with all our future projects, but those damned stockholders just keep carping about the almighty dollar. By the way, I use Linux and it's the best."

    Gates and his people do threat assesments of new technology. They decide what to ignore, what to buy, what to compete with, etc...

    He's not a technical guy who is going to give unbiased opinion. We shouldn't be surprised that he's going McCarthy on Lessig-types here. It's in his own best interest!

    I'm glad he said it because it just gives more reason for those out there to fight and innovate.

    --

    [insert sig file here]

  68. Linus Torvalds is a communist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I for one welcome our new overlord

  69. He Still Doesn't Get It... by wasted · · Score: 1

    Gates quoted from the article:

    "Well, no one invests more in security of their browser than what we do on IE. The key message we have for people is they should turn on auto update because if you turn on auto update, without you having to think about it and go through a bunch of user interface or know about this or that or the other thing, you can know that there are hundreds of very smart people who are constantly improving your browser and making sure that you're safe. And so with auto update and IE, you're getting the top security team and the quickest response team that there is anywhere."

    If I understand the problem, it isn't so much that there are holes in IE, the problem is that you have to have IE set to allow others to execute code on your box if you wish to use Auto Update, and it is these settings which allow malware to be loaded.

    Please correct me if I am wrong, or tell me if I am missing something.

    1. Re:He Still Doesn't Get It... by Mant · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure auto update is a seperate little program, as it downloads windows and IE (since they are now inseperable) updates in the background. AFAIK it isn't linked with IE's many security flaws and ways you can trick it's trust settings to get it to run your own code.

    2. Re:He Still Doesn't Get It... by wasted · · Score: 1

      Don't the options to allow ActiveX controls to be downloaded and executed have to be selected for Auto Update to work? Is malware being deployed via ActiveX, or is it through some other method?

      Please enlighten me.

  70. Another example of fantastic journalism from /. by potcrackpot · · Score: 0, Troll

    So, Bill Gates makes the opening speech at the CES. What does slashdot report?

    That his demo wasn't flawless.

    Where's the much more sensible and deserving reportage of what Gates' speech contained? About how he's repositioning Microsoft as not just a PC software manufacturer, but is placing more and more emphasis on other devices like consoles (the Xbox), handhelds, personal organisers etc. because the desktop PC is becoming less important in the new, gadget-orientated technology market?

    Bill even admitted this in the speech. But we don't talk about that.

    We just witter on about how his demo didn't work in a pointless, rodomontade, article.

    No, I'm not new here. I'm just fed up.

    1. Re:Another example of fantastic journalism from /. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      No, I'm not new here. I'm just fed up.

      So why are you still here, then?

    2. Re:Another example of fantastic journalism from /. by potcrackpot · · Score: 0, Troll

      How exactly, am I trolling?

      Wankers. You disagreeing with me doesn't mean I'm a troll. Disagreeing with the article's premise or quality doesn't make me a troll.

    3. Re:Another example of fantastic journalism from /. by revscat · · Score: 5, Insightful
      News Flash: Slashdot is not unbiased towards Microsoft. This seems to shock you. And the thing is, they (we!) understand that MS is pure crapola and borderline-to-outright evil, and so for /. to do what you suggest they would have to approach the situation dishonestly, pretending that MS's history of security problems, bad software, and monopolistic characteristics just don't exist. Gates making vapid proclamations about the future direction of MS is neither newsworthy nor interesting; that happens every single year, and they usually turn out to be almost completely wrong.

      What *is* interesting is the so-called "world's greatest software company" has a demo crash on their most public figure, and that he resorts to anachronistic political labels for buttressing his argument.

    4. Re:Another example of fantastic journalism from /. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Welcome to Slashdot groupthink. The same people who belch on about the "freedom" to freely engage in file sharing (i.e. theft) do not believe that freedom should be extended to discussions in which their side looks bad.

    5. Re:Another example of fantastic journalism from /. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Wankers. You disagreeing with me doesn't mean I'm a troll. Disagreeing with the article's premise or quality doesn't make me a troll.

      Fine. Wanker.

    6. Re:Another example of fantastic journalism from /. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      None of what you say is tru except the bias thing, and that's exactly why the others are not true. Almost 9 out of 10 anti-Microsoft news are true on Slashdot.


      Why don't you want to get it? You are simply not telling the truth.


      Microsoft's products are better. They have more to talk about the future because they create it by R & D. Whereas you try to copy that all the time, Linux is a copy-cat of Unix, KDE is a copy-cat of Windows and there are far more such GPLed programs out there. Oh and BSD type programs belong to you as much as it belongs to Bill Gates. So no you have to differentiate open source at one point, because there is not one open source but there is so many.

    7. Re:Another example of fantastic journalism from /. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't actually take the comments here seriously, do you? I think of Shitdot as the mirror image of this site, where they redirect lunix zealots' propaganda links to Mary-Kate and Ashley videos. I browse the comments to laugh at the unbelievable stupidity of lunix lusers. It's funnier than Bozo the Clown.

    8. Re:Another example of fantastic journalism from /. by crimson30 · · Score: 1

      except the bias thing, and that's exactly why the others are not true.

      So revscat's *bias* makes "MS's history of security problems, bad software, and monopolistic characteristics" untrue.

      Exactly how does that work?

  71. Deep End by Refrag · · Score: 1

    I think it is official. Gates has gone off the deep end. He must have early onset senile dementia.

    --
    I have a website. It's about Macs.
  72. Conan O'Brien by British · · Score: 1

    Is it me, or are his jokes totally falling flat here? This is a bit sad to watch, especially after enjoying his bizarre and hilarious skits.

    1. Re:Conan O'Brien by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was laughing, but the M$ zealots have been so brainwashed my M$ that the only thing they know is that all programs should be listed under the start menu and that longhorn will be the answer to their prayers.

    2. Re:Conan O'Brien by nysus · · Score: 1

      Are you kidding? I thought he was hilarious. I think the crowd was just too uptight, especially Gates himself. He came across as a fucking android.

      --

      ---Technology will liberate us if it doesn't enslave us first.

  73. Re:I see**2 your point but... by lenski · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There is communism (insane totalitarianism found in USSR and an earlier China) but they never achieved that Marx wrote about. No "government" ever has (In the '60's and '70's people had communes, but they always broke apart on the shoals of human nature). The people who started "communist" revolutions never completed the process. I don't call those insane assholes "communists", they are insane oligarchs, just like the Czarist regime before them.

    There was a time when the new government in this continent did something that had not been done before or since: They *gave up power*, placing that power in the hands of people. Since then, the concept has fallen on hard times. Today, we have oligarchs like Mr. Gates trying to restore Traditional Values: Own and control access to *fucking everything*. And they have enough financial resources to buy off what passes for government these days. And the only people doing anything about it (in information technology, they are FOSS advocates) eschew government and political process. Too busy writing actual reliable code, I suppose...

    I don't like arbitrary authority, so I don't like big centralized government. On the other hand, I cannot think of another way to slow down the assholes who want to charge me for the privilege of working (using "their" "intellectual" "property"). It's a dilemma that I don't know how to resolve.

  74. "fathers of capitalism"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What 'fathers of capitalism'? I hope you're not thinking that capitalism arrived somewhere around the late 18th century.

  75. He's mostly right by stubear · · Score: 1

    communism: the political theory or system in which all property and wealth is owned in a classless society by all the members of a community.

    By definition, isn't Gates right to a certain extent? Why is it when someone uses the word communist slashbots everywhere hound on this word incessantly without stopping to even consider if it's used correctly or not? Bill Gates never said those who believe intellectual property to be bad for society and will do everything in their power to subvert the rights of copyright and patent holders want an entire political system based on communism, they simply want to communalize the expression of ideas. He's right for the most part, though obviously his choice of words is rather charged and he could have picked a better one. For a community whose ranks are supposed to be rather intelligent, there certainly are a rather large number of dumb fucks who speak for you.

    1. Re:He's mostly right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, Gates is wrong. The software I write is owned by me and myself alone. Communism SUCK! People are greedy and communism can only work with people willing to work together (approximatively 0.01% of the population). We are libertarian, capitalist, whatever you call it...

    2. Re:He's mostly right by randallpowell · · Score: 0
      Bill Gates never said those who believe intellectual property to be bad for society and will do everything in their power to subvert the rights of copyright and patent holders want an entire political system based on communism, they simply want to communalize the expression of ideas.

      If your so intelligent, why are you confusing communism with communalism? Communism is the ownership of production and economy by the People. Communialism is common ownership by a community or society (think public domain). The two sound similiar but are different.

  76. bet he blames the camera.. by Bazman · · Score: 1

    Article: "During a demonstration of digital photography with a soon-to-be-released Nikon camera, a Windows Media Center PC froze"

    See, it was an unreleased _camera_ that caused the problem. Nothing to do with Windows. Oh no. Of course not. Its perfect.

    Expect Nikon shares to plummet...

    And does this: "Bill Gates promised that Microsoft would help millions of consumers stay seamlessly plugged into a world of digital music, movies, video games and television shows." sound a bit too much like The Matrix to you?

    Baz

  77. Microsoft == Milo enterprises by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

    "...what's good for the syndicate is good for the country."

    Msft doesn't oppose *all* IP reform. For example, when it comes to restricting the rights that individuals have over their own media, msft is all for it.

    It's typical msft. When msft speaks of "American Business" msft really means one particular American business. Anything good for msft is good for America, Anthing bad for msft is bad for America.

  78. Re: Fathers of capitalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who exactly were they? Since when have people not bought and sold? Even homo erectus probably traded spear points.

  79. Stealing intellectual property by Vague+but+True · · Score: 1
    Stealing intellectual property is wrong. But the problem is the "What is intellectual property".
    It seems that the person who "owns" the intellectual property is the person with the best lawyer in the court.

    If two people claim a XYZ item is their's, they go to court, someone is going to lose. The loser is infringing on the winner's intellectual property.

    The problem is people will patent something (Let's say virtual [3d] chat rooms). There is currently a patent on 3d chat rooms, but the company has not made any effort to create a working model.
    If you create a 3d chat room (you got a wild hare one night)...you are in voliation of someone's intellectual property.

    Why? Because the law/lawyers/courts say so.

    The root problem is not some kid downloading mp3s from the internet. The problem is how the law regarding intellectual property kills innovation.

    --

    I'm not a doctor, but I play one in bed.

  80. It's MS who's communist here, not us by KiloByte · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Note that capitalism is not about monopolies. In fact, capitalism relies on free market, and you can't have free market if one of the players controls a majority of it.

    The basic ideas of capitalism work just insanely effective. When we had communism in Poland, most shops had empty shelves -- and within just months after the communism's fall any shortages were just gone, as if by a wave of a magic wand.

    On the other hand, communism is based on monopoly. It's supposed to be a monopoly of the "working class", but in reality in all cases it turned out to be a monopoly of the Party. And then, if you can buy the Party's blessing -- you can have a monopoly in your sector, too!
    Whatever you say, you can't ignore the fact that all real-life implementations of communism were based on the control the Party had on the citizens. In fact, it's the control what the communism is about.
    So... we have a company who tries to gain the sole control of a sector of industry -- and it's them who dare to call their enemies communists.

    --
    The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    1. Re:It's MS who's communist here, not us by Kiryat+Malachi · · Score: 1, Interesting

      You're wrong.

      Real life implementations of communism that *work* and were not based on party control exist - kibbutzim in Israel, communes in the US and elsewhere. They aren't based on a Party structure at all.

      The totalitarian government you had in Eastern Europe was not really communism, it just went by the name. Drawing conclusions about the validity of real communist principles from the USSR is like drawing conclusions about the lifespan of a human by studying how long penguins live.

      (note: I believe communism would still fail as a government, even if it weren't implemented as a totalitarian system, but it is not in and of itself a failure as an idea, as kibbutzim, moshavim, and communes have been showing for the past century.)

      --

      ---
      Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
      (I read with sigs off.)
    2. Re:It's MS who's communist here, not us by tetromino · · Score: 1

      When we had communism in Poland, most shops had empty shelves -- and within just months after the communism's fall any shortages were just gone, as if by a wave of a magic wand.

      That magic wand took a long time to work in Russia...

    3. Re:It's MS who's communist here, not us by arudloff · · Score: 1

      And what we have in America isn't really Democracy as much as it is a Republic, whats your point? Call it what you want but when people say "communism," they don't mean some hippie commune outside of L.A. with thirty people. They mean extremists who imposed it on an entire nation. People like Stalin and the political parties the parent had in Eastern Europe. It doesn't work on that scale. It never has, and probably never will.

    4. Re:It's MS who's communist here, not us by physick · · Score: 2, Insightful

      >Real life implementations of communism that *work* and were >not based on party control exist - kibbutzim in Israel, >communes in the US and elsewhere. They aren't based on a >Party structure at all.

      They "work" because they are tiny and powerless and are protected by the power of the state within which they exist. They also don't satisfy the conditions for being called "communist" in the sense described by Mark and Engels, ie "Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things."

      >The totalitarian government you had in Eastern Europe was not >really communism, it just went by the name.

      Oh, really? As far as I know, the USSR implemented the following:

      1 Abolition of property in land (collectivisation)
      2 Abolition of right of inheritance (at least houses, land and large amounts of money)
      3 Confiscation of the property of rebels and emigrants (and I think rebel in reality just means anyone who upsets the party bosses)
      5 Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly
      6 Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State
      7 Extension of factories annd instruments of production owned by the State; bringing in to production of wasteland and the improvement of the soil (I think they got a bit lost on the last one there, especially around Chernobyl)
      8 Equal liability of all to labour
      9 Combination of agriculture with manufactoringindustries..... a more equitable distribution of the population over the country (they just didn't ask the "people" if they wanted to be moved across several time zones)
      10 Free education for all children in public schools (unless your parents upset the party bosses in which case, no education, at least at university level)

      Now THAT is communism, according to its Manifest from 1848. And it looks pretty much like what I hear life in the USSR was like. It also does NOT look like any kibbutz I have heard about.

      >Drawing conclusions about the validity of real communist >principles from the USSR is like drawing conclusions about the >lifespan of a human by studying how long penguins live.

      I am not sure what you think are "real communist principles" if not the ones that Marx et al described and were implemented in the USSR, China etc. "Let's all share everything and be nice to each other" does NOT appear in the communist literature I have read.

    5. Re:It's MS who's communist here, not us by Sheepdot · · Score: 1

      You know, you just said what Libertarians and true Republican Capitalists have been trying to say for years. Yes, I'm a Libertarian, yes, I'm pro-capitalism, but no, I do not think it is right that any company gets to have government entities working as bodyguards during big events by claiming a "terrorist attack" might happen at the site they plan to have the event at.

    6. Re:It's MS who's communist here, not us by sedmonds · · Score: 1
      Capitalism.

      An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.

      Free market.

      An economic market in which supply and demand are not regulated or are regulated with only minor restrictions.
      Capitalism precludes only -regulated- monopolies, that is, monopolies which exist only because of government intervention. That there are markets with prohibitively high costs of entry and difficulties with increasing market penetration is an unavoidable occurance in capitalist society. Consumer protection legislation is, for the most part, contrary to the core of capitalism as are intellectual property laws. Both seem to be required, though, to keep the capitalist-ish societies functioning smoothly.
    7. Re:It's MS who's communist here, not us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Th shops had empty shelves not because of Communism. I was in Russia not in Poland at the time but I think the situation there were similar. You seems to forget what were the prices during Communism and just few months after.(It took much longer for Russia)

      It was simply demand and ask. During the Communism the economy was isolated and fully controlled. As a result the people had money that were not supported by goods that they could buy on it. Market economy fixed that imbalance and prices skyrocketed. People couldn't afford to buy as much as they could before. In addition to that the economy became open to new goods but it is not as important to "empty shelves" problem as fixing currency problems. When goods worth more money then their price you will never see them on shelves. The black market will instantly form and it always existed during the Communism.

      The reason ex-communist countries were afraid to fix the currency problems is the price skyrocketing. That would make a lot of people very poor. People would feel that life under communism were much better for them then under capitalists and they might elect communists back to power.

    8. Re:It's MS who's communist here, not us by danila · · Score: 1

      KiloByte, I am afraid you don't understand microeconomics very well. See, the one thing that free markets do well is equating demand and supply. They are really amazing at it. In a free market economy it's practically impossible to come to a store and have empty shelves. Is it because free market is so insanely great, efficient and productive? No, it is not. It's simply because free market balances supply and demand well, that's all. When a shortage emerges, the prices are increased, the demand drops and soon equals the supply. When there is a surplus, rices drop and the demand usually increases taking care of that surplus. Of course, it's a bit more complicated in reality, but you get the idea.

      So, the day the prices were "liberated" in Poland and in the former Soviet Union as well, the stores simply increased their prices, so that the amount of products they could sell at that price became approximately equal to the amount of prodcuts they could buy at that price. Bingo. The prices shot up, the demand dropped, no more empty shelves.

      Wasn't it great? Well, no, it wasn't. The reality is that while the empty shelves were gone, the average consumption of all useful products (such as meat, poultry, vegetables, cheese, chocolate, basically everything, which is not a Giffen good) dropped, sometimes several times. Of course, if you were a rich Pole, you were happy, because suddenly money decided whether you can buy food. But if you were an average Pole, you had just became a little bit (or a lot) poorer. Of course, Poland had fortunately solved this problem over the past 15 years, but please don't blame communism for empty shelves, they were just an artefact of trying to make sure every family could buy healthy food for themselves and their children.

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
    9. Re:It's MS who's communist here, not us by sootman · · Score: 1

      One of the few things I remember from those Econ classes oh-so-many years ago: "Pure capitalism tends towards monopolies." IE, it's competition. Unregulated, there will be one winner. Period. Will that one entity stay on top forever? Not necessarily. But when you have competition, you will wind up with one winner, every time. Until someone new comes along, and the cycle starts over.

      --
      Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
    10. Re:It's MS who's communist here, not us by Kiryat+Malachi · · Score: 1

      They work because they aren't *states*. You're hung up on the notion that communist organizations must be nations; I'm not. If you want to restrict it to nations, then yes, there are no examples you can point to. See? I've acknowledged your point, now kindly acknowledge that communism does work under certain circumstances (limited reach, limited goals).

      See, it's your parenthetical remarks that make it not "real". A communist country doesn't force population transfer; a totalitarian one masquerading as communist does. Further, a democratic country has elections. Does that mean that, because the USSR had elections, it was a democratic country? Hell no. You can't say "These characteristics are shared with this form of governance, therefore that's what they were using." The USSR was built along strongly authoritarian, totalitarian lines. Just because they took on trappings of communism doesn't make them any less totalitarian.

      By the way: on a kibbutz, let me go through 1 to 10.

      1. Yes. No one owns land on kibbutzim that I've been to.
      2. Yes, although the laws of the state they're part of may have some effect, most request that kibbutz members leave the kibbutz as their inheritor to minimize the effects of those laws. "Real" property is generally not owned by members anyway, while "portable" property is less of an issue and is sometimes passed along. Side note - inheritance is meaningless if everything is collectively owned.
      3. Yes. People wanting to leave the kibbutz do not get to take kibbutz property with them when they go.
      5. Yes and no. Kibbutz finances run through a central bank. However, they acknowledge that people on kibbutz often interact with people off kibbutz, and some measure of private capital is allowed in order to facilitate this.
      6. Yes. Kibbutz owned vehicles loaned out as needed to members.
      7. ABSOLUTELY. This is the core reason for most kibbutzim - they farm the land, and most now have light industry attached. Working the land is the core goal of most/many of them.
      8. Yes. Everyone has responsibility to work.
      9. See 7 re combination, and distribution of population is non-comparable, since they generally don't have sufficient land to try to distribute population in any way other than sensible urban planning.
      10. Yes. And in many, if you want to go to an external university, the kibbutz will finance that.

      You are pretty obviously not familiar with kibbutzim. We may differ on our analysis of the USSR as a communist nation, but kibbutzim are very definitely communist in structure, as defined by the Manifesto.

      (Oh, and 10? Are you serious? That's true of most capitalist countries as well, at least to a given level, and sometimes even through university.)

      --

      ---
      Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
      (I read with sigs off.)
    11. Re:It's MS who's communist here, not us by Kiryat+Malachi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There's a value in precision in language; whether other people are imbeciles or not doesn't obviate our responsibility not to misuse words we know we're misusing.

      I don't say Christian when I mean snake-handling cultist, and I don't say communist when I mean totalitarian. Hey, I don't even say communist when I mean free software zealot. I damn well will jump on people who misuse words and conflate two very different things into one.

      I'm not arguing communism has worked at the national level. I don't think it will, as I said in my previous post. However, I pointed out that the principles are applicable on some scales, and that those principles weren't the real guiding principles of the USSR, which operated as a totalitarian oligarchy.

      --

      ---
      Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
      (I read with sigs off.)
    12. Re:It's MS who's communist here, not us by fbg111 · · Score: 1

      When we had communism in Poland,

      Among the posts on communism in this thread, this is the only one that deserves a 5. Someone who was actually there and knows first hand, and is not some punter who's skimmed Das Kapital and thinks he's an expert. It's the rare pieces of wheat like this that make /. worth reading.

      --
      Flying is easy, just throw yourself at the ground and miss. -Douglas Adams
    13. Re:It's MS who's communist here, not us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Someone who was actually there and knows first hand...
      ... and is somehow representative of the experience of the entire Polish nation at the time?

      Be careful.
    14. Re:It's MS who's communist here, not us by physick · · Score: 1

      They work because they aren't *states*. You're hung up on the notion that communist organizations must be nations; I'm not. If you want to restrict it to nations, then yes, there are no examples you can point to. See? I've acknowledged your point, now kindly acknowledge that communism does work under certain circumstances (limited reach, limited goals)

      I agree with you here that Kibbutzim (as far as I have heard, as I have never lived in one) may practise some of the principles that are often called "communist". But this is much like my giving my children some money so they can play with the vegetables in the kitchen and buy and sell them to each other and calling it capitalism. Yes, the rules of how they buy and sell may look like capitalism, but the difference in scale is HUGE. How many people live in a kibbutz? 1000, 10,000? I doubt if 10,000 do. Of course, such a small group can exist and propagate itself, as long as the host country protects it. The only attempts to make this work on a national scale have FAILED. Everywhere. There is NO relation between the management of a kibbutz of 10,000 people and the running of a COUNTRY.

      I think we ought to take the founders' of communism seriously when they define what they were trying to establish. The inevitable progress of history and class struggle is what communism is defined as. Not sharing things with 10,000 people while living in a capitalist country. This is not "being hung up" it means taking people seriously when they say what they are trying to do. And Marx SAYS that it is communist COUNTRIES that he is talking about. He would probably have been disgusted with the idea of "communist" communities co-existing within a capitalist country. He probably didn't think it was possible.

      See, it's your parenthetical remarks that make it not "real". A communist country doesn't force population transfer; a totalitarian one masquerading as communist does.

      No. In the Manifesto it states clearly that population transfer WILL occur. This has nothing to do with totalitarianism, and everything to do with Marx's ideal state. You cannot pick and choose which bits of the definition you like and call them "communist", then take the bits you don't like and call them "totalitarian"

      Further, a democratic country has elections. Does that mean that, because the USSR had elections, it was a democratic country?

      Er no, but not for the reason you give: a dog has a tail but does that mean all creatures with a tail are dogs?

      The USSR was built along strongly authoritarian, totalitarian lines. Just because they took on trappings of communism doesn't make them any less totalitarian

      This is the wrong way around: the 1917 revolution established COMMUNISM in the USSR. Initially, Trotsky, Lenin, Stalin et al all worked together. The totalitarianism came later with Stalin in the late 20's after he had killed or exiled all the original members of the politburo except himself. It is an interesting (hyperthetical) question whether communism would have been established in the USSR if, say, Trotsky had taken over instead of Stalin. I don't know, I am not an historian. But what made Stalin able to do what he wanted was the political structure of communism: the party controls everything. But who controls the party? Answer. The strongest, and most brutal person, namely Stalin. So, they did not "take on the trappings" of communism, the communist power structure was manipulated into being totalitarian because IT WAS EASY TO DO! There were no checks.

      You are pretty obviously not familiar with kibbutzim. We may differ on our analysis of the USSR as a communist nation, but kibbutzim are very definitely communist in structure, as defined by the Manifesto.

      True, I am not familiar with them. I have no quibble about how kibbutz-es (plural?) function, and they may even share things and have goods in common, but how can you say they satisfy the conditions in the Manifesto? The whole document is only defined in relation to whole COUNTR

    15. Re:It's MS who's communist here, not us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Well.

      It is NOT true, as far as my recollection goes. I lived through 15 years of communism in former Yugoslavia, and then through 15 years of capitalism right afterwards (Croatia, if you are interested).

      To be blunt, we lived well under communism. We had everything we wanted, my parents both worked, nobody was hungry (nobody, as in you'd never see hungry folks on TV or on the street, no matter where you went), and life expectancy was fairly good. Almost up there with the most advanced countries in the West (within 5 years).

      Then we hit the magic capitalism. Life standards plummeted, my parents lost their jobs, life expectancy went to hell. You see poor, desperate, hungry people all the freaking time. Things have gotten a little better recently, but they still SUCK big time.

      Let me compare some numbers. In 1980 or so, my parents (decidedly middle class, both with a college education) were taking home about 1500 dollars each month, in 1980 dollars. We went skiing every winter, we went to the Adriatic for a summer vacation every summer. We changed cars every 4-5 years. We had a nice TV (in 1980), and in 1985 I got my first computer (Atari ST).

      Okay, now compare this to 2000, twenty years later, after 10 years of glorious capitalism. My mom doesn't work, my dad takes home about 800 dollars a month (that's 2000 dollars!), we haven't used our skis in a decade, I've last gone to the sea on a vacation 5 years ago, the TV is still the same one from 1980, and we don't have a car. The only new thing is the PC, which I made from scrounged parts.

      1500 1980 dollars compared to 800 2000 dollars. Even without inflation it is obvious which system shafted us. When you add the inflation, loss of universal care and universal education, dismantled public transportation, deteriorating infrastructure, and great increase in crime and illiteracy, communism was a goddamned paradise compared to the capitalist free market.

      I don't care if communism sucked ass in USSR, Poland, and the rest of the Warsaw Pact. Communism worked very nicely for us Yugoslavs, and when we ditched it we went through a goddamn civil war lasting 10 years. Oh, by the way, it is arguable that Western Europe and US did their best to destroy the country with "economic reforms" forced down our throats in 1980 which torched the economy, and political assistance to various nationalist assholes who wanted their own little kingdoms.

      After all, it is bad for propaganda purposes to have a successful communist system giving you the finger all the time. Nuh, uh, it's gotta go. :P

      I am bitter. I am doing well in capitalism these days because I learned to cheat, lie, and screw everyone else, all to "get ahead". Hard word, solid ethics, and niceness would have gotten me to my mom's position, aka unemployed and unemployable...

    16. Re:It's MS who's communist here, not us by Kiryat+Malachi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you give your children money, and let them form a free market in your kitchen, it *is* capitalism. Yes, it's small scale, but scale doesn't change the fact that the structure, which is what's actually important, is capitalist. Similarly, if something is small-scale structured as a communist organization, it remains communist, just at a smaller scale. Certain structures do work better at certain scales than others; however, saying that it isn't communism (despite fitting the principles as you defined them) just because its small is bullshit.

      I'm *not* arguing your point re: communism being ineffective at large scales. Please stop saying I am. It hasn't worked, and when it's been attempted, it has invariably devolved into totalitarian/authoritarian structures (USSR, Cuba, China).

      Further, you cannot solely cite the founders of an intellectual tradition; you also have to accept the further development of that tradition. Marx is not the sole arbiter of communism; there has been other original thought on the subject since then. Democracy today has many differences from democracy in the time of Plato; would you argue that just because we don't take everything Plato says as gospel, it isn't democracy?

      The key word was *force*. My understanding of Marx's doctrines is that he was saying "In a communist countty, the population will redistribute itself more equally." That it would be an inevitable consequence, an "invisible hand" effect, if you don't mind mixing your socioeconomic metaphors. The USSR used violence to force these transfers, something that I believe Marx would have felt to be antithetical to the very notion of communism. A totalitarian government has no issue with using violence againsts its citizens to force them into behaviors it considers desirable; a communist government working from Marx's blueprints would have very real issues with the idea that violence against the working class would be necessary to achieve the desired distribution of population.

      re: dog and tail - exactly my point. Just because a totalitarian country represents communist does not make it communist.

      The lack of checks in the Soviet implementation of communism was the fatal flaw that allowed it to be consumed from inside by totalitarianism. It is not, however, something that is inherent to communism, just like the strong checks and balances in the US republic that make it relatively difficult to subvert are not inherent to the concept of a republic. The idea is that the Party is controlled by the collective will of the people, yes? If you allow the control of the Party to be assumed by one person, you *already have* wounnd up with a dictatorship, ant then you are living in an authoritarian society with a collective economic system. Communism was both a political and economic system; with only one part and not the other, what you have left is not communism. The second Stalin took power, the USSR ceased to be a communist country.

      The plural for kibbutz is kibbutzim; Hebrew word, Hebrew pluralization. The proper word for describing a kibbutz (in the general sense) is socialist, though some essentially function as communist organizations. You remain hung up on communism only in the context of nations, whereas it is a blueprint for organization of groups of people. Again, Marx and Engels originated it, but thought has moved on since their time. The countries established under communist systems have *all* failed, true; but their failure was allowing their system to become an authoritarian system. I'm not certain that it's possible to have a communist nation-state that doesn't fail in this fashion, but the truth is - there never has been a communist nation-state, not for more than a few years. Blaming communism for Stalin's abuses is like blaming democracy for the abuses of the French Revolution.

      Who's to blame? Stalin. Robespierre. The dictators, the fascists. Not the systems they subverted.

      --

      ---
      Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
      (I read with sigs off.)
    17. Re:It's MS who's communist here, not us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you are an American troll and have never been anywhere near Yugoslavia or Croatia.

    18. Re:It's MS who's communist here, not us by Lobo93 · · Score: 1

      Whatever! (As the usians so eloquently put it.) But s/he got a helluva point, and the best one of them all:

      "I am bitter. I am doing well in capitalism these days because I learned to cheat, lie, and screw everyone else, all to "get ahead". Hard word, solid ethics, and niceness would have gotten me to my mom's position, aka unemployed and unemployable..."

      --
      "The only clear view is from atop the mountain of our dead selves." - Peter Carroll
    19. Re:It's MS who's communist here, not us by mic256 · · Score: 1

      I kind of lived in Poland during communism (I was a child then) and what you say is BS. Back then it was like nobody really wanted to work. There was even a saying, sth like: "whether you stand or lie - you get paid the same". I remember shopping, when they had goods on display, that you just couldn't buy, because the shop wouldn't sell it - they were just for the show. We had a regulated system sometimes, like there was one gray soap bar per person per month, a quarter of kilo of butter per person/month and so on. The only thing that was on the empty shelves was often vinegar. My parents friends related once, like they hunted for toilet papers whole days! I believe they even had a photo with their trophies around their necks stringed on a rope!
      This was during communism. It sounds so unbelievable to us youngsters today that we find it hard to believe!
      Now I just enter a supermarket and can buy more gooods than I can possibly use! (yes I can afford it).

      "So, the day the prices were "liberated" in Polandand in the former Soviet Union as well, the stores simply increased their prices, so that the amount of products they could sell at that price became approximately equal to the amount of prodcuts they could buy at that price. Bingo. The prices shot up, the demand dropped, no more empty shelves."
      1) First of all liberated, not "liberated", because it was for real!
      2) not: stores simply started to increase their prices, but rather people started to work for real.

      "Wasn't it great? Well, no, it wasn't. The reality is that while the empty shelves were gone, the average consumption of all useful products (such as meat, poultry, vegetables, cheese, chocolate, basically everything, which is not a Giffen good) dropped, sometimes several times. "
      AFAIK there was no real chocolate during the last decade of communism, only chocolate-like sweets, because the country was to poor too produce it!

      I can tell you what is fake in your reasoning.
      I will give you a lesson in microeconomics. A carpenter makes two tables. His lazy neighbour does nothing. Here comes the party, takes the tables, one gives to his lazy neighbour who laughs at the carpenter, and one to themselves for the trouble. The carpenter might face charges for not sharing - he obviously doesn't need two tables! Who is going to produce the next tables ?

      I remember some things from communism and believe me - it was hell in many ways you don't comprehend. I would never want it come back!
      One last note - I don't believe there would be Polish jokes without communism, and just compare East and West Germany.

    20. Re:It's MS who's communist here, not us by danila · · Score: 1

      I don't know you personally, of course, but I suspect that a lot of what you think about communist Poland today is not based on reality (because you were just a child), but on what you were told afterwards (via TV, by your parents, etc.). I am well aware that Poles didn't like Soviet system, partly because they didn't like Russians much (especially after the Warsaw rebellion), partly because they were deeply bourgeois by then. But I have a strong suspicion that Poland was not poorer than the Soviet Union (and may be a little bit richer). And in Soviet Union the rationing was only introduced in the last years of the 1980s. And there definitely was chocolate in Soviet Union, lots of it (although there was lots of ersatz too). And toilet paper, well, it's not like you can't manage without it. :)

      So I don't believe that you are correct when you paint communist Poland as a butter-less wasteland. And, if you think about it, you don't really need more than 250 grams of butter per month. According to this document, the butter consumption record in the United States in the last few decades was 180 grams per month per capita. 250 grams per month sounds entirely reasonable to me. BTW, that's exactly what I meant when I said consumption dropped through the floor. I am not sure about figures for Poland, but in Russia it did decrease several times for many essential products.

      There were many inefficiencies, such as lack of toilet paper, but this was to be expected. It was by design that the society accepted some inefficiencies in order to have a better consumption overall.

      As for personal experiences, I lived in Soviet Union. And I remember that even the proletarians could afford caviar from time to time. And everyone could buy cheap quality food, enough for a healthy diet. And don't forget free education, healthcare and other bonuses. And the rent was law, and the air was clean and the Sun didn't set over the Soviet Union. Oh, those were the times...

      Seriously, I can accept that because of lazy carpenters the system didn't work as well as it could have with better people. But it was still extremely effective. And eventually we would have industrial robots and we would have enough tables. Sadly, the good things never last. :(

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
    21. Re:It's MS who's communist here, not us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where's the proof that you can't have monopolies, if you look critically through America's history of breaking monopolies, it is a comedy of errors.

    22. Re:It's MS who's communist here, not us by KiloByte · · Score: 1

      That's because you don't have capitalism yet. Putin is leading you in the very opposite direction, so you won't have it soon, too... :(

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    23. Re:It's MS who's communist here, not us by 10Ghz · · Score: 1

      What makes him an expert on communism? Because he lived in Poland? And what makes you think that Poland had communism? Just because some bureaucrats in Poland said that their country was communist-country does not make it in to one.

      --
      Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
    24. Re:It's MS who's communist here, not us by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      Of course, Poland had fortunately solved this problem over the past 15 years

      Optimist... :)
      Sorry but we're nowhere near to solving this problem.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
  81. Next... by glamslam · · Score: 1

    Now Bill Gates is going to start refering to free software as the dangerous threat of WMDs (Weapons of Microsoft's Destruction). Communism is so 80s. Terrorism is thr 'ism for the 2000s.

  82. It is a shame by SlashDread · · Score: 1

    Once, Bill Gates was a reasonable democratic guy.
    He and his silly company are turning more and more into their "One OS" fascism corp cult.

    A shame really.

  83. Bill, Bill, Bill... by zenmojodaddy · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Since Bill feels free to label anyone who disagrees with him as a communist, may we all feel free to label him a twat?

  84. Geez! that speaker! by MouseR · · Score: 1

    How deep did he have to dig to get a nose so brown?

    He went on for minutes during his introducing Gates and MS about how cool, great, respected, inventfull and bla bla bla they both are.

    I didn't watch the rest of it it. Couldn't bare it.

  85. Communists? eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, the people who wrote the US constitution
    were communists too since they allowed
    copyright for 10 years maximum !!!

    Gates... you sad little man. I bet it takes
    your wife a pair of tweezers and a an hour or two
    to find your limp little bit of string.

  86. strange by Squeezer · · Score: 1

    strange that a socialist would call others a communist. pot, kettle, black.

    --
    Does the name Pavlov ring a bell?
  87. IP important for open source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    IP is more important to open sourcers rather than anybody else because all they have it the "Copyright (C)" in their code. If IP is not respected, open source can be stolen. The only thing these folks have is the credits for their work.

    The problem is that -as usual- the people who are pushing the IP laws are also including small print along with the basic idea, which is bad laws. You can't say that a phrase like "threepeat", is IP!!! Sure, the ex-coach of cicago bulls can take credit for it but it's not god damn IP!

    The objection, I think, is "what is IP and what isn't". Some things that are intellectual property indeed should definitelly be respected. Other things that aren't and that will fall into IP, will restrict scientists and pioneers.

  88. Clearly a lie! - Re:Clearly a lie! by Esine · · Score: 1

    well, I can assure you, I've crashed Windows 2000 (with and without service packs) MANY times. Same goes for Windows XP (not sure the exact version).
    Anyway, here's some picture about it.. though the ones I got had less text on them... and it rebooted automatically in ~5 seconds.
    Yea here:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_screen_of_death# Windows_NT4.2F2000

  89. Hypocritical at best by canuck57 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    where he described anyone who doesn't support ever-increasing intellectual property laws as "communists".

    Does this make Bill Gates a communist? Xerox and Apple had windows before Microsoft. TCP was borrowed from Digital. Sun for RPCs and J#. Supercalc and other had spead sheets before Microsoft. Does work perect or others get roaylties rom Word for the word processor?

    In fact, Linux uses X for it's windows which predates Microsoft. Maybe Microsoft should pay royalties to commercial UNIX and Linux for the RTU of Windows.

    And look at Microsoft's legal track record.

    This was obviously a hypocritical comment on Bill's part. A typical reaction to a monoplistic looser.

    1. Re:Hypocritical at best by afree87 · · Score: 1

      Don't forget the times they stole infringed on another company's patent to bankrupt them. Respect for IP, indeed.

    2. Re:Hypocritical at best by HarvardAce · · Score: 1
      Maybe Microsoft should pay royalties to commercial UNIX and Linux for the RTU of Windows.

      Well, Microsoft is paying money to people who claim to be the owners of Unix/Linux... Does that count?

      --
      Note to self: Stop putting jokes in my insightful comments so I can get something other than +1 Funny!
  90. +1 by palad1 · · Score: 1

    I wish I had mod points today, tovarich! let's burn some karma, for the revolution!

  91. Godwin's law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If Godwin's law allowed the use of Communists instead of Nazis would that mean he lost the argument?

  92. HAHAAHAHA-nutjob by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "it's just really really hard to pull off because of human nature."

    yeah, those pesky people just keep wanting to LIVE! dammit!!

    They'll never learn...

  93. More laws are necessary by General+Alcazar · · Score: 1
    Not that I agree with the tenor of Bill's perspective, but I do agree that we will need to continue to increase our intellectual property laws. I do not see this as a bad thing. As our society continues to evolve and becomes more and more involved in the world of thought, ideas, knowledge, and information processing, we will need more sophisticated rules about how to manage that world.

    I see laws as a kind of software for running a society, and as our society becomes more information based, we will need more sophisticated and nuanced rules to maximize freedom, the creative spirit, and the natural unfolding of life and desire. The current IP laws that we have are of a different time and world. We need new maps to guide us, that give us greater choice and freedom, while also providing a logical structure that an information based society can thrive on.

    1. Re:More laws are necessary by lendude · · Score: 1
      The concept of putting thought into increasing intellectual property laws in and of itself is not necessarily a bad thing, and I see merit in the pursuit of "more sophisticated and nuanced rules" if the global intent of such pursuit is to maximise freedom, reward the creative spirit etc. These, some may argue, are meritorious goals.

      Many would argue, myself among them, that this is however not the intent (judging by current philisophical position or action) of those most vociferously pursuing greater IP laws: their goals are to create, or acquire, or to otherwise aggregate control of IP amongst a shrinking proportion of the corporate citizenship with a view to segregating, isolating and ultimately denying fair use and common shared knowledge amongst those not falling within the mandated 'control' regime.

      --
      "Get off the cross - we need the wood" - Tori Amos
  94. Communists? by trendescape · · Score: 0

    He's an imperialist!

    --
    irc.enterthegame.com #linux
    1. Re:Communists? by JohnnyCannuk · · Score: 1

      Hey...that's 'Running Dog Imperialist' to you...

      Get it right... ;)

      --
      Never by hatred has hatred been appeased, only by kindness - the Buddha
  95. Re: Communists by CountBrass · · Score: 1

    Well you've pretty much proved you can be a 12 year old and use a dictionary...

    --
    Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
  96. Anybody have a non-.asx video of the keynote? by spud603 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    does anybody know where there's a non-windowsmedia video of the keynote. windows media player for mac has yet to be able to effectively play a live stream for me.

  97. Oh, it doesn't get better than these comments... by spamfiltertest · · Score: 2, Interesting
    "So when people say Firefox is being downloaded onto people's systems, that's true, but IE is also on those systems. Firefox is new, and people are trying it out. There's a certain percentage of people who do that--it's very easy to download."

    Why is IE on those systems, Bill, oh that's right because you made it part of the OS and there was little way for it not to be on the system.

    "...We need to keep IE the best. So no big problem; it's not that people have stopped using IE, it's just we've got lots of good ideas that can match and move ahead...."

    I'm sure the Firefox is being downloaded, over and over, but it's not catching on... right? IE hasn't been the best in years.

    And for the best (in terms of the IE talk)

    Well, no one invests more in security of their browser than what we do on IE.

    I'm going to go out on a limb and say this is correct. The part Bill seems to ignore is the fact that the $ is wasted is you base that on their track record of making things secure.

  98. Run screaming from this!!! by maynard · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Fly the [boing!boing! USSR/Copyleft] flag with pride comrades!"

    NONONONONO!!! I know you're trying to be funny, but I'm not laughing... The last thing free software proponents need is to associate themselves with a failed economic ideology that has resulted in tens of millions of unnecessary deaths worldwide. Free Software has nothing to do with statist communism and everything to do with individual freedom of association and collaboration. When Bill Gates frames the debate between the capitalists on his side and communists on the other, the last thing to do is embrace the presuppositions of his frame! Down that road evokes an ideological wasteland of failure! Do copyleft supporters want to associate themnselves with that? --M

    1. Re:Run screaming from this!!! by ratsnapple+tea · · Score: 1

      Heh heh heh. I agree wholeheartedly, but who's going to police the branding campaign? The same guys who think GIMP and LAME are cool names?

    2. Re:Run screaming from this!!! by Bearpaw · · Score: 1, Troll
      The last thing free software proponents need is to associate themselves with a failed economic ideology that has resulted in tens of millions of unnecessary deaths worldwide.

      Just for a minute here, I wasn't sure you were talking about communism or corporatism.

    3. Re:Run screaming from this!!! by cL0h · · Score: 1

      The ideology did not fail. The instance of it did. Well designed. Badly executed.
      Wait for the robots - then you will see communism work my friend.

      --
      cL0h
    4. Re:Run screaming from this!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Efficient robots will NOT use communism, they rather will use darwinisn, which conceptually is close to capitalism.

    5. Re:Run screaming from this!!! by plumby · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Free Software has nothing to do with statist communism and everything to do with individual freedom of association and collaboration.

      And statist 'communism' as practiced in places like the USSR and China has very little to do with real communist/socialist theory.

    6. Re:Run screaming from this!!! by jafac · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Come on, the deaths caused by Communism were a result of Religious Fervor. The folks who participated didn't have a religion, so they substituted "Humanism" as their bailywick, and justification to slaughter.

      People want to slaughter. It's in their nature. Religion often provides a reasonable excuse for it, but so does racism, or any ideology. (Including Capitalism).

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    7. Re:Run screaming from this!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i feel it prudent to point out that "comunisim" in Russia and eastern Europe had little to do with communisim

    8. Re:Run screaming from this!!! by Omnifarious · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And communist theory has very little to do with reality.

    9. Re:Run screaming from this!!! by rho · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Ah, yes, this is a old chestnut: "Communism is a good system run by bad people."

      The problem with communism/socialism is not the people who are running it, it's people. We just don't work that way in groups larger than a high school study group, and that's why it fails every time.

      --
      Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
    10. Re:Run screaming from this!!! by KilobyteKnight · · Score: 1
      People want to slaughter. It's in their nature. Religion often provides a reasonable excuse for it, but so does racism, or any ideology. (Including Capitalism).


      Capitalists don't intentionally kill their customers. It's not profitable. Capitalists succeed by providing people with things they are willing to purchase.
      --
      When will Windows be ready for the desktop?
    11. Re:Run screaming from this!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The C.P. And C.M.

      1. The Communist Party
      credits bourgeois capitalism
      with an historic mission.

      2. The Communitarian Movement
      condemns it
      on general principles.

      3. The Communist Party
      throws the monkey-wrench
      of class struggle
      into the economic machinery
      and by doing so
      delays the fulfilling
      of the historic mission
      which it credits
      to capitalism.

      4. The Communitarian Movement
      aims to create
      a new society
      within the shell of the old
      with the philosophy of the new
      which is not
      a new philosophy
      but a very old philosophy,
      a philosophy so old
      that it looks like new.

      5. The Communist Party
      stands for proletarian dictatorship.

      6. The Communitarian Movement
      stands for personalist leadership.

    12. Re:Run screaming from this!!! by 16K+Ram+Pack · · Score: 1
      Free Software is more like people who operate in the voluntary sector.

      If anything, it's more like a true free market than companies who practise lock-in, who are aiming to practise monopolistic behaviour (communism also is monopolistic because it believes in government control of the means of production).

      Free software is like companies in a free market, where the best survive. If the Word file format was open, we may have better tools than we do now.

    13. Re:Run screaming from this!!! by bogado · · Score: 1

      in contrast with the capitalism that is working very well, thank you.

      (in case you haven't noticed I'm being sarcartisc) ;-)

      --
      []'s Victor Bogado da Silva Lins

      ^[:wq

    14. Re:Run screaming from this!!! by TheDude2084 · · Score: 1
      Down that road evokes an ideological wasteland of failure!


      That statement puts me in a glass case of emotion!

    15. Re:Run screaming from this!!! by RickHunter · · Score: 1

      The last thing free software proponents need is to associate themselves with a failed economic ideology that has resulted in tens of millions of unnecessary deaths worldwide.

      Right, so... We denounce capitalism, then?

    16. Re:Run screaming from this!!! by superyooser · · Score: 1

      I want to say one thing to the American bourgeoisie. I want you to listen to me. I'm going to say this again. The People's Free Software does not have statist relations with that ideology, Communism. Not a single time, never. These allegations are false. According to the Second Chief Directorate of the GNU/KGB, they are propaganda of the vast, right-wing, bourgeois conspiracy against the kopyleft revolution.

    17. Re:Run screaming from this!!! by vbweenie · · Score: 2, Insightful

      in contrast with the capitalism that is working very well, thank you.

      Relatively speaking, yes.

      --
      Experience is a hard school, but fools will learn no other.
    18. Re:Run screaming from this!!! by jumpingfred · · Score: 1

      It must be corporatism because communism killed hundreds of millions of people not tens of millions.

    19. Re:Run screaming from this!!! by Riddlefox · · Score: 1

      "Just like spandex, Communism a great idea in theory, but then real people began to use it."

    20. Re:Run screaming from this!!! by phathead296 · · Score: 1

      Capitalism works every time it's tried, thank you very much.

      From this page:

      "Economic freedom has been gaining ground around the world," Walker said. "This has spurred a worldwide increase in wealth, unprecedented poverty reduction, and an impressive lowering in inequality, as numerous peer-reviewed, fact-based research papers have shown."

      Econimies with a high degree of freedom are Capitalist. Economies with low freedom are generally Communist. Those in the middle are Socialist.

      So, Capitalism increases wealth, decreases the disparity between rich a poor, and reduces poverty. Sounds pretty good to me.

    21. Re:Run screaming from this!!! by ed1park · · Score: 1

      It's a theory because in reality it doesn't work.

    22. Re:Run screaming from this!!! by 0racle · · Score: 2, Informative

      You don't live in the real world do you? In current capitalist countries, the Rich get richer and the poor a whole hell of a lot poorer. The more socialist systems, where health care, education and every other social benifit of society are guarenteed have a higher general standard of living accross the board.

      --
      "I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
    23. Re:Run screaming from this!!! by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 1

      Capitalists don't intentionally kill their customers. It's not profitable. Capitalists succeed by providing people with things they are willing to purchase.

      Following this line of reasoning, stuff people can slaughter each other with....so THAT's why the USA allows citizens to own guns! See, I just knew I'd be able to squeeze an anti-usa comment out of that one ;-)

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
    24. Re:Run screaming from this!!! by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      Dude, don't bother. You can't argue with religion.

    25. Re:Run screaming from this!!! by phathead296 · · Score: 1

      I'll try again since you apparently didn't see it the first time:
      ----
      Capitalism works every time it's tried, thank you very much.

      From this page:

      "Economic freedom has been gaining ground around the world," Walker said. "This has spurred a worldwide increase in wealth, unprecedented poverty reduction, and an impressive lowering in inequality, as numerous peer-reviewed, fact-based research papers have shown."

      Econimies with a high degree of freedom are Capitalist. Economies with low freedom are generally Communist. Those in the middle are Socialist.

      So, Capitalism increases wealth, decreases the disparity between rich a poor, and reduces poverty. Sounds pretty good to me.

    26. Re:Run screaming from this!!! by smagruder · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Meanwhile, in the heartland of capitalism, the US, the disparity between rich and poor grows, and poverty is rising. Go figure.

      I'm starting to wonder if capitalist propaganda is not becoming a great rival to the old Soviet communist propaganda.

      That said, a capitalist economy with sound market rules and a reasonable social safety net is about the best thing going... today.

      --
      Steve Magruder, Metro Foodist
    27. Re:Run screaming from this!!! by finkployd · · Score: 1

      Yeah, look at what they consider poverty sometime.

      Oh no, joe six pack cannot afford a second DVD player, let's all go back to the fuedal system where he will live as a peasent tending a swatch of dirt for his lord.

      Yes, there is still poverty, yes, capitalism is not perfect, and yes it needs tweaked to be even more effective and fair, but geeze, get some perspective. What would you propose as a workable alternative?

    28. Re:Run screaming from this!!! by smagruder · · Score: 1

      What do I propose? Simple. Laws and government regulations that favor small business more and big business less--in other words, more capitalism, less corporatism. And I'd throw in, a reversal of Bush's moving the tax burden to those who work away from the investor class. And clamping down on corporate malfeasance for good measure would be nice too.

      That said, if you had read my last sentence, you would see that I'm not opposed to a well-formed capitalism.

      --
      Steve Magruder, Metro Foodist
    29. Re:Run screaming from this!!! by ahodgson · · Score: 1

      Hear, hear. Corporatism depends as much on government intervention as does socialism. It's just a different group with their hands out, and individually they collect a lot more from the system , but it's just as wrong.

    30. Re:Run screaming from this!!! by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1

      I'm not convinced the US is truly capitalist anymore. Capitalism does NOT mean companies paying the government to make laws designed to hinder new upstart competitors. The government helping companies to stay running which would otherwise have fallen down is not capitalism.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    31. Re:Run screaming from this!!! by demachina · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "failed economic ideology that has resulted in tens of millions of unnecessary deaths worldwide"

      There was a great opinion piece on Space Daily a few days ago that pointed out the irony that the Russian space program is a pragmatic group, doing a lot of great work with very limited resources and are in fact great businessmen, especially with their space tourism attempts.

      The article then contrasted it with NASA's manned space program which is in fact an incompetent bureacracy with all of the worst characteristics you expect from a the "failed economic idealogy" of "statist communism". An agency laced with incompetent bureaucrats who aren't held to account for failure or rewarded for success and who squander state funds at a breathtaking pace and build incompetent empires. I hate to break it to you but if you look at the massive growth of government spending in the U.S. it is in many ways a socialist state too. Vast segments of the American economy are completely tied to and dependent on government spending and contracts which is pretty much socialism. There was a time the Republicans blamed all this socialism on the Democrats but now they have complete control of the government and they are accelerating government spending and intervention in the economy, not slowing it.

      As an aside I'm pretty sure capitalism and dictatorial socialism which is what you see in China and the U.S.S.R, not really communism, are both to blame for millions of unnecessary deaths. Vietnam for example was a mutual effort of the two ideoligies as they fought proxy wars around the world see they couldn't do it directly. The U.S. most certainly did kill millions of civilians in Vietnam and is killing plenty of civilians unnecessarily in Iraq today.

      There have certainly been some major slaughtering of innocents in the U.S.S.R, China and North Korea but that really has NOTHING to do with ideology. That is just what you get from dictatorships whether they be left or right leaning. The U.S. has propped up, if not outright installed, plenty of right wing dictators who slaughtered innocents, Pinochet for example may finally be held to account for all the people his U.S. backed government murdered.

      --
      @de_machina
    32. Re:Run screaming from this!!! by danila · · Score: 1

      A Russian joke said that "After the fall of communism we found out that what American propaganda was saying about communism was true. The problem is, we also found out that what Soviet propaganda was telling us about capitalism was true as well".

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
    33. Re:Run screaming from this!!! by Skim123 · · Score: 1
      In current capitalist countries, the Rich get richer and the poor a whole hell of a lot poorer.

      Do you have any stats to back up that claim? If you look at the progress made in the last century, the poor are definitely getting richer, in the US at least. Look at things like average home size, number of automobiles owned, number of appliances owned, number of televisions in the household, etc., etc. All of these metrics have been going up, not down.

      Now, one may contend that these metrics don't accurately measure the quality of life (and I agree), but they are good measurements of wealth, IMO. Just remember, money != happiness.

      --

      I could not justify my existence if I were a turkey farmer. Would I terminate myself? Undoubtably, yes.

    34. Re:Run screaming from this!!! by anaesthetica · · Score: 1

      That's debatable, but what's not debatable is that the flag picture posted by grand-parent most certainly does associate IP-freedom with the communist flags used by the USSR and China. That kind of association can only be damaging.

    35. Re:Run screaming from this!!! by drinkypoo · · Score: 1
      Look, you can pretty much accomplish this in one simple way: outlaw campaign contributions. To really nail it down you need some more effective ways to eliminate pork projects but this is the first step. If we don't want our politicians beholden to corporate interests, just stop them from buying in. Making it illegal for a public figure to work for (or collect a retainer or other favors from) a company associated with kickbacks, contracts, or subsidies from the government would probably pretty much eliminate pork for profit's sake, too. You might say that this makes public office too inconvenient, but no one that would not welcome these changes belongs in government anyway.

      Outlawing campaign contributions would have a chilling effect on campaigns for president, so I further suggest that presidential candidates who can get enough petition signatures each be granted equal free air time on network television. This could easily be imposed upon the networks by the FCC with the cooperation of the voters. The TV networks exist to serve us, and not the other way 'round, so I find this to be eminently reasonable. Hell, they can't even exist without us. Oh yes, and that time must be commercial-free... Let's not forget that very important stipulation. The future of our nation is more important than ratings and ad revenue.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    36. Re:Run screaming from this!!! by ErikTheRed · · Score: 1
      The problem with communism/socialism is not the people who are running it, it's people. We just don't work that way in groups larger than a high school study group, and that's why it fails every time.
      Bad news - it didn't work in high school study groups, either, at least not when I was in high school. It was always one schlup (me) doing all of the work...

      BTW, did you consider the number of ignorant rants your comment is going to spawn? Never mind, I just read my own sig :)
      --

      Help save the critically endangered Blue Iguana
    37. Re:Run screaming from this!!! by chitownIrish · · Score: 1

      That's a joke? Jeez. Even their humor was clunky and inefficient.

    38. Re:Run screaming from this!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      So, Capitalism increases wealth, decreases the disparity between rich a poor, and reduces poverty.

      What planet do you live on?!?

    39. Re:Run screaming from this!!! by smagruder · · Score: 1

      I honestly don't think that campaign contributions are the biggest problem, especially as long as these are openly reported. Sure, they can influence politicians, but I think the biggest financial influence is the promise of riches from particular industries and wealthy interests once a politician gets out of office. For instance, it's pretty clear how Bush/Cheney are selling out the country and its people while in office so they can be richer than the most extreme dreams of avarice once out of office. It's not about getting re-elected as much as ensuring they and their descendents stay super-wealthy (and of course, it helps them that the inheritance taxes are being eliminated too). That this sellout scheme is not being noticed by more citizens is quite alarming.

      Note that I don't think this is just a problem of the Bush administration, but politicians in general who think that the rationale for achieving high office is to become and stay super-wealthy, rather than serving the people and their interests.

      --
      Steve Magruder, Metro Foodist
    40. Re:Run screaming from this!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So we should start calling it freedomware? :)

    41. Re:Run screaming from this!!! by quarkscat · · Score: 1

      Parent is "point on target".

      OTOH, Bill Gates's is wrong as regards capitalism.
      When the presumably democratic state is largely
      controlled by corporations that control market
      share, control large segments of the press, and
      engage in fascist repression of citizens' rights
      (**IA), it isn't capitalism anymore. The correct
      and proper "emperor has no clothes" term for
      such a society is: Corporate National Socialism.

      The tax burden has been shifted from the rich
      to the poor. Good health care is only available
      to those that have the cash. IP and copyright
      are owned by the wealthy, who have trumped "fair
      use" with government regulations enforced by
      jackbooted stormtroopers. Wages are forced down
      on the majority, via H1-B & L-1 visas for white
      collar labor, and government's selective enforce-
      ment of illegal alien immigration and labor laws
      for blue collar workers. Monopolies and their
      government sactioned quasi-monopolies hold power
      over the greater public good. No, it isn't
      capitalism, and it sure isn't laissez faire
      capitalism. If it walks like a goose, talks
      like a goose, and acts like a goose, it isn't
      an elephant. But if goosesteps in jackboots,
      it could be fascism.

      Correct term : Corporate National Socialism

    42. Re:Run screaming from this!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but not necessarily for the wealth of the 'owner'. Home loan, home mortgage, car loan ... sounds pretty much like you're selling a good chunk of your life for all this. You need to take into account price drops, too - just because now you can afford something it does not necessarily mean you're richer. It's a mixed bag.

    43. Re:Run screaming from this!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The failure rate of capitalist republics and socialist republics/dictatorships is probably statistacaly insignificant. Capitalist republics drop off like flies quite often (see pre-ww2). Capitalism hasn't won, it is momentarily in the front. Give it anouther 50-100 yrs and 'free market' will envoke images akin to mercantelism.

    44. Re:Run screaming from this!!! by 0racle · · Score: 1
      Allow me to be clearer.
      Bullshit
      Global income inequality is probably greater than it has ever been in human history. There is some debate about whether it is getting worse or getting better. Currently, the richest 1% of people in the world receives as much as the bottom 57%. The ratio between the average income of the top 5% in the world to the bottom 5% increased from 78 to 1 in 1988 to 114 to 1 in 1993 (Milanovic 1999).
      Income Inequality
      How about some numbers for just the US Oh wow, the richest increased by almost $100,000 a year while the poorest increased by, oh, they didn't.

      If you looked to capitalism to increase wealth, its a complete failure for everyone except a very privileged few.
      --
      "I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
    45. Re:Run screaming from this!!! by displaced80 · · Score: 1

      Ahhh... but you should hear it in its original Russian!

      --
      What's the frequency, Kenneth?
    46. Re:Run screaming from this!!! by babbage · · Score: 1
      The last thing free software proponents need is to associate themselves with a failed economic ideology that has resulted in tens of millions of unnecessary deaths worldwide

      I've visited the Free Software Foundation offices in Downtown Crossing in Boston. Among the other usual office tchotchkes were pictures of Che Guevara, with all the usual revolutionary slogans. No one there seemed to have any problem with this in the slightest.

      Not that the FSF necessarily speaks for everyone, but you're suggesting that [capitalized] Free Software has no association with such things, but that's truly debatable.

      Of course, true, pure communism isn't the same thing in theory as totalitarian states like the USSR were in practice, any more than true, pure capitalism in theory has only a distant relationship to what countries like the USA are in practice. A mature and thoughtful adult can recognize the good ideas in both ideologies while still abhorring the atrocities carried out by some of the countries that identify themselves with these labels but don't actually follow them.

    47. Re:Run screaming from this!!! by notnAP · · Score: 1

      "And statist 'communism' as practiced in places like the USSR and China has very little to do with real communist/socialist theory. " It was as close an approximation of theory as the United States is an application of its "founding values" of freedom and justice. That is to say, not very close at all. Come to think of it, this whole thread is just as closely linked to the original factoid seed from the story. That is to say, not very close at all. Peter

    48. Re:Run screaming from this!!! by nanowyatt · · Score: 1

      "And statist 'communism' as practiced in places like the USSR and China has very little to do with real communist/socialist theory."

      Maybe it has very little to do with the wishes and hopes of communist theorists, but statist communism was directly linked to actual communist theories.

      --
      Intellectuals! Liberals! Peacemongers! IDIOTS!!!
    49. Re:Run screaming from this!!! by plumby · · Score: 1
      Capitalism works every time it's tried, thank you very much.

      Oh yes. Places like Argentina (and Russia at the moment) are glowing with health. And if you want a bit more history - how about Italian capitalism at the start of the 20th Century collapsing into Fascism.

      Econimies with a high degree of freedom are Capitalist. Economies with low freedom are generally Communist. Those in the middle are Socialist.

      Huh? Where does this drivel come from? Economies where the power is with those that have capital (money etc) are Capitalist. Economies where the power is with the workers that create the value are Communist or Socialist. There are differences between the latter two, but they are probably irrelevant for this arguement (Socialism is sometimes seen as a stepping stone to pure Communism).

      Are you trying to claim that places like Singapore and Kuwait are bastions of freedom, or do you think that they are Commie strongholds?

    50. Re:Run screaming from this!!! by phathead296 · · Score: 1

      So, to refute my 2002 reference, you argue back with a survey that is more than 10 years old? A lot has changed since 1988-1993.

      You provide two links. One whose second sentence admits there is debate on income inequality (and references your 10 year old survey). The second at a web site called "leftbusinessobserver.com" I think an opinion piece on The Communist Party USA web page would have more credibility than the Left Business Observer.

      I found something from Hong Kong via Google that I thought looked pretty unbiased, and you send me to links with multiple and severe flaws in credibility.

    51. Re:Run screaming from this!!! by maynard · · Score: 1

      I've visited the Free Software Foundation offices in Downtown Crossing in Boston. Among the other usual office tchotchkes were pictures of Che Guevara, with all the usual revolutionary slogans. No one there seemed to have any problem with this in the slightest.

      That's unfortunate. Back when their office was located at the corner of Mass Ave and Prospect I never noticed posters like that, and I entered there a bunch of times. Also never noticed that sort of communist revolutionary sloganering at MIT Tech Square. Whatever. All I'm saying about that is it's a veryveryBAD(tm) public relations move for knowledge of such posters hanging in their office to get out to the general public. 'nuff said. --M

    52. Re:Run screaming from this!!! by plumby · · Score: 1

      "Direcly linked to" - yes. Bearing much relation to - no.

      Soviet/Chinese 'statist' Communism by its very nature has little to do with the idea of real communism (rule by the people, for the people), in the fact that it's rule by an unelected central body. The idea was this central body was required as a temporary measure because the people weren't smart enough to know what was best for them. However, it didn't take long for someone with no interest in the good of the people to use this apparatus to create his own personal empire.

      There are flaws in the practicalities of communism (in that there will always be people that don't want to work for the common good and would rather seize as much power for themselves as possible - e.g., Stalin or, to try to get this vaguely back on topic, Bill Gates), but that doesn't make people who believe in the principles ("from each according to their ability, to each according to their need") bad people, and therefore (again, hopefully back on topic) the use of communist red as an open source flag doesn't seem inappropriate to me at all.

    53. Re:Run screaming from this!!! by plumby · · Score: 1

      No. Communism/Socialism is a system that's never really been tried out in the modern world (the closest probably being Barcelona prior the the Fascist takeover in the 30s). The point is that the USSR (certainly after Stalin took over) had virtually nothing to do with real socialism. Knocking socialism because the USSR failed is like knocking democracy because the German Democratic Republic failed.

    54. Re:Run screaming from this!!! by Bo'Bob'O · · Score: 1

      Wait, I thought Ragan killed communism? At least that's what the media kept saying over and over again for a full month last year. And the unbiased media wouldn't lie.

      I guess I just can't keep up.

    55. Re:Run screaming from this!!! by 0racle · · Score: 1
      It doesn't take much to see that the world is not a well off place. Do you live under a rock, perhaps never leave your little cul-de-sac or gated community?

      A study of the transition of the Ukraine from Communism to a Free market
      Poor countries need aid:
      Policies using international trade to improve the economies of the 50 poorest and least developed countries (LDCs) have not generated long-term reductions in poverty, the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) says in a new report. ... if current trends persist, the number of people living in extreme poverty will increase to 471 million by 2015 from 334 million people in 2000, it predicts.
      And of course, there is the problem of homelessness
      As a faltering U.S. economy, skyrocketing housing prices and reduced government services force people from their homes, agencies are scrambling to find ways to provide shelter and assistance to a growing and changing homeless population.
      Capitalistic policy has done nothing for most of the world.
      --
      "I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
    56. Re:Run screaming from this!!! by CmdrGravy · · Score: 1

      "Econimies with a high degree of freedom are Capitalist. Economies with low freedom are generally Communist. Those in the middle are Socialist."

      I don't know what you think that means I think it is utterly non-sensical.

      Capitalism can increase wealth ( and also decrease it ) but it tend it do it depending on how much wealth you have in the first place. For example if you have massive pile of money then it can easily turn in a super massive pile of money. If you have no money however then you will end up with no money. This is what people mean when they say that the Rich get Richer and the Poor get Poorer.

      You may have noticed that what often happens is that the very rich people who own large capitalist entities such as corporations like to pay themselves huge wages whilst outsourcing the jobs of the poor people to even poorer people elsewhere so they can pay them even less and thus make more money for themselves. Sounds pretty good if you are lucky enough to be born rich.

    57. Re:Run screaming from this!!! by plumby · · Score: 1
      that I thought looked pretty unbiased,

      Define unbiased. The report was written by the "Economic Freedom Of The World Network", which is sponsored by people like The Cato Institute, a well known libertarian think-tank, and in turn is sponsored by a collection of v. large corporations.

      Looks pretty biased to me.

    58. Re:Run screaming from this!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you hit the nail on the head, friend. or is that comrade? scalability and incentive; those are the two problems that must be overcome for any type of system like socialism to succeed. there is a book, whose title i forget, that documents all of the utopien societies in the us in the 1800s; thats right, there were a bunch. by and large they focused on manufactured goods that didn't require large of amounts of capital to produce. they were very successful, but never very large. seems to me software could be nearly in the same field...anyone remember the raelians?

      anyway...its good to see that some of this crowd have an understanding of what the problems involved are, oh those and plain old human nature. what is it jean-luc picard says in first contact, 'we work solely to better ourselves and for the good of humanity?' those days will come!

    59. Re:Run screaming from this!!! by bnenning · · Score: 1

      In current capitalist countries, the Rich get richer and the poor a whole hell of a lot poorer.

      At worst you can cherry-pick statistics and argue that over time certain intervals the income of the "poor" stays fairly constant. "A hell of a lot poorer" is ludicrously false.

      --
      How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
    60. Re:Run screaming from this!!! by Money+for+Nothin' · · Score: 1

      The more socialist systems... are guarenteed have a higher general standard of living accross the board.

      Oh? Is that why per-capita GDP is higher in the U.S. than it is in the various "market-socialist" European nations?

    61. Re:Run screaming from this!!! by Money+for+Nothin' · · Score: 1

      And statist 'communism' as practiced in places like the USSR and China has very little to do with real communist/socialist theory.

      And in fact, there is no "communist/socialist" theory, because communism and socialism are 2 different theories.

      Communism = no government, no private property, everybody owns all property equally, everybody works together cooperatively

      Socialism = big government, property owned by government instead of private citizens, government manages the cooperation between citizens in employment

      Socialism was predicted by Karl Marx to be an intermediate step towards the final end result of communism; hence, it became popular to see nations *promoting* communism, when in fact they were *practicing* socialism.

      As evidence, consider the USSR -- "United Soviet Socialist Republics". That was not a communist nation, as America has so often stated, but was, as its name suggests, socialist. Same goes for modern-day N. Korea and China, except without the word "socialist" hidden in an acronym for their nations' names...

      One could argue they practice(d) "statist communism", but by definition, that's a logical contradiction; communist theory requires that no state exist. Socialism, by contrast, necessarily requires that the state exist.

      (Disclaimer: I am a staunch free marketeer and occasional economics student.)

    62. Re:Run screaming from this!!! by Leo+McGarry · · Score: 1

      As opposed ...to tens of millions ...of necessary deaths?

      You must live in an interesting world.

    63. Re:Run screaming from this!!! by Leo+McGarry · · Score: 1

      Actually, the problem with communism is that it's predicated on the idea of forcefully taking people's property from them.

      I don't really care very much what your motives are; that's not okay.

    64. Re:Run screaming from this!!! by jadel · · Score: 1

      I personally think it's more accurate to say that everyone is getting incredibly wealthy, it's just some are getting there faster than others.

    65. Re:Run screaming from this!!! by djSpinMonkey · · Score: 1

      Which is pretty much the same problem capitalism has.

    66. Re:Run screaming from this!!! by Dr.+Sigmund+Freud · · Score: 1
      The problem with communism/socialism is not the people who are running it, it's people.
      Corretomondo!
      We just don't work that way in groups larger than a high school study group, and that's why it fails every time.
      Most of the EU countries are run under a socialist system. I'd hardly call them failures.

      Every one focusses on money as a measure of the success (or failure) of capitalism/socialism/communism/**ism. IMHO, the systems should also be judged by the amount of leisure it affords its citizens. Leisure is the most ellusive of all wealths.

      50 years ago in the US, a one-income household was sufficient to comfortably raise a family of five. The three kids in the household were not sporting $400 iPods nor wearing $100 Nikes. But their parents had more time to spend with them than money on them.

      Today, the average middle-class family in the US out-earns their counterpart in the EU. (Given todays exchange rate, I should probably go back and check whether or not that's still true.) The US family also has a higher standard of living when measured wrt possessions. But the EU family lives in a less stressful environment (don't have to worry about childcare, education, healthcare, retirement, etc.). They also enjoy shorter work weeks (typically 35 hours as opposed to 40 in the US) and 4-6 weeks of vacation (typically 2 weeks in the US).

      Yup, we in the US have more money to buy more toys. So if the rule of the game is "He who has the most toy wins", then we have won handily. But we hardly seem to have the time to play with our toys (let alone our kids).

      BTW, none of my friends from EU countries (specifically, Denmark, Germany, and Switzerland) who have been to the US want to live here. All have gone back to have "a better life back home".

      Conversely, folks from third-world countries (Latin America, South Asia, Africa) are lining up for a chance to emigrate to the US. (They face a different problem at home - that of survival.)

      So who is better off? Depends on the yardstick with which you measure "better". We have more money, but less time. We are "richer", yet we have lower savings and more debt than the average EU family. We are more powerful economically, yet the US$ which exchanged at $0.80 to 1.00 Euro a scant 5 years ago, is now trading at around $1.35 to 1.00 Euro. We are more technologically advanced, yet it is the EU consumer who has had the better wireless cellular voice and data network for years, while we in the US were stuck in the CDMA rut. We have the most advanced healthcare system on the planet, yet 60 million citizens cannot even afford to go see a doctor because they have no insurance.

      The point is we cannot just consider only the good parts of our system and draw a hasty, but rosy generalization regarding everything else under said system.

      This pissing match re. capitalism, socialism, communism etc. is rather passe. We still fail to realize that each has its strengths, and the success of any one not only depends on the leaders who implement the philosophy into laws, but also the social structure and civic sense that binds the folks who live under these laws.

      Heck, I'd pick a benign and enlightened monarchy governing a civic-minded society, over a democratic confederacy (or republic) of dunces who cannot get past reciting the sacred hymn of the "free-market". Trouble is there are none of the former. I live in one of the latter (which is still much better than living in any of the banana-republics that dot our planet.)

    67. Re:Run screaming from this!!! by ashot · · Score: 1

      per-capita = average = counts the top 1%

      its like an exponential function vs a linear one. Chop off the top 1% of both and then compare again.

      --
      -ashot
    68. Re:Run screaming from this!!! by Money+for+Nothin' · · Score: 1

      The top 1% of Americans may skew the figure somewhat. But the last time I checked, the per-capita GDP of the U.S. was about $38,000, whereas most European nations had a per-capita GDP around $26,000.

      If the top 1% of Americans skew the per-capita GDP figure by 46%, then I would be *greatly* shocked...

      And even so, the wealth generated in this country does still go to them; were that wealth to be distributed amongst all Americans, the per-capita GDP figure in the U.S. would still be $38,000 (after all, as you say, it's an average).

      Hence, the per-capita output of the U.S. in dollar value is *still* higher than that of European market-socialist nations.

    69. Re:Run screaming from this!!! by plumby · · Score: 1
      And in fact, there is no "communist/socialist" theory, because communism and socialism are 2 different theories.

      Yeah, thanks. I'm well aware of the difference. Try reading it as "little to do with either real communist or real socialist theory". I included both precisely to avoid someone going "they weren't communist, they were socialist".

      "United Soviet Socialist Republics". That was not a communist nation, as America has so often stated, but was, as its name suggests, socialist.

      Unfortunately, it was neither. It was socialist in the way that the German Democratic Republic was democratic. As for modern day China. When the 'Communist Party' first took over, they did attempt (badly) to run a socialist state, but these days it's nothing more than a Capitalist dictatorship.

    70. Re:Run screaming from this!!! by ashot · · Score: 1

      but can you measure the success of a society based on "per-capita GDP." (no) Just for example, I can also guarantee that we work longer (and more intense) hours than the French.

      "
      The GDP element of the HDI is a proxy for access to productive resources. The USA has the highest GDP per capita of any country. (Excluding Luxembourg) However, it is striking that 16.9% of people in the USA were living below 50% of the median income between 1987 and 1998. Compare this to Norway and Sweden, where the same statistic reaches only 6.9% and 6.6% respectively.

      In the HPI-2 index, we find that the US is ranked 17th. This is an obvious indicator of income inequality. This takes much of the sheen off the USA's high GDP per capita and exposes the reality of a skewed distribution of income.
      "

      -http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/2/6/11255/80 47 7

      --
      -ashot
    71. Re:Run screaming from this!!! by ashot · · Score: 1

      in fact, I'm right.

      In 2003 France earned 110% per-hour vs the US.

      http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/30/40/29867116.xls (unfortunately Excel file)

      --
      -ashot
    72. Re:Run screaming from this!!! by Money+for+Nothin' · · Score: 1
      However, it is striking that 16.9% of people in the USA were living below 50% of the median income between 1987 and 1998.

      The U.S. median income in 1998 for a family of 4 was about $56,000.

      50% of that, then, would mean $28,000 for a family of 4.

      Yet, the poverty level for a family of 4 in 1998 was $16,600.

      So, in 1998 (and the previous 11 years too; I'm ignoring them in my sample for simplicity's sake, since the sample still falls within the 1987-1998 range for which the figure was claimed) 16.9% were living at or below a level which was still nearly twice the poverty line? These hardly seem like dire straits...

      And yet, in that study (or rather, a more-recent version) (warning: fat, nasty, big PDF), the "50% of median income" level in each OECD nation is considered to be the "poverty line". It's not *too* bad of a normalizing estimate, except that it makes the logical fallacy of assuming that the situations in all nations is equal, and thus that the figure is somehow accurate to the conditions of the individual nations. Whether that is true depends on how far the individual nations' poverty lines actually deviate from the 50% level; in America's case, it's off by 43%.

      Notice too that of all the nations ranking higher than the U.S., only Iceland has a better long-term unemployment rate (and the difference is pretty negligible: 0.5% vs. 0.4%).

      Just because the U.S. has a less-equal distribution of wealth doesn't make the U.S. a less-developed nation than its European competitors. Moreover, our GDP growth rate exceeds that of every major European nation (approx. 3.2% here vs. 1.6% or so, at best, in the European nations. Some, like Switzerland (IIRC), actually have seen negative growth recently, indicating potentially recessionary times there.)

      Compare this to Norway and Sweden, where the same statistic reaches only 6.9% and 6.6% respectively.

      In the HPI-2 index, we find that the US is ranked 17th. This is an obvious indicator of income inequality. This takes much of the sheen off the USA's high GDP per capita and exposes the reality of a skewed distribution of income.


      Indeed, I never argued that the U.S. had as equal a distribution of wealth as, say, Sweden. Nor am I convinced that would be a good thing either.

      As far as the HPI-2 index, according to the UNDP, we've moved up to 8th -- above considerably more-socialist countries like Germany, France, Finland, and the UK, for example. Sweden and Norway still take the top 2 spots, however.

      In any case, let's look at the description of the HPI-2 index:

      A composite index measuring deprivations in the three basic dimensions captured in the human development index-- a long and healthy life, knowledge and a decent standard of living--and also capturing social exclusion.

      Poverty as measured by one's lifespan? That's necessarily a relative measure. Clearly we prefer people to live longer (except those people worried about world overpopulation), but developing a ranking system based off the notion that a short lifespan means living in poverty (as if this is a reasonable conclusion; if I die in a car crash at age 23, did I live a life of extreme poverty? Certainly not!) makes the measure a relative one. The index, therefore, is one which tends to favor equalization of lifespans, and thus, equalizations of the factors which may promote equal lifespans, such as education, healthcare, and yes -- income, which enables the purchase of all these factors.

      Knowledge? How does one measure that, and to what degree of relevance? The knowledge of the African bushmen is irrelevant to me, yet they are far more knowledgeable in that r

    73. Re:Run screaming from this!!! by dabigpaybackski · · Score: 1
      That statement puts me in a glass case of emotion!

      Or a paroxysm of laughter.

      --
      "OH SHIT, THERE'S A HORSE IN THE HOSPITAL!"
    74. Re:Run screaming from this!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ha, very clever. And you had a makeup artist do you up to look all haggard so that people would feel sorry for the grilling.

    75. Re:Run screaming from this!!! by dabigpaybackski · · Score: 1

      Guevara personally executed more people in Havana's jail than a Saudi headman. Hardly heroic, I think, though most people who profess to admire this puritanical thug don't know a damn thing about him.

      --
      "OH SHIT, THERE'S A HORSE IN THE HOSPITAL!"
    76. Re:Run screaming from this!!! by nickco3 · · Score: 1

      Capitalism works every time it's tried, thank you very much.

      If by "works" you mean "by grasping naked, unrestrained capitalism Russia's economy has imploded to roughly the size of Belgium whilst creating record numbers of multi-billionaire asset-strippers"[1], then yes, you are right.

      [1] Contrast that with China.

      --
      -- Nick "Hallo this is Beel Gates, und I pronounce weendows as ... WEENdows"
    77. Re:Run screaming from this!!! by nickco3 · · Score: 1


      Oh? Is that why per-capita GDP is higher in the U.S. than it is in the various "market-socialist" European nations?


      GDP comparisons overstate American living standards.

      There are differences in methodology, like software, Europeans count it as an expense and deduct it, while Americans count it as an investment and add it.

      Europeans have a milder climate, so Americans spend more on heating and air conditioning, pushing up American GDP without enhancing living standards.

      Europeans have less crime, so Americans spend more on home and business security, again pushing up American GDP, but not living standards.

      Many Europeans use public transport, but few Americans have any alternative to their cars. Again American GDP goes higher.

      Americans keep 2 million people in prison, a far higher proportion than in Europe, and even that makes American GDP higher.

      Don't have too much faith in the GDP figures as a measure of personal welfare.

      --
      -- Nick "Hallo this is Beel Gates, und I pronounce weendows as ... WEENdows"
    78. Re:Run screaming from this!!! by Money+for+Nothin' · · Score: 1

      Your points about software (expense vs. investment), climate, and crime are reasonable points. In those areas, Americans do spend and produce more to improve the living standard compensating for our environment and culture than may be necessary in Europe.

      The mass-transit (not necessarily public transit) transportation argument is debatable. Physics dictate that the transportation of people will require the expense of energy either way; the question is, which is more efficient, mass-transit or individual transit? That depends on how it's measured.

      On one hand, moving a bulk of people as mass-transit does from 1 major location to another (a Chicago hub to a NYC hub for a train, for example) is more efficient than an individual vehicle. OTOH, if somebody wants to go to a particular location (their doorstep, rather than a block or two from their doorstep), then mass-transit becomes more questionable, and in that regard, American living standards and personal welfare are higher than in Europe, because we afford a greater level of individualization and specificity in our travels than do Europeans. Hence, it makes sense that the GDP goes higher.

      Americans keep 2 million people in prison, a far higher proportion than in Europe, and even that makes American GDP higher.

      This makes no sense at all. People living in prison are not productive, therefore, how are they producing anything and thereby adding to the GDP of the U.S.? This is a terribly-flawed argument, even ignoring the question of whether prison construction is factored into the GDP.

      Don't have too much faith in the GDP figures as a measure of personal welfare.

      The GDP is not perfect, but the *vast* majority of economists agree that it's the closest thing to a single measure of a nation's productive capacity (and the personal welfare which results from it) than any other. Hence, it's an important figure.

      The per-capita GDP (not simply GDP), however IMO, is an even more-useful figure, because it puts the GDP in perspective of the population which produced it. And by this measure, the U.S. outstrips every single European nation except Luxeomburg by a wide margin.

    79. Re:Run screaming from this!!! by DoctorMO · · Score: 1

      The poor these days tend to end up with debts rather than nothing, thats a good place to be for most.

    80. Re:Run screaming from this!!! by DoctorMO · · Score: 1

      thats not wealth, thats technolegy and invention, remember inflation and remember how many people had carts back in the days. look at the figures, I agree that quality of life is better but freedom is not, because a few still control the worlds resources.

    81. Re:Run screaming from this!!! by Skim123 · · Score: 1
      because a few still control the worlds resources

      Welcome to planet Earth and the history of mankind.

      --

      I could not justify my existence if I were a turkey farmer. Would I terminate myself? Undoubtably, yes.

    82. Re:Run screaming from this!!! by nickco3 · · Score: 1

      Physics dictate that the transportation of people will require the expense of energy either way
      As well as the advantages of widespread public transport, Europeans also live in more compact cities than the sprawling American suburbs. So the energy expended to get around is much lower.

      People living in prison are not productive, therefore, how are they producing anything and thereby adding to the GDP of the U.S.?
      Prisoners don't, prison populations do. Prison guards get paid, as do food and other suppliers, and those who make bars or build high walls.

      Remember GDP doesn't measure net gain, only overall paid-for work. Google for the parable of the broken window.

      It is without a doubt that Americans earn more than Europeans. Per head, about 23% more. But if they are working longer hours (and they do) just blow it all that on extra expenses, they aren't any better off. Are they?

      --
      -- Nick "Hallo this is Beel Gates, und I pronounce weendows as ... WEENdows"
    83. Re:Run screaming from this!!! by Money+for+Nothin' · · Score: 1

      Remember GDP doesn't measure net gain, only overall paid-for work.

      Indeed; it's the overall output (assumed equal to overall income in macroeconomics) of the economy produced by labor and property within a geographical boundary (i.e.the U.S. borders). I don't think I ever explicitly said, nor intended to imply, that GDP measures *net* gain...

      Google for the parable of the broken window.

      The broken window fallacy would apply here, at least in part. But that same fallacy ignores the possibility that something new may accidentally result from a hidden cost.

      For example, in Europe, due to high population density in small geographical areas, there isn't much incentive to develop long-range wireless communications (802.11b via directional antennas, say). But here in the U.S., our vast expanses of land make development of this technology a desireable and useful thing. Because we work more on it, due to our geographical "disadvantage", we gain in terms of technology -- and that gain, necessarily, is an improvement in the wealth and welfare of the U.S. (and eventually, those nations which learn from our work).

      Likewise, were the U.S. to have higher fuel prices, we would focus more on fuel-efficiency, again due to our geographic "disadvantage" -- and the efficiency gains would, in the long-run, outweigh the costs of researching those efficiencies.

      Austrian economists assume full employment of resources, and that's a fine and (IMO) reasonable assumption, but I see nothing there about technological growth; an obviously unignorable factor in any economy's standard of living....

      It is without a doubt that Americans earn more than Europeans. Per head, about 23% more. But if they are working longer hours (and they do) just blow it all that on extra expenses, they aren't any better off. Are they?

      That assumes that 100% of the marginal level of income Americans earn compared to their European counterparts -- the 23% more that you note -- is spent on those geographical (mass-transit example) and cultural (higher prison population percentage example) differences.

      That's a rather nebulous assumption, I would say.

    84. Re:Run screaming from this!!! by nickco3 · · Score: 1

      That's a rather nebulous assumption, I would say.

      I'm inclined to agree. Various alternative quality of life calculations have been proposed, they do tend to suffer from the subjectivity problems that you mentioned in an earlier post, but they generally come in at around 5-10% advantage to the Americans.

      My original point was in an argument on US vs EU living standards per capita GDP is an unreliable methodology, because it is skewed in favour of the Americans. It is entirely possible that compared to Europeans they work longer hours, have more expenses, less free time, and less spending money, and still appear to be 23% ahead. Although, I think we agree that probably isn't the case today.

      --
      -- Nick "Hallo this is Beel Gates, und I pronounce weendows as ... WEENdows"
    85. Re:Run screaming from this!!! by rho · · Score: 1
      Actually, no. I sort of figured this would be moderated "-1, Like, Duh!" Imagine my surprise.

      My pat argument about socialism has always been: If you get three normal people together, it is a Herculean task to get them to agree on pizza toppings. Do you think it possible that they can come to consensus on economics? This is why government only works when it has very little to do.

      --
      Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
    86. Re:Run screaming from this!!! by rho · · Score: 1
      A variation of the original argument--it's a good system implemented poorly. What you're saying, basically, is that Communism will be great, but that you don't have any proof, since it's never been tried. However, American capitalism has been proven to be pretty good, all things considered. Perfect? No, but it's a proven solution.

      Now, tell me why we should trust your unproven, guesswork economic system? Because it sounds good?

      --
      Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
    87. Re:Run screaming from this!!! by rho · · Score: 1
      If you're going to compare to the EU, let's go all the way. The EU has a declining birthrate and a large number of people on the verge of retirement. Their socialist systems will implode under their own weight.

      Let's also mention military might. The EU spends about $0.35/year on their military budget, and that's why when some asshole in Absurdistan starts massacring people, the EU sends a platoon of potato peelers and the US sends 20 battallions of armed and trained Marines.

      The EU socialist-lite system works because it depends on the charity of the American military.

      --
      Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
    88. Re:Run screaming from this!!! by plumby · · Score: 1

      The problem is more that 'American' capitalism (basically a variation on the same capitalism that started in Britain and places like the Netherlands in the 18th Century) has been tested and doesn't really work. It's great for the few at the top (if you ignore the need for armed guards 24x7), reasonably comfortable for a fair amount of the other people in the developed world, but absolute hell for vast swathes of the world's population.

      And don't be under any illusion that the west's capitalism isn't the main cause of the absolute poverty in much of the third world. The system is build on exploitation and the rich few getting richer from the economic slavery of these people.

      The capitalist system as it stands will not, and cannot, free these people, and will continue to lead to the kind of resentment that leads to terrorism.

      I agree that Communism has never been successfully tried, and personally have a fair amount of skepisism about it ever being practical in its purest form, given human nature, but that doesn't stop me believing in, and promoting, its basic ideals.

    89. Re:Run screaming from this!!! by Dr.+Sigmund+Freud · · Score: 1

      If you're going to compare to the EU, let's go all the way. The EU has a declining birthrate and a large number of people on the verge of retirement. Their socialist systems will implode under their own weight.

      The same is being said about our Social Security system, which btw, is the largest socialist program that is not identified as a socialist program. Socialism in the US?! Never!!

      Let's also mention military might. The EU spends about $0.35/year on their military budget, and that's why when some asshole in Absurdistan starts massacring people, the EU sends a platoon of potato peelers and the US sends 20 battallions of armed and trained Marines.

      I'd rather we followed the prime directive. We don't. But despite spending almost as much as the rest of the world does on military, we don't have a stellar record of policing the world.

      I don't remember any of our marines showing up when Pol Pot butchered a million (give or take a few hundred thousand) Cambodians. Or when Idi Amin "Dada" wiped out half a million of his subjects. Where exactly where our marines when Juvénal Habyarimana was waging a genocidal war against the Tutsis? (Of course, after his death another 800,000 were slaughtered, so can't directly credit him with every death.) BTW, it was the French who stepped in to bring a fragile "peace" (a little too late for all the dead), but our marines were quite conspicuous by their absence during all this turmoil. Did our marines show up when Augusto Pinochet was busy imprisoning, torturing and executing 30,000 Chileans?

      So yes, we send our Marines only to the Absurdistans that happen to have oil. See how our marines took care of the "Butcher of Baghdad"; but let us not dampen our euphoria by also mentioning the 17,500 to 100,000 we have managed to wipe out in the process of deposing Saddam Hussein.

      BTW, it is not as if the EU is stingy when it comes to spending money on their military. France, Germany, the UK, and Italy are 4 of the top 7 countries when it comes to the military expenditures. France, Norway, Greece, UK, Sweden, Germany, Denmark, Netherlands, Italy, Switzerland, Finland, all make it to the top 25 Military Expenditures per capita.

      The EU socialist-lite system works because it depends on the charity of the American military.

      For all the money we are pouring into the military complex, we'd better believe that we are doing it for charity, or we'll have to start asking some really disturbing questions. The EU may or may not collapse under the weight of their socialist systems. But one thing is certain - if current levels of military expenditures continue and 'boomers start to retire in 2010, then by 2015 the US budget will have little else to spend on other than the Defence, Soc. Sec, and medicare. No wriggle room.

      By 2025 the proverbial shit will hit the fan. Don't take my or anyone else's word for it (such as the NYTimes, WashingtonPost or for that matter

  99. R2D2 syndrome by tentimestwenty · · Score: 1

    I think he's suffering from delusions of grandeur.

  100. Mod Gates -1 Troll by stonedyak · · Score: 1
    "There are some new modern-day sort of communists who want to get rid of the incentive for musicians and moviemakers and software makers" (Gates talking about intellecutal property laws/rights)


    Anyone reading Slashdot for the first time could be forgiven for lumping together people who pirate music and films with those who support Free/Open Source software. But Bill Gates is bright enough to know the difference.

    Most FOSS advocates respect others' intellecutal property, and rely on copyright law to make the GPL and other Open Source licences work. Most people who download pirated films and music off Kazaa and BitTorrent don't give a flip about IP or copyright, whatever excuse they give.
  101. Re:fp by Andrea_from_Arg · · Score: 1

    Download it using Flashget
    It supports saving MMS streams :)

    --
    :: Andrea ::
    Anime Wallpapers
  102. Minute mark by eclipsemgp · · Score: 3, Informative

    Just so you don't have to watch the entire video (2 hours), the crash happens when they are trying to modify a car at around the 01:13:30 mark.

  103. Wait a minute here. by Mindjiver · · Score: 3, Funny

    Havn't Steve Jobs been going on and on about the digital hub for the last several years? Nice to see that Microsoft is using their good old R&D-lab called Apple again.

    --
    I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
  104. In the immortal words of Nelson Muntz.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Haw Haw!

  105. Bill Gates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bill Gates is great, he's really very great. He is so great

    for me to poop on!

  106. Re: Communists by horza · · Score: 1

    "There are some new modern-day sort of communists who want to get rid of the incentive for musicians and moviemakers and software makers under various guises."

    Yep, he pretty much just said that if you don't support IP then your a Communist. What a douchebag.


    I like this new generic group: musicians, moviemakers and software makers. Thanks Bill, you make me feel like a rock and roll star!

    It's typical PR spin. If you repeat something untrue often enough people may believe it. Rather than remove incentive for software makers, OSS makes the bar higher and requires software to be of a much higher caliber to provide value and make it worth paying for instead of using free software. Of course the maker of shoddy bug-ridden software is going to be frightened by this. Bill is still living in the 80s where software was so rare you paid through the nose for applications you needed no matter how poorly written. The world has moved on since then and he has been left behind.

    Phillip.

  107. Software Communism Good? by miyako · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Ok, so I'm going to go a little bit off topic here, but gates implies that if you support free software, then you are a communist, the thing of it is, I'm not sure how exactly this is a bad thing.
    Capitalism and Communism are each at opposite ends of a scale of scarcity- that is to say, Capitalism works great when there is a limited amount of stuff to go around, relative to the population size. It encourages effeciency and results in a population as a whole getting the most of what it wants from a limited pool of resources. Communism on the other hand is ideal for a world where, relative to the population size, resources are unlimited, or at least nearly unlimited. In the perfect theoreticaly communist society, the only limit to how much of something that can be made is the number of people available to make it.
    Socialism is basically just the name given to the middle ground.
    Now, capitalism is great for a lot of things, because as a society/country/planet today in many areas our resources are still finite. For many aspects of our world, capitalism is still the best thing we've come up with to deal with the limited resources we have, relative to the world population.
    In the world of software however, we have a situation which is more closely related to the communist ideal world. Once a program is written it can be copied over and over again essentially for free. In this case, the only limit to the software that can be developed is the amount of skilled people who are able to work on it.
    Looking at it like that, what I see when gates says people who support free software are communists is really his admission that we are using a superior philosophy for our little section of reality.

    --
    Famous Last Words: "hmm...wikipedia says it's edible"
    1. Re:Software Communism Good? by DuckofDeath87 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      To flesh this out a little more...
      The reason why Capitalism works best when there is just enough stuff to go around is because it is based on Supply and Demand. If there is too much Supply, then the price drops so low that you can not sell it and make a profit. This is one of the many factors that cause the great depression in america. (too much food was produced, so farmers could no longer afford to grow food and sell it). Communism doesnt have this problem because everything is distributed by the government, which can cause its own problems if the government it bad. There is a lot more too it, but that is the basics. However, I am no expert, this is just how i see it.

      But, as you said, since there is no limit to the amount of software, you dont need anyone to regulate the distrobution of the software.

    2. Re:Software Communism Good? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Capitalism works great when there is a limited amount of stuff to go around, relative to the population size. It encourages effeciency and results in a population as a whole getting the most of what it wants from a limited pool of resources. Communism on the other hand is ideal for a world where, relative to the population size, resources are unlimited, or at least nearly unlimited... Socialism is basically just the name given to the middle ground.

      History has proven that Socialism leads to scarcity of necessary goods. So it is not relevant if Communism works well when resources are unlimited. There will never be enough resources under Socialism or Communism.

      That's like claiming that someone will be a great investor given "enough" money if this person is known to blow all he can get in a casino.

  108. I love you Bill by gour.vijay · · Score: 1

    sob sob ..... oh this world just would'nt be the same without u bill .

    --
    football is football..but for you its a different football - jose mourinho
  109. Re:I see**2 your point but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In that case, it is also inappropriate to call the CEOs of Enron et all capitalists, because what they did had nothing to do with Adam Smith's writings.

  110. Microsoft is a State-Sponsored Monopoly by NotoriousGIB · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The irony of Bill Gates' anti-communist rhetoric in the wake of his recent crash and burn presentation on Windows Media Center is that Microsoft itself resembles a creaky Soviet-era state-run monopoly much more than a lean, mean emblem of free-trade capitalism.

    In my opinion Microsoft is essentially a state-sponsored monopoly and, as such, represents, little more than a tweaked version of the classic communist state entity.

    The rational for this position is the simple fact that although Microsoft has been found guilty of being a monopolistic barrier to free-trade in the software industry it was given tacit state sanction to operate as such when the courts and the DOJ failed to press for meaningful controls on their business practices.

    From an objective perspective this is no more than a refined version of the classic communist state monopoly. Like Soviet era monopolies Microsoft must compete in the international market as a representative of the State economy while at home it is given tacit control of the market in exchange for loyalty to the political leadership. Also like Soviet era monopolies, state pressure for reform of business practices amounted to little reform but a large increase in the amount of money passed on to corrupt politicians. Take a look at Microsoft's political contributions post-trial and I think you'll see this pattern is quite obvious.

    What's worse is that this "tweaked" form of state control can be conducted legally through Political Action Committees with little need to resort to passing money under the table as occurred in the old Soviet Union.

    That's right folks, Microsoft's brand of communism is conducted right under your noses while real innovation and competition in the software industry is systematically squashed through monopolistic trade practices tacitly sanctioned by the state. It's high time that all you Democrats and Republicans out there swallow the blue pill and see things as they are, not how you want them to be. Either we believe in free trade or not and no matter how you dice it monopolies are antithetical to free trade. Those who acquire them will always attempt to redefine competition so that the rules don't apply to them. Ooogedy boogedy people! Look-out! International competition means we have to stick together and support our local monopoly. Oh no! Look over there people, those communist are trying to wreck our good capitalist monopoly. It's total nonsense if you just step back and take a look at it for what it really is.

    1. Re: Microsoft is a State-Sponsored Monopoly by tetromino · · Score: 1

      In my opinion Microsoft is essentially a state-sponsored monopoly and, as such, represents, little more than a tweaked version of the classic communist state entity.

      It's a monopoly - but not a state-sponsored one. The worst you can accuse it of is using the usual lock-in practices to make sure some gov't departments keep on using windows. If you want to see a government-sponsored monopoly, look at something like AT&T in the 1970's, or your local cable provider, or your local power company before the days of deregulation. In all of these cases, there were laws protecting the monopolist from competition, and regulations that made the monopolist essentially an arm of the government. Microsoft, however, managed to achieve and hold on to monopoly status without government assistance - a monumental achievement (even though it's just as bad for the consumer and the industry as a traditional state-sponsored monopoly).

    2. Re: Microsoft is a State-Sponsored Monopoly by Kevin+DeGraaf · · Score: 0, Troll

      It's high time that all you Democrats and Republicans out there swallow the blue pill and see things as they are, not how you want them to be.

      Wrong pill.

      Red pill -> learn the truth
      Blue pill -> continue living in the dark

      (Am I bored at work today? You bet.)

      --
      We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from the machinations of the wicked.
    3. Re: Microsoft is a State-Sponsored Monopoly by bc90021 · · Score: 1

      This is one of the smartest things I've ever seen on SlashDot. Thanks for writing it. (Seriously.)

    4. Re: Microsoft is a State-Sponsored Monopoly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But it's OK when a government somewhere in the world decides to force open source on everyone. Then we cheer and oogle and clap.

    5. Re: Microsoft is a State-Sponsored Monopoly by Guy+Harris · · Score: 1
      But it's OK when a government somewhere in the world decides to force open source on everyone.

      So what government has done that? (Hint: a government deciding to use open source for their business doesn't constitute "forc[ing] open source on everyone", unless you're using the "they're using my tax dollars so they're forcing it on me" argument, which also applies if they're buying closed-source software, as they're then forcing closed-source software on taxpayers who don't want it.)

    6. Re: Microsoft is a State-Sponsored Monopoly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Sweet, now explain to me how the United States government is propping up this "monopoly" of MIcrosoft's by simply buying their software again? That's the original poster's argument, and it's bogus because (and you admit as much) it's a simple choice, albeit one done with my tax dollars. Again, when some government (say Brazil or Munich) decides to hoist open source on all of its employees and dependencies everyone around here jumps up and down, but when the US government buys Microsoft software they're perpetuating a monopoly. The US government sure as heck doesn't tell me I have to run Windows instead of OS X, which also covers your other point.

      Logic just doesn't run deep around here.

    7. Re: Microsoft is a State-Sponsored Monopoly by Guy+Harris · · Score: 1
      Sweet, now explain to me how the United States government is propping up this "monopoly" of MIcrosoft's by simply buying their software again? That's the original poster's argument

      No, it's not. Read the original poster's message again; the claim it made isn't that the US is propping up MS's monopoly by buying MS software, it's that the US is propping up MS's monopoly by not acting strongly enough against MS's monopolistic practices:

      The rational[sic] for this position is the simple fact that although Microsoft has been found guilty of being a monopolistic barrier to free-trade in the software industry it was given tacit state sanction to operate as such when the courts and the DOJ failed to press for meaningful controls on their business practices.
    8. Re: Microsoft is a State-Sponsored Monopoly by NotoriousGIB · · Score: 1

      You know, I was just too lazy to look it up and make sure. I'll update my bog entry according though so thanks for the catch!

    9. Re: Microsoft is a State-Sponsored Monopoly by NotoriousGIB · · Score: 1

      As the original poster to whom you appear to refer I have to point out that I never said anything about the government's purchase of Microsoft software propping up the MS monopoly. What I said was that their failure to act in the public's interest despite the courts ruling them a monopoly is tacit acceptance of Microsoft as a monopoly.

      Moreover, most state, local, and Federal agencies choose to purchase Microsoft software for the same reason most of us do; that is, we have little other choice unless we are prepared to deal with the incompatability issues that arise directly from Microsoft's strategy of undermining interoperability.

  111. Even simpler... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Never show up at an event...using Windows.

    1. Re:Even simpler... by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Never show up at an event...using Windows.

      Actually never show up at an event with a presentation made under Windows. I'm a network admin at a science museum, and I regularly get called up to more or less make people feel really stupid about embedding videos, decorative fonts, and transition effects into their presentation that the machine playing the presentation doesn't have.

      And no, if the new version is 600 MB, about the only way it's going to get from your office to said laptop in time for a 9:00am presentation over the internet. Frankly, if the presentation is on Monday, and today is Friday, you would do better to fed-ex a CD. Not really windows specific, but common enough to merit another snide comment.

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
    2. Re:Even simpler... by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 1
      Ach. Morning coffee hasn't kicked in.

      New Version:

      And no, if the new version is 600 MB, there is no way the file is going to get from your office to said laptop in time for a 9:00am presentation over the internet. (At 8:30am). If the presentation is on Monday, and today is Friday (also happens), you would do better to fed-ex a CD. Not really windows specific, but common enough to merit another snide comment.

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
  112. Where is the flub? by Nanite · · Score: 2, Funny

    As entertaining as Conan O'Brian is, how far into the keynote video in the crash? Watching Gates talk for too long makes me dry-heave.

    --
    God is real unless declared integer.
  113. From the CNET interview... by Lovesquid · · Score: 0

    Bill Gates: "We need to keep IE the best." Funniest thing I've read in weeks... literally.

  114. Blah blah blah, yadda yadda yadda by boodaman · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Article summary: Microsoft is a huge company with massive, crippling market share. We've got all sorts of different things going, but we can't really describe them specifically so that you can understand what we're doing. We intend to lock you in and control every aspect of your life, from the content on your hard drive to the content you see, hear, and use for entertainment to the content you send back and forth with friends and family. Don't worry, though, because we're huge and lots of other huge companies are partnering with us, so whatever we're doing must be good.

    So no big problem; it's not that people have stopped using IE, it's just we've got lots of good ideas that can match and move ahead.

    Translation: Microsoft no longer innovates. We have massive, crippling market share, so we don't have to innovate. We wait to see what cool things other people come up with, then we steal them and tell everyone we thought of them first. The general public is stupid and doesn't know any better, so they believe us.

    In terms of our agility to do things on the browser, people who underestimated us there in the past lived to regret that.

    Translation: Microsoft has massive, crippling market share. Competing with us is an exercise in futility, because we will crush you. Ask Netscape if you don't believe us.

    All in all, 100% image and 0% substance in that interview. I have to ask: does Bill actually DO anything any more? Or is he just a gloating talking head?

  115. A lesson to us all by zoidberg2k · · Score: 1
    "Gates showed how vulnerable all consumers -- even the world's richest man -- are to hardware and software bugs."
    Plus bad sweaters and haircuts...
    1. Re:A lesson to us all by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      ...especially if you run Windows.

  116. I Don't Get It... by DanthemaninVA1 · · Score: 1, Funny

    Everyone here is so eager to bash on how "bad" Windows is, giving stupid misspellings and generally acting like jackasses. I use Windows at home, and I never plan to switch; I've never gotten a virus, never had a problem with spyware, and never had problems with random crashes. I restart about once a week to make sure I keep things running smoothly, and that's it. I don't know what you guys are doing to fuck your Windows boxes up so much, but I have no problem keeping mine up and running.

    1. Re:I Don't Get It... by JWW · · Score: 4, Funny

      ... proof that the Microsoft PR department astroturfs /.

      Ok, ok before the guy with the very large user id blows a gasket, I'm only joking, really.

    2. Re:I Don't Get It... by DrSkwid · · Score: 1


      Once a week huh, that's amazing. Call back when you get over 200 days uptime.

      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    3. Re:I Don't Get It... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Most of this can be attributed to the fact that this is a site for Linux fanboys who haven't actually used Windows since '98 or so, so all their impressions of "current" systems are actually of systems that are six years old or more .

      The other half is that people here are just plain too dumb to be able to competently administer their Windows machines without getting spyware and viruses. Some computer "experts", eh?

    4. Re:I Don't Get It... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're new here, aren't you?

    5. Re:I Don't Get It... by All+Names+Have+Been · · Score: 3, Informative

      I don't know what you guys are doing to fuck your Windows boxes up so much, but I have no problem keeping mine up and running.

      What do I do to fuck up my Windows box? Connect it to the net and tried to read email, that's what. I know a lot of people who run Windows at home. Out of all those people, I can't name a single one that hasn't had a problem *IN THE PAST 2 MONTHS* with some sort of virus, spyware, random flakiness, or other bullshit. Right now, on a freshly installed XP system from the factory (with nothing else on it) Windows Update is stuck trying to install some sort of fix, but can't for some reason, with the end result being that I can't get SP2 for it. Fuck it up? Yeah, it's fucked up. But it wasn't me - it was fucked as designed.

      Rebooting once a week to "keep it running smoothly." Ha. The fact that you need to do this points to something wrong with your system.

    6. Re:I Don't Get It... by Dmala · · Score: 1

      At risk of being called a Microsoft shill, I have to agree. I have an XP machine at work that I use for e-mail, Web access, newsgroups, some light Word processing, and a few other random tasks. I don't keep track of my uptime, but I pretty much don't reboot except for updates, occasional software installs, and power outages. I've never gotten hit with spyware or a virus, and I'm not even running SP2. I would never try to argue that Windows is anything close to perfect, but it can most definitely be stable and usable.

    7. Re:I Don't Get It... by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Good for you. Now how about you go and talk to the millions of people that do have spyware, viruses, can't get their scanner to work and get a BSOD when they plug in their digital camera.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    8. Re:I Don't Get It... by Cederic · · Score: 2, Insightful


      That's odd. I use Windows at home. You know what? It just works for me.

      I don't get viruses.
      I don't get adware.
      I don't get random flakiness.

      Maybe it's because I continually use the web, obsessively read email, run an intentionally open wireless network? Or maybe it's because I'm not a fucking muppet.

      Don't slag off the OS if people don't know how to use it efficiently. Trust me, if 90% of PC owners ran Linux they'd have a malware infested unstable operating system within weeks.

      Now I'll concede that using the provided tools (i.e. IE and Outlook Express) will cause problems, and that probably is Microsoft's fault. But knowing they're shite and using them anyway? That's user error.

      ~Cederic

    9. Re:I Don't Get It... by recursiv · · Score: 1

      Heavens! Your e-penis is enormous!

      --
      I used to bulls-eye womp-rats in my pants
    10. Re:I Don't Get It... by brkello · · Score: 1

      All I can do is sigh when I read your garbage. It's sad that people mod you up. So everyone in your life has had problems with XP. I find that hard to believe...but let's talk about it. It sounds like all the people you know are the types of people who don't understand computers. They are the ones who open up every single attachment, download and install software from questionable sites, click on any link provided to them, and have no idea what anti-virus and firewall software is. This is not a crime or anything, but it isn't surprising that they should be have problems. These users would probably be best suited to be on a Mac. They will be a lot less likely to have problems, not because the OS is superior, but because in general, all the bad stuff out there is targeted at Windows because that has the most common used OS and application on it. These users are probably not sophisticated enough to use Linux. There may be good reasons why they stick with Windows...like if they are gamers. Instead of sitting over there and talking about how Windows sucks, why don't you teach them how to run their machines properly (that is, if you know what you are doing...from what you have said I have some doubts though). I go over to my parents house and teach my dad how to use zone alarm. I download firefox for them so they don't have to worry about pop ups and other malware. I make sure their system runs AV software...and guess what, their system runs great because they know what they are doing.

      As far as rebooting goes, I never reboot my xp systems unless I just installed something and it requires it...it runs just fine. I run Linux servers at work...and guess what, from time to time they get in to bad states and I have to reboot them. Do I think XP is superior? Heck no, I think they are seperate tools for seperate jobs. For home use I like the easeof use and gaming of XP. For work, I need to be able to touch parts of the kernel so I can see what is going on. Windows XP is so easy to use and update...it blows my mind you are having problems with it....seriously...maybe you need to open a port in your firewall, maybe your network isn't configured properly...but if someone can't get windows update to work...how are they going to update their kernel? If you tell me that goes smoothly all the time, then you have no idea what you are talking about. There are plenty of good reasons to hate MS...but XP is pretty solid as an OS...we just need to help out the stupid users.

      --
      Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com
    11. Re:I Don't Get It... by All+Names+Have+Been · · Score: 1

      Garbage? Hardly. by your own admission, you have to spend time educating people and installing software just to protect a crumbling pile of crap. Guess what? I don't have time to fuck with Windows or it's problems. Apparently you do, so you got that going for you.
      And don't understand computers? How about a hacker who has multiple extremely active Open Source projects for Linux and Windows whose XP system was brought to it's knees because he opened a directory with ~3000 photos in it? Just opened it. Thumbnail generation caused him a reboot. Shouldn't have, worked the next time. But failed none the less.

      And how BIll Gates? He can't even keep two machines running for a damn rigged demo. Reliable my ass. His fucking remote didn't even work.

      BTW, I'm no Linux fanboy. Linux sucks ass too for the average user. How the hell are they going to fix something if it breaks? And installing software on most of them is *STILL* a PITA in a lot of cases.

      Better off on a Mac? Damn straight. Guess who I don't get calls from because their PC doesn't work anymore? The two people I convinced to buy an Apple.

    12. Re:I Don't Get It... by All+Names+Have+Been · · Score: 1

      I have a simple out of the box XP PC, brand new. Nothing else installed, from the factory. Can't run Windows Update to get SP2 because it is "stuck" on downloading a phantom security patch that "installs", reboots, and is magically there upon running Windows Update again. Searching the net, absolutely piles of people are having this exact problem, with various incantations presented to try to make it work.

      XP PC, plugged in a USB flash drive for the first time. It installed drivers (for I presume the flash drive?) and wanted to reboot. Never had that happen before (or since), but it's crap.

      Have another brand new XP machine from another manufacturer. It drops all the printer configurations every time it reboots. Who knows why?

      Same manufacturer, another XP PC - it won't run some standard accounting software. Just crashes because it's "missing" a standard DLL that's present on the machine. Works on all the other PC's from the manufacturer, which are identical. Only difference? Windows Update crashed (not the computer - the software) during an update.

      Another white box PC that runs nightly builds of our product. Running Windows 2000, it built a particular tree in 35 minutes. "Updated" to XP, it now takes a little over an hour. (This one isn't running AV or anything. It's not connected to the outside world.)

      I move through hundreds of PC's a month, and I see so many random problems with Windows XP it would boggle your little Muppet mind. All the machines above are connected to an internal network, heavily firewalled, running Norton AV, AdAware and are locked down heavily so no additional software can be loaded. No spyware, no viruses, nothing. Just plain random XP shit with marginal functionality.

    13. Re:I Don't Get It... by All+Names+Have+Been · · Score: 2, Interesting

      BTW, do you know what I've found to be most rock solid software from Microsoft? Windows Server 2003. I've got 12 servers with 8-20 terminal server users each running IE (Gasp!) Outlook Express (The Horror!) on an internal network (proxy for mail/web access) that haven't been rebooted since May of last year (yes - they're behind on their security patches) and don't show any signs of stopping.

      These machines are pounded day and night, and hold up incredibly well, despite two of them running on the same crap commodity hardware as some of our problematic XP desktops.

      As a comparison, according to my stats, I have exactly three XP machines in this office that have had > 2 weeks of uptime, *EVER*.

    14. Re:I Don't Get It... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More likely you don't *realize* that you've gotten a virus... or *realize* that your system has been used as a zombie to participate in DOS attacks.
      Or it's possible you are god...

    15. Re:I Don't Get It... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rebooting once a week to "keep it running smoothly." Ha. The fact that you need to do this points to something wrong with your system.

      Gee, in the Win 3.x days, we used to reboot about 2-3 times per day.

      95/98? Daily reboots were pretty much the norm. I was estatic using OS/2 because I only rebooted every 3-4 days.

      Most of my XP systems run for about 2-3 weeks before needing to be rebooted. It all depends on how often updates get issued, or whether I need to take the system down to do something to the hardware.

  117. Communal by Mark_MF-WN · · Score: 1
    I've always felt that communal societies (in the economic sense, not the hippy free-love commune sense) would work amazingly well if they existed side by side with a capitalist society. After all, that's kind of what we have in Canada and the US. Some people are supported by the state (like the disabled and employees of the government), and some people compete in a free market. Some services that are considered vital are provided communally, like the police force, fire department, and a surprising amount of our agriculture. Other things are provided by the free market, like computers and cell phones and clothes.

    To me it seems that the extremes of capitalism and communism are BOTH dangerous. Combining them can provide a much more effective society.

    1. Re:Communal by oliverthered · · Score: 1

      'Some services that are considered vital'
      Yes and the more vital services we provide the closer we get to communism....
      when cell phones only cost 1$ why not make them free.

      --
      thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    2. Re:Communal by Mark_MF-WN · · Score: 1

      I'm not quite sure what your point is -- are you suggesting that police and fire deperatments and other "vital" services should be privatized, or are you suggesting that cellular networks should be managed by the government? Both arguments seem laughable.

    3. Re:Communal by oliverthered · · Score: 1

      Well, the police are privatised to an extent and so is the army their not 'managed' by the government just paid for by the people via the government.

      In the UK old people get some things paid for that others don't, like fuel. and some people are given computers and cell phones paid for by the government[people] I don't see many people laughing at that.

      --
      thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    4. Re:Communal by Mark_MF-WN · · Score: 1

      Well, there's a big difference between the government completely managing something (like the military), and just providing it to some people who need it (like bus passes and computers for seniors). Still, your point is well made.

    5. Re:Communal by oliverthered · · Score: 1

      The military isn't completely government managed.
      NASA, Lockide martin, and Hunting Brae all do military work on contract for the government.

      I should imagine that some groups in the military are also independent, things like the now non existent ATF and probably the FBI.

      --
      thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    6. Re:Communal by grung0r · · Score: 1

      NASA is a government agency.

    7. Re:Communal by oliverthered · · Score: 1

      the others aren't though

      --
      thank God the internet isn't a human right.
  118. Re:fp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    I assume yoy are running Linux..
    Get a new Firefox
    Get MPlayer http://www.mplayerhq.hu/
    Get the Mplayer-Plugin
    http://mplayerplug-in.sourceforge. net/

    Once compiled and installed properly, you will have in-brouwser wmv and mov movies, just like in Windows ;)

  119. Communism by mishehu · · Score: 1

    What never ceases to amaze me is that these greedy SOB's always label communism as evil and bad. Not every communistic society was totalitarian/stalinistic/maoistic.

    Much of the state of Israel survived the past 150 or so years by forming kibutzim, which were small communities that pooled resources much in a communistic manner. Granted, as the country prospered, the importance of the kibutzim has faded, and most kibutzim are more and more privatized every year.

    I read somewhere that the Chinese had the technology for mechanical clocks and watches for several hundred years before they were "invented" and commonplace in society, and that the Chinese had created such a heavy, overpowering beauracracy (think: the current abuse of patents and copywrights as a parallel) that they stifled innovation and failed to truly advance their society after the Khans returned to Mongolia.

    It is of my opinion that if you take out a patent or copyright anything non-artistic for the purposes of exerting a monopoly on said works, then it really needs to be controlled in a reasonable manner to not forsake the rights of society as a whole to advance. People and organizations have the right to earn a living, but not "steal" from the society that grants them their power.

    1. Re:Communism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Communism is a word used for pooling of resources enforced by law. This is dumb as has been proved time and again.
      But pooling of resources that arises naturally from the *voluntary* actions of individuals can be a good thing. If 'communism' weren't already taken to mean a form of government, one might be tempted to coin that word for voluntary 'community-ism' or cooperation. Activity does exist outside of the strictly capitalist quid-pro-quo economy.

    2. Re:Communism by Bodhammer · · Score: 1
      Much of the state of Israel survived the past 150 or so years by forming kibutzim, which were small communities that pooled resources much in a communistic manner. Granted, as the country prospered, the importance of the kibutzim has faded, and most kibutzim are more and more privatized every year.

      You forget, as do many idealists here on /. that the above example is by choice. Communism is by coercion. People in communist countries don't have a choice and they generally can't leave.

      Patents, property rights, etc. all stem from a critical concept - "I am Free" .

      Relevent /. example: 1) I am free to code something and sell it or give it away. Because it is mine, I have that choice. Because I wrote it, because it is the product of my effort, it is mine to do with what I want. To abstract that to the key concept - I am free to do anything as long as it does not infringe on others rights.

      The socialists and communists, etc. always try to skew it to "you have it, I want(phrased as need) it, therefore you are infringing on my rights" - they then use coercive tactics like government, taxes, and worse to take it.

      DON'T BE FOOLED!

      Creative altruism is good, good for society, and in the long run, good for the race and species. Just remember, anything that values the collective above the individual is evil.

      If you want to give away your code, I salute you and thank you! More importantly, I salute YOUR right to choose that course of action and I will fight for that right.

      There are many abuses of capitalism and it is not perfect. It is however, the best and most fairest way of distributing resources because it acknowleges the individuals right to own their labor. Remember, monopolies always fail in a FREE market. If you want MS to fail, demand of the government that they protect the free market. That is the governments job. Read Who is John Galt?

      --
      "I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
  120. Re: Communists by WhatAmIDoingHere · · Score: 1

    At least you're pointing out things to people in your age group..

    Oh, and douche bag is two words.

    --
    Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
  121. We're "software terrorists", Bill by nysus · · Score: 5, Funny

    Communists? Come on, Bill, you can do better than that! Who cares about Communists anymore? Just look at all the business we're doing with Communist China these days. The word "Communism" has definitely lost its cache.

    Here's some advice for your public relations folks: We're not communists, we're "software terrorists", Bill, and we're out to kill little babies and children in the name of FOSS. We hate freedom and the American way of life and we're out to destroy it.

    Now, if you can get that message across and paint that picture to the American public, you'd kill FOSS forever. Hell, you could probably get the FBI to start raiding the homes of Linux users.

    Good luck in your future endeavors, you Capitalist Pig.

    --

    ---Technology will liberate us if it doesn't enslave us first.

    1. Re:We're "software terrorists", Bill by nysus · · Score: 0

      Oops, should be "cachet" not "cache."

      --

      ---Technology will liberate us if it doesn't enslave us first.

    2. Re:We're "software terrorists", Bill by thebatlab · · Score: 0

      "Good luck in your future endeavors, you Capitalist Pig."

      I think that's what the Russians said at the end of the Cold War wasn't it ;)

    3. Re:We're "software terrorists", Bill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > think that's what the Russians said at the end of the Cold War wasn't it ;)

      No, but it is what they said to the Germans right after lend-lease started to kick in.

    4. Re:We're "software terrorists", Bill by millennial · · Score: 1

      We're not communists, we're "software terrorists", Bill, and we're out to kill little babies and children in the name of FOSS. We hate freedom and the American way of life and we're out to destroy it.
      So we support Free, Open-Source Software, but not freedom. Yeah, sounds like Microsoft logic to me... kinda like clicking the 'Start' menu to stop your computer. " freedom isn't free... freedom costs a buck o five. " -- Team America

      --
      I am scientifically inaccurate.
  122. M$ is Communist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Think about it.
    Large body (who at least operates like a government), dictating to the masses, owning everything (even if its someone else's property), doing whats best for it/not the people. Sounds like communism to me...

  123. To quote Karl Marx himself... by Psyqlone · · Score: 1

    "Je ne suis pas un Marxiste."

    ...sorry. I just couldn't resist.

  124. Re: Commie blather and "the Copyleft Flag." by inditek · · Score: 1

    When I suggested the flag, in jest, to Xeni, I never expected that she actually read email to address... I was just firing off a thought into space. Anyway, here's the full thought:

    "Obviously, what we need is a large red flag with a gold copyleft in the upperleft, replacing the hammer and sickle...

    But wait... I guess that's spoofing Sovietism, not Communism (or "communism"), which may have more in common with Microsoft.

    Just a quick thought."

    I think people have already gone-on in circles about there being a difference between Communism, communism, Sovietism, China's brand of stuff, Cuba's, and that a lot of these ideas are seen as economic or governmental organization theories... and when they get confused by either critics or practitioners, well, words and definitions get hijacked.

    Me? I just liked the visual.

  125. He's finally done it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He's come up with a more entertaining/embarrasing quote than "640k ought to be enough for anybody"

  126. Godwin's law? by windex · · Score: 1

    I'm going to suggest that BG actually ment "Nazi's" instead of "communists" and apply Godwin's law to his argument.

    Luckily, the discussion is now over. We win. :)

  127. is that any worse than... by mohrt · · Score: 1

    coming to a highly visible website (aka slashdot) only to see:

    503 Service Unavailable

    The service is not available. Please try again later.

  128. Pointing out logical fallacies may be useless... by AthenianGadfly · · Score: 5, Insightful

    But I'll just add one more comment, trying to deconstruct what Gates says about communism and IP:

    1. Communism is generally considered to be a negative adjective in the US, no matter how you slice it. Also, I would argue that most communist governments have done quite a bit of damage by being communist (note that we're talking about communism not socialism, which is something different altogether.
    2. He is also, largely, fighting a straw man: very few people (that I know of, anyway) are actually in favor of abolishing all intellectual property. Rather, most seem to advocate more moderate limits.
    3. He maintains that the purpose of IP laws are to provide an incentives for those who create content. I agree that this was the original intent of the laws - whether that is still their function is debatable. However, I have a hard time imagining a musician (or any other content creator) sitting down to write a song (or any other content for that matter) but deciding not to because it would only remain protected until 75 years after their death (the current laws protect it for 95 years, I believe). I understand wanting to leave something to one's heirs, but 95 years is several generations - is this really a factor in whether people create new content?
  129. The concept of religion is inherantly bad. by FatSean · · Score: 0

    Closing your eyes to the world because you cannot comprehend it's vastness is pathetic.

    --
    Blar.
  130. It's who owns the property rights by gmknobl · · Score: 1

    I think it's not that increasing intellectual property rights is good/bad but rather who owns them. I mean, should the individual or team who creates a new technology get the protection or the company that they work for get the protection? Of course, what deserves protection? Certainly not that I can make your shopping easier by including a "one-click" buy now type of button - that's simple code and shouldn't be protected. But it is now, isn't it? Ah, the whole thing's a mess and gates is being reactionary doesn't help anyone.

  131. Link to working video presentation? by British · · Score: 1

    Keyword here; VIDEO. 99% of this is a slideshow with the occasional audio, and a whole lotta buffering. There has got to be a downloadable video of this. Reliable streaming video even in 2005 isn't here yet.

    1. Re:Link to working video presentation? by RichN · · Score: 1
      Reliable streaming video even in 2005 isn't here yet.

      Well, for the past few years I've been able to watch Jobs' keynote speech on my Mac just fine...

      --

      Rich

    2. Re:Link to working video presentation? by inotocracy · · Score: 1, Informative

      Lower quality, but easier on the bandwidth (since their being /.'d) http://metahost.savvislive.com/microsoft/20050105/ ms_ces_20050105_100.asx

  132. Intellectual Property Reform = Communism? by TarrVetus · · Score: 2, Informative

    From the CNET article: "What's driving [intellectual property reform], and do you think intellectual-property laws need to be reformed?"
    "No, I'd say that of the world's economies, there's more that believe in intellectual property today than ever. There are fewer communists in the world today than there were."


    Notice how Mr. Gates immediately equates intellectual-property law reform with 'communism?' It appears that the anti-trust cases are finally starting to break him down; if calling intellectual property reform "communist" is the best argument he can make, then we know his logic and rationale beginning to break down to baseless assumptions and insults.

    In other words, the reformists may be winning in Gates' view.

  133. Wow... by Sheepdot · · Score: 0

    ...a buddy of mine told me about this story and I was so excited to read it I came to slashdot.org and got:

    503 Service Unavailable
    The service is not available. Please try again later.

    I guess that answers the age old question of Slashdot being able to Slashdot itself.

  134. Re:Yes, especially Atheism! by say · · Score: 0

    Yeah, but christianity added together has killed more people. After all, Hitler, Bush, the Inquisition and the european colonists were all christian.

    Grandparents point was that such labels are meaningless, due to the point that it wasn't communism that made Stalin kill people, it wasn't capitalism that made the US kill people in Vietnam, it wasn't even christianity that made the Inquisition kill people: it was the people in power of the respective authorities that killed people. All ideologies can be abused; all fanatism is dangerous.

    --
    Roses are #FF0000, violets are #0000FF, all my base are belong to you
  135. Gates says people use IE too by Saint+Stephen · · Score: 1

    Gates says everybody who uses FireFox has IE installed too, so he's not worried.

    What a jerk! They wouldn't have IE installed if Microsoft didn't force everybody to install it!

    1. Re:Gates says people use IE too by Sumbody · · Score: 1

      Color me off-topic, but NPR's Morning Edition did what I thought was a rather complementary piece on Firefox this morning. The story is posted here Security Conscious Users Test Driving Firefox Browser

    2. Re:Gates says people use IE too by s-meister · · Score: 1
      Saint Stephen said:
      Gates says everybody who uses FireFox has IE installed too, so he's not worried.

      Gates is wrong. At home I have Win98SE (why no, I am not a masochist) reinstalled using 98Lite Preview http://www.litepc.com/preview.html. No IE at all. No OE at all. Just Firefox and Thunderbird.

      It works.

      I use XP Pro at work, with no admin access. Regrettably, that just works too. I suspect that the latter will be more easily hacked than the former, but as the former is mine, and the latter is pwned by my employer's IT support Morlocks I don't care!

      I doubt whether the home machine is too vulnerable either on those occasions when I'm using it with Mandrake instead.

      No, Gates should be more worried by the likes of Knoppix. When I saw Knoppix for the first time, I saw the writing on the wall for Windows.

      You're doomed, Bill. You can't patent imagination and creativity.

      By the way, if he ever checks out, look out for a note saying "The ascension of the ordinary man"...

    3. Re:Gates says people use IE too by randallpowell · · Score: 0

      Gates says everybody who uses FireFox has IE installed too, so he's not worried. I searched and searched but I can't find IE in Ubuntu's respositories anywhere. Oh thats right, Linux isn't a threat. Sorry to bother.

  136. Who prepares his responses? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But some people have left because of security issues.
    Well, no one invests more in security of their browser than what we do on IE. The key message we have for people is they should turn on auto update because if you turn on auto update, without you having to think about it and go through a bunch of user interface or know about this or that or the other thing, you can know that there are hundreds of very smart people who are constantly improving your browser and making sure that you're safe. And so with auto update and IE, you're getting the top security team and the quickest response team that there is anywhere.

    Does he live in an alternate reality where he really believes what he says to be true? And if it is true, doesn't that show a great measure of the level of incompetence of his company?

  137. Re:BSOD? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    BSODs once a month? your system has issues - don't blame windows. dont buy crappy hardware - and/or have a professional look at it.

    not that windows 2K/XP is flawless, but BSOD's are errors that usually have a distinct cause, such as buggy drivers, faulty hardware, etc.

  138. serves him right by crazy_pikachu · · Score: 1

    serves him rgith to trust his product at a huge convention like this one. maybe he will realize that his product is crap and that he should upgrade it and fix it so this doesnt happen again

  139. Cuba. by oliverthered · · Score: 0, Troll

    The US is generally mad at Cuba because they don't hold elections even though Fidel Castro has a huge approval rating.

    When asked why he doesn't hold elections to stop the US going on about it he says ,'Because I don't have to'.

    Castro is also well known for saying ,'I could have done a lot better, but overall I haven't done to bad'

    Jews are also known for their 'communist' ways, and I'm sure if you looked around a thousand or so years ago you would find lots of communist type groups.

    --
    thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    1. Re:Cuba. by mforbes · · Score: 1

      Being jewish myself, I just have to love all the stereotypes and generalizations that are made about us. First, it's true that Marx was jewish. That's fine, whether or not he was right about communism (and I'm not arguing that point, so if you respond concerning it, don't expect a response from me), he was still a great thinker.

      Now, I kind of wonder, though. First we jews get labeled as usurious lenders (all throughout the middle ages in Europe & up to the current day), we get accused of wanting to take over the world (personally I thought that was the Illuminati, but that just goes to show what I know). Ask a New Yorker what professions he thinks of when he thinks of jews, and he'll think 'banker, lawyer, diamond merchant, furrier...' Very capitalist, I'd say.

      And now you're saying we're known for our communist ways?! Man, when is this world gonna make up its mind about how to stereotype us? or better yet, just not stereotype us at all, except for things like genetic health risks (Tay-Sachs disease, for instance).

      Sheesh

      --

      Allegedly real newspaper headline from 1998:
      Man Struck by Lightning Faces Battery Charge

    2. Re:Cuba. by oliverthered · · Score: 1

      Well there's Jewish Zionist/Fundamentalist (which is what I'm referring to), Jewish (like a lot of Christians) and Jewish well that's what I sign on the dotted line.

      The communist ways I was referring to where things like kibbutz and Zionism.

      I didn't stereotype, I just made a generalisation just like the word Jewish is a generalisation.

      Kibbutz are described as ....

      'The kibbutz (Hebrew word for "communal settlement") is a unique rural community; a society dedicated to mutual aid and social justice; a socioeconomic system based on the principle of joint ownership of property, equality and cooperation of production, consumption and education; the fulfilment of the idea "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"; a home for those who have chosen it.'

      Sounds communist to me.

      'throughout the middle ages in Europe'

      It should also be noted that the Jews more or less 'invented' interest, and in the Magna Carta it states,
      "10. If one who has borrowed from the Jews any sum, great or small, die before that loan can be repaid, the debt shall not bear interest while the heir is under age, of whomsoever he may hold; and if the debt fall into our hands, we will not take anything except the principal sum contained in the bond"

      I'm not Jewish and don't have a Jewish upbringing but I have been told on a number of occasions that Jews aren't expected to charge each other interest and such like. Were they just paranoid?

      It is possible to be communal within a community but capitalist and 'wanting to take over the world' outside, did your mum charge you minimum wage to help you out as school?

      --
      thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    3. Re:Cuba. by mforbes · · Score: 1

      Everything you mention is valid, and thanks for the quote from the Magna Carta. I wasn't aware of that particular clause, but that's probably b/c I've never actually read it (which I'll do just as soon as I post this).

      I am aware, however, that it wasn't unusual in the middle ages for kings to get so far into debt to the bankers (who were jewish simply because we jews never had laws against charging interest, whereas the catholic church strongly proscribed against it... sort of a default position, you might say... although I do wonder why the zoroastrians never got into it too? Or did they & that's just been forgotten over the years?) that they'd just have a purge (or pogrom, or whatever it was called in the given land), rather than pay back the loans.

      This is more or less what caused the expulsion of jews from Spain in 1492-- Ferdinand & Isabella had finished their fighting against the Moors & either converted them or pushed them across the Straight of Gibraltar. They were deeply in debt, so the solution obviously was... blame the bankers.
      Incidentally, the thing about not charging interest to a fellow jew... I've heard that before too (not from other members of the community with which I've been associated, just the same way everyone hears these things I guess), but I've never seen it in action. Sure, a friend normally won't charge a friend interest, but I'd imagine it's that way in just about any community. When it comes to normal business transactions, anyone who wants to stay in business is certainly going to charge interest in loans!

      Anyway, concerning kibbutzim is very much an attempt at locally run communist societies, you're absolutely correct about that. But... kibbutzim are falling out of favor, and the transactions between kibbutzim were always capitalist in nature. It's only the transactions between people in any given kibbutz that are/were communist in nature.

      Again, thanks for your followup post. I found it much more informative & less inflamatory than the original post to which I responded. Insightful even, rather than inciteful.

      --

      Allegedly real newspaper headline from 1998:
      Man Struck by Lightning Faces Battery Charge

  140. Re:Yes, especially Atheism! by Airline_Sickness_Bag · · Score: 0
    After all, Atheists like Mao and Stalin have been directly responsible for far more deaths than even the Inquisition in its heyday.



    Or would you care to re-think your argument? (-:


    A poor arguement. People were tortured and killed by the Inquisition because of their religious beliefs, while people were tortured and killed by Mao and Stalin because they were percieved as possible threats to their power.

  141. MOD UP by AddressException · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    This guy's right on the money.

  142. Hey, a Slash reader wrote the article! by mattgreen · · Score: 1

    At least they didn't confuse "loose" and "lose."

    discreet:
    1. Marked by, exercising, or showing prudence and wise self-restraint in speech and behavior; circumspect.
    2. Free from ostentation or pretension; modest.
    vs.
    discrete
    1. Constituting a separate thing.
    2. Consisting of unconnected distinct parts.
    3. Mathematics. Defined for a finite or countable set of values; not continuous.

  143. Google Local by superyooser · · Score: 1

    I use Google Local (U.S. only; based on ZIP code). It's better than the phone book.

    1. Re:Google Local by superyooser · · Score: 1

      I just checked... It works in Canada, too. Google is working on expanding the service.

  144. Re:fp by phats+garage · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It really is rediculous all around. Bill neglects to carefully consider that the GPL and other open source licenses are simply gifts of intellectual property to the community at large. In no way does the GPL or BSD licenses "disrespect" commercial licenses, they just offer a better value than the commercial licenses, ie., our software is our gift to you.

  145. Re:BSOD? by LSD-OBS · · Score: 1

    BSOD's are errors that usually have a distinct cause, such as buggy drivers, faulty hardware, etc.

    Or badly designed/implemented kernels. These crashes are certainly driver related since I can trace them back to the .VXD's. In both cases, they are default Win32 drivers.

    --
    Today's weirdness is tomorrow's reason why. -- Hunter S. Thompson
  146. Re:Pointing out logical fallacies may be useless.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
    is this really a factor in whether people create new content?

    No.

    Most copyrights are owned by corporations, not the artists who make the works. Thus the long copyright terms - corporations live longer.
  147. who's in really charge of Microsoft? by seven+of+five · · Score: 1

    ... the bug!!


    All hail the bug!!!!

  148. When you have that much money by oliverthered · · Score: 1

    All laws are shallow.

    'I find this rhetoric to be common amongst the wealthy business class and conservatives in general'

    How do you think they got wealthy? Buy being nice and promoting everyone else's product or sharing.

    I'm not a Conservative but there mentality would appear to be, 'If I'm 1$ richer then the worlds 1$ richer' and a 'commie' would say, 'If I'm 1$ richer then I'm too rich'.

    I haven't seen much trickle down to the war torn countries of Africa, well except for reduced licensing on Microsoft products.

    --
    thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    1. Re:When you have that much money by gad_zuki! · · Score: 1

      >How do you think they got wealthy? Buy being nice and promoting everyone else's product or sharing.

      The problem is, once they get wealthy they cannot be allowed to abuse the system to maintain that wealth, through, say litigation, bought-for laws, illegal predatory practices they only get a slap on the wrist for, etc which all put up barriers to entry and stop competition and create market stagnation.

      It was a more open market that let them get wealthy, but they fail or dont care to realize that restrictive IP laws, pork, corporate welfare, protectionist laws, easy to abuse patents, etc are purely self-serving and break a healthy market. To you and me that means consolidation, less choice, inflation, debt, unemployment, shoddy products, lack of innovation, inability to break into business, and all sorts of other nasties.

      No where do I advocate "being nice" in that post as you suggest. The point is monopolies held up by corruption or even monopolies in general are bad for the overall economy. Not to mention many of these companies are run by people who believe they are entitled to always make a profit, regardless of market change and will make this so by abusing our buyable politicians.

    2. Re:When you have that much money by oliverthered · · Score: 1

      Corruption is just an extension of being 'selfish'.

      My girlfriend complains when I'm 5 minutes late as if she just missed buying the winning lottery ticket. She expected a return on her investment of time and wanted to charge me interest (having to listen to her complain).

      All the makings of a monopolist right there.

      --
      thank God the internet isn't a human right.
  149. Link for non-windows users? by maxgilead · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I suggest that someone with Windows machine download and share the file so that non-windows users can see it as well. Here neither MPlayer not Totem seem to be able to play the provided link or any of the URLs provided inside that file (it's text file). It looks like problem with being even able to start downloading (non-standard protocol?).

    I'm not talking about re-encoding, just providing a link usable with normal HTTP-enabled client.

  150. Bzzt right back at ya by dAzED1 · · Score: 1
    Umm... Actualy, judging by the events that appeared to cause the lockups, it was the third-party Nikon Camera and Game that probably caused the problems.


    Plugging damn camera into your system shouldn't cause it to lock the ENTIRE system. if the camera has a problem, it should simply not work. It most certainly *is* a major knock on microsoftie's product when plugging a camera in causes the entire system to be rendered useless.

  151. Re:Oh, it doesn't get better than these comments.. by Blittzed · · Score: 1
    I couldn't agrere more, and what about the first part:

    Well, people get confused about browsers. You can have as many browsers as you want on your PC, just like you can have tons of music players and things like that.

    What the ... is that all about? I think the only person who is confused here is old Bill himself.

    --
    "They looked deep into my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined"
  152. I find what he says rather worrying by TiggsPanther · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Seriously, a fair bit of what he says really sits uncomfortably. For one thing what he says about IE and Firefox is, although perfectly true, not quite as clear-cut as he seems to be making it sound.

    So when people say Firefox is being downloaded onto people's systems, that's true, but IE is also on those systems.

    That's not exactly by choice in all cases. I am confident that were IE trivially uninstallable from a Windows setup then that point would be less valid.
    I don't necessarily think that every FF user would uninstall IE if it were easily doable but I do think that in many of the cases where "IE is also on those systems" it's only because there's no simple way of remiving it.

    As for his stance on IP rights then I think he hasn't got a clue.
    However what I will say is that I'm no businessman and he runs a very successful business. So I freely admit that as much as I disagree with his points of view they obviously work in business. In fact I'd be pretty surprised if he didn't have views like that - many businesses seem to share the "IP Rights are Good" mentality.

    Having said that I do think that what's good for business isn't always good for innovation and incentive. And that's why I personally think that the concept of "Intellectual Property" needs a major overhaul. Patents and non-terminating copyrights simply have too many drawbacks.
    Like the main incentive for Patents that companies seem to have is that if they have a great idea then not only should they benefit from selling it but they shoudl benefit from anyone improving on it - as they'll have to pay to license it. Great from a business perspective but from a technical perspective this is dreadful because if someone's got great dieas to extend something but no money or Patents to bargain with then the new idea will be lost.

    From a BBC News article about the speech:

    Mr Gates said the PC, like Microsoft's Media Centre, had a central role to play in how people would be making the most out of audio, video and images but it would not be the only device.

    "It is the way all these devices work together which will make the difference," he said.

    Obviously I find it a bit odd when Bill Gates (or anyone Microsoft spokeperson) talks about things "working together". Unless they're having a complete turnaround in their policies he probably means that when "devices work together" they will always be working via Windows.
    Obviously this makes a great quote as he goes down as saying that interoperability is important - or something like that - but it just falls flat as more often than not he isn't tlaking about devices talking with non-Microsoft devices.

    --
    Tiggs
    "120 chars should be enough for everyone..."
    1. Re:I find what he says rather worrying by Yort · · Score: 1
      So when people say Firefox is being downloaded onto people's systems, that's true, but IE is also on those systems.

      For me, my parents, my grandparents, my sister, my in-laws, and anyone else for whom I've ever set up a computer, IE is effectively not on the system. Oh sure, the executable is on there somewhere (what does "iexplore.exe" do?), as are all the other 1s and 0s needed to run the program, but as far as the user is concerned, they can't find anything about this "Internet Explorer" thing. No icons, no shortcuts, no nothing. Or, in some rare cases, there IS an Internet Explorer icon, but it doesn't look like a doofy E - it looks more like a cute little curled up red fox.

    2. Re:I find what he says rather worrying by xeno-cat · · Score: 1

      His statement that IE is already on the system actually works against him. Microsoft put IE on the system to fill a need, which appariently is not being filled or else nobody would actually bother to download Firefox. So what Gates is saying really is that "People are still downloading Firefox _even though_ IE is on their system too". Ouch!

      Now there is always the wiz bang factor and the cool feeling of getting something for nothing that may be driving people to download the now highly promoted Firefox. But from what I have been seeing anyway once people do install the product they are surprised and pleased by it and IE starts to look a bit long in the tooth feature wise.

      Kind Regards

      --
      "A few great minds are enough to endow humanity with monstrous power, but a few great hearts are not enough to make us w
    3. Re:I find what he says rather worrying by Catbeller · · Score: 1

      I'm curious: how do you contact Microsoft's site for Windows critical updates with Firefox? The site claims it works only with IE. Do you fib and pretend FF is IE? Does that work?

    4. Re:I find what he says rather worrying by Yort · · Score: 1
      I'm curious: how do you contact Microsoft's site for Windows critical updates with Firefox?

      I haven't used Windows Update in ages. I've got the little Automatic Update service running, and it handles any critical updates to the OS. Anything else on Windows Update, like Windows Media 25 or like, I don't care about.

    5. Re:I find what he says rather worrying by a+whoabot · · Score: 1

      If you look hard enough you'll see a link for downloads for manual installs which says something like "for people who prefer to use other browsers..."

    6. Re:I find what he says rather worrying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As for his stance on IP rights then I think he hasn't got a clue.

      HAHAHAHA! *sniff* Bill Gates, hasn't got a clue... about... IP rights? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Oh, please stop it! It hurts!

  153. Communism: reason for Microsoft success by ZarkDav · · Score: 1

    If current IP laws applied when Microsoft sold a license to "their" OS to IBM, they would not have been able to do so.

    In fact, if current IP laws applied then like they apply today, some of us would still be using VisiCalc on a CP/M computer, but most of us would only dream of what people are doing now in the digital world.

    Microsoft success was built entirely upon the lack of laws and care to protect the lawyers^Winventors of common computing concepts such as the operating system, the graphical interface, the software spreadsheet and the word processor.

    By calling IP system critics communists, Bill is demonstrating capitalism is not protecting freedom anymore. It is very close to communism propaganda. He should get blacklisted fast.

  154. Not the red scare by MoronGames · · Score: 5, Funny

    We're not having the Red Scare anymore. Why didn't he label them terrorists? That's today's thing.

    --
    hey!
    1. Re:Not the red scare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, anyone that likes open source and is against Intellectual Property is a Bleeding Heart Pinko-Liberal-Commie-Heathen-Terrorist.

      *Me Ducks*

      _____________________________________________

      p.s. it's a joke, not a flamebait or troll

    2. Re:Not the red scare by elgatozorbas · · Score: 1

      Who needs the Red Scare when you can have the Blue SOD?..

    3. Re:Not the red scare by rob_squared · · Score: 1

      We all know that they're the Blue scare. Oh wait.

      --
      I don't get it.
  155. Re:Yes, especially Atheism! by mog007 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    On the whole, religion has killed more people than all forms of revolution and all wars over money, gold or resources.

  156. USA Today Interview by ps_inkling · · Score: 1
    Sure, laugh it up about his communist statements -- but look at the industry moves made by Microsoft:

    Partership with SBC and BellSouth to deliver digital cable TV (codec, receiver) to consumers; Window Media Player 10 with DRM out the yin-yang (licenses which make it impossible to play content that I purchased a la DivX); partership with TiVo for content encoding; the PlaysForSure DRM.

    Make no mistake -- MicroSoft is positioning itself to not need the Windows monopoly in the near future -- the licensing revenue from all the (mandatory) DRM embedded in every consumer device you touch will be sufficient to keep BillG and friends afloat for the next century.

    Link to USA Today Interview

  157. Re:Yes, especially Atheism! by Tanktalus · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I hate to do this ... especially since the Crusades (which was a defensive war, contrary to popular belief - the Arabian leader sacked the holiest of Christian churches, which was basically without defense, making Europe mad - the first Crusade was retaliatory) were a reasonable example from the threads above. However, I have to.

    The Inquisitions, also contrary to popular belief, did not kill people. It was the authority of Kings who didn't know theology who killed people. Inquisitions actually were set up to save people from death. Many people were being accused of heresy (a crime punishable by death according to the king's law at the time - anything that ran contrary to faith also undermined the King's God-appointed power, so it was treated like treason). However, the civilian lawyers and judges were not versed in theology enough to actually rule fairly on the subject. The Catholic Church set up Inquisitions in various European nations where the judge and lawyers were all theologians (usually priests). This cut the death rate to a mere fraction of what it was before the Inquisitions. The Inquisitions, especially the Spanish Inquisition, were the height of fair trials for the time period - in fact, much of our current court system is derived from the expertise of the Inquisitions.

    That's not to say that the name of religions haven't been used as an excuse to kill people, just like the name of other ideologies (especially Naziism and Communism) have been used to kill people.

    Arguably, however, some ideologies/theologies are more prone to violence than others. However, that's another debate for another day in another section of /. :-)

  158. I like this quote: by Stevyn · · Score: 1

    "So when people say Firefox is being downloaded onto people's systems, that's true, but IE is also on those systems."

    Umm...there is no way to remove IE and it is installed by default. Of course there are systems with IE, it doesn't mean people want it or use it.

  159. Re:Yes, especially Atheism! by Tanktalus · · Score: 1

    Ignoring, for the moment, that the Inquisition was set up to prevent torture and killing (see my earlier post) ... those who were tortured and/or killed despite the inquisition were so punished because of possible threats to the king's power (anyone undermining the Church's power implicitly undermined the king's power since the king's power was nominally based on the Church's power as an appointed leader).

  160. Time for a new law by hey! · · Score: 1
    Having been involved in technology for something like twenty five years now, I say it's time to go along with Moore, Murphy et al.


    I'd suggest it should be something like this:


    It's probably possible, but it'll never be as good as they say it will be.
    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    1. Re:Time for a new law by mattyrobinson69 · · Score: 1
      Nope, wrong.

      Linux was probalby possible (some college stuent writing a minix clone from scratch?), and he thought it would be crap. Here's the newsgroup post:

      Hello everybody out there using minix - I'm doing a (free) operating system (just a hobby, won't be big and professional like gnu) for 386(486) AT clones.
      ...
      PS. Yes - it's free of any minix code, and it has a multi-threaded fs. It is NOT protable (uses 386 task switching etc), and it probably never will support anything other than AT-harddisks, as that's all I have :-(.
    2. Re:Time for a new law by hey! · · Score: 1

      Not a counter example. "He" "They".

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    3. Re:Time for a new law by mattyrobinson69 · · Score: 1

      Damn! I'l catch you out one day....

      oo: His pairents told him to stop wasting time because it'l never become anything more than a heap of shit that only runs on 386's.

      (ok, i made that up)

  161. Re:Yes, especially Atheism! by snorklewacker · · Score: 1

    A poor arguement. People were tortured and killed by the Inquisition because of their religious beliefs, while people were tortured and killed by Mao and Stalin because they were percieved as possible threats to their power.

    Actually it was entire sects of Christians like the Cathars and the Waldenesians who were wiped out by Inquisitions because they were possible threats to the power of the Catholic Church.

    The most famous inquisition would be the Spanish Inquisition of the late 1400's. Torquemada, hot irons, Fear, Surprise, and an almost fanatical devotion ... er.. The Inquisition itself was and is an office of the Catholic church, and it still exists today under a different name and is still tasked with charging and punishing heresy. Of course now it only has jurisdiction over its own clergy and the worst punishment it metes out is defrocking, so it's a somewhat different situation in this age.

    --
    I am no longer wasting my time with slashdot
  162. communists.. by tsalaroth · · Score: 0

    Hate to break it to you, Bill, but Communism won.

  163. Time of Crashes? by Necroman · · Score: 1

    Could someone reply with the times of the crashes in that video? Some people are talking about multiple BSODs and other weird things happening. It would be nice to know when these happen so we could just skip to the good stuff.

    --
    Its not what it is, its something else.
  164. I have 4 words for you... by melvo · · Score: 2, Funny

    I LOVE THIS COMMUNISM

    http://www.ntk.net/ballmer/mirrors.html

  165. No by northcat · · Score: 1

    he described anyone who doesn't support ever-increasing intellectual property laws as "communists".

    No. He didn't say that anyone who doesn't support 'IP' laws is a communist. He said that communists don't support 'IP' laws. There's a difference.

    Every dentist is a doctor. But every doctor is not a dentist.

  166. Pot calling the kettle.. by Zareste · · Score: 2, Interesting

    where he described anyone who doesn't support ever-increasing intellectual property laws as "communists"

    Communism is where everything is owned by the government and is distributed among the citizens. Intellectual property is where everything you've *payed* for is owned by a company after in your possession.

    So we're not a communist state; we're far worse.

    --
    I am NOT a number! I am a - oh wait, I'm number 761710. Look! 761710!
  167. Oh the irony^H^H^H^H^H hypocrisy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    anyone who doesn't support ever-increasing intellectual property laws as "communists"

    Microsoft made such a business out of ripping off other's ideas that litigation has become one of their largest costs of business.

    Now they've decided that intellectual property laws are part of the American way?

  168. This machine kills fascists. by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    It's no surprise that the biggest capitalist ever, who switched his party bribery^Wdonation preferences to support the fascist (corporate government) presidential candidate in 2000 and 2004, thinks musicians who are motivated by something other than money are communists. FOSSers unite! You have nothing to lose but your proprietary toolchains!

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  169. s/commun/terror/g by 4of12 · · Score: 1

    When Bill Gates frames the debate between the capitalists on his side and communists on the other

    ...it only shows just how dated he is.

    --
    "Provided by the management for your protection."
    1. Re:s/commun/terror/g by Surt · · Score: 1

      ... and that he's still in charge.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    2. Re:s/commun/terror/g by smagruder · · Score: 1

      Heck, this is a guy who didn't know the upcoming power of the Internet until it ran over him, leaving tire marks over his crappy sweater. Bill Gates is the ultimate uber-nerd, socially unconscious and politically blinkered.

      --
      Steve Magruder, Metro Foodist
    3. Re:s/commun/terror/g by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1

      An actual nerd would also be technically competent.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

  170. distributism is more like it ... by shimmin · · Score: 1

    The open * movement cannot accurately be called either capitalist or communist. It more accurately fits what was in the early 20th century been called distributism. Essentially, the idea was (and is, again) that a economic unit large enough to sway the market singlehandedly, whether a for-profit organization or a state bureau, will not actually succeed in serving the public interest. In other words, beyond a certain point, the private motives of those who manage large economic interests prevent potential economies of scale from actually being realized by the public.

    A good starting treatise for the would-be distributist is G.K. Chesterton's What's Wrong with the World .

  171. Bill Gates, The Game by Psychor · · Score: 1

    Amusing as Bill Gates is, I'm not sure he quite warrents a post in the games section. Although clearly the editors think he is fun for all the family :)

  172. O'Brien's antics in photos by EqualSlash · · Score: 1


    vnunet's CES blog has some photos. Yes, you can see Bill Gates waking up next to an Apple Powerbook.

    1. Re:O'Brien's antics in photos by bitswapper · · Score: 1

      Yes, you can see Bill Gates waking up next to an Apple Powerbook.

      But it didn't actually show Gates having sex with the powerbook.

      I wonder if he used firewire or USB?

  173. YES! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bill Gates talks about "new communists" as removing the incentive for people to make music or software, when really Bill Gates is projecting himself as the world. Making money is Bill Gates' incentive. Open Source coders are more numerous than profiteering coders, so the the incentive may not be as Bill Gates projects upon us.

    Doubt Bill Gates is listening, but maybe one of his "human search engines" will let him know.

  174. Re:Yes, especially Atheism! by ThosLives · · Score: 1
    This may be a subtle point, the but Commandment is "don't commit murder" not "don't kill". There's actually a very important non-trivial difference there. For instance, the very same old testatment which has in its primary laws "don't murder" also has "if someone commits such-and-so act, the penalty is death." The death sentence for a crime is not murder, but is the ramification of a particular action. Strictly speaking, murder is killing outside the realm of the concept of justice.

    While you can argue about the "real" reasons people go to war, you should be able to see that some violence is a means of meting out justice while some violence is pure lack of regard for others (for instance, me beating you up so I can have your shoes).

    Of course, you get into all sorts of mess when you have conflicting ideas of what actions are crimes, and what punishments are appropriate for what crimes; that's an area which causes much conflict and often even results in war.

    --
    "There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)
  175. Re:Yes, especially Atheism! by rco3 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Going out on a limb, here - you're Catholic, right?

    --

    Ce n'est pas un vrai mouvement de robot!
  176. Boils down to this simple phrase by WankersRevenge · · Score: 1

    in capitalism, man exploits man. in communism, it's just the other way around.

  177. Favorite quote by TheMediaWrangler · · Score: 5, Funny

    About 33 minutes in and just after the second crash, Conan provides some filler and gives my favorite quote in the presentation:

    "Last night ... I got so drunk, I woke up with a hooker. Bill got so drunk, he woke up with an Apple computer."

    --
    People should not fear what they do not understand; people should fear because they do not understand.
    1. Re:Favorite quote by SunFan · · Score: 1


      I think Conan was actually a bad choice. Not because he's a bad comedian, but because he is so good and he knows how to get a laugh given the circumstances. The circumstances just led right into that Bill and Apple joke. There was no way to avoid it.

      --
      -- Microsoft is the most expensive commodity operating system and office suite vendor in the marketplace.
  178. hang Gates--he is an enemy of the people by Cryofan · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I am not advocating any unlawful behavior. I just think that when powerful individuals such as Gates (or CEOs of Big Corporations) make these kind of anti-egalitarian, neoliberal statements, they ought to be tried for treason in a court of law and if guilty, hung by their necks (publicly) until they are dead. We put marijuana smugglers in jail for life, but when ultra powerful creatures such as Gates are warring on us, we do nothing?

    Try him for treason and HANG GATES!

    Just my ever-humble opinion....

    --
    eat shiat and bark at the moon
    1. Re:hang Gates--he is an enemy of the people by Money+for+Nothin' · · Score: 1

      I just think that when powerful individuals such as Gates (or CEOs of Big Corporations) make these kind of anti-egalitarian, neoliberal statements, they ought to be tried for treason in a court of law and if guilty, hung by their necks (publicly) until they are dead.

      Fine. At the same time, let's try socialists and communists for treason for their pro-egalitarian, neocommunist statements, and if found guilty, hang them by their necks publicly until they're dead.

      We could start w/ Noam Chomsky!

      (The above is satire. Being a "neoliberal", I don't condone acts violence like Cryofan does just because somebody else has worked for their wealth. I support individual freedom, whether economic or non-economic, whereas Cryofan and other socialists, communists, and Marxists -- as he has proven here -- do not. Neoliberal policy avoids killing people; collectivist policy promotes it, just as it did in the USSR, and still does in China and North Korea.

      Unlike the collectivists, neoliberals support your right to promote socialism, communism, etc. -- even if it's a stupid and wrong idea, because the marketplace of ideas is better than forcing ideas down other peoples' throats. Again, freedom is better than slavery.)

  179. Re:Yes, especially Atheism! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Erm, minor nitpick: A king is appointed by an emperor, only an emperor is appointed by God. That little detail caused many a war.

  180. Great idea by karb · · Score: 1

    Another great new meme : Hitler Tux. Ha ha!

    --

    Jack Valenti and the MPAA are to technology as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone

  181. "You'll notice that this scanner build..." by PhYrE2k2 · · Score: 2, Funny

    "So you just plug it in, and Windows says 'hey- I've found a new device'. You'll notice that this scanner build *blue screen* whoa. Ummm... I guess this isn't why we're not shipping Windows 98 yet."

    I wonder if that bug actually made it to production...

    -M

    --

    when you see the word 'Linux', drink!
  182. hmm by mattyrobinson69 · · Score: 1

    maybe if everybody on slashdot sued him for slander?

  183. you know.. as opposed to a puppy by joss · · Score: 1

    have you ever seen a st. bernard smile, you need to mop the floor afterwards.

    --
    http://rareformnewmedia.com/
  184. top secret BSOD by YetAnotherDave · · Score: 4, Funny

    I saw a funny thing on my way to vegas recently - not quite as big a BSOD, but the same one on dozens of machines in US customs. I tried to take a picture and nearly had my camera confiscated...

    1. Re:top secret BSOD by Dracos · · Score: 1

      I moved to Vegas last year, and went to the airport to pick up a friend who was arriving for Apachecon. Outside the airport, there is a kiosk of screens showing arrivals and departures, which I checked to see what gate his flight was arriving at. Lo and behold, on one of the screens there is a windows prompt alerting passersby that some service could not be started.

  185. Close-up screenshot from Video by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 2, Funny

    I could take a snapshot from the video of Gates amazed at the technical difficulties. Couldn't fix the colors, sorry if it looks a bit yellow.

  186. Re:Yes, especially Atheism! by arkanes · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Christ, where do you get this bullshit?

    First off: retaliation is not defense, no matter how many times national leaders claim it is. When it happens on a small scale people recognize this, I don't get why peoples brains stop working when we talk about religions and nations. There also was more than one, so stop talking about it in the singular.

    Second: Where did you learn about the Inquistion? Torquemada's Revision of The Truth School for Retards? The mandate of the Inquisition was the exposure and punishment of heresy. Confession by torture was common place. There's been more than one (and in fact the order of the Inquisition still exists today) and it's not always been about blood and torture and burning but it absolutely DID happen and it WAS under the mandate of the Church and trying to claim that it was about creating fair trials for heretics is so ridiculous it makes my brain hurt. The fact that Church was very heavily involved in secular governments at the time does mean you can always claim it "wasn't about religion", but it's pedantic and silly nitpicking at best, dishonest at worst - you can just define any behavior you don't approve as not about religion, even when religiously motivated and done at the behest of religions authority. The Church was a major secular power in the Middle Ages, something that's hard for people to comprehend now - it had it's own armies, it's own banks, and it essentially ruled huge swaths of land even larger numbers of people. It had it's own courts (yes, of Inquisition) and would try and condemn people purely on it's own authority as well as that of the local rulers. Some rulers didn't allow the Inquisition into thier lands, those rulers faced excommunication. To claim that all this was done in the "name" of religion rather than "for" religion is missing the point.

  187. RYes by wiredog · · Score: 2, Informative

    Bodily fluids. People in southwest Utah, where I lived, considered Ronald Reagan to be far too liberal, and aren't completely convinced that GW Bush isn't a Democrat in Disguise.

    1. Re:RYes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well Dubya certainly SPENDS like an old-school Democrat. The parties swapped their left-right orientation in the 50s. They'll swap again in our lifetime.

  188. Social Darwinism by corgi · · Score: 0

    *sigh*

  189. Obligatory Simpsons Quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Haa haa! ( Nelson )

  190. old fogey by realkiwi · · Score: 1

    Hmmmm this guy is starting to show his age! He and his company are sooooo 20th century

    --
    realkiwi
  191. RMS answered the "communist" slur in 1992 by Hobart · · Score: 3, Informative
    RMS answered the "communist" accusation in 1992's Why Software Should be Free, the section "Why don't you move to Russia?".
    --
    o/~ Join us now and share the software ...
    1. Re:RMS answered the "communist" slur in 1992 by spectecjr · · Score: 1

      RMS answered the "communist" accusation in 1992's Why Software Should be Free, the section "Why don't you move to Russia?".

      Of course, the problem is that he's talking about the Soviet Republic's own brand of Communism, not Communism in general (which OSS actually fits pretty well).

      But hey, nice attempt at spin control there, RMS.

      --
      Coming soon - pyrogyra
    2. Re:RMS answered the "communist" slur in 1992 by Leo+McGarry · · Score: 1

      Nonsense. He did no such thing. All he did was blow chaff and head for the next topic. Comparing copy protection mechanisms to totalitarianism? That's just a Chewbacca defense, plain and simple.

      People like Stallman are uncomfortable with comparisons between their philosophies and communism not because they're inapt but because they're apt! Stallman stands for the abolition of private property rights, and seeks to achieve that goal by poisoning the body of work with the utterly unnecessary and deeply harmful Gnu Public License and its many variants. He wants to make it so that the protection of private property is, in fact, legally impossible; that's what motivated his little practical joke of a license agreement.

      The depressing thing about Stallman isn't that he, himself, is such a loon. It's that he's managed to convince so many other people that he's sane.

  192. Wait a minute... by catdevnull · · Score: 1

    Is Bill Gates starting his own reality distortion field? Heh...seems like his RDF doesn't work as well as Steve's.

    I think it's funny that MS is starting to jump on the "Digital Hub/Digital Lifestyle" bandwagon that Steve Jobs was ranting about 3 years ago. We'll see which has the best Foo on the stage--so far It's 2-0 for Steve.

    --

    I might know what I'm talkin' about, but then again, this is Slashdot...
  193. My favourite part by karnat10 · · Score: 1

    The errors [...] prompted the celebrity host, NBC comedian Conan O'Brien, to quip, "Who's in charge of Microsoft, anyway?"

    Gates, who was sitting next to O'Brien on a set staged to look like NBC's Late Night set, smiled dryly and continued with his discussion.


    Look, Bill: It is true that you may fool all the people some of the time; you can even fool some of the people all the time; but you can't fool all of the people all the time.

  194. Forza Motorsport BSOD by bbzzdd · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Seek to 1:13:25 in the video to watch the Xbox game Forza Motorsport blue screen with an "out of system memory" error.

    image

  195. Re:Yes, especially Atheism! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    What rot - this sort of crap is revisionism at its worst. I suggest you actually read up on events such as the Albigensian crusade, the Inquisition and the likes of Torquemada before making such ill-informed comments.

  196. Competition is perfectly communistic by LPetrazickis · · Score: 1

    Worker ownership of the means of production and "from each according to their ability, to each according to their means" are perfectly compatible with competition, democracy, and what have you.

    All small/home businesses are communistic, dumb Soviet purges of the scapegoat "kulaks" aside.

    --
    Is this a sigs-optional kind of place? 'Cause I am totally down with that if you know what I mean.
  197. It proves something else by Roadkills-R-Us · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I've said for many years that Gates was just another mad fascist out for world domination at any cost.

    How old was Hitler when he began gnawing carpets?

    "Bill! Spit that out! The MSNvideo interview is about to begin!"

    "But I LOVE chocolate brown shag! Mmmmmm...."

    1. Re:It proves something else by caswelmo · · Score: 1

      I seriously doubt Billy has ever had the opportunity to munch carpet.

    2. Re:It proves something else by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With that much money, he could munch anything (or almost anyone) he wants.

    3. Re:It proves something else by millennial · · Score: 1

      What are you talking about??

      --
      I am scientifically inaccurate.
  198. Hate to break it to you... by DesScorp · · Score: 1, Insightful

    ...but yeah, the Soviet Union WAS really practicing "real communism". Just like every other communist country is a dictatorship. That's the only way communism can be enforced. And I don't know about you, but my copy of the communist manifesto doesn't say much giving people a choice; it just makes an assumption that communism is a historical inevitability, and that you'd better learn to live with it.

    The communism you're thinking of is a Utopian concept that can never exist when people have freedom and choice.

    --
    Life is hard, and the world is cruel
    1. Re:Hate to break it to you... by brsmith4 · · Score: 3, Informative

      And I don't know about you, but my copy of the communist manifesto doesn't say much giving people a choice; it just makes an assumption that communism is a historical inevitability, and that you'd better learn to live with it.

      The manifesto is like a pamphlet to describe the general idea of Communism. Throughout much of Marx and Engel's more detailed writings, they not only allude to, but directly state that the Communist economic system must be hand-in-hand with some sort of popular government, a democracy, a republic, etc. In fact, Marx and Engels frequently state throughout their work that the adoption of a Communist economic system must be brought about by the will of the people.

      Just like every other communist country is a dictatorship.

      The fact that they are Communist is not the reason that they were dictatorships. They were dictatorships because they were modeled after the original Soviet system. It was originally envisioned by Lenin (who grossly modified Marx and Engels work) and later modified by Stalin. When Stalin came to power, Soviet hegemony throughout Asia and Eastern Europe spread, and with it, the Soviet system of government, a dictatorship.

      Don't be fooled by people. The Communist Manifesto is not the no-all, end-all of communism, just a simple leaflet compared to what is really out there.

      Check out this link for Marx and Engel's real work.

      Marx and Engel's Selected Works

      I especially recommend that you read "The Principles of Communism".

    2. Re:Hate to break it to you... by Xabraxas · · Score: 2, Insightful
      ...but yeah, the Soviet Union WAS really practicing "real communism". Just like every other communist country is a dictatorship. That's the only way communism can be enforced. And I don't know about you, but my copy of the communist manifesto doesn't say much giving people a choice; it just makes an assumption that communism is a historical inevitability, and that you'd better learn to live with it.

      You just totally contradicted youself. None of the countries that claimed to be communist evolved into communism the way Marx and Engels envisioned. The communist manifesto really has nothing to do with the "communism" that those countries practiced. The communist manifesto does not predict that revolution is a necessary step to communism.

      ...but yeah, the Soviet Union WAS really practicing "real communism". Just like every other communist country is a dictatorship. That's the only way communism can be enforced. And I don't know about you, but my copy of the communist manifesto doesn't say much giving people a choice; it just makes an assumption that communism is a historical inevitability, and that you'd better learn to live with it. The communism you're thinking of is a Utopian concept that can never exist when people have freedom and choice.

      If you actaully read the communist manifesto you will realize that we just have not reached that stage yet. Capitalism has to fail, and that hasn't happened yet, not fully at least. There is no way to prove your point when everything has yet to play out. Of course, if it never does play out, then I guess there really is no way to prove it either way, and I can accept that.

      --
      Time makes more converts than reason
    3. Re:Hate to break it to you... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just like every other communist country is a dictatorship. That's the only way communism can be enforced.

      Yes, just like dictatorship is the only way that capitalism can be enforced, right?

      You're confusing economic policy with a political methodology, dumbass.

    4. Re:Hate to break it to you... by NoData · · Score: 1

      The communism you're thinking of is a Utopian concept that can never exist when people have freedom and choice.

      It works just fine on Israeli kibbutzim and other communes of like-minded people. It just doesn't scale.

    5. Re:Hate to break it to you... by Duhavid · · Score: 1

      The first step was the dictatorship of the proletariat. No "communist" government ever got past this step. And you are, I think, correct, the following steps are a utopian concept. But I think that what the Soviet Union was praticing was not real communism.

      --
      emt 377 emt 4
    6. Re:Hate to break it to you... by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1

      The communist manifesto says nothing about what kind of government the worker class will have - only that it will be them that's in charge. While I agree with you that following the manifesto can only result in dictatorship, I don't agree that this is what is actually predicted by the manifesto. The manifesto suffers from naivete, not from deliberate desire to set up a dictatorship.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    7. Re:Hate to break it to you... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why does it have to scale? Couldn't those communities then be collected up in a higher capitalist system?

      Where the communities compete with each other, instead of the individual competing with each other?

      Or each community elects a representative and that person them helps form a higher level of government over all the communities? But with strict standards over what they are allowed to regulate?

    8. Re:Hate to break it to you... by __aanebg9627 · · Score: 1
      If you look at how Marx himself behaved, he was pretty intolerant of dissent and disagreement. That totalitarian attitude infects communism, and IMO is an integral part of the ideology. The Soviet Union didn't follow Marx's pattern for communism, so some claim it wasn't 'true' communism, but it did (IMO) embody the key parts of Marx's approach, including his authoritarianism.

      A 'democratic' communism wouldn't be communism, it would be more like syndicalist anarchy, something Marx disdained. It's not a "Utopian concept" that can never exist -- it was strong in Spain before Franco. There are still pockets of it (syndicalist anarchy) around, including some in U.S. college towns (and I don't mean the bomb-throwers in Eugene, OR -- that's a different branch of the Anarchist tree).

      The anarchists were part of the government opposing Franco in the war, but were betrayed by the communists. Read George Orwell's "Homage to Catalonia" for his view of it (and also to understand how he, a communist, came to write "Animal Farm" and "1984").

    9. Re:Hate to break it to you... by Too+Much+Noise · · Score: 1

      Communist economic system must be brought about by the will of the people. ... and this is where the Utopia shows. There's no such thing as the 'will of the people' - this works under the false assumption that people have the knowledge and will 'see' the same solution, false on both accounts. Communism dealt with it by enforcing what was postulated as the will of the people.

      In fact, it's a power game, and 'the people' do not have any active power, as even in theory it's supposed to be delegated to elected representatives. Of course, there can be popular referendums to ask of people's opinion, but even in current 'democracies' that is a rare occurence. And don't argue 'elections' - communists had elections too, it was supposed to look as much a pure-breed Democratic process as possible; of course, when all you had to choose from was two party members if not only one, there goes your freedom of choice. And communists knew about manipulating election results since day one, after all this is how it started in many countries of the Eastern European block.

      The original system of Lenin was a dictatorship, yes, but I dare you to prove a way of even starting to apply communist principles completely without that. And there are no benevolent dictators.

    10. Re:Hate to break it to you... by brsmith4 · · Score: 1

      In no way did I present myself as an advocate for a Communist system. I was simply setting the parent's facts straight.

      The original system of Lenin was a dictatorship, yes, but I dare you to prove a way of even starting to apply communist principles completely without that. And there are no benevolent dictators.

      I can prove to you that it is progressively happening right now, except you would have to look at the current U.S. administration and certain world governments as non-dictatorships. The amount of government subsidies going to corporations (remember the airline debacle after 9/11? Have you as a citizen, seen a single shred of stock from any airline, since the government illegaly sent your tax dollars to save them?) and the level of integration between the military and its industrial complex are indicative of a phased-in progressive approach to enable communism. The elimination of cash (as is becoming apparent) and the establishment of large credit lines have created an environment where if you work, you can get what ever you want, regardless of what you do or your skill level. It is becoming ever more evident that your ability to procure things is no longer dependent on the amount of real money you have.

      The funny thing is, that all of this, though some may debate it, appears to be the will of the people. Communists believed in the state being the corporation, hence, the elimination of the corporation as it is a sector of the state. They also believed in a cashless society, where personal capital and general capital were not the basis of competition but that competition was such that it was the basis in and of itself. It seems to me, that we are doing a much better job of putting these things in to practice than Lenin.

    11. Re:Hate to break it to you... by NoData · · Score: 1

      Why does it have to scale? Couldn't those communities then be collected up in a higher capitalist system?

      Where the communities compete with each other, instead of the individual competing with each other?


      Yeah, that's exactly how, in fact, it does work. The communes each produce some kind of product or service to support themselves, and their products compete with all other such products in the capitalist market. What does not scale is the pure communistic social structure of the communes themselves. These do not scale well to nation-sized populations where there is much less homogeneity of philosophy and starting status.

    12. Re:Hate to break it to you... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (OT)

      Usually I have to quickly whack the back button when I descend a Slashdot thread where Communism is mentioned.

      But you've very eloquently (and impartially) made this thread bearable. Russian history is absolutely fascinating. I got a chance to study it a little, and still buy the odd book or two on the subject years after leaving university. I know it's too much to expect everyone to find out everything about everything. However sometimes the unwillingness of people to even acknowledge that there might just be detail, reasoning, causes and effects, personalities and characters behind the things we're meant to hate or worship can get to me.

      Thanks!

    13. Re:Hate to break it to you... by Jzanu · · Score: 1
      Apologies, written very quickly and from memory-research Russian history if questions arise on any of the topics I present. Your assumption is tacitly incorrect, and I will explain-but I must make a few explanatory comments first. Communism was designed, of course, for Germany and not Russia by Marx and Engles; widespread knowledge of industrial slavery was assumed as a given, but that was not extant in Russia. Further, the proletariat revolution was even designated intellectually as consisted of three phases: revolutionary government, socialist government, and then exclusively communist government. The Russian attempt failed early on and the Russian system (the only appropriate name) posed under the mantle of Communism until its fall. The will of the people is a short way of describing the social norms as exist without the bourgeoisie oppression and work-slave mentality (ie. is the will of the non-bourgeoisie) and must be enforced onto the bourgeoisie by the proletariat to secure the revolution from counter-revolutionary forces (the likes of which had delayed the formation of the French Republic by roughly 50 years). This is the revolutionary government and lasted an inadequately short period in the Russian attempt. At this first stage Alexander Kerensky was head of the declared provisional government of the "Menshevik" (minority in Russian, composed of minority of party leader but majority of party members) from the February Revolution and abdication of the Tsar until his defeat by V. I. Lenin and his "Bolshevik" (majority in Russian, composed of majority of party leaders and minority of party members) in the October Revolution. Kerensky's government was overthrown before it could establish a legitimized government that was the equal of the other modern nations of the time by the election of a Russian assembly by the proletariat. Had this gone forward instead of Lenin's government, the Russian attempt would have very likely reached the second stage and become a socialist nation; it did not though and the Russian attempt was perverted into the founding basis of the Russian system. Lenin, by necessity, was brutal to an extent so as to destroy the bourgeoisie and preserve the revolution; every revolution in every nation has required the destruction of some class, but it has always been more commonly the labourer. Stalin, he recommended after his first stroke be removed from post as general secretary of the party and at his death specifically noted should not be made party president (the former of course not being widely known at the time as Stalin's influence had increased and become dominant). Of course, as is widely recognized, Stalin gained power and acted as a dictator. This represented the greatest departure point for the Russian system from the Russian attempt at a socially just government after the Tsar. Again, there was a chance for its return to the path of Communism with Leon Trotsky who wrote on the requirements of the expansion of the revolution internationally rather than its idling into totalitarianism in a single nation-state-but Stalin banished and later assassinated him in Mexico. Had Trotsky lived, his role as party leader might have allowed the clarification of socialist ideology that, provided Kerensky's government had set the second stage, might have allowed the creation of a genuine Russian Communism. Stalin's perversion continued until Andropov, who set out the requisite changes for changing the system and promoted Gorbachev so that he could succeed him in the position during the short time he lived after wresting the General Secretary from Chernenko. Gorbachev's policies dismantled the Union, and the rest is likely widely known.

      Now, the comment made here is that Russia's errors after the fall of Kerensky's provisional government with the majority of the party support were not communist failures, but the extension of the Russian political environment that had developed under the centuries of the rule of the Tsars. Granted this, it is in fact an honour that Gates relates the groups opposing the

    14. Re:Hate to break it to you... by Too+Much+Noise · · Score: 1

      I don't see your point for government subsidies leading to communism, unless you're arguing that they will enable the state to own the subsidized corporations later on. I doubt that would happen, as it will send the stock market tumbling and this is too important a part in the US economy to throw away.

      They also believed in a cashless society, where personal capital and general capital were not the basis of competition but that competition was such that it was the basis in and of itself.

      Heh, I would love some direct quotes in that. Then I could point to them as proof Marx was an idiot (kidding)

      Anyway, for a student of 'social forces', Marx surely didn't understand them. Competition will never exist by itself - one has to have a motive to climb a mountain, either as an individual (and this, in capitalism, is money) or as a nation (war, cold war, religion, mass manipulation in a form or another). As the history showed in former communist countries, 'people' (as in the 'labor class') will not make any effort unless there's something to gain or to fear. Masses have lots of inertia, which is an opposite to competition.

      And this still does not address the political aspect of communism. MASSES DON'T LEAD, DON'T KNOW AND CAN'T MAKE CHOICES ON THEIR OWN. Meaning, there's a need for a power structure that would at least (in the utopian way) study the problems, select the few favorable choices and present them with their arguments to the masses. And even then, 'people' won't have enough information to choose the best answer (even assuming they all have the same interest - not true in general - and would see the same solution as optimal given all the information - again, not true for a limited amount of time to choose, different intelligence, education, etc. levels) so why let them choose at all? Herein lies the problem - if 'people' would follow all the problems in order to make pertinent choices on them (making the unlikely assumption that they would want to and would have the resources for all the issues) then who will work? And the people acting on the economical level will have no time for the details of the political one. Hence no more 'will of the people', as the informed and uninformed are not equivalent. Then, as the power structure (aka state) will be made of the political class, what's to prevent them from controlling the labor class altogether? Human kindness?

      Also, concerning education - Communist states had free education up to and including University level, with some 10-12 grades more or less compulsory. Yet enough people didn't have the resources and/or interest to learn. How would you then give equal political power to college graduates and people having only 4 or 8 classes? and if the average individual investment in learning is low, presenting choices to the 'will of the people' is the same as gambling it on a die unless you have a well-oiled propaganda machine to 'suggest' the outcome. And that (plus the ability of controlling the available choices, through mass media for instance) is just another hidden dictatorship. This is actually more of a general failure path for democracy.

      I know, pointing to 'Animal Farm' as an example of why Communism was really just a dialectic exercise is not an answer, but it does single out some aspects of it that Marx simply glossed over. The foremost one is that Communism does NOT happen in a vacuum and it does NOT change the mentality of the population or the human nature.

      Heh, looks like I forgot something:

      The elimination of cash (as is becoming apparent) and the establishment of large credit lines have created an environment where if you work, you can get what ever you want, regardless of what you do or your skill level.

      Do you truly believe this? ok, to back up, what's your definition of 'whatever you want'? Commodization of, say, TVs and cars has nothing to do with Communism. You can as well say "if you work, you eat'. There was no arbitrary redefinition of what 'standards of living'

    15. Re:Hate to break it to you... by DesScorp · · Score: 1

      Ummm...nobody's going to shoot an Israeli for trying to LEAVE a Kibbutz. Look up that "Berlin Wall" thingy, eh?

      --
      Life is hard, and the world is cruel
    16. Re:Hate to break it to you... by Too+Much+Noise · · Score: 1

      You left Brejnev off. Remember Soljenitsin's exile? Saharov's? Heck, just think of how he got the power - by ousting Khrushchev who was beginning some level of reform in USSR and its satellites, making himself unpopular with the Party in the process.

      History does not prove anything, but what do you think all those failed attempts hint at? Every time someone tried a reform, we were left with a 'what if this wasn't killed?' question.

    17. Re:Hate to break it to you... by brsmith4 · · Score: 1

      You're preaching to the chior on that one ;)

      Communism was designed, of course, for Germany and not Russia by Marx and Engles; widespread knowledge of industrial slavery was assumed as a given, but that was not extant in Russia. Further, the proletariat revolution was even designated intellectually as consisted of three phases: revolutionary government, socialist government, and then exclusively communist government......

      I wrote a 30 page thesis for an Origin of the State class that details everything you said. What is it that you are trying to counter that is "tacitly incorrect"?

      It wasn't Lenin's philosophy on communism prior to his regime that failed the Soviet system, but his "modifications" after he took over that led to the demise. Much of these "modifications" were, in fact, a result of Western nations putting their noses in places they shouldn't have and encouraging resistance to Lenin's government (since Kerensky, although a socialist, was more friendly towards the west). This forced Lenin to take a very hard line on the populace and gave birth to a quasi-dictatorship that Stalin would later bring full-circle.

      I think my original post, though general, was correct on all accounts and does, in no way, run contrary to what the both of us know to be true. Let me know if you want a link to my paper.

    18. Re:Hate to break it to you... by Jzanu · · Score: 1

      My apologies for the omissions, the time available for the writing of the post was short. The failed Russian attempt of 1917 and Russian system of 1918-1991 (provided the appropriate minor deviations) of course demonstrate that Russia, in the process of eliminating the vestiges of the Imperial rule of the Tsar since the February Revolution of 1917, failed because the change was to swift for the system that was implemented. Cuba is generally a second example. China, though, by Mao Tse Tung's skilled manipulations and skillful relations with and later stark separation from the Russian system accomplished the transition of an economy of Imperial feudalism as subject of the established nations into one of joint agrarian and technological accomplishment. Generally, the ideas for German Communism attempted in Russia did come close but the ideas never succeeded because at their foundations they were modeled after the German industrial economy, not the Russian agrarian economy of the period. Additionally, and as a discrete counter-point, China has succeeded thus far with its modified system that meets the Chinese economic situation and improves it. I believe that China has entered the second stage transition phase under the leadership of Hu Jintao, that it will take the transition from provisional revolutionary government into a socialist nation that, eventually, will become Communist fully and have the beneficent characteristics of the intellectual Communism from the models of Marx and Engles adapted to the Chinese socio-political situation..

    19. Re:Hate to break it to you... by Jzanu · · Score: 1

      It is reassuring to find another user with an understanding of Russian history, I had begun to think the site was becoming no more than the playground of adolescents. I was not adequately clear, it seems, in describing what I was writing for-I meant to provide a description of the idea of the peoples' will with reference to Russian history for example, and with explanations of the faults it was subject to so that they would not be used as objections to the existence and possibility of the peoples' will. Yes, if it would be provided and does not cause an inordinate amount of difficulty, I would be interested in reading your essay-it is always beneficial to gain another perspective on Russia's history; if the email address is required: Jzanu#rtu#_#njl#Syr@mail.com with the obvious sections between # removed for title_title@mail.com.

    20. Re:Hate to break it to you... by Money+for+Nothin' · · Score: 1

      ...but yeah, the Soviet Union WAS really practicing "real communism".

      With their massive government? Hardly. Communism, in theory, requires no government; in theory, socialist governments should dissolve into a communist utopia.

      Socialism, by contrast, requires a large government; hence, the USSR was titled the "United Soviet Socialist Republics". Socialism was Marx's intermediate step towards communism - a step beyond which no nation (AFAIK) has ever proceeded.

      Of course, totalitarianism and socialism go hand-in-hand, but you'd never hear the socialist pinkos say that... Nor would they admit that communism fails for the same reason socialism does: lack of incentive on the part of the individual to do work...

    21. Re:Hate to break it to you... by Money+for+Nothin' · · Score: 1

      Capitalism has to fail, and that hasn't happened yet, not fully at least.

      Funny thing that... In the 228 years the U.S. has existed, our largely-capitalist system is still mostly intact, the ravages of the FDR administration and various other Presidencies since then (including, and perhaps in particular, the GW Bush admin) notwithstanding.

      We're still waiting for capitalism to crumble... LOL.

    22. Re:Hate to break it to you... by Jzanu · · Score: 1

      Correction, of to - too seems necessary, revised: The failed Russian attempt of 1917 and Russian system of 1918-1991 (provided the appropriate minor deviations) of course demonstrate that Russia, in the process of eliminating the vestiges of the Imperial rule of the Tsar since the February Revolution of 1917, failed because the change was too swift for the system that was implemented.

    23. Re:Hate to break it to you... by Too+Much+Noise · · Score: 1

      I believe that China has entered the second stage transition phase under the leadership of Hu Jintao, that it will take the transition from provisional revolutionary government into a socialist nation that, eventually, will become Communist fully and have the beneficent characteristics of the intellectual Communism from the models of Marx and Engles adapted to the Chinese socio-political situation..

      Where to even start? maybe with a question - are yoy Chinese? This is so reminiscent of the internal propaganda in the former Eastern European block it could be amusing if it weren't sad.

      Intellectual Communism will never exist. All the 'Communist Republics' were openly classifying themselves as belonging to the 'second stage' - socialist nations. None was even pretending to try to change that. Communism was (and will always be with the remaining states) the goal never to be attained.

      Looking back at the former Communist states, most of the non-Soviet ones are moving to some form of Socialism where the State controls only few key economic aspects (and even those loosely) and needs to balance social measures against economic growth. None is going for the Communist ideal, even though the Soviet boot is no longer crushing them. Even in the former Soviet states Communism is no longer a point (it's either democracy or plain power struggles). Seeing that Communists more often than not listed Socialists among their ennemies, this makes for a rather obvious hint.

      Here's a short list of what's wrong with 'intellectual communism':

      1. the old meme "Power corrupts."
      2. even if masses have the power (which they never do) the result is stagnation, as in "the good is the ennemy of the better". One needs some motivation outside the 'state' to move on - for instance, maintaining that 'we must fight the capitalist oppressors throughout the world'. Stagnation is never permanent, as it gives rise to internal tensions.
      3. Technological progress is something Communism never really takes into account properly (nor could it, as it's quite impredictable on a large scale) As this is an example of the "better" displacing the "good", the natural reaction in Communist states was always to control and/or suppress it - and in general regard it at most as a necessary evil and always as a source of destabilisation. In particular, communication progress means easier access to information, which is one thing ALL communist regimes (including nowadays China) firmly opposed.
      4. Common property works for some things and does not work for others. How do you like it going to work in an old, stuffed bus while the local Party undersecretary drives his shiny new car to some 'party meeting' in a resort where you'll never afford the tickets? Greed is always a factor that Communists tried to purge ... from others. Much like the Church (ever heard of the saying "do as the priest says, not as he does?") Double standards was the thing Communism was allegedly meant to eliminate and it never happened.

      The sad thing is always throughout the history when social 'thought experiments' tried to be put in practice real people got hurt or died. Too many of them.

    24. Re:Hate to break it to you... by Jzanu · · Score: 1
      It is as well, you dispute only my opinion on the status of China. Does this imply that you agree with me that the primary cause of the failure of the Russian attempt was the inapplicability of the approach taken? The remainder of your post recites the common faults cited against any nation approaching the Communist state of society. From an agrarian nation subject to the petty disputes of the former Imperial nations, China now stands one that no nation can attack without so great a loss that attack is impractical after less than 60 years of efforts to achieve social equality under the revolutionary government. I believe that it is nearly ready for the socialist phase to begin as it has reached a new apex of manufacturing and technological research that will allow it to advance further after the completion of the manufacturing of the Tsinghua University designed portable and modular pebble-bed reactor that it is absolutely safe as long as atoms expand when energized.

      Each of your remaining points have been addressed in reverse order for coherence of analysis and description. On the individual level discrepancies remain as distribution of resources is limited by its nature, no nation and no government has ever "solved" that problem, but the individual is less important than the society and its development. The occasional counter-revolutionary movement develops and is suppressed in the same manner the US and every other nation has put down rebellions with a greater or lesser degree of success (reference the extended civil war of Ethiopia and Eritrea, the US civil war, the English war of the roses, etc,). Communism has not existed yet, you yourself admit that few have reached beyond the first revolutionary and provisional government-the exception that functions, China, followed the same path as every other nation for securing its power: the destruction of a class, but rather than labour it destroyed its intellectuals during a short period with the forced labour of the bourgeoisies alongside the willing labour of the proletariat (the situation for the latter could not have changed under the previous or any other system at the time, and the former would have mounted insurgencies against the provisional government of the dictatorship of the proletariat if not for that measure)-this was the Chinese socio-political situation that was adjusted at the rates required for progress rather than descent into disorder and even more massive starvation.

      As for technology, I must request a greater explanation: the Soviets were the equals of the Americans in extra-orbital endeavors, and even perhaps superior in orbital endeavors. It was a engineering then though, for technology I can only assume you mean manufacturing-the majority of which that formerly was done in the US is now done in China (and low wages only account for a percentage-different depending on sources-of that. Military technology is as implied previously: China is a sufficiently capable nuclear power that foreign aggression is a side consideration in planning, and China has the largest army of any nation and, perhaps questionably superior, at least equal effective firepower with the nation that is considered by many to have the most military capacity presently-the US. If another meaning was implied, describe it in greater detail in your response and I will answer with agreement or counter-point based on analysis.

      The first two points, on supposed human nature and that work for the betterment of society is not adequate motivation, I will respond to as follows: the individual may survive a few decades and some even a century and a few years, and the nation may or may not survive longer, but the legacy of a nation is much greater than the legacy of an individual. You are correct when you comment that a goal of Marx and Engles' Communism was international revolution (the anthem of the Soviet republics was the Internationale until its replacement in the 1960's). All forms of government are consistently out to expand the prevalence of the form of government t

    25. Re:Hate to break it to you... by fakeplasticusername · · Score: 1

      I think that the utopian communism is not just possible while freedom and choice exist, it is inevitable. We are witnessing the beginning of it on the open-source front.

      What is the major problem with communism as a principle? The idea that if we all work at our jobs, everyone can feed from the social trough. Each according to their need, each giving according to their talents. What is the problem with this system? What if my talent is cleaning up pig-manure, and your talent is being a rockstar? The problem with communism is i don't want to clean up shit, and most other people don't either. Doing things for the good of society will motivate even good-natured people to work only 'so' hard.

      Why are we at the forefront of the *real* communism? Because we as programmers exist in a virtual world where distribution is *free*. If I create something in the digital world, there is no production cost to distribute it. Sure, i'm not going to work very hard at creating it, i do have to eat, and open source doesn't pay the bills; but I don't write software just because i have a deep-seated communist star trek upbringing (which I do) I write it because i want to. I write it because i'm creative, and some people paint, some people write poetry, i make software. This is the core behind utopian communism. It is not a sacrifice for me to do something I love, so my investment in the good of society is minimal. If the software i create makes other people happy, than great, they can use it too, but i'm going to write it either way.

      As we progress technically, we find that we are more productive in the work we do. The amount of human labor that needs to be invested in a job is decreasing all the time. If the trends continue, it is not impossible to see an eventual ad-hoc communism, like the one that has arisen in the world of the computer. If communism arises out of society, it will be a natural progression, not a forced one. If it takes one person to run a farm that can produce food for 1000 people, with no additional costs, giving the food away will be as mindless a decision as putting your software on the web for all to use.

      Or maybe i'm wrong and you can tell me why.

    26. Re:Hate to break it to you... by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

      Please remember that Trotsky, one of the architects of the revolution, was assassinated by Stalinists as he had taken to speaking out against Stalin's policies as being contrary to the principles of Marx....

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    27. Re:Hate to break it to you... by Xabraxas · · Score: 1
      In the 228 years the U.S. has existed, our largely-capitalist system is still mostly intact

      Are you fucking kidding me? lawsuits, patents, mergers, monopolies, regulations, ads for drugs on TV, the ever widening gap between the rich and poor, homelessness, and a shitload of other things are totally fucked up in our capitalist society.

      the ravages of the FDR administration and various other Presidencies since then (including, and perhaps in particular, the GW Bush admin) notwithstanding.

      "Ravages" of the FDR administration?? That New Deal just screwed everyone didn't it?? FDR is the antichrist in the world of the right.

      Oh and BTW, 228 years is nothing. If you think that 228 is a big number in the grand scheme of things then your mind is very small.

      --
      Time makes more converts than reason
  199. Bill Gates, benefactor of humanity! by Thud457 · · Score: 1
    "He married the creator of Microsoft Bob."

    Stopped her from ever coding again, now didn't it? I say half his fortune is a small price to pay to ensure that!

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  200. Gates Money and his Mouth by DanielRavenNest · · Score: 1

    If you look at Mr Gates' sales of MSFT stock, it looks like he doesn't have a lot of confidence in it's future. He's been steadily selling his stake in the company. It's down to 10% now, and at the rate he was selling in 2004, will be down to nothing in about 7 years.

    Now, Bill may be many things, but he's not stupid. If he's selling his stake in Microsoft, then he believes it's future prospects are below average. Anything he says publicly is likely
    affected by his desire for the stock price to
    stay up until he is done selling.

    Daniel

    1. Re:Gates Money and his Mouth by ArtStone · · Score: 1

      Much more relevant is the recent one time cash dividend of $3 a share - giving a total of $32 Billion (with a B) in cash back to the stockholders.

      http://www.komotv.com/microsoft/story.asp?ID=338 79

      Now this was motivated in part by Evil Republican tax changes to treat dividends as subject to a maximum rate of 15%.

      Bill Gates is giving the $3 Billion that he'll receive to the Gates Foundation, which is primarily focused on addressing the inequality of health care in the developing world, with a focus on HIV treatment and prevention in Africa.

      Evil American Capitalist Bill Gates. For Shame.

      --
      Final 2006 "Proof of Global Warming" US Hurricane Count -> 0
  201. "Unnecessary Deaths?" by DesScorp · · Score: 1

    Call it what it was: Mass Murder.

    --
    Life is hard, and the world is cruel
    1. Re:"Unnecessary Deaths?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      indeed, and don't link it to communism, but the dictators who professed to be communist to advanced their own personal gain.

    2. Re:"Unnecessary Deaths?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes because no democratic country ever committed mass murder.......oh wait.

      so you mean the form of govt has zip to do with mass murder. what do you know.

  202. Microsoft Gallows 2.0 by worldtechguy · · Score: 1

    Now for the next question. What digital minion got canned as a result of the crashes? Do you think ol' Billy boy ordered his people to go through the code and find out which programmer put the fatal bug in? My guess is that the official Microsoft Gallows 2.0 is being prepared and some poor coder is walking the last mile with the priest reading bible verses to him. I don't recall Steve Jobs having the same problem at any MacWorld keynotes.

    1. Re:Microsoft Gallows 2.0 by redwoodtree · · Score: 1

      Hahahhaha.... Actually, there have been plenty, they just don't get hyped. When iTools/Mac.com was launched in January of 2000, the software was barely ready to go . The software it was being demoed through crashed multiple times DURING the keynote. A simple white-screen WebObjects error message popped up in front of the whole world in Jobs' web browser. No one was fired for this and no one really noticed. Probably because Jobs' did a good job of talking through it and not panicking and also becauset the fine sys admin with quick fingers in the background restarted them quickly enough ;) hahahaha

    2. Re:Microsoft Gallows 2.0 by worldtechguy · · Score: 1

      I stand corrected.

  203. That's the OLD Win98 crash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "..moving right along..."

    Old news.

  204. I took you seriously until I read by PigeonGB · · Score: 1

    "Ooogedy boogedy people"

    Don't ever say that again. B-)

    --
    I have 3656.9 Bogomips. How many Bogomips do you have?
  205. MS' search engine name by cwest · · Score: 1

    If Apple has Sherlock will MS call theirs "Inspector Lestrade"?

    1. Re:MS' search engine name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More like Inspector Clouseau if you ask me...

      Except not funny. In any way, shape or form.

  206. Bill's not getting the point by AceCaseOR · · Score: 1

    Bill, baybe, listen. It's not that we're comunnists, it's that we don't like being ripped off. When your company stops helping the people who rip us off, and stops ripping us off itself by putting out buggy-ass operating systems, and stops trying to stomp the shit out of it's competition, then we might consider actually paying for your (non-game) products. But until then, Bill, you can kiss my ass.

    --
    Zagreus sits inside your head, Zagreus lives among the dead, Zagreus sees you in your bed and eats you in your sleep.
  207. Is this now MSCES? by Sinistar2k · · Score: 1

    Now, I'm no CES keynote historian, but have past Gates keynotes been this much of a Microsoft product demonstration? I was expecting a State Of The Industry kind of presentation and instead just watched a seriously long marketing pitch.

  208. I have to say by Laser+Lou · · Score: 1

    that while Bill Gate's use of the work "Communist" was extreme, he's right in that without IP laws, there wouldn't be much incentive for people to create music, movies and software. However, as with any sort of property, "zoning" is an issue here, and free and open source software needs its space.

    --
    No data, no cry
  209. a little backwards from the NRA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A lot of the serious NRA nuts tend to start with the assumption that governments do kill people.

    (That's why they need so many guns, remember?)

    Good point, though.

  210. AAAARRRGGGHH! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    How can this load of uninformed bullshit be modded informative?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusade
    http://en. wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition

    1. Re:AAAARRRGGGHH! by Tanktalus · · Score: 1

      That's fine - we've had many comments on /. talking about inaccuracies of Wikipedia. Without really any way to verify the authors of those entries as being experts in the field (vs simply parroting popular misconceptions), you can take 'em or leave 'em. Either way is a statement of faith, not fact.

    2. Re:AAAARRRGGGHH! by rpdillon · · Score: 1

      And we're supposed to value your comments more than Wikipedia's? At least Wikipedia's were reviewed and editted by people on different sides of the issue. You may not be "anonymous" in the strict sense, but I don't know or trust you, either.

      I'll go with Wikipedia on this one. Trusting what you say would be "faith", to use your phrase.

    3. Re:AAAARRRGGGHH! by Tanktalus · · Score: 1

      That's pretty much what I said - you have the option to go either way. I've posted a few URLs in this thread which contradict Wikipedia's view, and I'm not saying that they're necessarily better - I just choose to believe them (because, in my view, they seem more realistic when taking into account the time period in question) instead. You get to make your own choice, too, and, wonderful thing about living in a (relatively) free society is that it doesn't have to be the same as mine. ;-)

  211. Re:Yes, especially Atheism! by Tanktalus · · Score: 1

    Where do I get this? From theologians. Sure, maybe there's some bias there - but at least they've studied actual real histories. The Vatican has recently opened up their vaults from these time periods to allow a full study of the Inquisitions... and the conclusion is that the Inquisitions were very enlightened for the time. By today's standards, they were cruel. But they were a huge jump in the right direction.

    For example, James Hitchcock, a professor of history at St. Louis University.

    I'm not claiming retaliation was a defense - if you'd read my post, I said it was a reasonable example of religion killing. There are mitigating circumstances (it wasn't an unprovoked war), but it's still religion killing.

    And, if you can't have a calm discussion about history ... well, unfortunately, you seem to be in the majority here. <sigh>

  212. So? by hey! · · Score: 1

    When did that stop anybody from trying?

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  213. Re:Yes, especially Atheism! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    When people talk of love and hate, they are telling you how they feel. Do you care?

    When people talk of right and wrong, they are ready to take sides. Do you fight?

    - Three Crows

  214. Goodwin Corollary by Martin+Spamer · · Score: 1


    As Bill Gates grows more isolated, the probability of everybody else being compared to communists approaches one.

  215. sharing internet connection by rilian4 · · Score: 1
    Meanwhile, Microsoft Research is working on ways to reduce the cost of getting people in emerging nations hooked on the Internet. One idea: Mesh networks that will let several families share connections.
    Try sharing your internet connection in the US w/ neighbors and splitting the cost and you will get nailed for violating your ISP's TOS...
    --

    ...quicker, easier, more seductive the darkside is...but more powerful, it is not.
  216. Mr Gates is obsessed with communism by baquiano · · Score: 1

    This is not the first time Mr Gates has used the dreaded C-word to attack an idea. During the early years of the commercial Web, when Microsoft was still developing its strategy for Internet Explorer, he used it plenty of times. From How the Web was won: Microsoft from Windows to the Web:

    The problem was, there was no indication yet of how Microsoft could make money on any of this [the Web], [whereas] there were suspicions it might lose a business or two. Undaunted, [Ben Slivka, head of Microsoft's browser effort,] forged ahead. He took the opportunity to discuss some new features to the O'Hare browser [Explorer's code name], including support for specifying different fonts in HTML. It was a nifty little touch, enabling Web authors to choose preferred fonts instead of the same old Times standard. Because Mosaic and Netscape were cross-platform, they lacked font capability. ''So I was like, let's give away TrueType fonts so people can have cool, sexy [Web sites] that look best on Internet Explorer,'' Slivka said later. ''What the heck, right? And Bill was like, What are you, a communist? Those fonts cost money! Why would we give those away?''

    At one time or other Gates had called just about all the Internet idealists at Microsoft communists. It was almost a joke around Microsoft-one that the chairman was fond of perpetuating. In 1993, when he faced a showdown with the Federal Trade Commission over antitrust allegations, Gates had reportedly used the term in a behind-closed-doors meeting with the commissioners. Since then it had gained a mythic quality at Redmond. It was almost a badge of honor to be so designated....

    The irony is that Microsoft finally embraced a ''communist'' strategy when they started giving away IE 4 for free. Also, isn't Microsoft's ''shared source'' strategy an implicit acceptance of Open Source?.

    --
    You're bound to be unhappy if you optimize everything. --Donald Knuth
  217. Gates' "communists" by harvey+the+nerd · · Score: 1

    Fascist pap. Gates and friends (RIAA etc) have been busy subverting the Constitution and the freedoms that were specifically on the mind of the Founders. Many of our Founders were all too familiar with similar European "IP" practices, and supported laws for a social contract that drove information diffusion. Gates et al represents some of the very threats they warned about. Read your primary history sources.

  218. How To Avoid Freeze Ups and BSOD? by uscomp · · Score: 1

    Do not use XP. Bill Gates Should have used OS X and Keynote ;)

    --
    ago porro quod prospicio
  219. Re:Yes, especially Atheism! by schon · · Score: 1

    I'm not claiming retaliation was a defense - if you'd read my post, I said it was a reasonable example of religion killing.

    Actually, the way I read you post is that you are claiming retaliation is defense.

    the Crusades (which was a defensive war [...] the first Crusade was retaliatory

    If the first Crusade was retaliatory, and all Crusades(?) were defensive, then it certainly seems like you're claiming that retaliation is defense.

  220. Re:Yes, especially Atheism! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "the Crusades (which was a defensive war, contrary to popular belief - the Arabian leader sacked the holiest of Christian churches, which was basically without defense, making Europe mad - the first Crusade was retaliatory)"

    Do you know why is contrary to popular belief that Crusades were a defensive war? Because we all know IT WAS NOT a defensive war from the Christianity side.

    Yours is quite a curious case of "double-thinking" (I'm Spanish and haven't read Orwell's book "1984" in English, but I think that was the word): so you want to think Bush's attack to Afganistan and Irak were "deffensive"? Well, you can think it, but then, you must say other things like going almost to the other side of the known world to take out by force the land to their owners because you think you have some divine rigths over it is a deffensive war too.

  221. awww... by DeathByDuke · · Score: 0

    isn't that kind of him, he called us all commies!

  222. -5: Self-redundant by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 3, Informative

    How many times are you going to submit the same post? How many times will the mods mark it up all the way?

    --
    Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
  223. Re: Communists by ErikTheRed · · Score: 3, Informative

    I was ready to call B.S. until I started reading the Slashdot thread full of people explaining how Communism isn't so bad. I'll let them explain this to my girlfriend, who grew up in part of the former USSR (now Latvia). Funny thing - since we got together I've met many people who used to live in the Eastern Bloc - 100% of them (the ones I've met) think that Communism is about the worst thing to ever infect the planet. The scariest thing (at least to some of the posters in this thread) is that most of them now vote Republican.

    What kills me is that the left-wingers who advocate communism (to call them Liberals would be an insult to, well, Liberals) so blindly ignore the fact that it has caused some of the worst environmental and human rights abuses in history. We go around villifying Hitler, and rightly so, but he was strictly junior-varsity when compared to Stalin. The most evil corporate polluters (and yes, I think that a few companies are actually evil in this regard) have nothing on Moscow's old five-year plans.

    My suggestion to these wanna-be Commies is that they go live in an actual Communist country for awhile. Enjoy life in these workers' paradises full of happy people. Oh, what, these people have either thrown the Communists out, or would do so if they didn't have guns to their heads?

    Yes, I know there are a few people screaming about why they can't mod this post -50 flamebait (feel free, I have karma to burn). I'm not saying everyone that supports Open Source, Creative Commons, etc. is a Communist. Far from it: I doubt that more than a tiny, tiny percentage of them actually are. I am, however, shocked at how many crawl out from under their rocks when a subject like this pops up.

    --

    Help save the critically endangered Blue Iguana
  224. Translation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "While Microsoft's goal is to turn the PC into a superhub that does everything [...] they're running up against the fact that most people buy discreet components that do particular things."

    Translation: MS has a solution in desperate need of a problem.

  225. Channelling Tux ;) by petrus4 · · Score: 1

    I think you know, deep in your heart, deep in the stillness of your own mind, that you're going down, Bill. The people have stated their intentions regarding you, and that statement has not been in your favour. You've probably heard the saying before...Stop struggling, and it won't hurt anywhere near as much.

    You refer to us as Communists. My response to that is that while Communism was *not* a historical inevitability as Marx claimed, the annihilation of Microsoft *is*. You can pretend to be confident...you can wrap your oratory in the usual spin and doublespeak...but we know better. There has been enough evidence to the contrary of both a public and private nature in recent years for us to know better. We smell your fear, and we revel in it. Fear is an entirely appropriate emotional response for you to be experiencing at this time. The event which many in the computing world have long anticipated in earnest, Microsoft's impending burial, and my vengeance, is close at hand, and well you know it.

  226. If you don't read the WSJ you are out of touch by tallbill · · Score: 1

    The Wall Street Journal may be on the wrong side of some things that I agree with, however they are on the correct side of presenting news that is real news. If you don't read the WSJ, then you are out of touch. For example they talked about Enron long before it was mentioned anywhere else. They talked about how shell companies bleed the health care industry. They were a driving force that exposed the massive acountting irregularities at Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac. You might not like a paper's point of view, but at least you can say that they do a fair attempt to present unbiased news. If you are not reading the WSJ, then you should. PS: The opinion section is a must read because if you stop listening to the things that people who disagree with your fervent beliefs than you are as given over to non-sense as Bill Gates. Bill Gates comments make him look like a total idiot. We don't need to say any more than just to read his crap. Also, you will get a lot of different points of view in the WSJ. I try and read the WSJ every day and I think that Gates is a total idiot.

  227. This is about control, not money by danila · · Score: 1

    Gates says: "We can make sure the software cost is never really holding things back--that it's a small-enough percentage." He is not meaning to collect 100$ for a copy of Windows with every computer sold, but you can be damn sure he is meaning to collect something with every computer sold. I bet if you offered MS a 10 year monopoly on operating system, it would agree to guarantee that the price would not exceed 5$ per copy. These guys are insane.

    Similarly, the incentive for Gates is not the money, may be it was in the past, but now the incentive is clearly the power and the control, world domination, in other words. Scary guy.

    --
    Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
  228. Re:Yes, especially Atheism! by ahsile · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Parent comment is fundamentally WRONG. Has either never really read up on the events that happened during the crusades and inquisition, or believes every word that spews forth from the Church's holy mouth.

    I need to dig up my inquisition books to formally refute the comment, but the Crusades were initiated by the Church to capture the Holy Land from the infidels (This could possibly be mistaken as defensive AFTER they took Jerusalem and ruled it for years). And the Inquisition was most DEFINATELY about weeding out Heresy. Genecide was committed in God's name... There was a large group of French Christians whom I forget the name of which were eradicated by the Inquisition (and this is only but one example).

  229. Very awesome by tallbill · · Score: 1

    You have posted the most awesome response to Mr. Gates BS! Maybe someone should call and have a pizza delivered to him complements of /. Awesome, dude, very awesome!

  230. Sweepstake by Martin+Spamer · · Score: 1


    To determine what turns into Bills Spruce Goose. I choose Longhorn.

  231. Torrent by Pseud0 · · Score: 2, Informative

    I put up a torrent (177MB) just for you guys! :-)

    --

    /John Sjolander, project manager Contribio
    1. Re:Torrent by St.+Arbirix · · Score: 1

      How funny is it that the only available copies of this video are in a Microsoft format overtly only available to people using Windows Media Player?

      Talk about preaching to the choir...

      --
      Direct away from face when opening.
    2. Re:Torrent by crimson30 · · Score: 1

      Thank you, kind sir.

    3. Re:Torrent by mnordstr · · Score: 1

      Well, it is a Microsoft video. I don't see any reason they would make it available in another format. Besides, it plays fine in Xine among others.

  232. Re:Yes, especially Atheism! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    "in fact, much of our current court system is derived from the expertise of the Inquisitions."

    If you're living in the United States then your current court system is derived from the English Common Law system formalized under Henry II who famously opposed the separate church courts, (which were defended by Thomas Beckett, then Archbishop of Canterbury.)

    The Inquisition did work in England under the Reign of Mary I (Bloody Mary). After Mary's death the state religion of England returned to a protestant form under Elizabeth I.

  233. WOW! by iolaus · · Score: 1

    Am I the only one that finds Bill's logic and argument style to be extremely George Bush-esque in this interview? He's using the Bush administration tactic of reducing a real issue to good vs. evil and is simultaneously seating himself as leader of the good side. Instead of "If you're not with us you're unpatriotic!" he's flipped it to "If you're not with us you're a communist!" I don't know about everyone else but I've had about all I can take of these black/white and wrong/right world views. Why can't people see that most issues are complex, has the whole world gone stupid... er?

    --
    I find laziness to be an excellent motivator.
  234. Regular people don't like it by PhysicsGenius · · Score: 0, Insightful

    but I wouldn't call corporatism a "failed economic ideology".

  235. mall selling this last christmas by peter303 · · Score: 1

    Our mall had a Digital Joy kiosk selling the home media center. It was someone stealthy with the MicroSoft name in small print on the brochure and no where on the kiosk. Ironically, it was near the Apple store too.

  236. Re:Yes, especially Atheism! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I very much appreciate that you have shared your viewpoint on the crusades and inquisition. I had always wondered how such tragic events could come to be. But not knowing or studying the history, I feared the worst. If I could ever stop reading slashdot, I would probably have a lot of time for studying early Church history in greater depth with the hopes of separating facts from fiction. Learning and exploring alternate viewpoints is one step in the right direction in the search for truth.

  237. ESR predictions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Funny how stuff like this gets mentioned, yet Eric Raymond's assinine predictions (which obviously never came true) from last year are never thrown to the /. public.

    Just an example.

  238. Craig Ferguson by tallbill · · Score: 1

    Craig took over the Late Late Show. Maybe Conan can't deal with compeating with a Scotsman? Craig has been very funny, and I haven't watched Conan all week.

  239. Re:Yes, especially Atheism! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    *Bangs head on desk* I'd refute bits of this individually, but since virtually the only thing you've got right is the existence of the Crusades and of the Catholic church I'll just agree with the guy who referred you to Wikipedia.

    The guy who probably did most to initiate the First Crusade IMO - Alexios Komnenos.

  240. Re:Yes, especially Atheism! by alan_dershowitz · · Score: 1

    I'd like to second this. The Albigensian Crusade was essentially the Catholic church not being able to peacably suppress the Cathar movement (not recognizing papal authority and opposing "get out of purgatory early" type-payments), and so instead just killing everyone.

    The local bishoprics' authority in these regions were suspended, lords excommunicated, and entire villages wiped out, genocide-style. An appointed Papal legate during one of these "battles" was the one who originated the phrase "kill them all, let God sort them out".

    The crusade wasn't defensive, and it wasn't even against (arguably) "non-christians". I might mention the later sacking of Constantinople wasn't defensive either, it was just there, and they even were christians, but maybe not christian "enough".

  241. Re:Yes, especially Atheism! by Tanktalus · · Score: 1

    I hate responding to AC's ... google search on Torquemada, first result: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14783a.htm. Torquemada is claimed to be quite reasonable, compared to civil law at the time. In other words, enlightened. Cruelty, death - still possible. But more rare than before Torquemada.

  242. Re:Yes, especially Atheism! by NoData · · Score: 1

    The Inquisitions, also contrary to popular belief, did not kill people. It was the authority of Kings who didn't know theology who killed people. Inquisitions actually were set up to save people from death

    These are just revisionist lies..

    The Inquisitions, especially the Spanish Inquisition, were the height of fair trials for the time period - in fact, much of our current court system is derived from the expertise of the Inquisitions.

    Fair, huh? Fair in what sense? Fair in determining the truth of a matter, or fair in exposing the depraved depths a person will go to coerce a person into admitting their non-belief in Catholic dogma? I think Galileo might have an opinion here.

  243. 'really dedicated' by AndreyF · · Score: 1

    You have to be a really dedicated researcher if you want to get beyond the multi-million dollar marketing hype surrounding most products and people these days.

    It's a lifestyle, like eating healthy. Once you get into the habbit of ignoring propaganda, it's hard do imagine living otherwise.

  244. Re:Yes, especially Atheism! by zarr · · Score: 1
    ...a large group of French Christians whom I forget the name of...

    The Gnostics

  245. Bill Gates BSD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In case you don't want to watch the whole video (it happened at 1 hour 13 minutes), I have posted the picture on my website. You can see the BSD here.

    http://www.doyousnap.com/portal/albums/7/24.aspx

  246. Commie software users by alw53 · · Score: 1

    Apparently Communists steal software and music for their own use, while Capitalists like Bill steal technology, incorporate it into their own product, sell it, and settle the resulting lawsuit out of court.

  247. Re:Yes, especially Atheism! by hey! · · Score: 1

    The crusade defensive? If you are referring to the conquest of Jerusalem, well, they were over four hundred years late. In the intervening years, the muslim rulers encouraged a brisk trade in servicing Christian pilgrims; the Muslim empire was always more about wisely managing taxable resources, not religious conversion.

    Now things changed when Urban II thought he saw a way of using this popular relious observance as a way of harnessing the unruly martial engergies of the barbaric northerners the Roman church had absorbed over the past several centuries. The crusade were supposed to sublimate those energies in a kind of military pilgramage. Like many excessively clever ideas, it succeeded, but not in the way he had hoped. Rather than christianizing the barbarians, it barbarized Christianity, for the knights understood this to be a kind of divinely licensed blood feud in which they could indulge in their traditional practices of pillage and slaugther. It sanctified not the warriors, but war itself.

    Anybody who has trouble drawing a line between the teachings of a pacifist rabbi of two thousand years ago and the militant Christian politicians of today needn't look any further back than 1095.

    The Inquisitions, as you pointed out, aren't really what people think they were. In general,the Inquisitions of the Middle Ages weren't the kind of ruthlessly efficient stiflers of independent thought that people imagine them to be, becuase while ruthlessness was never in short supply, efficiency was. No doubt they did in some cases manage to thwart the independence of local authorities, to the benefit of the populace. It was the rise of the modern state and the adoption of Christianity as an official state ideology that made the Spanish Inquisition what is was -- a modern institution.

    It is safe to say that nobody expected that development.

    However, I complete agree with you: the idea that religion is a barbarizer of human nature is simply not historically. It's actually the other way around.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  248. Re:I see**2 your point but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are solutions to these problems. They aren't easy or without compromise, but I think it's the only potentially sucessful path we have.
    Check out http://www.technocracy.ca/

  249. Keep IE the best? by theefer · · Score: 1

    Gates says "We need to keep IE the best." Has he ever tried other browsers? IE is not the best (anymore, and probably never was in the first place). Firefox, Konqueror, Safari, Opera, the more you look at it and the more it looks like IE is actually the worse browser around.

    --
    theefer
    1. Re:Keep IE the best? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Compared to Netscape 4, best is a vague possibility.

  250. Re:Yes, especially Atheism! by Tanktalus · · Score: 1

    Actually, the first Crusade (only) was retaliation. And that I don't get from the Catholic Church. That I get from Islam. The rest of the Crusades were to convert infidels to Christianity (and they pretty much all failed, IIRC). They were all to capture the Holy Land - but the first one was to do so in retaliation. The Christians were more than willing to let Muslims rule the Holy Land, as long as the Christian churches were left unharrassed (which Muslims did - only the one leader did not want to leave the Christians out of his power struggle, and, IIRC, he did it against the advice of his court of advisors...).

  251. Minute 71... roughly. by Lemm · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The demo of whatever racing game they're plugging is roughly at 71 minutes.

    The guy's showing off the fact that you can pick a car, then modify it... and it just goes blue. DOH!

    A little further on, there's a bit where Conan and Bill are going head-to-head in a race and Conan has absolutely no idea what he's doing. And when the force feedback kicks in, he has no idea what the fuck's going on. :)

    --
    No boom today. Boom tomorrow. Always boom tomorrow. BOOM!
  252. Patent reform is needed by tallbill · · Score: 1

    Patent reform is needed. This is not saying that patents should be done away with. People should benefit from what they create. But innovations should be real, and not just the product of a currupt patent system bestowing patents for trivial ideas. So I hope you don't think that we should do away with patents all together. I think we need a system that allows fair use of any idea. Patents should not be used as a way to prevent or prohibit competition. They should be a reward for work well done. And so when you have companies that patent triviality and then only enforce them when a competetor starts making money, that seems to me abuse. If anyone is making money on an idea of any kind no one should be allowed to say that they must go out of business because the idea belongs to someone else. And companies whose only business is patent mongering should be disallowed. Maybe once a patent is granted it should never be sold. Maybe the more patents a company has the more that they have to pay for the next patent. In any case I think that any system that sets up a class of privledged and connected people who fantasize about world domination from their town house and don't do anything more than harass and badger hardworking folks is a system that needs reform. (that was verbose!) We need to reform the patent system not do away with it. I don't know what we need to do, but clearly the people in charge aren't doing it. I think that what Mr. Benjamin Franklin did is the real model of heroic behavior. He invented the lightening rod and then gave it to the world as a gift. He saved thousands of lives. He is a hero.

  253. You were obviously educated in a public school. by Alethes · · Score: 1
  254. Where have you been? by twitter · · Score: 1
    ... proof that the Microsoft PR department astroturfs /.

    That job was offshored about a decade ago! Why pay for the poor English and Math skills of a US minimum wage worker when you can have 10 PhDs who would otherwise be driving a taxi?

    Just look how well it works for their code base!

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

    1. Re:Where have you been? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      willy, please get back to work.

    2. Re:Where have you been? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would say the same of you, but I would only be half right.

  255. Founded by Programmers... by podperson · · Score: 2, Insightful

    From the last paragraph:

    "Microsoft was founded by programmers and is still run by programmers, and the bias of programmers is that software can do anything"

    From Donkey:

    "We thought the concept of the game was as bad the crude graphics that it used. Since the game was written in BASIC, you could list it out and see how it was written. We were surprised to see that the comments at the top of the game proudly proclaimed the authors: Bill Gates and Neil Konzen ... we were amazed that such a thoroughly bad game could be co-authored by Microsoft's co-founder, and that he would actually want to take credit for it in the comments."

    The problem isn't that Microsoft was founded by programmers. The problem is that it was founded by bad programmers.

    1. Re:Founded by Programmers... by spectecjr · · Score: 1

      "We thought the concept of the game was as bad the crude graphics that it used. Since the game was written in BASIC, you could list it out and see how it was written. We were surprised to see that the comments at the top of the game proudly proclaimed the authors: Bill Gates and Neil Konzen ... we were amazed that such a thoroughly bad game could be co-authored by Microsoft's co-founder, and that he would actually want to take credit for it in the comments."

      The problem isn't that Microsoft was founded by programmers. The problem is that it was founded by bad programmers.


      The thing is, I'd love to see you do better on 1981 hardware.

      --
      Coming soon - pyrogyra
    2. Re:Founded by Programmers... by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1


      I'd love to see Microsoft do better on 2020 hardware.

      (The above is not a typo, morons!)

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
    3. Re:Founded by Programmers... by don.g · · Score: 1

      Presumably you haven't seen Alley Cat. Or any of the games available for "home computers" at the time.

      --
      Pretend that something especially witty is here. Thanks.
    4. Re:Founded by Programmers... by spectecjr · · Score: 1

      I'd love to see Microsoft do better on 2020 hardware.

      Apparently you've not seen any of the Microsoft Studio games recently. Or you're amazingly biased. One or the other.

      --
      Coming soon - pyrogyra
    5. Re:Founded by Programmers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i did better on 1981 hardware at age 4.

    6. Re:Founded by Programmers... by spectecjr · · Score: 1

      Presumably you haven't seen Alley Cat. Or any of the games available for "home computers" at the time.

      Are you unable to read?

      I said this:

      "The thing is, I'd love to see you do better on 1981 hardware."

      Given that you're quoting games from 1984 - by which point, the hardware was much more capable - one must assume that you have reading comprehension problems.

      Alley Cat was released in 1984.

      Here's a screenshot of what most games released in 1981 looked like. ZX81 screenshot

      --
      Coming soon - pyrogyra
    7. Re:Founded by Programmers... by spectecjr · · Score: 1

      i did better on 1981 hardware at age 4.

      Really? What did you do?

      I was doing things myself on 1981 hardware at age 6... including a cops & robbers game (kind of a maze game). What did you write?

      --
      Coming soon - pyrogyra
    8. Re:Founded by Programmers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      he designed slashdot.

    9. Re:Founded by Programmers... by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1


      It was a general comment on Microsoft bloatware. I don't play games...

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
    10. Re:Founded by Programmers... by don.g · · Score: 1

      Yeah, okay, so I'm not 100% there on when Alley Cat was released. But the hardware was there (okay, so I don't know if the CGA card was available then) which is what you seem to care about.

      Using ZX81 screenshots is misleading. They were neat machines, but there was much better (if somewhat higher chip-count) hardware available at the time, such as the TI-99/4.

      --
      Pretend that something especially witty is here. Thanks.
    11. Re:Founded by Programmers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So how good was the first program that you wrote? The real issue is not how good you start off at, but how good you get over time.

    12. Re:Founded by Programmers... by podperson · · Score: 1

      Actually I wrote BASIC games for the Apple ][ and the Sinclair ZX-80 (Timex computer here), and (IMHO) they were *far* better.

  256. Re:Yes, especially Atheism! by ahsile · · Score: 1

    Ah, Thanks. That is the name I was looking for.

  257. REPEAT POST -- MOD DOWN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why don't you post that a few more times, dickhead?

  258. You think they'd learn by now by hey! · · Score: 1

    I've trained all my suits that demos have to be scripted only to show processes whose results are entirely repeatable.

    Where we havent' got some necessary feature as repeatable as it needs to be for a demo, we don't show it. If you absolutely have to show it show it, you don't actually show it but hide the fact you aren't showing it with a little prestidigitation: e.g. you show a simulation with a carefully scripted narrative that avoids a strict literal lie while being, of course, unavoidably dishonest.

    Of course Gates may be beyond that now, since the IT market more or less run on the herd mentality. If I run with the herd, then maybe the lion will sink its claws into the guy next to me instead of me.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  259. Better Red than Nazi! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What Gates, and the rest of the content nazis want, is direct corporate control of police machinations to enforce their view of what is and isn't property, which is of course, fascist.

    Given the fact that our nation has a better track record with communists than fascists, I'll take the red scare label.

    What a fuckhead.

  260. The real issue is derivatives by SuperKendall · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What is the incentive for a person to spend time and money to create a work if it will not be shared with the public (for profit probably)? Again, without copyright this person has no legal basis for recouping payment. So why would someone devot a lot of time and receive nothing (especially if it is their form of income)?

    Obviously some limited protection is good for the ability of someone to gain reward from a work they spent time on.

    But 75+ years? That is too excessive, and the worst thing of all is that it prevents derivative works until long after the creative value of a derivative work might come into play.

    You can see a practical effect from this by Disney no longer doing animation of traditional stories and the like - any interesting stories left to cover are now under the copyright flood. So Disney makes attempts to make up stories from scratch - which in fact they are not at all good at, all really good creative story writers work elsewhere now.

    You could say that Disney is the prime example of how great things can come from derivative works, for all of the great movies they have done based on traditional tales. So it serves both as an example and a warning.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:The real issue is derivatives by Mr.+No+Skills · · Score: 1

      When the 75 year issue comes up I almost hate hearing Disney being brought up as an example. While Mickey has been around for a long time, its not like Walt did Steamboat Willie and that was it. Most of the Disney property has continued to be promoted, refined, added (and yes, a lot of the added is crap), but the point is that they continue to invest and promote the "product" and it didn't just sit in a can all this time.

      So, as you say, the good and the bad of derivitive works.

      I think where Gates' interview is off target is that a lot of Microsoft products are derivitive of others, and they pick and choose what prior art they want to absorb as they chug along. Software is not pure creative, and is a lot of science and the whole "building on previous works" issue. Open source for some is probably a "software should be free" thing, but for others is simply the scientists' way of life, "I found a great program I can use, and if I build a little widget it becomes more useful."

      --
      Sleep is for the Weak
    2. Re:The real issue is derivatives by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      Most of the Disney property has continued to be promoted, refined, added

      Why should Disney be the only one allowed to expand on those works? If other corporations were free to make their own modifications to the classic animations, then competition would create better quality, lower prices, or both.

  261. Kill customers, no... by fellini8.5 · · Score: 1

    Capitalists don't intentionally kill their customers. It's not profitable.

    No, they kill their competitors!

    (or the competitors of their customers; after all, the customer is always right!)

    --
    Kineska: Cinema, soapbox, music & musings
    1. Re:Kill customers, no... by danila · · Score: 1

      Or the labour force.

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
  262. Re: Communists by KarmaMB84 · · Score: 1

    Just wait until the social retards start screaming that that wasn't "real" Communism and try to explain to you and your girlfriend why "real" (hint: imaginary, goes against human free will, never going to happen) Communism is a good thing. :D

  263. Religion is exactly the ideological retort to use by maynard · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Come on, the deaths caused by Communism were a result of Religious Fervor.

    I'm really short on time so I can't fully reply to all of these messages, or even to you. But I'm really not debating the underlying ideologies of communism, capitalism, or even religious expression. I'm talking about a cultural taboo against communism which continues in western cultures today. Look at the success of the Swift Boat Vets red baiting the Kerry campaign as a prime example; McCarthyism continues fifteen years after the fall of the Soviet Union and fifty years after McCarthy's downfall.

    If the Free Software movement willingly accepts Gate's frame as being inspired by communist utopian idealism, the debate is over. Gate's will have won by default. If any of those EFFers or Project GNU folks are listening here (right - *cough*) I would recommend framing project GNU and BSD ideals by referencing simple down-to-earth small town values like church bake sales, community volunteer firefighting, and the Salvation Army. These are examples of community cooperation everyone can understand. And when Gates (or his surrogates) compares writing free software to communist destruction of capitalist intellectual property rights, argue back that his argument is like destroying the church bake sale for the profit-rights of local restaurants. That is an frame which skewer his debate talking points.

    This is not about communist or capitalist ideology, this is about manipulating public opinion in order to promote - long term - a specific political agenda in Washington. Realize that and all this ideological bullshit smoke disappears like evenscent fog clearing on a sunny day.

    Cheers,
    --Maynard

  264. Torrent by mnordstr · · Score: 4, Informative

    There is a torrent available of the entire video at this blog.

  265. That is why by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Many people have multiple TV's.

    Ok that's not the main reason, but the end result is the same.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:That is why by mydigitalself · · Score: 1

      I think that's a big US trend, I've seen it many times when I've been over there; in general, one in the lounge, one in the bedroom and one in the kitchen. In Europe, generally, people try to keep television away from invading their lives and just have the one in the lounge. Although bedroom tellies are begining to creep in - scary!

  266. Everything like that. by twitter · · Score: 1
    The author of your link is amazed by what he finds on line and says:

    Apparently, there is a Windows error screen photo-taking subculture

    If by subculture he means that there are BSoD everywhere and that many people have the same thought, "I can't believe they are using Windoze for that, let me take a picture.", then sure, that's a subculture. I think it's a normal thought by people who are reasonably observant.

    Google Images Score 902 of them. High on the list is this one from Delta. Now why would anyone have blamed M$ for Delta and Comair's Christmas cheer? I used to think these things were image manipulations, till I saw them live myself. Poor Bill Gates wishes his latest was a bad dream.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

    1. Re:Everything like that. by adpowers · · Score: 1

      Hehe, I've noticed a few myself, and fortunately I often have a camera around when it happens. It isn't always BSoDs, though, there are often other error messages that are still funny.

      A whole bunch of BSoDs on some kiosks at Key Arena. This is particularly funny, because I occasionally see one of the three most famous people from Microsoft there (Gates, Allen, and Ballmer).
      Unable to load traffic data from a website on a public computer (running IE)
      Error message on a display in an elevator in Vegas

      Andrew

  267. Summary for those not going to RTFA by rcastro0 · · Score: 1
    Interviewer: In recent years, there's been a lot of people clamoring to reform and restrict intellectual-property rights. It started out with just a few people, but now there are a bunch of advocates saying, "We've got to look at patents, we've got to look at copyrights." What's driving this, and do you think intellectual-property laws need to be reformed?

    Gates: No, I'd say that of the world's economies, there's more that believe in intellectual property today than ever. There are fewer communists in the world today than there were. There are some new modern-day sort of communists who want to get rid of the incentive for musicians and moviemakers and software makers under various guises. They don't think that those incentives should exist.

    And this debate will always be there. I'd be the first to say that the patent system can always be tuned--including the U.S. patent system. There are some goals to cap some reform elements. But the idea that the United States has led in creating companies, creating jobs, because we've had the best intellectual-property system--there's no doubt about that in my mind, and when people say they want to be the most competitive economy, they've got to have the incentive system. Intellectual property is the incentive system for the products of the future.

    And, from Richard Stallman:
    ``Why Don't You Move to Russia?''

    In the United States, any advocate of other than the most extreme form of laissez-faire selfishness has often heard this accusation. For example, it is leveled against the supporters of a national health care system, such as is found in all the other industrialized nations of the free world. It is leveled against the advocates of public support for the arts, also universal in advanced nations. The idea that citizens have any obligation to the public good is identified in America with Communism. But how similar are these ideas?

    Communism as was practiced in the Soviet Union was a system of central control where all activity was regimented, supposedly for the common good, but actually for the sake of the members of the Communist party. And where copying equipment was closely guarded to prevent illegal copying.

    The American system of software copyright exercises central control over distribution of a program, and guards copying equipment with automatic copying-protection schemes to prevent illegal copying.

    By contrast, I am working to build a system where people are free to decide their own actions; in particular, free to help their neighbors, and free to alter and improve the tools which they use in their daily lives. A system based on voluntary cooperation and on decentralization.

    Thus, if we are to judge views by their resemblance to Russian Communism, it is the software owners who are the Communists.

    Bill Gates is coherent, though, with his 1976 "Open Letter to Hobbysts". Back then he complained that he wasnt breaking even with investing in software develolment -- and thus that people should pay. Should we bring his words back to him and convince him that, since MS is making such absurds amounts of cash on software today, maybe he should bring prices down ? See the direct 1976 Gates quote:

    The royalty paid to us, the manual, the tape and the overhead make it a break-even operation. One thing you do do is prevent good software from being written. Who can afford to do professional work for nothing? What hobbyist can put 3-man years into programming, finding all bugs, documenting his product and distribute for free? The fact is, no one besides us has invested a lot of money in hobby software. We have written 6800 BASIC, and are writing 8080 APL and 6800 APL, but there is very little incentive to make this software available to hobbyists. Most directly, the thing you do is theft.
    --
    Quem a paca cara compra, paca cara pagará.
  268. Communism vs Capitalism by tallbill · · Score: 1

    It sucks that Economics is such a tool of political elites. But here is how I see it, and, of course, I might be wrong:

    Communism is a perscription applied by envious people who don't have power and want power desperately.

    Capitalism is a description of the way that people actually behave in the real world.

    Unfortunately we don't really have capitialism as the description falls apart when people and organizations become super-powerful.

    We have something else. Maybe we can call it
    Corporate Fuedalism. Any other ideas on what to call this partially broken system that we currently have?

    It seems to me that on the micro level Capitialism is a pretty good model for how people behave. But on the macro level we just have a lot of powerful people working for their own and other selfish interests.

    I think that as long as we feed everyone and we don't have full-scale wars that the system will continue. But it seems to me that it isn't what we call the system that is the problem, but that there is too much power in too few hands.

    I would anti-trust the government. This could be accomplished by decentralization. There is just too much power in too small a place.

    And when you want to change the politicians you need to change their minds by enlightening them. The idea that Lenin had of killing then was wrong. That is why communism, the politics of envy, is a social and political failure.

  269. re: communists by greenskyx · · Score: 2, Interesting

    >where he described anyone who doesn't support >ever-increasing intellectual property laws as >"communists"

    Lawrence Lessig on The Tyranny of Copyright

    "We are invoking ideas that should be central to the American tradition, such as that a free society is richer than a control society," he says. "But in the cultural sphere, big media wants to build a new Soviet empire where you need permission from the central party to do anything." He complains that Americans have been reduced to "an Oliver Twist-like position," in which they have to ask, "Please, sir, may I?" every time we want to use something under copyright -- and then only if we are fortunate enough to have the assistance of a high-priced lawyer."

    NY Times Jan, 2004
    http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/25/magazine/2 5COPYR IGHT.html

  270. Communists? He's clueless. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gates: "There are some new modern-day sort of communists who want to get rid of the incentive for musicians and moviemakers and software makers under various guises. They don't think that those incentives should exist."

    What is he talking about? What pathetic nonsense. People are talking about putting *limits* on the monopoly priviledges that governments provide to the creators of copyrighted works and to patents. Nobody is seriously talking about elminiating the incentives those monopoly priviledges provide. We need those incentives. They drive innovation and the economy.

    But limits to copyright already exist in the form of such things as "fair use", and there are well-established legal precidents for other types of limits. For example, if I bought a CD full of music, I have the legal right to make a copy of it in order to play it on any device I please for my own personal use. If I bought a CD full of software, I have the legal right to make a copy for backup purposes, in case the original CD gets trashed or otherwise damaged. If I try to sell or widely distribute such copies, then I've crossed over the line, but Gates is living in a fantasy world if he thinks there should no or fewer limits to "IP rights", as they have come to be known.

    The new challenge, and the one that is driving many honest people to speak out about the need for change, is the fact that copyright owners and patent owners are not merely asserting the rights granted to them by governments, but trying to technologically impose controls that go far beyond what copyright law implies. For example, companies install copyright protection techniques. It is well within their rights, but it also interferes with their customers' fair use rights. The implications can be as onerous as not being able to play a CD at all, or not being able to arrange your stereo and video equipment the way you want, because copy protection in a DVD title prevents you from piping the signal through some component without corrupting the signal (e.g., MacroVision). The point is, this happens even for *legitimate* uses that *do* respect copyright law.

    All of this was still okay until recently, because the law permitted circumvention for purposes of *legitimate* uses. That all changed with the DCMA, which has effectively (i.e. in a practical sense) allowed copyright holders to impose restrictions that intrude FAR into domains originally (and still technically) considered "fair use".

    There are different, but somewhat parallel reasons why patents have experienced undesirable effects in recent years, but I'll leave them alone here.

    The point is, I don't think Gates has any sense of why most people are so upset about what he would consider improvements to copyright and patents. That's because he isn't a customer who has had *their* legitimate use subsumed by laws such as the DCMA and indefinite extensions to copyright. All work is supposed to eventually pass into the public domain, remember? Whether patented or copyrighted, after some decades or a lifetime of profitable monopoly for the creator of the work, that monopoly ends. Gates and other people have forgotten the original bargain with the governments/public that make the laws. It is a balance. In the current situation the public is getting shafted by the technical and legal changes of the last several years, so, naturally, they are questioning the validity of the bargain, en masse. Some people are going too far, yes, but others are simply angry that even when they buy something and try to use it legitimately, they get caught. The solution is to put some things back to the way they were originally intended, not impose even more controls.

    It is very disappointing to see someone as knowledgeable and influential as Gates misunderstand the situation so badly. When will it get through these people's heads that most people want the artists, software vendors, and other creators to get the money they ask for and deserve? The problem is when companies try to rest

  271. And the audience was eating it up? by happyemoticon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Props to Conan for his good improv skills and ability to work a crowd, but doesn't it say something weird about our age that Microsoft itself can't keep its own product from going down at a major technology trade show, and that the crowd finds this acceptable, even funny? Remember, Microsoft's product is on warships these days. Would the crowd have also been yucking like a bunch of doped-up Amsterdam tourists if this had been wargames off the coast of England, and HMS Windows had given them a GPF when they tried to launch a missile? Please, boys: don't believe your own hype, and for God's sake, don't let anybody with a pulse take Ballmer seriously for a nanosecond.

    1. Re:And the audience was eating it up? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh for crying out loud. Wasn't this alpha ware? Is this a shipping product? If there was a BSOD, it is likely a bad driver.

    2. Re:And the audience was eating it up? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and that should have been taken care of well before preso. I've been through a bunch of these at a couple of different companies, and these kinds of bugs are NOT ALLOWED to happen. It does happen, of course, but that looks REALLY bad for your team when it does, just like it looks REALLY bad for M$ when they can't even keep their own software running.

      The functionality that you show needs to be the most stable stuff that you have. The evangelist (or whoever is giving the demo) should not show the parts that don't work or the stuff that might crash. If Microsoft followed that rule, and showed only what they thought was their most stable functionality, and it crashed multiple times in front of a live audience, then fuck 'em. Fuck 'em hard. Laugh at their stupidity and point at them. Make them feel really bad, because they deserve it.

    3. Re:And the audience was eating it up? by brkello · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Of course they find it funny. Have you ever given a demonstration and something goes wrong...we deal with that with humor. They are trying to show off new technology, which is always a risk. Windows XP has never crashed on me, ever. But I don't do anything crazy with it...just play games and general computing use. Yet here at work, I can't even insmod a damn module for 10 Gb Ethernet in my SuSE distro. It crashes the whole system and forces me to walk to the lab and reboot it. Does Linux suck? Hell no...and neither does XP. Would people be laughing if ANY OS screwed up and fired a missile when it shouldn't? Of course not, your example is retarded and pointless. Did people die when my linux server crashed 7 times today? No. Did the people in my depeartment shake their head and laugh when I told them about my problems? Yeah, because we all know how hard it is to deal with technology and software...particularly when you are on the bleeding edge. So to you people who have no perspective and objectivity when it comes to this stuff...I say shove it. An OS is a tool, and each has advanatages over the other. If you can't admit it, you are fool with an agenda. Let go of it...it is so much easier to appreciate that we have these fantastic OSs at all and to use each one to its full benefit. Object to MS's business practices, criticize security models, but before you place your finger squarely at MS, realize that all OSs have a long way to go before they just work (like as simple as turning on your TV).

      --
      Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com
    4. Re:And the audience was eating it up? by Suicyco · · Score: 1

      Yeah but nobody will ever need 10 gb ethernet.

    5. Re:And the audience was eating it up? by Xerp · · Score: 1

      Of course. Its fine. People are *used* to Microsoft products failing totally. Hey, its even expected. Anyway, if HMS Windows did do the whole NMOD (Nuclear Missile Of Death) or GPF (General Pacification Failure) no-one would be alive to complain. Another smart move my Microsoft. Hopefully that can take some communists out at the same time. Heck, the stock price would probably go up.

      Interestingly Microsoft have made this sort of comment before.

      Anyway, don't monopolies cause a fundamental breakdown in the capitalist system...?

    6. Re:And the audience was eating it up? by phaserzen-x · · Score: 1

      And 640K is enough for anybody?

    7. Re:And the audience was eating it up? by boots@work · · Score: 1

      Right, because everybody knows you can have multiple fatal bugs in the alpha/beta release and then get up to military-level quality in the final release. That works all the time.

    8. Re:And the audience was eating it up? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're using 10gb ethernet? Wow. No wonder that module oopses the kernel. They should have a
      special oops for you: "Im a fucking moron who believes in 10gb ether in a production environ
      ment, doesn't test, and has cafe latte au starbucks
      runing down his pruned chin onto his matted chest of
      testicular growthweed."

      Thanks for playing F*tard.

    9. Re:And the audience was eating it up? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yea, that would be super kewl if our warships were running WinME. Oh wait, we'd all die.

    10. Re:And the audience was eating it up? by Lucidwray · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Object to MS's business practices, criticize security models, but before you place your finger squarely at MS, realize that all OSs have a long way to go before they just work (like as simple as turning on your TV).

      I find that comment almost offensive. I run a Apple Powerbook G4 w/OS 10.3 and I have to say it is just about as simple as turning on tv. NO crashes, NO bombs, NO BSOD, no making excuses to my friends "It must of been a bad driver, no worries!". It just works. It boggles the mind that windows users don't get that.

      I never shut my laptop off. Uptimes usually around 30-45 days (OS Software update reboots). I run my machine VERY hard 8-12 hours a day. No crashes, no glitches, nothing. (Wow, kinda like my television...) If you ask any Mac user you will hear the same thing over and over.

      Windows users are so blinded by ignorance that they are complacent with crap.

      --
      My sig can beat up your sig.
    11. Re:And the audience was eating it up? by xmpcray · · Score: 1

      Well, don't give a demo if your product is not ready! (Of course, MS will never be able to give a demo then...;))

      --

      --
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer.
    12. Re:And the audience was eating it up? by Spoing · · Score: 1
      1. They are trying to show off new technology, which is always a risk.

      It isn't if you have a clue and the tech is even moderately stable. Your steps through the product should be scripted *BECAUSE* bad things happen with alpha products. If you test beforehand, and follow the !@$!@$ script, it's not going to bomb on you -- you've tested it!

      Anyone who's given a demo -- even on a released product -- doesn't stray too far unless they are exceedingly confident of how well the program works.

      --
      A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
    13. Re:And the audience was eating it up? by Tantrum420 · · Score: 1

      > If you ask any Mac user you will hear the same thing over and over.

      No you won't. You can ask me.

      I'll tell you that OS X runs damn solid but I've seen it crash. I've seen it lock up and I've seen it have driver issues.

      I'll also tell you that XP can run damn solid. But again all the aforementioned problems can exist.

      I'll admit that OS X _might_ have an edge in the stability department over XP but it's not nearly as large as the majority of Mac zealots would like the rest of the computer-using population to believe.

      Mac users are so blinded by zelotry that they are complacent with ignorance.

      T

    14. Re:And the audience was eating it up? by DoctorMO · · Score: 1

      At least with Linux you can fix the problem.

  272. ESR is gonna be pissed by drivers · · Score: 1

    ESR got furious on that documentary Revolution OS when asked if Open Source was like Communism.

  273. How can you hate Ashlee? by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    There are music geeks who hate Ashlee for taking away a spot at a record company that some talented band might have had, political geeks who know every single word GW has said wrong, and normular computer geeks who know the design flaws in Windows.

    Do you honestly think that the lack of Ashlee would have yielded a "spot" for another musician?

    No, it's a position created by the music companies that if not filled by Ashlee, would be essentially similar.

    I don't see how you can dislike Ashee any more than a box of Tide. Both are products.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  274. Not the first time by markdowling · · Score: 1

    Bill + USB = BSOD when demo-ing that technology in public in 1998.

  275. Re:Yes, especially Atheism! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Inquisitions, also contrary to popular belief, did not kill people. It was the authority of Kings who didn't know theology who killed people. Inquisitions actually were set up to save people from death.

    Yes, you know, in my Sephardic ancestory, the tale is passed down of how my frightened Jewish forebearers were terrified of the Spanish Crown, but, thank God Mother Church provided the Inquisition which shielded them from those horrors. I mean, if it wasn't for the Spanish Inquisition, they might not have had such a wonderful, peaceful life in medieval Spain. I mean, Isabella and Ferdinand expelled the Jews in 1492, but the Inquisition would have none of that, and vigorously defended them before the unjust actions of the Court. Truly, the Inquisition saved their lives and didn't torture or burn them at the stake by the thousands at all! I mean, a lesser religious authority might have abused the situation and coerced tens of thousands of Jews and Moslems to confess imagined transgressions and accept the Catholic faith on pain of excrutiating death, but this Inquisition was Nice and Pure and Good and was only put in place to protect the weak and heal the infirm. Truly, progressive thinking on the part of the always-forward-looking Catholic Church.

  276. OT by Trelane · · Score: 1

    Was this the binary nividia/ati drivers, or an X configuration issue? What distro?

    --

    --
    Given enough personal experience, all stereotypes are shallow.
  277. Let me clean up your argument for you. by twitter · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Microsoft is a state sponsored monopoly, directly and indirectly. They are dependent on the false concept of "IP", something that is entirely government created. They also depend on generous government spending.

    The only sensible thing that can be said about "IP" is that it's a government granted exclusive franchise or monopoly. Copyrights, patents and trademark have about as much in common with each other as they do with the local electric utility. The most natural American thought is to limit all forms of exclusive franchises. This includes "IP" franchises.

    It never ceases to amaze me that local, state and federal governments continue to purchase Microsoft. There are many alternatives that cost less and have fewer problems available.

    The fact of the matter is that Microsoft would be in a tail spin right now if it were not for billions of dollars in government spending. Does anyone think they would have been able to make their "numbers" had the DoD not stepped up to the plate with ridiculous decade long exclusive purchases of software that has yet to be written? I think not and such purchases of inferior goods are the surest sign of state support.

    The market, however, is not to be conned. There's only so much impact the government can have. When the limit hits, they will sink without a trace. It will not be a big deal either.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

    1. Re:Let me clean up your argument for you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      People like you love to put up the fact that Microsoft was convicted of being a monopoly by the government everyt ime it suits you (or you run out of arguments) and then you turn around and claim that the thing that holds up the monopoly is the government. Way great logic.

      When the limit hits, they will sink without a trace. It will not be a big deal either

      Oh, look. You got modded up. What a surprise.

    2. Re:Let me clean up your argument for you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do find it a bit strange that one hand of the state talked about punishing Microsoft for anti-competitive behaviour, while the other kept pumping a lot of tax dollars in buying products effectively locking their business to Microsoft even more.

      It all cleared up a bit when the "punishment" awarded was a total monopoly in a lot of schools. You see, they paid most (all?) of their fines with Microsoft software. Now the schools can only teach Microsoft products.

      And you were saying..?

  278. Guardian online article by chihiro · · Score: 2, Informative

    the Guardian online section has an article on this speech. It doesn't mention communism though, concentrating mainly on the relationship between MS and Consumer electronics companies.

    "Gates grins and bears it
    The Microsoft boss endured a few jokes at the US gadget show, but the software giant is starting to overcome consumer mistrust, reports Jack Schofield"
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/online/news/0,12597,1384 586,00.html

    --
    Memes don't exist. Spread the Word.
  279. What almost happened... by gwoodrow · · Score: 1

    Gates was going to use Keynote for the presentation, but he didn't want to pay for that goddamn expensive Apple hardware.

  280. The Video is Online? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Really? It's about as online as my toaster! My God, the fucking thing has to buffer every 30 seconds! This from the Nebekenezzer of the Net?

  281. The Artists by groovemaneuver · · Score: 2, Informative

    For an artist to make ANY profit at all off of an RIAA-backed album, the artist has to sell 500,000 copies of the album. The artist is ultimately responsible for covering all recording and various other production and distribution costs.

    The RIAA, on the other hand, makes a profit off of each and every album that gets sold, whether it's one copy or a billion. Regardless of whether an artist makes a profit or not, they are still obligated to repay the money loaned by the label at contract signing time.

    Less than 1% of RIAA artists will ever sell over 500,000 copies of an album, so while that 1% does bring in an enormous amount of money, it's not like the other 99% are bleeding the industry as bad as the RIAA tries to make us all believe. That 99% however has managed to make themselves a major part of the RIAA's income.

    Even if an artist doesn't sell a single copy of an album, the labels still get that loan money back, and you can be sure that there's interest added into the mix there too.

    To answer your question: the artists are always on the losing end of the deal in this situation, and by most of the facts and figures I've read recently, that's an overwhelming percentage of signed artists.

    1. Re:The Artists by Hrodvitnir · · Score: 1

      Care to back up those numbers with some links?

      --
      "There are more important things than stopping terrorism. Upholding the Constitution is one of them." - Ars Forumer.
    2. Re:The Artists by groovemaneuver · · Score: 1

      I normally hate it when people say this, but just search google.com for "riaa stats". I did a research project on this topic about a year ago, so I don't remember any links off the top of my head -- none of the sources I used were that hard to find. In any case, I don't think these numbers are too hotly contested by anyone -- even the RIAA.

      Regardless of the numbers, the labels aren't bleeding cash like they say they are. The fact of the matter is that artists aren't just given piles of cash to make records, they are given loans to make records. The only people that lose money are the artists that don't sell enough records to pay off the loans.

      Artists don't start making a profit until the recording costs are paid off, but the labels start profitting from the very first sale.

  282. Re:Yes, especially Atheism! by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1


    Ignoring, for the moment, that the Inquisition was set up to prevent torture and killing (see my earlier post)

    I'll continue to ignore it until it becomes true.

    --

    Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

  283. One time I was demoing Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And the fucking POS crashed. Right there in the boardroom. The shareholders were aghast. Linux was supposed to make their business more reliable? The web server went completely tits-up and had to be rebooted. an hour later it still wasn't running and we were clueless as to what the hell had happened. A call to RootHat proved useless, futile and expensive, so we threw in the towel and the shareholders voted to give Microsoft all of their money. And it was a damn good thing, too, because Linux is like a snarling little feral beast, running around pissing on everything and making bastard puppies of itself here and there, each version just a little more annoying and unstable than the last one. Yup, a shotgun the size of Texas would take care of that Linux infestation problem you got there, Ma'am. And the web server that went tits-up under Linux, you ask? We installed Microsoft Windows Server 2003 on it, and it's still running to this day.

    1. Re:One time I was demoing Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what a fucking load of shit lie

    2. Re:One time I was demoing Linux by randallpowell · · Score: 0

      As usual if it goes bad it's not the admin it's the OS. Unles it's MS then it is the admin. You really do have an MCSE don't you?

  284. Note to Gates: Monopoly = Communism by dtjohnson · · Score: 2

    As an economic system, monopoly and communism are the same thing. It's all about top-down central control of everything.

    Conversely, there is nothing communistic about eliminating a lot of outmoded IP laws relating to copyrights and such. Doing so wouldn't eliminate incentives for creative people but it would eliminate gouging by record companies and publishers who want to control distribution of content and collect tolls.

  285. The question and answer regarding 'communists' by kevlar · · Score: 1
    In recent years, there's been a lot of people clamoring to reform and restrict intellectual-property rights. It started out with just a few people, but now there are a bunch of advocates saying, "We've got to look at patents, we've got to look at copyrights." What's driving this, and do you think intellectual-property laws need to be reformed?

    No, I'd say that of the world's economies, there's more that believe in intellectual property today than ever. There are fewer communists in the world today than there were. There are some new modern-day sort of communists who want to get rid of the incentive for musicians and moviemakers and software makers under various guises. They don't think that those incentives should exist.


    I guess the part where everyone should be offended is: "There are some new modern-day sort of communists who want to get rid of the incentive for musicians and moviemakers and software makers under various guises". I happen to agree with him though. In essence what he is saying is that people are expecting goods and services for free. This is a fundamental pillar of socialism.

    1. Re:The question and answer regarding 'communists' by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      How does that justify extensions of copyright?

      Are we to assume that early this century the people making movies were to assume unlimeted terms would be tacked onto their work?

      The grandchildren of a creator are certainly not motivated by money they make from someone else's creation. And pantents should not last long past they are obsolete.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    2. Re:The question and answer regarding 'communists' by VB · · Score: 1

      Especially offensive is an accusation from arguably the best defined capitalist on the planet that artists (who are by definition socialist) require an incentive to create art, music, movies, or anything, for that matter. Since he's devoid of any self-generative capacity and merely exploits innovation he observes, he couldn't possibly comprehend that Mozart created from self-initiative.

      What continues to bother me about capitalist justifications of copyright manifestos is that the end result is to protect the rights of those who capitalize on the rights of those who created these works to begin with. And, what further offends any who create such works, is that the capitalist system that's been designed and maintained is now trying to legislate control of those rights in perpetuity to those opportunists and permanently exclude the right of the creators of these works from entering such works into the public domain outside the parameters of the capitalistic distribution system.

      Musicians and movie makers (the ones who actually make them) just want to get their works out into the space (and, don't necessarily care if it's at Carnegie Hall, or the park in the local community). Patents, copyrights, and DRM are about money: capitalistic activities. Capitalists have an incentive to accuse social-minded content creators of being communists.

      --
      www.dedserius.com
      VB != VisualBasic
  286. you have to steal their mojo. by twitter · · Score: 2, Interesting
    We're not communists, we're "software terrorists",

    He already tried that but it backfired. M$ tried to blame windoze viruses and worms on FOSS. It was easy to show that the worms were written on Windoze by people who know about Windoze. All the accusation did was admit that there was a worm problem and give a good example of blame shifting. It also highlighted the relative security of free software.

    Concentrated efforts by real Communists against free software have failed. No automated worms have emerged, despite the majority use of free software in typical targets of such efforts: high profile corporate webserves.

    Microsoft themselves have engaged in such activities against previous competitive threats. There are court documented cases of them breaking code for DrDOS, Netscape and a host of others. It would be interesting indeed if they were to try to classify such activity as "terrorist".

    If there is a software terrorist threat, it's dependence on Windows. Windows systems, including large banks, have continued to be trashed and this has an effect on public moral and institutional confidence.

    Mojo, free software's got it, M$ don't.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

  287. Your irony is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...too subtle for Slashdot.

    1. Re:Your irony is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's actually sarcasm, not irony, Alanis. But thanks anyway.

    2. Re:Your irony is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought it was mostly litotes, with a couple ironic statements.

    3. Re:Your irony is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I'm not Alanis, and I have a dictionary to prove it.

      irony - noun - plural ironies
      1. a. The use of words to express something different from and often opposite to their literal meaning. b. An expression or utterance marked by a deliberate contrast between apparent and intended meaning. c. A literary style employing such contrasts for humorous or rhetorical effect. See synonyms at wit.
      You Americans are none too bright, but we love you anyway.
    4. Re:Your irony is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You Americans are none too bright, but we love you anyway.

      Hey now, don't be so quick to foist him off on us, he might be an ESL European - hence the confusion about definitions of irony and the sneering attitude.

      (I still say it was litotes with several ironic statements.)

  288. Gates The reader's digest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "People who want software that works are communist"
    -- Bill Gates

    Yeah, I know this is not what Free Software is about but it just sums up his case so good... ;-)

  289. Re:Yes, especially Atheism! by TheWickedKingJeremy · · Score: 1

    On the whole, religion has killed more people than all forms of revolution and all wars over money, gold or resources.

    I've always took issue with statements like this, but would really love to hear a good counter argument. It seems to me that, in actuality, wars are really about resources, be it land, money, power in the region, etc. Religion certainly plays a role in that it is an enabler - it is something that those in power can weild to control the masses, and not even have to give anything to them in the present for their troubles (at least in Christianity, eternal wealth and happiness will be delivered to you post mortem, apparently... go figure).

    Has there ever really been a war that was truly about one religion fighting another? In order to answer "yes" to that question, that would mean that these two groups would still go to war even if they were on entirely seperate parts of the earth, and had absolutely no ties to each other (culturally, economically, etc).

    One easy example of this is the current Israel-Palestine conflict. Would there still be conflict if the Jews were magically relocated to Alaska? How come Israel and/or the Palestinians are not interested in fighting the Chinese? In the end, doesn't it always come down to land and power in the region? I realize that religion is certainly playing an enabler role in this conflict - but it is not the source of it. I tend to think that close proximity, racism, and very unbalanced levels of wealth are the real reasons they are fighting.

    Again, I am no expert and I would truly love to hear a good counter argument to this, but the notion that wars have been simply religions fighting each other always seemed simplistic to me. Now if you want to say that more people have been killed in the *name* of religion than in any other name, that is something I would not take issue with.

    --

    my religion lies somewhere between buddhism and super monkey ball - pamphlet?
  290. Re: Communists by ErikTheRed · · Score: 1
    ust wait until the social retards start screaming that that wasn't "real" Communism and try to explain to you and your girlfriend why "real" (hint: imaginary, goes against human free will, never going to happen) Communism is a good thing. :D
    The really scary thing is that that level of stupidity and ignorance is usually the product of an expensive education.
    --

    Help save the critically endangered Blue Iguana
  291. That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard! by Scott7477 · · Score: 1

    The above is of course what Mr. Gates supposedly says whenever he is presented with an idea, concept, or proposal that he doesn't like or agree with. The idea that his product crashes during a KEYNOTE speech he is giving at a major show would certainly be worthy of such a description.

    Does anyone know how many MS employees have been fired so far as a result of this incident? At most companies heads would certainly roll. What is particularly mystifying to me is that this would happen to Gates now in light of the fact that this has happened to him before.

    This also reminds me of a photo from another show a few years ago where Steve Jobs is shown standing on a stage while behind him is an enormous screen with Gates' big giant head framing Jobs. I laughed and laughed....

    Slightly offtopic but speaking of MS crashes, at my company a few years ago I upgraded to Office XP and my machine started crashing regularly. In a rage, I fired off a complaint to billg@microsoft.com to complain. Of course, I never expected a response given that he supposedly has a "bozo" filter and teams of flunkies but I actually got a sincere response email from somone at MS who was at a fairly high level. Go figure...

    --
    "Lack of technical competence coupled with the arrogance of power, as usual, leads to no good end."
  292. indeed, M$'s biggest customer is the U.S. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's often noted that their biggest customer is the U.S. Government (including military).

    "At the other end of the spectrum is the U.S. Army, which is Microsoft's largest customer."
    --Microsoft VP Robert McDowell, Redmond, Wash., Dec. 28, 2004

    http://www.microsoft.com/indonesia/news/12-28mcdow ell.asp

  293. What's China gonna think? by LihTox · · Score: 1

    Is Gates suggesting that China resist the increasing IP laws? I'm pretty sure that they won't take "Communist" as an insult, anyway....

  294. Free Software is NOT Communist by Mad+Marlin · · Score: 1

    Free software is software that is freely given by the authors, usually out of pure goodwill, with the programmers choosing to do so; or at least their employers, the actual owner of the software in either case. This is a good thing.

    Communism, and I am talking about the idealized Marxist communism here, not the even worse real-world examples, is about the poor stealing from the rich, simply because the poor outnumber the rich. This is not voluntary on the part of the rich, but rather their property is taken against their will, and this robbery is justified by the greed of the poor.

    Free software is not communism, but instead is better described as Christian, in line with Christ's command to give of yourself freely; however, since many of the people who develop free software are of other religions, perhaps a better phrase would be just "being a really nice person."

    The idea that most closely relates to Marxist communism in the realm of software would instead be the software and music pirates, who justify stealing software from Microsoft and music from the companies in the RIAA because Microsoft and the RIAA have a lot of money, and the pirates don't, as if it somehow isn't theft then.

    1. Re:Free Software is NOT Communist by sangreal66 · · Score: 1

      Ok, first of all, Free software is not given freely. Free software is shared under a very strict set of rules requiring you to similarly share all derivative works. True free software is public domain software. That isn't the point though, because Gates wasn't talking about free software in reference to communism. He was referring to people advocating the destruction of IP property laws.

    2. Re:Free Software is NOT Communist by misleb · · Score: 1
      Communism, and I am talking about the idealized Marxist communism here, not the even worse real-world examples, is about the poor stealing from the rich, simply because the poor outnumber the rich. This is not voluntary on the part of the rich, but rather their property is taken against their will, and this robbery is justified by the greed of the poor.

      As opposed to capitalism where the rich steal from the poor (and then "trickle" it back down) simply because the rich have more political and social influence? This is not voluntary on the part of the poor, but rather their labor is exploited because the poor can't survive at all without their job(s).

      Sorry, but both systems are pretty fucked up if you really take a good look at them. Capitalism works well only when the gap between the rich and the poor is relatively small. Eventually it gets larger and it becomes more and more difficult, on average, for the poor to improve their situation no matter how hard they try. Small companies find it more and more difficult to compete with the near monopolies. It gets even worse with globalization where the gap between the rich and the poor becomes enormous. Whole countries are relegated to the bottom rungs with almost no hope of ever improving their situation.

      Anyway, i thought thought I'd like to pay devil's advocate for a minute...

      -matthew

      --
      "THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
    3. Re:Free Software is NOT Communist by Mad+Marlin · · Score: 1

      I am personally a fan of the BSD license, which is almost public domain, but the same thing applies to the GPL stuff too. The vast majority of the people working on free software (GPL, BSD, etc.) are giving their skilled labor freely: the software is merely the product of that freely-given labor.

      Anyone who would advocate the elimination of intellectual property in our modern intellectually-oriented society would be a communist: they are advocating the forced redistribution of property, in this case intellectual property. I do believe there are many problems with the current IP system, but I do not believe that the idea of intellectual property itself should be eliminated.

    4. Re:Free Software is NOT Communist by rho · · Score: 1
      No, the rich sell to the poor. And the poor, since they're in a capitalist country, are buying. There is nothing keeping the poor from selling something that people want to other poor people--it's just that, by and large, poor people aren't smart enough or hard-working enough to bother. Which is why they're poor, at least in this country.

      All systems are fucked up. Some are fucked up worse than others. The perfect system does not exist and will never exist. Capitalism, or at least the Jesus-laden, love-thy-neighbor version we have in America, is better than most.

      --
      Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
    5. Re:Free Software is NOT Communist by misleb · · Score: 1
      No, the rich sell to the poor. And the poor, since they're in a capitalist country, are buying. There is nothing keeping the poor from selling something that people want to other poor people--it's just that, by and large, poor people aren't smart enough or hard-working enough to bother. Which is why they're poor, at least in this country.

      I'm sorry, but I do not believe for one second that there is room in a capitalist society for everyone to be rich (or even secure financially) no matter how "smart" or "hardworkign" everyone is. Capitalism depends on the existence of exploiters and exploitees. Any *individual* can, perhaps, improve his or her socio-economic class, but on the whole a poor class must exist for the greedy to be successful. Sure, there are people who are lazy and dumb. But there are also people who are just not motivated by greed. How does a system fueled by greed protect these people?

      All systems are fucked up. Some are fucked up worse than others. The perfect system does not exist and will never exist. Capitalism, or at least the Jesus-laden, love-thy-neighbor version we have in America, is better than most.

      And eventually this system will collapse like the rest. It is already straining under the load of globalization. What's next?

      -matthew

      --
      "THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
  295. Re:Religion is exactly the ideological retort to u by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    I slapped the flag on my livejournal with a link to the article. The point of flying it is not to link myself or free software to communism, but to point out the hate-mongering spread by billy G. Most of us have probably already made the comparisons you suggest, or something similar.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  296. crash? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    when has MS ever had one of these presentations that did NOT crash?

  297. I agree. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've been using Windows 2000 regularly for the past 4 or 5 years, and I can only recall seeing one BSOD in that time. It was related to a buggy NIC driver. After I got around that issue, it's been rock solid.

    The only time it's ever gotten frozen was when I was playing UT2k4 during a storm and lightning struck closeby. Probably not a smart thing to do regardless of operating system. And I have it set to display the BSOD rather than rebooting, so I would see any BSOD's. Even if it rebooted, I would obviously be able to tell that it did reboot. I haven't ever had it reboot on me.

    I do video capturing and editing (VirtualDub), heavy gaming (UT2k4, Doom 3, Half-Life 2, Splinter Cell series), and pretty much anything else you can think of.

    I use Internet Explorer exclusively and have only had one virus and zero spyware. The one virus was due to stupidity on my part (not virus scanning and running an unknown executable). I have the free Grisoft AV program and AdAware and am behind a hardware router.

    The point is, if you are savvy enough you can run Windows (at least Windows 2000) safely and reliably. The only negative thing is that after about 5 days of uptime and heavy use it starts to get a little flaky. No stability issues, but things start to slow down a lot. Rebooting fixes this, but it's still annoying.

    My install is just over 2 years old; I don't reinstall every 6 months because I don't have to. Unfortunately, most people are "dumb users" and running Windows 98, which is, relatively speaking, a piece of shit. The thing I hate the most is how fucking fragmented my hard drive gets.

    Overall, Windows 2000 just works for me and I like it a lot. A good hardware router and some education could go a long way. Alas, most people just don't give a fuck.

  298. Name Calling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Typical. Having 'growed up' during the sixties when everyone who didn't go along with the status quo was labled a 'communist', and having tolerated the nineties when everyone who didn't go along with the status quo was labeled a 'liberal' I'd have expected something more creative.
    But then considering the source...

  299. Variety is the spice of the desktop... by rathehun · · Score: 1

    In and of itself, it's not going to be a big source of a profit because there will be lots of people with stores out there, but then in terms of making it simple, having it work on all the devices, work with all the stores--that is important to us. The Windows ecosystem provides variety.


    Yes, I can have Weatherbug, Gator, GAIN Networks, Alexia...the choices are endless with our friendly, Internet Explorer!

  300. MOD PARENT UP INFORMATIVE by dave1g · · Score: 1

    The stream has been slashdotted

  301. Re:Yes, especially Atheism! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This may be a subtle point, the but Commandment is "don't commit murder" not "don't kill". There's actually a very important non-trivial difference there.

    Subtle enough to depend on which Bible you read. My old King James says "Thou shalt not kill"

    Anyway this is all beside the point as these people call themselves Christians, ie followers of Christ and the New Testament, not Jews and followers of the Old Testament, and Christ had a very different message.

  302. "Communists"???? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Billy Boy is REALLY showing his age. This century, the correct term for your opposition is "terrorists".

    Sheesh.

  303. MOD PARENT UP INFORMATIVE by dave1g · · Score: 0

    Thank you for the torrent, stream has been slashdotted.

    Currently getting 75-100 kBytes per second down

  304. Re: Communists by spectecjr · · Score: 1

    Yep, he pretty much just said that if you don't support IP then your a Communist.

    No, he pretty much just said that if you think that everyone should be able to copy anyone else's work just because they think that it's their right to do so, that you're a Communist.

    Kind of the same thing, but let's be explicit here.

    The world's richest man and still as greedy as ever

    Hmmm... I agree with him... yet I'm certainly not rich. I don't think that expecting to be paid for my work makes me greedy. I think that others expecting to get my work for free makes them freeloaders though.

    --
    Coming soon - pyrogyra
  305. Harvard by Mark_MF-WN · · Score: 1

    The government supports Harvard? I thought US universities were all privately run. I live in Canada, so I'm not terribly familiar with the US education system.

  306. Re:Yes, especially Atheism! by mefus · · Score: 1

    especially since the Crusades (which was a defensive war, contrary to popular belief - the Arabian leader sacked the holiest of Christian churches, which was basically without defense, making Europe mad - the first Crusade was retaliatory)

    Hahah. Like the crusaders weren't above sacking a christian city themselves. Take Constantinople for example.

    The crusades were the barest pretext to rape and pillage the rich east.

    --
    mefus
    In Open Society, GPL Software frees YOU!
  307. I bought one of these Media Center PCs by Like2Byte · · Score: 2, Interesting

    My brother just got one and it seemed pretty like a pretty neat computer. Since I was also on the lookout for a new PC, I bought one days after he did.

    AMD-64 3400
    1.8G FSB
    512M RAM
    200G Hard Drive
    128Meg AGP Video Card (Quoted on the documentation)

    Now for the fun part.
    First, the video board is really a PCI card (not to be confused with PCI-Express). I've yet to resolve this issue as I didn't realize this until just the other day.

    Now for the Operating System: Windows XP - Media Center Edition. Windows ME's big brother.

    Applications suddenly terminate - not all the time, but enough.

    Premiere 6.0 is a nightmare on this system - crashes repetedly on the same project within seconds after starting up. If I place a video on a timeline and resize the edit window the app crashes. No other OS (WinXP, Win2K or Win98) crashes.

    Windows Messenger - Where to start. First-off, you can not uninstall Windows Messenger (at least without uninstalling The Media Center)!

    Running the media center to listen to the radio (which is a cool idea) causes Windows Messenger to run. That particular PC is not connected to the Internet therefore I don't have to worry about it nor can I report it's behaviour after the Windows Messenger comes up. Maybe someone can fill in those details.

    On the subject of the Windows Firewall and Anti-virus detection schemes: Oi! (Remember, now, that this system is NOT connected to the internet.) I uninstalled the pre-packaged Norton AV and Norton Internet Security because of it's constant whining about connecting to the net to get updates. It just would not stop prompting me - so I uninstalled it. That's when SP2's problem reared it's very ugly head.

    I thought, "OK, I'll just 'change the way Security Center alerts me.'"

    I checked the requesite check-boxes in the security center (4 check-boxes total (two under 'Change the way Security Center alerts me and one each under the firewall and AV recommedation buttons). After two restarts, the checkboxes miracouslty (-2 sp) un-check themselves and the Security Center continues to nag me to death. ( I imagine there is some other procedure to effectively (permenently) turn off this mis-feature; but, I haven't found it, yet.)

    Anyway, I give 4 'drives down' on WinXP-MC.

    1. Re:I bought one of these Media Center PCs by Bambi+Dee · · Score: 2, Informative

      ( I imagine there is some other procedure to effectively (permenently) turn off this mis-feature; but, I haven't found it, yet.) ~ I don't know anything at all about MC, but there's a Security Center service here (on XP Pro) that I deactivated in services.msc; the Security Center itself is still available (control panel), it just doesn't nag anymore.

  308. First line of the CNET interview... by Aqua_Geek · · Score: 1

    Bill Gates is coming to your living room, whether you like it or not.

    You spelled that wrong. It should read, "Bill Gates is coming to the living room..." It'll be a cold day in hell before he gets into mine.

    --
    Disclaimer: This comment was generated by a Flock of Trained Microsoft Programmers for Aqua_Geek.
  309. The USSR was NOT COMMUNIST by IBitOBear · · Score: 1

    United Soviet Socialist Republic.

    The path to comunisim is (whatever)->Socialisim->Comunisim. No government to date has made the last step. Communisim is what you would have *after* you dismantled the socialist "commities" (e.g. soviets) that "fairly re-apportioned" the labor.

    There has yet to be an actually communist government enacted (disassembeled?) on the world stage.

    The fact that true communisim was always a five-year-plan away, and that the communist ideals were being force-fed down the throat of the populace didn't mean it ever existed.

    Communisim would be a _great_ system, if only there weren't any humans involved. It requires absolue honesty and self-effacement in the form of the individuals ability to recognize and respond to the needs of the populice. _THAT_ is just not human nature...

    --
    Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
    --"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
    1. Re:The USSR was NOT COMMUNIST by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      perhaps with the use of digital trust based on verified encryption

  310. Classic Bill Gates...."we will crush linux" by redwoodtree · · Score: 1

    After seeing Bill Gates speak at the Microsoft Developers Conference in Redmond last year, I was convinced the man is a dinasour in the industry. He's a relic and an icon for the company but it seems for the most part completely irrelevent.

    During the Conference many of the Microsoft presentors and developers spent a good deal of their presentations talking about embracing the open source community. This wasn't a suprise as Microsoft's gobbled up a great many open source developers during the IT slump of the past five years. From SOAP to app server design and so forth every speaker during the conference made some point about having open APIs and working with Linux and UNIX in general.

    Then, during Gates' closing statements/keynot about the third sentence out of his mouth was something along the lines of "We will CRUSH LINUX.... and we will CRUSH open source." This was an interesting message given his troops speeches over the previous three days.

    If I'd had some balls I would have called his ass on this. Most people just asked questions along the lines of "Can I get my picture taken with you?" But just being in the same room as him made me have trouble breathing. I felt like I was in the presence of Darth Vader or something (goes to show you how warped I am by being in this industry). But in any case, I think Bill should stick with his philanthropy and stop giving technical demos. He's no Steve Jobs.

  311. Have You Guys Seen the "Switch To Linux" Flash? by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1

    Kim Polese was using it a week or so ago to announce her new job at SpikeSource.

    The Flash animation starts out with a supervillain saying, "We were negotiating with the Pentagon and we had a blue screen of death. That was the last straw."

    --
    Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
  312. IRiver by Reignking · · Score: 1

    Gates is plugging the new IRiver in this picture :)

    --
    One man's Funny is another man's Offtopic.
    1. Re:IRiver by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. Yes he is.

  313. Re:Yes, especially Atheism! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "But they were a huge jump in the right But they were a huge jump in the right direction."

    Oh, for their orderly pursuit of torture and stacking the decks entirely against the accused?

    I guess it must be the systematic, methodical approach that meets your approval. Also pleased with the methodical recordkeeping at Nazi Concentration camps?

    Finally, citing anonymous "theologians" and the Vatican (slight bias there? hmm...) is in no way helping your case. If you want to publish bullshit online with nary a fact inbetween to even remotely bulk up your case, then you get what you deserve.

    "sigh" my ass. Your smugness reeks. Go confess your sins and have your limbs dislocated, asshole. Torequemada surely would approve.

  314. Re:I spy a new meme - Mercantilism by yoghurt · · Score: 1

    Copyright and patents are neither capitalist nor communist.

    Patents come from an older economic system - namely mercantilism. In this case the government rewards industrial enterprise with monopolies. Copyright is similar in that the government also creates (by its enforcement) a monopoly.

    Mercantilism itself involves a bit more, e.g., having more exports than imports. However the patent system comes out of it.

    --
    Yoghurt
  315. Re:fp by spectecjr · · Score: 1

    It really is rediculous all around. Bill neglects to carefully consider that the GPL and other open source licenses are simply gifts of intellectual property to the community at large. In no way does the GPL or BSD licenses "disrespect" commercial licenses, they just offer a better value than the commercial licenses, ie., our software is our gift to you.

    Gifts don't typically come with strings attached.

    The BSD license doesn't - but the GPL certainly does. Big fat chains, if you will.

    --
    Coming soon - pyrogyra
  316. Bill looks into the crystal ball.. by SpamapS · · Score: 1
    "...Intellectual property is the incentive system for the products of the future."

    Yes, and, Mr. Gates, the operating system is not a product of the future. So let it go, you made your money, now its time for the public to benefit. Get a new idea if you want to exploit the IP system.

    --
    SpamapS -- Undernet #Linuxhelp
  317. Your parents told you...nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is money the only reason you do what you do? Are you that much of a materialistic propertarian lame-wad? Is the promise of more money the only reason you learn new things, experiment, play? Is the only reason that Einstein learned physics so that he could get a bigger crib or the latest car and lord it over his neighbors; or was it 'to know the mind of God'?
    You sir are a sniveling grasping avarist with a tiny shiveled soul and an intellect that I'm sure reflects same. And I for one am glad you are not my doctor.

  318. Re:Summary for those not going to RTFA by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1

    "What hobbyist can put 3-man years into programming, finding all bugs, documenting his product and distribute for free?"

    Linus Torvalds!

    BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

    Bill, hoist yet again with his own petard!

    (Of course, Linus was a student at the time...but Bill made no exceptions. And that criticism is irrelevent anyway, since a dozen hobbyists putting in 1/12th man-years can do the same - and are - well, maybe except for the documentation part, which still sucks...)

    --
    Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
  319. Got a better source AC? by twitter · · Score: 1
    Some silly AC ASSerts:

    People like you love to put up the fact that Microsoft was convicted of being a monopoly by the government every time it suits you (or you run out of arguments) and then you turn around and claim that the thing that holds up the monopoly is the government. Way great logic.

    Why not? Both things are proved by published documents from a trusted source. Nasty details of Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior were published in the finding of facts. You can go and read sworn testimony by tech industry leaders. Public spending and laws are also published. It's not my fault my government can document abuse and encourage it at the same time.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

    1. Re:Got a better source AC? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Some silly AC ASSerts

      You might want to get a grip on that annoying petulant tone of yours.

      by tech industry leaders

      ROFLMAO! Who, the people at Netscape who couldn't compete with Microsoft if their life depended on it? Or Sun, who couldn't make up their minds as to whether or not they wanted Microsoft to ship their VM with Windows?

      BTW, when the GPL goes to court one of these days, gets shafted and then the judge goes on Oprah the next week to talk about cooking and his Beanie Baby collection we'll talk "convictions" and "nasty behavior". Until then either stop using the monopoly argument or do us all a favor and stop showing your incompetence by claiming the government is also in cahoots with the evil empire.

    2. Re:Got a better source AC? by twitter · · Score: 1

      Looks like you answered the question "no". Thanks for playing.

      --

      Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

    3. Re:Got a better source AC? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah. Listen, I just read through your colorful posting history. I wouldn't have replied to you in the first place if I'd known, but I have to ask you something: Do you really believe Microsoft is stalking you here? Really? You?? Some random, inconsequential guy on Slashdot (Slashdot!)? What a hoot!

  320. Re:Gates The reader's digest by settsu · · Score: 1

    Isn't it nice to know what you say always comes out perfect and your words are never paraphrased and rearranged to sound as bad as possible.

    Why don't you just start a mass chain eemail and clog up everyone's inbox with this vitriol.

    What a bunch of whiny hypocrites we've become.

    And isn't it sad to think I'll probably be accused of being a M$ employee or Bill's gimp or some Luddite for DARE even SOUNDNG like I'm defending Bill Gates.

    I ask you: Who's the communists?

    Why don't you just grab a camcorder and a bandana and film yourselves burning Bill in effigy. Post it on the internet to claim your 15 minutes and get it all over with. In the unlikely event an OS, or some large succesful softweare corporation, is ever perfected "enough", what wil you cry foul about then? That the sky isn't blue enough or the grass isn't green enough?

    How 'bout we shut our mouths and let our actions do the talking by supporting & promoting ANY exceptional software whether it's Open Source or not?!

    So I we Firefox and they put a 2-page ad in a big newspaper. So we use Linux and despise Windows. Whoop-dee-freakin'-doo! So what?!

    We act like that's gonna CHANGE the WORLD! Like some starving kid in Rwanda is going to sleep better tonight knowing Linux MAY have a 10% market share in 10 years.

    Empty altruitic rantings aside, where's the beef, people?! *phew...*

  321. Picking this nit by Sarge-001 · · Score: 1

    Christianity...ah no. Roman Catholicism, sure. Don't get the two confused, they are very different faiths. The Christian belives in salvation by faith alone, the Catholic doctrines (councils, specifically Vatican II) as are still written would still burn a Christian for that single belief. Don't know what Hilter said that he was and don't really care, he wasn't a Christian by any reasonable standard. Bush...Catholic. Inquisitions...very Catholic. I'm not saying that Christians(anity) are blameless but your examples don't fly.

    1. Re:Picking this nit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Christian belives in salvation by faith alone

      Then the Christian either hasn't read Matthew 25, or rejects it.

  322. Re:Yes, especially Atheism! by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

    You're mostly right, in that religion is an enabler. The point I think you're missing is that this is why religion is a Bad Thing. All wars really are over power, land, resources, etc., but to fight wars, you need soldiers willing to die for your cause, and usually a public that supports the war effort. It's not easy to get the general public incensed against another country just because their leader likes wars, wants more land, etc. Leaders have to appeal to something greater, and somehow make the enemy seem deserving of death. Religion is great for this, because it's completely fabricated, and requires no proof at all.

    Time and time again throughout history, religion has been used as a tool to get people to do horrible things they normally would not have done had they remained rational. This is why I think it's dangerous and should be shunned.

  323. Re:Yes, especially Atheism! by Slime-dogg · · Score: 1

    Doh. Religion hasn't killed anyone. I've never heard of someone deciding to follow a religion, then promptly falling dead because religion killed them.

    People kill people. Not religion. People abuse religion, and use that as an excuse to kill people, but that does not mean that religion has actually killed them.

    --
    You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.
  324. The knowledge of the world belongs to the people by cg0def · · Score: 1

    Bill Gates loves to talk about intelectual property and so do all the rest ofthe loosers of the world. However, the sad an bitter for them truth is that intelectual property exists only as bragging right and not something that you earn money from. What Gates refuses to admit or maybe even realize is that OSS is not about abolishing intelectual property. Everyone that creates any OSS has his/her name qutomatically stamped on it. OSS is about freedom to know everything about the software that you use and the way it was created. After all if it wasn't for all the scientist that discovered/created things described in textbooks Bill Gates would have had no chance to even turn a computer on. So is OSS communism? I think not. Closed sorce is the philosophy that resemble the communistic *control of information* and I really do not see Mr. Gates' point. I guess that's what happens when you flunck out of college.

  325. Capitalism v merchantilism, not communism by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 1

    10s of millions of deaths from communism sounds like an exageration.

    Anyway, we should state our position is anti-merchantilist (merchantilism is a non-free market economic system, which is popular with fascist regimes, and is capitalist in structure, but has strong elements of governemt control and distortion/hinderence of free markets) and that the intellectual "property" laws are pro-merchantilist and hence anti-capitalist, as they unlevel the playing field and rig the economic system to make someone succeed who might not otherwise.

    Don't make it us/communists versus them/capitalists. Make it us/capitalists versus them/merchantilists. Do it right and you can get both conservatives and liberals on your side.

    --
    Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
    1. Re:Capitalism v merchantilism, not communism by dabigpaybackski · · Score: 1
      10s of millions of deaths from communism sounds like an exageration.

      Unfortunately, it isn't. Dead innocents was the one thing communist regimes delivered in spades. But don't take my word for it, go look it up. Even the "conservative estimates" are quite amazing.

      --
      "OH SHIT, THERE'S A HORSE IN THE HOSPITAL!"
  326. Re:Yes, especially Atheism! by TheWickedKingJeremy · · Score: 1

    I don't think I said anything to disagree with you there. You might say that I am getting caught up on a technicality, but I like arguments to be precise, and the common argument that "different religions kill each other" just seems to be missing half the picture.

    I agree completely with what you said. I just think the distinction that I made is important as well.

    --

    my religion lies somewhere between buddhism and super monkey ball - pamphlet?
  327. Slashdot Comedy Central -- Irony Section by Corellon+Larethian · · Score: 1

    Who needs Bugs Bunny and Foghorn Leghorn?
    ---------

    The Windows ecosystem provides variety.

    So Media Center PC and Xbox become totally complementary.

    So no big problem; it's not that people have stopped using IE, it's just we've got lots of good ideas that can match and move ahead.

    Well, no one invests more in security of their browser than what we do on IE.

    So most of the results people get back today are irrelevant results. Deep analysis can take us much further, and that's why we're investing a lot, and you'll see us more very rapidly.

    When people want to manage a project with many companies involved--keeping data confidential, tracking and knowing what's going on--that's very crummy today compared to what it can be.

  328. What's the big deal about the video? by Himring · · Score: 1

    I downloaded and watched it (the feed was crap so I used Net Transport to capture), and Bill seemed pretty cool. The "wry smile" he gave Conan was just a smile as he focused on the something else, and I thought he handled himself well. Anyone who has ever supported a large presentation knows the pitfalls and problems. Technology'll get ya every time. Nothing at all villainous came out of that video when I watched it, nor was there any sense of failure -- just technology barfing up a little. This news blurb is pejorative.

    --
    "All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
    1. Re:What's the big deal about the video? by gubatron · · Score: 1

      Where did you download the video? The link on Slashdot snap takes me to a "Stand By" video. And I can't seem to find it anywhere on the net.

    2. Re:What's the big deal about the video? by Himring · · Score: 1

      That's weird. The link didn't do that yesterday when I DL'd it. I think others have posted links in the thread above to it. I hope you can find it.

      /apologize

      --
      "All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
  329. YELLOW PAGES!! by atcg · · Score: 0
    Why does everyone want to solve problems digitally when they are already solved physically? How much time is saved by having the ability to search for local pizza places opposed to looking it up in the phone book? 1 minute? Wow what progress!!!

    I remember a comedian who mocked us for thinking IM was so great when the telephone had already been around for a hundred years.

  330. mirror by Flunitrazepam · · Score: 1

    i would like to watch it, anyone have a video mirror?

    failing that, anyone have any hot porn?

    --
    1) Your analysis is based on bad assumptions so your result is way off. 2) You're a sick bastard for fucking a horse.
  331. Re:fp by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "You have the freedom to do anything but deny freedom to others" are not big fat chains, and are only strings to the sociopathically greedy.

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
  332. Have non-streaming version by Licorice101 · · Score: 1

    I have the non-streaming version but I have no where to host it (I'm at work). Where do people normally toss things up for slashdot mirroring? It is about 180MB for the whole thing. I couldn't bare to sit through the streaming (if you call that streaming) from that overloaded server. I kept missing the good part!

    1. Re:Have non-streaming version by diegocgteleline.es · · Score: 1

      If you have the crash, edit the few minutes and put it on emule or something

  333. I agree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sleep is for the weak!

  334. Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You have no idea what you're talking about.

    The fact that 90% of "first-world" countries are socialist and not communist (including Canada, pretty much all of Europe, Australia, New Zealand, and more) pretty much blows apart your theory that socialism and communism are inseperable.

    Idiot.

    1. Re:Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd love it if that was true but even in sweden we're lagging behind...
      Socialism should be a perfekt thing... for the people and by the people...
      truth 's slowly sinking in... people don't care about people...

  335. Re:YELLOW PAGES bigger than laptop / phone by mbaudis · · Score: 1

    well, for me, it is usually easier to use the laptop. i rarely carry the yellow pages around, neither in my backpack nor through the house. though easily enough, the only pizza place here is Leonardo's.

  336. Re:Yes, especially Atheism! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Christian nations were one by one taken over by muslims. The pope called for an army to take back the success of muslim armies.

    Does anyone hear lay blame on the American Indian for resisting the expansion of the "White Man?" Their resistance (what resistance there was) is understandable. So were Crusades I to III.

  337. Colorectal Cancer by Corellon+Larethian · · Score: 1

    "nor was there any sense of failure -- just technology barfing up a little."

    An ingrown hair is acute. It will eventually pass. Genetal Herpes simplex-B, on the other penis, is chronic. It's going to be there for awhile.

    Windows has been barfing, for awhile. I suspect colorectal cancer.

  338. Re:Yes, especially Atheism! by Vaughn+Anderson · · Score: 1
    On the whole, religion has killed more people than all forms of revolution and all wars over money, gold or resources

    Your statement is true from the standpoint that there are people that use the guise of religion as a reason for violence. But there are those also that use atheism for exact same purpose and reason.

    So is concept of religion the problem or is it man's falable nature the problem?

    Does a person's convictions and beliefs in "loving their neighbor" cause them to attack their neighbor? Or is it really the opposite, that they in fact do not have a true religion and actually desire to not obey commands like "thou shalt not kill".

    Muslems, Jews and Christians all claim they are religious, all claim the same roots (Abraham) yet, if they do not obey their own religious doctrines, how can their actions be blaimed on religion?

    Those that choose to be an atheist decide for themselves what is right and wrong, without a basis of a higher power directing them. But if you look at what is naturally considered "good", you will find these ideas mirror closely what is considered "good" by the standards of the root (Abraham) of the 3 major religions. Perhaps this is just a coincidence, but loving your neighbor or not loving your neighbor is a personal choice that if not done cannot be blamed on the concept, but only on a person's actions.

  339. Re:Yes, especially Atheism! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "It was the rise of the modern state and the adoption of Christianity as an official state ideology that made the Spanish Inquisition what is was -- a modern institution."

    Christianity was the official state ideology of the Roman Empire, by decree of Constantine.

    "Christendom" was the religious result of the Roman Empire and the Catholic church the remains of the Western Roman Empire.

    The rise of nation states marked the end of Christendom, the weakening of the power of the Catholic church as national secular law became superior to canon law.

  340. You forgot something by Duhavid · · Score: 1

    He wants it to be a Microsoft search thing.

    --
    emt 377 emt 4
  341. Re:Religion is exactly the ideological retort to u by maynard · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I slapped the flag on my livejournal with a link to the article. The point of flying it is not to link myself or free software to communism, but to point out the hate-mongering spread by billy G. Most of us have probably already made the comparisons you suggest, or something similar.

    Well, first of all, it's your blog. So take what I write in the spirit of friendly advice. Basically, yeah - most of the FS community understands what I'm writing. But don't think for a minute that Gates has the FS/geek movement in mind when he speaks to reporters. His words are to set the tone for columnists and other press, the business community elite, government officials, and finally what little public may be paying attention. He doesn't care what we think, he cares about setting a frame of reference for the press to repeat.

    With repetition ion the press comes popular belief, leading finally to general consensus opinion. It doesn't matter how rational or irrational the statement, if a statement is repeated enough the population as a whole will usually accept it as fact. And once so, it is the general population who will look at geeks running this flag and misinterpret it as a stand in solidarity for communism. You could even directly state your opposition to communism and it wouldn't matter, because the image evokes such an emotionally powerful taboo. There is nothing rational about this process, but people (as a population) do react in this manner - particularly when an assertion, factual or not, is linked to an emotionally powerful image. --M

  342. Communism and Capitalism by WebCowboy · · Score: 1

    Actually, isn't a government granted monopoly (copyright) and "incentives" more communist than capitalist?

    Patents, copyrights and trademarks are are quite ANTI-communist because part of what they do is allow one to claim ownership of ideas, and Communists do not like anyone other than the state to own anything. They are a capitalist in a sense for the same reason--they create a legal "thing" that can be given a monetary value and owned.

    However, the above-mentioned IP instruments (especially as they exist today) would make Adam Smith roll in his grave. They do NOT make for an unhindered free-market economy. Heavy-handed IP laws could in fact be applied towards creating a Soviet-like centrally-planned economy: Think of it--a government agency has the power to grant and revoke exclusive rights to inventions, media, software, etc. It could play a central role in a government run by an elite band of old cronies. The result would be a money-driven, privately-owned (by an elite classs) economy--highly capitalist but very restrictive, with high barriers to participation.

    In short, IP laws that are excessive in creating artificial "things" to own and granting too much exclusive power to these things would contribute greatly to the emergence of Economic Fascism. Bill Gates is, in essence, an Economic Fascist to a degree. Someone like Jack Valenti or Darl McBride are extremely fascist from an economic standpoint.

    I think that the whole left-right single-axis spectrum oversimplifies reality, and I'm suprised someone as smart as Gates doesn't express that in his interview. He brands IP-rights reformers as "Communists" when not all of them are. I'd venture to say most in the US are Economic Libertarians (ie. want less government interference) and have no problem with making money at all.

    I hold a fairly libertarian view on things--leave people alone to innovate, and let people be free to compete. There needs to be some level of IP rights in the interest of fairness, to ensure creators are free to chose how their works are used (GNU is unenforceable without a copyright law for example), but such things are privliges, not fundamental rights, and as such the more power you are granted the more RESPONSIBILITY you have. In other words, if you want to patent, copyright, trademark and DRM your works to death feel free to try...HOWEVER it is YOUR responsibility to enforce those conditions---you should not make the government responsible to do your work for you.

  343. Re:fp by Malek+the+Damned · · Score: 1

    There's a wonderful little program for downloading mms: streams called mimms. Get the .asx, find the .wmv link, fire mimms at is, and watch your drive whirr.

    it's in debian unstable for sure, a quick google will find it for distros without it.

  344. Re:Yes, especially Atheism! by hey! · · Score: 1

    Sure, but there were a couple of years between the fall of the western Roman empire and the final reconquest of Spain in 1492.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  345. Wasn't an Xbox.... by vwjeff · · Score: 1

    The speaker was holding an Xbox controller but I bet what was seen was a video played on a Windows computer.

  346. A tax on schools by 4of12 · · Score: 1

    Remember, technologies have changed

    Yes, technologies have changed.

    But that does not imply that laws should be changed to create artificial markets.

    Technology exists now to record every instance of a person learning or expressing an idea in public. Eg, I sit in a lecture hall and learn about electronic circuit design.

    Does that mean that a marketplace should be setup to exact a toll on each of those transmissions of information by changing the laws?

    Before dismissing the idea because "it doesn't compare to current situation", consider that people have invested millions of dollars and much of their time coming up with these ideas - it would be "unfair" to let those valuable ideas flow from one person to another without compensating the originators/funders of the original idea, eh?

    --
    "Provided by the management for your protection."
    1. Re:A tax on schools by AviLazar · · Score: 1

      Why do you call it an artificial market? Because there is no physical store? The market is there - the people make the market not its location. You can have a mall - and call it a market - without people it is just a big building full of stuff.

      Your last paragraph puzzles me...it seems to imply that I do NOT think people should be compensated for their ideas and the millions they have invested...I have never argued that point before so I do not know why you are asking me this question. Unless I am misreading your statement, so I ask that you would rephrase it.

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    2. Re:A tax on schools by bnenning · · Score: 1

      Why do you call it an artificial market?

      Because as my current sig notes, the marginal cost is zero and thus government intervention is required in order to create artificial scarcity.

      --
      How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
    3. Re:A tax on schools by AviLazar · · Score: 1

      Really? So games like Halo 2 cost nothing to produce?

      Now your sig (the first part) is cute in theory, it is not reality. Since the rest of the business world operates on profit - so should the software world. Stop trying to get things for free.

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
  347. Re:Yes, especially Atheism! by arose · · Score: 1
    the Crusades (which was a defensive war

    Yes, like defending newfound territories against the pagans that lived there before in the Northern Crusades.
    --
    Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
  348. Your web site is seriously cool by maynard · · Score: 1

    The selectable skins, background pics, etc is pretty cool. BTW: did you write that essay? --M

    1. Re:Your web site is seriously cool by anaesthetica · · Score: 1

      Thanks a bunch. Unfortunately I don't add content to it much anymore, but I still do like to toy around with new themes. That essay is actually written by a girl at my old high school. She emailed me to talk about this hang-out that my friends and I started. It has apparently continued to be a rather select hangout on the campus, even now, five years later.

  349. Here's a solution: Playing without MS media player by mrjb · · Score: 1

    I wonder why this was moderated off-topic. Don't we all want to see the video? Unfortunately I suspect mac doesn't work with mplayer (.dll codecs are most likely 80x86 only), but for some Linux users the following may work. Get the .asx file. With mplayer, you could start playing this. mplayer -playlist ms_ces_20050105_300.asx But what is more interesting to the parent, it that the stream can be captured: mplayer -dumpstream -dumpfile x.dump -playlist ms_ces_20050105_300.asx I think the resulting file is a .wmv, so you should rename x.dump to something.wmv to allow it to play. I don't have the bandwidth, but this way I'm sure someone could put up a mirror. Extra bonus points for who does!

    --
    Visit http://ringbreak.dnd.utwente.nl/~mrjb/growingbettersoftware to download your free copy of the book
  350. mod-up(); by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously, mod this guy up you god damn commies.

  351. Re:Yes, especially Atheism! by Qzukk · · Score: 1

    Religion hasn't killed anyone. I've never heard of someone deciding to follow a religion, then promptly falling dead because religion killed them.

    You're just begging for it.

    --
    If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
  352. Gates interview by ewe2 · · Score: 1

    There are a number of things in the Gates interview that I take exception to, but to cover the communist slur first, any American businessman who wants to get his way is going to call any opposition to that desire a "communist". It's your classic syllogism: "they" want to restrict me = communists want to restrict me = "they" are communists. Add to that the perennial canard that left-wing=communist and you've got a winner. This goes back to Henry Ford to whom Bill more than resembles these days (shudder).


    No prizes for guessing that Bill still wants to be the centre of attention, but do you really want targeted advertising that you can't avoid? Do you want the centre of your home controlled by Microsoft DRM? And there's that horrible word 'ecosystem' again. And the Xbox vampire marches on..


    What to make of the Firefox comments? At once complacent (like much of the interview's tone), but also threatening, just CEO-speak for 'I still keep up to date'? To say nothing of his IE security bravado.


    Now WTF is the Office 'franchise'? How can a software product be a franchise? What does Bill want us to believe when he calls it that?


    Finally, if it wasn't obvious before, Bill spells it out: Microsoft WANTS everyone on broadband. Probably because it makes XP look more productive.

    --
    insecurity asks the wrong question irritation gives the wrong answer
  353. Re:Yes, especially Atheism! by arose · · Score: 1

    You can not use atheism to justify murder, because there are no rules to enforce unlike in (most) religions.

    --
    Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
  354. Am i the only one by usernotfound · · Score: 1

    who noticed that Gates likes to use the word "rich"??

    --
    You call it excessive, I call it ambitious.
  355. Re:Yes, especially Atheism! by VAXcat · · Score: 1

    What about the Crusade against the peace loving Cathars?

    --
    There is no God, and Dirac is his prophet.
  356. Heh by Niet3sche · · Score: 1
    He also gave an interview to CNET, where he described anyone who doesn't support ever-increasing intellectual property laws as "communists".

    ... Score one for Microsoft Public Relations*.

    * Imagine a "buhh-ZING!" noise here.

  357. Re:Yes, especially Atheism! by VAXcat · · Score: 1

    Actually, Galileo made much of his own problems with the Catholic Church. A better example of abuse of a man of science by the church would be Giordano Bruno...he didn't get house arrest for his ideas...

    --
    There is no God, and Dirac is his prophet.
  358. allow me to summarize by {tele}machus_*1 · · Score: 1

    Allow me to summarize about 90% of the comments for you: M$.

    News flash, folks: Gates is not the devil incarnate, nor does he have some mad scheme to become the ruler of all existence. Take the tin foil off.

    In a more on-topic vein: it is poetic justice to watch Gates suffer through the same bugs that all his consumers must endure.

  359. Don't wipe your own arse, outsource it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Only louzy commies wipe their own, those who sincerely worry about prospering of market economy buy this service after organizing an ouction for lowest price.

  360. Re:Yes, especially Atheism! by Vaughn+Anderson · · Score: 1
    You can not use atheism to justify murder, because there are no rules to enforce unlike in (most) religions.

    There being no rules is exactly why you _can_ use it as a way to justify murder. Having no rules vs having rules is not a logical reason to say one belief system causes violence and another doesn't.

    The question arises then, what law or belief in atheism says murder is wrong? There is a natural understanding that murder is wrong, but a violent anarchist, or other such forms of belief that support violence, has no moral restrictions and no other person of atheistic beliefs has a right, under their own chosen belief system, to tell another atheist that murder is wrong.

    So is it better for society to have at least moral ground work that at the least maintains a social preasure to be non-violent versuses a belief system that by it's own nature cannot hold another person accountable for their actions?

    At the very least if a "Christian" commits a violent crime it can be called against him that he violated his own beliefs and is guilty based on a community standard of what it means to be "Christian".

    I do not disagree that religion has been the justification for war (by Christians, Jews and Moslems), but it was not done by the followers of Christ it was done by those that merely claimed they followed him. And for the sake of argument, even if a Christian did commit murder (as is recorded in the Bible for sure), the whole point of this religion is that the believers are supposed to feel sorry for their actions and repent. There is no requirement of repentance of any kind in atheism.

    So if you had to choose between living in Soviet Russia (an atheistic society) vs the USA (mainly Christian/Jewish society), which would you choose? (setting aside the fact that many people may not act on their professed belief systems)

  361. "The Inquisition" - lyrics to cherish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Inquisition (Let's begin)
    The Inquisition (Look out sin)
    We have a mission to convert the Jews (Jew, Jew, Jew, Jew, Jew, Jew, Jew)
    We're gonna teach them wrong from right.
    We're gonna help them see the light
    and make an offer that they can't refuse. (That those Jews just can't refuse)
    Confess, don't be boring.
    Say yes, don't be dull.
    A fact you're ignoring:
    It's better to lose your skull cap than your skull (or your govalt!)
    The Inquisition (what a show)
    The Inquistion (here we go)
    We know you're wishin' that we'd go away.
    But the Inquisition's here and it's here to stay!

    "I was sitting in a temple. I was minding my own business.
    I was listening to a lovely Hebrew mass.
    Then these Papus persons plungered and they throw me in a dungeon and they shove a red hot poker up my ass.
    Is that considerate? Is that polite?
    And not a tube of Preperation H in sight!"
    "I'm sittin' flickin' chickens and I'm lookin' throught the pickins' and suddenly thes goyim pull down valls.
    I didn't even know them and they grabbed my by the stoghum and started playing ping pong with my balls!
    Ooh, the agony! Ooh, the shame!
    To make my privates public for a game?"

    The Inquisition (what a show)
    The Inquisition (here we go)
    We know you're wishin' that we'd go away.
    But the Inquisition's here and it's here to-
    "Hey Toquemada, walk this way."
    "I just got back from the Auto-de-fe."
    "Auto-de-fe? What's an Auto-de-fe?"
    "It's what you oughtn't to do but you do anyway."
    Will you convert? "No, no, no, no."
    Will you confess? "No, no, no, no."
    Will you revert? "No, no, no, no."
    Will you say yes? "No, no, no, no!"
    Now I asked in a nice way, I said, "Pretty please."
    I bent their ears, now I'll work on their knees!
    "Hey Toquemada, walk this way. We got a little game that you might wanna play, so pull that handle, try you're luck."
    "Who knows, Toq, you might win a buck!"

    "How we doin', any converts today?"
    "Not a one, nay, nay, nay."
    "We flattened their fingers, we branded their buns!
    Nothing is working! Send in the nuns!"

    The Inquisition, what a show.
    The Inquisition, here we go.
    We know you're wishin' that we'd go away!
    So all you Muslims and you Jews
    We got big news for all of yous:
    You'd better change your point of views TODAY!
    'Cause the Inquisition's here and it's here to stay!


    "The Inquisition" - History of the World, Part I
  362. Re:I spy a gnu emem by afroborg · · Score: 1

    Slashdot needs more posts like this

    Keeps the community spirit alive...

    --
    my sig could kick your sig's arse...
  363. I'm glad it bit Gates more publicly then me... by divemaster · · Score: 1

    Last I told my shiny new Win Media Center (which banished my Tivo to the kids room upstairs..) to record Alias. It puts a big red dot on the listing and appears to dutifully record. Off to bed I go safe in the knowledge Billium's trusty device will have it glorious quality the following afternoon when I can watch it with the missus. No lost sleep.

    When I check this afternoon ... nothing. A couple of PBS Mars NOVA programs from the day before so recording are working - no Alias. No explanation - probably some MS DRM bullsh!t. Thankfully I check the TIVO which has saved me - Yep Syd (ok Jenffr ) in her nighty fighting for truth and justice! I had a set up a season pass last year and luckily its still finding the goodies.

    First thing I'm setting up a Fedora/MythTV box with a couple of pcHDTV-3000 cards that still ignore the broadcast flag and pipe my programs to whereever in the house.

    Serves Bill right - Is it that his minions for millions can't program their way out of a wet sack or his aim's for 'my stuff' are some evil DRM lacky's wet dream? Either way stick him and his flying monkey boy.

  364. Re:Yes, especially Atheism! by TheWickedKingJeremy · · Score: 1

    The question arises then, what law or belief in atheism says murder is wrong?

    The law of the land says that murder is wrong, and that is all you need.

    but a violent anarchist, or other such forms of belief that support violence, has no moral restrictions and no other person of atheistic beliefs has a right, under their own chosen belief system, to tell another atheist that murder is wrong.

    Again, the law of the land dictates that it is illegal to murder someone. Atheism may not "bestow" that fact in the same way that a religion may dictate it, but that is irrelevant. There are other, secular and logical sources of what is right and wrong in a society. I think one of the easiest to understand examples of this came from the comedian Robin Williams. It was during the recent church-pedophila scandals, and there was all this talk about whether the church would act and remove the priests from their duty. Williams joked that that was ridiculous, and said "remember, its not only a sin... its also a felony." There was no need to consult the church or take their input at all - we have the laws and the understanding, and the moral, correct choice of action can be administered purely from a legal standpoint.

    So if you had to choose between living in Soviet Russia (an atheistic society) vs the USA (mainly Christian/Jewish society), which would you choose?

    That is a loaded question, because there are many other factors that seperate the two... A better question would be an Athiest USA and a Christian USA.

    --

    my religion lies somewhere between buddhism and super monkey ball - pamphlet?
  365. I can't believe this... by DesScorp · · Score: 1

    You, and LOTS of people here are defending communism. For people that supposedly love freedom so much, how the hell can you all defend communism? And you ARE defending it, when you say "Oh, the USSR wasn't really communist. Real communism is better". Have any of you people actually read the manifesto? Christ Almighty, Marx advocates horrible things. He brags about how communism will demolish the family, as it's just another device to create free labor. He advocates violent bloodshed on a massive scale. He disavows any kind of property rights. Communism, wherever it is, has failed, and always WILL fail eventually, because it's EVIL. Mankind will not forever tolerate it, no matter where it is. It can only take root and hold on by force of arms and oppression. Communism, whether under Russian, East German, or Chinese rule is a dictarship, and any attempt to start a communist government, no matter how pure in intent, will always BECOME a dictatorship. Because individual choice will always end at the tip of a bullet in the back of those that decide to no longer participate. Lenin knew communism was unworkable any other way.

    Throw Godwin's Law around all you want, but Communism of any form is just as evil as Nazism ever was. Put aside your intellectual arrogance and you'll see that. You shame yourselves when you say "communism isn't that bad". Tell that to the people of Eastern Europe, tell that to the citizens of Taiwan, tell that to the Cubans that risk their lives to escape Castro.

    --
    Life is hard, and the world is cruel
    1. Re:I can't believe this... by brsmith4 · · Score: 1

      With all due respect, go fuck yourself. I in no way portrayed myself as a proponent for communism. You fucking people can't tell a non-biased statement from propaganda! Its amazing what the media has done to you. You have my pity.

  366. Hey you sceptics, Gates is good. by linklater · · Score: 1

    He's great PR for Apple.

  367. Re: Communists by maynard · · Score: 1

    Funny thing - since we got together I've met many people who used to live in the Eastern Bloc - 100% of them (the ones I've met) think that Communism is about the worst thing to ever infect the planet. The scariest thing (at least to some of the posters in this thread) is that most of them now vote Republican.

    Yup, I know a bunch of immagrints to the US from Eastern Block states and Russia proper, and you're right: just about all of them hate Communism. And you're also right that many of them tend to vote Republican. I think that while they may oppose the ideological system that brought them so much personal grief, they're still - at heart - statist authoritarians. They want a powerful government and leader to run things, which explains the success of both Putin and Bush pretty well. That both Putin's and Bush's policies focus on centralization of state power in no way hinders their popularity to these folks, primarily because they carefully use polling and focus groups to avoid public relations disasters. So, make sure not to call it "communist" and the population, to busy surviving to care, will put up with most anything. Feh. In this regard, Russians are no smarter or stupider than Americans; all populations of people are too dumb to notice. --M

  368. Why not terrorists? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am surprised by Bill's use of antiquated 'communists' instead of much more modern and scary 'terrorists'. Maybe American government got monopoly on it.

  369. Re:Pointing out logical fallacies may be useless.. by autophile · · Score: 1
    However, I have a hard time imagining a musician (or any other content creator) sitting down to write a song (or any other content for that matter) but deciding not to because it would only remain protected until 75 years after their death...

    Well, I could be undead.

    --Rob

    --
    Towards the Singularity.
  370. IP laws and Big Biz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Before I start on my real comment, I have to say that Gates comment, "...no one invests more in security of their browser than what we do on IE," is horrifyingly funny. They must be throwing good money after bad over there at MS! If they spend so much, where is it going? It sure isn't solving anything.

    Anyway, the commentary from Gates on IP laws is exactly what we would expect from any big business involved in media of any type. They think the system works because it makes them rich while our ability to actually enjoy the copies we legally bought in any manner we choose is hamstrung. So, the end result is that YES, we do need to reform our IP laws. As has been mentioned so very many times before, the big media companies complained when the tape player came out, claiming the death of the industry was at hand. Oh how I wish that were so with what they have wrought on us now! So they keep complaining with each new technology that makes it easier for the legitimate owner of a proper copy of the media to move it around in anyway s/he sees fit. Hey, big news to the media giants: It's called Legitimate Use! I can make a copy of any music, movie, or even book I want for my own, personal use! Just as long as I don't make money from it or give it to people who would otherwise buy it elsewhere, it's fine and legal. Therefore, Gates' comment on those of us who wish to see the IP laws reformed being communists is way out of line. What we are is what we have always been: Freedom Loving Americans (and English, Scottish, German, Russian, Pakistani, ect...)! Here in the Good Old USofA, we are suffering from the slow erosion of many of our rights, and this is yet another one to slowly be taken away.

    And, no, I am not some anarchist or militant. I'm just a regular Joe who votes his mind, not the parties' minds.

  371. Re:Yes, especially Atheism! by Vaughn+Anderson · · Score: 1
    The law of the land says that murder is wrong, and that is all you need.

    I agree that our current laws set a standard, but this debate did not start from a perspective of law vs religion, it's about the claim that religion causes war/violence, where as non-relgion (atheism) does not. Whether or not we have laws is irrelevant in this regard. The Law I was refering to was religious or belief based laws, not public governmental laws.

    There was no need to consult the church or take their input at all

    I agree, this is quite ridiculous to consider from even a basic level of reasoning. Though keep in mind that if the people of the Catholic Church really believed and followed that Bible those preists (the ones not thrown in jail) would have no parishioners to speak to on Sunday. So is seems that any "Christian" that supports a preist like that would then be a party to their deeds.

    But, an atheist has no moral ground to accuse the preist of wrong doing outside of law, which from a society perspective is a deeper issue.

    A better question would be an Athiest USA and a Christian USA

    Yes, perhaps it was loaded, but viewed strictly from the sense that Russia actively persecuted religion vs the US which has actively promoted it, from a religious stand point (and even for the athiest) it would be better to live in the US, purely on the basis of religious freedom. (And all the societal benefits that come from that freedom.)

  372. Too unbelievable by MrHen · · Score: 1

    Whoa... no self-respecting programmer uses Bondi Blue as their development machine...

  373. I agree not all of Disney is bad... by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    When the 75 year issue comes up I almost hate hearing Disney being brought up as an example. While Mickey has been around for a long time, its not like Walt did Steamboat Willie and that was it. Most of the Disney property has continued to be promoted, refined, added (and yes, a lot of the added is crap), but the point is that they continue to invest and promote the "product" and it didn't just sit in a can all this time.

    I agree that some of the updates they have done have been fine, it's mostly just the very newest stuff I take issue with. I am not exactly a Disney fan per se but for some reason I end up at DisneyWorld at least once a year...

    However I also think that the 75 year cap has stopped some potentially very cool things from being developed by people outside Disney. Imagine the interesting Mickey products we would have if they were not limted to the imagination of Disney employees. From the other angle it seems like there is some cool stuff Disney could do with things that should be in the public domain but are not (though that case is rarer since all Disney has to do is pay for rights, and few people will refuse Disney).

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  374. Re:Yes, especially Atheism! by arose · · Score: 1
    it's about the claim that religion causes war/violence, where as non-relgion (atheism) does not
    No, it's about how believers are manipulated to approve of and support certain types of violence/wars. Burn the witch! Slay the unbelievers!
    --
    Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
  375. TORRENT please by rasz · · Score: 0

    Torrent please, the link is tead (some music and "please stand by as we cut out the embarassment" :/)

  376. Re:Yes, especially Atheism! by arose · · Score: 1

    I have lived in the Soviet Union (drop the 'Soviet Russia', it's wrong) and I can tell you that it certainly wasn't atheistic nor were all believers actively persecuted (as far as I know it was only Stalin doing that). The societies are largely similar in their moral values.

    --
    Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
  377. Re:Yes, especially Atheism! by Too+Much+Noise · · Score: 1

    Funny, you seem to have read thar wrong. From your post:

    The Inquisitions, also contrary to popular belief, did not kill people. It was the authority of Kings who didn't know theology who killed people.

    From your link:

    Some traditional Catholic apologetics about the Inquisition is untenable, for example, the claim that the Church did not put heretics to death, the state did. Yes, but the Church urged the state to do so, and churchmen hardly escaped responsibility through this legal maneuver.

    The inquisitorial statements on the Cathars also make for an interesting read ... high-minded and enlightened indeed.

    Also, about your assumption on the first Crusade being retaliatory. Of course, the Pope could claim all the way to Heaven's gate (see the speech of Urban II) that it was the plea brought forth by Peter the Hermit from Jerusalem that was the sole motive (and for some of those who fought the preachers actually had been the reason for enrolling) but that does not make it true. The Byzantyne Empire seemed unable to stop the Turks and, once it fell, what was next? Towards the West, Hungary, Germany, Italy? Heck, the Ottoman Empire eventually sieged Wien at one point, so any fears would have been founded. By this argument, it was more of a preemptive strike. Not to mention economical reasons (trade routes anyone?) and political ones. The Byzantine Empire itself asked for help - how often is it that your opponent, in this case the Eastern Church, asks you for help? Remember, this was immediately after the Eastern and Roman Churches excomunicated and anathemaed each other in 1054 (under Patriarch Caerularius and Pope Leo IX) So a move to delay the Turks and expand the political and economical influence of the Pope in the East is hardly a retaliatory strike.

  378. Re:Religion is exactly the ideological retort to u by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Better:

    Gate's argument is like destroying the church bake sale for the profit-rights of McDonalds.

    Or some other NON-local restaurant.

  379. As my father used to say..... by trinity93 · · Score: 1

    Kill them with kindness!

    --
    We substituted the coffee Slashdot normally drinks with "Sandoz Crystals", Lets see if they notice the difference
  380. Deja Vu by ThoraX695 · · Score: 1

    As I recall, a similiar event occurred almost seven years ago when a preview version of Windows 98 blue screened during a presentation.

    The more things change, the more things stay the same.

    --
    --ThoraX695
  381. Re:I see**2 your point but... by Pfhorrest · · Score: 1

    I don't like arbitrary authority, so I don't like big centralized government. On the other hand, I cannot think of another way to slow down the assholes who want to charge me for the privilege of working (using "their" "intellectual" "property"). It's a dilemma that I don't know how to resolve.

    I too have faced this dilemma, and believe the solution is simple (though of course, hard to impliment in the face of all the powerful people who would oppose it). Just remove one artificial construct from the economic system: corporations.

    Corporations are not people and do not exist in nature. They are like patents or trademarks: a license granting certain extra rights to certain people and removing rights from others. Remove the concept of corporations and keep the rest of the American economy the same, and I imagine you'd see a much more fair market place.

    You could still have "companies", but ultimately at the head of each company would be it's sole proprietor, who would be ultimately responsible for the actions of the company (although, of course, not for individual employees acting outside company policy). In effect, you would have an economy based strictly on people working for other people, with no artificial 'people' (corporations) involved; the most efficient organization of who-works-for-who would provide for the most efficient "company".

    True, if a large company of people all working directly for one man was extremely successful, he would be a very wealthy man, but in such a case, I'd say such a phenominally successful manager would deserve it. He would have to make the company that successful using all the same above-the-law, clean-cut rules as everyone else, and take legal and financial responsibility for any screwups made under his watch. Thus you'd see much less underhanded illegitimate activity *coughENRONcough*, and you'd probably also see much less conglomeration under a single entity, and more cooperation between smaller, independant companies, to disperse the risk and responsibility around.

    Think of it as the democratization of economy and the abolishment of the old corporate monarchies.

    --
    -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
    "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
  382. Re:fp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    GPL does, but BSD doesn't. GPL and BSD are very different licenses, you should check them out before giving a lesson to Bill Gates. GPL says everything out there should be free, whereas BSD respects that. That's why Bill Gates do not say anything against BSD, they target GPL though, because GPL is a direct attack to Microsoft and other commercial software vendors, well except Apple of course, since Slashdot loves Apple.

  383. Digital lifestyle by Cow007 · · Score: 1

    It would seem that Apple has been more successful then M$ in implementing convergence technologies into its operating system. OSX is virtually crash free and easy to use and is extremely extensible due to it's modular architecture. I would really like to see Apple releasing software however to allow easy storage and playback of TV and Movies. (it is possible to do this but the technologies that enable it need to be integrated into a nice clean iApp) What good is the software that does it for if its not reliable and unreasonably limited by DRM technology Mr Gates?

    --
    411 Y0UR 8453 4R3 8310NG 70 U5!! -NSA
  384. Nobody by wot.narg · · Score: 1

    "Well, no one invests more in security of their browser than what we do on IE."

    Bwhahahahahahahah

    --
    Roses are red
    Violets are blue
    In Soviet Russia
    Poems write you!
  385. Re:Yes, especially Atheism! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Doh. Religion hasn't killed anyone. I've never heard of someone deciding to follow a religion, then promptly falling dead because religion killed them.


    Some religions prohibit certain medical treatments for one reason or another; this has most certainly led to otherwise-preventable deaths of both adherents and children under their "care".


    Notable examples are Christian "Scientists" and Jehovah's Witnesses

  386. Re: Communists by scot4875 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What I find sad is that there are so many people out there that actually believe in these 'ivory tower liberals.'

    What I find scary is that the United States, as a whole, is so rabidly anti-intellectual. Mention any remotely intellectual activity to an 'uneducated' person (bridge, LUGs, discussion groups), and they'll immediately assume you're a snob.

    --Jeremy

    --
    Jesus was a liberal
  387. Gates on v1 by Mad+Merlin · · Score: 0
    "We've had a fair share of success and a fair share of things we've had to do version two and three of," Gates said.

    Because they start at version 1 how often?

  388. Transcript for those at work by bradly+f · · Score: 0

    Here is a link to the transcript of the interview with Bil and Conan. I'm a link!

  389. Recording Industry Price Fixing? by Tavor · · Score: 1
    I am saying that it should be the IP's owners decision, not anyone elses decision, to set the price.
    That's all well and good until the RIAA is found to be fixing the price of CD's across the board. Absolute power corrupts absolutly, and right now the RIAA and MPAA have far too much power. Want to take a guess at how corrupt the music industry is?
    --
    Windows has detected an undetectable error.
  390. The rich... by Cryptnotic · · Score: 1

    The rich don't say "screw the poor" because there's no money in screwing the poor. Even if you do it in large numbers, there's still no money in it. Now, if you give the poor people factory jobs making your widgets to sell to the middle class people who have some money, now you're talking.

    --
    My other first post is car post.
    1. Re:The rich... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So it only works for narrowly defined values of screw?

  391. Re:Anarchist, dammit... by Cryptnotic · · Score: 1

    I for one am glad that there are more people that think like the AC and fewer people who think like you. That, combined with democracy, makes the world a better place.

    --
    My other first post is car post.
  392. Some key quotes from TFA... by Sarcastic+Assassin · · Score: 1
    About IE:
    Well, no one invests more in security of their browser than what we do on IE.
    To put this in context, he goes on to say that he wants people to turn on auto-updates, because "you can know that there are hundreds of very smart people who are constantly improving your browser and making sure that you're safe".

    About "communists":
    Q: In recent years, there's been a lot of people clamoring to reform and restrict intellectual-property rights. It started out with just a few people, but now there are a bunch of advocates saying, "We've got to look at patents, we've got to look at copyrights." What's driving this, and do you think intellectual-property laws need to be reformed?
    A: No, I'd say that of the world's economies, there's more that believe in intellectual property today than ever. There are fewer communists in the world today than there were. There are some new modern-day sort of communists who want to get rid of the incentive for musicians and moviemakers and software makers under various guises. They don't think that those incentives should exist.
    Silly logic, if you ask me.
  393. Re:Pointing out logical fallacies may be useless.. by Leo+McGarry · · Score: 1

    Very few people (that I know of, anyway) are actually in favor of abolishing all intellectual property. Rather, most seem to advocate more moderate limits.

    Let's drop this statement on the floor and see if the cat sniffs at it. Change "intellectual property" to "privacy" and see if it holds together.

    Very few people (that I know of, anyway) are actually in favor of abolishing all privacy. Rather, most seem to advocate more moderate limits.

    Oops. That doesn't sound right at all, does it?

    Rights are rights. You can't pick and choose which ones you think are worth protecting.

  394. Re:fp by Leo+McGarry · · Score: 1

    Gifts? No. The GPL is not a gift; it's an allegedly binding contract that drastically abbreviates the rights of all recipients.

    The BSD "license" is a gift. The GPL is not.

    Of course, even the BSD "license" is patently unnecessary. It's just silliness designed to make people feel good about themselves. The correct term for what people usually refer to as the "BSD license" is "public domain."

  395. MOD PARENT UP INFORMATIVE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please...?

  396. Re:Anarchist, dammit... by Clock+Nova · · Score: 1

    Do you honestly think the events of the last four years have made any part of the world a better place for anyone?

    Wait, it has gotten a lot better for the wealthy, so you must be among them.

    If you have nothing constructive to offer, stay silent.

    --
    There they were, sitting in the van with all those dials, and the cat was dead. -V. Marchetti, CIA
  397. Re:Anarchist, dammit... by Cryptnotic · · Score: 1

    Wait, it has gotten a lot better for the wealthy, so you must be among them.

    No, I'm not, but I'd like to be. So I'd rather live in a society where that is possible than one where it is impossible or dependant on who you know in the Party. Also, I'm sure the average wealthy person loses far more money when the economy tanks than the average poor person. The last four years were like any other four years. Stuff happens. Overall though, I know that dispite evil dictators and tragic events, the general state of humanity is definately improving on a worldwide scale. The rising tide does lift all boats, as they say.

    Anyway, I'm saying three things: You're wrong. You're outnumbered. I'm glad about this.

    Good day.

    --
    My other first post is car post.
  398. Re: Communists by ErikTheRed · · Score: 1
    Mention any remotely intellectual activity to an 'uneducated' person [...] and they'll immediately assume you're a snob.
    Mention any remotely intellectual idea to an 'educated' person and they'll probably villify you with a religious fervor that has more of a place (or at least should have more of a place) in the dark ages than it does today. Rational intellectual discourse on any much any subject is nearly impossible due to the rabid and dogmatic mindset of the majority of people these days.
    --

    Help save the critically endangered Blue Iguana
  399. Crash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Women are like buses.

  400. Economic System Death Match by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Communism" hasn't killed any more people that "capitalism" has.

    Properly executed (no pun intended), communism would kill a lot less people than capitalism.

  401. Re:Anarchist, dammit... by Clock+Nova · · Score: 1

    The wealthy may lose more when the economy tanks, but then, they have more to lose. The average wealthy person will still come out well-off, so that point is moot.

    The last four years were nothing like the previous eight, and there are so many reasons why this is so that I couln't possibly scratch the surface here. I'll just offer you one word: deficit.

    Okay, three more words: war of aggression.

    Anyway, I'm saying three things: You're wrong. You're outnumbered. I'm glad about this.

    This ridiculous statement tells me all I need to know about your manner of thinking.

    Oh, and one more thing: I'd rather that no one be poor than for myself to be rich.

    --
    There they were, sitting in the van with all those dials, and the cat was dead. -V. Marchetti, CIA
  402. Think Different, Komrade! ;) by JessLeah · · Score: 1

    Speaking of communists... A little self-satirizing parody (n.b.: This pic was made on a current-model iBook running Mac OS X, using The GIMP): http://jlb.twu.net/tmp/ThinkDifferent.png

  403. Re: The Most Dangerous Place in the World by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You've got it about right.

    The most dangerous place in the world seems to
    be standing between a capitalist and money he doesn't yet own, but is compelled to believe is rightfully his or that he thinks can be his with judicious use of a number of well worn tools 1) monopoly power, 2) bribing the morally bankrupt but nonetheless self-righteous political class, or as last resort 3) simply killing anyone who stands in his way (but in the name of the State, the Lord, Democracy, or whatever is convenient to whipping up the mob). The rest either gleefully stand in line, hoping to feed from the crumbs that fall from the table or are crushed by capitalists pushing each other out of the few seats at the table.

    Unfortunately, "Power to the People" is a lousy slogan to combat such a menace, as those who attain it eventually shoot themselves in the foot or succumb to the greed Jesus warned us of.

    Its time to face the reality that we have no choice but to turn the world over to the cockroaches and the bacteria. They will out compete or outlast humanity in the long run anyway. Humans are just neophyte usurpationists.
    The meek will inherit the earth, its just that the meek won't be human.

    Jesus was right. No rich man will every enter the gates of heaven.

  404. A message from G.W. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See, they got this saying here in Tennessee... The got this saying in Texas, I assmume they got it in Tennessee... Fool me once, shame... shame. You see, fool and his foolishness - I won't be a fool again.

    Now, you see, our whole stategery is to have the NSA anal-ize the code, the stuff what tells the computer what to do and all, and then remove the parts that threaten our way of life, our freedom. Those that say the NSA can't secure us from this terroristic threat are misunderestimating this administration.

    Right, Dick?

  405. Re: Communists by ArtStone · · Score: 1

    For a good example of how the Soviet Union protected the environemnt for the benefit of the people, google on "Aral Sea". Formerly the world's 4th largest inland sea, it is now a salt water desert which no longer supports life.

    If you don't like that example, consider the Trabant in East Germany. A car with a two stroke engine that spewed smoke and no pollution control technology at all up until the fall of the Berlin Wall... the car body was made primarily from a non-recycleable resin called Duraplast which continues to be an environmental nightmare..

    http://digilander.libero.it/cuoccimix/ENGLISH-au to motorusse9-I(Trabant).htm

    --
    Final 2006 "Proof of Global Warming" US Hurricane Count -> 0
  406. Propaganda on both sides by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Slashdot headline: "Gates nosedives at CES"

    MS internal website headline today: "BillG Outlines Digital Lifestyle Vision"

    Gotta love it.

    --An AC in redmond

  407. Re:The reason you are wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Today China announced their 1.3 billionth person.

    Someday soon, the world will announce its 15 billionth person. However, because each of these folks consume resources and produce wastes, food and essential resources will be in short supply and wastes will be in overabundance. So we will fight wars for the limited life-supporting resources that remain. Larger and larger portions of the earth will be degraded to the point where it can no longer sustain human life and life as we know it will end.

    Even if they were all angelic programmers or just users with a browser doing what they love, just all that code and code use alone will eventually consume more energy and produce more heat than the planet can sustain (ignoring all the other sources of environmental devastation attendant with such technology). Outer space is too inhospitable for human life, so humanity faces certain extinction simply by temporarily being too "successful".

    Your example of technology producing a farm that can feed 1000 people is a bit misleading, because it doesn't include the costs associated with such technology. Yes we have this temporary capability, but its only because we choose to pollute the Gulf of Mexico to the point there is a large and growing dead zone (now about 1/4 the size of the Gulf in the summer due primarily to agricultural runoff from pesticides/herbicides/perchlorates) and because we choose to consume huge amounts of petroleum distillates for which we must now wage war to maintain supplies and dig for in the last of the wildlife refuges, that when burned increase the average temperature of the planet. This creates massive/rapid (rapid enough along with other anthropogenic effects to place about 80% of plants and animals now on the planet at near term risk of extinction in the next 50 years)/irreversible environmental change. Take the future jobs/$$/biodiversity lost because of such costs and you really haven't fed 1000 at the touch of a button at all, you have merely created a cascade of unforeseen problems whose costs will be paid by someone "downstream" or in one of the few future generations that remain. Now, continue to ignore such issues as does our current government and this only buys less time in the long run before the system collapses.

  408. easy by rhizome · · Score: 1

    it's the red hat scare. the cold war wasn't that long ago, there's likely residual prejudice towards the color red (in association), so bill might just like to tap into this. hey, it can't hurt.

    --
    When I was a kid, we only had one Darth.
    1. Re:easy by otis+wildflower · · Score: 1

      the cold war wasn't that long ago, there's likely residual prejudice towards the color red (in association)

      I'm sure that would come as a surprise to "red states"...

  409. Re:Yes, especially Atheism! by boots@work · · Score: 1

    Right, and person X didn't die because of being shot, but because his heart stopped beating. One can always draw meaningless distinctions of causality.

    If Lisa McPherson (to pick one example) had not joined Scientology, she would probably be alive today. The people culpable for her death would not have treated her as they did were it not for their "religion". Therefore we can reasonably say that it killed her.

  410. Re:Religion is exactly the ideological retort to u by lars_stefan_axelsson · · Score: 1
    I'm talking about a cultural taboo against communism which continues in western cultures today.

    Should be: continues in the USA today. For better of worse, in most of the the rest of the 'west' i.e. Europe, there are still a lot of people that refer to themselves by that label, and while that doesn't go down well in all (most?) circles, and is a frequent point of actual honest-to-God debate, the word taboo is much too strong.

    I've no problem with your main point though, and very much like your analogy with the bake sale (even though it's interesting to note that that wouldn't work in most places in Europe either). Bill is trying to blow smoke up your collective arses. It's interesting to note that it won't work as part of his European campagin. And that if this is the sort of rethoric he has to resort to, he must be scared.

    --
    Stefan Axelsson
  411. Re:Yes, especially Atheism! by Vaughn+Anderson · · Score: 1
    No, it's about how believers are manipulated to approve of and support certain types of violence/wars. Burn the witch! Slay the unbelievers!

    Atheists also manipulate people to support war and violence. It's harder to see because it's spread out over many areas and not given one name, but abortion is one example of this. "Get your rosaries off my ovaries!","Not the church, not the state, women must decide their fate". Only the target of the violence is far less able to defend themselves.

    These chants and protests are no different from a logical perspective. They are to induce agreement from other people.

    Just because the religious influence has been recorded more thoroughly in history does not negate secular influences we have today that are atheistic.

    It was said by another poster that Robin Williams pointed out that the sins of the preists were felonies. The same is true about abortion, it's the death of a human being (murder), which is illegal, though the law seems quite distorted at this point (why the double standard?). But from an atheistic perspective you can define life how ever you want to justify the behavior. Once an idea is created, mass education to the public to support this idea is spread by secular groups in an evangelical, and often extremely zealous, manner.

    So what is the difference between a pretend religious leader calling for violence against a group of people and an atheist calling for violence against a group of people?

  412. Re:Yes, especially Atheism! by arose · · Score: 1
    So what is the difference between a pretend religious leader calling for violence against a group of people and an atheist calling for violence against a group of people?
    He does not do it in the name of religion (he has none).
    --
    Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
  413. no. by rhizome · · Score: 1

    you were not assured that the module was freely available because in order to be a lazy programmer you had to page past the GPL to get to the code you were interested in.

    --
    When I was a kid, we only had one Darth.
  414. Re: Communists by 10Ghz · · Score: 2, Insightful
    My suggestion to these wanna-be Commies is that they go live in an actual Communist country for awhile.


    I'm a liberal (AKA libertarian in the USA), but still: could you name one communist country, past or present, that has existed? USSR? China? North-Korea? Perverted dictatorships that were "communist" in name only. Just because they said they were communists, were they really? USSR was an "Union of Republics", was it really that? You can call yourself whatever you want, but that doesn't mean that you really are what you say you are.

    Really, saying "communism doesn't work and it's evil!" is rather pointless, since we haven't had _real_ communist country on this planet. AFAIK the communist manifesto doesn't say one thing about one-party rule or sending people to gulaks. Neither does it say anything about state owning the means of production. Those things were something that Russian revolutionaries and Stalin thought up. Instead of really giving the power to the people, they decided that The Party represents the people and it can have all the power and the means of production. And the fact was that The Party did not in fact represent the people, it represented The Party.

    Hell, it's just as pointless to say "capitalism and free-market are the greatest thing since sliced bread!" since we haven't had any pure capitalist or free-market-systems in this planet! USA? Sorry, government interferes in business, you have to think of something else! We can't know for certain that would pure capitalism be all that good, since we haven't had a system that implements it. Same thing with communism. We had one attempt (Russia) that got perverted in it's infancy, and it then spread elsewhere (China, Cuba etc.). Your comment of "Communism sucks, and as proof, I present my girlfriend from Latvia!" misses the mark 100%, since Latvia had very little to do with communism.
    --
    Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
  415. Re:Yes, especially Atheism! by TheWickedKingJeremy · · Score: 1

    But, an atheist has no moral ground to accuse the preist of wrong doing outside of law, which from a society perspective is a deeper issue.

    That is not true. One can determine that an adult using a position of power over someone of lesser age is immoral on a purely logical basis, just as it is logical that stealing or killing hurts society. You make it sound as though, without religious guidelines, it would be "anything goes" and complete anarchy - as if any sense of civilization would vanish. That is, frankly, silly. All the basic and important tenets of modern civilization can be determined on a purely logical basis, and they have existed in the past without the aid of Christianity.

    Though keep in mind that if the people of the Catholic Church really believed and followed that Bible those preists (the ones not thrown in jail) would have no parishioners to speak to on Sunday. So is seems that any "Christian" that supports a preist like that would then be a party to their deeds.

    In theory, sure, I agree with you. But in reality, these less-than-perfect Christians have a big affect on our society. To say that religion does not affect our society only because the general populous does not flawlessly follow the guidelines bestowed on them is crazy. Look at Bush supporters... if they were truly Christian, why would they vote for capital punishment and foreign wars? If Jesus' word were followed in any real manner, we would live in a utopia, probably resembling some sort of socialist ideal society. But we are a long way from that, and excusing any ill effects of religion on the basis that the people were simply not following it correctly only emphasizes my point.

    Yes, perhaps it was loaded, but viewed strictly from the sense that Russia actively persecuted religion vs the US which has actively promoted it, from a religious stand point (and even for the athiest) it would be better to live in the US, purely on the basis of religious freedom. (And all the societal benefits that come from that freedom.)

    Thats why it was a loaded question. If you want a fair comparison, you need to compare things that are otherwise similar except for the trait that you are testing. The two nations that you were comparing could not be more different, and hence your comparison is completely unfair and ultimately worthless. Maybe you should apply for a position at Fox News :)

    --

    my religion lies somewhere between buddhism and super monkey ball - pamphlet?
  416. Re:Yes, especially Atheism! by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

    Most wars are about resources. Whether it's land for farming or population growth, slaves, gold, or oil.

    Oh... you meant why do the people agree to go to war when they aren't going to be seeing much if any benefit assuming they even come back alive? Then yes, religious fundamentalism is probably number one. Nationalism or racism are also popular.

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
  417. [OT] Linux Drivers. by csirac · · Score: 1

    I know this is completely off topic, I just wish you used an example that didn't involve drivers.

    This is a rant about drivers in Linux so make what you will of it :-)

    Yet here at work, I can't even insmod a damn module for 10 Gb Ethernet in my SuSE distro

    Hate to be a troll, but would the equivilent drivers in Windows XP have been reverse engineered by a Polish University Student in his free time? Even if, in the unlikely case that the driver was made in-house or even sponsored by the manufacturer, would the Windows drivers have been written as an after-thought using programmer/QA resources that are just a fraction of the size used in the mainstream drivers?

    If Windows XP only crashed due to driver problems, I'd be out of a job. As it is, I clear about 8-12 jobs a day at a MS-based PC/server support shop. Of all actual faults (BSOD, freezing, resets, explorer crash, hanging apps) - I'd say less than 25% are due to defective drivers/firmware (that's being quite conservative) and less than 25% are due to defective hardware.

    Not to mention the pain in the arse it is to diagnose a driver fault, if there is one: Linux in my experience has been a LOT more verbose in helping me diagnose WHICH driver is at fault. In Windows, sometimes, I can use pstat, driver verifier, and dumpchk all day long and still not have a farking clue what the hell is going on. If I have an elusive intermittent fault I have to play the time-consuming, frustrating "process of elimination" game. Did removing NAV fix it? I don't know. Was it the ACPI updates in the BIOS I just flashed? I don't know. Was it the drivers I just tried? I don't know. Was it the windows updates I did? I don't know. Was it the hotfix I got? I don't know. You just can't. Even a simple failing HDD controller can bring Server 2003 to its knees without so much as another cryptic BSOD code and yet in Linux, on that same machine, I can check dmesg and see a whole lot of "IDE reset timeout" messages for a clue.

    You're used to drivers that "just work" in Windows. Considering most manufacturers release their windows driver and leave it at that, I am continuously amazed that so much stuff works at all in Linux. The dedication required by an unsupported outsider to perform to the tedious and boring task of developing unsupported drivers for a piece of (possibly unsupported) hardware on an unsupported operating system is incredible. Especially if documentation is unavailable and reverse-engineering is involved.

    Anyway. Drivers suck. I fix far more MS-based stuff than Linux, but IMHO Linux either works or it doesn't.

    Perhaps this is because the user-hacked, reverse-engineered drivers are written more defensively in a much cleaner driver API than windows (speaking as someone who wrote a USB device driver in Linux but couldn't even get started with the Windows DDK).

    On the other hand it could be that vendor supplied Windows drivers take full (or any) advantage of advanced accelerated features which are more prone to faults in "slightly" defective machines that otherwise workin Linux or are simply more prone to bugs due to the more complex nature of the driver.

    1. Re:[OT] Linux Drivers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Microsoft has a lot of tools that Linux developers don't have access to that help locate problem areas in the source. MS spent a around $60million buying Intrinsa so we could run PreFix static analysis on all source code. Then PreFast was developed by MS Reasearch which is a more extensible static analysis program that only works interprocedural. PreFast has been made available in the DDK and it has been strongly suggested to driver developers that they run it to help make the Windows experience less buggy. Linux developers could pick up PreFast from the DDK and take advantage of the same technology we use at Microsoft.

      Srivastava was made a Windows VP primarily because of the success of PreFix and PreFast. PreFix was promply shut down and PreFast was handed over to visual studio for future work. That means outsiders will be able to use MS static analysis when Whidbey ships assuming your code compiles under VC. It also means that the more thorough of the tools will never reach the potential that caused Bill to write the $60million check in the first place. PreFix should have been able to catch the bugs that embarassed Bill.

      Since most groups are dropping PreFix usage and are just relying on PreFast, Linux developers have access to the major tool in use at Microsoft for reducing errors. They should take advantage of the tool.

    2. Re:[OT] Linux Drivers. by csirac · · Score: 1

      I use splint for my static code analysis, and it is quite laborious (for me). All it does is try to formalise your code, enforce sensible restrictions in your code, and at the end of the day - if your code passes through splint with fairly strict checking, you know your code is free from 99% of common C traps.

      It won't magically detect improper use of registers or incorrect interrupt handling etc. for a device that has no documentation and has been entirely reverse engineered as a "black box".

      There's no magic wand in writing drivers. You really do need the specs.

      By the way, even if VC _did_ compile linux (the very thought of it is quite amusing) - I had read that VC had a EULA that specifically forbade the creation of GNU GPL software? Though that is probably heresy...

  418. Re:Religion is exactly the ideological retort to u by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Realize that and all this ideological bullshit smoke disappears like evenscent fog clearing on a sunny day.

    Ahhh. I love it when evenescent fog clears on a sunny day.

  419. when to have everything together..when separate? by majid_aldo · · Score: 1

    together: when they need to interact with each other
    eg. TV+VCR
    MP3's + dowloading (PC)
    phone+digital audio player

    separate: when they dont need to be together
    eg. game console (usually for non-multiplayer and simple games)
    dvd player (not recorder)
    just a phone (if you want)

    the consumer should have alot of choices so that he/she can choose what type of integration is needed.

    --
    --- widget evolution: enhanced, plus, super, ultra, extreme, exxxtreme, ultra-extreme, ..etc.
  420. Video only showing "Please stand by" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's wrong with that video? It only shows "Please stand by" while some piano music is playing... If the link is dead, why don't they just remove the file instead of this?

  421. Re:fp by Canberra+Bob · · Score: 1

    The GPL does deny freedoms to others - the freedom to choose the licensing of their choice for the code THEY wrote.

    A free society is one where all beliefs are respected, not one where one group forces their beliefs onto another.

  422. Re: Terminology abuse, dammit by mikewhittaker · · Score: 1
    "Anarchist government" is an oxymoron

    No, it's a contradiction.

    An oxymoron is something slightly different.

  423. Re:Yes, especially Atheism! by Vaughn+Anderson · · Score: 1
    He does not do it in the name of religion (he has none).

    Atheism _is_ a religion too. You have no proof that God doesn't exist, you have to have faith that there is no God. So perhaps I should clarify the question, what is the difference between promoting violence/war from the perspective of the atheism religion vs the Christian/Jewish/Moslem religions?

    War is war and violence is violence, how can one instigator and brainwashing method be better/worse than another if the end result is identical?

  424. Re:fp by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Not true. The GPL only denies them that freedom where they are including GPL'd code in their derivative work. Would it be fair to lock up that GPL'd code within a a different license?

    --
    That was classic intercourse!
  425. Re:Yes, especially Atheism! by Vaughn+Anderson · · Score: 1
    One can determine that an adult using a position of power over someone of lesser age is immoral on a purely logical basis

    Libertarians on the extreme side use their own logic to say otherwise. So on what core basis can you make a logical determination that a particular act is immoral? Using the Bible as a standard is one way to determine right vs wrong, what other method would you suggest? Keep in mind, you'd have to enforce your method on others for it to be universally accepted, otherwise you do have anarchy. So why should anyone follow your definition or whatever popular definition of morality exhists when it's just based on another persons' perspective?

    Look at Bush supporters... if they were truly Christian, why would they vote for capital punishment and foreign wars?

    This is _exactly_ my point, is it the fact that they claim to be Christians the _cause_ of the problem? Or is it the fact that these people simply do not do what they should? Blaiming the religion of Christianity for their problems seems absurd considering they aren't practicing it.

    If you want a fair comparison, you need to compare things that are otherwise similar except for the trait that you are testing.

    The comparison was fair, based on religious freedom. Would you rather live in a country that has and honors this freedom or one that does not.

  426. "the best thing"?!?! by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1
    capitalism is still the best thing we've come up with to deal with the limited resources we have, relative to the world population.

    Aye right. Capitalism has led to such gross overconsumption that 10% of the population use 90% of the world's resources.

    Please do not forget that without capitalism, there would be no cash crops forced on farmers in underdeveloped regions and no multinational corporations buying up all the viable land in these regions.

    Without capitalism, people would be able to feed themselves properly instead of suffering acute malnutrition.

    HAL

    --
    Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
  427. Re:fp by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

    Absolutely and completely false at every level.

    The author of code that is released under the GPL still retains the copyright, and thus is perfectly free to release their own code under any license they want.

    However if they wish to incorporate GPL code into their own code, or vice versa, then they must distribute the combination under the GPL.

    So they absolutely have the choice -- use the GPL code and therefore release their own modifications under the GPL. Or don't.

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
  428. don't feed the troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's quite possible that Bill's statements are the biggest piece of flamebait in history.

    Don't feed the troll. Maybe if we ignore him, he'll go away.

    "When I give food to the poor they call me a saint.
    When I ask why the poor have no food they call me a communist"

  429. Re:Yes, especially Atheism! by arose · · Score: 1

    So you like playing the "redefinition game"?

    --
    Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
  430. Re:Yes, especially Atheism! by Vaughn+Anderson · · Score: 1

    It's not a redifinition, it's simply a fact. If you have a belief system for which you have no scientific basis for believing in, then it's a form of religion.

    Besides, you've debated me on a number of points, but here's the original point I brought out that no one so far has been able to dispute. Religion doesn't kill people. Here's the original quote I replied to.

    On the whole, religion has killed more people than all forms of revolution and all wars over money, gold or resources

    Do you agree with this? If so, what evidence can you provide to support the claim that a method of believing in a God causes death?

    How can you account for the fact that there are far more recorded attrocities caused by non-Christians than "Christians"? (or at least those that act under the guise of Christianity...)

    original post against athesism's support of war and attrocities

  431. Re:Yes, especially Atheism! by arose · · Score: 1
    It's not a redifinition, it's simply a fact.
    There is no point to this if you claim your opinions to be facts.
    --
    Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
  432. Re:Yes, especially Atheism! by Vaughn+Anderson · · Score: 1
    Sure there is, you can show me what you believe, what is the point of discussion if we do not express alternate views. If I beleive something is a fact and you feel it's an opinion that is part of the discussion. But you seem to not be addressing the core disucssion, only fringes of it.

    Does a belief system kill people? ( atheism as not religion (from your definition) versus religion)

  433. Re:The reason you are wrong. by fakeplasticusername · · Score: 1

    I appreciate the perspective, but i disagree.

    The population will not reach 15 billion. Go to google, and search for world population growth. The experts agree on a rough number of 9 billion being the peak of a growth in population. It seems that worldwide population growth rate has been declining from the earlier worrisome numbers (that created the 15 billion dollar figure) and is now at around 1.2% and falling rapidly. It seems that the explosion was due to women having traditional numbers of children, expecting a high mortality rate, but due to our increased medical knowledge, infant mortality has dropped. The birth rate has now declined in tandem, which is why rates are on the way down.

    Heat from my laptop? I'm sorry i don't see where this is going... My aparment has a hot-water heater that generates more heat in an hour than my laptop does in 2 weeks.

    To be honest, i don't know about the problems in the gulf of mexico, but certainly don't assume that humanity is going to use petroleum for our extended future, it seems there are many more techs being developed (fusion, etc) that will support our needs.

  434. Duuuh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People on LewRockwell.com give Chomsky his due because they are on the same side; they agree with him. Of course, when I refer to the same "side," I am not talking about the typical Left/Right divide that most people like to believe characterises all political differences.

  435. Become a Commonsist Sympathiser! by leonbrooks · · Score: 1

    CafePress makes it trivial.

    The image is too simple to be worth stealing anyway, but if you want a copy of the XCF and my blessing to use and abuse it, drop me an email to my nick (above) within the cyberknights.com.au domain and it shall be done.

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
  436. That depends... by leonbrooks · · Score: 1
    So if I spend millions of dollars producing a non-tangeable product I should not be entitled to the same protection of a company spending millions of dollars producing a tangeable product?
    If the non-tangible product is simply a monopoly on an idea or a trivial improvement, then I would most decidedly not want that to be protected.

    If the result of your genius was a genuine innovation able to measurably benefit the population of the world (or any large non-exclusive area) as a whole, I would be torn between giving society the full, immediate and unfettered benefit of the idea, and rewarding you for presenting it. If there was a way of making space for you to exclusively develop a tangible product from the idea and so profit from the intangible "product" without discouraging further development of the idea by others, then I'd go for it full tilt.

    Under no circumstances would I allow your idea to be nailed down for more than ten years, and I'd want to see a good reason before nailing it down any longer than five. Five years is more than enough of a head-start in almost any market.

    The purpose of research is not to exterminate your competition, but to make your own products better. I would not be happy about a rival "templating" your tangibles and simply duplicating them, but I would be happy about them designing their own products based on the same principles. And next time they make a breakthrough, remember that you're going to be able to benefit from that as well, even if they get it to market first.

    And if after ten years someone else can make Coke better and cheaper than CocaCola-Amatil, then I say good on 'em. Time CCA got off their butts and genuinely improved their product again.
    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
    1. Re:That depends... by AviLazar · · Score: 1

      Argue that point - the point of the duration of copyrights - instead of the point "copyrights should be brought down". You will get a lot farther.

      As for applying worth to innovation and deciding what is trivial improvement, and what is genuine - because that is a purely subjective a opinion it would be hard to pass. Why do you ask? Because it is subjective - and your opinion of trivial is not the same as someone else. Your opinion of genuine is not the same as someoen else.

      Also, copying things like software is a lot different then say copying a car. And you know - damn well - that people will not pay for software if they don't have to - but come to buying a car they will walk to the dealership everytime.

      And people do make different versions of coke at cheaper prices. If they taste better or worse is argumentative - but they are there (RC cola, Acme cola, pepsi-cola). But this is far different then someone copying Counterstrike and giving it to their buddy. Or copying the counterstrike source code - modifying it a little bit, slapping a new label on it and saying "look at my original work, now pay me 20 bucks less then that other game"

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    2. Re:That depends... by leonbrooks · · Score: 1
      As for applying worth to innovation and deciding what is trivial improvement, and what is genuine - because that is a purely subjective a opinion it would be hard to pass.
      It's already being done. The US Patent and Trademark Office needs to learn to say "No!" more often.
      --
      Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
    3. Re:That depends... by AviLazar · · Score: 1

      Maybe they need to say no more often. Unless you work in the patent office or have some great insider knowledge, you do not necessarily know whats going on in there. So maybe they do need to say no more often - but not because something is "trivial" which is subjective. They need to say no to things that are un-original or have been utilized by others PRIOR to this person claiming the patent: "I would like to patent the process of sitting on a chair"...that qualifies as a "no". However, if someone comes along and says "I would like to patent the process to ", even though XYZ might be inane - as long as it is something original (or as close as you can get to originality) then it should be patented. Obviously as always everything should be handled on a case by case basis. But saying "Your idea is kinda stupid, no" is just wrong and beyond the scope of the patent office.

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
  437. Gates call copyleft supporters communists by SiChemist · · Score: 1

    Gates said:

    "No, I'd say that of the world's economies, there's more that believe in intellectual property today than ever. There are fewer communists in the world today than there were. There are some new modern-day sort of communists who want to get rid of the incentive for musicians and moviemakers and software makers under various guises. They don't think that those incentives should exist."

    It seems to me that he's calling copyleft supporters "modern-day sort of communists" and then distorting their philosopy to his own ends. I'd say that the grandparent post is more accurate than yours.

  438. Nobody expects! by leonbrooks · · Score: 1

    Given that the Goan Inquisition, a branch of the Portugese Inquisition was responsible for the deaths of at least one million people, but that nobody today (least of all the Goans) is really aware of their existence (or for that matter, even of the Portugese branch), I have to wonder how much else has been swept under the carpet over the centuries.

    Since Cardinal Ratzinger, its current head, is one of the next in line for Pope, who knows, we could be in for some interesting times.

    If it's any consolation, the disappearance of the Goan Inquisition is more or less typical. Although the natives can be trained even as far as crying out thanks to Mary for their light punishment while they're being whipped for their sins, that training dissolves within a very short time after the authority inflicting it is removed.

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
  439. The Chinese Inquisition by leonbrooks · · Score: 1
    People were tortured and killed by the Inquisition because of their religious beliefs, while people were tortured and killed by Mao and Stalin because they were perc[ei]ved as possible threats to their power.
    You need to read some more history. The two cases are identical.

    On the one hand, the Inquisition was busy wiping out political threats to the Church (which at times included itself!). Typical of this would be the Ti Ping Revolution, where they incited the Chinese government to attack the Ti Ping as political enemies, resulting in the destruction of a 70-million-strong Christian cult.

    On the other hand, Mao and Stalin (and others) were busy wiping out political threats to their power bases, and Christianity as she is written is by definition a political threat to any despot, exhortations to avoid politics (e.g. "render unto Caesar...") notwithstanding. They were essentially treating God as a political enemy and murdering his sympathisers. The absence of a designer was necessary for their political ends. This means that Atheism was necessary for their political ends so they set about murdering non-Atheists.

    Whether that's really a religious attack as well or not, I can't really judge. But I think so.
    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
  440. There's a false dichotomy here by leonbrooks · · Score: 1
    there are people that use the guise of religion as a reason for violence. But there are those also that use atheism for exact same purpose and reason.
    Your statement implies that Atheism is not a religion. By definition, a-theism is a religion. There are even sects! America (where else?) has a registered Church of Humanism.

    However, the grandparent has a problem: (s)he's 100% flat wrong about the statistics. Communism alone has killed more people than the upper-range estimates for religion's biggest killer, the Roman Catholic Church. Stalin alone killed over 40 million people, two thirds of the lower serious estimates for the RCC (the most extreme go to 100M).

    If you factor in random assholes like Idi Amin, the picture gets even worse. "It is several times the 38,000,000 battle-dead that have been killed in all this century's international and domestic wars. Yet the probable number of murders by the Soviet Union alone - one communist country - well surpasses this cost of war. And those murders of communist China almost equal it." And I think that this author has the key; see if any of this sounds familiar:

    Communists believed that they knew the truth, absolutely. They believed that they knew through Marxism what would bring about the greatest human welfare and happiness. And they believed that power, the dictatorship of the proletariat, must be used to tear down the old feudal or capitalist order and rebuild society and culture to realize this utopia. Nothing must stand in the way of its achievement. Government--the Communist Party--was thus above any law. All institutions, cultural norms, traditions, and sentiments were expendable. And the people were as though lumber and bricks, to be used in building the new world. Constructing this utopia was seen as though a war on poverty, exploitation, imperialism, and inequality. And for the greater good, as in a real war, people are killed. And thus this war for the communist utopia had its necessary enemy casualties, the clergy, bourgeoisie, capitalists, wreckers, counterrevolutionaries, rightists, tyrants, rich, landlords, and noncombatants that unfortunately got caught in the battle
    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
    1. Re:There's a false dichotomy here by Vaughn+Anderson · · Score: 1

      I think I've gone in circles with the other poster, I made the exact point about religion/atheism and the issues surrounding the communists. Perhaps it's a waste of time to debate such things when the posters to the contrary cannot, or will not, post relevant data, facts or proofs or even sound reasoning to back up their statements.

  441. "No God" != "No religion" by leonbrooks · · Score: 1

    I suspect that once you get that distinction straight in your head, you'll be right.

    Belief in the nonexistence of any or all deities is still a belief, and an existential one at that. It is by definition a religious position.

    If by "religion" you mean the organised religion iconified in Gothic cathedrals and Papal processions, then you need to make that distinction, else any debate you engage in is going to be constantly cross-threaded.

    And if you do make that distinction, you also have to confess that Communist regimes such as Mao's and Stalin's are examples of organised Atheism.

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
    1. Re:"No God" != "No religion" by arose · · Score: 1

      I suspect that once you get that distinction straight in your head, you'll be right.

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    2. Re:"No God" != "No religion" by Vaughn+Anderson · · Score: 1
      Your arguments seem to lack either logic or reasoning of some kind. Do you have a solid position on the debate of religion/athesim in light of the original comments or are you wasting time?

    3. Re:"No God" != "No religion" by arose · · Score: 1

      If you have something to say about leonbrooks "argument" say it to him. Anyway, I'm not hetre to entertain you.

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    4. Re:"No God" != "No religion" by Vaughn+Anderson · · Score: 1
      Leon's argument.
      I suspect that once you get that distinction straight in your head, you'll be right.

      Your argument

      I suspect that once you get that distinction straight in your head, you'll be right.

      None the less, I don't post/read for entertainment, I thought (mistakenly) you were debating because you felt you had something of worth to say.

    5. Re:"No God" != "No religion" by arose · · Score: 1

      Yes, my argument was that his "argument" does not realy say anything as it can be used either way, I could have said that, but this is usualy more effective.

      I tend to speak up when I feel I have to say something, whatever it is of any worth (if there is such a thing) is of secondary importance. If it's not fun at some level I let it be soon.

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    6. Re:"No God" != "No religion" by leonbrooks · · Score: 1

      Arose, your post appears to be content-free. Can you please correct that appearance by pointing out what part of the subject I appear to have not got straight?

      No God != No Religion

      A-theism == "the definite absence of theism". This is a religious position, a definite religious assertion. It is a religious statement which says that there is no God.

      I would also bundle what you might call "imaginary" of "phantom" gods who exist but have no measurable effect on the universe into "Practical Atheism", but that's optional.

      --
      Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
    7. Re:"No God" != "No religion" by arose · · Score: 1

      Theism == Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world.

      So theism is the belief, not the god or gods. I definitly lack such a belief, but I don't see how the lack of belief makes it a religion.

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    8. Re:"No God" != "No religion" by leonbrooks · · Score: 1
      So theism is the belief, not the god or gods. I definit[e]ly lack such a belief, but I don't see how the lack of belief makes it a religion.
      It's almost painfully simple, you have these three basic choices, and each of them is a religious decision:
      1. Some form of supernatural personality does exist, however vague. You are a Theist.
      2. Some form of supernatural personality may exist. You are an Agnostic. Well, strictly an Agnostic's position is that it is impossible to be sure whether a diety exists or not, but that's not common useage.
      3. Some form of supernatural personality cannot exist. You are an Atheist.
      You do not need robes, mantras or stained-glass windows to be religious. The fact that The Church of Humanism or The Spiritual Humanism movement exist tells you all you need to know.
      --
      Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
    9. Re:"No God" != "No religion" by arose · · Score: 1

      Stop the redefining, you even contradict your definition of atheism in the previvous post. Making thw words doubleplusbold does not make your definitions any more absolute.

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
  442. The one which annoys me... by leonbrooks · · Score: 1

    ...is where they think they've proven something, but haven't even come close. At that point, their mind is closed, the emperor's new clothes are not going to be retailored, thank you very much, and all of similarly similarly blind mates agree and reinforce the problem.

    Actually, there's another thing I hate and that's seldom having enough time to corner the buggers and beat them down with sheer weight of evidence. I have to make do with cornering the occasional one and quickly glancing off the obvious errors and it's very unsatisfying. By the time I get back to my /. queue, the whole conversation's often hit the archives. )-:

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
  443. It's not redefining, by leonbrooks · · Score: 1

    it's this fabulous thing which appears to be a great mystery to you: plain English.

    Atheism is a religious choice. Same as any other.

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
    1. Re:It's not redefining, by arose · · Score: 1

      So we are back again were we started and I'll and it how it started. It's this fabulous thing which appears to be a great mystery to you: plain English. Atheism is not a religious choice.

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
  444. a.the.ist, n by leonbrooks · · Score: 1
    1. One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.
    a.the.ism, n
      1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
      2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
    1. Godlessness; immorality.
    What word appears in every single definition?

    Go argue with the dictionary authors, turkey. Your problem is with them, not with me. Well, really, your problem is with you.
    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
    1. Re:a.the.ist, n by arose · · Score: 1

      Disbelief? Or do you have problems with undertanding the "or" part?

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
  445. Re:I see**2 your point but... by Shadowlore · · Score: 1

    I don't like arbitrary authority, so I don't like big centralized government. On the other hand, I cannot think of another way to slow down the assholes who want to charge me for the privilege of working (using "their" "intellectual" "property"). It's a dilemma that I don't know how to resolve.

    I understand your dilemma and frustration. I also understand the solution to your problem, and why it is hard to see it. Many people say if it was't for (big) government who would protect us from the corporations. It's a valid concern. Fortunately, the solution involves finishing what you intellectually started.

    What is a corporation? It is a charter granted *by government* to provide immunities that actual people do not get. If the government did not grant these charters, these immunities from otherwise criminal or actionable actions then the would-be corporation is far less likely to get away with things.

    Further, most of the truly bug corporations got that way and stay that way from government contracts and favors. The sheer size and financial power of the US government is a massive unbalancing factor in the natural growth of companies. By removing this unnatural factor, companies will not get quite as large and as powerful.

    The "intellectual property" is a fiction created at the behest of the massive corporations (an extension of government) to further extend their unnatural advantages over natural persons and competitors. Thus if one were to eliminate big government and in so doing eliminated the corporate charter and onerous "IP" laws, your dilemma is resolved.

    --
    My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
  446. It isn't marketing. by Shadowlore · · Score: 1

    First of all, what you refer to is called advertising. yes, it is different than marketing.

    Second, needing to research things intensively has nothing to do with marketing OR advertising. It is a result of choice. Advertsising is makign commercials. marketign is figuring out how to best *market* your product. Marketing does not even require advertising. Nor does advertising require marketing.

    Increased choice leads to a larger field of research. If there are only two cars, then what you need to research is a small sample compared to say a thousand different cars.

    Marketing at it's core is about making the research less intensive, not more. Advertising well that's about product awareness and really nothing more and often fails to help you in your research at best and hinders it at worst.

    An example in cars again. Lending your new sports car model to various car magazines to play with, run tests on and so on is an example of good marketing. It provides the prospective consumer with information useful for their decision such as handling capability, crash tests, performance characteristics, etc.. Some advertisiements do similar.

    Specifically, an ad for a Honda that talks about the safety features and crash testing results is good marketing. It is minimally informative (consider the time slot) and demonstrates the understanding that to likely Honda buyers safety is a primary cosideration. Contrast that with Chevy's new Cobalt commercials. That is advertising. It simply gets the name out there and attempts to associate the new model with a perception. Personally, I feel it is a thinly disguised Corvette commercial.

    And for many things, you don't have to be a dedicated researcher. You just need to actually look. The more options you have, the more digging you may need to do.

    --
    My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
  447. I have no problems understanding "or". by leonbrooks · · Score: 1

    Every single one of the definitions is related to God. All of them. The relationship is a rejection of God in every case - which is a religious position. Even if your position was as decoupled as "I don't care whether there is a God or not" it would still be a religious position because the position is always based on (is always in relation to) God.

    In order to state that you do not believe in the supernatural, you first have to define the supernatural. Even if you wish to state only that you believe in natural, or more accurately material, events you still have to define those in terms of what they are not: nature is (badly) defined using words that amount to "not supernatural"; material implies an immaterial; the very act of drawing a line implies that there's something on the other side of it.

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
    1. Re:I have no problems understanding "or". by BandwidthHog · · Score: 1

      So basically, you're going with a definition of 'religious' that makes 100% of people religious. If it is impossible for anyone to not be religious, then there's really no point to the term's continued existence.

      --

      Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
    2. Re:I have no problems understanding "or". by arose · · Score: 1

      Time for you to realize that the world does not revolve abouit what you think 'should' be. Whatever you define everyone as religious is frankly irrelevant to what acctualy is.

      I won't even pretend to understand why you had to stick the other paragraph in there (aside from showing that you don't understand what natural means).

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.