First of all, not all of the dotcoms could be considered "boondoggles." Even the many that were don't really help your point. Where did those "boondoggles" get their money? That's right, from old VCs. Who's the bigger fool?
Second, he's got a point about the people making decisions not having a good understanding of the technology they are making decisions about. They DO often believe what the lobbyists tell them. The lobbyists DO often lie. That is a problem. That's why his suggestion makes some sense.
Gotta prove something before you can get anything done about it. The offenses would have to get much much worse before anything could be done about them I think. It would just be too hard to build a case against them. They would claim that people make mistakes sometimes and that there's nothing they can do about that. They'll just say that when they find a problem they try to fix it as soon as possible. Just try to prove otherwise. You can't.
Which would imply either that prices could be lowered significantly for CDs and the Labels would still turn a profit, or that they're selling tapes at a loss, which makes no sense.
Corporations can't run your life. Only the government can do that. Corporations have no legal power to tell you what to do.
They can't order you to do anything, but they can exert great influence on the government and use their own resources to curtail your options pretty severely if they feel it's in their interests. You're deluding yourself if you think that larger and larger corporations can't exert significant control over what you can or cannot do.
but guess what? If you are developing for a Microsoft system you don't need them.
Not everyone develops for MS OSes. I use MSDN quite a bit since I have to use MS products at work. I know what they have there. Sure, as long as you're just developing solutions for MS products with MS products, you're fine. You don't really need to know how the stuff works, just that it does. But if you're trying to say... import a Word document into an app you're writing, then you're pretty much screwed. They don't give you everything you need to know. They don't want people to have that info. That's what I'm talking about.
Now, when it comes to Linux, you don't have a central repository like MSDN, but it's still pretty easy to find answers (MSDN isn't exactly simple sometimes either depending on what you're looking for). If I can't find info in the docs, there are several good websites with tons of info on just about every aspect of Linux. Additionally there are message boards, usenet groups and irc channels where you can usually find answers as well.
They only give you as much info there as is beneficial to them. They don't do a good job of disclosing their file formats as well as some protocols. As I said though, you can get access to most anything you need, it's just gonna cost you... alot.
Microsoft's point is that the situation is far worse on Unix. And, you know what? No matter how many windows service releases you can list, they are right.
It's not really any worse. Hell, at least you can get open and honest documentation for most open source software. Often you can even get help from the creators if you can't find the answer you're looking for. Microsoft will offer you something similar, if you're willing to sign NDAs, give them all your money, and let billg make you his bitch.
I'd think that the majority of people who need to be concerned about these (if there are any) would have sources that are more reliable than/. and probably told them all about such vehicles a long time ago.
In the eyes of copyright law, the library that your program uses wouldn't even be seen as a separate thing. If it's providing some of the functionality of your program, then it is part of your program. There would be no distinction.
You're playing semantic games. If your application depends on some library to provide some of its functionality, then it is a derivation! You require that code in order to provide some functionality. Whether that code exists as a separate file or not is of no consequence. It is part of your program. If you don't like the license, then write your own damn library or license one from someone else and quit complaining.
Define it however you want, the fact is that your idea of a free society is unworkable, where his idea is much more attainable. How do you propose to ensure freedom without restricting those that would restrict others?
Depends on what sorts of bells and whistles they are gonna build into the site. Microsoft should certainly be able to throw a ton of manpower at a high-visibility project like this though. 3 weeks should be more than enough to put together a pretty good site.
Slashdot Mirror
There's a difference between software and source code. The code is speech. The program is math.
First of all, not all of the dotcoms could be considered "boondoggles." Even the many that were don't really help your point. Where did those "boondoggles" get their money? That's right, from old VCs. Who's the bigger fool?
Second, he's got a point about the people making decisions not having a good understanding of the technology they are making decisions about. They DO often believe what the lobbyists tell them. The lobbyists DO often lie. That is a problem. That's why his suggestion makes some sense.
Gotta prove something before you can get anything done about it. The offenses would have to get much much worse before anything could be done about them I think. It would just be too hard to build a case against them. They would claim that people make mistakes sometimes and that there's nothing they can do about that. They'll just say that when they find a problem they try to fix it as soon as possible. Just try to prove otherwise. You can't.
Taking the press release at face value is probably not a good idea either.
I believe he said to pity and ignore them, not hate them. Although, from their actions, CoS people seem to hate their victims.
Why the heck did you let them just up and change the requirement to Access2K?
Which would imply either that prices could be lowered significantly for CDs and the Labels would still turn a profit, or that they're selling tapes at a loss, which makes no sense.
Presumably people are paying it, hence they think the CD is worth at least that much money.
Isn't the RIAA upset now because a whole bunch of people don't seem to want to pay it anymore?
I'm aware of that. I'm just saying that it should be opt-in, not opt-out. Now web-authors will have to go insert that meta-tag in all their old pages.
When you're trying to control the way your page looks, you may not want dotted purple underlined links.
It's better OFF by default so that it isn't always screwing up people's pages unless the user really wants it to.
Not to mention that ISPs should certainly be subject to the same common carrier status.
And this makes it worse than CNN, how?
That is fscked up. I can't believe they printed that. For a supposedly objective source, they sure lay the loaded words on thick.
I think TRW changed their name to Experian now.
Corporations can't run your life. Only the government can do that. Corporations have no legal power to tell you what to do.
They can't order you to do anything, but they can exert great influence on the government and use their own resources to curtail your options pretty severely if they feel it's in their interests. You're deluding yourself if you think that larger and larger corporations can't exert significant control over what you can or cannot do.
If it's a silenced colt, you're already dead :)
but guess what? If you are developing for a Microsoft system you don't need them.
Not everyone develops for MS OSes. I use MSDN quite a bit since I have to use MS products at work. I know what they have there. Sure, as long as you're just developing solutions for MS products with MS products, you're fine. You don't really need to know how the stuff works, just that it does. But if you're trying to say... import a Word document into an app you're writing, then you're pretty much screwed. They don't give you everything you need to know. They don't want people to have that info. That's what I'm talking about.
Now, when it comes to Linux, you don't have a central repository like MSDN, but it's still pretty easy to find answers (MSDN isn't exactly simple sometimes either depending on what you're looking for). If I can't find info in the docs, there are several good websites with tons of info on just about every aspect of Linux. Additionally there are message boards, usenet groups and irc channels where you can usually find answers as well.
How much source code did you find there?
They only give you as much info there as is beneficial to them. They don't do a good job of disclosing their file formats as well as some protocols. As I said though, you can get access to most anything you need, it's just gonna cost you... alot.
Microsoft's point is that the situation is far worse on Unix. And, you know what? No matter how many windows service releases you can list, they are right.
It's not really any worse. Hell, at least you can get open and honest documentation for most open source software. Often you can even get help from the creators if you can't find the answer you're looking for. Microsoft will offer you something similar, if you're willing to sign NDAs, give them all your money, and let billg make you his bitch.
I'd think that the majority of people who need to be concerned about these (if there are any) would have sources that are more reliable than /. and probably told them all about such vehicles a long time ago.
In the eyes of copyright law, the library that your program uses wouldn't even be seen as a separate thing. If it's providing some of the functionality of your program, then it is part of your program. There would be no distinction.
You're playing semantic games. If your application depends on some library to provide some of its functionality, then it is a derivation! You require that code in order to provide some functionality. Whether that code exists as a separate file or not is of no consequence. It is part of your program. If you don't like the license, then write your own damn library or license one from someone else and quit complaining.
Define it however you want, the fact is that your idea of a free society is unworkable, where his idea is much more attainable. How do you propose to ensure freedom without restricting those that would restrict others?
Depends on what sorts of bells and whistles they are gonna build into the site. Microsoft should certainly be able to throw a ton of manpower at a high-visibility project like this though. 3 weeks should be more than enough to put together a pretty good site.