With XML being so popular now, it looks like everyone and his dog will be trying to hammer out standard protocols for everything. It might get interesting... more likely it will get confusing. This is where free software is a very good thing. If these people who create the various protocols will deal openly with the other parties who will be likely to use them and allow everyone free access and use, they will probably prevent standards wars and other unpleasant problems that crop up when more than one party attempts to create such a protocol. They won't have to argue over who's is better. They can just take the best ideas from each and everyone uses it for free. No problems.
They aren't sticking to anything. They just created what they hope will become the standard. Since it is pretty much open to everyone, it will likely become the standard.
Re:Get real how hard is it to press a CD including
on
Buffy and Dr. Varnus
·
· Score: 1
appropriate viewers for what OS? for what hardware? he's talking really long term. Not just 5 or 10 years down the road. Basically they need to store everything and continually update the archive by converting the whole thing to a newer format when necessary.
Re:Information - Free is ok, but save the Quality!
on
Buffy and Dr. Varnus
·
· Score: 1
To remove all financial support from journals simply removes their fundamental purpose, to review and report meaningful data. It's like the claim that new books published as e-texts should be super cheap since their is no cost for production/shipping, etc. The price also has to cover the people: the writer, editor, etc.
It may not remove all financial support for the journals. While any publication costs money to create, you *can* cut down the costs by cutting out the printing and distribution costs.
No researcher would argue that scientific evidence shouldn't be available. What they (and I) are concerned about is the ease with which the peer review process could be undermined. The reason the big name journals (JAMA, etc.) are so influential is precisely because all submissions undergo a critical scrutiny.
As you said, there are many levels of journals out there. An online journal will either be dismissed by current journal subscribers as not up to the level of the current journals, or it will be judged to offer similar quality for a lot less money. It's called competition. It's what keeps certain providers from charging exhorbitant fees. Perhaps it was time for this to happen to the medical journals as well.
Where do many of the researchers get most of their money anyway? From taxpayers. Why then should taxpayers have to pay thousands of dollars for access to the results of their contributions? I understand that the information underwent a great deal of scrutiny. So does free software. What's your point?
You seem to forget who gives these corporations the ability to wield such power over us and each other. The government. The government allows them to own patents and copyrights. The government allows them to incorporate and receive those advantages. The government keeps them from getting screwed over in other countries.
What does the government ask of them? Play by the rules that have been laid down. Pay the taxes that are required of you.
It doesn't matter what other companies are doing in the real world. You break the law and get caught, you are the one who will pay. It's like that for regular people as well as corporations. Sure, sometimes they get away with things. Happens all the time, and not just in business. It's not perfect and it's not always fair, but it's the best we have been able to do. Microsoft screwed up and got caught. It looks like they may end up paying the price now.
I hope AMD will come to be our savior...
on
Cool PC Cases
·
· Score: 1
Intel is clearly on the wrong track. They haven't done much lately besides screw up. AMD has been coming on strong and looks like they will continue to improve. I can only hope that they don't try to compete with Intel's idiotic designs by following suit. I hope they will reject the idea that the computer should be as simple to use as your toaster. Integrating everything into one big neon hunk of metal and plastic is just plain stupid. You can't upgrade it beyond a few almost trivial improvements. You have to replace the whole thing, sometimes this even includes the monitor. I've got a monitor that has been doing just fine for over 6 years. I have replaced my box 4 times in that period. Why should I have to replace the monitor too if I don't need a new one?
I don't intend to just shovel my money into their pockets, but that's what Intel seems intent on getting me to do. AMD seems to be going in different directions. Improving the architecture and working to produce faster and faster processors that are cheaper than Intel's. That's where my money will go as long as Intel continues to prove that it doesn't care about my interests or concerns. They can make all the hot pink cases shaped like hearts and flowers that they want. My money goes elsewhere.
Re:computers are "alternative"?
on
Cool PC Cases
·
· Score: 1
Unfortunately in this case, they are choosing form to the detriment of function. You can't upgrade these things, aside from possibly adding more ram or maybe a faster processor.
So make your own bicycle, i.e. write your own program.
How can I make my own bicycle? They would most likely have a legal lock on the ideas involved. What if I like the ideas, but not the materials they used or their fabrication process? Is it immoral or illegal to make my own? Actually it would be illegal if I used their ideas. It doesn't matter to them that I can do it better. It prohibits me from creating a better product for myself.
If your version would be "probably inferior" as you say then isn't it possible that you owe the author something for doing it better than you could have?
I wasn't saying that the bicycle I made would be inferior because I don't know how to do it as well, I was saying it would be inferior because the law forbids me to use my knowledge of how to do something if someone else has done it first. I would have to deliberately do it differently than I would if I used the ideas I know to be best. That is why it would probably be inferior.
The problem is that software is not just an idea, it's an expression of an idea. The comparison is to books or records, not to bicycles and cars.
I still think there is some merit to the discussion of bicycles and cars. The software industry is trying to equate copying software with theft and piracy which have been terms used almost exclusively with physical property. They chose to use these words due to the immediate negative cannotations. I think using physical objects as an example is worth doing as a way of refuting their claims.
On the other hand, once we get past their claims and really start to look at the issues, we do have to start comparing apples with apples in order to get anywhere. So in this way, I agree with you that we should compare it with copying books and records and such.
I'll leave that debate for later, because frankly I need to get at least *some* work done today:)
There surely is *some* loss of revenue. What I (and apparently many others are as well) am upset about is the fact that the software industry is lying through its teeth about the amount of the loss they are incurring. They know their studies are flawed. They did it intentionally to inflate the numbers to unbelievable (to anyone with a clue) amounts. This has nothing to do with them trying to get rid of piracy or make people aware of it. It's a ploy. They are after something. Perhaps they want more power to enforce harsh license agreements. Perhaps they want to justify higher prices. I don't know what they are after, but it must be something, otherwise why would they make a big deal out of it and throw out the inflated numbers?
You missed the point. What is the point you ask? The point is that he wasn't causing any loss of revenue as the software industry is claiming. The software industry is lying to us. They aren't losing anywhere near the amount they are claiming. They are playing the creative accounting game to their benefit. Maybe they'll claim it justifies astronomical prices. Maybe they'll use these figures to justify new and even more restrictive laws. Who knows. The fact is that their calculations are badly flawed and they know it. You won't catch them admitting that though. Heck, you won't even find them trying to refute the claims that many people have made here. They simply won't talk about it except to say that everyone else is wrong and they are right.
You do have a point here. Perhaps what we should be arguing is whether or not it should be illegal to copy software. As the previous poster said, "Slavery was once legal in the United States, too; do you consider slavery to be acceptable practice?" The laws that permitted slavery were eventually changed and slavery was prohibited. We should be arguing in favor of changing the laws if we think they are unjust.
However, that hasn't really been the primary focus that I've seen in the posts here. The focus has been on how badly the software industry is lying to us. They have knowingly exaggerated their losses beyond comprehension. I say they did this knowingly because I believe that if a bunch of people from/. picked up on all the problems with their studies, then the professionals who conducted them must have known about them as well. Sure, copying software is illegal right now. Does that make it ok for them to lie to everyone about how much they lose because of it?
Basically what you're example says is that if I have the means to find out how something is made, and make one for myself, I am cheating the designers, fabricators, salesmen, etc, out of the money they could have made if I had bought one. I don't know that I buy this line of thinking. I can look at a bicycle and figure out how it works and how to make one. If I then proceed to make one on my own, just like the one I used for a reference, is it stealing? I wouldn't think so.
Ideas are free. If I understand how a good bicycle is made, why would I intentionally make it differently and probably inferior if I have the ability to make it just as good as the original? Just to satisfy someone's notion that they should own the knowledge of how to make a good bicycle? I don't think so.
You are exactly right. I don't like pirating really. I used to do it quite a bit, but often I would download a program that I thought might come in handy at some point in time, stick in a directory somewhere on my drive and never see it again. What did the company that wrote the software lose in this case? Nothing. Not a cent. Yet by their methodology, I would be included in the grand total sum of their losses due to piracy.
The NSA probably has its own funding by now. All they had to do was steal, blackmail, sell secrets or some other thing to get a few billion dollars. They keep it invested out of sight and it turns into more billions. It would be there for them in case of a rainy day... or a hostile Congress. It basically makes them unaccountable to Congress or any other agency. You'd have to send in the military, CIA, or FBI to arrest them by force. Don't know how well that would work.
If I remember correctly, a black hole will add the things it sucks in to its mass, thus increasing it's gravitational pull. It would take a pretty unimaginable amount of mass in order to have an effect on us though. We (humans that is) probably won't be around long enough for that to happen anyway. Something else will likely kill most or all of us off long before we have to worry about black holes. Right now they are just a curiosity and are mainly interesting due to the fact that they are the most efficient producer of energy in the known universe.
I'm not an astronomer (not even an amateur), so I'm sure someone will correct whatever I screwed up:)
Actually, if you ask something on/. you will usually get quite a few links to raw data, as well as links to several different views on the matter. It's really a great place to start digging.
Sure, copyrights last too long (and they're trying to make them last even longer). Other than that, though, I don't think they are doing that much harm. They are more of an annoyance than a real problem such as patents.
Remember the copyright continues for close to a century for works produced for hire. If a patent runs out in 18 months, we still can't legally distribute the software.
That's because software is being patented AND copyrighted. That's just plain screwed up. It's either speech, and therefore copyrightable, or it's an invention/innovation, and therefore patentable. It shouldn't be subject to both. It should be one or the other, or we should come up with a whole new method that doesn't involve patents or copyrights.
Just because it has the most games available, doesn't mean it's the best platform for computer games. It has the greatest marketshare by a vast margin. Therefore it is the only platform that is basically guaranteed to have all the new games written for it.
Shouldn't be too tough to convince them of all that. After all, they believe what Microsoft is shoveling about Windows/NT being the be-all end-all of operating systems. Windows everywhere! I don't see any reason that they couldn't be convinced of just about anything.
Slashdot Mirror
With XML being so popular now, it looks like everyone and his dog will be trying to hammer out standard protocols for everything. It might get interesting... more likely it will get confusing. This is where free software is a very good thing. If these people who create the various protocols will deal openly with the other parties who will be likely to use them and allow everyone free access and use, they will probably prevent standards wars and other unpleasant problems that crop up when more than one party attempts to create such a protocol. They won't have to argue over who's is better. They can just take the best ideas from each and everyone uses it for free. No problems.
They aren't sticking to anything. They just created what they hope will become the standard. Since it is pretty much open to everyone, it will likely become the standard.
appropriate viewers for what OS? for what hardware? he's talking really long term. Not just 5 or 10 years down the road. Basically they need to store everything and continually update the archive by converting the whole thing to a newer format when necessary.
To remove all financial support from journals simply removes their fundamental purpose, to review and report meaningful data. It's like the claim that new books published as e-texts should be super cheap since their is no cost for production/shipping, etc. The price also has to cover the people: the writer, editor, etc.
It may not remove all financial support for the journals. While any publication costs money to create, you *can* cut down the costs by cutting out the printing and distribution costs.
No researcher would argue that scientific evidence shouldn't be available. What they (and I) are concerned about is the ease with which the peer review process could be undermined. The reason the big name journals (JAMA, etc.) are so influential is precisely because all submissions undergo a critical scrutiny.
As you said, there are many levels of journals out there. An online journal will either be dismissed by current journal subscribers as not up to the level of the current journals, or it will be judged to offer similar quality for a lot less money. It's called competition. It's what keeps certain providers from charging exhorbitant fees. Perhaps it was time for this to happen to the medical journals as well.
Where do many of the researchers get most of their money anyway? From taxpayers. Why then should taxpayers have to pay thousands of dollars for access to the results of their contributions? I understand that the information underwent a great deal of scrutiny. So does free software. What's your point?
There was a /. story a while back about this. Check out this story:
http://slashdot.org/articles/99 /01/10/1814250.shtml
You seem to forget who gives these corporations the ability to wield such power over us and each other. The government. The government allows them to own patents and copyrights. The government allows them to incorporate and receive those advantages. The government keeps them from getting screwed over in other countries.
What does the government ask of them? Play by the rules that have been laid down. Pay the taxes that are required of you.
It doesn't matter what other companies are doing in the real world. You break the law and get caught, you are the one who will pay. It's like that for regular people as well as corporations. Sure, sometimes they get away with things. Happens all the time, and not just in business. It's not perfect and it's not always fair, but it's the best we have been able to do. Microsoft screwed up and got caught. It looks like they may end up paying the price now.
Intel is clearly on the wrong track. They haven't done much lately besides screw up. AMD has been coming on strong and looks like they will continue to improve. I can only hope that they don't try to compete with Intel's idiotic designs by following suit. I hope they will reject the idea that the computer should be as simple to use as your toaster. Integrating everything into one big neon hunk of metal and plastic is just plain stupid. You can't upgrade it beyond a few almost trivial improvements. You have to replace the whole thing, sometimes this even includes the monitor. I've got a monitor that has been doing just fine for over 6 years. I have replaced my box 4 times in that period. Why should I have to replace the monitor too if I don't need a new one?
I don't intend to just shovel my money into their pockets, but that's what Intel seems intent on getting me to do. AMD seems to be going in different directions. Improving the architecture and working to produce faster and faster processors that are cheaper than Intel's. That's where my money will go as long as Intel continues to prove that it doesn't care about my interests or concerns. They can make all the hot pink cases shaped like hearts and flowers that they want. My money goes elsewhere.
Unfortunately in this case, they are choosing form to the detriment of function. You can't upgrade these things, aside from possibly adding more ram or maybe a faster processor.
So make your own bicycle, i.e. write your own program.
How can I make my own bicycle? They would most likely have a legal lock on the ideas involved. What if I like the ideas, but not the materials they used or their fabrication process? Is it immoral or illegal to make my own? Actually it would be illegal if I used their ideas. It doesn't matter to them that I can do it better. It prohibits me from creating a better product for myself.
If your version would be "probably inferior" as you say then isn't it possible that you owe the author something for doing it better than you could have?
I wasn't saying that the bicycle I made would be inferior because I don't know how to do it as well, I was saying it would be inferior because the law forbids me to use my knowledge of how to do something if someone else has done it first. I would have to deliberately do it differently than I would if I used the ideas I know to be best. That is why it would probably be inferior.
The problem is that software is not just an idea, it's an expression of an idea. The comparison is to books or records, not to bicycles and cars.
I still think there is some merit to the discussion of bicycles and cars. The software industry is trying to equate copying software with theft and piracy which have been terms used almost exclusively with physical property. They chose to use these words due to the immediate negative cannotations. I think using physical objects as an example is worth doing as a way of refuting their claims.
On the other hand, once we get past their claims and really start to look at the issues, we do have to start comparing apples with apples in order to get anywhere. So in this way, I agree with you that we should compare it with copying books and records and such.
I'll leave that debate for later, because frankly I need to get at least *some* work done today :)
There surely is *some* loss of revenue. What I (and apparently many others are as well) am upset about is the fact that the software industry is lying through its teeth about the amount of the loss they are incurring. They know their studies are flawed. They did it intentionally to inflate the numbers to unbelievable (to anyone with a clue) amounts. This has nothing to do with them trying to get rid of piracy or make people aware of it. It's a ploy. They are after something. Perhaps they want more power to enforce harsh license agreements. Perhaps they want to justify higher prices. I don't know what they are after, but it must be something, otherwise why would they make a big deal out of it and throw out the inflated numbers?
You missed the point. What is the point you ask? The point is that he wasn't causing any loss of revenue as the software industry is claiming. The software industry is lying to us. They aren't losing anywhere near the amount they are claiming. They are playing the creative accounting game to their benefit. Maybe they'll claim it justifies astronomical prices. Maybe they'll use these figures to justify new and even more restrictive laws. Who knows. The fact is that their calculations are badly flawed and they know it. You won't catch them admitting that though. Heck, you won't even find them trying to refute the claims that many people have made here. They simply won't talk about it except to say that everyone else is wrong and they are right.
You do have a point here. Perhaps what we should be arguing is whether or not it should be illegal to copy software. As the previous poster said, "Slavery was once legal in the United States, too; do you consider slavery to be acceptable practice?" The laws that permitted slavery were eventually changed and slavery was prohibited. We should be arguing in favor of changing the laws if we think they are unjust.
However, that hasn't really been the primary focus that I've seen in the posts here. The focus has been on how badly the software industry is lying to us. They have knowingly exaggerated their losses beyond comprehension. I say they did this knowingly because I believe that if a bunch of people from /. picked up on all the problems with their studies, then the professionals who conducted them must have known about them as well. Sure, copying software is illegal right now. Does that make it ok for them to lie to everyone about how much they lose because of it?
Basically what you're example says is that if I have the means to find out how something is made, and make one for myself, I am cheating the designers, fabricators, salesmen, etc, out of the money they could have made if I had bought one. I don't know that I buy this line of thinking. I can look at a bicycle and figure out how it works and how to make one. If I then proceed to make one on my own, just like the one I used for a reference, is it stealing? I wouldn't think so.
Ideas are free. If I understand how a good bicycle is made, why would I intentionally make it differently and probably inferior if I have the ability to make it just as good as the original? Just to satisfy someone's notion that they should own the knowledge of how to make a good bicycle? I don't think so.
You are exactly right. I don't like pirating really. I used to do it quite a bit, but often I would download a program that I thought might come in handy at some point in time, stick in a directory somewhere on my drive and never see it again. What did the company that wrote the software lose in this case? Nothing. Not a cent. Yet by their methodology, I would be included in the grand total sum of their losses due to piracy.
The point is not which show wasn't aired, but why the show was not aired. Don't pick at the details and miss the entire point.
The NSA probably has its own funding by now. All they had to do was steal, blackmail, sell secrets or some other thing to get a few billion dollars. They keep it invested out of sight and it turns into more billions. It would be there for them in case of a rainy day... or a hostile Congress. It basically makes them unaccountable to Congress or any other agency. You'd have to send in the military, CIA, or FBI to arrest them by force. Don't know how well that would work.
If I remember correctly, a black hole will add the things it sucks in to its mass, thus increasing it's gravitational pull. It would take a pretty unimaginable amount of mass in order to have an effect on us though. We (humans that is) probably won't be around long enough for that to happen anyway. Something else will likely kill most or all of us off long before we have to worry about black holes. Right now they are just a curiosity and are mainly interesting due to the fact that they are the most efficient producer of energy in the known universe.
I'm not an astronomer (not even an amateur), so I'm sure someone will correct whatever I screwed up :)
Hmm... not exactly an ideal method. First of all, it took 7500 years for the light to travel to earth. Talk about lag....
Actually, if you ask something on /. you will usually get quite a few links to raw data, as well as links to several different views on the matter. It's really a great place to start digging.
Sure, copyrights last too long (and they're trying to make them last even longer). Other than that, though, I don't think they are doing that much harm. They are more of an annoyance than a real problem such as patents.
Remember the copyright continues for close to a century for works produced for hire. If a patent runs out in 18 months, we still can't legally distribute the software.
That's because software is being patented AND copyrighted. That's just plain screwed up. It's either speech, and therefore copyrightable, or it's an invention/innovation, and therefore patentable. It shouldn't be subject to both. It should be one or the other, or we should come up with a whole new method that doesn't involve patents or copyrights.
It could be a humorous post related to the topic ;)
Just because it has the most games available, doesn't mean it's the best platform for computer games. It has the greatest marketshare by a vast margin. Therefore it is the only platform that is basically guaranteed to have all the new games written for it.
Shouldn't be too tough to convince them of all that. After all, they believe what Microsoft is shoveling about Windows/NT being the be-all end-all of operating systems. Windows everywhere! I don't see any reason that they couldn't be convinced of just about anything.
Ummm.. ok... can you think of anything good that a Microsoft OS is best at? Lemme know if you come up with something...