Retailers, I suspect are much more sensitive to fluctuations in demand because they have to bear the cost of physically stocking the products that don't sell. I suspect that they'll put stuff in the bargain bin way faster than an online retailer will.
On the other hand, maybe online retailers will get more sophisticated as time passes.
This story is just another invitation for us all to engage in the FREEBSD vs. GPL debate all over again. In other words, more copyright strings retained or less copyright strings retained? Which is better?
The railroad guy could have licensed his program freebsd, but he didn't want to because he wanted the GPL yield. He's happy and I'm happy for him (and for Stallman).
The idea that the Courts should judicially convert GPL'd software into FREEBSD'd software is really evil. Corporations would freak out of their political underwear if anybody tried to do that to their closely-held IP. The Stallman tribe deserves the same respect. THAT is what equal protection is all about.
Let the Stallman tribe do their thing. I like the freebsd approach the best, but the Stallman tribe's approach must be respected (after all, I really like Linux).
Nothing good should be said about MS? That's kind of nuts.
MS has performed a TREMENDOUS service to MANY of those who like to use computers. Bill Gates' quest to dominate has much helped the x86 chipset to become a standard and has created a standardized operating system so that developers can reach more people more easily. Computers are really ubiquitous now largely because of Microsoft. This ubiquity has resulted in lower prices and more variety.
Maybe MS has served its purpose and should soon become extinct. Time will tell. But dont' say that NOTHING good should be said about MS!
I don't know. Age doesn't always bring maturity--go to a professional sporting competition and watch the fanatics watching one corporation battle another.
It seems to be the same case with board-style computer wargames. If a community of game designers could get together with programmers who play wargames, a really sophisticated (and fun) platform could be developed to build and play wargames. I am surprised that this has not happened yet.
I could care less about DRM, but I hate three things: (1) I hate programs that require me to have the DVD in the computer when playing. (2) I hate programs that don't shut down all processes when not in use. (3) I hate programs that don't completely uninstall when I attempt to uninstall them. Since this kind of DRM addresses my concerns---I LIKE IT!
It's all about the cable. Help support publicly owned cabling systems! If the public owns the cables, the public can provide for a variety of ISPs. If the ISP also owns the cables--then that guy has content-controlling-power and the power to dictate terms of service.
You don't want the people who own the cables to start dictating content! Keep the tubes publicly owned!
If somebody distributes a "non-free" software process to you, without any expressed limitation on your use of that process and without giving you the option to terminate the process, then what kind of use can you make of the process consistent with copyright law?
IAAL, but this kind of question calls for a copyright lawyer. It seems to me that if somebody injects your computer with a process without asking first and without limiting your use of that process, then that process ought to be yours to do with as you wish (i.e., "free").
I'd be interested in hearing other points of view on this. To me, the autonomy issue is more interesting than the "non-free" issue.
The "music industry" ought to be irrelevant by now, but it's not. The technology needed to make a record is CHEAP. The technology to market and distribute the music is easily available via open source software and the internet. The only thing that the music industry can provide an artist is a good producer--but at the price of an awful contract.
The music industry is an unnecessary parasitical middleman. It serves no useful purpose as it milks money both from consumers and artists. Its existence is artificially prolonged by the recent copyright amendments that extend rights so damn long and by the catalog of popular musicians that still depend upon it.
Don't help extend the life of the music industry by paying it tribute.
You can hurt the music industry the most by creating and supporting a technical infrastructure that allows musicians to directly market their product to the consumer (without itunes or amazons). Prices will drop and all sorts of new music will flourish. That is cultural support of the artist.
The parasitical music pirates have it all wrong. They just want to steal without giving back. The key idea is to create a technological garden where musicians and their audience can both profit by the creation of cool new stuff.
This is not about "blaming" the technology. It is about adapting to the technology. In the old days, as one poster notes, a fool juror would retire to the bar and blab about the trial. This kind of blabbing would get the juror removed and might get a mistrial--if there was anybody out there who was motivated enough to report it to the court.
Now, fool jurors can blab about a trial indelibly, and to the whole world. It is very easy for such information to get back to the court.
You have no idea how awful it is for a perfectly good trial to get mistrialed because of a misbehaving juror. Think about rape victims having to testify about their ordeal a second time. Think about crucial murder witnesses who die after the mistrial and before the retrial. Think about thousands and thousands of dollars in preparation--wasted. And a civil "bet the company" trial where a juror leaks inside information . . .
The internet is increasing the frequency of mistrials. How will we respond? Ignore it and put up with the extreme waste? Penalize jurors? Sequestrate jurors? There are not a lot of choices.
I say hammer the juror whose misbehavior requires a mistrial--with very steep civil and criminal penalties.
First, I think it's a matter of packaging items together. Somebody in the store's heirarchy decided that they will sell x+y instead of just x.
Second, I think that its an indicator of store managers gaming the corporate system. Somebody in management is setting goals that reward or coerce store managers to work against the corporation's best interest to meet a counterproductive goal.
Slashdot Mirror
If you'd add mindshare to that, I think it would answer the question perfectly.
You hit the nail on the head.
Retailers, I suspect are much more sensitive to fluctuations in demand because they have to bear the cost of physically stocking the products that don't sell. I suspect that they'll put stuff in the bargain bin way faster than an online retailer will.
On the other hand, maybe online retailers will get more sophisticated as time passes.
Evolution has nothing in mind. A sudden volcanic eruption or comet strike can terminate multiple species.
There's no mind in that.
Those fools had better win their appeal, because their defiance this time is going to get them seriously hammered the next time they get convicted.
Parent article is full of GROSS misstatements of fact--too many for me to bother to correct.
This story is just another invitation for us all to engage in the FREEBSD vs. GPL debate all over again. In other words, more copyright strings retained or less copyright strings retained? Which is better?
The railroad guy could have licensed his program freebsd, but he didn't want to because he wanted the GPL yield. He's happy and I'm happy for him (and for Stallman).
The idea that the Courts should judicially convert GPL'd software into FREEBSD'd software is really evil. Corporations would freak out of their political underwear if anybody tried to do that to their closely-held IP. The Stallman tribe deserves the same respect. THAT is what equal protection is all about.
Let the Stallman tribe do their thing. I like the freebsd approach the best, but the Stallman tribe's approach must be respected (after all, I really like Linux).
Nothing good should be said about MS? That's kind of nuts.
MS has performed a TREMENDOUS service to MANY of those who like to use computers. Bill Gates' quest to dominate has much helped the x86 chipset to become a standard and has created a standardized operating system so that developers can reach more people more easily. Computers are really ubiquitous now largely because of Microsoft. This ubiquity has resulted in lower prices and more variety.
Maybe MS has served its purpose and should soon become extinct. Time will tell. But dont' say that NOTHING good should be said about MS!
I don't know. Age doesn't always bring maturity--go to a professional sporting competition and watch the fanatics watching one corporation battle another.
Model the game to make it easier to rob people who suddenly get lots of money.
It seems to be the same case with board-style computer wargames. If a community of game designers could get together with programmers who play wargames, a really sophisticated (and fun) platform could be developed to build and play wargames. I am surprised that this has not happened yet.
What about the Younger doctrine, huh?
I think that banning black cars is a very bad idea. On the other hand, banning black cars from the roadway is a very good idea.
In addition to eating energy, black cars are less visible and therefore more likely to kill bicyclists (people like me).
I could care less about DRM, but I hate three things:
(1) I hate programs that require me to have the DVD in the computer when playing.
(2) I hate programs that don't shut down all processes when not in use.
(3) I hate programs that don't completely uninstall when I attempt to uninstall them.
Since this kind of DRM addresses my concerns---I LIKE IT!
I totally agree with you. I do not like this attempt by big content to dominate the ISP infrastructure.
It's all about the cable. Help support publicly owned cabling systems! If the public owns the cables, the public can provide for a variety of ISPs. If the ISP also owns the cables--then that guy has content-controlling-power and the power to dictate terms of service.
You don't want the people who own the cables to start dictating content! Keep the tubes publicly owned!
Support public-provided internet!
If I liked the product provided by big media, this kind of tribute might be okay. But it sucks.
This is the age of computer databases. People can 'opt in' to fee-based content provision just as easily as they can opt out.
This is another attempt by big media to turn the internet into another cable network dominated by them.
Arrgh, matey. Yer bloomin' semanticky pratter blister'd me ears. Dan'l Webster be damned! Software piracy be piracy!
Avast!
If somebody distributes a "non-free" software process to you, without any expressed limitation on your use of that process and without giving you the option to terminate the process, then what kind of use can you make of the process consistent with copyright law?
IAAL, but this kind of question calls for a copyright lawyer. It seems to me that if somebody injects your computer with a process without asking first and without limiting your use of that process, then that process ought to be yours to do with as you wish (i.e., "free").
I'd be interested in hearing other points of view on this. To me, the autonomy issue is more interesting than the "non-free" issue.
You're being watched . . .
I suspect that Tom Tom's patent advocacy is going to prevent them from arguing Bilski.
What a shame.
The "music industry" ought to be irrelevant by now, but it's not. The technology needed to make a record is CHEAP. The technology to market and distribute the music is easily available via open source software and the internet. The only thing that the music industry can provide an artist is a good producer--but at the price of an awful contract.
The music industry is an unnecessary parasitical middleman. It serves no useful purpose as it milks money both from consumers and artists. Its existence is artificially prolonged by the recent copyright amendments that extend rights so damn long and by the catalog of popular musicians that still depend upon it.
Don't help extend the life of the music industry by paying it tribute.
You can hurt the music industry the most by creating and supporting a technical infrastructure that allows musicians to directly market their product to the consumer (without itunes or amazons). Prices will drop and all sorts of new music will flourish. That is cultural support of the artist.
The parasitical music pirates have it all wrong. They just want to steal without giving back. The key idea is to create a technological garden where musicians and their audience can both profit by the creation of cool new stuff.
This is not about "blaming" the technology. It is about adapting to the technology. In the old days, as one poster notes, a fool juror would retire to the bar and blab about the trial. This kind of blabbing would get the juror removed and might get a mistrial--if there was anybody out there who was motivated enough to report it to the court.
Now, fool jurors can blab about a trial indelibly, and to the whole world. It is very easy for such information to get back to the court.
You have no idea how awful it is for a perfectly good trial to get mistrialed because of a misbehaving juror. Think about rape victims having to testify about their ordeal a second time. Think about crucial murder witnesses who die after the mistrial and before the retrial. Think about thousands and thousands of dollars in preparation--wasted. And a civil "bet the company" trial where a juror leaks inside information . . .
The internet is increasing the frequency of mistrials. How will we respond? Ignore it and put up with the extreme waste? Penalize jurors? Sequestrate jurors? There are not a lot of choices.
I say hammer the juror whose misbehavior requires a mistrial--with very steep civil and criminal penalties.
I'm with you. I'm done with Windows when I can run all the Adobe movie/music/photo editing software in Linux.
I noticed that Adobe has been using some Qt also (for Photoshop Album). I wonder if that portends anything . . .
First, I think it's a matter of packaging items together. Somebody in the store's heirarchy decided that they will sell x+y instead of just x.
Second, I think that its an indicator of store managers gaming the corporate system. Somebody in management is setting goals that reward or coerce store managers to work against the corporation's best interest to meet a counterproductive goal.
Will this do anything for bicycle frames?