Here's the tl;dr version as a public service for everyone but me that didn't RTFA..
There is no evidence that Dvorak is faster. The only evidence is from Dvorak's own book.
Many places cite an old navy study as confirming that Dvorak is better/faster however upon trying to obtain a copy they couldn't find one, leading the author to believe that the people making the claims didn't even read the study but quoted from each other.
When he did find a copy in some persons house it warned that the study wasn't a fair one. The author then describes how the two tests performed were unscientific and found evidence of data tampering to make Dvorak look better in the results.
Speak for yourself. In Thailand I can go down to the shopping mall (yes, you read that correct), buy a xbox, wii, PS3, whatever and pick from a fat book of printed game covers representing the games I want.
Problem is, the original creator wants to be the only one, who can sell or even give away apples.
and you don't believe this is justified?
If someone creates something should they not have a limited right over that piece of work when there is little to no work required to duplicate it?
I am interrupting what you said in three different ways because what you said is unclear.
1)
If you are arguing for the ability to resell someone else's copyright I just don't understand how you could make it work.
If I created a software application and sold it for $10 and then you were legally allowed to copy and give that to as many people as you wanted then my program is no longer worth $10.
In this type of system I would have to sell my application for $1 million. So that after the initial sale I would have made my money back at which point the ability to re-distribute it for free kicks in.
The resale of copyright that someone doesn't own happens from time to time however I do not think it should become legal because it would be worse then the system we have today.
2)
If you mean that after a consumer buys a piece of copyrightable work then they should be allowed to resell it then I don't really understand because I am pretty sure if I buy an original DVD I can resell it.
If your beef is with DRM in software making this impossible then I don't really know what to tell you. I think that's a completely different discussion on why consumer protection laws aren't being enforced or need to be changed.
3)
If you're talking about patents then this is a different discussion then it is to copyright which is what I am concerned about.
As the original copyright holder of the works you have redistributed unauthorised I feel like I could have been moderated higher then I would have if you had not taken and copied my post.
Therefore you will be hearing from my lawyer with regards to the on going copyright infringement case against you.
You're obviously so far up your own ass that you can't even consider that perhaps Google might not want to go out of business.
Yeah keep sticking it to the man.. If Google can't keep hosting those Britney Spears music videos then they should go bankrupt over it..
Also quoting Lawrence Lessig on unrelated topics doesn't make you insighful, all you're doing is trying to bait me into discussing a different topic so you can "win" the debate.
As someone else mentioned further up it wasn't true. The claims being made that this bug would shorten your hard drive were made by clueless users in the bug report.
1) Make any claim on slashdot that a program or piece of hardware doesn't work on windows. 2) Watch as apologists claim that it's not windows fault but bad drivers or bad application. 3) Watch as how people make similar claim about Linux and suddenly the blame is placed squarely on Linux.
There was a news story last week "Ubuntu made women quit online classes" or some similar title, where a women ordered an Ubuntu laptop, didn't even try it out and the news station she got in contact with blamed ubuntu for everything even though it worked out the box.
Actually, there is more to Opera's complaint than simply unbundling. I suggest you read it.
The only other piece it mentions is forcing Microsoft to use web standards. Again, nothing to do with OEM deals.
Opera requests the Commission to implement two remedies to Microsoftâ(TM)s abusive actions. First, it requests the Commission to obligate Microsoft to unbundle Internet Explorer from Windows and/or carry alternative browsers pre-installed on the desktop. Second, it asks the European Commission to require Microsoft to follow fundamental and open Web standards accepted by the Web-authoring communities.
I thought this interpretation up the other day feel free to use it.
File Sharing is like a farmer eating the competitors apple and then planting the seeds. Soon the farmer has a field full of apple trees. The farmer gives his apples away to others for free.
The apple is content. The farmer consumed the content, made copies and is now sharing those copies with others.
Disturbingly you could relate this to GM crops however I'd like to keep the debate on track. Copyright or the possession of ideas just fundamentally doesn't work.
If we all agree that taking someone's work (music, movie, game, gpl software with no source) making copies and then selling it is wrong then a middle ground and special rules have to be set for which the original creator is rewarded.
If Jon von Tetzchner seriously cared about the problems that you mentioned then he would be filing a completely different complaint rather then one about the removal of a web browser.
As you have pointed out, Microsoft should not be using it's position of power to offer windows more cheaply based on what is included by default.
However, that is not what Opera's complaint is. From reading the article their problem is with Internet Explorer being tied to the system. There is no mention of OEM deals.
I look for the worse review possible, extract why the review thought it was bad and then judge whether I find that particular thing worthy of caring about.
However I must admit this doesn't always work, for example I was reviewing headphones and there was an elitist audio expert which marked them down. I bought them anyway and they're really good, I really can't understand why he'd marked them down for the quality.
I know this is slightly off topic because it's about movies not music however I have to agree with this.
Before the MPAA changed their website their about page was all about fond memories of going to the cinema as a kid to watch the black & white movies and about how movies should be enjoyed with a audience.
Those days are over. This generation wants content when it suits them and doesn't want to go to a filthy room with over priced junk food. They want to watch the movies in their own home around their own schedule, where people aren't going to be talking in the movie or making noises munching on popcorn.
It's about the current CEO of the MPAA. Lots of talk about how he has helped feed the worlds poor and how he is a political scientist. What about you know.. the damn movies?! The very core of the association's being and not one mention of why he loves movies or any experience he has in the area.
In fact all the MPAA is (judging from the website) about copyright protection. This is a shame and they should really move on and consider why there is so much copyright infringement and how their association can provide the media for the generate of today, not the old fart generation of yesteryear.
This most likely won't happen because from my point of view everyone at the MPAA has been replaced with lawyers and political scientists who are completely out of touch with the audiences of today. They can't even comprehend the fact that they need to change.
Opera is complaining that Microsoft are illegally abusing their monopoly by bundling one product with another.
Ok, however the inclusion of one web browser (IE) doesn't stop them or an OEM bundling the software with new PCs.
The only way that could be a valid excuse would be if Microsoft were found to prevent them from being able to bundle Opera. Now I haven't read the specifics of this case so if that's Opera's beef then fine. However, it seems more likely that they just have a problem with IE being part of windows.
There is nothing technologically preventing them from bundling Opera on windows with OEMs. It seems more logically to me that they are using the law to profit.
This in my opinion is ethically bad, even if it is Microsoft which is the target. It is no different then patent troll companies.
I understand what they want which is the ability to be the only web browser on the system. Why they want it remains unquestioned. What difference does it make if they make an OEM deal and is configured to be the default browser with no IE icon on the desktop.
The answer is of course none, however that won't stop Opera from trying to use the law to compete rather then on the quality of their software.
I'm posting this from Opera (9.6) on Linux (Ubuntu 8.04), so haven't the foggiest what your point was there...
I really shouldn't have to spell this out for you..
"I am using linux so Windows antitrust issues don't effect me"
If you still can not understand what I meant then don't worry about it. I'm tired to explain it.
This is from experience of Americans coming and talking to me and 3 minutes later begin to drone on about politics.
Perhaps YMMV however this is my experience and although it may be different from yours doesn't make it any less valid. Also this isn't based on on-line experience.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's the tl;dr version as a public service for everyone but me that didn't RTFA..
There is no evidence that Dvorak is faster. The only evidence is from Dvorak's own book.
Many places cite an old navy study as confirming that Dvorak is better/faster however upon trying to obtain a copy they couldn't find one, leading the author to believe that the people making the claims didn't even read the study but quoted from each other.
When he did find a copy in some persons house it warned that the study wasn't a fair one. The author then describes how the two tests performed were unscientific and found evidence of data tampering to make Dvorak look better in the results.
Speak for yourself. In Thailand I can go down to the shopping mall (yes, you read that correct), buy a xbox, wii, PS3, whatever and pick from a fat book of printed game covers representing the games I want.
10 minutes later they're burned and I'm done.
It was a 30 Meg zip file which when extracted was about 150 meg if I remember correctly.
The rest of the GP's post is completely bullshit and you should ignore the troll.
Your self delusion is why you're ignored and shunned from society.
DRM might be a problem for you however I haven't had any problems because I pay for the game so I don't have to deal with cracks and viruses.
Enjoy figuring out which patch to download to get your steam game working again. I'll be the one laughing at you while I just double click.
I agree. I don't bother with demos anymore, I always check out game play footage on youtube.
It is correct in the interpretation I gave it. You are interpreting it differently hence why it is wrong for your interpretation.
and you don't believe this is justified?
If someone creates something should they not have a limited right over that piece of work when there is little to no work required to duplicate it?
I am interrupting what you said in three different ways because what you said is unclear.
1)
If you are arguing for the ability to resell someone else's copyright I just don't understand how you could make it work.
If I created a software application and sold it for $10 and then you were legally allowed to copy and give that to as many people as you wanted then my program is no longer worth $10.
In this type of system I would have to sell my application for $1 million. So that after the initial sale I would have made my money back at which point the ability to re-distribute it for free kicks in.
The resale of copyright that someone doesn't own happens from time to time however I do not think it should become legal because it would be worse then the system we have today.
2)
If you mean that after a consumer buys a piece of copyrightable work then they should be allowed to resell it then I don't really understand because I am pretty sure if I buy an original DVD I can resell it.
If your beef is with DRM in software making this impossible then I don't really know what to tell you. I think that's a completely different discussion on why consumer protection laws aren't being enforced or need to be changed.
3)
If you're talking about patents then this is a different discussion then it is to copyright which is what I am concerned about.
As the original copyright holder of the works you have redistributed unauthorised I feel like I could have been moderated higher then I would have if you had not taken and copied my post.
Therefore you will be hearing from my lawyer with regards to the on going copyright infringement case against you.
I will see you in court.
You're obviously so far up your own ass that you can't even consider that perhaps Google might not want to go out of business.
Yeah keep sticking it to the man.. If Google can't keep hosting those Britney Spears music videos then they should go bankrupt over it..
Also quoting Lawrence Lessig on unrelated topics doesn't make you insighful, all you're doing is trying to bait me into discussing a different topic so you can "win" the debate.
As someone else mentioned further up it wasn't true. The claims being made that this bug would shorten your hard drive were made by clueless users in the bug report.
Except that's bullshit.
1) Make any claim on slashdot that a program or piece of hardware doesn't work on windows.
2) Watch as apologists claim that it's not windows fault but bad drivers or bad application.
3) Watch as how people make similar claim about Linux and suddenly the blame is placed squarely on Linux.
There was a news story last week "Ubuntu made women quit online classes" or some similar title, where a women ordered an Ubuntu laptop, didn't even try it out and the news station she got in contact with blamed ubuntu for everything even though it worked out the box.
Please, don't reply to trolls.
The only other piece it mentions is forcing Microsoft to use web standards. Again, nothing to do with OEM deals.
I thought this interpretation up the other day feel free to use it.
The apple is content. The farmer consumed the content, made copies and is now sharing those copies with others.
Disturbingly you could relate this to GM crops however I'd like to keep the debate on track. Copyright or the possession of ideas just fundamentally doesn't work.
If we all agree that taking someone's work (music, movie, game, gpl software with no source) making copies and then selling it is wrong then a middle ground and special rules have to be set for which the original creator is rewarded.
If Jon von Tetzchner seriously cared about the problems that you mentioned then he would be filing a completely different complaint rather then one about the removal of a web browser.
As you have pointed out, Microsoft should not be using it's position of power to offer windows more cheaply based on what is included by default.
However, that is not what Opera's complaint is. From reading the article their problem is with Internet Explorer being tied to the system. There is no mention of OEM deals.
It's evil to comply by the DMCA? It's evil to follow the law? Get a clue.
If Google didn't remove the videos they would loose "safe habour" and be sued for every video infringement.
You obviously have your head up your ass to think google is evil for having to do what every other website, INCLUDING SLASHDOT has to do.
No they are shared.. Read what I said.
That's not how I roll...
I look for the worse review possible, extract why the review thought it was bad and then judge whether I find that particular thing worthy of caring about.
However I must admit this doesn't always work, for example I was reviewing headphones and there was an elitist audio expert which marked them down. I bought them anyway and they're really good, I really can't understand why he'd marked them down for the quality.
Check out the Olympics stories on slashdot and you'll see them.
Don't pretend to be me douchebag.
I know this is slightly off topic because it's about movies not music however I have to agree with this.
Before the MPAA changed their website their about page was all about fond memories of going to the cinema as a kid to watch the black & white movies and about how movies should be enjoyed with a audience.
Those days are over. This generation wants content when it suits them and doesn't want to go to a filthy room with over priced junk food. They want to watch the movies in their own home around their own schedule, where people aren't going to be talking in the movie or making noises munching on popcorn.
I did a quick check and saw this..
http://www.mpaa.org/AboutUsGlickman.asp
It's about the current CEO of the MPAA. Lots of talk about how he has helped feed the worlds poor and how he is a political scientist. What about you know.. the damn movies?! The very core of the association's being and not one mention of why he loves movies or any experience he has in the area.
In fact all the MPAA is (judging from the website) about copyright protection. This is a shame and they should really move on and consider why there is so much copyright infringement and how their association can provide the media for the generate of today, not the old fart generation of yesteryear.
This most likely won't happen because from my point of view everyone at the MPAA has been replaced with lawyers and political scientists who are completely out of touch with the audiences of today. They can't even comprehend the fact that they need to change.
It's not evil to delete people's videos off their own website because said person tried to bend the rules they agreed to when signing up.
As soon as you upload anything to the internet you've pretty much waived any of your content rights you had.
Now when I say that I don't mean it in the legal sense but in the realistic practical sense. Anything digital is pirated and shared.
We even have karma whores that copy & paste other peoples insightful comments.
Ok, however the inclusion of one web browser (IE) doesn't stop them or an OEM bundling the software with new PCs.
The only way that could be a valid excuse would be if Microsoft were found to prevent them from being able to bundle Opera. Now I haven't read the specifics of this case so if that's Opera's beef then fine. However, it seems more likely that they just have a problem with IE being part of windows.
There is nothing technologically preventing them from bundling Opera on windows with OEMs. It seems more logically to me that they are using the law to profit.
This in my opinion is ethically bad, even if it is Microsoft which is the target. It is no different then patent troll companies.
I understand what they want which is the ability to be the only web browser on the system. Why they want it remains unquestioned. What difference does it make if they make an OEM deal and is configured to be the default browser with no IE icon on the desktop.
The answer is of course none, however that won't stop Opera from trying to use the law to compete rather then on the quality of their software.
I really shouldn't have to spell this out for you..
"I am using linux so Windows antitrust issues don't effect me"
If you still can not understand what I meant then don't worry about it. I'm tired to explain it.
This is from experience of Americans coming and talking to me and 3 minutes later begin to drone on about politics.
Perhaps YMMV however this is my experience and although it may be different from yours doesn't make it any less valid. Also this isn't based on on-line experience.