I wasn't really thinking about the sociology of a (pardon the pun) Sociology education. I was really thinking about people learning a craft (like critical thinking), and the discipline of learning and evaluating; I would emphasize the Science in Political Science.
BTW, I never EVER said anything about a welfare state. That's a bit of a troll I think. Nor did I ever say I was against education. Read my comment more carefully please.
Simple solutions don't work. Free education without a means of getting there is useless. It's like the old adage "You can bring a horse to water but you can't force it to drink". Yes I am in favour of free education, but I would use the analogy that it is like giving an illiterate a book and telling him to read it; there needs to be support. It's just one part of the puzzle. Most people get free education all the way through high school, and still there are illiterate people graduating, and with very poor Math, reading, and social skills. Even though high school is free poor people rarely end up excelling. It happens, sure, it's the great Hope... of Opportunity. But then there is Reality.
I'm somewhat skeptical. Solving poverty would seem better (or at least increasing the safety-net). You need well-funded primary schools for poor people to get the education they need to continue. This isn't happening in the US (not in poor neighborhoods). And environment is everything. If the parents aren't educated, then the children aren't likely to be educated either. Everybody I knew who excelled at Algebra, etc all came from middle and upper class families who had an education. Free tuition is just reactionary politics. Let's face it you don't learn everything from school... if your parents can't help you and motivate you to figure out those daunting trig problems, then you'd better hope you have above average teachers who are skilled at motivation and at education. Let's face it, this aint happening in the housing projects.
In this day and age of Political Correctness, and reactionary populous politics where most Americans get their political education from comedy-based talk shows, I think free tuition in Political Science (and the social sciences in general), will go a long way into educating people about the world around them. Learning, for example, to make better weapons is one thing. Learning how not to use them is another.
It was censored LONG after PETA brought light to this. And PETA has stated that they want all such artwork to be illegal. I have read very many points and counter-points regarding the Website (it was fascinating to me how people could make a controversy out of something which IMHO was an obvious farce), and I certainly don't want to get a head-ache re-hashing all the old arguments here.
If we need to have disclaimers on everything to vindicate art, based on speculation that there will be somebody somewhere who may want to put a kitten in a bottle, or try to jump off a building because Superman can fly, then we the people need a Reality Check. I also remember that the movie The Return of the Living Dead stated that it was based on a true story. Yes I am sure there may be somebody out there who believes this.
This is not about protecting kittens, it is about special interest groups trying to force their puritanical beliefs on other people. It is about censorship. Sorry you can't convince me otherwise. It would be far more fruitful for PETA to spend their resources teaching people critical thinking skills than to try and have people arrested and artwork censored.
That reminds me of the infamous Bonsai Kitten Website fiasco where a university student did a farcical Website "selling" Bonsai Kitten paraphernalia. The site got banned from just about every hosting company that PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) found out about, and the FBI even investigated the site and the people behind it. PETA actually wanted the people behind the site arrested.
It doesn't really matter what you publish; if it is popular enough and there is an Interest Group that doesn't like it then it will likely be censored. If a Website author is rich, then there will be more options, but most people would likely just give up. And if the site was political and controversial, then there may be government "hate crimes" to deal with, blocking from censorware, etc. There is no easy solution to dealing with censorship. If Google just decides it's easier for them to not list the site in their search engine then they will not list it, which makes the site unavailable to those who are not already aware of it.
One solution would be Freenet, but that too is only available to those who know about it and make the effort to install the software and find the proper "keys" to access the site. Freenet too can also be hampered by legislation in Western countries. The same with Tor and the Onion Network. Tor is rather easy to censor since the IP addresses of the proxies are easily available http://proxy.org/faq.shtml.
And there are always the un-brave who just give up trying to say anything in the first place. When one has to worry about SLAPP (unjustified lawsuits to silence people), Law Enforcement (the war on terror, drugs, think-of-the-children, think-of-the-pets), Special Interest Groups, the PC (Politically Correct) crowd, employers data-mining their employees (or potential employees), even DDoS and "hackers" / crackers; self-censorship is probably more prevalent than people realize. Words, ideas, pictures, humour, and just about every form of communication can be seen as dangerous. The Internet was once a relatively easy way to express oneself, but it is getting harder all the time. ISPs are even finding ways to censor P2P traffic that is designed to obfuscate itself.
The only real solution to censorship is to change the attitudes of the people who have the authority and control to influence the Tubes. Since these people are mainly politicians (like Ted Stevens) who are largely ignorant of the technology they legislate and who could care less about the social dynamics of freedom (beyond their own narrow paradigms), the future does not look bright for an unbridled flow of (uncensored) information.
I have NEVER argued against copy-rights. Fundamentally all of the issues I have brought up were about the fairness of getting paid for one's work.
And of course I could always say: "You already got value from working at Apple Records in the form of a paycheck. It wasn't very much because just about anyone can work at Apple Records and do a good enough job."
I think you undermine the 7/11 worker; being able to stop shop-lifters including store employees from stealing (including managers and assistant managers), while not being physically and mentally harassed by customers and fellow employees is not easy. Trying to do all this while attempting to convince the police that they need to come to the store because of a fist fight is not easy (one time I asked a cop why they hardly ever show up when I call, and he said because I didn't sound desperate enough to the dispatcher... so one has to pretend to be a panicy fucktard in order to stop violence inside a 7/11 store). You need to do all this while trying to keep your shifts inventory stats under-control and the shifts sales volume high. Being able to up-sell and suggestive-sell is also difficult, especially considering that a lot of people who use 7/11 stores don't like paying for items in the first place. But this is required if one wants to keep his/her job. You also have to remember to look out the windows to see if anybody wants gas, and keep an eye out for gas customers while you have other customers wanting to buy cigarettes, etc.
Keeping sales up and theft low at the same time isn't easy. Serving customers while trying to stock shelves, sweep, mop, clean counters, etc between customer orders is not easy. And being required to smile and great people while you are always in a rush to keep up metrics and be aware of professional shoppers monitoring you is not easy. As I've said, being a musician is far easier... almost anybody can do it... but most people cannot handle working at a convenience store.
So you are WRONG, not "just about anybody" can work at a 7/11 store. But then again, just about anybody (if they are lucky enough) can get a record company to give them some lyricists, music composers, and some musicians to do a song or even an entire album... for which the performers will be paid next to nothing, and the executives will keep most of the income.
Nope I am NOT against copyright... I am against unfair business practices.
There's all sorts of porn out there, and a good deal of it presents unrealistic scenarios out of context.
Other things that present unrealistic scenarios out of context: - ANY book (or Website) that deals with physical pleasure or stimulation that is meant for children like books on drugs and sex - Religious Bibles and teachings - Almost any non-porn movie or TV show I have ever watched
Almost everything I see on the Internet and on TV, radio and all mass media is out of context. Anything can be a learning tool. What people need (and not just children) are critical thinking skills to evaluate the good from the bad. If we could get the politics and the religion out of governance and education then there might be hope for actually teaching critical thinking skills. Until that time anything natural like the need for pleasure or mental stimulation will be looked down upon by the powers that be like the fires of Prometheus.
Of course fitting laptops with filters will just teach children that pornography, and even sex, is bad and that it needs to be suppressed. And it will teach them that censorship is normal and good.
It's very disturbing that people need to impose their own Western perversions on third world countries. I never hear these same hypocrites talk about banning or filtering religious Web sites.
"Just what is the problem with people getting value from work that was done long ago?"
Absolutely nothing. In fact I think 7/11 should be giving me money for the work I did for them when I was a teenager. If customers don't like it, then they can just stop buying Slurpys. I can guarantee you that this work is highly undervalued compared to the work that musicians and programmers do. Anybody who denies this is an ignorant fool. I too have done programming and played guitar, and I assure you that working at a 7/11 store is far more difficult and less rewarding. It is unfair that there is not a levy or tax that is imposed on people who shop for food, because it is unfair that I am not rewarded over and over again for the hard work I did.
The problem is that there is no choice for most people to decide whether they want to pay a worker more than once for the work that was done. In Canada every time I buy a blank disk Keith Richard is getting richer, even though I don't listen to his music.
The problem is that it is unfair. It rewards the lucky few who can become influential members of their guild (RIAA, MPAA, etc)... and it fucks everyone else over; musicians, consumers, etc. The rich get richer, everyone else gets fucked over. It's unfair, that's what the problem is.
You say "a few hours worth of work" as though that has anything to do with determining the value of art.
It actually has to do with determining the value of WORK, and not art per se. The problem is that artists, programmers etc (and often just the companies that these people work for) derive value from WORK that is not being done (or has been done a long time ago).
Determining value will always be difficult, and with artistic works there will always be subjectivity involved. This will always be the case. The point really isn't about the value of a work so much as it is about deriving value from the most marginal of means (copyright extensions, tangential background music in a restaurant; fair-use concepts like amateurs making YouTube videos, mashups, etc).
Value can be determined by the market (supply and demand, along with the associated prices), and not by copyright terms. Things become edgy though in determining value when a copyrighted work is only one part of a larger composition.
Copyright terms themselves are not an accurate means of determining value of a copyrighted work. Copyright merely places restrictions. Fundamentally copyright neither adds nor subtracts value to an individual composition, although it can be used as a tool for deriving economic value. I think that is a very important point to note. For example every slashdot post is the legal copyright of their owner, and yet even -1 offtopic trolls have exactly the same copyright as the most insightful posts. Although I think the value of my posts are worth a lot of money, I cannot expect to be paid for them, even though my opinions are based on many years of experience and education. Of course I could always try to post to a Web site that would pay me, but I would likely experience problems like the lack of a journalistic portfolio and the forgoing of any copyright ownership claims by myself. Hubris aside, the point is made; copyright does not determine value.
The argument can be reversed as well. Many artists (and record companies) get paid the same residuals even though very little if any value was obtained (by the consumer) from a work. This can be seen by the music levys on blank CDs etc in Canada, the royalties paid to artists and record companies from radio stations for what to many people is wall-paper music (well to me at least). Who's to say that Keith Richards deserves to be a multi-millionaire while van Gogh deserved to live in poverty? World markets and the relative ease of distribution can inflate the economic value of a composition to the extreme. Copyright does not determine value, but can artificially inflate the economic value derived from a composition.
Good question. I know it's not me. In the US it's members of congress who get lobbied by the copyright holders (which usually aren't even the creators of the work, but just the marketers). Yes "five years is plenty fair" is a bit flippant, but think of it more as an example of something that is MORE fair than, say, fifty or 70 years after an authors death. 10 years maybe, or even 20?... I'm just aiming at something a little more realistic and intuitive than what the current trend is, which is making copyright laws even MORE bizarre and unintuitive... like charging restaurants for having background music; something that was taken for granted just a few years ago.
Copyrights ARE artificial limits... whether they be five years or fifty years after the author's death. Nothing is natural about copyright. It's an unnatural legal construct that's quite unintuitive. That's why we need organizations like the RIAA to educate children about the importance of copyright.
It's more a matter of being fair (and practical). Copyright doesn't loose value like material property. With copyright people can still make money off of work they have long since done. It's bizarre. Laws are easy to create, and the non-power brokers like me have no defacto say. Five years is plenty fair IMHO for getting paid for (in some cases a few hours worth of work), over and over again for the rest of one's life.
I'm sure, all-things-being-equal, RMS wouldn't mind having an "artificial limit" placed on the GPL, but that would be assuming a fair and equal playing field.
OK, first off Microsoft often says in their PR releases that they design their software to be user friendly (although based on the lowest-common denominator in some cases IMHO). I don't think my suggestion of having the default save format being something more compatible is out-of-the-way (or as you said, "demand every bit of user responsibility"), especially considering that this is supposed to be trial software.
Perhaps I am biased by my experiences with professional tech support and with helping friends and family, but even some people I went to school with weren't the keenest. As I've said in a later post, if something can go wrong it will. I really believe this will (at the least) inconvenience a lot of people. I know on Slashdot people take there computer literacy for granted, but there are people who have used computers for well over a decade who don't know the simplest things that we may take for granted. When you say "most users do not have a problem like these two boobs", then I would need to see some stats. Perhaps not most, but I think it would be enough. And from an engeneering standpoint I wouldn't think of a customer that has problems with my software as being a "boob".
There are some assumptions that you seem to have about me. I will just clarify some things:
1) I am NOT in favour of over-engineering software. 2) I am NOT anti-Microsoft (I have defended M$ in the past on Slashdot) 3) I don't bitch or complain (well sometimes I can be a bit flamboyant), but I don't say things just to be an asshat.
That said, I don't think making trial software (that is already limited in functionality) have a user-friendly compatibility interface is a bad idea.
Hmmmm...'File'...'Import and Export'...'Export to a File'
If you can configure an e-mail account, you can figure out how to do that.
Most people do not setup their email accounts. They have their ISP installation software do it for them. There are a lot of people in my experience who have no idea about importing and exporting files. You take it for granted that people know this. I'm assuming you are in Management. The average person just uses the software without looking into the details and assumes it will work. The simplest things are not possible if you are not aware of them. You can denigrate people who don't know these things, but if something can go wrong then it most likely will. It's like telling a person to back up their hard drive before formating it: not everybody knows formating will essentially make your files disappear.
why would you think if you save over your document in one format, uninstalling said program would roll back your files as well?
As somebody who has done consumer level tech support, I NEVER make these assumptions, and neither should Microsoft. I would (like) to think that Microsoft would set the default save file method to be that of the previous Office Suite installed. It would make sense for trial software. Or at the least have a warning for the naive user that there newly saved files are not backward compatible. A simple patch could be added if Office 2007 was purchased. This seems to be an oversight at the least, and a marketing faux pas at the most.
Ever since I was very young I have had a very intuitive nack for spotting hypocrites. Such is the case, the people who are most in favour of protecting-the-children are usually the ones who abuse them. This is seen by our political and religious leaders. I suggest it would be better for society to ban religious web sites than picture hosting Web sites. Thou dost protest to much. Making life less difficult for obnoxious people like you would indeed be good.
Lets try this one more time (with the preview button first):
Would you care to explain this [bayimg.com]
I can explain it. It is an image hosting site.
Your statement is a non sequitur. I did not see any child porn there, or any tags for child porn, or anything even suggesting it. Would you please give us the correct tags or links so that we can properly investigate your rather lame implications.
Your statement is a non sequitur. I did not see any child porn there, or any tags for child porn, or anything even suggesting it. Would you please give us the correct tags or links so that we can properly investigate your rather lame implications.
Thanks for the information. I really wasn't sure if I could even find anything supporting my claims over the Internet because I never got these stats off the Internet, and I did not think any info would be easy to find. I must admit I hear a lot of propaganda almost everyday (commercials, etc)... as well as people just being "whiners" (as people on Slashdot have called me). I wrote that post up in haste and I was a bit peeved at all the emotional arguments I hear, so I was feeling a bit peeved and not even in the mood to do research. I know I could have done better. I have faults too.
I should stress though that I'm not particularly against reasonable smoking banns, its just the constant "whining" I hear constantly, and the unresearched opinions I hear. I did not mean to be misleading in the 20/20 case; but clearly I could have worded that better. I will also say that I am not pro-smoking as some people may assume, but I certainly am against one-sided constant bombardment of propaganda. I don't see any perspective when people say that "smoking kills".
Also, just to let you and others know, I am not a Libertarian and really don't know a lot about Libertarianism or even the Cato institute. Clearly I share some beliefs with Libertarians, as I do with Liberals and other groups.
Once again thanks for the Info and for not calling me a Wanker:)
Slashdot Mirror
I have no idea what you disagree with. You certainly haven't contradicted anything that I said.
I wasn't really thinking about the sociology of a (pardon the pun) Sociology education. I was really thinking about people learning a craft (like critical thinking), and the discipline of learning and evaluating; I would emphasize the Science in Political Science.
BTW, I never EVER said anything about a welfare state. That's a bit of a troll I think. Nor did I ever say I was against education. Read my comment more carefully please.
Simple solutions don't work. Free education without a means of getting there is useless. It's like the old adage "You can bring a horse to water but you can't force it to drink". Yes I am in favour of free education, but I would use the analogy that it is like giving an illiterate a book and telling him to read it; there needs to be support. It's just one part of the puzzle. Most people get free education all the way through high school, and still there are illiterate people graduating, and with very poor Math, reading, and social skills. Even though high school is free poor people rarely end up excelling. It happens, sure, it's the great Hope... of Opportunity. But then there is Reality.
I'm somewhat skeptical. Solving poverty would seem better (or at least increasing the safety-net). You need well-funded primary schools for poor people to get the education they need to continue. This isn't happening in the US (not in poor neighborhoods). And environment is everything. If the parents aren't educated, then the children aren't likely to be educated either. Everybody I knew who excelled at Algebra, etc all came from middle and upper class families who had an education. Free tuition is just reactionary politics. Let's face it you don't learn everything from school... if your parents can't help you and motivate you to figure out those daunting trig problems, then you'd better hope you have above average teachers who are skilled at motivation and at education. Let's face it, this aint happening in the housing projects.
In this day and age of Political Correctness, and reactionary populous politics where most Americans get their political education from comedy-based talk shows, I think free tuition in Political Science (and the social sciences in general), will go a long way into educating people about the world around them. Learning, for example, to make better weapons is one thing. Learning how not to use them is another.
It was censored LONG after PETA brought light to this. And PETA has stated that they want all such artwork to be illegal. I have read very many points and counter-points regarding the Website (it was fascinating to me how people could make a controversy out of something which IMHO was an obvious farce), and I certainly don't want to get a head-ache re-hashing all the old arguments here.
If we need to have disclaimers on everything to vindicate art, based on speculation that there will be somebody somewhere who may want to put a kitten in a bottle, or try to jump off a building because Superman can fly, then we the people need a Reality Check. I also remember that the movie The Return of the Living Dead stated that it was based on a true story. Yes I am sure there may be somebody out there who believes this.
This is not about protecting kittens, it is about special interest groups trying to force their puritanical beliefs on other people. It is about censorship. Sorry you can't convince me otherwise. It would be far more fruitful for PETA to spend their resources teaching people critical thinking skills than to try and have people arrested and artwork censored.
That reminds me of the infamous Bonsai Kitten Website fiasco where a university student did a farcical Website "selling" Bonsai Kitten paraphernalia. The site got banned from just about every hosting company that PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) found out about, and the FBI even investigated the site and the people behind it. PETA actually wanted the people behind the site arrested.
It doesn't really matter what you publish; if it is popular enough and there is an Interest Group that doesn't like it then it will likely be censored. If a Website author is rich, then there will be more options, but most people would likely just give up. And if the site was political and controversial, then there may be government "hate crimes" to deal with, blocking from censorware, etc. There is no easy solution to dealing with censorship. If Google just decides it's easier for them to not list the site in their search engine then they will not list it, which makes the site unavailable to those who are not already aware of it.
One solution would be Freenet, but that too is only available to those who know about it and make the effort to install the software and find the proper "keys" to access the site. Freenet too can also be hampered by legislation in Western countries. The same with Tor and the Onion Network. Tor is rather easy to censor since the IP addresses of the proxies are easily available http://proxy.org/faq.shtml.
And there are always the un-brave who just give up trying to say anything in the first place. When one has to worry about SLAPP (unjustified lawsuits to silence people), Law Enforcement (the war on terror, drugs, think-of-the-children, think-of-the-pets), Special Interest Groups, the PC (Politically Correct) crowd, employers data-mining their employees (or potential employees), even DDoS and "hackers" / crackers; self-censorship is probably more prevalent than people realize. Words, ideas, pictures, humour, and just about every form of communication can be seen as dangerous. The Internet was once a relatively easy way to express oneself, but it is getting harder all the time. ISPs are even finding ways to censor P2P traffic that is designed to obfuscate itself.
The only real solution to censorship is to change the attitudes of the people who have the authority and control to influence the Tubes. Since these people are mainly politicians (like Ted Stevens) who are largely ignorant of the technology they legislate and who could care less about the social dynamics of freedom (beyond their own narrow paradigms), the future does not look bright for an unbridled flow of (uncensored) information.
References:
http://www.shorty.com/bonsaikitten/bkgallery.html (Bonsai Kitten mirror)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonsai_Kitten
http://freenetproject.org/
http://tor.eff.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SLAPP
I have NEVER argued against copy-rights. Fundamentally all of the issues I have brought up were about the fairness of getting paid for one's work.
And of course I could always say:
"You already got value from working at Apple Records in the form of a paycheck. It wasn't very much because just about anyone can work at Apple Records and do a good enough job."
I think you undermine the 7/11 worker; being able to stop shop-lifters including store employees from stealing (including managers and assistant managers), while not being physically and mentally harassed by customers and fellow employees is not easy. Trying to do all this while attempting to convince the police that they need to come to the store because of a fist fight is not easy (one time I asked a cop why they hardly ever show up when I call, and he said because I didn't sound desperate enough to the dispatcher... so one has to pretend to be a panicy fucktard in order to stop violence inside a 7/11 store). You need to do all this while trying to keep your shifts inventory stats under-control and the shifts sales volume high. Being able to up-sell and suggestive-sell is also difficult, especially considering that a lot of people who use 7/11 stores don't like paying for items in the first place. But this is required if one wants to keep his/her job. You also have to remember to look out the windows to see if anybody wants gas, and keep an eye out for gas customers while you have other customers wanting to buy cigarettes, etc.
Keeping sales up and theft low at the same time isn't easy. Serving customers while trying to stock shelves, sweep, mop, clean counters, etc between customer orders is not easy. And being required to smile and great people while you are always in a rush to keep up metrics and be aware of professional shoppers monitoring you is not easy. As I've said, being a musician is far easier... almost anybody can do it... but most people cannot handle working at a convenience store.
So you are WRONG, not "just about anybody" can work at a 7/11 store. But then again, just about anybody (if they are lucky enough) can get a record company to give them some lyricists, music composers, and some musicians to do a song or even an entire album... for which the performers will be paid next to nothing, and the executives will keep most of the income.
Nope I am NOT against copyright... I am against unfair business practices.
Other things that present unrealistic scenarios out of context:
- ANY book (or Website) that deals with physical pleasure or stimulation that is meant for children like books on drugs and sex
- Religious Bibles and teachings
- Almost any non-porn movie or TV show I have ever watched
Almost everything I see on the Internet and on TV, radio and all mass media is out of context. Anything can be a learning tool. What people need (and not just children) are critical thinking skills to evaluate the good from the bad. If we could get the politics and the religion out of governance and education then there might be hope for actually teaching critical thinking skills. Until that time anything natural like the need for pleasure or mental stimulation will be looked down upon by the powers that be like the fires of Prometheus.
Of course fitting laptops with filters will just teach children that pornography, and even sex, is bad and that it needs to be suppressed. And it will teach them that censorship is normal and good.
It's very disturbing that people need to impose their own Western perversions on third world countries. I never hear these same hypocrites talk about banning or filtering religious Web sites.
Absolutely nothing. In fact I think 7/11 should be giving me money for the work I did for them when I was a teenager. If customers don't like it, then they can just stop buying Slurpys. I can guarantee you that this work is highly undervalued compared to the work that musicians and programmers do. Anybody who denies this is an ignorant fool. I too have done programming and played guitar, and I assure you that working at a 7/11 store is far more difficult and less rewarding. It is unfair that there is not a levy or tax that is imposed on people who shop for food, because it is unfair that I am not rewarded over and over again for the hard work I did.
The problem is that there is no choice for most people to decide whether they want to pay a worker more than once for the work that was done. In Canada every time I buy a blank disk Keith Richard is getting richer, even though I don't listen to his music.
The problem is that it is unfair. It rewards the lucky few who can become influential members of their guild (RIAA, MPAA, etc)... and it fucks everyone else over; musicians, consumers, etc. The rich get richer, everyone else gets fucked over. It's unfair, that's what the problem is.
It actually has to do with determining the value of WORK, and not art per se. The problem is that artists, programmers etc (and often just the companies that these people work for) derive value from WORK that is not being done (or has been done a long time ago).
Determining value will always be difficult, and with artistic works there will always be subjectivity involved. This will always be the case. The point really isn't about the value of a work so much as it is about deriving value from the most marginal of means (copyright extensions, tangential background music in a restaurant; fair-use concepts like amateurs making YouTube videos, mashups, etc).
Value can be determined by the market (supply and demand, along with the associated prices), and not by copyright terms. Things become edgy though in determining value when a copyrighted work is only one part of a larger composition.
Copyright terms themselves are not an accurate means of determining value of a copyrighted work. Copyright merely places restrictions. Fundamentally copyright neither adds nor subtracts value to an individual composition, although it can be used as a tool for deriving economic value. I think that is a very important point to note. For example every slashdot post is the legal copyright of their owner, and yet even -1 offtopic trolls have exactly the same copyright as the most insightful posts. Although I think the value of my posts are worth a lot of money, I cannot expect to be paid for them, even though my opinions are based on many years of experience and education. Of course I could always try to post to a Web site that would pay me, but I would likely experience problems like the lack of a journalistic portfolio and the forgoing of any copyright ownership claims by myself. Hubris aside, the point is made; copyright does not determine value.
The argument can be reversed as well. Many artists (and record companies) get paid the same residuals even though very little if any value was obtained (by the consumer) from a work. This can be seen by the music levys on blank CDs etc in Canada, the royalties paid to artists and record companies from radio stations for what to many people is wall-paper music (well to me at least). Who's to say that Keith Richards deserves to be a multi-millionaire while van Gogh deserved to live in poverty? World markets and the relative ease of distribution can inflate the economic value of a composition to the extreme. Copyright does not determine value, but can artificially inflate the economic value derived from a composition.
Good question. I know it's not me. In the US it's members of congress who get lobbied by the copyright holders (which usually aren't even the creators of the work, but just the marketers). Yes "five years is plenty fair" is a bit flippant, but think of it more as an example of something that is MORE fair than, say, fifty or 70 years after an authors death. 10 years maybe, or even 20?
Copyrights ARE artificial limits... whether they be five years or fifty years after the author's death. Nothing is natural about copyright. It's an unnatural legal construct that's quite unintuitive. That's why we need organizations like the RIAA to educate children about the importance of copyright.
It's more a matter of being fair (and practical). Copyright doesn't loose value like material property. With copyright people can still make money off of work they have long since done. It's bizarre. Laws are easy to create, and the non-power brokers like me have no defacto say. Five years is plenty fair IMHO for getting paid for (in some cases a few hours worth of work), over and over again for the rest of one's life.
I'm sure, all-things-being-equal, RMS wouldn't mind having an "artificial limit" placed on the GPL, but that would be assuming a fair and equal playing field.
You can read "marketing faux pas" as "quite intentional".
OK, first off Microsoft often says in their PR releases that they design their software to be user friendly (although based on the lowest-common denominator in some cases IMHO). I don't think my suggestion of having the default save format being something more compatible is out-of-the-way (or as you said, "demand every bit of user responsibility"), especially considering that this is supposed to be trial software.
Perhaps I am biased by my experiences with professional tech support and with helping friends and family, but even some people I went to school with weren't the keenest. As I've said in a later post, if something can go wrong it will. I really believe this will (at the least) inconvenience a lot of people. I know on Slashdot people take there computer literacy for granted, but there are people who have used computers for well over a decade who don't know the simplest things that we may take for granted. When you say "most users do not have a problem like these two boobs", then I would need to see some stats. Perhaps not most, but I think it would be enough. And from an engeneering standpoint I wouldn't think of a customer that has problems with my software as being a "boob".
There are some assumptions that you seem to have about me. I will just clarify some things:
1) I am NOT in favour of over-engineering software.
2) I am NOT anti-Microsoft (I have defended M$ in the past on Slashdot)
3) I don't bitch or complain (well sometimes I can be a bit flamboyant), but I don't say things just to be an asshat.
That said, I don't think making trial software (that is already limited in functionality) have a user-friendly compatibility interface is a bad idea.
Most people do not setup their email accounts. They have their ISP installation software do it for them. There are a lot of people in my experience who have no idea about importing and exporting files. You take it for granted that people know this. I'm assuming you are in Management. The average person just uses the software without looking into the details and assumes it will work. The simplest things are not possible if you are not aware of them. You can denigrate people who don't know these things, but if something can go wrong then it most likely will. It's like telling a person to back up their hard drive before formating it: not everybody knows formating will essentially make your files disappear.
As somebody who has done consumer level tech support, I NEVER make these assumptions, and neither should Microsoft. I would (like) to think that Microsoft would set the default save file method to be that of the previous Office Suite installed. It would make sense for trial software. Or at the least have a warning for the naive user that there newly saved files are not backward compatible. A simple patch could be added if Office 2007 was purchased. This seems to be an oversight at the least, and a marketing faux pas at the most.
Ever since I was very young I have had a very intuitive nack for spotting hypocrites. Such is the case, the people who are most in favour of protecting-the-children are usually the ones who abuse them. This is seen by our political and religious leaders. I suggest it would be better for society to ban religious web sites than picture hosting Web sites. Thou dost protest to much. Making life less difficult for obnoxious people like you would indeed be good.
I can explain it. It is an image hosting site.
Your statement is a non sequitur. I did not see any child porn there, or any tags for child porn, or anything even suggesting it. Would you please give us the correct tags or links so that we can properly investigate your rather lame implications.
Thanks for the information. I really wasn't sure if I could even find anything supporting my claims over the Internet because I never got these stats off the Internet, and I did not think any info would be easy to find. I must admit I hear a lot of propaganda almost everyday (commercials, etc)... as well as people just being "whiners" (as people on Slashdot have called me). I wrote that post up in haste and I was a bit peeved at all the emotional arguments I hear, so I was feeling a bit peeved and not even in the mood to do research. I know I could have done better. I have faults too.
:)
I should stress though that I'm not particularly against reasonable smoking banns, its just the constant "whining" I hear constantly, and the unresearched opinions I hear. I did not mean to be misleading in the 20/20 case; but clearly I could have worded that better. I will also say that I am not pro-smoking as some people may assume, but I certainly am against one-sided constant bombardment of propaganda. I don't see any perspective when people say that "smoking kills".
Also, just to let you and others know, I am not a Libertarian and really don't know a lot about Libertarianism or even the Cato institute. Clearly I share some beliefs with Libertarians, as I do with Liberals and other groups.
Once again thanks for the Info and for not calling me a Wanker
Not sure about the knives, but I do know the Brits won't be able to listen to their home grown Pink Floyd anymore:
"We don't need no education" - Pink Floyd