Please, please please, follow the forefathers before you who have
declared that this land be preserved for the common good, and those
who declared that the roads be preserved for the common good, and
those who have declared that the nation's power grid and telephone
grid be regulated to preserve their utility for the common good.
In general, they echoed the arguments once used in favor of ending alcohol prohibition and that are now being invoked to decriminalize marijuana: It's better to legalize, tax and carefully regulate an industry than let it flourish with far less oversight in the black market.
YES! I personally am not a drug addict or anything, but if you were able to buy crack, heroin, and marijuana in your local CVS, the world would be a much better place. If you could obtain these substances legally, they would be under a lot more control. Less accidentally unboiled rat poison. Additionally, gangs and mafias would be out of business.
The side effect would be the companies selling the drugs, just like the cigarette companies today, but it is the lesser of two evils when compared to the mafia or a street gang.
I haven't given up. I would love to see the whole patent system abolished as much as the next person, but we are accomplishing little by debating it (again) here. By going through the typical/. motions, we are accomplishing nothing. We are a virtually unrepresented party, and without representation (in government), we can not hope to do much more then feel about the issue.
What we need is a game plan. Ghandi and Martin Luther King both had their entire nations behind them. We do not. If you ask anyone what "free software" is, they will probably answer "limewire?" We need representation, and cannot be represented when the majority is uneducated.
The whole patent rant is an assumed thing here on/. The whole list of possible solutions or fixes to the patent system has also been beaten to death, and requires no addressing. We don't need to name companies which use immoral tactics, we all know the names. We don't need to cry about all of the projects which have been destroyed. We all know it's commonplace and might as well get used to it.
No sir-ree, there is noting to see here, just the USPTO doing their jobs just as well as ever.
You hit the nail right on the head there. You are not proficient in use of productivity software if all you know is Word/Excel/Others. You become proficient by understanding concepts, not the nooks and crannies of one companies product. Unfortunately, my school has a forced class on Microsoft Office (I can't come up with enough curses to scream at this idea), and a forced class on "Microworlds" LOGO programming (http://www.microworlds.com/) (in which they did not teach any concepts on practical programs, but how to enumerate lists of commands with no logical processing what so ever. They recommended we buy the program, a windows only program, at home for over $100)
For additional optional computer science courses, they offer Visual Basic (using Visual Studio from '98), and C++ (using outdated books and standards), where VB is a prerequisite. Kind of makes you sick doesn't it?
"Protecting" children by monitoring them is quite an idiotic idea when you consider the alternatives. Give them knowledge for god's sake! Treat them like an adult and tell them the truth. Tell them how Myspace is a horribly made website, and how much of a waist of time it is. Tell them about how some child molester off in his trailer somewhere is just as able to visit their profile and view their pictures as their friends are.
Online messaging is not an evil thing. The only evils here are the horrendous communities that build up around shit retard-magnet sites like Myspace. The internet is a tool, designed for communication. Show your children how to communicate responsibly with responsible individuals. Show them that there are better tools to use then dangerous sites smattered with commercial advertisements and untrustworthy people. If you treat them right, they may even convey the message to their friends.
Ignorance is going to be the end of us (US).
The US is already spiraling to it's grave of idiocy. You have the moronic public in one hand, and the detached government with it's own agendas in the other. This is not going to happen, it has been happening for quite some time now, and is only getting worse.
People care more about Paris Hilton (the f***ing sl**bag) then politics. Politics are by no means a bad thing, but when only corporate entities show interest, problems arise.
Pretty tough to define. What about a web page run by a "free classified ad paper" of the type that you pick up in gas stations. All they have is classified ads and some paid display ads. That's their product. What if they put up a web page with the content of the paper on it as well?
There is a clear difference in these two cases. Craig's List, or The Want Advertiser, are for personal advertising while the other type of site is for commercial advertising. One offers a useful service, while the other is a scam. Something in our mind allows us to easily discern the two types of sites from eachother.
They will sell if you offer enough money. These corporations who lead the campaign of useless advertising sites and domain squatting are without a doubt *the* most disgusting crock of slime the internet has to suffer through. In the future, all the meaningful domains will be owned by a small few companies who have no interests in the betterment of the internet, and all legitimate sites will end up lucky if they can get their hands on domains like "dfklgjhh43.cx"
Each corporate entity should only be allowed one top-level domain, and be forced to contain their entire network underneath it. For example, there is a show on CNN hosted by Lou Dobbs. The show advertises that the website can be found at http://loudobbs.com/, when really, loudobbs.cnn.com would make infinitely much more sense, since the site is not personal, but about the show. If these guidelines could magically be enforced, and people realized that having a top level domain means nothing, the internet would be a much more sane thing
The problem is that having a top level domain *does* mean something. To who? Why, the idiots of course. There really should be forced classes on using the internet, just as there are for driving. In these classes, old people can learn about how networks work and how idiotic typing "Photography.com" truly is.
Now, even though slashdot is definately a biased site, artists generally make under 15% of the money from record sales. When you go into the music store and buy a $20 dollar album, the artist will be lucky if they are making $2 for each sale; after trading away any copyright interest in the material (George Harrison was sued for sounding too much like himself!). I consider it a great justice to pirate music as much as possible. Hopefully sometime soon the non-commercial music scene will outgrow today's commercial music market.
I soundly doubt that musicians have any positive feeling for the actions of the RIAA. The RIAA is just a collaboration of entities of the corrupt commercial music market to spread fear about the subversion of their evil ways.
I am getting tired of this "house and door" analogy. Computers function much more like a legal firm or a bank. Besides using the bank as the bank expects, there are two methods of getting money out of it. One is entering through the "unlocked door" and grabbing a few sacks of dough. We all know and accept that this is both immoral and unlawful.
The other way of getting money out would be by playing by the rules. The bank gives you paperwork. Paperwork is the network protocol of the physical world. Documents are packets and people are routers. Now, as long as I comply to the terms of my contract, there is now way anything I am doing should be considered unlawful. Lets say I find a way of maneuvering through the paperwork to a point where I am allowed to collect 200$ AND pass go. I followed the protocol set by the service proveder. I played by their rules. It is not my fault they made a mistake.
Now this applies to all sorts of things, not just wifi access. When Myspace got hacked, that kid was following the protocols set by their servers. He did not break in and take advantage of an unattended terminal. He did not break into the bank. He used the paperwork. Everyone trys to use law to attack people who play by the rules of set protocols. And many look upon these people with scorn. I don't think these views are correct, and I also don't think the house analogy fits at all. It is the job of an administrator to make sure there are no loopholes in a system, if there are any which exist, it is their responsibility to fix it and their liability to solve any problems which arise as a result
GNU/Linux is the number one choice of terrorists. It is a horrible movement that must be stopped. We should praise Microsoft by blessing us with speed bumps in the path of RMS and all those other hippies.
I used to be a fan of BSD-style licenses more then I was of the GPL. I used to see the GPL as a noose around the neck, and it is: for developers who intend to maintain control of their code that would give them an economical advantage over anyone else just picking it up. What the GPL does is it makes sure no one is in charge. It pretty much turns code into a public domain resource while keeping all of the fruits of the community's labor from being picked by one entity. The GPL can be compared to a library. Anyone can check out books, but they must be returned. It has more of an educational value then an economical one, which makes it appealing for philosophical reasons.
Now don't get me wrong, this is not a reason why BSD-like licenses are bad or anything, because they are not. BSD style licenses are almost exactly the same thing as the GPL is, except most allow commercial use, and some require credit to be given. I don't even consider this the difference myself, it is the cause of the difference. Both of these reasons are not evil ones. If I spend a month writing some sort of physics engine, I would like to be known for it, and if it is good, I might like to get payed for it. It seems that the niche of BSD-style is for projects which are run by a group. while GPL projects are generally open to everyone. A bunch of "BSD supporters" say that BSD licensed projects have higher quality code. This may be true of some projects due to the closer knit group of developers, but really, does it matter as long as we get from point A to point B?
The hunter becomes the hunted. Companies like this are like a cancer driven by deception and immoral practices. Perhaps my opinions would be different if any of their products served the world any use, but with the questionable marketing they push upon innocent people, I am glad to see them taking damages, and I can only pray that they will not be reimbursed the money they would not have rightfully made.
Slashdot Mirror
Unfortunately, we are selling our roads too. Welcome to America.
I hope it does (stick). Perhaps the only hope for the patent system is for it to burn down violently and be reborn from it's ashes.
The side effect would be the companies selling the drugs, just like the cigarette companies today, but it is the lesser of two evils when compared to the mafia or a street gang.
I haven't given up. I would love to see the whole patent system abolished as much as the next person, but we are accomplishing little by debating it (again) here. By going through the typical /. motions, we are accomplishing nothing. We are a virtually unrepresented party, and without representation (in government), we can not hope to do much more then feel about the issue.
What we need is a game plan. Ghandi and Martin Luther King both had their entire nations behind them. We do not. If you ask anyone what "free software" is, they will probably answer "limewire?" We need representation, and cannot be represented when the majority is uneducated.
The whole patent rant is an assumed thing here on /. The whole list of possible solutions or fixes to the patent system has also been beaten to death, and requires no addressing. We don't need to name companies which use immoral tactics, we all know the names. We don't need to cry about all of the projects which have been destroyed. We all know it's commonplace and might as well get used to it.
No sir-ree, there is noting to see here, just the USPTO doing their jobs just as well as ever.
You hit the nail right on the head there. You are not proficient in use of productivity software if all you know is Word/Excel/Others. You become proficient by understanding concepts, not the nooks and crannies of one companies product. Unfortunately, my school has a forced class on Microsoft Office (I can't come up with enough curses to scream at this idea), and a forced class on "Microworlds" LOGO programming (http://www.microworlds.com/) (in which they did not teach any concepts on practical programs, but how to enumerate lists of commands with no logical processing what so ever. They recommended we buy the program, a windows only program, at home for over $100)
For additional optional computer science courses, they offer Visual Basic (using Visual Studio from '98), and C++ (using outdated books and standards), where VB is a prerequisite. Kind of makes you sick doesn't it?
"Protecting" children by monitoring them is quite an idiotic idea when you consider the alternatives. Give them knowledge for god's sake! Treat them like an adult and tell them the truth. Tell them how Myspace is a horribly made website, and how much of a waist of time it is. Tell them about how some child molester off in his trailer somewhere is just as able to visit their profile and view their pictures as their friends are.
Online messaging is not an evil thing. The only evils here are the horrendous communities that build up around shit retard-magnet sites like Myspace. The internet is a tool, designed for communication. Show your children how to communicate responsibly with responsible individuals. Show them that there are better tools to use then dangerous sites smattered with commercial advertisements and untrustworthy people. If you treat them right, they may even convey the message to their friends.
The US is already spiraling to it's grave of idiocy. You have the moronic public in one hand, and the detached government with it's own agendas in the other. This is not going to happen, it has been happening for quite some time now, and is only getting worse.
People care more about Paris Hilton (the f***ing sl**bag) then politics. Politics are by no means a bad thing, but when only corporate entities show interest, problems arise.
There is a clear difference in these two cases. Craig's List, or The Want Advertiser, are for personal advertising while the other type of site is for commercial advertising. One offers a useful service, while the other is a scam. Something in our mind allows us to easily discern the two types of sites from eachother.
They will sell if you offer enough money. These corporations who lead the campaign of useless advertising sites and domain squatting are without a doubt *the* most disgusting crock of slime the internet has to suffer through. In the future, all the meaningful domains will be owned by a small few companies who have no interests in the betterment of the internet, and all legitimate sites will end up lucky if they can get their hands on domains like "dfklgjhh43.cx"
Each corporate entity should only be allowed one top-level domain, and be forced to contain their entire network underneath it. For example, there is a show on CNN hosted by Lou Dobbs. The show advertises that the website can be found at http://loudobbs.com/, when really, loudobbs.cnn.com would make infinitely much more sense, since the site is not personal, but about the show. If these guidelines could magically be enforced, and people realized that having a top level domain means nothing, the internet would be a much more sane thing
The problem is that having a top level domain *does* mean something. To who? Why, the idiots of course. There really should be forced classes on using the internet, just as there are for driving. In these classes, old people can learn about how networks work and how idiotic typing "Photography.com" truly is.
Now, even though slashdot is definately a biased site, artists generally make under 15% of the money from record sales. When you go into the music store and buy a $20 dollar album, the artist will be lucky if they are making $2 for each sale; after trading away any copyright interest in the material (George Harrison was sued for sounding too much like himself!). I consider it a great justice to pirate music as much as possible. Hopefully sometime soon the non-commercial music scene will outgrow today's commercial music market.
I soundly doubt that musicians have any positive feeling for the actions of the RIAA. The RIAA is just a collaboration of entities of the corrupt commercial music market to spread fear about the subversion of their evil ways.
I am getting tired of this "house and door" analogy. Computers function much more like a legal firm or a bank. Besides using the bank as the bank expects, there are two methods of getting money out of it. One is entering through the "unlocked door" and grabbing a few sacks of dough. We all know and accept that this is both immoral and unlawful.
The other way of getting money out would be by playing by the rules. The bank gives you paperwork. Paperwork is the network protocol of the physical world. Documents are packets and people are routers. Now, as long as I comply to the terms of my contract, there is now way anything I am doing should be considered unlawful. Lets say I find a way of maneuvering through the paperwork to a point where I am allowed to collect 200$ AND pass go. I followed the protocol set by the service proveder. I played by their rules. It is not my fault they made a mistake.
Now this applies to all sorts of things, not just wifi access. When Myspace got hacked, that kid was following the protocols set by their servers. He did not break in and take advantage of an unattended terminal. He did not break into the bank. He used the paperwork. Everyone trys to use law to attack people who play by the rules of set protocols. And many look upon these people with scorn. I don't think these views are correct, and I also don't think the house analogy fits at all. It is the job of an administrator to make sure there are no loopholes in a system, if there are any which exist, it is their responsibility to fix it and their liability to solve any problems which arise as a result
GNU/Linux is the number one choice of terrorists. It is a horrible movement that must be stopped. We should praise Microsoft by blessing us with speed bumps in the path of RMS and all those other hippies. I used to be a fan of BSD-style licenses more then I was of the GPL. I used to see the GPL as a noose around the neck, and it is: for developers who intend to maintain control of their code that would give them an economical advantage over anyone else just picking it up. What the GPL does is it makes sure no one is in charge. It pretty much turns code into a public domain resource while keeping all of the fruits of the community's labor from being picked by one entity. The GPL can be compared to a library. Anyone can check out books, but they must be returned. It has more of an educational value then an economical one, which makes it appealing for philosophical reasons. Now don't get me wrong, this is not a reason why BSD-like licenses are bad or anything, because they are not. BSD style licenses are almost exactly the same thing as the GPL is, except most allow commercial use, and some require credit to be given. I don't even consider this the difference myself, it is the cause of the difference. Both of these reasons are not evil ones. If I spend a month writing some sort of physics engine, I would like to be known for it, and if it is good, I might like to get payed for it. It seems that the niche of BSD-style is for projects which are run by a group. while GPL projects are generally open to everyone. A bunch of "BSD supporters" say that BSD licensed projects have higher quality code. This may be true of some projects due to the closer knit group of developers, but really, does it matter as long as we get from point A to point B?
The hunter becomes the hunted. Companies like this are like a cancer driven by deception and immoral practices. Perhaps my opinions would be different if any of their products served the world any use, but with the questionable marketing they push upon innocent people, I am glad to see them taking damages, and I can only pray that they will not be reimbursed the money they would not have rightfully made.