I do of course, but the question should be presented as "would you like to give us your phone number" in a Y/N box, and N should be the default. Who in the world would be f'ing crazy enough to give that type of information anyway?
Apple is easy to avoid by buying any of the thousands of other products their software doesn't run on. Microsoft, on the other hand, wants to be on all those thousands of other products.
As much as I distrust Google, which is quite a bit ever since they started asking for phone numbers, they still haven't reached the same level of fear that I have Microsoft and its insistence on forcing everyone into its collective. Add to that the fact that it's also against Nokia, a company I once adored before they jumped in bed with the devil incarnate, I must now say "good on you Google!"
If the data proves true, this is the totally the fault of proprietory software developers for making their products too easy to pirate. What they need to do is make their products impossible to install and run on systems that can't prove that the appropriate funds have exchanged hands. Further, I'd even suggest that their installation software provide links to free alternatives so that those who will never pay have an easy out to avoid becomming criminals.
Picture if you will this. You go to install a program and either don't have the funds to pay for it or do but are unwilling to part with them. If said software's intallation routine provided a button such as "install free alternative" wouldn't potential pirates choose that option instead?
Seriously proprietory software developers, all you have to do to prevent piracy is to provide people ways to achieve the same functiality that your product provides without the cost.
Government needs to get out of the business of supplying endless money to students.
True, it should. But since a college degree is fast replacing the high school degree as the minimum level of education to enter the workplace, government needs to start providing it free as well.
This is no time to be lazy!! You have decided to join the fight in one of the hottest and most controversial slashdots topics. Certainly you can afford to expend a little effort here!
I eagerly read your post looking for citations proving your claim of "obvious correlation between piracy and decreased music sales" and was very disappointed to find none! Certainly, since you say it is obvious, there has to be something you can provide to back up that assertion.
If you had to pay no taxes, would your employer need to pay you so much? I've never understood why so many people think that if they paid less they would have more. Businesses aren't going to pay you anymore than they have to to ensure you walk in the door tomorrow morning.
What about what necessity demands? If it costs $X to operate something and you pay less than your share then it seems obvious someone else must pay more.
Taxes are a wash. If it takes $X to live in a location, then the market will ensure that is $X is equal to or greater that you take home. It has to, otherwise there would be market at all.c
Ahh, so there are at least two of you! I for one wish you the best of luck in your quest to....uhmm, what is it you are seeking to accomplish by the way?
I admit I'm very impressed! I know I'm sticking my neck out depending on the eyes of many others to verify that open source programs such as libreoffice respect privacy, but you relying on the output of a disasembler to reveal all potential downfalls of a program all by your lonesome far exceeds my meager abilities. My hat is off to you!
How do you know Microsoft Office respects your privacy, do you have access to the source? From what I've heard Microsoft at the very least keeps track of the hardware on which you run its software.
No, they are not "literally" giving the phones away. They still require a contract that requires people to part with money. Perhaps you meant "virtually"?
Why should anyone have to pay for such simple, basic securtiy? Is Microsoft's business model going to be will make you vunerable for free, will make you safe for a fee?
Most people think of PCs and laptops as computers but see phones as phones. Now, though you and I might think it's fantastic carrying a full Linux distro in our pockets, the vast majority just want to be able make calls and text.
Can't you just call them and tell them to turn it off? Or, at the very least, they surely will turn it off for you if you don't pay the bill. What's online is online, whether it be a networks website, bittorrent, or even binary newsgroups.
After 12 years of paying for TV, I finally cut the cord. The final straw for me were the distracting popups shown at the bottom of the screen in the middle of the shows. I mean really, think about. You are paying for the "priviledge" of being a product subjected to insistent advertising. How ridiculous is that? My average bill was around $100 month. That's over $12,000 a decade for chrissakes! What do I have to show for that expense now? Absolutely nothing!
The more expensive Apple products become, the fewer people who can afford them will be. This isn't price fixing, it's enabling consumers to compare Apples to Apples and oranges to oranges. And, by the way, a warranty is a warranty and a price is a price. Apples and oranges.
Slashdot Mirror
I do of course, but the question should be presented as "would you like to give us your phone number" in a Y/N box, and N should be the default. Who in the world would be f'ing crazy enough to give that type of information anyway?
Oh, and of course Google wants to be on them all.
Apple is easy to avoid by buying any of the thousands of other products their software doesn't run on. Microsoft, on the other hand, wants to be on all those thousands of other products.
As much as I distrust Google, which is quite a bit ever since they started asking for phone numbers, they still haven't reached the same level of fear that I have Microsoft and its insistence on forcing everyone into its collective. Add to that the fact that it's also against Nokia, a company I once adored before they jumped in bed with the devil incarnate, I must now say "good on you Google!"
If the data proves true, this is the totally the fault of proprietory software developers for making their products too easy to pirate. What they need to do is make their products impossible to install and run on systems that can't prove that the appropriate funds have exchanged hands. Further, I'd even suggest that their installation software provide links to free alternatives so that those who will never pay have an easy out to avoid becomming criminals.
Picture if you will this. You go to install a program and either don't have the funds to pay for it or do but are unwilling to part with them. If said software's intallation routine provided a button such as "install free alternative" wouldn't potential pirates choose that option instead?
Seriously proprietory software developers, all you have to do to prevent piracy is to provide people ways to achieve the same functiality that your product provides without the cost.
If two people invent the same thing at the same time why doesn't the USPTO just consider the thing obvious and not worthy of patent protection?
Government needs to get out of the business of supplying endless money to students.
True, it should. But since a college degree is fast replacing the high school degree as the minimum level of education to enter the workplace, government needs to start providing it free as well.
This is no time to be lazy!! You have decided to join the fight in one of the hottest and most controversial slashdots topics. Certainly you can afford to expend a little effort here!
I eagerly read your post looking for citations proving your claim of "obvious correlation between piracy and decreased music sales" and was very disappointed to find none! Certainly, since you say it is obvious, there has to be something you can provide to back up that assertion.
Sure, but out of respect I'll let you go first. Would you start with justifying why how one expresses an idea is a protected right in the first place?
If you had to pay no taxes, would your employer need to pay you so much? I've never understood why so many people think that if they paid less they would have more. Businesses aren't going to pay you anymore than they have to to ensure you walk in the door tomorrow morning.
What about what necessity demands? If it costs $X to operate something and you pay less than your share then it seems obvious someone else must pay more.
Taxes are a wash. If it takes $X to live in a location, then the market will ensure that is $X is equal to or greater that you take home. It has to, otherwise there would be market at all.c
It's not really hate, people just don't understand that samzenpus is having a laugh at their expense is all.
Ahh, so there are at least two of you! I for one wish you the best of luck in your quest to....uhmm, what is it you are seeking to accomplish by the way?
I admit I'm very impressed! I know I'm sticking my neck out depending on the eyes of many others to verify that open source programs such as libreoffice respect privacy, but you relying on the output of a disasembler to reveal all potential downfalls of a program all by your lonesome far exceeds my meager abilities. My hat is off to you!
How do you know Microsoft Office respects your privacy, do you have access to the source? From what I've heard Microsoft at the very least keeps track of the hardware on which you run its software.
So $24,000 a decade not counting the interest/dividends it could have been earning? Doesn't sound like chump change to me.
No, they are not "literally" giving the phones away. They still require a contract that requires people to part with money. Perhaps you meant "virtually"?
Why should anyone have to pay for such simple, basic securtiy? Is Microsoft's business model going to be will make you vunerable for free, will make you safe for a fee?
Elop _is_ Nokia, at least until he reaches Microsoft's goal of turning what was the best cell phone manufacturer into dust.
Most people think of PCs and laptops as computers but see phones as phones. Now, though you and I might think it's fantastic carrying a full Linux distro in our pockets, the vast majority just want to be able make calls and text.
Can't you just call them and tell them to turn it off? Or, at the very least, they surely will turn it off for you if you don't pay the bill. What's online is online, whether it be a networks website, bittorrent, or even binary newsgroups.
After 12 years of paying for TV, I finally cut the cord. The final straw for me were the distracting popups shown at the bottom of the screen in the middle of the shows. I mean really, think about. You are paying for the "priviledge" of being a product subjected to insistent advertising. How ridiculous is that? My average bill was around $100 month. That's over $12,000 a decade for chrissakes! What do I have to show for that expense now? Absolutely nothing!
The more expensive Apple products become, the fewer people who can afford them will be. This isn't price fixing, it's enabling consumers to compare Apples to Apples and oranges to oranges. And, by the way, a warranty is a warranty and a price is a price. Apples and oranges.