for #1, how are you going to draw the line between spam and non-spam (ham)? How do you figure out who "these companies" are? Are you going to tell PayPal/eBay that they can't take payments for certain transactions, and how will they know which ones are spammy?
Unfortunately, it seems Opera is in the worst possible place: all of the market share that alternatives get with none of the open-code security in Firefox. They're a closed-source alternative to both IE and FF.
>As much as I hate DRM, this was really a necessary move.
Yeah, exactly. When the customer doesn't choose the DRM format, they need to get it shoved down their throats. Totally prudent. It totally obviates the problems with ridiculous licensing and copyright lawsuits and makes them the defacto standard for interacting with media in the information age. There never was a problem with the idea of "protected digital music", just with the underlying technology.
No, what these people are clinging desperately to is the Adam and Eve creation story. Why? I think it's because they can't bear the thought that we're descended from lower life forms. To them, that thought is terrifying because they think it diminishes what we are.
it's not even that complicated. they cling to adam and eve because if that part isn't true, then the old testament loses its integrity. adam and eve (in this instance) are necessary for a belief in the seamless worldview that the bible provides. the bible doesn't account for itself possibly being wrong, so what are its practicioners to do? when they see a tear in their worldview forming, they rush to sew it up.
>Oh, and by the way... disagreeing with people is not "trolling".
Right, and it's also not "rationalizing antisocial behavior".
You rant a lot, but you don't draw any lines. A lot of people still think of culture as something that is free, that is a part of society, what they like, do, and talk about. Copyright law was (originally) written in a way that would pass copyrighted material from private control into the public domain. Copyrights have expired on the works of Maurice Ravel, Thomas Nast, Washington Irving, and many others, with undeniably great benefits for us all. This process is now stopped at 1923! All of your arguments are couched in economic terms, but our culture does not operate that way. We are exposed to various expressions of media, but we are not allowed to recycle anything created after 1923. This is the problem of copyright law, and not that anybody is "stealing." The acts which you characterize as theft can also be seen as a desire for the populace to use more recent works of copyright, with lawsuits by copyright holders against citizens being one illustration of tension between the law (as it has come to exist) and the will of the people. Of course much of the behavior being discussed here is currently illegal, but it also seems the legislature was out of touch with the constituency when making it so.
you should peep the asset forfeiture laws sometime. it may be a cure for your form of naivete. wait, is it still redistribution if the property is retained by the government?
you were not assured that the module was freely available because in order to be a lazy programmer you had to page past the GPL to get to the code you were interested in.
it's the red hat scare. the cold war wasn't that long ago, there's likely residual prejudice towards the color red (in association), so bill might just like to tap into this. hey, it can't hurt.
she still wouldn't get access to anything provably private, which any reasonable person would consider privileged information. she's filing to unseal, but that doesn't mean she gets access to everything.
>Many users surf with Firefox until they get to a site that >only works with IE, then switch to IE.
And then you go to Tools > Extensions and install the "View This Page In IE" extension, which adds a right-click menu item to open the page you're viewing in IE without introducing any IE or ActiveX into the internals of Firefox, as AOL seems anxious to do.
Free $$$ certainly does exist, except it goes by the name of "profit". With humans there would certainly be less profit than with computers doing the dialing and audiofile playback. This is where the law comes in, making it legal for anybody to phonespam anybody, as long as it's prerecorded. We already know what's up with "previous business relationship".
This is why it's for prerecorded spam only. Having robots do the work is the only way to make it profitable. It's probably better seen as a law to make receiving recorded spam mandatory over land lines, with unwanted calls such as these becoming background noise. Funny to think whether cellphone lobbyists are behind this at all, to make land lines less attractive. [removes tinfoil hat]
The return on this must be so low that paying live humans to make spamcalls to Do Not Call list members makes it unprofitable. The only way to make *any* money from the DNCL is to have robots do the job. It merely makes recorded spam into a constant fixture in having a land line, without recourse, and is a baldfaced free $$$$ giveaway to telemarketing companies. Plain and simple.
It would be wonderful if Apple, IBM, Novell/SuSE, or some other major player would just go ahead and run a commmercial during CSI debunking Linux patent issues such as this. Many people wouldn't get it right away, but they'd be asking "what was that all about"? I mean, if I can see SAP commercials during prime-time, why not something that would affect the typical computer user more?
"Extended warranty, how can I lose?!" is my mantra in these places. In fact, a place that offers EW's is good evidence that you should not buy anything there that you would need to return. EW's are 90% free cash for the store, especially with electronics, which usually survive a year if they survive a month.
Post-hoc ergo propter hoc, buddy. I don't think your point flies.
More and more, "simplified, easily digestible soundbites" are all that the mass media provides. People who make their decisions based on mass media information are going to be ignorant to the details that soundbites obscure. This doesn't mean that they sell, it just means that they're bought (not the same thing). You say as much yourself when you assert that soundbites are "the basis of mainstream private media", implying that for those who only use mainstream media that it's all they have to choose from. This isn't the same as people "liking" soundbites and I think as the years roll on we're going to see ill aftereffects of decisions made on factually incorrect information.
Ballmer's a salesman, to be sure, a huckster even. But he'd been a yes-man for 20+ years prior so I don't think the secret of his success is necessarily bullshit. Apropos to the example above of people buying only what is sold, the system rewards monopolies, of which Microsoft had long established before Ballmer was handed the reins.
What you're describing can be understood as a defection in the Prisoner's Dilemma game. In a quest for quality and diversity of opinion and approach, there is a mass defection of The News (stereotype, exceptions exist) from the consumer. Those are the two prisoners: The News and You, the punishment is Lowest Common Denominator programming.
Slashdot Mirror
for #1, how are you going to draw the line between spam and non-spam (ham)? How do you figure out who "these companies" are? Are you going to tell PayPal/eBay that they can't take payments for certain transactions, and how will they know which ones are spammy?
Unfortunately, it seems Opera is in the worst possible place: all of the market share that alternatives get with none of the open-code security in Firefox. They're a closed-source alternative to both IE and FF.
>As much as I hate DRM, this was really a necessary move.
Yeah, exactly. When the customer doesn't choose the DRM format, they need to get it shoved down their throats. Totally prudent. It totally obviates the problems with ridiculous licensing and copyright lawsuits and makes them the defacto standard for interacting with media in the information age. There never was a problem with the idea of "protected digital music", just with the underlying technology.
yeah, or COBOL?!
No, what these people are clinging desperately to is the Adam and Eve creation story. Why? I think it's because they can't bear the thought that we're descended from lower life forms. To them, that thought is terrifying because they think it diminishes what we are.
it's not even that complicated. they cling to adam and eve because if that part isn't true, then the old testament loses its integrity. adam and eve (in this instance) are necessary for a belief in the seamless worldview that the bible provides. the bible doesn't account for itself possibly being wrong, so what are its practicioners to do? when they see a tear in their worldview forming, they rush to sew it up.
"sew, sew like the wind!"
>Oh, and by the way... disagreeing with people is not "trolling".
Right, and it's also not "rationalizing antisocial behavior".
You rant a lot, but you don't draw any lines. A lot of people still think of culture as something that is free, that is a part of society, what they like, do, and talk about. Copyright law was (originally) written in a way that would pass copyrighted material from private control into the public domain. Copyrights have expired on the works of Maurice Ravel, Thomas Nast, Washington Irving, and many others, with undeniably great benefits for us all. This process is now stopped at 1923! All of your arguments are couched in economic terms, but our culture does not operate that way. We are exposed to various expressions of media, but we are not allowed to recycle anything created after 1923. This is the problem of copyright law, and not that anybody is "stealing." The acts which you characterize as theft can also be seen as a desire for the populace to use more recent works of copyright, with lawsuits by copyright holders against citizens being one illustration of tension between the law (as it has come to exist) and the will of the people. Of course much of the behavior being discussed here is currently illegal, but it also seems the legislature was out of touch with the constituency when making it so.
you should peep the asset forfeiture laws sometime. it may be a cure for your form of naivete. wait, is it still redistribution if the property is retained by the government?
you were not assured that the module was freely available because in order to be a lazy programmer you had to page past the GPL to get to the code you were interested in.
it's the red hat scare. the cold war wasn't that long ago, there's likely residual prejudice towards the color red (in association), so bill might just like to tap into this. hey, it can't hurt.
"You go to work with the Windows you have, not the Windows you might want or wish to have at a later time."
she still wouldn't get access to anything provably private, which any reasonable person would consider privileged information. she's filing to unseal, but that doesn't mean she gets access to everything.
>Many users surf with Firefox until they get to a site that
>only works with IE, then switch to IE.
And then you go to Tools > Extensions and install the "View This Page In IE" extension, which adds a right-click menu item to open the page you're viewing in IE without introducing any IE or ActiveX into the internals of Firefox, as AOL seems anxious to do.
Free $$$ certainly does exist, except it goes by the name of "profit". With humans there would certainly be less profit than with computers doing the dialing and audiofile playback. This is where the law comes in, making it legal for anybody to phonespam anybody, as long as it's prerecorded. We already know what's up with "previous business relationship".
This is why it's for prerecorded spam only. Having robots do the work is the only way to make it profitable. It's probably better seen as a law to make receiving recorded spam mandatory over land lines, with unwanted calls such as these becoming background noise. Funny to think whether cellphone lobbyists are behind this at all, to make land lines less attractive. [removes tinfoil hat]
The return on this must be so low that paying live humans to make spamcalls to Do Not Call list members makes it unprofitable. The only way to make *any* money from the DNCL is to have robots do the job. It merely makes recorded spam into a constant fixture in having a land line, without recourse, and is a baldfaced free $$$$ giveaway to telemarketing companies. Plain and simple.
If your keyboard is in New Hampshire while your machine is in Vermont, I supposed an argument can be made that that is an interstate transmission.
Yes, and a similar argument could be made if one's keyboard cable was miles long.
Damn, I had just that idea a few years ago. The downside is that you have to buy every product that you want the EULA for.
I'm officially lame: I don't get that one.
It would be wonderful if Apple, IBM, Novell/SuSE, or some other major player would just go ahead and run a commmercial during CSI debunking Linux patent issues such as this. Many people wouldn't get it right away, but they'd be asking "what was that all about"? I mean, if I can see SAP commercials during prime-time, why not something that would affect the typical computer user more?
This is just profit from the consumer's angle, the amount saved over suggested retail or the prevailing price. I say go for it!
"Extended warranty, how can I lose?!" is my mantra in these places. In fact, a place that offers EW's is good evidence that you should not buy anything there that you would need to return. EW's are 90% free cash for the store, especially with electronics, which usually survive a year if they survive a month.
People can be nice, well-intentioned, and insightful...but still do lame things. It's true, the past does not determine the future.
Post-hoc ergo propter hoc, buddy. I don't think your point flies.
More and more, "simplified, easily digestible soundbites" are all that the mass media provides. People who make their decisions based on mass media information are going to be ignorant to the details that soundbites obscure. This doesn't mean that they sell, it just means that they're bought (not the same thing). You say as much yourself when you assert that soundbites are "the basis of mainstream private media", implying that for those who only use mainstream media that it's all they have to choose from. This isn't the same as people "liking" soundbites and I think as the years roll on we're going to see ill aftereffects of decisions made on factually incorrect information.
Ballmer's a salesman, to be sure, a huckster even. But he'd been a yes-man for 20+ years prior so I don't think the secret of his success is necessarily bullshit. Apropos to the example above of people buying only what is sold, the system rewards monopolies, of which Microsoft had long established before Ballmer was handed the reins.
The first time I remember seeing Bill O'Reilly was on "A Current Affair" or one of the other entertainment/scandal newsshows that was on at the time.
What you're describing can be understood as a defection in the Prisoner's Dilemma game. In a quest for quality and diversity of opinion and approach, there is a mass defection of The News (stereotype, exceptions exist) from the consumer. Those are the two prisoners: The News and You, the punishment is Lowest Common Denominator programming.