IBM in its heyday, probably felt the same way. That is, until the market slapped it silly.
It's not that I'd necessarily like to see the demise of Microsoft, but I'd like to see it become a competitive player in the market. All of its current status is based on a model that has consumers (relatively) locked in to a single, proprietary OS, with proprietary software that uses proprietary formats, and makes difficult, if not impossible, for anyone to offer a competitive choice.
When I hear proposals like this, what comes to mind is not an effort to further the benefit of mankind, but to provide a means of revenue for a company whose CEO happens to be friends with "people in high places".
I don't know what Microsoft was thinking, but this move has the word DESPERATION written all over it. I hope they make the original available, so that every one can see how one entity persuaded the publishers of this document to withhold valuable information from everyone else.
They didn't break, kids, the election totals were altered and no longer matched reality.
What's ironic here is that in some countries, the exit polls determine the outcome of an election. The voting process itself is more a formality. I think this lends some strong credibility to your comment.
At some point in the not-to-distant future, who's to say that people won't start finding tidbits like this in their mailbox:
Dear valued fast food customer:
We understand that you have recently requested the removal of onions and pickles from your meal at our fast food establishment. As you know, this establishment is a fine American company that has provided affordable cuisine to many Americans for years. Because pickles and onions are fundamental ingredients of the meals that we serve, we have deemed their removal an unpatriotic gesture, and strongly believe that this could lead to other behavior that is even more troublesome. We regret to inform you that your name has been forwarded to the proper government authorities.
Have a nice day.
Best regards,
The management team at Fine American Food Company
PS: Don't forget our 2-for-1 Thanksgiving day special, pickles and onions included!
It's a good thing these cell phone users can't see thought bubbles over peoples' heads, because they'd get a taste of what most people really think of their precious little ringtones.
If it wasn't He-Man we would probably do it pretending something else. Kids do stupid things, they lack good judgement skills that is why 8 year olds are not allowed to vote or drive cars on public roads,
If a student wants to play games and goof off in class, theres a grading system to handle those students.
It doesn't work if these same students are also the ones who become masterful cheaters. And, unfortunately, the cheating phenomenon has been termed "endemic" in post-secondary education.
A local news outlet will be airing a story about how the much-lauded automated camera would help to curb speeding, and make roads "safer". Well, it seems that some people are receiving citations who weren't even in the area when the infraction was supposed to have occurred. There were over 170,000 citations issued last year, and NONE of them were dropped. This leads two very worrisome prospects:
1. If you are accused, but you aren't guilty, how do you prove your innocense (let alone that this is entirely backward)?
2. The accusation occurs at some point after the fact...how many people can remember exactly how fast they were going in any particular area, at any particular time, on any particular day, let alone prove it?
If each fine was in the neighborhood of $75, 170,000 X $75 = $13,125,000 = that's quite a little windfall.
It's possible that this case is still ongoing. But I assure you, I was aware of a proposed settlement right along the lines of what I described (assuming it's the same case). You can probably look the case up in the California Circuit Court (I've forgotten which one).
Since the class was harmed, and not the attorneys, it only stands to reason that the class should receive the bulk of WHATEVER payout is involved. In this particular case, it was clearly evident that the attorneys had picked two token class members to receive the massive $15K in compensation, while they (may have) walked away with a mountain of cash. The purpose of a class action suit is not to enrich greedy lawyers, but to seek compensation for damage to class members. If 20% of $4 million isn't enough, then I'd encourage them find some other profession and quit polluting the legal system with their tainted brand of 'justice'.
This is truly the equal of two evils. If a law were passed that forbid an law firm or attorney from collecting any more than a certain percentage of the overall award, it would help immensely. However, I remember about three years go, when American Express was being sued by a class claiming that Amex had been less than forthcoming about the terms of their travel insurance plan (I think that was it, but I might be wrong). In any event, the proposed settlement was that the class get $15K, and the attorneys walk away with about $4 million. I have no idea what the final ruling was, but I was appalled that some back-assed law firm would have the gall to propose something like this.
It's funny - that's one of the very reasons I avoid it. Too many fakes who are in it for their own selfishness....that's not what it's about, even if is "spreading the word." That "word" comes in a pretty disgusting package.
I followed a few of the programming-related groups for a while, and they were a very good resource, frequented by very knowledgeable professionals. I feel this is being slowly supplanted by web based 'articles' where they often barely even scratch the surface of a given subject.
Not to be pedantic or anything, but theft of service only occurs when one person persuades another to perform some service on his/her behalf with the understanding that the person performing the services will be paid for their efforts
I like your well-written response, but this isn't true all of the time. Consider the individual go goes out and purchases a descrambler for their cable connection. Or the person who uncaps their modem. Or the person who drops off their trash in a dumpster belonging to a commercial entity of some kind. Neither of these involve persuasion, or another individual.
The infringer has, in fact, not entered into any agreement at all with the author directly, and yet the author mistakenly believes he or she has the right to control the infringer's actions for his or her own financial benefit. It's a basic economic principle, really: if you want to receive something of value for your labour, you have to find someone willing to pay for it ahead of time. You can't just do the work and then expect anyone who benefits to pay you whatever you ask.
This doesn't make any sense. In a free market, various business entities routinely create products based on what they think consumers might be willing to pay for them. Investors fund the speculative nature of these efforts, not consumers. Consumers spend their money on what they can see and what they can have now, not what someone might produce at some point in the future. I don't see how it could work otherwise. Entertainment is no different - the end result is still a product, but the nature of its existence makes it very easy to circumvent normal market dynamics.
I'm amused - this goes to show, still further, how much people are in denial with respect to the real problem and the real solution. That's usually the case with addictive behaviors.
No, the public always owns the music, it's just that the copyright holder is given a monopoly on distribution.
I stand corrected. Just the same, as far as illegal copying is concerned, this difference in terminology doesn't affect the end result.
It is only theft if your stealing something deprives others of the right to sell it.
Theft comes in many flavors. Theft of service, for example, doesn't deprive anyone of anything - it merely provides the thief with something that wasn't paid for. Either way, it's still theft.
The point is, when an act is accepted by a significant proportion of the population, chances are that act is ethical
Was slavery ethical? Was the holocaust ethical? A resounding "no" on both counts.
The only reason that it happens so frequently is because it can. Before the advent of the digital medium, copyright infringement didn't yield nearly the same quality and was quite a bit of trouble to boot. By contrast, all it takes today is a search term or two, a few mouse clicks, and whatever time it takes for the download to complete.
No matter how you slice it, dice it, or spin it, it all boils down to the fact that copyright infringement involves the acquisition of something of value, without the permission of, or compensation to, its owners. People who want change in the business models used by the content providers NEED TO STOP FUNDING THE CURRENT MODEL.
But it's a gold mine for the content companies, who now have complete control over your ability to record/rewatch/rewind/fast-forward content received over cable TV.
Sucks for them. Local control (TOTAL control) is certainly one of the features I'd look for in a service like that. No control, no service. And on top of that, I'll even survive.
With commercial photo labs you have big brother watching to make sure that none of your pictures can be misinterpreted, resulting in an unexpected visit by the local police. That remind me....I wonder if any of these printers use tracking dots.
How do those who are active boycotters stick to it?
I have actively avoided the purchase of almost ALL media for a few years now. I have also avoided purchasing other items from companies whose policies I do not like. In response to your question, it's not a big deal. Sticking to it is easy. Just do it. Nobody will MAKE you buy a Sony CD, or any other Sony product. It's YOUR choice. Exercise it.
Very rarely will they mention the waste that is so pervasive in our public services.
It might be interesting to note that (at least in the US) the public has been clamoring for the privitization of certain government services, thinking it would save money. The joke's on them. Many private companies, once they get their hand on the public teat, won't let go, and milk it for all they can. This is where these astronomically-prised ambulance rides come in. I can't seem to figure it out, but people in government that are responsible for spending money (never mind wisely, because that clearly doesn't happen), think this is OK. The government just can't seem to get away from this mindset that has them paying several times what a normal person with half a brain would end up paying for the same thing.
The real question is, how do you reward software ingenuity and creativity if you cannot patent something? Is it enough to make money?
Perhaps this question would be better directed to Corel, Adobe, Apple, Microsoft, or any other entity that has been very well rewarded for its ingenuity and creativity with respect to software. Did patents get them where they are? This is precisely why this patent circus is so rediculous - the current success of various companies isn't even based on patents that protect their so-called "IP". Create something that people like, that they can use, and make it available at a reasonable cost, and they will most likely buy it.
The fact that Company A may have a better marketing team, a better implementation, more investment capital, smarter employees, or whatever, is NOT the jurisdiction of patents - but this is exactly the effect that why will have - they will eliminate competitive forces that can offer a better product.
Slashdot Mirror
IBM in its heyday, probably felt the same way. That is, until the market slapped it silly.
It's not that I'd necessarily like to see the demise of Microsoft, but I'd like to see it become a competitive player in the market. All of its current status is based on a model that has consumers (relatively) locked in to a single, proprietary OS, with proprietary software that uses proprietary formats, and makes difficult, if not impossible, for anyone to offer a competitive choice.
When I hear proposals like this, what comes to mind is not an effort to further the benefit of mankind, but to provide a means of revenue for a company whose CEO happens to be friends with "people in high places".
I don't know what Microsoft was thinking, but this move has the word DESPERATION written all over it. I hope they make the original available, so that every one can see how one entity persuaded the publishers of this document to withhold valuable information from everyone else.
They didn't break, kids, the election totals were altered and no longer matched reality.
What's ironic here is that in some countries, the exit polls determine the outcome of an election. The voting process itself is more a formality. I think this lends some strong credibility to your comment.
Jack has only one (serious) problem...he just doesn't know when to shut the hell up. Sometimes saying LESS will get you a lot further.
At some point in the not-to-distant future, who's to say that people won't start finding tidbits like this in their mailbox:
Dear valued fast food customer:
We understand that you have recently requested the removal of onions and pickles from your meal at our fast food establishment. As you know, this establishment is a fine American company that has provided affordable cuisine to many Americans for years. Because pickles and onions are fundamental ingredients of the meals that we serve, we have deemed their removal an unpatriotic gesture, and strongly believe that this could lead to other behavior that is even more troublesome. We regret to inform you that your name has been forwarded to the proper government authorities.
Have a nice day.
Best regards,
The management team at Fine American Food Company
PS: Don't forget our 2-for-1 Thanksgiving day special, pickles and onions included!
It's a good thing these cell phone users can't see thought bubbles over peoples' heads, because they'd get a taste of what most people really think of their precious little ringtones.
I tried that once, but I had a hard time getting the cave into the client's office.
If it wasn't He-Man we would probably do it pretending something else. Kids do stupid things, they lack good judgement skills that is why 8 year olds are not allowed to vote or drive cars on public roads,
Have you seen the average driver lately?
If a student wants to play games and goof off in class, theres a grading system to handle those students.
It doesn't work if these same students are also the ones who become masterful cheaters. And, unfortunately, the cheating phenomenon has been termed "endemic" in post-secondary education.
Absolutely.
A local news outlet will be airing a story about how the much-lauded automated camera would help to curb speeding, and make roads "safer". Well, it seems that some people are receiving citations who weren't even in the area when the infraction was supposed to have occurred. There were over 170,000 citations issued last year, and NONE of them were dropped. This leads two very worrisome prospects:
1. If you are accused, but you aren't guilty, how do you prove your innocense (let alone that this is entirely backward)?
2. The accusation occurs at some point after the fact...how many people can remember exactly how fast they were going in any particular area, at any particular time, on any particular day, let alone prove it?
If each fine was in the neighborhood of $75, 170,000 X $75 = $13,125,000 = that's quite a little windfall.
It's possible that this case is still ongoing. But I assure you, I was aware of a proposed settlement right along the lines of what I described (assuming it's the same case). You can probably look the case up in the California Circuit Court (I've forgotten which one).
This make no difference whatsoever.
Since the class was harmed, and not the attorneys, it only stands to reason that the class should receive the bulk of WHATEVER payout is involved. In this particular case, it was clearly evident that the attorneys had picked two token class members to receive the massive $15K in compensation, while they (may have) walked away with a mountain of cash. The purpose of a class action suit is not to enrich greedy lawyers, but to seek compensation for damage to class members. If 20% of $4 million isn't enough, then I'd encourage them find some other profession and quit polluting the legal system with their tainted brand of 'justice'.
This is truly the equal of two evils. If a law were passed that forbid an law firm or attorney from collecting any more than a certain percentage of the overall award, it would help immensely. However, I remember about three years go, when American Express was being sued by a class claiming that Amex had been less than forthcoming about the terms of their travel insurance plan (I think that was it, but I might be wrong). In any event, the proposed settlement was that the class get $15K, and the attorneys walk away with about $4 million. I have no idea what the final ruling was, but I was appalled that some back-assed law firm would have the gall to propose something like this.
It's funny - that's one of the very reasons I avoid it. Too many fakes who are in it for their own selfishness....that's not what it's about, even if is "spreading the word." That "word" comes in a pretty disgusting package.
I followed a few of the programming-related groups for a while, and they were a very good resource, frequented by very knowledgeable professionals. I feel this is being slowly supplanted by web based 'articles' where they often barely even scratch the surface of a given subject.
Not to be pedantic or anything, but theft of service only occurs when one person persuades another to perform some service on his/her behalf with the understanding that the person performing the services will be paid for their efforts
I like your well-written response, but this isn't true all of the time. Consider the individual go goes out and purchases a descrambler for their cable connection. Or the person who uncaps their modem. Or the person who drops off their trash in a dumpster belonging to a commercial entity of some kind. Neither of these involve persuasion, or another individual.
The infringer has, in fact, not entered into any agreement at all with the author directly, and yet the author mistakenly believes he or she has the right to control the infringer's actions for his or her own financial benefit. It's a basic economic principle, really: if you want to receive something of value for your labour, you have to find someone willing to pay for it ahead of time. You can't just do the work and then expect anyone who benefits to pay you whatever you ask.
This doesn't make any sense. In a free market, various business entities routinely create products based on what they think consumers might be willing to pay for them. Investors fund the speculative nature of these efforts, not consumers. Consumers spend their money on what they can see and what they can have now, not what someone might produce at some point in the future. I don't see how it could work otherwise. Entertainment is no different - the end result is still a product, but the nature of its existence makes it very easy to circumvent normal market dynamics.
I'm amused - this goes to show, still further, how much people are in denial with respect to the real problem and the real solution. That's usually the case with addictive behaviors.
No, the public always owns the music, it's just that the copyright holder is given a monopoly on distribution.
I stand corrected. Just the same, as far as illegal copying is concerned, this difference in terminology doesn't affect the end result.
It is only theft if your stealing something deprives others of the right to sell it.
Theft comes in many flavors. Theft of service, for example, doesn't deprive anyone of anything - it merely provides the thief with something that wasn't paid for. Either way, it's still theft.
The point is, when an act is accepted by a significant proportion of the population, chances are that act is ethical
Was slavery ethical? Was the holocaust ethical? A resounding "no" on both counts.
The only reason that it happens so frequently is because it can. Before the advent of the digital medium, copyright infringement didn't yield nearly the same quality and was quite a bit of trouble to boot. By contrast, all it takes today is a search term or two, a few mouse clicks, and whatever time it takes for the download to complete.
No matter how you slice it, dice it, or spin it, it all boils down to the fact that copyright infringement involves the acquisition of something of value, without the permission of, or compensation to, its owners. People who want change in the business models used by the content providers NEED TO STOP FUNDING THE CURRENT MODEL.
But it's a gold mine for the content companies, who now have complete control over your ability to record/rewatch/rewind/fast-forward content received over cable TV.
Sucks for them. Local control (TOTAL control) is certainly one of the features I'd look for in a service like that. No control, no service. And on top of that, I'll even survive.
With commercial photo labs you have big brother watching to make sure that none of your pictures can be misinterpreted, resulting in an unexpected visit by the local police. That remind me....I wonder if any of these printers use tracking dots.
How do those who are active boycotters stick to it?
I have actively avoided the purchase of almost ALL media for a few years now. I have also avoided purchasing other items from companies whose policies I do not like. In response to your question, it's not a big deal. Sticking to it is easy. Just do it. Nobody will MAKE you buy a Sony CD, or any other Sony product. It's YOUR choice. Exercise it.
Very rarely will they mention the waste that is so pervasive in our public services.
It might be interesting to note that (at least in the US) the public has been clamoring for the privitization of certain government services, thinking it would save money. The joke's on them. Many private companies, once they get their hand on the public teat, won't let go, and milk it for all they can. This is where these astronomically-prised ambulance rides come in. I can't seem to figure it out, but people in government that are responsible for spending money (never mind wisely, because that clearly doesn't happen), think this is OK. The government just can't seem to get away from this mindset that has them paying several times what a normal person with half a brain would end up paying for the same thing.
The real question is, how do you reward software ingenuity and creativity if you cannot patent something? Is it enough to make money?
Perhaps this question would be better directed to Corel, Adobe, Apple, Microsoft, or any other entity that has been very well rewarded for its ingenuity and creativity with respect to software. Did patents get them where they are? This is precisely why this patent circus is so rediculous - the current success of various companies isn't even based on patents that protect their so-called "IP". Create something that people like, that they can use, and make it available at a reasonable cost, and they will most likely buy it.
The fact that Company A may have a better marketing team, a better implementation, more investment capital, smarter employees, or whatever, is NOT the jurisdiction of patents - but this is exactly the effect that why will have - they will eliminate competitive forces that can offer a better product.