Google has a lot to lose only if a sufficient number of people react negatively. Many people are so complacent, they let companies/politicians get away with anything short of murder. They might pay lip service, but when it comes down to money, sacrificing convenience, or having to change one's m.o. a little, all bets are off. It's the American way.
There's winning the battle, and winning the war. Large corporations with deep pockets are well-suited to winning battles, but there isn't much they can do about losing the war with regard to the effects of negative public opinion.
Also, if you don't take care of your teeth, you gums get really sensitive, which is why some people don't like going to the dentist for a check up and cleaning.
The bills you get afterward aren't such a comfort, either. They take full advantage of you if you don't have insurance.
Funny that a top dubya adminstration official chided Sony for its DRM debacle, when not but one day later, Bush is asking Congress to pass a tough new anti-piracy law. Read about it Here. If anything, the proposed law takes "going too far" to the next level.
Remember how the existence of Eschelon was denied until some British guy confirmed that it did in fact, exist? Remember the cheesy "agreement" that the US would not be collecting data on its own citizens, but would have every opportunity to access such data from that collected by any of the four other Eschelon participants? There is absolutely no reason to believe that it WON'T be used on U.S.-owned sites. Even worse, there's absolutely nothing that will stop them, if they so choose.
Think about it...you have a product that's designed to accomplish a specific task, and that specific task is based solely on its ability to enhance another product. So instead of being able to name it, "Windows Defender," I have to name it something like, "Well-Known Operating System Defender". Instead of being able to inform *MY* potential customers as to exactly what my software does, I have to feed them some obscure reference, and perhaps mention in the small print, that it works with "Microsoft Windows^TM".
I *do* know that things in a vacuum fall done at the same rate, and flapping wings can't help you fly in vacuum, so I consider this theory disproven, so empirically I can prove that no fairies meeting this description are causing the illusion of gravity.
Come on now, haven't you heard of Intelligent Locomotion?
The contracts do a couple of things: they spell this out explicitly, and often extend the provision to works you were not directly asked to create.
This, at least in my opinion, is tantamount to an unconscionable agreement. By extension, it's where amployers get the cajones to claim that they own whatever you create, whether on your own time or not, so long as you are employed by the company. I believe this kind of "extension" is a little too extended, and if anything, I'd like to see this kind of one-sidedness curtailed- by law if necessary.
Would licensing prevent the multi-million dollar debacles created by large consulting firms that seem to routinely escape any means of accountability? Would an individual programmer's license have any effect whatsoever on the QA portion of a development project? Or the management? Or any decisions that are completely outside the control of any individual license holder?
I certainly don't advocate sloppy programming, but I'm not entirely sure that licensing would have the desired impact. If anything, it's just more red tape.
Behind the almighty Google, no matter how benevolent its founders may be, are the shareholders. For the most part, shareholders don't care how many people are screwed in the process, as long as they get a satisfactory return on their investment. One day, Google's board could easily decide that a change in direction is in order, and that could very well be something to worry about.
This is why it should have NO effect on smoking bans. No matter how you slice it, when you smoke anywhere in public, you ARE imposing on those around you- and it's not just a minor annoyance, it's a health issue.
Both desktops have their strong points, and quite frankly, I don't know what all the fuss is about, epecially from people who insist that Linux should standardize on one or tho other. After all is said and done, it's really no different than choosing Firefox or Opera for your web browsing. I've used both desktops, and although having used gnome recently, I thing having a choice is a good thing.
It's WAAAAY to early to tell if this is something that will benefit consumers, or benefit Microsoft. As others have pointed out, things become a lot easier for companies like Microsoft if they have only one set of laws to deal with, rather than a morass of 50. What this also does, is make it MUCH easier to get the law changed if it doesn't happen to fit within their objectives. Who will actually benefit, if anything, remains to be seen.
In some sense, freedom of speech, in the manner in which they have defined it, also relates to freedom of choice by the American citizens to elect the candidate they feel is most qualfied. When citizens are constantly bombarded by one side that has resources that far exceed those of a competitor, they aren't being afforded the opportunity (or the right, some might even say) to make an educated choice.
That's easy - just because it's the right thing to do, doesn't mean that it's the interest of a few (or perhaps a many) entrenched interests. People will fight tooth and nail to maintain the status quo if it happens to be their bread an butter. Think of huge impact this will have on the accounting and legal professions. Anything that might result in a net decrease in taxes, or make it difficult to slip in new taxes when ever the urge hits, will almost certainly be under fire- even though it might be a hell of a lot better overall than what we have now. That's where the general ineptitude of government comes into play.
Microsoft is doing this because they HAVE to. I dare say that had it not been for Linux and Google, we'd be seeing the same monopolistic crapola that led the company to the anti-trust violations in the first place. It's funny how things change when suddenly you're faced with the very real prosect of losing your ivory tower.
I agree with your thoughts on having the freedom to engage in our own creative endeavors without having to worry about being crushed by the the iron fist of *AA. However, we continue to fund their efforts, and they continue to seek increasingly invasive controls over what we can and cannot do. Having said that, I will respond to the first portion of your post:
Bottom line is it's all about FREEDOM.
If that's freedom, it will enslave us. Real freedom exists only when it is tempered with restraint- something imposed by the mere fact that we are human.
Recently there was an article that spoke disfavorably of OpenOffice because of it's enormous memory footprint, and slow load times. In light of that, I don't see how in hell someone could get away with 128MB RAM - even if it is all allocated to OpenOffice. Try loading a document of any but the most basic 2-3 page memo, and I think you might start running into problems.
Slashdot Mirror
Developers cannot let themselves be caught in that trap, so they need to test as they go.
Does the typical programmer code s significant chunk of programming before testing, or are there short spurts of code, then test, then code...?
Google has a lot to lose only if a sufficient number of people react negatively. Many people are so complacent, they let companies/politicians get away with anything short of murder. They might pay lip service, but when it comes down to money, sacrificing convenience, or having to change one's m.o. a little, all bets are off. It's the American way.
There's winning the battle, and winning the war. Large corporations with deep pockets are well-suited to winning battles, but there isn't much they can do about losing the war with regard to the effects of negative public opinion.
The assumption is that people will want MORE of the crap thats currently available. I'm not so sure this is a safe bet.
Also, if you don't take care of your teeth, you gums get really sensitive, which is why some people don't like going to the dentist for a check up and cleaning.
The bills you get afterward aren't such a comfort, either. They take full advantage of you if you don't have insurance.
Funny that a top dubya adminstration official chided Sony for its DRM debacle, when not but one day later, Bush is asking Congress to pass a tough new anti-piracy law. Read about it Here. If anything, the proposed law takes "going too far" to the next level.
Who will be the first to try and patent something "using AJAX..."?
Remember how the existence of Eschelon was denied until some British guy confirmed that it did in fact, exist? Remember the cheesy "agreement" that the US would not be collecting data on its own citizens, but would have every opportunity to access such data from that collected by any of the four other Eschelon participants? There is absolutely no reason to believe that it WON'T be used on U.S.-owned sites. Even worse, there's absolutely nothing that will stop them, if they so choose.
Think about it...you have a product that's designed to accomplish a specific task, and that specific task is based solely on its ability to enhance another product. So instead of being able to name it, "Windows Defender," I have to name it something like, "Well-Known Operating System Defender". Instead of being able to inform *MY* potential customers as to exactly what my software does, I have to feed them some obscure reference, and perhaps mention in the small print, that it works with "Microsoft Windows^TM".
I *do* know that things in a vacuum fall done at the same rate, and flapping wings can't help you fly in vacuum, so I consider this theory disproven, so empirically I can prove that no fairies meeting this description are causing the illusion of gravity.
Come on now, haven't you heard of Intelligent Locomotion?
The contracts do a couple of things: they spell this out explicitly, and often extend the provision to works you were not directly asked to create.
This, at least in my opinion, is tantamount to an unconscionable agreement. By extension, it's where amployers get the cajones to claim that they own whatever you create, whether on your own time or not, so long as you are employed by the company. I believe this kind of "extension" is a little too extended, and if anything, I'd like to see this kind of one-sidedness curtailed- by law if necessary.
Would licensing prevent the multi-million dollar debacles created by large consulting firms that seem to routinely escape any means of accountability? Would an individual programmer's license have any effect whatsoever on the QA portion of a development project? Or the management? Or any decisions that are completely outside the control of any individual license holder?
I certainly don't advocate sloppy programming, but I'm not entirely sure that licensing would have the desired impact. If anything, it's just more red tape.
Behind the almighty Google, no matter how benevolent its founders may be, are the shareholders. For the most part, shareholders don't care how many people are screwed in the process, as long as they get a satisfactory return on their investment. One day, Google's board could easily decide that a change in direction is in order, and that could very well be something to worry about.
This is why it should have NO effect on smoking bans. No matter how you slice it, when you smoke anywhere in public, you ARE imposing on those around you- and it's not just a minor annoyance, it's a health issue.
Both desktops have their strong points, and quite frankly, I don't know what all the fuss is about, epecially from people who insist that Linux should standardize on one or tho other. After all is said and done, it's really no different than choosing Firefox or Opera for your web browsing. I've used both desktops, and although having used gnome recently, I thing having a choice is a good thing.
It's WAAAAY to early to tell if this is something that will benefit consumers, or benefit Microsoft. As others have pointed out, things become a lot easier for companies like Microsoft if they have only one set of laws to deal with, rather than a morass of 50. What this also does, is make it MUCH easier to get the law changed if it doesn't happen to fit within their objectives. Who will actually benefit, if anything, remains to be seen.
In some sense, freedom of speech, in the manner in which they have defined it, also relates to freedom of choice by the American citizens to elect the candidate they feel is most qualfied. When citizens are constantly bombarded by one side that has resources that far exceed those of a competitor, they aren't being afforded the opportunity (or the right, some might even say) to make an educated choice.
From Microsoft's very inception the undercurrent has been driven by opportunism and a keen desire to take advantage of others.
You can't blame the customer in situations like this. All they are are consumers who want a product.
You do realize you're talking about a video game console, and not something substantially more important, like food, don't you?
That's easy - just because it's the right thing to do, doesn't mean that it's the interest of a few (or perhaps a many) entrenched interests. People will fight tooth and nail to maintain the status quo if it happens to be their bread an butter. Think of huge impact this will have on the accounting and legal professions. Anything that might result in a net decrease in taxes, or make it difficult to slip in new taxes when ever the urge hits, will almost certainly be under fire- even though it might be a hell of a lot better overall than what we have now. That's where the general ineptitude of government comes into play.
Microsoft is doing this because they HAVE to. I dare say that had it not been for Linux and Google, we'd be seeing the same monopolistic crapola that led the company to the anti-trust violations in the first place. It's funny how things change when suddenly you're faced with the very real prosect of losing your ivory tower.
I agree with your thoughts on having the freedom to engage in our own creative endeavors without having to worry about being crushed by the the iron fist of *AA. However, we continue to fund their efforts, and they continue to seek increasingly invasive controls over what we can and cannot do. Having said that, I will respond to the first portion of your post:
Bottom line is it's all about FREEDOM.
If that's freedom, it will enslave us. Real freedom exists only when it is tempered with restraint- something imposed by the mere fact that we are human.
>>Linux: 128 Mbytes RAM
Recently there was an article that spoke disfavorably of OpenOffice because of it's enormous memory footprint, and slow load times. In light of that, I don't see how in hell someone could get away with 128MB RAM - even if it is all allocated to OpenOffice. Try loading a document of any but the most basic 2-3 page memo, and I think you might start running into problems.
We don't HAVE to buy drugs, nor do we HAVE to buy any of the crap from Hollywood. We are literally paying for the rope that will hang us.
Yes, but the bigger A. Holes are the ones that would ever pass something like this.
Attention Hollywood: You're not that good.