Normally that makes sense. But the fact that both Congress and the President have their noses so TIGHTLY wedged between the ass cheeks of corporate america, anything is possible.
This is a little off topic, but consider the new bankruptcy laws that Bush signed today, that will dramatically alter the terms under which one can file. Why? Because the poor, poor, consumer credit whores who extend credit to anyone who can sign their name, are tired of being stiffed.
A closing comment I heard on the news tonight was HILARIOUS...the credit companies feel that this new law will make credit more affordable to a wider audience. Do they think anyone is really dumb enough to believe that consumer credit rates will decrease because of this new law? Well, Congress bought it...but I mean normal people.
1976 policy of copyrighting every stupid little thing automatically.
That's actually a good thing. Unlike patents, this makes copyright available to anyone. Also, unlike patents, copyright comes into existence at the point the work is created. With patents, all you need is a stupid idea- whether or not it's your own.
The problem with software patents is that there are far too many methodologies that either draw on, or depend on far too many other methodologies. Before software patents, you could take an idea and make it better. This was good for the consumer, because it accomplised two things- it makes it more difficult to stagnate, locking customers into an implementation that is substandard.
Let's say that someone develops a lightweight app that does something specific, but does it very well. Too bad...the customer can't benefit from this because [insert your favortte corporate pirate here] claims they already own that methodology. If the customer wants to benefit from this methodology, they have are forced to purchase a product at a price that they don't want to pay, for functionality they may not even want.
Think about how stupid this is. The natural lifecycle for software is to start out lean, and work its way toward an untenable state of bloat. Welcome to the upgrade treadmill. Granted, additional and improved features are nice, but it's an all-or-nothing proposition. If you want to do something that requires methodology x, and the only way to get it is by spending a boatload on software y, you are also forced into getting a lot of crap you neither want nor need.
Let's say that the software company is willing to set up licensing terms. This company has a patent on a specific method, but the manner in which they've implemented it either sucks, or requires too much overhead. You come up with a much better implementation, but the licensing fee means that THEY get paid for YOUR work. This is why methods are far too broad. For those that understand OOP, companies are granted ownership of specific interfaces, which means that they'd also be able to claim ownership of any implementations- a rather bleak situation.
This is exactly what needs to happen. Adobe et al made their legislative bed, now let them sleep in it. Perhaps in the future, they'll be fortunate enough to have some leadership that can think a little beyond the next quarter's earnings report.
I think we're talking about two different markets here - Service Level Agreements are a big business, usually aimed *at* big business. For a consumer product, it's a whole different ballgame. Only in one's imagination will they see a scenario where John Q. Customer calls up BSC, Inc and says, "Hey, there's this bug that's causing me a lot of grief," and hear BSC, Inc say, "Thanks for calling, we'll have that fixed in a couple of days." Not only will you be expected to wait until the next release, it's also important to remember that some bugs are never fixed.
Software used in mission-critical applications, like the elevator example you mentioned is subject to an entirely different set of circumstances. Not only is it rigorously tested, the conditions under which it is expected to function are extremely limited. There is a known set of variables, and compared to your average piece of consumer-grade software, that set is relatively small.
You can complain all you want...but the chance that something will be done within a timeframe that's suitable to YOU is about, oh.....none. At least with OSS I have the *option* to do something about it if I so choose. With proprietary software I have to wait...and hope. There are no guarantees whatsoever that *my* particular problem will be addressed to my satisfaction.
You have a point, but the reason *I* think this is particularly funny is the perception people have that somehow, if they buy proprietary software (as supposed to using open-source), they can hold someone accountable if something doesn't work. This is so far off the mark it's beyond pathetic.
I remember reading an article not too long ago that discussed problems people were having from extended use of their thumbs for things like text messaging, and gameboy-like appliances. The condition is now commonly referred to as "Nintendo Thumb". I guess Microsoft wants its share of this market as well.
and being forced into a business model that takes care of customer needs
Ironically, that may become their strongest selling point. One thing I haven't seen mentioned about public infrastructure, is that after the initial implementation, the maintenance and upgrading will most likely be limited to what is absolutely necessary to keep it in working condition. If you want an example of what I'm talking about, look at any other public utility - the sorry state of road maintenance, schools, etc. I have no reason to believe that this won't meet the same kind of fate.
One more thing - it would be difficult to imagine the government passing up an opportunity to impose a greater tax burden. I'm guessing that the cost for this could be converted at some point down the line, into a specific tax of some kind. This tax of course will go into the general fund, it won't be used for its intended purpose, and despite its cost, the government-backed WiFi system could still be substandard.
Come on, speeding fines are not a major revenue source,
I guess that depends on where you live. I've heard that in some areas, ticketing speeders is much more likely to generate a good ROI, than say, ticketing drivers who regularly scat all over everyone with their loud car stereos. My understanding is that if it's NOT a major source of revenue, it won't be addressed- a sad state of affairs if you ask me.
Have you ever filled out a tax return? Have you ever seen those little boxes on your paycheck stub that denote money that you've earned, but is being withheld? Where do you think that money goes?
The topic of discussion is why the government is being charitable by not taking your money. I.e., in instances where they don't tax you.
NOT taking money that is rightfully ours is NOT a charitable act- it's an act of restraint. To suggest that it IS charitable is like saying that a thief is being charitable if he decides not to rob you.
Free????? What planet are you living on? We PAY for it. Emphasize the WE part. Increased teacher salaries? Get ready for a tax hike. Better police protection? Get ready for a tax hike. Badly needed road maintenance? Get ready for a tax hike. New schools? Tax hike. NONE of this is free. In fact, the next decade will be quite interesting...there will be a HUGE number people retiring, all expecting to receive their social security benefits. What kind of tax burden do you think that will place on those still working?
emergency medical care
This deserve a special mention. When have you ever received FREE emergency medical care? It's not free- they bill you for it like they do any other kind of treatment. It's an even bigger problem for people who are uninsured, because the hospital can charge whatever it damn well pleases.
There's much that's good about google, but one thing I always wonder about when I hear about "charitable" activities, is the motivation behind it. Is it really charitable, or is it a PR stunt with tax advantages? I'm willing to give Google the benefit of the doubt in this case. Had it been Microsoft, however...
I was under impression that USA Courts took privacy issues quite seriously.
If that were true, neither Lexis Nexis nor Choicepoint would be in business. There would not only be serious constraints on the amounts and kinds of information that could be aggregated with respect to US Citizens, but also under what circumstances it could be used. None of that exists, and as long as Big Bu$ine$$ has its way, it never will.
Ok, I overlooked the PAC. So the little people have PACs, the big people have their own money, and then there's corporate money. With all this money floating around, where's the net benefit? I'd argue that there is none. Sure, the candidates get to spend more time engaging in the typical soundbite circus that characterizes most elections, but to what end? So John Q. Voter hears for the *50th* time that one candidate is better than another, justified by abstract, unrealistic promises that are never kept. So what? Just so some politician can assure his continued employment?...who plans on making elected office a longterm career choice.
That's another problem. The political process should be returned to the notion of service . That is, serve the country for a term or two, and then get out. It would put an end to the pathetic empire-building, deal-making, etc. that is all too common.
I think campaign contributions, at least the way they occur in today's climate, are an influence that taints the political process - and that's putting it mildly. Corporations don't vote, and yet they make some of the biggest contributions. As such, a candidate is more likely to consider their interests over those of John Q Voter. Individuals can make large contributions, and even though this still sucks, I'd argue that it makes for a more representative process.
The whole problem is that people and entities with more money, have more access (and more influence) than people that don't have money. Last I checked, the government's role is to serve the interests of ALL citizens, not just those with money.
It's the one pays for doing so...and it's a free choice. I have to wonder about an artist's motivation if their first priority is focused on becoming popular.
Your example deals with someone's private property- a lot with a house on it. I have no problem with that. It's not quite same where you have a commons-oriented arrangement, such as those that exist with an apartment, condominium, or townhome.
As for "not conducting business out in the public"...how is this possible? Someone's "business" might be nothing more than walking to or from their car. People have no choice but to conduct at least some of their business in public.
I don't understand who you think is monitoring these feeds
I'm willing to bet that people either were, or are saying the same thing about other kinds of information. Now look at how pervasive identity theft has become. Also, it might not hurt to remember that any information about you is potentially discoverable in a legal proceeding. Then it becomes public record.
I don't see this analogy as being even close to accurate. Do you think an artist walks into a studio all by him/herself and magically pops out a CD in a few days? It doesn't happen. Whether you like the RIAA or not, there are many people involved in the production and distribution of a single CD. Since all of the entities involved are are paid for their services, record companies quite obviously can't just give it away. It costs real money to produce the music that many people see fit to steal.
Second, I take issue with the notion that the music is not the property of the RIAA. As much as it might suck that this is how it ends up, the artists know full well what who will own the finished product. Nobody holds a gun to their head to make them sign a contract. It's not a big deal to the artists, because they're all after the same thing - the miniscule chance that they'll hit it big. Cry me a river.
Nothing will fundamentally change until either the consumers wise up and stop buying (and stealing), or the artists wise up and realize that their are other ways to distribute what they produce to those who want to buy it.
I'm sure there might be exceptions - but in many, cases, a company will install cameras so that people who can't bring themselves to better protect their own assets (their cars, for example) would be afforded an extra measure of security (if in only in theory). Unfortunately, there's a lot of baggage that goes with it - like having everyone's personal business being monitored by some unknown entity. As with any information, you have no idea where this will end up- it's completely out of your control.
I'd agree that there is a lot of variation within the various distros and software versions, but there's absolutely nothing that says a user can't pick one distro and go with it. There's also absolutely nothing that says a user can't wait until the next major release of their distro in order to upgrade, so that everything gets done at once. Following these two options will eliminate about 90% of the arguments I've seen against linux in this thread.
I'd also be willing to bet that much of the talk of "coolness" applies mostly to things that qualify as 2-minute eye-candy.
Slashdot Mirror
Normally that makes sense. But the fact that both Congress and the President have their noses so TIGHTLY wedged between the ass cheeks of corporate america, anything is possible.
This is a little off topic, but consider the new bankruptcy laws that Bush signed today, that will dramatically alter the terms under which one can file. Why? Because the poor, poor, consumer credit whores who extend credit to anyone who can sign their name, are tired of being stiffed.
A closing comment I heard on the news tonight was HILARIOUS...the credit companies feel that this new law will make credit more affordable to a wider audience. Do they think anyone is really dumb enough to believe that consumer credit rates will decrease because of this new law? Well, Congress bought it...but I mean normal people.
1976 policy of copyrighting every stupid little thing automatically.
That's actually a good thing. Unlike patents, this makes copyright available to anyone. Also, unlike patents, copyright comes into existence at the point the work is created. With patents, all you need is a stupid idea- whether or not it's your own.
The problem with software patents is that there are far too many methodologies that either draw on, or depend on far too many other methodologies. Before software patents, you could take an idea and make it better. This was good for the consumer, because it accomplised two things- it makes it more difficult to stagnate, locking customers into an implementation that is substandard.
Let's say that someone develops a lightweight app that does something specific, but does it very well. Too bad...the customer can't benefit from this because [insert your favortte corporate pirate here] claims they already own that methodology. If the customer wants to benefit from this methodology, they have are forced to purchase a product at a price that they don't want to pay, for functionality they may not even want.
Think about how stupid this is. The natural lifecycle for software is to start out lean, and work its way toward an untenable state of bloat. Welcome to the upgrade treadmill. Granted, additional and improved features are nice, but it's an all-or-nothing proposition. If you want to do something that requires methodology x, and the only way to get it is by spending a boatload on software y, you are also forced into getting a lot of crap you neither want nor need.
Let's say that the software company is willing to set up licensing terms. This company has a patent on a specific method, but the manner in which they've implemented it either sucks, or requires too much overhead. You come up with a much better implementation, but the licensing fee means that THEY get paid for YOUR work. This is why methods are far too broad. For those that understand OOP, companies are granted ownership of specific interfaces, which means that they'd also be able to claim ownership of any implementations- a rather bleak situation.
This is exactly what needs to happen. Adobe et al made their legislative bed, now let them sleep in it. Perhaps in the future, they'll be fortunate enough to have some leadership that can think a little beyond the next quarter's earnings report.
I think we're talking about two different markets here - Service Level Agreements are a big business, usually aimed *at* big business. For a consumer product, it's a whole different ballgame. Only in one's imagination will they see a scenario where John Q. Customer calls up BSC, Inc and says, "Hey, there's this bug that's causing me a lot of grief," and hear BSC, Inc say, "Thanks for calling, we'll have that fixed in a couple of days." Not only will you be expected to wait until the next release, it's also important to remember that some bugs are never fixed.
Software used in mission-critical applications, like the elevator example you mentioned is subject to an entirely different set of circumstances. Not only is it rigorously tested, the conditions under which it is expected to function are extremely limited. There is a known set of variables, and compared to your average piece of consumer-grade software, that set is relatively small.
You can complain all you want...but the chance that something will be done within a timeframe that's suitable to YOU is about, oh.....none. At least with OSS I have the *option* to do something about it if I so choose. With proprietary software I have to wait...and hope. There are no guarantees whatsoever that *my* particular problem will be addressed to my satisfaction.
You have a point, but the reason *I* think this is particularly funny is the perception people have that somehow, if they buy proprietary software (as supposed to using open-source), they can hold someone accountable if something doesn't work. This is so far off the mark it's beyond pathetic.
I remember reading an article not too long ago that discussed problems people were having from extended use of their thumbs for things like text messaging, and gameboy-like appliances. The condition is now commonly referred to as "Nintendo Thumb". I guess Microsoft wants its share of this market as well.
and being forced into a business model that takes care of customer needs
Ironically, that may become their strongest selling point. One thing I haven't seen mentioned about public infrastructure, is that after the initial implementation, the maintenance and upgrading will most likely be limited to what is absolutely necessary to keep it in working condition. If you want an example of what I'm talking about, look at any other public utility - the sorry state of road maintenance, schools, etc. I have no reason to believe that this won't meet the same kind of fate.
One more thing - it would be difficult to imagine the government passing up an opportunity to impose a greater tax burden. I'm guessing that the cost for this could be converted at some point down the line, into a specific tax of some kind. This tax of course will go into the general fund, it won't be used for its intended purpose, and despite its cost, the government-backed WiFi system could still be substandard.
Come on, speeding fines are not a major revenue source,
I guess that depends on where you live. I've heard that in some areas, ticketing speeders is much more likely to generate a good ROI, than say, ticketing drivers who regularly scat all over everyone with their loud car stereos. My understanding is that if it's NOT a major source of revenue, it won't be addressed- a sad state of affairs if you ask me.
They're not taking your money...
Have you ever filled out a tax return? Have you ever seen those little boxes on your paycheck stub that denote money that you've earned, but is being withheld? Where do you think that money goes?
The topic of discussion is why the government is being charitable by not taking your money. I.e., in instances where they don't tax you.
NOT taking money that is rightfully ours is NOT a charitable act- it's an act of restraint. To suggest that it IS charitable is like saying that a thief is being charitable if he decides not to rob you.
Assuming you reside in the US....
Free????? What planet are you living on? We PAY for it. Emphasize the WE part. Increased teacher salaries? Get ready for a tax hike. Better police protection? Get ready for a tax hike. Badly needed road maintenance? Get ready for a tax hike. New schools? Tax hike. NONE of this is free. In fact, the next decade will be quite interesting...there will be a HUGE number people retiring, all expecting to receive their social security benefits. What kind of tax burden do you think that will place on those still working?
emergency medical care
This deserve a special mention. When have you ever received FREE emergency medical care? It's not free- they bill you for it like they do any other kind of treatment. It's an even bigger problem for people who are uninsured, because the hospital can charge whatever it damn well pleases.
There's much that's good about google, but one thing I always wonder about when I hear about "charitable" activities, is the motivation behind it. Is it really charitable, or is it a PR stunt with tax advantages? I'm willing to give Google the benefit of the doubt in this case. Had it been Microsoft, however...
The government is being charitable itself, in saying that they don't want a tax slice of the $2000 you've donated.
There's no such thing. It's your money. They take it. What's charitable about it?
It's a business model. And obviously, it's one that quite a few have been calling into question.
I was under impression that USA Courts took privacy issues quite seriously.
If that were true, neither Lexis Nexis nor Choicepoint would be in business. There would not only be serious constraints on the amounts and kinds of information that could be aggregated with respect to US Citizens, but also under what circumstances it could be used. None of that exists, and as long as Big Bu$ine$$ has its way, it never will.
Ok, I overlooked the PAC. So the little people have PACs, the big people have their own money, and then there's corporate money. With all this money floating around, where's the net benefit? I'd argue that there is none. Sure, the candidates get to spend more time engaging in the typical soundbite circus that characterizes most elections, but to what end? So John Q. Voter hears for the *50th* time that one candidate is better than another, justified by abstract, unrealistic promises that are never kept. So what? Just so some politician can assure his continued employment?
That's another problem. The political process should be returned to the notion of service . That is, serve the country for a term or two, and then get out. It would put an end to the pathetic empire-building, deal-making, etc. that is all too common.
Thank you for sharing. Your posting moniker (anonymous coward) is well deserved.
I think campaign contributions, at least the way they occur in today's climate, are an influence that taints the political process - and that's putting it mildly. Corporations don't vote, and yet they make some of the biggest contributions. As such, a candidate is more likely to consider their interests over those of John Q Voter. Individuals can make large contributions, and even though this still sucks, I'd argue that it makes for a more representative process.
The whole problem is that people and entities with more money, have more access (and more influence) than people that don't have money. Last I checked, the government's role is to serve the interests of ALL citizens, not just those with money.
It's the one pays for doing so...and it's a free choice. I have to wonder about an artist's motivation if their first priority is focused on becoming popular.
Your example deals with someone's private property- a lot with a house on it. I have no problem with that. It's not quite same where you have a commons-oriented arrangement, such as those that exist with an apartment, condominium, or townhome.
As for "not conducting business out in the public"...how is this possible? Someone's "business" might be nothing more than walking to or from their car. People have no choice but to conduct at least some of their business in public.
I don't understand who you think is monitoring these feeds
I'm willing to bet that people either were, or are saying the same thing about other kinds of information. Now look at how pervasive identity theft has become. Also, it might not hurt to remember that any information about you is potentially discoverable in a legal proceeding. Then it becomes public record.
I don't see this analogy as being even close to accurate. Do you think an artist walks into a studio all by him/herself and magically pops out a CD in a few days? It doesn't happen. Whether you like the RIAA or not, there are many people involved in the production and distribution of a single CD. Since all of the entities involved are are paid for their services, record companies quite obviously can't just give it away. It costs real money to produce the music that many people see fit to steal.
Second, I take issue with the notion that the music is not the property of the RIAA. As much as it might suck that this is how it ends up, the artists know full well what who will own the finished product. Nobody holds a gun to their head to make them sign a contract. It's not a big deal to the artists, because they're all after the same thing - the miniscule chance that they'll hit it big. Cry me a river.
Nothing will fundamentally change until either the consumers wise up and stop buying (and stealing), or the artists wise up and realize that their are other ways to distribute what they produce to those who want to buy it.
I'm sure there might be exceptions - but in many, cases, a company will install cameras so that people who can't bring themselves to better protect their own assets (their cars, for example) would be afforded an extra measure of security (if in only in theory). Unfortunately, there's a lot of baggage that goes with it - like having everyone's personal business being monitored by some unknown entity. As with any information, you have no idea where this will end up- it's completely out of your control.
I'd agree that there is a lot of variation within the various distros and software versions, but there's absolutely nothing that says a user can't pick one distro and go with it. There's also absolutely nothing that says a user can't wait until the next major release of their distro in order to upgrade, so that everything gets done at once. Following these two options will eliminate about 90% of the arguments I've seen against linux in this thread.
I'd also be willing to bet that much of the talk of "coolness" applies mostly to things that qualify as 2-minute eye-candy.