You got me on this one. I have no freaking idea. All I hear is that he was a good president and that the economy was better when he was president. Frankly giving him credit for what was an HUGE stock bubble plus the rise of the Internet plus the IT investment in Y2K
Clinton had nothing to do with the economy. The economy was a result of MARKET activity, not political activity. Clinton just happened to be in office when it happened.
Clinton did, however, manage to make a complete mockery not only of the presidency itself, but of the justice system- the very foundation of our laws. The fact that he's sitting pretty right now, makes me think that he didn't pay anywhere near enough for his folly.
People like Hillary are worried about an unproven influence that games might have, but what about all the kids walking around after Clinton's mess who were convinced that casual oral sex was just fine, because it wasn't really "sex"?
It seems to me that at minimum, the politicians themselves have a lot housecleaning to do before going after anyone else.
Did the article mention what he was smoking when he wrote that? What is he TALKING about? Software patents and innovation are diametrically opposed. Innovation thrives in a free environment, NOT one where the government is constantly imposing artificial constraints on the ability to innovate. We got where where are without all this mess- if any government official thinks that software patents do anything but give incumbent players (with deep pockets) an unfair advantage, they're in the wrong line of work.
"click and drag" and "programming" do not belong in the same sentence, unless you're talking about a specific interface implementation. I'd say that Linux isn't lacking at all in this area. I'm not so sure that "click and drag" programming is something to strive for, either.
This hints at a debate I've had with several people about whether there exists any distinction between "traditional" art, and today's digital counterpart. One aspect of traditional art that makes it what it is, is the very real and tangible "co-mingling" of the medium, and the artist's own hands. This might be less true for a photographic image than it is for say, a painting or sculpture, but in many cases it does require a fair degree of "coaxing" the hardware to get the results you're after.
While some might argue that this is still true with digital imaging, I'd say that the whole process has a new layer of abstraction that removes the artist one step away from the medium itself. With digital, you're dealing with bits, with painting, and photography, and sculpture, you're dealing with a very real level of phyical interaction that just isn't there with digital media.
I'm not sure how he comes up with this conclusion, unless the people he services actually told him that they'd used these "unqualified amateurs". It doesn't take a rocket scientist to reinstall windows, or insert an anti-virus CD and run it. Duh.
After I heard that our own government agencies were selling personal information as a source of revenue, I think it's pretty much the exception that any information you provide won't be sold or somehow disseminated in ways that you might not like. Once they have it, they can pretty well do what they want with it. Best defense...simply don't give it out.
Re:I have three older Apples...
on
Apple Easter Egg
·
· Score: 1
I was aware of a distro called PPC Linux, but those I was working with at the time were using Redhat. Not only that, but I didn't want to ditch all my software. I suppose I could have dual-booted, but it's not an option I'd considered at the time.
The regulators at the FCC are in the pockets of the large corporations. Nothing they do surprises me when I look at their modivation: greed and power-mongering.
This is the precise reason that most politicians make a career out of it, rather than serving their country and moving on.
Re:I have three older Apples...
on
Apple Easter Egg
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I still have a clone (which I still use regularly), an 840AV, and another model that's sitting behind my desk. I think the 840AV purchase was about the time that Apple started losing favor with me. I know it had some cool features, but for the price (and all the hype we heard from local reps), I was disappointed with the overall performance. I bought the clone after that because it was available at a good price (compared to Apple's prices). So far, that has been my last Apple purchase- afterward, I began acquainting myself with PCs so I could run Linux.
Well, it's hardly in the best taste is it, even if they are so strapped for cash and/or resources that they don't have the ability to transcribe it themselves.
I hear Darl will have a lot of free time soon...maybe he can do it.
It's not a red herring when talking about blocking access to unauthorized copies.
It is where Napster is involved. Napster was first and foremost, a conduit for trading copyrighted material. There are many ways to gain fair-use access to a copyrighted work. Napster doesn't sit high on my list of legitimate sources- mainly because it was designed to subvert the notion of fair use.
What I say "Free", I mean free from commercial interest, free from laws that remove our ability to empower ourselves. As you know, "free" doesn't always a translate into money.
I am well aware of issues involving fair use, and and I think it is an absolutely essential component of copyright law. However...you and I both know that downloading, storing, and using at will, copyrighted material without due compensation to its owners, is NOT fair use. It's no where close. It has, however, become an oft-used red herring when ever the topic arises.
Give someone a computer, some time, and some programming skills, and they can empower themselves for FREE - that is, without compensating anyone else that somehow manages to lay claim to what they've created. They can also decide to empower others by sharing what the've created. How can any law sanely deny someone what seems to me, to be such a fundamental freedom?
That might explain why I kept getting "Cannot connect to tracker" messages. I have a cable connection, and I suspect (but I'm not certain) that my provider (Comcast) may have done something (else) stupid. Funny thing is, that although the download was a little on the slow side, it didn't seem to matter - there was still traffic going both ways.
While I might be convinced that a small portion of that Napster traffic was ligitimate, I think it's a bit disingenuous to suggest that pirating copyrighted music is tantamount to "exchanging information." It isn't. You wouldn't allow students to walk out of the bookstore without paying for their books (in fact they'd probably be arrested), so why would you rationalize that it's ok as long as it's on the internet? From the get-go, the premise behind Napster was to provide a means to acquire someone else's property easily - but most often, illegally.
When you are a monopoly, you are held to a different standard. It is my opinion that you can't enjoy monopoly status and have everything closed and proprietary- especially if it pertains to information that belongs to the public. To make your analogy even come close to what's happening with Microsoft, the house needs to be on a piece of land that contains an important public resource, and you have the only entrance. You effectively have control over when, how, how often, and for what reason I can access that public resource.
This is precisely why I think Microsoft should be forced by law (it won't happen any other way), to provide a document convertor, free of charge, that will take ANY Ms document, and create a human-readable, standard XML document, or at least a text document that retains both the data AND its context.
No, it's GREAT politics. It's very POOR leadership. Politics is about selling your soul to the highest bidder. Leadership is about doing the right thing, even though your "friends" with the deep pockets might not like it. We many great politicians in this country, but very few leaders.
It's all gets pack to property ownership. Nobody has any right whatsoever to disseminate material that does not belong to them. If you choose to do otherwise, you assume all the risk that goes with it. You could up a folk hero, or bubba's favorite squeeze. If you end up in the latter situation (or in some other pool of hot water), too bad . Make better decisions next time.
I get the impression it's mainly a "teen" thing- one of those many ideas that will look very stupid when they finally get smart enough to know the difference.
Slashdot Mirror
You have to put some spin on it....
"Enjoy our new no-hassle purchase plan!"
You got me on this one. I have no freaking idea. All I hear is that he was a good president and that the economy was better when he was president. Frankly giving him credit for what was an HUGE stock bubble plus the rise of the Internet plus the IT investment in Y2K
Clinton had nothing to do with the economy. The economy was a result of MARKET activity, not political activity. Clinton just happened to be in office when it happened.
Clinton did, however, manage to make a complete mockery not only of the presidency itself, but of the justice system- the very foundation of our laws. The fact that he's sitting pretty right now, makes me think that he didn't pay anywhere near enough for his folly.
People like Hillary are worried about an unproven influence that games might have, but what about all the kids walking around after Clinton's mess who were convinced that casual oral sex was just fine, because it wasn't really "sex"?
It seems to me that at minimum, the politicians themselves have a lot housecleaning to do before going after anyone else.
hand allowed to innovation to thrive
Did the article mention what he was smoking when he wrote that? What is he TALKING about? Software patents and innovation are diametrically opposed. Innovation thrives in a free environment, NOT one where the government is constantly imposing artificial constraints on the ability to innovate. We got where where are without all this mess- if any government official thinks that software patents do anything but give incumbent players (with deep pockets) an unfair advantage, they're in the wrong line of work.
Based on the movie preview, you barely get to see their faces. If you blink at the wrong time, you're out of luck, but minus one big ego.
click and drag programming.
"click and drag" and "programming" do not belong in the same sentence, unless you're talking about a specific interface implementation. I'd say that Linux isn't lacking at all in this area. I'm not so sure that "click and drag" programming is something to strive for, either.
This hints at a debate I've had with several people about whether there exists any distinction between "traditional" art, and today's digital counterpart. One aspect of traditional art that makes it what it is, is the very real and tangible "co-mingling" of the medium, and the artist's own hands. This might be less true for a photographic image than it is for say, a painting or sculpture, but in many cases it does require a fair degree of "coaxing" the hardware to get the results you're after.
While some might argue that this is still true with digital imaging, I'd say that the whole process has a new layer of abstraction that removes the artist one step away from the medium itself. With digital, you're dealing with bits, with painting, and photography, and sculpture, you're dealing with a very real level of phyical interaction that just isn't there with digital media.
I'm not sure how he comes up with this conclusion, unless the people he services actually told him that they'd used these "unqualified amateurs". It doesn't take a rocket scientist to reinstall windows, or insert an anti-virus CD and run it. Duh.
After I heard that our own government agencies were selling personal information as a source of revenue, I think it's pretty much the exception that any information you provide won't be sold or somehow disseminated in ways that you might not like. Once they have it, they can pretty well do what they want with it. Best defense...simply don't give it out.
I give you another one. Very nice post!
I was aware of a distro called PPC Linux, but those I was working with at the time were using Redhat. Not only that, but I didn't want to ditch all my software. I suppose I could have dual-booted, but it's not an option I'd considered at the time.
The regulators at the FCC are in the pockets of the large corporations. Nothing they do surprises me when I look at their modivation: greed and power-mongering.
This is the precise reason that most politicians make a career out of it, rather than serving their country and moving on.
I still have a clone (which I still use regularly), an 840AV, and another model that's sitting behind my desk. I think the 840AV purchase was about the time that Apple started losing favor with me. I know it had some cool features, but for the price (and all the hype we heard from local reps), I was disappointed with the overall performance. I bought the clone after that because it was available at a good price (compared to Apple's prices). So far, that has been my last Apple purchase- afterward, I began acquainting myself with PCs so I could run Linux.
Well, it's hardly in the best taste is it, even if they are so strapped for cash and/or resources that they don't have the ability to transcribe it themselves.
I hear Darl will have a lot of free time soon...maybe he can do it.
Keeping information from where it doesn't belong gives cash a VERY high score on my list as well.
It's not a red herring when talking about blocking access to unauthorized copies.
It is where Napster is involved. Napster was first and foremost, a conduit for trading copyrighted material. There are many ways to gain fair-use access to a copyrighted work. Napster doesn't sit high on my list of legitimate sources- mainly because it was designed to subvert the notion of fair use.
What I say "Free", I mean free from commercial interest, free from laws that remove our ability to empower ourselves. As you know, "free" doesn't always a translate into money.
I am well aware of issues involving fair use, and and I think it is an absolutely essential component of copyright law. However...you and I both know that downloading, storing, and using at will, copyrighted material without due compensation to its owners, is NOT fair use. It's no where close. It has, however, become an oft-used red herring when ever the topic arises.
Give someone a computer, some time, and some programming skills, and they can empower themselves for FREE - that is, without compensating anyone else that somehow manages to lay claim to what they've created. They can also decide to empower others by sharing what the've created. How can any law sanely deny someone what seems to me, to be such a fundamental freedom?
That might explain why I kept getting "Cannot connect to tracker" messages. I have a cable connection, and I suspect (but I'm not certain) that my provider (Comcast) may have done something (else) stupid. Funny thing is, that although the download was a little on the slow side, it didn't seem to matter - there was still traffic going both ways.
freedom of exchange of information
While I might be convinced that a small portion of that Napster traffic was ligitimate, I think it's a bit disingenuous to suggest that pirating copyrighted music is tantamount to "exchanging information." It isn't. You wouldn't allow students to walk out of the bookstore without paying for their books (in fact they'd probably be arrested), so why would you rationalize that it's ok as long as it's on the internet? From the get-go, the premise behind Napster was to provide a means to acquire someone else's property easily - but most often, illegally.
When you are a monopoly, you are held to a different standard. It is my opinion that you can't enjoy monopoly status and have everything closed and proprietary- especially if it pertains to information that belongs to the public. To make your analogy even come close to what's happening with Microsoft, the house needs to be on a piece of land that contains an important public resource, and you have the only entrance. You effectively have control over when, how, how often, and for what reason I can access that public resource.
This is precisely why I think Microsoft should be forced by law (it won't happen any other way), to provide a document convertor, free of charge, that will take ANY Ms document, and create a human-readable, standard XML document, or at least a text document that retains both the data AND its context.
That is bad politics.
No, it's GREAT politics. It's very POOR leadership. Politics is about selling your soul to the highest bidder. Leadership is about doing the right thing, even though your "friends" with the deep pockets might not like it. We many great politicians in this country, but very few leaders.
It's all gets pack to property ownership. Nobody has any right whatsoever to disseminate material that does not belong to them. If you choose to do otherwise, you assume all the risk that goes with it. You could up a folk hero, or bubba's favorite squeeze. If you end up in the latter situation (or in some other pool of hot water), too bad . Make better decisions next time.
I get the impression it's mainly a "teen" thing- one of those many ideas that will look very stupid when they finally get smart enough to know the difference.