Some one with deep pockets decides to weigh in and test the validity of Microsoft's arrangement - they end up in court (which is the intent all along), and Microsoft is forced to open up their APIs. It seems like getting anywhere with Microsoft is like a square dance - a step to the right, a step to the left, swing your partner to and fro, but all the while, you're moving closer and closer to the edge. I am confident that Microsoft's arrogance will eventually lead them close enough that they'll stumble and go right over.
Stop trying to second-guess what I want. If I want the first letter of a word capitalized, I'll capitalize it. OpenOffice is just as guilty of this nonsense as M$ software. If Another scenario: if I select a block of text, I'd most likely expect to paste a block of text at the location that I choose (another docoument, for example). What the hell does Evolution do, then, when I get this weird text object with a yellow dotted outline, that's offset from the rest of the text? It's certainly not what I copied!
If you're going to do something other than what would generally be expected, don't. It makes for a frustrating experience- even for advanced users.
One series of stupid comments from someone I spoke with quite often put him on my "talk to only when absolutely necessary" list for several months. I can see a lot of negative repurcussions from translating this into a rating of some kind. As it turns out, this eventually smoothed itself over, and things are getting back to the way they were. Because of the potential for these kinds of things to happen, sometimes, at least in my opinion, it's better to leave things in a state of nebulous existence rather than casting it in stone.
Linux is cool and all, but seriously- developers, if their intent is to sell something, need to accept the fact that in many cases, the wheel has already been invented - to circumvent this either due to sloppiness, or even arrogance, is a surefire way to raise the ire of prospective consumers.
Let me use a couple of examples. First, there's Evolution, purported to be an Outlook killer. Generally, I like it, but there's one thing that just torques my chain every time I use it: email retrieval. For whatever contorted reason, the developers have decided that if you have eight different email accounts that you manage, you, but default, want to retrieve mail from all of them at the same time (every time), or none of them. Mozilla had it right.
Then, there's Konqueror. A nice browser - very robust. But what the HELL where they thinking when they decided that the bookmarks menu should operate like the Start menu in Windows, where instead of scrolling, it expands horizontally? I guess I can see how they might think it saves time, but it really hijacks the usefulness of the menus in general.
Both of these have been frustrating enough for me to consider alternatives. I'm not shunning the notion of innovation - but I would encourage developers to CAREFULLY consider any alteration to what have become accepted and standard methods.
But right now, I have both my drives unmounted, as I was in the process of transferring the contents of one drive to another, after which I would have replaced one of them. Turns out, the noise is every bit as bad whether it's being transmitted through the case or not. If you see that much attentuation, it might be due to the noise-deadening qualities of the foam, rather than its ability to keep it from being transmitted through the case. I hope I'm not just engaging in semantic hair-splitting, because that's not my intent.
A true test of the internet
on
In Google We Trust
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
What if google suddently went down? Completely. Totally. Off-the-map down. I wonder how well the internet would route around the problem. Sure there are other search engines, but think of all the more subtle effects that might seen as a result.
Funny. Do you honestly think we'd see lower prices, with all those CEOs' pockets to be lined? In fact, the first thing I see happening is a report of increased profits (the savings garnered from employing Indian workers), and then, as a reward, even more money that ends up in the CEO's paycheck. If the consumer ends up saving a dime on all this, I'd be very surprised.
To quote the article... Leavitt teamed up with Florida Gov. Jeb Bush -- President Bush's brother -- to pitch MATRIX to other states. The two briefed other governors on the project during a conference call referred to in Feb. 6, 2003, MATRIX board minutes.
A member of the Bush family involved in something deceptive that will further erode our constitutional rights? NEVER, I say, NEVER!
Hmmh. But isn't that nitpicking? It's like saying food isn't a major factor in human behaviour, it's the hunger?
Actually you bring up an interesting point. Hunger is a natural human drive (as is sex), but in the U.S. at least, I hear mention after mention that as a society, we overeat, and, as a result, are overweight, and are less healthy. So, I'd put this in the very same behavioral category: that of excessive focus on an activity which, though necessary, can lead to negative, or even disastrous results.
Because your post was modded up, I think a response is order.
I'm remain unconvinced that there aren't ways to deal with each of the scenarios you've mentioned. Most notably: allow editing only within the first 10 minutes after posting. Next, forfeit any positive mod points received up to that point (which is unlikely anyway), and retain any negative mod points.
The problem is this: for whatever reason, there are errors that aren't caught before submission- even with the preview function available. It just happens. While most might not care, I tend to care about errors, and would prefer that there was a way to fix them.
Face it: sex is the driving force behind our [and every] species, so its no surprise that almost all of our cultural structures seem to largely depend on it somehow.
I'd argue that sex itself has nothing to do with it - it's the incredible preoccupation and obsession with it that comprises this "driving force."
I'm still trying to figure out what's 'adult' about most 'adult' content, since much of it depicts a complete absence of restraint, common sense, and reality in general - all the things we're told are important while growing up. Either we're massive hypocrites, or they really are important.
There's this guy who sits close by where I work - I get the impression that he thinks he's a real savvy dude. What he doesn't know is that I know everything he does on the network- including all the hardcore porn sites he visits. It's sad, but I get a good laugh out out of it.
We have an ordinance, and I've been in regular contact with our police department liaison regarding this issue. Funny how they try to trivialize a problem that has such a voluminous number of complaints. What's really disturbing is that they approach the enforcement of this ordinance as though it were a business proposition- something to the effect, "if we can issue a minimum of 30 tickets per hour, it will be cost effective." Just DO YOUR JOB for Pete's sake.
Microsoft has achieved would be one which, like Microsoft, cannot innovate or excel technically, because it would take too many resources away from the business side of things to focus on the technical.
Isn't it funny how much, MUCH smaller shops. operating on much, MUCH thinner budgets, manage to do that very thing (innovate)?
The socially malcontented boomcar freaks that drive up and down the street next to my place of residence. This has to be one of the more salient and deliberate invasions of personal space I can think of.
Privacy advocates are cautioning that making background-check software a consumer product could easily put personal information into the wrong hands."
My opinion is that personal information long been already in the wrong hands...now there will just be more of them. It's not just a matter of privacy - it's just as much a matter of accuracy. Not only can these companies harvest, store, and sell information about you, it's your job to ensure that it's accurate. Anyone who has tried to deal with the likes of TRW or any other data warehouse knows what a chore it is to correct any errors, and the incredible amount of time that it takes. Oddly, the data carries with it a presumption of accuracy, and if it's not accurate, or if the data on hand is the result of fraudulent activity, you have to prove that its innaccurate, or that you're innocent with respect to the fraudulent activity. Even worse, if someone is going to use this information in some kind of evaluation, you have no idea where it's coming from or what's in it.
Show me a law that makes a company accountable for the data it stores and sells at the drop of a hat, and I'll show you a business gone bust. Maybe a good starting point would be a requirement that company specializing in the pimping of personal information be required to send a copy of everything it releases to the person being investigated.
Add some "noise" to the signal. Add some contacts that you don't even know. Remove a few that you never talk to. The (unfortunate) underlying presumption is that the mere presence of something indicates a level of accuracy in terms of how valid it is. Soon, people will have little option but to launder their day-to-day activities to keep governmental and corporate noses where they really don't belong.
They no longer want me to enjoy the TV that I watch, which in turn, means that I will watch less. This of course, means that I will not be bombarded with as many ads, which means that I will not spend as much on advertised products. If I were an advertising association, I'd jump in with both fists swinging- the MPAA and any other centralized entity that wants to exercise the degree of control they're talking about may very well make it just not worth the hassle.
But it is still flawed; in most cases involving copyright infringement (example: downloading a song) you have not harmed the copyright holder in any measurable way, whereas with theft they have lost what you have gained.
I would argue that they have been harmed, since you now have their property, are benefitting from your possession thereof, and they have received nothing in return. In other words, you are receiving undue benefit from their effort.
This obviously wasn't an issue when copyright law was first established, because acquiring, maintaining, and distributing copyrighted material required a much greater effort. This being the case, I think to compare the modern-day music pirate with someone who merely "violates copyright", given the ease with which this can be accomplished, is at best, unfair.
Most banks are more worried about the volume of counted bills rather than capturing the serial number off the bill... It would simply take too long.
I'd think so...and what about bills that their numbers obscured by either too much wear, or any of various opaque substances that could (accidentally) find their way onto the bill?
Wrong. It _is_ different, because patent law is not property law.
Actually, it's copyright law, but that's not even relevant because the fundamental concept is the same - you buy something because you (presumably) get value in exchange for your money. Within the context of any potential transaction, you have two options: you either PAY for what you're getting, or you simply forego the purchase (and benefit you'd receive if you had made the purchase). You do not just TAKE it.
Also, consider the possibility that the same process was independently developed. Is it still "theft"
Of course not. In one instance, you've got an effort geared toward unlawful acquisition, while in the other, you've got an honest effort to develop something that just happens to yield the same result achieved by someone else. They are very different circumstances.
With any luck, you'll pick someone with deep pockets that will have you for lunch, chew you up, and spit you out. All that will be left is a bad aftertaste, and even that will fade over time.
If I still had mod points, I'd mod this up. Someone gets it. I have a hard time understanding why the only side of the equation in the "information wants to be free" crowd is the cost of production. As far as I'm concerned, if it allows you to do something cheaper, faster, or something that you simply couldn't do before, compensation is due its owner. If you don't like the terms, do something else. These things are subject to the same market forces as anything else- if its owner wants to make money, he will balance market demand with the price he charges. If you don't want to pay simply because you can copy it, you are engaging in theft- it's no different than any other good in the marketplace.
Slashdot Mirror
Some one with deep pockets decides to weigh in and test the validity of Microsoft's arrangement - they end up in court (which is the intent all along), and Microsoft is forced to open up their APIs. It seems like getting anywhere with Microsoft is like a square dance - a step to the right, a step to the left, swing your partner to and fro, but all the while, you're moving closer and closer to the edge. I am confident that Microsoft's arrogance will eventually lead them close enough that they'll stumble and go right over.
Stop trying to second-guess what I want. If I want the first letter of a word capitalized, I'll capitalize it. OpenOffice is just as guilty of this nonsense as M$ software. If Another scenario: if I select a block of text, I'd most likely expect to paste a block of text at the location that I choose (another docoument, for example). What the hell does Evolution do, then, when I get this weird text object with a yellow dotted outline, that's offset from the rest of the text? It's certainly not what I copied!
If you're going to do something other than what would generally be expected, don't. It makes for a frustrating experience- even for advanced users.
One series of stupid comments from someone I spoke with quite often put him on my "talk to only when absolutely necessary" list for several months. I can see a lot of negative repurcussions from translating this into a rating of some kind. As it turns out, this eventually smoothed itself over, and things are getting back to the way they were. Because of the potential for these kinds of things to happen, sometimes, at least in my opinion, it's better to leave things in a state of nebulous existence rather than casting it in stone.
Linux is cool and all, but seriously- developers, if their intent is to sell something, need to accept the fact that in many cases, the wheel has already been invented - to circumvent this either due to sloppiness, or even arrogance, is a surefire way to raise the ire of prospective consumers.
Let me use a couple of examples. First, there's Evolution, purported to be an Outlook killer. Generally, I like it, but there's one thing that just torques my chain every time I use it: email retrieval. For whatever contorted reason, the developers have decided that if you have eight different email accounts that you manage, you, but default, want to retrieve mail from all of them at the same time (every time), or none of them. Mozilla had it right.
Then, there's Konqueror. A nice browser - very robust. But what the HELL where they thinking when they decided that the bookmarks menu should operate like the Start menu in Windows, where instead of scrolling, it expands horizontally? I guess I can see how they might think it saves time, but it really hijacks the usefulness of the menus in general.
Both of these have been frustrating enough for me to consider alternatives. I'm not shunning the notion of innovation - but I would encourage developers to CAREFULLY consider any alteration to what have become accepted and standard methods.
But right now, I have both my drives unmounted, as I was in the process of transferring the contents of one drive to another, after which I would have replaced one of them. Turns out, the noise is every bit as bad whether it's being transmitted through the case or not. If you see that much attentuation, it might be due to the noise-deadening qualities of the foam, rather than its ability to keep it from being transmitted through the case. I hope I'm not just engaging in semantic hair-splitting, because that's not my intent.
What if google suddently went down? Completely. Totally. Off-the-map down. I wonder how well the internet would route around the problem. Sure there are other search engines, but think of all the more subtle effects that might seen as a result.
Thanks for the laugh!
Funny. Do you honestly think we'd see lower prices, with all those CEOs' pockets to be lined? In fact, the first thing I see happening is a report of increased profits (the savings garnered from employing Indian workers), and then, as a reward, even more money that ends up in the CEO's paycheck. If the consumer ends up saving a dime on all this, I'd be very surprised.
To quote the article...
Leavitt teamed up with Florida Gov. Jeb Bush -- President Bush's brother -- to pitch MATRIX to other states. The two briefed other governors on the project during a conference call referred to in Feb. 6, 2003, MATRIX board minutes.
A member of the Bush family involved in something deceptive that will further erode our constitutional rights? NEVER, I say, NEVER!
If any moderation is forfeited as I've suggested, what's the difference?
Hmmh. But isn't that nitpicking? It's like saying food isn't a major factor in human behaviour, it's the hunger?
Actually you bring up an interesting point. Hunger is a natural human drive (as is sex), but in the U.S. at least, I hear mention after mention that as a society, we overeat, and, as a result, are overweight, and are less healthy. So, I'd put this in the very same behavioral category: that of excessive focus on an activity which, though necessary, can lead to negative, or even disastrous results.
Because your post was modded up, I think a response is order.
I'm remain unconvinced that there aren't ways to deal with each of the scenarios you've mentioned. Most notably: allow editing only within the first 10 minutes after posting. Next, forfeit any positive mod points received up to that point (which is unlikely anyway), and retain any negative mod points.
The problem is this: for whatever reason, there are errors that aren't caught before submission- even with the preview function available. It just happens. While most might not care, I tend to care about errors, and would prefer that there was a way to fix them.
Face it: sex is the driving force behind our [and every] species, so its no surprise that almost all of our cultural structures seem to largely depend on it somehow.
I'd argue that sex itself has nothing to do with it - it's the incredible preoccupation and obsession with it that comprises this "driving force."
I'm still trying to figure out what's 'adult' about most 'adult' content, since much of it depicts a complete absence of restraint, common sense, and reality in general - all the things we're told are important while growing up. Either we're massive hypocrites, or they really are important.
There's this guy who sits close by where I work - I get the impression that he thinks he's a real savvy dude. What he doesn't know is that I know everything he does on the network- including all the hardcore porn sites he visits. It's sad, but I get a good laugh out out of it.
We have an ordinance, and I've been in regular contact with our police department liaison regarding this issue. Funny how they try to trivialize a problem that has such a voluminous number of complaints. What's really disturbing is that they approach the enforcement of this ordinance as though it were a business proposition- something to the effect, "if we can issue a minimum of 30 tickets per hour, it will be cost effective." Just DO YOUR JOB for Pete's sake.
Microsoft has achieved would be one which, like Microsoft, cannot
innovate or excel technically, because it would take too many resources
away from the business side of things to focus on the technical.
Isn't it funny how much, MUCH smaller shops. operating on much, MUCH thinner budgets, manage to do that very thing (innovate)?
The socially malcontented boomcar freaks that drive up and down the street next to my place of residence. This has to be one of the more salient and deliberate invasions of personal space I can think of.
Privacy advocates are cautioning that making background-check software a consumer product could easily put personal information into the wrong hands."
My opinion is that personal information long been already in the wrong hands...now there will just be more of them. It's not just a matter of privacy - it's just as much a matter of accuracy. Not only can these companies harvest, store, and sell information about you, it's your job to ensure that it's accurate. Anyone who has tried to deal with the likes of TRW or any other data warehouse knows what a chore it is to correct any errors, and the incredible amount of time that it takes. Oddly, the data carries with it a presumption of accuracy, and if it's not accurate, or if the data on hand is the result of fraudulent activity, you have to prove that its innaccurate, or that you're innocent with respect to the fraudulent activity. Even worse, if someone is going to use this information in some kind of evaluation, you have no idea where it's coming from or what's in it.
Show me a law that makes a company accountable for the data it stores and sells at the drop of a hat, and I'll show you a business gone bust. Maybe a good starting point would be a requirement that company specializing in the pimping of personal information be required to send a copy of everything it releases to the person being investigated.
Add some "noise" to the signal. Add some contacts that you don't even know. Remove a few that you never talk to. The (unfortunate) underlying presumption is that the mere presence of something indicates a level of accuracy in terms of how valid it is. Soon, people will have little option but to launder their day-to-day activities to keep governmental and corporate noses where they really don't belong.
They no longer want me to enjoy the TV that I watch, which in turn, means that I will watch less. This of course, means that I will not be bombarded with as many ads, which means that I will not spend as much on advertised products. If I were an advertising association, I'd jump in with both fists swinging- the MPAA and any other centralized entity that wants to exercise the degree of control they're talking about may very well make it just not worth the hassle.
But it is still flawed; in most cases involving copyright infringement (example: downloading a song) you have not harmed the copyright holder in any measurable way, whereas with theft they have lost what you have gained.
I would argue that they have been harmed, since you now have their property, are benefitting from your possession thereof, and they have received nothing in return. In other words, you are receiving undue benefit from their effort.
This obviously wasn't an issue when copyright law was first established, because acquiring, maintaining, and distributing copyrighted material required a much greater effort. This being the case, I think to compare the modern-day music pirate with someone who merely "violates copyright", given the ease with which this can be accomplished, is at best, unfair.
Most banks are more worried about the volume of counted bills rather than capturing the serial number off the bill... It would simply take too long.
I'd think so...and what about bills that their numbers obscured by either too much wear, or any of various opaque substances that could (accidentally) find their way onto the bill?
Wrong. It _is_ different, because patent law is not property law.
Actually, it's copyright law, but that's not even relevant because the fundamental concept is the same - you buy something because you (presumably) get value in exchange for your money. Within the context of any potential transaction, you have two options: you either PAY for what you're getting, or you simply forego the purchase (and benefit you'd receive if you had made the purchase). You do not just TAKE it.
Also, consider the possibility that the same process was independently developed. Is it still "theft"
Of course not. In one instance, you've got an effort geared toward unlawful acquisition, while in the other, you've got an honest effort to develop something that just happens to yield the same result achieved by someone else. They are very different circumstances.
With any luck, you'll pick someone with deep pockets that will have you for lunch, chew you up, and spit you out. All that will be left is a bad aftertaste, and even that will fade over time.
All that realy needs done is to provide value.
If I still had mod points, I'd mod this up. Someone gets it. I have a hard time understanding why the only side of the equation in the "information wants to be free" crowd is the cost of production. As far as I'm concerned, if it allows you to do something cheaper, faster, or something that you simply couldn't do before, compensation is due its owner. If you don't like the terms, do something else. These things are subject to the same market forces as anything else- if its owner wants to make money, he will balance market demand with the price he charges. If you don't want to pay simply because you can copy it, you are engaging in theft- it's no different than any other good in the marketplace.
Thanks for the laugh!