Hell I don't even want 3D desktops and transparent windows
Translucent windows are a godsend for me. I <3 being able to pack 2->3x more information in the same screen space. I'm rather unimpressed by 3D desktops and effects like the Comipz cube.
As soon as I have to fuss around with media not playing on my computers I'm gone
E.g. Linux won't help you there. Linux doesn't magically play DRM protected media that this HDCP support now does. Do you really get what this is all about?
Maybe it's about no longer giving money to Apple? *isn't sure, but maybe?*
I'd be willing to bet that the removal of scarcity brought on by Replicator technology is a major part of this. Imagine how *hard* today's businessmen would fight against such a thing. Might they try to wipe it from the face of the Earth in order to sustain their profit margins?
Any author which places his work under one of RMS's licenses retains the copyright to the code. One of the FSF's recommendations is for the author to identify himself in materials that accompany his software. This makes resolving legal issues of software ownership much easier for everyone involved. RMS's licenses do not remove the copyright holder's ability to re-license future editions of his software, or to release his software under multiple licenses. Undoubtedly, RMS wants *everyone* to use a license which guarantees your freedom to inspect and modify the software which you receive. Notice that this desire has not been made a requirement of even the GPLv3. [1]
In short, you're getting your panties in a wad over a man with a strong -differing- opinion. I recommend that you save your hysterics for something important.
Oh, wait, you wanted to use an argument that doesn't apply.
Earlier, while talking about software...
Are you free to make a copy of your new car and then sell the copy as an original?
Anyway. There's something that you have said which seems false.
The history of America,... is replete with people being able to make money off of things by restricting the knowledge of to make said things and by controlling who can make copies of things. It is even enshrined in the Constitution.
Where is this guarantee?
With a radio, one is free to take apart the radio and figure out how it works. With software, the same is possible.
There's an interesting thing that many people don't seem to understand. Software is protected by copyright. I cannot legally clone a piece of software without first obtaining the permission of the copyright holder. A hardware radio is not protected by copyright. There is *no* law that prevents me from cloning a piece of pure [1] hardware that is not patented or whose patent has expired. Verily, this very property enabled people such as the IBM clone manufacturers [2] to exist and make gobs of money. Why is the hardware not protected by copyright? Probably due to the level of effort required for duplication when compared to books or software.
[1] i.e. hardware that contains no software. [2] When combined with clean-room R.E. of the BIOS, of course.
Yes, they will. You haven't won or "explode" my argument.
Just fucking download the free adobe software to read it. It's not that difficult.
Hmm. You seem to have forgotten what you said earlier. Let me remind you.
[S]tate governments use [Microsoft's Word] format... [b]ecause they know the majority of people will be able to open it.
Then I said:
You've heard of Adobe's PDF, yes? You also know that Adobe -and others- provides free (as in beer) software to read PDF, yes? So, one can say that 100% of people will be able to open PDF documents.
Software penetration doesn't get better than 100%. Do you still disagree that your point has been refuted?
Adobe has applied numerous proprietary extensions to PDF,
I do not doubt your report. I see the point that you are making. It is a valid one. While this does have the potential to weaken the long-term sustainability of PDF, it does not hinder my short-term ability to explode the shit out of the GPP's "Word is used cause people KNOW that EVERYONE [1] can read it" tripe.;)
some of them I have no understanding as to what use they could have a use for.... Such as videos and flash embedded in PDF files.
"Rich multimedia presentations" is the phrase of teh futar!!1 But seriously. It *is* useful to have a standard way to embed video and audio into documents. Pictures, audio, text, and video all have their place in media, no? (Think e-paper.) Yes, HTML is useful. Yes, we can do video and audio in HTML. But for situations when pixel-perfect layout is key, PDF kinda wipes the floor with HTML.
[1] Unless you're on a Mac, or Linux, or BSD, or don't have the right version of Word or Windows or... or...;) [2] [2] Yes. I'm being just as disingenuous as the GPP here. *hands everyone on slashdot a cookie* : D
Your g*ddamned right, how dare they have an opinion? How dare they express themselves? They should learn to be more like you and your enlightened crowd. I can't wait till we are all in ideological lockstep...differing opinions really suck and are offensive. Must have been a tough visit to that restaurant.
The PP might have been saying "I have no desire to support people who I strongly disagree with.". That could have been the extent of his statement.
again, drawing straws. Most software is not patented, and even when it is patented, the source is not included. Algorithm description may be included, source is not.
*grins*
Then that's an indication that software patents are broken, no? The copyright and patent systems exist to ensure that beneficial knowledge and technological advancements are created, and are not lost forever, respectively. You know... that whole "Advancement and Promotion of The Arts" thing that some folks prattle on about.
Ultimately, organizations like the FSF, the NSF, and -in spirit- the USPTO are dedicated to advancing the human condition.
Perhaps you're just out to make a buck. *shrug* Whatever. Please keep in mind that there are folks who simultaneously: * Understand that we all have to make a living. and * Want to make the world a better place for everyone. You may be one of those people. I don't know. RMS and Co. are certainly "those people".
And, why do you need to be able to copy and redistribute a work? Are you free to make a copy of your new car and then sell the copy as an original? Are you allowed to buy a book, make copies of it and then sell the copies? No, you are not.
Does the ability to freely distribute the results and methods of scientific research help, or hurt humanity?
No, it is a pretty simple discussion and it is black and white. One either has the legally granted right to control the copying of one's work or one doesn't. The law provides for fair use copying, so one is either making a legal copy or one is not. One either is violating someone else's legally granted rights or one is not.
"Fair Use" copyright operations are still infringing operations. Fair Use itself is very much a grey area: there is no bright line test for determining whether or not a particular act of copyright infringement was covered under the Fair Use exemption. Have you actually *read* Title 17 of the US Code? Much of it is pretty cut and dried. Section 107 is not.
Why should we remove the option of using proprietary software?
You probably believe in something that you feel -if more people did it- would make the world a better place. It's safe to say that *everyone* has at least one of these notions. RMS certainly does. He feels that being able to tinker with the devices that make our world work makes the world a better place. He is simply more assertive about his notion than most people are. If his words offend you, perform a simple search and replace operation. Everywhere he expresses something in an absolute, replace it with a conditional.
So, a couple of things to consider: * When have RMS and Co. ever -physically or legally- *stopped* someone from choosing non-free software? * Every single one of us is going to end up dead. If you have something that you believe in, -especially something that doesn't hurt others- don't you owe it to yourself to spend the time that you have in service of that belief? You're never going to get to try again. Ever.
Slashdot Mirror
Hell I don't even want 3D desktops and transparent windows
Translucent windows are a godsend for me. I <3 being able to pack 2->3x more information in the same screen space. I'm rather unimpressed by 3D desktops and effects like the Comipz cube.
As soon as I have to fuss around with media not playing on my computers I'm gone
E.g. Linux won't help you there. Linux doesn't magically play DRM protected media that this HDCP support now does. Do you really get what this is all about?
Maybe it's about no longer giving money to Apple? *isn't sure, but maybe?*
NiMH batteries FTW baby!
I suppose that a Core Duo is an upgraded or OVERCLOCKED Intel 8086, then?
Is he also on on message? *grimaces*
The Unicode folks shipped working code in 1992.
RedBook dates from 1980.
ASCII dates from 1962.
Bitrot is a fiction, boss. : )
Surely you do VNC over ssh, right?
Cause otherwise, all of your keystrokes and mouse movements get sent in the clear....
*grins*
I'd be willing to bet that the removal of scarcity brought on by Replicator technology is a major part of this.
Imagine how *hard* today's businessmen would fight against such a thing. Might they try to wipe it from the face of the Earth in order to sustain their profit margins?
Any author which places his work under one of RMS's licenses retains the copyright to the code. One of the FSF's recommendations is for the author to identify himself in materials that accompany his software. This makes resolving legal issues of software ownership much easier for everyone involved. RMS's licenses do not remove the copyright holder's ability to re-license future editions of his software, or to release his software under multiple licenses.
Undoubtedly, RMS wants *everyone* to use a license which guarantees your freedom to inspect and modify the software which you receive. Notice that this desire has not been made a requirement of even the GPLv3. [1]
In short, you're getting your panties in a wad over a man with a strong -differing- opinion. I recommend that you save your hysterics for something important.
[1] http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ReleaseUnderGPLAndNF
Oh, wait, you wanted to use an argument that doesn't apply.
Earlier, while talking about software...
Are you free to make a copy of your new car and then sell the copy as an original?
Anyway. There's something that you have said which seems false.
The history of America, ... is replete with people being able to make money off of things by restricting the knowledge of to make said things and by controlling who can make copies of things. It is even enshrined in the Constitution.
Where is this guarantee?
With a radio, one is free to take apart the radio and figure out how it works. With software, the same is possible.
There's an interesting thing that many people don't seem to understand. Software is protected by copyright. I cannot legally clone a piece of software without first obtaining the permission of the copyright holder. A hardware radio is not protected by copyright. There is *no* law that prevents me from cloning a piece of pure [1] hardware that is not patented or whose patent has expired. Verily, this very property enabled people such as the IBM clone manufacturers [2] to exist and make gobs of money.
Why is the hardware not protected by copyright? Probably due to the level of effort required for duplication when compared to books or software.
[1] i.e. hardware that contains no software.
[2] When combined with clean-room R.E. of the BIOS, of course.
See here:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1031949&cid=25812341
Please try to keep up.
Also, stop hurting Slashdot. : )
Yes, they will. You haven't won or "explode" my argument.
Just fucking download the free adobe software to read it. It's not that difficult.
Hmm. You seem to have forgotten what you said earlier. Let me remind you.
[S]tate governments use [Microsoft's Word] format ... [b]ecause they know the majority of people will be able to open it.
Then I said:
You've heard of Adobe's PDF, yes?
You also know that Adobe -and others- provides free (as in beer) software to read PDF, yes?
So, one can say that 100% of people will be able to open PDF documents.
Software penetration doesn't get better than 100%. Do you still disagree that your point has been refuted?
So, to summarize:
Basic Physics lesson.
State Secrets, so we can't be sure.
Thanks. :)
Adobe has applied numerous proprietary extensions to PDF,
I do not doubt your report. I see the point that you are making. It is a valid one. ;)
While this does have the potential to weaken the long-term sustainability of PDF, it does not hinder my short-term ability to explode the shit out of the GPP's "Word is used cause people KNOW that EVERYONE [1] can read it" tripe.
some of them I have no understanding as to what use they could have a use for.... Such as videos and flash embedded in PDF files.
"Rich multimedia presentations" is the phrase of teh futar!!1 But seriously. It *is* useful to have a standard way to embed video and audio into documents. Pictures, audio, text, and video all have their place in media, no? (Think e-paper.)
Yes, HTML is useful. Yes, we can do video and audio in HTML. But for situations when pixel-perfect layout is key, PDF kinda wipes the floor with HTML.
[1] Unless you're on a Mac, or Linux, or BSD, or don't have the right version of Word or Windows or... or... ;) [2]
[2] Yes. I'm being just as disingenuous as the GPP here. *hands everyone on slashdot a cookie* : D
OT: More people need to take your .sig to heart. Seriously. : D
Verily, this is -at present- the best thread attached to this article!
Anti-matter bombs leak constantly because of quantum effects.
Cite? ;)
I didn't know that antimatter bombs existed. OTOH, I'm an ignorant fucker, so perhaps it's not surprising.
Or will your dogma run over your karma?
This is the most appropriate use of the phrase that I have ever seen. *salutes*
If that report is thoroughly reviewed by a human before any action is taken, then I agree with your proposal and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Your g*ddamned right, how dare they have an opinion? How dare they express themselves? They should learn to be more like you and your enlightened crowd. I can't wait till we are all in ideological lockstep...differing opinions really suck and are offensive. Must have been a tough visit to that restaurant.
The PP might have been saying "I have no desire to support people who I strongly disagree with.". That could have been the extent of his statement.
What do you think of my observations?
again, drawing straws. Most software is not patented, and even when it is patented, the source is not included. Algorithm description may be included, source is not.
*grins*
Then that's an indication that software patents are broken, no? The copyright and patent systems exist to ensure that beneficial knowledge and technological advancements are created, and are not lost forever, respectively. You know... that whole "Advancement and Promotion of The Arts" thing that some folks prattle on about.
Ultimately, organizations like the FSF, the NSF, and -in spirit- the USPTO are dedicated to advancing the human condition.
Perhaps you're just out to make a buck. *shrug* Whatever. Please keep in mind that there are folks who simultaneously:
* Understand that we all have to make a living.
and
* Want to make the world a better place for everyone.
You may be one of those people. I don't know. RMS and Co. are certainly "those people".
And, why do you need to be able to copy and redistribute a work? Are you free to make a copy of your new car and then sell the copy as an original? Are you allowed to buy a book, make copies of it and then sell the copies? No, you are not.
Does the ability to freely distribute the results and methods of scientific research help, or hurt humanity?
"Fair Use" copyright operations are still infringing operations. Fair Use itself is very much a grey area: there is no bright line test for determining whether or not a particular act of copyright infringement was covered under the Fair Use exemption.
Have you actually *read* Title 17 of the US Code? Much of it is pretty cut and dried. Section 107 is not.
No, he has just defended removing the rights of others, specifically copy rights, to benefit himself.
Cite?
Why should we remove the option of using proprietary software?
You probably believe in something that you feel -if more people did it- would make the world a better place. It's safe to say that *everyone* has at least one of these notions. RMS certainly does. He feels that being able to tinker with the devices that make our world work makes the world a better place. He is simply more assertive about his notion than most people are.
If his words offend you, perform a simple search and replace operation. Everywhere he expresses something in an absolute, replace it with a conditional.
So, a couple of things to consider:
* When have RMS and Co. ever -physically or legally- *stopped* someone from choosing non-free software?
* Every single one of us is going to end up dead. If you have something that you believe in, -especially something that doesn't hurt others- don't you owe it to yourself to spend the time that you have in service of that belief? You're never going to get to try again. Ever.