...everything innovative in the music world has been crushed by lawsuits.
No, actually. Innovative music is being crushed by the mediocre tastes and apathy of the masses, which are reinforced by the music oligarchy.
What exactly has been crushed by lawsuits? The idea that you can create a company founded on file-sharing software and supported by "eyeballs" or banner ads? The idea that you can distribute someone else's work without their permission? The idea that because it's now technically possible to share music faster and more widely that suddenly corporate music will roll over and die?
Music is created by people, and the rubber meets the road at your local music club. Sharing music on the web is a far fucking cry from being innovative. Innovation in music happens when some teenage kid has to choose between suicide and picking up his guitar, when some girl writes new lyrics while she's crying of a broken heart, when a fan skips work to catch his favorite band.
The Who said it best:
There's nothing in the streets
Looks any different to me
And the slogans are replaced, by-the-bye
And the party on the left
Is now the party on the right
And the beards have all grown longer overnight
MP3.com has a CEO, and so does Napster. These are for-profit corporations, out for a buck just like all the rest. They're not the Great White Knights, selflessly trying to save the music world.
If you want innovation in music, support your local bands. Go see their shows and scream 'til your throat hurts. To think that you can change the music scene by downloading a few songs from the web is sad.
And to guard against the first few troll replies, yes, I know that one of the reasons Big Music is Big is that it controls all the distribution channels (e.g. radio, record stores). This is not news! It's been happening since before anyone here was born, and it will continue to happen as long as monopolies and oligarchies are rewarded by huge profits. The web never had a chance to "defeat" these companies. What's happened to popular music now that Napster has become an everyday word? Are we all listening to original, cutting-edge tunes? No - people still download Britney Spears and Metallica.
Yeah, many people have been exposed to music they otherwise wouldn't have heard by using Napster. That's true. And that will continue to happen. You don't a corporation's help to share or appreciate music. You need friends who like different music than you do, and you need to get off your ass and go see shows. Just like 10 years ago, just like when our parents were growing up.
If several people die after internalizing Substance X, would you or would you not want some competent authority to investigate?
Is it possible for a psychopath to taint food and/or medicinal products with the express goal or killing random people?
Is it possible for a manufacturing error to produce tainted products (e.g. have 10x the indicated caffeine)?
Also, it's not like Sweden has banned the stuff. What did the Swedish government actually have to say about this? From the 2nd paragraph of the article, which most people (including Hemos) have apparently not read:
A public warning advising people not to take Red Bull mixed with alcohol nor to drink it after exercise has been issued by Sweden's National Food Administration.
Most people wouldn't drink Red Bull any differently than they drink Coke or Gatorade. Like it or not, most folks don't know enough biochemistry to determine whether Substance X is safe to internalize under Condition Y. Thus, many countries have government organizations to make this information publicly available.
Mr Glynn said: "What we have is the suggestion that three people have died after drinking this substance, although there is no hard scientific evidence available on this yet. We will be looking at the death certificates and going through the autopspy reports to identify whether or not there is a link."
Another quote:
Red Bull cannot be sold in stores in Norway, Denmark or France because it is classified as medicinal because of its high caffeine content. It could, however, be sold in pharmacies in those countries.
Nanny states again? There are plenty of substances in this country which are only obtainable at a pharmacy. Why? So that the pharmacist (i.e. someone who's spent years studying the effects of chemicals on the human body) can give you sensible advice: "Don't chug a case of this after a marathon."
I fail to see anything wrong here. If you really want to talk about nanny states, let's start with China and Afganistan, eh?
Oh, come on, postcard-ware is awesome. I've seen photos of guys who have walls of their houses covered with postcards they've received from all over the world. What's wrong with this?
All the postcard-ware licenses I've seen simply ask you to send a postcard if you like the software. No registration, no details, just a postcard from where you live. I think it's cool.
You're comparing two things that shouldn't be compared.
I'd say that any two things can be compared. Some comparisons make more sense than others, true, but what's wrong with comparing apples and oranges? "They're both round fruits, juicy and with a pleasant flavor." Not so hard, eh? That's a pretty narrow little world you're in, where you can only compare some things and not others.
Besides, did you even read my post? I spent most of it contrasting the works, not comparing them.
Well, Dune Messiah is thought by many people to be the weakest of the 6 books. Several people I know flat-out stopped reading the series right there, thinking that the rest would suck just the same. Herbert plotted the first 3 books before he wrote a word of Dune; he knew how it was going to end, and had no plans for a 4th, 5th, or 6th.
The advantage of this method is that he created a complete cycle right up-front (see next P), rather than tacking on book after book like many hack writers do. The disadvantage is that Dune Messiah is pretty obviously just a stepping stone to Children of Dune. I think the series would have been stronger if he'd left it out entirely, but we would have missed Paul's relationship with Channi, which is complex and interesting.
The first 3 are a perfect cycle, almost a tragedy in the classical sense - a man falling from a high position due to hubris (yes, I know, Aristotle defined tragedy more specifically than that, but I'm too lazy to look it up). The last 3 are much better written, with more interesting plots and characters.
I don't watch TV, so I don't know how the first mini-series went. I find it hard to believe that the work can be faithfully reproduced, however, no matter how much time and money is spent on it. This contrasts with Peter Jackson's upcoming LOTR, which actually may not suck. Tolkien was wordy, but LOTR is a fairly simple work - standard mythology. Dune (all 6) are complex commentary on politics, economics, religion, human nature, oil, water - you name it. Very deep. You can get the action to the screen, but I fear the depth being left behind.
And before Tolkien fans get out their flame-throwers, yes, I love Tolkien. I took (and aced) several graduate-level Tolkien courses in school, and have a deep and abiding appreciation for him and his work. LOTR, however, is a sitcom compared with The Silmarillion, and The Hobbit is a commercial break. No one will make a movie of The Silmarillion, anymore than you could make a movie of the entire Bible.
And yet The Silmarillion is still just a small part of Tolkien's work, and his world. Amazing.
I agree. However, I was talking ethics, not law. He didn't seem to care one way or the other if he broke the law, only that he not have to pay the consequences. My point was that, regardless of law, what he did was very likely wrong.
This sucks, of course - it seems highly unlikely that the costs are what they say, and 15 years in jail is frankly insane. But that doesn't change the facts; Randall Schwartz learned (perhaps) the same lesson the same hard way - if you don't own the computer, get written permission before you do anything not explicitly defined in your job duties. That's common sense. It's harsh to learn the lesson this way, rather than reading about it on/., but no one has a god-given right to hand-holding.
Q: Did he have permission from the school to install the software?
Yes: They can't touch him.
No: Stick a fork in him; he's done.
Regardless of the bandwidth costs - say it only cost 59 a day - it's still money that the school/state wouldn't have had to pay if he'd done his job (and only his job).
He's hysterical: "...the future of all that use the Internet and computers is at stake."
The future of all people who install bandwidth-sucking apps on equipment that belongs to someone else, perhaps.
In sharp contrast to the tobacco industry, the gun industry has never lied about its products. "Guns killing people? Why no Senator, we've never heard of such a thing."
One large gun lawsuit was thrown out not too long ago, and I think that's a Good Sign. This society does not need more laws, or lawsuits. We need people to (a) mind their own fucking business, and (b) take responsibility for their own fucking actions. At least as important, we need intelligent and ethical leaders who'll do the same.
Parenthetically, let's not start praising the U.S. arms industry, mmmkay? The United States supplied arms or military technology to more than 92% of the conflicts under way in 1999 [source]. When the U.S. government gives "aid" to another country, that aid is usually not cash, but some sort of voucher for U.S.-made products, often arms. So the U.S. government is using U.S. taxpayer dollars to fund the arms industry to give weapons to foreign governments. Nice deal if you can get it, huh?
It's funny, you don't usually hear about the authors of insecure software being liable. Yet they are just as much at fault as the people making the rootkits (from a simplistic 'if this code didn't exist, the exploit couldn't happen' point of view).
That's stupid. It's like saying, "If you hadn't been in the way of the bullet, you wouldn't have been shot."
From any perspective other than that simplistic (and useless) one your argument/example fails utterly. Sue Ford if your car gets stolen? Sure, if they've sold it to you with the explicit guarantee that it's unstealable.
No piece of code I know of makes such an explicit guarantee. In fact, much of the code I use says (in big bold letters), "NO WARRANTY" and "THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU."
Question: is it possible to make a complex piece of software provable secure? Answer: no.
So you want to hold people accountable unless they write perfect code, every time? Brilliant - you've just filed a lawsuit against every person who's every written software. Good luck.
In high school, yon these many years ago, I made it to the Ohio state finals with my solar pond science fair project (Google search 'cause I'm lazy). Like other forms of solar power, solar ponds can generate a fair amount of electricity.
What I learned, however, was that the sun is much better at heating things up than creating electricity. Heat a home, or water for a home, or a greenhouse - at these the sun excels. Also, we're still not very good at converting that energy into electricity. We would have been much farther along 'cept for fucking Ronald Reagan (link's dated, but funny). Bastard killed off solar energy research in the 80s.
Anyway. Solar power is useful, yes, especially in 3rd-world countries where people aren't such energy hogs. But until our technology improves vastly (or we all start using much less energy), solar-generated electricity isn't going to help the 1st world very much.
One critical patent covers Harrah's method for consolidating gambling and hospitality data from its 21 properties. If someone visits Harrah's Las Vegas, then the nearby Rio, then Showboat Atlantic City -- all owned by Harrah's -- information about those activities is culled from local databases and consolidated into a central patron database.
Great. So Harrah's has basically patented... databases. Imagine the US Patent Office clerks.
"Hey Ernie, these guys say that if you walk into the Showboat, they can tell right away that you like Margaritas, even though that's in a computer miles away!"
"Gee Bert, that's incredible! If anyone ever deserved a patent, it's them."
"We all say so, so it must be true!"
Super-soakers aren't the best
on
Water Guns
·
· Score: 3
IMHO, nothing beats a Stream Machine (link to out-of-stock page, with photo, on Amazon). It's really simple - a long plastic tube with a nozzle at one end and a plunger with pistol grip handle at the other end. Stick in bucket, pull plunger, point at target, push plunger.
Now, it might not sound that great, but it's really very nice. Your GMP (gallons-per-minute, like a shower head) is potentially much higher than a Super Soaker. The release rate is totally up to you - a little or a lot. I can shoot one about 30' straight up, and I'm not exactly muscle-bound.
I once got in a water fight with one of these things; my buddy had a hose. Sure, I had to carry around a bucket, but he surrendered pretty fast after I shut his hose off;)
Women make a shit-load more in straight porn than men do. Let's ask Asia Carrera (you know who she is, right?). The following excerpt is from her site, designed and built by Asia herself. She's a member of Mensa, and a true geek (she runs Red Hat, not Debian, but no one's perfect, right?). From right here
How much do adult film stars make?
This must be the only place in the world where guys get paid less than girls, and we call all the shots. (feminists take note!) Guys get a couple hundred per scene. New girls can get between five and six hundred for a boy/girl scene, and the rate jumps as you become a bigger star. Contract girls get paid by the movie, instead of by the scene, and they make thousands of dollars per movie. Then the stars go on the road dancing, which earns from $2500-$15,000 a week, not including tips, polaroids, etc. It's good money, but remember, when you're still working at 40 or 50, we're out of a job!
...a program that cannot run on the same platform as another is clearly not a rival...
I was going to go on a rant and list several reasons why you're wrong here, but there are only two that really matter.
Reality. MacOS X will run both Illustrator and KIllustrator. So even by your logic, yes they are direct competitors.*
Philosophy. Even if they didn't run at all on the same platform, your attitude is precisely what Free software is trying to dethrone - that your choice of operating system or platform is limiting rather than empowering. If App Q isn't available for your platform, bug the developers, learn another OS, look for a substitute, etc. The bottom line is that if learning a new skill is all that stands between you and a task, you've got no reason to whine.
What Adobe did was right and proper. It sucks that this poor schmuck is getting nailed, but if he'd had half a brain he would have expected it. The best post from the last article said, in part,
"Whether or not you "believe" in Intellectual property has no bearing on whether it exists, and if it is legally binding.
Fighting the system through simple noncompliance is not the answer, talk to your govt reps, and demand action. If nobody complains, then nothing changes. The whole point of democracy is that you stand up and be heard, not just bitch and moan cuz you're not in charge."
Amen.
*Granted, there are some technical troubles between Apple and Adobe, but you can bet those will be ironed out - Apple users are very important for Adobe. You could also say that the people using Illustrator are unlikely to have the technical chops to get KIllustrator running under X. First, that's only an education problem, and doesn't help your argument. Second, you can bet that better installers are coming for all of user-land Free software).
It's not a bad suggestion, except that there's already a "Slashback" topic, and it's often used for minor story updates. My beef, and I bet most others would agree, is that Slashdot is Taco's day job. I wish he'd pay more attention to what he posts.
Now, I'm not flaming the guy. He gets my respect for creating this site in the first place, and he's made many good decisions about it, and probably puts up with a lot of bullshit. But this happens often enough that it's silly. What other interesting story got bumped so we could see a rehash of this old one?
That's not even questioning the value of posting this in the first place. IMHO we'd all be better off ignoring these stupid little spats with Microsoft and concentrate on doing our jobs. As it is, we're adding fuel to a fire not of our own making, and giving Microsoft's PR department free advice. I bet their PR department has a couple people doing nothing but generating copy to piss off geeks and distract them from the real point: authentication and 'net-based services.
In the last six months, his firm, Sherwood Partners, has picked up 45 ABC assignments, up from none a year ago. He has enlarged his staff to 20 people from six, and will hire five more. "This business has just exploded," he says.
So soon we'll need Meta-Repo-Man, to liquidate all the Repo Men who sprang up to cash in on the.com crash.
> I'd like to see one person in this place come up with a
> fair rebuttal word for word to counter what I've said.
Ok. First, let's define some terms. From Merriam-Webster: Activism: a doctrine or practice that emphasizes direct vigorous action especially in support of or opposition to one side of a controversial issue.
By the above definition of "activism," I think that emailing and/or calling a company to express polite opposition to one of its policies qualifies. If you disagree with this, please cite your sources, and explain why you consider them to be more reliable than Mirriam-Webster.
> you sound more like an environmentalist than someone who has a clue.
Ad homonim; unrelated to the argument.
> Firstly where do you see any mention of activism in any
> of the articles linked?
This link [3rd link in the article] contains: But based on your feedback, we are happy to continue to offer access to the Solaris 8 Foundation Source.
> Secondly if you think someone is going to sit through millions
> of email if they were spammed...
I assume you mean "sift?" No, I don't think for a minute that a human being is going to manually parse every email coming into a company. Many companies use mail server software to perform tasks like this (i.e. routing email based on receiver, subject or content). Also, most companies have multiple incoming email addresses, and sometimes they make these publically available. If you pick the right ones, you can often get a human being at the other end. Furthermore, if you use a decent subject line, you can get their attention and present your case without them having to read the email.
And if you just reach some marketing droid who doesn't care, and who creates some sort of rule to route all related email to/dev/null, you've gained a small victory by making him/her realize that many people are pissed off.
>...you're off your rocker
Ad homonim; unrelated to the argument.
> Emails such as those are almost always sent to a null account.
First, I doubt you can prove that. Second, are you saying that because I may not be heard I shouldn't even try? Is that your logic? "It's too hard, so just give up." Cynicism may sound cool on Slashdot, but it's no way to run your life.
> Company X will not listen to you.
Provably false. I've received numerous emails back from companies I've contacted. Some are personal, some are canned. Either way you're point's disproven.
> Company X has a paid staff that looks into how the company
> is going to make money.
Missing the point. Often, companies employ professionals in a "Marketing department." Their role is to sell the company's product and make the company look good in public. These people are notoriously sensitive to criticism, and it's part of their job to parse that criticism and relay it up the food chain.
> You know that thing called money right?
Ad homonim; unrelated to the argument.
> Company X's bottom line is keeping investors happy on
> returns, not what the consumer wants as most people would
> like to think.
False dichotomy. Companies keep investors happy by keeping the stock profitable. They often do this my selling large amounts of product to consumers. Ergo, a company's bottom line is often (not always) inextricably tied to kepping consumers happy.
Bridgestone would agree with me. They've lost over US$1.3 billion in less than a year, and their sales are off 50%. Killing your customers is the antithesis of keeping them happy.
> Clearly this is where you sound more like a 15 year old
> rebel without a cause, as opposed to someone with a clue.
Ad homonim; unrelated to the argument.
> This whole article has nothing to do with activism
> on any scale, so where did you get this rant from?
Already proven false: see above. Also, here's another quote from a different story, "Critics Force Microsoft To Drop Smart Tags." To be fair, Microsoft didn't really say that consumer feedback was the primary motive for the decision, but did say that "external feedback" was one of the motives. Nearly every published article I've seen (a couple dozen) expressed skepticism at Microsoft's stated motives, and the consensus is that they dropped Smart Tags because they were getting beaten bloody by the press (not coincidently, almost all users of Windows and IE). It's not solid proof, but it's close enough for me.
> Who threw a collective shit fit[?]
Well, nearly all of the technology press, for one. That's pretty important, eh? A Yahoo News search turned up 41 Smart Tag articles, nearly all of which are negative. There have been some positive articles, but most people hated the idea. Many who hated it let Microsoft know.
> Do you think the people at MS care at this point what someone,
> especially someone using alternatives to MS, thinks?
Yes, I do, and it's provably true. Microsoft responded nearly instantly to Smart Tag criticism. Microsoft responds fast and vociferously to many criticisms; if they didn't listen, they wouldn't resond. Duh.
> especially someone using alternatives to MS
IMHO, these people more than most, actually. They don't need to convince Joe Sixpack to use Windows - he buys a Gateway and uses whatever Gateway feeds him. People using non-MS products, however, often convince other people to switch away from MS products. Just my opinion, though.
> They just beat the Department of Justice
Not yet, they haven't. They may prevail in the end, but the case is far from over.
> which paves the way for them to do whatever they like
This is hard to argue with; they've shown nothing but contempt for the government, and they'll probably continue to do so.
> Surely you'd have to be kidding yourself if you think MS'
> backing off Smart Tags for now has anything to do with
> someone bitching about it.
I do think this; see above. Do you have a better explanation? In absence of convincing evidence either way, rational people are free to disagree. The only "evidence" most people have is the prepared speech of a Microsoft spokesdroid, which has evidently convinced very few people.
> Again your dissillusioned by thoughts of grandeur... your
> original post sounds like nothing but someone who's been
> playing quake too long, and thinking they're some sort of
> "Cyber Super Hero"
Ad homonim; unrelated to the argument.
> I rest my case
I'm not sure what you mean by this. But if you really rest your case, then I sugest that you've lost. I've demolished nearly every point you've made. Not difficult, since nearly every phrase you typed contained one or more logical fallacies. Personally I think you're just another dumb-fuck troll. But hey, that's just my opinion.
Activism does make a difference. For every person who writes, emails, calls to complain when a large company pisses him off, there are whiners in the background saying, "It won't make any difference; why should a huge company like X even listen to you?"
Well, twice in a week two of the biggest companies in the world have listened to thousands of us, and done what we asked them to. We threw a collective shit-fit when Micro$oft revealed their Smart Tag plans, and they backed right away. We had another fit when Sun said they'd close the Solaris source, and they've now reversed themselves.
We haven't won the war, and we never will, because it will never end. But dammit, we can make a difference on issues that matter to us. Next time Company Y does something really obnoxious or stupid, remember one of my favorite Frank Herbert quotes: "The most important survival ability for any life form is the ability to change." Successful companies know this, too, and they do listen.
A friend of mine writes image-recognition code for Ditto (formerly Arriba Vista). They've been providing this same service for over 2 years.
Google is amazing, and I'm sure that their search will be better eventually (if it isn't already), but this is a difficult field, and it's nice to have options. Give them a look.
I'm already at the stupid karma cap. Plus, if I'm playing down here with you ACs I obviously don't care if I lose karma anyway. So, no whoring.
Yes, I think you should write a letter, and post it. The world would generally be a better place if people acted (even a very limited action like that email) on their beliefs and encouraged others to do the same.
Slashdot Mirror
As was pointed out, Michael wrote the quoted line, not Timothy. My apologies.
"We all say so, so it must be true!"
What exactly has been crushed by lawsuits? The idea that you can create a company founded on file-sharing software and supported by "eyeballs" or banner ads? The idea that you can distribute someone else's work without their permission? The idea that because it's now technically possible to share music faster and more widely that suddenly corporate music will roll over and die?
Music is created by people, and the rubber meets the road at your local music club. Sharing music on the web is a far fucking cry from being innovative. Innovation in music happens when some teenage kid has to choose between suicide and picking up his guitar, when some girl writes new lyrics while she's crying of a broken heart, when a fan skips work to catch his favorite band.
The Who said it best:
MP3.com has a CEO, and so does Napster. These are for-profit corporations, out for a buck just like all the rest. They're not the Great White Knights, selflessly trying to save the music world.If you want innovation in music, support your local bands. Go see their shows and scream 'til your throat hurts. To think that you can change the music scene by downloading a few songs from the web is sad.
And to guard against the first few troll replies, yes, I know that one of the reasons Big Music is Big is that it controls all the distribution channels (e.g. radio, record stores). This is not news! It's been happening since before anyone here was born, and it will continue to happen as long as monopolies and oligarchies are rewarded by huge profits. The web never had a chance to "defeat" these companies. What's happened to popular music now that Napster has become an everyday word? Are we all listening to original, cutting-edge tunes? No - people still download Britney Spears and Metallica.
Yeah, many people have been exposed to music they otherwise wouldn't have heard by using Napster. That's true. And that will continue to happen. You don't a corporation's help to share or appreciate music. You need friends who like different music than you do, and you need to get off your ass and go see shows. Just like 10 years ago, just like when our parents were growing up.
"We all say so, so it must be true!"
Questions:
- If several people die after internalizing Substance X, would you or would you not want some competent authority to investigate?
- Is it possible for a psychopath to taint food and/or medicinal products with the express goal or killing random people?
- Is it possible for a manufacturing error to produce tainted products (e.g. have 10x the indicated caffeine)?
Also, it's not like Sweden has banned the stuff. What did the Swedish government actually have to say about this? From the 2nd paragraph of the article, which most people (including Hemos) have apparently not read: Most people wouldn't drink Red Bull any differently than they drink Coke or Gatorade. Like it or not, most folks don't know enough biochemistry to determine whether Substance X is safe to internalize under Condition Y. Thus, many countries have government organizations to make this information publicly available. Another quote: Nanny states again? There are plenty of substances in this country which are only obtainable at a pharmacy. Why? So that the pharmacist (i.e. someone who's spent years studying the effects of chemicals on the human body) can give you sensible advice: "Don't chug a case of this after a marathon."I fail to see anything wrong here. If you really want to talk about nanny states, let's start with China and Afganistan, eh?
"We all say so, so it must be true!"
All the postcard-ware licenses I've seen simply ask you to send a postcard if you like the software. No registration, no details, just a postcard from where you live. I think it's cool.
"We all say so, so it must be true!"
- "An apple, like a tire iron, can be thrown at a dog."
- "A tire iron, like an apple, is something I often keep in my truck."
Next.(And if you had any balls at all, you'd be logged in).
"We all say so, so it must be true!"
Besides, did you even read my post? I spent most of it contrasting the works, not comparing them.
"We all say so, so it must be true!"
"We all say so, so it must be true!"
The advantage of this method is that he created a complete cycle right up-front (see next P), rather than tacking on book after book like many hack writers do. The disadvantage is that Dune Messiah is pretty obviously just a stepping stone to Children of Dune. I think the series would have been stronger if he'd left it out entirely, but we would have missed Paul's relationship with Channi, which is complex and interesting.
The first 3 are a perfect cycle, almost a tragedy in the classical sense - a man falling from a high position due to hubris (yes, I know, Aristotle defined tragedy more specifically than that, but I'm too lazy to look it up). The last 3 are much better written, with more interesting plots and characters.
I don't watch TV, so I don't know how the first mini-series went. I find it hard to believe that the work can be faithfully reproduced, however, no matter how much time and money is spent on it. This contrasts with Peter Jackson's upcoming LOTR, which actually may not suck. Tolkien was wordy, but LOTR is a fairly simple work - standard mythology. Dune (all 6) are complex commentary on politics, economics, religion, human nature, oil, water - you name it. Very deep. You can get the action to the screen, but I fear the depth being left behind.
And before Tolkien fans get out their flame-throwers, yes, I love Tolkien. I took (and aced) several graduate-level Tolkien courses in school, and have a deep and abiding appreciation for him and his work. LOTR, however, is a sitcom compared with The Silmarillion, and The Hobbit is a commercial break. No one will make a movie of The Silmarillion, anymore than you could make a movie of the entire Bible.
And yet The Silmarillion is still just a small part of Tolkien's work, and his world. Amazing.
"We all say so, so it must be true!"
I agree. However, I was talking ethics, not law. He didn't seem to care one way or the other if he broke the law, only that he not have to pay the consequences. My point was that, regardless of law, what he did was very likely wrong.
"We all say so, so it must be true!"
Q: Did he have permission from the school to install the software?
Yes: They can't touch him.
No: Stick a fork in him; he's done.
Regardless of the bandwidth costs - say it only cost 59 a day - it's still money that the school/state wouldn't have had to pay if he'd done his job (and only his job).
He's hysterical: "...the future of all that use the Internet and computers is at stake."
The future of all people who install bandwidth-sucking apps on equipment that belongs to someone else, perhaps.
"We all say so, so it must be true!"
One large gun lawsuit was thrown out not too long ago, and I think that's a Good Sign. This society does not need more laws, or lawsuits. We need people to (a) mind their own fucking business, and (b) take responsibility for their own fucking actions. At least as important, we need intelligent and ethical leaders who'll do the same.
Parenthetically, let's not start praising the U.S. arms industry, mmmkay? The United States supplied arms or military technology to more than 92% of the conflicts under way in 1999 [source]. When the U.S. government gives "aid" to another country, that aid is usually not cash, but some sort of voucher for U.S.-made products, often arms. So the U.S. government is using U.S. taxpayer dollars to fund the arms industry to give weapons to foreign governments. Nice deal if you can get it, huh?
"We all say so, so it must be true!"
From any perspective other than that simplistic (and useless) one your argument/example fails utterly. Sue Ford if your car gets stolen? Sure, if they've sold it to you with the explicit guarantee that it's unstealable.
No piece of code I know of makes such an explicit guarantee. In fact, much of the code I use says (in big bold letters), "NO WARRANTY" and "THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU."
Question: is it possible to make a complex piece of software provable secure? Answer: no.
So you want to hold people accountable unless they write perfect code, every time? Brilliant - you've just filed a lawsuit against every person who's every written software. Good luck.
"We all say so, so it must be true!"
What I learned, however, was that the sun is much better at heating things up than creating electricity. Heat a home, or water for a home, or a greenhouse - at these the sun excels. Also, we're still not very good at converting that energy into electricity. We would have been much farther along 'cept for fucking Ronald Reagan (link's dated, but funny). Bastard killed off solar energy research in the 80s.
Anyway. Solar power is useful, yes, especially in 3rd-world countries where people aren't such energy hogs. But until our technology improves vastly (or we all start using much less energy), solar-generated electricity isn't going to help the 1st world very much.
"We all say so, so it must be true!"
"Hey Ernie, these guys say that if you walk into the Showboat, they can tell right away that you like Margaritas, even though that's in a computer miles away!"
"Gee Bert, that's incredible! If anyone ever deserved a patent, it's them."
"We all say so, so it must be true!"
Now, it might not sound that great, but it's really very nice. Your GMP (gallons-per-minute, like a shower head) is potentially much higher than a Super Soaker. The release rate is totally up to you - a little or a lot. I can shoot one about 30' straight up, and I'm not exactly muscle-bound.
I once got in a water fight with one of these things; my buddy had a hose. Sure, I had to carry around a bucket, but he surrendered pretty fast after I shut his hose off ;)
"We all say so, so it must be true!"
Hey, I serve web pages with FreeBSD, but I'm not into whips and chains enough to use it on my desktop ;).
"We all say so, so it must be true!"
"We all say so, so it must be true!"
- Reality. MacOS X will run both Illustrator and KIllustrator. So even by your logic, yes they are direct competitors.*
- Philosophy. Even if they didn't run at all on the same platform, your attitude is precisely what Free software is trying to dethrone - that your choice of operating system or platform is limiting rather than empowering. If App Q isn't available for your platform, bug the developers, learn another OS, look for a substitute, etc. The bottom line is that if learning a new skill is all that stands between you and a task, you've got no reason to whine.
What Adobe did was right and proper. It sucks that this poor schmuck is getting nailed, but if he'd had half a brain he would have expected it. The best post from the last article said, in part,Amen.
*Granted, there are some technical troubles between Apple and Adobe, but you can bet those will be ironed out - Apple users are very important for Adobe. You could also say that the people using Illustrator are unlikely to have the technical chops to get KIllustrator running under X. First, that's only an education problem, and doesn't help your argument. Second, you can bet that better installers are coming for all of user-land Free software).
"We all say so, so it must be true!"
Now, I'm not flaming the guy. He gets my respect for creating this site in the first place, and he's made many good decisions about it, and probably puts up with a lot of bullshit. But this happens often enough that it's silly. What other interesting story got bumped so we could see a rehash of this old one?
That's not even questioning the value of posting this in the first place. IMHO we'd all be better off ignoring these stupid little spats with Microsoft and concentrate on doing our jobs. As it is, we're adding fuel to a fire not of our own making, and giving Microsoft's PR department free advice. I bet their PR department has a couple people doing nothing but generating copy to piss off geeks and distract them from the real point: authentication and 'net-based services.
"We all say so, so it must be true!"
"We all say so, so it must be true!"
"We all say so, so it must be true!"
> fair rebuttal word for word to counter what I've said.
Ok. First, let's define some terms. From Merriam-Webster: Activism: a doctrine or practice that emphasizes direct vigorous action especially in support of or opposition to one side of a controversial issue.
By the above definition of "activism," I think that emailing and/or calling a company to express polite opposition to one of its policies qualifies. If you disagree with this, please cite your sources, and explain why you consider them to be more reliable than Mirriam-Webster.
> you sound more like an environmentalist than someone who has a clue.
Ad homonim; unrelated to the argument.
> Firstly where do you see any mention of activism in any
> of the articles linked?
This link [3rd link in the article] contains: But based on your feedback, we are happy to continue to offer access to the Solaris 8 Foundation Source.
> Secondly if you think someone is going to sit through millions
> of email if they were spammed...
I assume you mean "sift?" No, I don't think for a minute that a human being is going to manually parse every email coming into a company. Many companies use mail server software to perform tasks like this (i.e. routing email based on receiver, subject or content). Also, most companies have multiple incoming email addresses, and sometimes they make these publically available. If you pick the right ones, you can often get a human being at the other end. Furthermore, if you use a decent subject line, you can get their attention and present your case without them having to read the email.
And if you just reach some marketing droid who doesn't care, and who creates some sort of rule to route all related email to /dev/null, you've gained a small victory by making him/her realize that many people are pissed off.
> ...you're off your rocker
Ad homonim; unrelated to the argument.
> Emails such as those are almost always sent to a null account.
First, I doubt you can prove that. Second, are you saying that because I may not be heard I shouldn't even try? Is that your logic? "It's too hard, so just give up." Cynicism may sound cool on Slashdot, but it's no way to run your life.
> Company X will not listen to you.
Provably false. I've received numerous emails back from companies I've contacted. Some are personal, some are canned. Either way you're point's disproven.
> Company X has a paid staff that looks into how the company
> is going to make money.
Missing the point. Often, companies employ professionals in a "Marketing department." Their role is to sell the company's product and make the company look good in public. These people are notoriously sensitive to criticism, and it's part of their job to parse that criticism and relay it up the food chain.
> You know that thing called money right?
Ad homonim; unrelated to the argument.
> Company X's bottom line is keeping investors happy on
> returns, not what the consumer wants as most people would
> like to think.
False dichotomy. Companies keep investors happy by keeping the stock profitable. They often do this my selling large amounts of product to consumers. Ergo, a company's bottom line is often (not always) inextricably tied to kepping consumers happy.
Bridgestone would agree with me. They've lost over US$1.3 billion in less than a year, and their sales are off 50%. Killing your customers is the antithesis of keeping them happy.
> Clearly this is where you sound more like a 15 year old
> rebel without a cause, as opposed to someone with a clue.
Ad homonim; unrelated to the argument.
> This whole article has nothing to do with activism
> on any scale, so where did you get this rant from?
Already proven false: see above. Also, here's another quote from a different story, "Critics Force Microsoft To Drop Smart Tags." To be fair, Microsoft didn't really say that consumer feedback was the primary motive for the decision, but did say that "external feedback" was one of the motives. Nearly every published article I've seen (a couple dozen) expressed skepticism at Microsoft's stated motives, and the consensus is that they dropped Smart Tags because they were getting beaten bloody by the press (not coincidently, almost all users of Windows and IE). It's not solid proof, but it's close enough for me.
> Who threw a collective shit fit[?]
Well, nearly all of the technology press, for one. That's pretty important, eh? A Yahoo News search turned up 41 Smart Tag articles, nearly all of which are negative. There have been some positive articles, but most people hated the idea. Many who hated it let Microsoft know.
> Do you think the people at MS care at this point what someone,
> especially someone using alternatives to MS, thinks?
Yes, I do, and it's provably true. Microsoft responded nearly instantly to Smart Tag criticism. Microsoft responds fast and vociferously to many criticisms; if they didn't listen, they wouldn't resond. Duh.
> especially someone using alternatives to MS
IMHO, these people more than most, actually. They don't need to convince Joe Sixpack to use Windows - he buys a Gateway and uses whatever Gateway feeds him. People using non-MS products, however, often convince other people to switch away from MS products. Just my opinion, though.
> They just beat the Department of Justice
Not yet, they haven't. They may prevail in the end, but the case is far from over.
> which paves the way for them to do whatever they like
This is hard to argue with; they've shown nothing but contempt for the government, and they'll probably continue to do so.
> Surely you'd have to be kidding yourself if you think MS'
> backing off Smart Tags for now has anything to do with
> someone bitching about it.
I do think this; see above. Do you have a better explanation? In absence of convincing evidence either way, rational people are free to disagree. The only "evidence" most people have is the prepared speech of a Microsoft spokesdroid, which has evidently convinced very few people.
> Again your dissillusioned by thoughts of grandeur ... your
> original post sounds like nothing but someone who's been
> playing quake too long, and thinking they're some sort of
> "Cyber Super Hero"
Ad homonim; unrelated to the argument.
> I rest my case
I'm not sure what you mean by this. But if you really rest your case, then I sugest that you've lost. I've demolished nearly every point you've made. Not difficult, since nearly every phrase you typed contained one or more logical fallacies. Personally I think you're just another dumb-fuck troll. But hey, that's just my opinion.
"We all say so, so it must be true!"
Activism does make a difference. For every person who writes, emails, calls to complain when a large company pisses him off, there are whiners in the background saying, "It won't make any difference; why should a huge company like X even listen to you?"
Well, twice in a week two of the biggest companies in the world have listened to thousands of us, and done what we asked them to. We threw a collective shit-fit when Micro$oft revealed their Smart Tag plans, and they backed right away. We had another fit when Sun said they'd close the Solaris source, and they've now reversed themselves.
We haven't won the war, and we never will, because it will never end. But dammit, we can make a difference on issues that matter to us. Next time Company Y does something really obnoxious or stupid, remember one of my favorite Frank Herbert quotes: "The most important survival ability for any life form is the ability to change." Successful companies know this, too, and they do listen.
"We all say so, so it must be true!"
A friend of mine writes image-recognition code for Ditto (formerly Arriba Vista). They've been providing this same service for over 2 years.
Google is amazing, and I'm sure that their search will be better eventually (if it isn't already), but this is a difficult field, and it's nice to have options. Give them a look.
"We all say so, so it must be true!"
"We all say so, so it must be true!"