It can work if parents don't start to micromanage.... Unfortunately most do. For example, theres nothing wrong with "natural" consequences such as you are lazy, fail a class and have to take summer school. There is however everything wrong with parents making artificial consequences such as you must have a B or higher in this class. Sure, you should strive to get a high grade, but if it doesn't happen, no big deal so long as you pass it and aren't in competition for a grade-based scholarship and even that would be a natural consequence.
It doesn't mean that you will turn to cocaine and alcohol, but lets say you aren't doing too well in a class. If your parents frequently yell at you for not doing what they consider "well" in it, are you going to really ask for tutoring or help from them? Or lets say that you, or a close friend have a problem, perhaps you realize you are becoming addicted to something such as drugs or alcohol. If your parents constantly yell at you, most people would hide the problem rather then confront it.
If parents stop making artificial consequences, people can learn from their mistakes, not do it again, and be happier. Really, getting a D in a class isn't the end of the world.
1. Right to access the internet if you pay for it
2. Right to control what software is on your computer
3. Right to copy anything you own for your own personal use
4. Right to use software that does not interfere with anyone else's right
5. The Right to publish any information that is true without fear of takedown notices
6. The Right to possess any information
7. The Right to control your own hardware
8. The Right to use any device for any purpose that does not interfere with rights of others
9. The Right to remain anonymous
10.The Right to have free, uncensored speech on your own servers
...But that will, in later life make your kids believe you aren't to be trusted otherwise they will get in trouble. Such things can lead to them to hide from problems rather then just tell you about them.
The problem isn't that people can't use Ubuntu its that they have forgotten how to learn to use a computer. Windows has been the dominant OS for so long that any other OS, Amiga, BeOS, etc, other than Windows and Mac have been forgotten. Ubuntu is very, very, very easy and intuitive for a new computer user to understand. Everything says what it does. Its only when you get people who have used Windows all their life and everything isn't how they think it should be (not because of usability but because of MS) and those people think same hardware == same system == Ubuntu is just a version of Windows.
Take a kid who hasn't used Windows before, or an older person who hasn't really used Windows and put them on an Ubuntu box, you will see that they pick up on it pretty easily compared to that of Windows. But to move from Windows they need to un-learn what they learned with Windows.
Sounds nice, But this just consolidates the position of patents as a tool of large corporations to squash competition.
A big company can do this. A little guy typically gets an idea, plays with it a bit, files the patent and then has some protection while he looks for finance/support to launch it.
But considering that most software patents never progress pass the idea stage, his would provide the small company or individual an easy way of bypassing pointless patents that won't be used.
Software development doesn't cost much, and if you have the idea and want to use it you can easily write some code, release a small freeware program on the internet and get the patent.
If the large companies got there first, you still have the freeware program to use for that purpose.
while "distorting" a video for parody, satire or political comment purposes may still fall outside the licence and lead to demands for its removal
This is very disturbing, parody, satire, and political statements should be expressly legal under any sane copyright system. Especially for non-commercial use.
What is with "developed" countries and the corruption of copyright? The US, Canada, EU, and most other nations have bought into the corporations, and that just is sad.
Probably because many of the BSA's biggest members, such as Microsoft, are headquartered in a country that is still fighting a major war.
Major war? The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost the life of ~6000 US men and women in the armed forces. Sure, thats a lot. But when compared to many battles of WWII thats a small amount, the invasion of Normandy alone took the lives of 1/6th that number, and that was slightly longer than a month. These wars have been dragging on for over 5 years.
Yet Slashdot users so often brag about declines in Windows Internet Explorer's share at w3schools.
Um, perhaps thats because W3schools is quite heavily IE-centric? Including many niche tutorials over things only supported by IE (such as a series on VBScript).
A niche website would be one focused on one single thing, such as a site based solely on tweaking Ubuntu or compiling Gentoo. W3schools has a wide demographic or one more focused on MS.
Movies are art because movies can inspire the full range of human emotions. The only emotions a good game inspires are frustration of defeat and joy of victory (which cannot exist without the former). These emotions are intrinsically linked to the game itself, and don't require any cutscenes or dialog.
Um, have you played anything more involved than an Atari 2600 game?
If a game is trying to inspire any other emotion it is failing as a game. You can tell this is true because removing all the "gameplay" would improve it, eg. JRPGs would be better without all the random battles, wandering about the map, item management, etc. If the game were really good you would get annoyed at all the interruptions to the playable parts. It would be better to separate the "artistic" parts and repackage them as a movie or illustrated novel.
So wait, you would rather have a J-RPG thats a point and click adventure? Sure, sometimes random battles are annoying, sure, sometimes you think you would do better without them, but they add depth to the game and can be used in very creative ways (such as Pokemon). Wandering about the map is also part of the fun, otherwise the game becomes a chore. So what do you want to do? Have a point and click adventure with no plot, only boss battles and a giant checklist?
Games are supposed to be fun, not something you have to grind through to get to the "plot" and "achievements". The fun comes from challenging yourself and developing your skills, not mindlessly pressing buttons like a laboratory rat.
Um, so what games do you classify as "fun"? Pac-Man, Galaga, Space Invaders? You obviously haven't experienced a game with a decent storyline. They can invoke many, many, many emotions. Have you not played Final Fantasy VII and experienced its plot? Have you never played Halo and realized that it was a good game because of the strong plot?
I think it's normal for a modern OS to make full use of modern machines. Of course an OS doesn't need 1GB - I can run AmigaOS in 1MB, for example. But what market value is there in releasing OSs for small resources? Firstly, the market demand for that is low (since most computers, even netbooks, have at least 1GB these days), secondly if you have less than that, there are plenty of older OSs (from AmigaOS to Windows XP) that run fine on it. Microsoft would just be in competition with themselves.
Sure, but you don't get anything more for your better hardware. Vista isn't really any more stable then XP, its slightly more secure because of UAC but also more annoying than heck, you get a slightly shinyer GUI but that GUI gets blown away by compiz-fusion effects on any distro of Linux for a lot less resources, the thing is, Vista doesn't do anything more than XP yet it uses up more resources. That isn't normal.
If MS made Vista do something that added to the experience that used up more RAM/CPU that would be understandable but it does not.
Hardly. What evidence is there for this ludicrous claim?
Go to any college campus that doesn't hand out laptops and you will find a large amount of Mac machines. The iPod has made the Apple brand appealing, their advertising has most people relating to the problems by the PC, most people would rather have a Mac that was given to them then a PC, unless they were a Windows developer or a gamer.
But it clearly isn't. A full keyboard is necessary for any real work, and so is a *real* OS and not a walled garden. I can't do half the things that I can on a Mac or even Windows box on the iPhone, the browser lacks Flash so many sites won't work, etc.
How would it be a net loss? Lets say Apple has control of 3% of the market currently. And lets say they make $500 in profit for each Mac (software/hardware) sold on average. Lets say that they only make about $100 for each license of OS X, it isn't a lot more of marketshare before they start to make a profit.
Software is dirt cheap to make when you are Apple. Whether they sell 100 copies of OS X or 500 million, it still cost the same to develop and sell (packaging/DVDs are cheap today). People will still buy Mac hardware for the unified experience, specs, or design. I simply can't see Apple losing money on software with just about 0 competition. (Ask anyone if they would rather have a Mac or PC who isn't a developer or gamer and they will almost always say Mac).
But the question is why? I can get a Ubuntu system to do far more than a Vista system on 512 MB of RAM. I can have more impressive 3-D effects with less RAM without slowdowns. No system should really require more than 512 MB of RAM. Sure, everyone should really have a gig or two of it because its dirt cheap today, but an OS should have a minimal footprint.
If you can't have a fast system with 512 MB of RAM you are doing something wrong.
Apple can't make it in the netbook category because they won't sell cheap hardware plain and simple. If Apple really wanted to crush MS all they would have to do would be sell OS X for PCs. They could do it easily, build up ~25% marketshare in the first few months, and basically confine MS to gamers and businesses, until they built up about 50% marketshare in a year or so.
Put OS X on PC hardware and Apple will be the next king of silicon valley.
But its also preventing the problem, imagined or not, from being solved. I believe that if software patents are allowed (and I believe that they shouldn't be allowed, but for arguments sake lets say they are allowed) then the patented idea needs to be in software produced by the company within 3 months of the patent being filed. If not then the patent is automatically voided.
How many of you think this will actually be used? It won't be, it however, does prevent me from making a program to solve this "problem".
The reason is simple for a small business or home user. Its what was on the computer. If you don't employ a full-time tech person, are too small or have too few computers to buy in bulk and get volume licensing, and don't have any software that is mission critical that doesn't work on Vista, I can see why many people would move to Vista.
Its hard to argue to keep an early P4 machine when a few components start failing whenever you can get a machine thats much more powerful for ~$300. If you don't have a volume license for XP, that requires you to pay an extra $50 or so, which is 1/6th of the machine's price! When faced with these facts, small businesses move to Vista because theres nothing else that doesn't cost more.
Heck, MS has more feet then that. They shot themselves in the foot with Windows ME too, luckily for them they had the reasonably stable Windows NT ready to go out the door. I think the only reason why Windows 7 will succeed is that MS's hardware requirements are commonplace. For example with Vista, you had companies left and right selling laptops and desktops with the minimum specs needed for Vista, they would have been great XP machines, but for some unknown reason they put Vista on them, that totally killed its reputation (because for some reason people think its *normal* to require 1 GB to run an OS, which I don't understand).
MS is swimming in money. On the other hand, they keep losing mindshare to Apple left and right.
...Only because FB doesn't seem closed. The moment that FB starts actively enforcing some sort of closed policy, is the day that you see a mass migration to a new networking site.
FB has an avalanche that can happen to them, once a few friends start leaving, the person needs to create a new account to keep in touch with them, that person who ends up liking the other site more (for whatever reason), leads to more people going over to the new site until FB becomes like MySpace (or Friendster) and dies.
But most Americans, even many/.ers have no clue about the rest of the world. The main lobby group for music and copyright in the USA is the RIAA. In the Netherlands they have BREIN. They both have the same essential functions. Its like calling the English Parliament the congress of England, sure, its not correct, but its something that most Americans can identify with.
No one side can overwhelm the RIAA. However when you have hundreds of lawsuits from various people and organizations, that takes a strain on the RIAA's budget. If they lose a few cases then they lose money, that loss compounded with the crap they call music being promoted, and with them having to bribe lawmakers in order to be able to keep passing laws like the DMCA, it will hurt the RIAA.
But whenever you have a place where real democracy can happen and not one thats locked down into two parties, you start to have politicizations who answer to the people. Might I remind you about the Pirate Bay and how Sweden is heading towards some pirate party representation? Sure, this won't happen overnight, but whenever you get a few members in the EU parliament that listen to the people, well, a revolution is sure to happen.
But its not, the links are clearly sponsored links. This would be outrageous if the top result (not the sponsored link) was for Coke, but its not. I'd rather Google do that for advertising which A) Is actually relevant B) is clean looking C) doesn't involve a dancing flash monkey screaming YOU WON A FREE* PSP!.
Yes, and as you can see, theres no trademark violation. Sure, you might want to shop someplace else, and there are loads of search engines. But its not illegal and sure as heck doesn't involve trademarks.
Slashdot Mirror
It can work if parents don't start to micromanage.... Unfortunately most do. For example, theres nothing wrong with "natural" consequences such as you are lazy, fail a class and have to take summer school. There is however everything wrong with parents making artificial consequences such as you must have a B or higher in this class. Sure, you should strive to get a high grade, but if it doesn't happen, no big deal so long as you pass it and aren't in competition for a grade-based scholarship and even that would be a natural consequence.
It doesn't mean that you will turn to cocaine and alcohol, but lets say you aren't doing too well in a class. If your parents frequently yell at you for not doing what they consider "well" in it, are you going to really ask for tutoring or help from them? Or lets say that you, or a close friend have a problem, perhaps you realize you are becoming addicted to something such as drugs or alcohol. If your parents constantly yell at you, most people would hide the problem rather then confront it.
If parents stop making artificial consequences, people can learn from their mistakes, not do it again, and be happier. Really, getting a D in a class isn't the end of the world.
1. Right to access the internet if you pay for it
2. Right to control what software is on your computer
3. Right to copy anything you own for your own personal use
4. Right to use software that does not interfere with anyone else's right
5. The Right to publish any information that is true without fear of takedown notices
6. The Right to possess any information
7. The Right to control your own hardware
8. The Right to use any device for any purpose that does not interfere with rights of others
9. The Right to remain anonymous
10.The Right to have free, uncensored speech on your own servers
Have all these and we would have a good start.
...But that will, in later life make your kids believe you aren't to be trusted otherwise they will get in trouble. Such things can lead to them to hide from problems rather then just tell you about them.
The problem isn't that people can't use Ubuntu its that they have forgotten how to learn to use a computer. Windows has been the dominant OS for so long that any other OS, Amiga, BeOS, etc, other than Windows and Mac have been forgotten. Ubuntu is very, very, very easy and intuitive for a new computer user to understand. Everything says what it does. Its only when you get people who have used Windows all their life and everything isn't how they think it should be (not because of usability but because of MS) and those people think same hardware == same system == Ubuntu is just a version of Windows.
Take a kid who hasn't used Windows before, or an older person who hasn't really used Windows and put them on an Ubuntu box, you will see that they pick up on it pretty easily compared to that of Windows. But to move from Windows they need to un-learn what they learned with Windows.
Whether or not that mentality actually will be implemented here in the US remains to be seen--I certainly hope Obama follows through.
I can assure you that Obama is not following that. Just look at the copyright treaty that is classified do to "national security" http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10195547-38.html
Sounds nice, But this just consolidates the position of patents as a tool of large corporations to squash competition. A big company can do this. A little guy typically gets an idea, plays with it a bit, files the patent and then has some protection while he looks for finance/support to launch it.
But considering that most software patents never progress pass the idea stage, his would provide the small company or individual an easy way of bypassing pointless patents that won't be used.
Software development doesn't cost much, and if you have the idea and want to use it you can easily write some code, release a small freeware program on the internet and get the patent.
If the large companies got there first, you still have the freeware program to use for that purpose.
while "distorting" a video for parody, satire or political comment purposes may still fall outside the licence and lead to demands for its removal
This is very disturbing, parody, satire, and political statements should be expressly legal under any sane copyright system. Especially for non-commercial use.
What is with "developed" countries and the corruption of copyright? The US, Canada, EU, and most other nations have bought into the corporations, and that just is sad.
Probably because many of the BSA's biggest members, such as Microsoft, are headquartered in a country that is still fighting a major war.
Major war? The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost the life of ~6000 US men and women in the armed forces. Sure, thats a lot. But when compared to many battles of WWII thats a small amount, the invasion of Normandy alone took the lives of 1/6th that number, and that was slightly longer than a month. These wars have been dragging on for over 5 years.
Yet Slashdot users so often brag about declines in Windows Internet Explorer's share at w3schools.
Um, perhaps thats because W3schools is quite heavily IE-centric? Including many niche tutorials over things only supported by IE (such as a series on VBScript).
A niche website would be one focused on one single thing, such as a site based solely on tweaking Ubuntu or compiling Gentoo. W3schools has a wide demographic or one more focused on MS.
Movies are art because movies can inspire the full range of human emotions. The only emotions a good game inspires are frustration of defeat and joy of victory (which cannot exist without the former). These emotions are intrinsically linked to the game itself, and don't require any cutscenes or dialog.
Um, have you played anything more involved than an Atari 2600 game?
If a game is trying to inspire any other emotion it is failing as a game. You can tell this is true because removing all the "gameplay" would improve it, eg. JRPGs would be better without all the random battles, wandering about the map, item management, etc. If the game were really good you would get annoyed at all the interruptions to the playable parts. It would be better to separate the "artistic" parts and repackage them as a movie or illustrated novel.
So wait, you would rather have a J-RPG thats a point and click adventure? Sure, sometimes random battles are annoying, sure, sometimes you think you would do better without them, but they add depth to the game and can be used in very creative ways (such as Pokemon). Wandering about the map is also part of the fun, otherwise the game becomes a chore. So what do you want to do? Have a point and click adventure with no plot, only boss battles and a giant checklist?
Games are supposed to be fun, not something you have to grind through to get to the "plot" and "achievements". The fun comes from challenging yourself and developing your skills, not mindlessly pressing buttons like a laboratory rat.
Um, so what games do you classify as "fun"? Pac-Man, Galaga, Space Invaders? You obviously haven't experienced a game with a decent storyline. They can invoke many, many, many emotions. Have you not played Final Fantasy VII and experienced its plot? Have you never played Halo and realized that it was a good game because of the strong plot?
I think it's normal for a modern OS to make full use of modern machines. Of course an OS doesn't need 1GB - I can run AmigaOS in 1MB, for example. But what market value is there in releasing OSs for small resources? Firstly, the market demand for that is low (since most computers, even netbooks, have at least 1GB these days), secondly if you have less than that, there are plenty of older OSs (from AmigaOS to Windows XP) that run fine on it. Microsoft would just be in competition with themselves.
Sure, but you don't get anything more for your better hardware. Vista isn't really any more stable then XP, its slightly more secure because of UAC but also more annoying than heck, you get a slightly shinyer GUI but that GUI gets blown away by compiz-fusion effects on any distro of Linux for a lot less resources, the thing is, Vista doesn't do anything more than XP yet it uses up more resources. That isn't normal.
If MS made Vista do something that added to the experience that used up more RAM/CPU that would be understandable but it does not.
Hardly. What evidence is there for this ludicrous claim?
Go to any college campus that doesn't hand out laptops and you will find a large amount of Mac machines. The iPod has made the Apple brand appealing, their advertising has most people relating to the problems by the PC, most people would rather have a Mac that was given to them then a PC, unless they were a Windows developer or a gamer.
The problem isn't working, its driving to work, which I'm sure we can all agree isn't going to be very safe if you were up for a few days.
But it clearly isn't. A full keyboard is necessary for any real work, and so is a *real* OS and not a walled garden. I can't do half the things that I can on a Mac or even Windows box on the iPhone, the browser lacks Flash so many sites won't work, etc.
How would it be a net loss? Lets say Apple has control of 3% of the market currently. And lets say they make $500 in profit for each Mac (software/hardware) sold on average. Lets say that they only make about $100 for each license of OS X, it isn't a lot more of marketshare before they start to make a profit.
Software is dirt cheap to make when you are Apple. Whether they sell 100 copies of OS X or 500 million, it still cost the same to develop and sell (packaging/DVDs are cheap today). People will still buy Mac hardware for the unified experience, specs, or design. I simply can't see Apple losing money on software with just about 0 competition. (Ask anyone if they would rather have a Mac or PC who isn't a developer or gamer and they will almost always say Mac).
But the question is why? I can get a Ubuntu system to do far more than a Vista system on 512 MB of RAM. I can have more impressive 3-D effects with less RAM without slowdowns. No system should really require more than 512 MB of RAM. Sure, everyone should really have a gig or two of it because its dirt cheap today, but an OS should have a minimal footprint.
If you can't have a fast system with 512 MB of RAM you are doing something wrong.
Apple can't make it in the netbook category because they won't sell cheap hardware plain and simple. If Apple really wanted to crush MS all they would have to do would be sell OS X for PCs. They could do it easily, build up ~25% marketshare in the first few months, and basically confine MS to gamers and businesses, until they built up about 50% marketshare in a year or so.
Put OS X on PC hardware and Apple will be the next king of silicon valley.
But its also preventing the problem, imagined or not, from being solved. I believe that if software patents are allowed (and I believe that they shouldn't be allowed, but for arguments sake lets say they are allowed) then the patented idea needs to be in software produced by the company within 3 months of the patent being filed. If not then the patent is automatically voided.
How many of you think this will actually be used? It won't be, it however, does prevent me from making a program to solve this "problem".
The reason is simple for a small business or home user. Its what was on the computer. If you don't employ a full-time tech person, are too small or have too few computers to buy in bulk and get volume licensing, and don't have any software that is mission critical that doesn't work on Vista, I can see why many people would move to Vista.
Its hard to argue to keep an early P4 machine when a few components start failing whenever you can get a machine thats much more powerful for ~$300. If you don't have a volume license for XP, that requires you to pay an extra $50 or so, which is 1/6th of the machine's price! When faced with these facts, small businesses move to Vista because theres nothing else that doesn't cost more.
Heck, MS has more feet then that. They shot themselves in the foot with Windows ME too, luckily for them they had the reasonably stable Windows NT ready to go out the door. I think the only reason why Windows 7 will succeed is that MS's hardware requirements are commonplace. For example with Vista, you had companies left and right selling laptops and desktops with the minimum specs needed for Vista, they would have been great XP machines, but for some unknown reason they put Vista on them, that totally killed its reputation (because for some reason people think its *normal* to require 1 GB to run an OS, which I don't understand).
MS is swimming in money. On the other hand, they keep losing mindshare to Apple left and right.
...Only because FB doesn't seem closed. The moment that FB starts actively enforcing some sort of closed policy, is the day that you see a mass migration to a new networking site.
FB has an avalanche that can happen to them, once a few friends start leaving, the person needs to create a new account to keep in touch with them, that person who ends up liking the other site more (for whatever reason), leads to more people going over to the new site until FB becomes like MySpace (or Friendster) and dies.
It seems like the more we talk about this utopian city, we get ever so close to the ideal dystopian city.
But most Americans, even many /.ers have no clue about the rest of the world. The main lobby group for music and copyright in the USA is the RIAA. In the Netherlands they have BREIN. They both have the same essential functions. Its like calling the English Parliament the congress of England, sure, its not correct, but its something that most Americans can identify with.
No one side can overwhelm the RIAA. However when you have hundreds of lawsuits from various people and organizations, that takes a strain on the RIAA's budget. If they lose a few cases then they lose money, that loss compounded with the crap they call music being promoted, and with them having to bribe lawmakers in order to be able to keep passing laws like the DMCA, it will hurt the RIAA.
But whenever you have a place where real democracy can happen and not one thats locked down into two parties, you start to have politicizations who answer to the people. Might I remind you about the Pirate Bay and how Sweden is heading towards some pirate party representation? Sure, this won't happen overnight, but whenever you get a few members in the EU parliament that listen to the people, well, a revolution is sure to happen.
But its not, the links are clearly sponsored links. This would be outrageous if the top result (not the sponsored link) was for Coke, but its not. I'd rather Google do that for advertising which A) Is actually relevant B) is clean looking C) doesn't involve a dancing flash monkey screaming YOU WON A FREE* PSP!.
Yes, and as you can see, theres no trademark violation. Sure, you might want to shop someplace else, and there are loads of search engines. But its not illegal and sure as heck doesn't involve trademarks.