Apologies, I have been lead on by the treachery of others. Or possibly myself, damn my memory.:)
No worries. I had the same debate here before posting that and had to dig it up to ensure I was correct, because previously I was in agreeance with the treachery of others.
We've all heard about the joke with Gates saying "If cars had progressed at the same rate as computers..."
The first motorized car (Daimler and Benz) that used a combustion engine was in 1886. Look at cars in 1926. That is a lot more innovation than what was done in the first 40 years of computing.
There was a huge boom for car manufacturers prior to the Great Depression that was very similar to the dot-com boom. There was a tremendous amount of innovation, especially in clutch and brake design.
Cars did progress at first like computers did. Then they reached a limit as to how far the progression could take them. Computers will reach that, too.
Re:"Open source"
on
Open Source Law
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
The law is public domain. Use the correct term, desire for buzzword compliance notwithstanding.
But it's so much more fun to use inaccurate words! Lets start with the GNU/Congress jokes now. They really aren't funny, but people will still say them.
The truth is the true genius is able to explain something as complicated as quantum mechanics and have everyone understand, without anyone's head exploding.
Einstein was one of the few scientists to ever truly take this to heart. He believed that to truly understand anything, you had to be able to explain it to anyone. He would talk with children about his ideas to further his own understanding.
Explaining something isn't always for the benefit of the audience.
So, first you say that analogies are a useful tool for educating people and then you say they aren't? Which is it? You can't have it both ways.
You are failing to understand scope. If someone is learning about something, independantly from an argument, an analogy is ok. If someone attempts to make a point by using an analogy in an argument, there is no attempt for education but only coercion.
One is to convince other arguing parties to concede your point or steer a situation to your liking, and the other is to convince some audience of your point over your opponents points.
Agreed.
"A watch is like a clock only smaller"
That is not an analogy, though. It is a simile. Similes are acceptable, as they relate two related objects. Analogies, by definition, are:
1. A resemblance of relations; an agreement or likeness between things in some circumstances or effects, when the things are otherwise entirely different. Thus, learning enlightens the mind, because it is to the mind what light is to the eye, enabling it to discover things before hidden.
An argument can be made that understanding isn't nessicarily required to prosper in such a situation, and if that is true, clever analogies can be a powerful tool even if they are incorrect or not entirely appropriate.
We'll call this a debate, to pursuade the audience to your point of view. If you use a clever analogy, regardless of it's actual cleverness, you are still comparing two dissimilar topics. This allows any analogy ample room to make it's creator look like a fool. Any analogy you can come up with, I can guarantee you I can shoot holes in it and make you look like a fool. Just like Mr. Oppenheim.
I really think you are just confused between what an analogy is and what a simile is. In limited proof of my claim, the definition uses this as an analogy: Thus, learning enlightens the mind, because it is to the mind what light is to the eye, enabling it to discover things before hidden.
Hole 1: Too much light blinds the eye. Hole 2: Light is colored, and skews what the eye actually sees. Shine a red light on white paper, and the paper becomes red.
The problem has nothing to do with me being unable to follow directions... The uninstall simply failed. How is that my fault? Software is imperfect. There are bugs. For you to assume this failure to be my fault illustrates your total lack of professional, real-world experience.
Software is imperfect, and I never said that Gator or GAIN OC was written well. However I do know that lots of people uninstall Gator/GAIN without issue. Now, if everybody has a problem with it I wouldn't think it was you. If it's just you that has a problem with it, well, I think that goes without saying.
My point was to weigh the benefit we get as a society from Gator against the benefit we get from the companies who are affected.
And you think that the companies that are suing Gator wouldn't do something like that to get a competitor advantage? You think New York Times doesn't offer deals to undercut their competitors and try to get new subscriptions? It's called marketing and capitalization. It doesn't hurt society at all, and if you think that you really need to go spend some time working with major companies.
Me, I'm one of these crazy people who thinks what he looks at on the web is his own business... I want to be in as few databases as possible out there. Maybe privacy means nothing to you? Don't really understand...
I'm a fairly well-known software developer. I am easy to find outside of the internet. I don't care who knows about me, and what I do. Nobody else does either. They care that I visit Slashdot AND Freshmeat but NOT MSDN. It's called demographics. If giving up my anonymous web-habits to get truly targetted advertisements than I welcome it.
...And I would say you are naive. The version of Gator I got infected with did not fully uninstall, even when following the "procedure" from their web-site. Do you claim total knowledge of all version of Gator throughout the universe? No, it wasn't the "newest version"--My girlfriend infected my machine about a year and a half ago... wouldn't surprise me if they've changed their code since then.
I know enough to know that you are just an idiot if you can't uninstall software. Don't blame a company for your own problems. If your girlfriend is too blind to nto realize she is installing software on your computer, perhaps you should look into setting some security up to prevent it. Gator doesn't infect anything, it installs it. It's just idiots like you who can't realize that and lie about it.
It is interesting to me how much effort and time you put into insulting me, and how little you spent addressing the real meat of the issue--the real harm Gator does to real businesses that employ real employees.
The real harm. Right. Well, don't worry -- you get to watch a lawsuit that will show Gator doesn't cause any harm. There is no meat to the issue. Gator does what Gator does, and it's perfectly legal and justified. I guess Gator only has fake employees, perhaps blow up dolls that produce the products and sell the advertisement.
It's funny how you have such a strong opinion of Gator yet you are obviously an incompotent computer user and have never truly used Gator. Seeing it once and then throwing a fit and reinstalling your operating system doesn't count as using it, by the way.
This phrase is a red-herring designed to identify me as a "crazy"... I have no objection to people putting whatever they want on their computer... My beef is with the software's creator. Yes, only the uneducated install scumware... But we already know your average internet user (especially at AOL.com) will respond positively to an email claiming to be from "AOL Security" asking them to verify their password and CC#. You can't expect a populace with the collective intelligence (and reading ability) of a 4th grader to police the ethics of companies like Gator. To expect them to marks you as a fool... And means you deserve the world that sort of thinking eventually brings.
No, you are a fool. You are also an idiot. You do realize that Gator actually has users that like the product. Gator has millions of continuous users, as well. Gator is also one of the top free downloads. I guess all it is is them preying on morons, right?
Nevermind the fact that they have not done anything unethical, right? Nevermind the fact that if you have your ActiveX security set to Low, so it doesn't prompt on install, the installer self-exits? Nevermind the fact that if you choose not to install Gator, it sets a cookie so it won't prompt you again? Nevermind that Gator fully discloses everything they collect and they also announce on their front pages everything they do.
They're still scumware, and spy on you, and don't tell you anything because you, and I mean you personally, are too fucking stupid to actually read what is put in front of you. You blame other people, because you are too incompotent to take responsibility for your own actions.
Right, and back in the real world this isn't the case. In fact it is quite common for somebody to be arguing an incorrect point because they aren't properly educated. Education is then a valuable tool in the debate arsenal.
If you are arguing with someone who does not have an adequate understanding than either don't argue with them or point to actual references, independant of your views, to educate them. This way they actually learn, instead of viewing it as their opponent attempting to educate them.
Here is an analogy for this: In battle, you don't go to the enemies camp to learn to fight. Here is a real explanation: In arguing, you are best to learn from the most unbiased sources as possible and make your own conclusions with the available information.
Now, which one is more correct? Which one suffers from idiocy? The analogy. You know why? Because we're not talking about fucking fighting -- we're talking about arguing.
I also disagree with Einstein on that subject. The linguistic capabilities required for explanation do not need to be present in order to understand many things. In fact, you don't even have to understand understanding in order to understand in many cases.
If you can explain something to a child, as Einstein would, linguistic capabilities are not present beyond that of the childs. Therefor, the understanding is pure in nature and not obfuscated by a pretense of using words to make your idea sound more intelligent. Thus, you increase your innate understanding of the topic at hand.
If that were the case then why would you pollute this argument with such useless trivia?
Trivia, see also, supporting evidence and disinterested party affirmation.
Why would you be having this argument with me if you feel I don't understand arguing and need to be educated on the subject?
I feel you understand arguing, but I feel that your understanding is wrong. I believe I have proven the logical case as to why analogies are flawed. In short, because they do not accurately convey the situation in seriousness nor impact. Now, why don't you try to tell me why you think they are valid?
No, and if you don't think that was a purposefully sentence than you obviously don't have a literacy level worthy of debate. Go read up on such topics as irony, rhetoric, sarcasm, and fallacies.
People who use analogies do so because they expect their audience to not understand, not because they don't understand themselves.
Einstein once said that to be able to understand something, you must be able to explain it to anyone. If you cannot explain every aspect of what you are arguing without equating it to a dissimilar situation or object, you do not adequately understand what it is you are arguing.
Analogies, in their very definition, cannot be accurate because they are comparing dissimilar items. You can't compare intangible goods to tangible goods. Analogies can be helpful for education, which I'm not saying anything about. In a debate or argument, neither party should have to be educated. If they do, they shouldn't be arguing.
Analogies are idiotic for argument and debate.
If you haven't ever seen a correct analogy, you haven't been in enough arguments...
You obviously don't follow any threads I'm in. My hobby is arguing.
FilePro. We use it for a FilePro database that runs our entire accounting operations. I dunno why. Maybe I should mention to them that FilePro runs on Linux now. (duh).
Wow, I thought we were the only bass-ackwards organization that did that. We're trying to migrate away from FilePro, as it's retarded in ways that makes the short-bus riding childrens parents cringe in horror and shock.
We regularly get to make SCO jokes, though. Still not any form of consolation for having to have programs actually run on that shit.
Ah.. sorry, I just mis-read what you were saying. I thought you were saying the poster said free furniture and I was telling him not to use an analogy. I was just criticizing Oppenheim and the grand-parent was a good envelope for that.
Every other post from the article has been a badly worded analogy.
I think every analogy on Slashdot has been bad. What is the driving force to use analogies for every argument in existence?
What makes you think that everybody reading this cnet article (or even this slashdot comment) has comprable knowledge to Matt Oppenheim, or even to myself? (I have taken graduate level U.S. copyright law classes, which most people have not, and it's Mr. Oppenheim's job to be knowledgable on this subject.)
If Oppenheim needs an analogy to make his point, he doesn't understand his point clear enough to make it. If he thoroughly and correctly understands both parties stances, and is trying to win the debate he wouldn't need to use an analogy. Analogies are good for trying to explain something new to someone that hasn't been around and the concept hasn't been around.
I don't think there is anyone in the US who doesn't have knowledge of copying music in some form. Hence, it doesn't need an analogy. Trying to use one just makes your point look weak, as it did with him. If someone copies your furniture, you wouldn't care (unless you are an elitist asshole.) If someone steals your furniture, you do care. I've yet to see an analogy that actually works correctly, especially in regards to P2P.
Does correcting somebody else's analogy also brand you as stupid under your rule?
I didn't say stupid. I said you are incapable of making your desired point.
What basis do you have making that argument, especially considering that making a valid analogy requires understandng and insight into the topic? (No insight required for incorrect analogies of course)
Show me a correct analogy, and I'll show you someone who understands their argument. I've never seen a correct analogy used in argument. Analogies are to arguments as Hemlock is to Aristotle.
(For the nit-pickers, Socrates was sentenced to death via drinking hemlock, Aristotle is believe to take his own life by drinking hemlock.)
Sure people would protest if you stole their furniture, but would anybody see it as wrong if you copied their furniture?
One of my points on arguing is this: If you need to use an analogy to make your point while debating with someone with comporable knowledge, you do not know what point you are actually attempting to make.
Actually, his analogy (not metaphor) was pretty bang-on.The ads are placed on top of existing ads. No, they are not identical situations, but sharing characteristics of one-another is the purpose of an analogy.
No, it was horribly inaccurate. It would only be accurate if the only way you could get the phone book without having to pay was to have another company do it. Also, my point with the metaphor was not what he said, more of a general sense of disdain. Anybody who needs to argue with an analogy doesn't understand the situation accurately enough to argue it.
Users more often than not do not install Gator. Users install software of an ever-increasing variety, one of several EULAs comprised of dozens of pages of small-point text appears on screen, and somehow buried in all the legaleese users "agree" to install subsidiary software packages. Often, the primary software package will be crippled and/or refuse to install or load if said user doesn't agree to the all-encompassing EULA.
As I've said before, prove it. Find a way to install Gator without getting at least one distinguished screen telling you that Gator is going to be installed, with a link to their webpage. Go on and try it, and if you can't stop spreading FUD. I can save you a lot of time and tell you that you won't find it, and you should just stop spreading FUD (That's a nice way of saying you are lying/full of shit, by the way.)
The software that is bundled with Gator/GAIN is advertiser-supported software. The user is made aware of this several times through the process, specifically when GAIN is being installed. If the user refuses to install GAIN, they are turning down the offer to use the software package for free (as in beer) in exchange for viewing advertisements.
As someone else said, people don't care about what pops up on their screen. The installation screen used to have a big green aligator on it and people still denied ever seeing it.
People are dumb. Even if Gator's installation screen played music and flashed, people will click Ok and then insist it hid its installation.
According to Gator, the new vehicle "occasionally pops up to deliver a relevant advertisement" in a window that floats over existing banner ads on some Web pages. "
In a separate window, with a border and a distinguished name.
Chosen? That is debatable. Mush as any EULA, what it actually does is shrouded in dense legalese, in a 20 char wide window. You know as well as I do that no one really reads those.
Here's a challenge for you, if you are so confident that is what it is. Find a Gator installation that will actually install in less than 2 screens. Really, go try. Otherwise, you are spreading FUD and you really need to stop because you are just factually incorrect.
'Separate window', directly and purposely in the space that the original website builder put his ad. I hate popups as much as the nextt guy. But personally, I think that is wrong. You don't. We shall just have to agree to disagree.
When I first saw that feature, I thought it was wrong. I still do. Is it illegal? No. Is it stupid? No, it's brilliant. Is it going to piss off a lot of people? Yeah. If I had a webpage, I would be pissed but there isn't anything I could do about it other than randomly place my banner adverts. I don't control what people see when they visit my site. If they force all the fonts to be a big bubble gum pink text, I can't control that.
It's on their system. What they do is their choice. It doesn't mean I have to like it though.
but if their programmer's aren't deliberately sabotaging systems, then they are just incompetent, assuming their stuff will always work with a particular version of IE.
I definitely wont argue that it is written like ass. An older version would hang a windows 95 box for about 10 minutes. I'm not sure what the hell they were doing there, but I've seen some strange things happen.
I have had some real fun experiences removing these programs.
Unless it's advertiser-supported software (Kazaa, etc.) you can just remove them. Otherwise it will remove the other software as well. All their products can be removed from Remove Programs, though.
...Except that isn't what it does. The "license agreement" you click through clearly says ads will be in a seperate window. People (myself included) define these as "pop-ups" that have their own borders and window controls. But their software does something different.
Really? It says a separate popup window that has the GAIN caption. The window does that completely, so you obviously have never seen what is in question. Again, going off purely what people say without actually looking at the facts.
Their software preys on people who don't understand that a window doesn't neccessarily have to have a border and the familiar "windows blue bar" across the top. Therein lies the deception. (Or, at best, the scummy abuse of the common perception of what a "window" is.)
Right. Just because something doesn't have a 25-30px bar at the top of a window people can't distinguish that it's not part of the webpage. Forget the "GAIN Advertisement" text label it has and the close button. The point of the GAIN/Gator advertisements is to be unobtrusive. They know that popup ads that detract from what you are doing is a feature users don't want, so they make something that users do want. Then you call them names for it.
I don't see where anybody has proven that. Most of the people I know with Gator on their machine want to know how to make it go away... This is also a deceptive lie, since the only "free software" you get from Gator is Gator itself.
Uhm, you do realize how many software products are supported by Gator? Including Kazaa? The end-users get usage of the software for a cost of viewing advertisements. It is clearly laid out for them when they install the software. It is free as in beer, and people who fail to understand what "Advertiser supported software" is, shouldn't install it. Stop making excuses for people who just blindly click through several installation screens telling them what's going on.
No. Dis-allowing deceptive advertising practices harms only Gator (and their "competitors") and benefits everybody. It in no way means "no more non-browser apps" or "no-plugins", it means no deceptive advertising.
Why don't you let people do what they want with their own computers? You obviously have never used Gator (nor recent versions of Gator) so why are you spouting off things that are factually incorrect and trying to label them as correct?
I think if you TRULY explained what Gator did to the people who have it installed, most would want it removed.
Probably, and I'm not arguing that. For most users, they want the free software they get so they put up with Gator though. If you told them, "Gator is here because you installed XYZ software" they would say, "Oh... well I really like XYZ software, and I don't want to get rid of it."
That's what Gator does. It pays software developers.
Of course, uninstalling Gator can be a difficult, if not impossible task. I ended up re-installing Windows after my machine was accidentally infected with Gator.
Than I can say with absolute certainty that you are just an idiot. Gator and GAIN uninstallation is painfully simple. Don't blame Gator because you are too simply too dumb to read their FAQ and follow a simple Remove Programs step.
And no, I don't own stock in Gator. I know people who work there and have used it several times. I do not use Gator, and wouldn't want to. It is poorly coded, but the idea is good.
As the geeks laid out their plans for routers that give health reports in a sexy female voice, they realized that the only thing that was GPL'd was the only slightly modified kernel, which they had always had.
separate might have a different meaning to you, but to me it does not mean "on top of", nor "replacing".
So, if you have a seperate window on top of your browser that covers an advert it's wrong? Gator doesn't replace anything, so you are just buying into the FUD.
Someone has paid for an ad, in hopes that people will see it. Gator/GAIN overlays that content with their own.
Because users have chosen to install Gator/GAIN on their systems. A user is free to do whatever they wish with their own computers, and that includes installing Gator.
Buy an ad in the Yellow Pages. Have a 3rd party then go through every copy, prior to delivery, and paste over your ad with one of theirs. You'd agree with this?
No, but that is because your analogy is flawed. Like most analogies, this one is also stupid. Why do you feel the need to put it in a metaphor? Is the case not defined well enough to discuss rationally without the need to bring in irrelevant and poorly construed analogies? It is.
Gator advertises exactly what they do. Gator does exactly what they do. Users install Gator to get software for free. Users get targetted avertisements. Some of which overlay in a separate window on top of their web-browser. If disallowing popup advertisements from an application happens, the browser also must be at the front and no client-side software can modify the actual presentation of that web-browser.
Nowhere in the following does it say "We will replace ads with those from our subscribers at our discretion, and overlay ads from our subscribers on top of others' ads."
"GAIN occasionally displays various forms of pop up ads in a separate window on users' computer screens." On the front page of Gator. You even quoted it. Are you really that clueless? What do you expect them to do, make it blink and flash and play sound through the speakers? They tell you exactly what it does, and if you don't like it, don't use it.
It doesn't make them spyware, it's makes them adware. They pay a lot of software developers to work on their projects. Coming from a group of developers who constantly whine about not getting paid for their work, and replace ads on your own computer, you sound like pissed off 6 year olds.
Slashdot Mirror
Apologies, I have been lead on by the treachery of others. Or possibly myself, damn my memory. :)
No worries. I had the same debate here before posting that and had to dig it up to ensure I was correct, because previously I was in agreeance with the treachery of others.
Sorry, nit-picker here. Socrates was sentenced to death, but avoided his punishment by killing himself with hemlock.
Incorrect, his sentence was Death by method of Hemlock poisoning. You can read up on it here.
It's like they say, you get what you pay for. Cheap prices are only cheap if your time has no value.
Wait! But what about Linux?
Time to end the sarcasm for the day..
We've all heard about the joke with Gates saying "If cars had progressed at the same rate as computers..."
The first motorized car (Daimler and Benz) that used a combustion engine was in 1886. Look at cars in 1926. That is a lot more innovation than what was done in the first 40 years of computing.
There was a huge boom for car manufacturers prior to the Great Depression that was very similar to the dot-com boom. There was a tremendous amount of innovation, especially in clutch and brake design.
Cars did progress at first like computers did. Then they reached a limit as to how far the progression could take them. Computers will reach that, too.
The law is public domain. Use the correct term, desire for buzzword compliance notwithstanding.
But it's so much more fun to use inaccurate words! Lets start with the GNU/Congress jokes now. They really aren't funny, but people will still say them.
The truth is the true genius is able to explain something as complicated as quantum mechanics and have everyone understand, without anyone's head exploding.
Einstein was one of the few scientists to ever truly take this to heart. He believed that to truly understand anything, you had to be able to explain it to anyone. He would talk with children about his ideas to further his own understanding.
Explaining something isn't always for the benefit of the audience.
You are failing to understand scope. If someone is learning about something, independantly from an argument, an analogy is ok. If someone attempts to make a point by using an analogy in an argument, there is no attempt for education but only coercion.
One is to convince other arguing parties to concede your point or steer a situation to your liking, and the other is to convince some audience of your point over your opponents points.
Agreed.
"A watch is like a clock only smaller"
That is not an analogy, though. It is a simile. Similes are acceptable, as they relate two related objects. Analogies, by definition, are:
An argument can be made that understanding isn't nessicarily required to prosper in such a situation, and if that is true, clever analogies can be a powerful tool even if they are incorrect or not entirely appropriate.
We'll call this a debate, to pursuade the audience to your point of view. If you use a clever analogy, regardless of it's actual cleverness, you are still comparing two dissimilar topics. This allows any analogy ample room to make it's creator look like a fool. Any analogy you can come up with, I can guarantee you I can shoot holes in it and make you look like a fool. Just like Mr. Oppenheim.
I really think you are just confused between what an analogy is and what a simile is. In limited proof of my claim, the definition uses this as an analogy: Thus, learning enlightens the mind, because it is to the mind what light is to the eye, enabling it to discover things before hidden.
Hole 1: Too much light blinds the eye.
Hole 2: Light is colored, and skews what the eye actually sees. Shine a red light on white paper, and the paper becomes red.
Just a couple for you.
The problem has nothing to do with me being unable to follow directions... The uninstall simply failed. How is that my fault? Software is imperfect. There are bugs. For you to assume this failure to be my fault illustrates your total lack of professional, real-world experience.
Software is imperfect, and I never said that Gator or GAIN OC was written well. However I do know that lots of people uninstall Gator/GAIN without issue. Now, if everybody has a problem with it I wouldn't think it was you. If it's just you that has a problem with it, well, I think that goes without saying.
My point was to weigh the benefit we get as a society from Gator against the benefit we get from the companies who are affected.
And you think that the companies that are suing Gator wouldn't do something like that to get a competitor advantage? You think New York Times doesn't offer deals to undercut their competitors and try to get new subscriptions? It's called marketing and capitalization. It doesn't hurt society at all, and if you think that you really need to go spend some time working with major companies.
Me, I'm one of these crazy people who thinks what he looks at on the web is his own business... I want to be in as few databases as possible out there. Maybe privacy means nothing to you? Don't really understand...
I'm a fairly well-known software developer. I am easy to find outside of the internet. I don't care who knows about me, and what I do. Nobody else does either. They care that I visit Slashdot AND Freshmeat but NOT MSDN. It's called demographics. If giving up my anonymous web-habits to get truly targetted advertisements than I welcome it.
...And I would say you are naive. The version of Gator I got infected with did not fully uninstall, even when following the "procedure" from their web-site. Do you claim total knowledge of all version of Gator throughout the universe? No, it wasn't the "newest version"--My girlfriend infected my machine about a year and a half ago... wouldn't surprise me if they've changed their code since then.
I know enough to know that you are just an idiot if you can't uninstall software. Don't blame a company for your own problems. If your girlfriend is too blind to nto realize she is installing software on your computer, perhaps you should look into setting some security up to prevent it. Gator doesn't infect anything, it installs it. It's just idiots like you who can't realize that and lie about it.
It is interesting to me how much effort and time you put into insulting me, and how little you spent addressing the real meat of the issue--the real harm Gator does to real businesses that employ real employees.
The real harm. Right. Well, don't worry -- you get to watch a lawsuit that will show Gator doesn't cause any harm. There is no meat to the issue. Gator does what Gator does, and it's perfectly legal and justified. I guess Gator only has fake employees, perhaps blow up dolls that produce the products and sell the advertisement.
It's funny how you have such a strong opinion of Gator yet you are obviously an incompotent computer user and have never truly used Gator. Seeing it once and then throwing a fit and reinstalling your operating system doesn't count as using it, by the way.
This phrase is a red-herring designed to identify me as a "crazy"... I have no objection to people putting whatever they want on their computer... My beef is with the software's creator. Yes, only the uneducated install scumware... But we already know your average internet user (especially at AOL.com) will respond positively to an email claiming to be from "AOL Security" asking them to verify their password and CC#. You can't expect a populace with the collective intelligence (and reading ability) of a 4th grader to police the ethics of companies like Gator. To expect them to marks you as a fool... And means you deserve the world that sort of thinking eventually brings.
No, you are a fool. You are also an idiot. You do realize that Gator actually has users that like the product. Gator has millions of continuous users, as well. Gator is also one of the top free downloads. I guess all it is is them preying on morons, right?
Nevermind the fact that they have not done anything unethical, right? Nevermind the fact that if you have your ActiveX security set to Low, so it doesn't prompt on install, the installer self-exits? Nevermind the fact that if you choose not to install Gator, it sets a cookie so it won't prompt you again? Nevermind that Gator fully discloses everything they collect and they also announce on their front pages everything they do.
They're still scumware, and spy on you, and don't tell you anything because you, and I mean you personally, are too fucking stupid to actually read what is put in front of you. You blame other people, because you are too incompotent to take responsibility for your own actions.
Right, and back in the real world this isn't the case. In fact it is quite common for somebody to be arguing an incorrect point because they aren't properly educated. Education is then a valuable tool in the debate arsenal.
If you are arguing with someone who does not have an adequate understanding than either don't argue with them or point to actual references, independant of your views, to educate them. This way they actually learn, instead of viewing it as their opponent attempting to educate them.
Here is an analogy for this:
In battle, you don't go to the enemies camp to learn to fight.
Here is a real explanation:
In arguing, you are best to learn from the most unbiased sources as possible and make your own conclusions with the available information.
Now, which one is more correct? Which one suffers from idiocy? The analogy. You know why? Because we're not talking about fucking fighting -- we're talking about arguing.
I also disagree with Einstein on that subject. The linguistic capabilities required for explanation do not need to be present in order to understand many things. In fact, you don't even have to understand understanding in order to understand in many cases.
If you can explain something to a child, as Einstein would, linguistic capabilities are not present beyond that of the childs. Therefor, the understanding is pure in nature and not obfuscated by a pretense of using words to make your idea sound more intelligent. Thus, you increase your innate understanding of the topic at hand.
If that were the case then why would you pollute this argument with such useless trivia?
Trivia, see also, supporting evidence and disinterested party affirmation.
Why would you be having this argument with me if you feel I don't understand arguing and need to be educated on the subject?
I feel you understand arguing, but I feel that your understanding is wrong. I believe I have proven the logical case as to why analogies are flawed. In short, because they do not accurately convey the situation in seriousness nor impact. Now, why don't you try to tell me why you think they are valid?
You even discount your own argument:
No, and if you don't think that was a purposefully sentence than you obviously don't have a literacy level worthy of debate. Go read up on such topics as irony, rhetoric, sarcasm, and fallacies.
People who use analogies do so because they expect their audience to not understand, not because they don't understand themselves.
Einstein once said that to be able to understand something, you must be able to explain it to anyone. If you cannot explain every aspect of what you are arguing without equating it to a dissimilar situation or object, you do not adequately understand what it is you are arguing.
Analogies, in their very definition, cannot be accurate because they are comparing dissimilar items. You can't compare intangible goods to tangible goods. Analogies can be helpful for education, which I'm not saying anything about. In a debate or argument, neither party should have to be educated. If they do, they shouldn't be arguing.
Analogies are idiotic for argument and debate.
If you haven't ever seen a correct analogy, you haven't been in enough arguments...
You obviously don't follow any threads I'm in. My hobby is arguing.
Analogies are used because they are the easiest way to convince anyone of anything.
Yes, but that's just because people are dumb. It's like flashing a set of keys and winning arguments. Ah well, it works for the president.
Good, we're back in agreement.
That was pretty damn funny. Keep up your sarcasm, even through text it can be funny.
FilePro. We use it for a FilePro database that runs our entire accounting operations. I dunno why. Maybe I should mention to them that FilePro runs on Linux now. (duh).
Wow, I thought we were the only bass-ackwards organization that did that. We're trying to migrate away from FilePro, as it's retarded in ways that makes the short-bus riding childrens parents cringe in horror and shock.
We regularly get to make SCO jokes, though. Still not any form of consolation for having to have programs actually run on that shit.
I don't think you got the intent.
Ah.. sorry, I just mis-read what you were saying. I thought you were saying the poster said free furniture and I was telling him not to use an analogy. I was just criticizing Oppenheim and the grand-parent was a good envelope for that.
Every other post from the article has been a badly worded analogy.
I think every analogy on Slashdot has been bad. What is the driving force to use analogies for every argument in existence?
I don't think you read the parent.
I don't think you read the article, which I was referring to.
Thanks for playing.
What makes you think that everybody reading this cnet article (or even this slashdot comment) has comprable knowledge to Matt Oppenheim, or even to myself? (I have taken graduate level U.S. copyright law classes, which most people have not, and it's Mr. Oppenheim's job to be knowledgable on this subject.)
If Oppenheim needs an analogy to make his point, he doesn't understand his point clear enough to make it. If he thoroughly and correctly understands both parties stances, and is trying to win the debate he wouldn't need to use an analogy. Analogies are good for trying to explain something new to someone that hasn't been around and the concept hasn't been around.
I don't think there is anyone in the US who doesn't have knowledge of copying music in some form. Hence, it doesn't need an analogy. Trying to use one just makes your point look weak, as it did with him. If someone copies your furniture, you wouldn't care (unless you are an elitist asshole.) If someone steals your furniture, you do care. I've yet to see an analogy that actually works correctly, especially in regards to P2P.
Does correcting somebody else's analogy also brand you as stupid under your rule?
I didn't say stupid. I said you are incapable of making your desired point.
What basis do you have making that argument, especially considering that making a valid analogy requires understandng and insight into the topic? (No insight required for incorrect analogies of course)
Show me a correct analogy, and I'll show you someone who understands their argument. I've never seen a correct analogy used in argument. Analogies are to arguments as Hemlock is to Aristotle.
(For the nit-pickers, Socrates was sentenced to death via drinking hemlock, Aristotle is believe to take his own life by drinking hemlock.)
Sure people would protest if you stole their furniture, but would anybody see it as wrong if you copied their furniture?
One of my points on arguing is this: If you need to use an analogy to make your point while debating with someone with comporable knowledge, you do not know what point you are actually attempting to make.
Warthog... don't you mean the 'puma'??
Dude, you know you are just making up animal names now.
Actually, his analogy (not metaphor) was pretty bang-on.The ads are placed on top of existing ads. No, they are not identical situations, but sharing characteristics of one-another is the purpose of an analogy.
No, it was horribly inaccurate. It would only be accurate if the only way you could get the phone book without having to pay was to have another company do it. Also, my point with the metaphor was not what he said, more of a general sense of disdain. Anybody who needs to argue with an analogy doesn't understand the situation accurately enough to argue it.
Users more often than not do not install Gator. Users install software of an ever-increasing variety, one of several EULAs comprised of dozens of pages of small-point text appears on screen, and somehow buried in all the legaleese users "agree" to install subsidiary software packages. Often, the primary software package will be crippled and/or refuse to install or load if said user doesn't agree to the all-encompassing EULA.
As I've said before, prove it. Find a way to install Gator without getting at least one distinguished screen telling you that Gator is going to be installed, with a link to their webpage. Go on and try it, and if you can't stop spreading FUD. I can save you a lot of time and tell you that you won't find it, and you should just stop spreading FUD (That's a nice way of saying you are lying/full of shit, by the way.)
The software that is bundled with Gator/GAIN is advertiser-supported software. The user is made aware of this several times through the process, specifically when GAIN is being installed. If the user refuses to install GAIN, they are turning down the offer to use the software package for free (as in beer) in exchange for viewing advertisements.
As someone else said, people don't care about what pops up on their screen. The installation screen used to have a big green aligator on it and people still denied ever seeing it.
People are dumb. Even if Gator's installation screen played music and flashed, people will click Ok and then insist it hid its installation.
According to Gator, the new vehicle "occasionally pops up to deliver a relevant advertisement" in a window that floats over existing banner ads on some Web pages. "
In a separate window, with a border and a distinguished name.
Chosen? That is debatable. Mush as any EULA, what it actually does is shrouded in dense legalese, in a 20 char wide window. You know as well as I do that no one really reads those.
Here's a challenge for you, if you are so confident that is what it is. Find a Gator installation that will actually install in less than 2 screens. Really, go try. Otherwise, you are spreading FUD and you really need to stop because you are just factually incorrect.
'Separate window', directly and purposely in the space that the original website builder put his ad. I hate popups as much as the nextt guy. But personally, I think that is wrong. You don't. We shall just have to agree to disagree.
When I first saw that feature, I thought it was wrong. I still do. Is it illegal? No. Is it stupid? No, it's brilliant. Is it going to piss off a lot of people? Yeah. If I had a webpage, I would be pissed but there isn't anything I could do about it other than randomly place my banner adverts. I don't control what people see when they visit my site. If they force all the fonts to be a big bubble gum pink text, I can't control that.
It's on their system. What they do is their choice. It doesn't mean I have to like it though.
but if their programmer's aren't deliberately sabotaging systems, then they are just incompetent, assuming their stuff will always work with a particular version of IE.
I definitely wont argue that it is written like ass. An older version would hang a windows 95 box for about 10 minutes. I'm not sure what the hell they were doing there, but I've seen some strange things happen.
I have had some real fun experiences removing these programs.
Unless it's advertiser-supported software (Kazaa, etc.) you can just remove them. Otherwise it will remove the other software as well. All their products can be removed from Remove Programs, though.
...Except that isn't what it does. The "license agreement" you click through clearly says ads will be in a seperate window. People (myself included) define these as "pop-ups" that have their own borders and window controls. But their software does something different.
Really? It says a separate popup window that has the GAIN caption. The window does that completely, so you obviously have never seen what is in question. Again, going off purely what people say without actually looking at the facts.
Their software preys on people who don't understand that a window doesn't neccessarily have to have a border and the familiar "windows blue bar" across the top. Therein lies the deception. (Or, at best, the scummy abuse of the common perception of what a "window" is.)
Right. Just because something doesn't have a 25-30px bar at the top of a window people can't distinguish that it's not part of the webpage. Forget the "GAIN Advertisement" text label it has and the close button. The point of the GAIN/Gator advertisements is to be unobtrusive. They know that popup ads that detract from what you are doing is a feature users don't want, so they make something that users do want. Then you call them names for it.
I don't see where anybody has proven that. Most of the people I know with Gator on their machine want to know how to make it go away... This is also a deceptive lie, since the only "free software" you get from Gator is Gator itself.
Uhm, you do realize how many software products are supported by Gator? Including Kazaa? The end-users get usage of the software for a cost of viewing advertisements. It is clearly laid out for them when they install the software. It is free as in beer, and people who fail to understand what "Advertiser supported software" is, shouldn't install it. Stop making excuses for people who just blindly click through several installation screens telling them what's going on.
No. Dis-allowing deceptive advertising practices harms only Gator (and their "competitors") and benefits everybody. It in no way means "no more non-browser apps" or "no-plugins", it means no deceptive advertising.
Why don't you let people do what they want with their own computers? You obviously have never used Gator (nor recent versions of Gator) so why are you spouting off things that are factually incorrect and trying to label them as correct?
I think if you TRULY explained what Gator did to the people who have it installed, most would want it removed.
Probably, and I'm not arguing that. For most users, they want the free software they get so they put up with Gator though. If you told them, "Gator is here because you installed XYZ software" they would say, "Oh... well I really like XYZ software, and I don't want to get rid of it."
That's what Gator does. It pays software developers.
Of course, uninstalling Gator can be a difficult, if not impossible task. I ended up re-installing Windows after my machine was accidentally infected with Gator.
Than I can say with absolute certainty that you are just an idiot. Gator and GAIN uninstallation is painfully simple. Don't blame Gator because you are too simply too dumb to read their FAQ and follow a simple Remove Programs step.
And no, I don't own stock in Gator. I know people who work there and have used it several times. I do not use Gator, and wouldn't want to. It is poorly coded, but the idea is good.
Are you going to go build your own router?
As the geeks laid out their plans for routers that give health reports in a sexy female voice, they realized that the only thing that was GPL'd was the only slightly modified kernel, which they had always had.
separate might have a different meaning to you, but to me it does not mean "on top of", nor "replacing".
So, if you have a seperate window on top of your browser that covers an advert it's wrong? Gator doesn't replace anything, so you are just buying into the FUD.
Someone has paid for an ad, in hopes that people will see it. Gator/GAIN overlays that content with their own.
Because users have chosen to install Gator/GAIN on their systems. A user is free to do whatever they wish with their own computers, and that includes installing Gator.
Buy an ad in the Yellow Pages. Have a 3rd party then go through every copy, prior to delivery, and paste over your ad with one of theirs. You'd agree with this?
No, but that is because your analogy is flawed. Like most analogies, this one is also stupid. Why do you feel the need to put it in a metaphor? Is the case not defined well enough to discuss rationally without the need to bring in irrelevant and poorly construed analogies? It is.
Gator advertises exactly what they do. Gator does exactly what they do. Users install Gator to get software for free. Users get targetted avertisements. Some of which overlay in a separate window on top of their web-browser. If disallowing popup advertisements from an application happens, the browser also must be at the front and no client-side software can modify the actual presentation of that web-browser.
Would you agree with that?
Nowhere in the following does it say "We will replace ads with those from our subscribers at our discretion, and overlay ads from our subscribers on top of others' ads."
"GAIN occasionally displays various forms of pop up ads in a separate window on users' computer screens." On the front page of Gator. You even quoted it. Are you really that clueless? What do you expect them to do, make it blink and flash and play sound through the speakers? They tell you exactly what it does, and if you don't like it, don't use it.
It doesn't make them spyware, it's makes them adware. They pay a lot of software developers to work on their projects. Coming from a group of developers who constantly whine about not getting paid for their work, and replace ads on your own computer, you sound like pissed off 6 year olds.