"Maybe they're unable to do so to the extent that (i.e.) Microsoft wants."
Then why not continue using the (perfectly good) copy of Linux they already have?
"As a thought experiment, imagine that you thought that "From each according to ability, to each according to need" was a good idea. In that scenario, it makes perfect sense for people to use Microsoft Windows without paying."
Whether or not it's a good idea is irrelevant. Microsoft (as a group of individuals, not as a corporate pseudoperson) puts a product on the market with the expectation that its users will compensate them for their efforts in its production. If people want to enjoy the rewards of those individuals' efforts, why shouldn't they be prepared to offer something to Microsoft in return?
While my perspective on IP is certainly relevant, the real question is, why does someone have to impose their economic ideal on Microsoft without any say in the matter by the individuals of which it is comprised, when they could use a piece of software which is already available (and even prepared for them, in this case) offered by individuals whose rights and privileges wouldn't be impinged in this case? Just because someone doesn't agree with the central concept of a trade with Microsoft doesn't mean they are entitled to just take what they want anyway. It's a package deal - if you don't agree with any part of it, the moral thing to do is reject the whole trade (including the privilege being offered).
Or, to shorten that up a little, "If you don't want to pay what they're asking, don't use it."
Except that they haven't compensated the creators of that OS.
Isn't it morally contradictory to say that someone is entitled to the fruits of another's labors, yet they are not entitled to compensation in return?
In other words, if they feel that MS' product isn't worth the money, then why use the product at all? They can either pay for proprietary solutions, or use whatever free alternative they can find. Just don't try to spin the unauthorized use of another's intellectual property as "empowerment".
The problem with the counter-terrorism business is that all the dumb terrorists die fairly quickly, and they're a whole lot easier to catch or kill than the smart ones.
First, there's a difference between pulling an existing product off the market and delaying the introduction of a new product.
Second, both parties are the seller in this case, so if Vivendi doesn't want to sell something, it doesn't have to.
Now, Valve could simply give Vivendi the finger and release it on Steam anyway (gutting Vivendi's retail sales in the process), but that sort of rash action probably wouldn't go over well with the judge.
I'd guess it's an intentional riff on deus ex machina. I've never heard the term used before, but the original term referred to a god descended from a crane to the stage, to come in and resolve an otherwise impossible dilemma at the end of a play.
Since Cryptonomicon basically had this type of ending, where instead of a god, it was a massive amount of gold that basically made everyone's problems go away, I'd assume that's what they were referring to.
I thought about picking up a contract or two there, just to fill in during a summer where I didn't have an internship. Everyone wanted you to clone an existing piece of software.
My personal favorite? "Design a dating site. Must be similar to %fairly popular dating site%. Maximum bid: $100."
After digging through ten pages of that, I went to work on a loading dock in a hardware store. Best summer of my life.
Yeah, but is hating them valid in the first place, or was it just inspired by jealousy?
Especially when people hate software MS hasn't even finished yet... is it a rational response to a perceived flaw in the product, or just knee-jerk bashing?
You can be 99.99% sure, but there's gonna be one incident that screws it all up.
If you're willing to destroy data, you'd better be absolutely sure - we're talking one step short of nuclear-power-plant-control sure - that you're correct about the copy in question being unlicensed. Is the kind of quality control necessary to validate your deletion code to that degree worth the extra sales you'll get?
As I said before, this is a great idea, but the inherent possibility of failure makes it unusable.
The only bad thing (and it's a big deal) about this is the possibility of damage to legitimate customers.
Other than that, you ran the guy's code without permission - the consequences are entirely your problem.
Measures such as this are a bad idea because of the potential for accidental damage, but if that problem were solvable (it's not) we'd have a great tool for preventing unlicensed use of intellectual property.
Cost, no force feedback, batteries (unless you integrate rechargeable batteries, which costs even more), and the opportunity to sell you their own wireless controller a couple months down the road.
Most digital surround receivers have something called DRC or "midnight mode". Try turning that on and see if it makes your listening experience any better.
I hate to tell you, but most of us (myself included) are still excited by blowing things up and antics. Look at the computer games we talk about - Doom, Half-Life, etc.
Besides, wouldn't you rather the kids watch Bunsen and Beaker than Pokemon?
Slashdot Mirror
Dear Slashdot:
Learn from my mistakes.
If you modify a movie quote in an attempt at humor, grammar-check it. Otherwise, you will sound like a caveman.
"Video games not a drug. I used to suck dick for coke. Now that's an addiction. You ever suck some dick for Halo?"
Hey, if they can post the articles more than once, I can read 'em more than once.
"Maybe they're unable to do so to the extent that (i.e.) Microsoft wants."
Then why not continue using the (perfectly good) copy of Linux they already have?
"As a thought experiment, imagine that you thought that "From each according to ability, to each according to need" was a good idea. In that scenario, it makes perfect sense for people to use Microsoft Windows without paying."
Whether or not it's a good idea is irrelevant. Microsoft (as a group of individuals, not as a corporate pseudoperson) puts a product on the market with the expectation that its users will compensate them for their efforts in its production. If people want to enjoy the rewards of those individuals' efforts, why shouldn't they be prepared to offer something to Microsoft in return?
While my perspective on IP is certainly relevant, the real question is, why does someone have to impose their economic ideal on Microsoft without any say in the matter by the individuals of which it is comprised, when they could use a piece of software which is already available (and even prepared for them, in this case) offered by individuals whose rights and privileges wouldn't be impinged in this case? Just because someone doesn't agree with the central concept of a trade with Microsoft doesn't mean they are entitled to just take what they want anyway. It's a package deal - if you don't agree with any part of it, the moral thing to do is reject the whole trade (including the privilege being offered).
Or, to shorten that up a little, "If you don't want to pay what they're asking, don't use it."
Meh... that's what I have my Mac for. A Unix shell when I need it, and not when I don't.
Except that they haven't compensated the creators of that OS.
Isn't it morally contradictory to say that someone is entitled to the fruits of another's labors, yet they are not entitled to compensation in return?
In other words, if they feel that MS' product isn't worth the money, then why use the product at all? They can either pay for proprietary solutions, or use whatever free alternative they can find. Just don't try to spin the unauthorized use of another's intellectual property as "empowerment".
Gee, a European court trying to promote alternatives to a product single-sourced from an American company. Imagine that.
It's not about promoting Open Source, it's about self-interest.
Funny, my copy of Windows is rock-solid as well, and the power cord's right where it's supposed to be.
The problem with the counter-terrorism business is that all the dumb terrorists die fairly quickly, and they're a whole lot easier to catch or kill than the smart ones.
"Sure we trust the election officials..."
I wouldn't go that far.
That's not entirely correct.
First, there's a difference between pulling an existing product off the market and delaying the introduction of a new product.
Second, both parties are the seller in this case, so if Vivendi doesn't want to sell something, it doesn't have to.
Now, Valve could simply give Vivendi the finger and release it on Steam anyway (gutting Vivendi's retail sales in the process), but that sort of rash action probably wouldn't go over well with the judge.
I'd guess it's an intentional riff on deus ex machina. I've never heard the term used before, but the original term referred to a god descended from a crane to the stage, to come in and resolve an otherwise impossible dilemma at the end of a play.
Since Cryptonomicon basically had this type of ending, where instead of a god, it was a massive amount of gold that basically made everyone's problems go away, I'd assume that's what they were referring to.
On the other hand, wouldn't it be hilarious if these governments combed over the source and found no IP violations?
Oh, god, RentACoder.
I thought about picking up a contract or two there, just to fill in during a summer where I didn't have an internship. Everyone wanted you to clone an existing piece of software.
My personal favorite? "Design a dating site. Must be similar to %fairly popular dating site%. Maximum bid: $100."
After digging through ten pages of that, I went to work on a loading dock in a hardware store. Best summer of my life.
Hey, when you see someone drowning, the smart thing to do is shove a hose down their throat.
Is it even possible to write software that works well for the typical user?
Yeah, but is hating them valid in the first place, or was it just inspired by jealousy?
Especially when people hate software MS hasn't even finished yet... is it a rational response to a perceived flaw in the product, or just knee-jerk bashing?
You can be 99.99% sure, but there's gonna be one incident that screws it all up.
If you're willing to destroy data, you'd better be absolutely sure - we're talking one step short of nuclear-power-plant-control sure - that you're correct about the copy in question being unlicensed. Is the kind of quality control necessary to validate your deletion code to that degree worth the extra sales you'll get?
As I said before, this is a great idea, but the inherent possibility of failure makes it unusable.
The only bad thing (and it's a big deal) about this is the possibility of damage to legitimate customers.
Other than that, you ran the guy's code without permission - the consequences are entirely your problem.
Measures such as this are a bad idea because of the potential for accidental damage, but if that problem were solvable (it's not) we'd have a great tool for preventing unlicensed use of intellectual property.
Cost, no force feedback, batteries (unless you integrate rechargeable batteries, which costs even more), and the opportunity to sell you their own wireless controller a couple months down the road.
Doesn't discreet use Blizzard's cinematics as examples of work done with 3ds max?
Most digital surround receivers have something called DRC or "midnight mode". Try turning that on and see if it makes your listening experience any better.
Huh? 3ds max supports both DX and GL viewports.
I hate to tell you, but most of us (myself included) are still excited by blowing things up and antics. Look at the computer games we talk about - Doom, Half-Life, etc.
Besides, wouldn't you rather the kids watch Bunsen and Beaker than Pokemon?
Such as? Specific examples, please.